digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at telegraph.co.uk

Earth like planets should be quite common in the universe

telegraph.co.uk — A new study by Northwestern University astronomers, using recent data from the 300 planets discovered orbiting other stars, turns that view on its head.The study illustrates that if early conditions had been just slightly different, very unpleasant things could have happened - like planets being thrown into the sun or jettisoned into deep space.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tymekpavel, on 08/08/2008, -2/+32I'm pretty sure the whole "if things went differently" concept could be applied to almost any situation.
    • milou, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1That is the scary thing. If true, than people like Bush/Cheney could be common out there in these other worlds. That is the most dangerous though. We may not want to have their visit or us visit them!
      • MtheoryX, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Bush &/|| Bush/Cheney is now the new Godwin.
  • ironeus, on 08/08/2008, -1/+13It's a very interesting study; even better if scientists on other earth-like planets are looking for us.
    • AmyVernon, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6ooh, I like that thought.
    • xsecretfiles, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6We should make a huge flag saying " I'm here"
      • Jektal, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5We've kind of done that already with probes + radio waves
    • staffa, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I wonder why I didn't see any mention of the obvious selection bias.

      We detect planets mostly by detecting the deflection they cause on the star they are orbiting. IE their star wobbles a bit as the planet goes around and we see the wobble.

      Now super gas giants orbiting close to the star will cause the largest wobble and be the easiest to detect. So it is not a great surprise that this is what we have been finding the most of.

      Systems like ours, where the large gas giants are in a distant orbit are much harder to detect.

  • HCIsland, on 08/08/2008, -1/+25I liked the article, but the title seems to contradict the content as most of the article talks of, though small rocky planets may be common, stable solar systems with small planets on the inside, big ones on the outside, and roughly circular orbits, are not. The article really says that places like what we've got are indeed pretty special.
    • diecastbeatdown, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5it's a good thing we keep building houses and dumping trash in the ocean. oh and testing bombs.

      yea, take that Earth! not feeling so special now are ya!
  • nietgek, on 08/08/2008, -10/+1But if the right ingredients are present it is not so hard for life to form:
    http://www.spacestart.eu/topic.php?id=97&replies=2
    If you agree with me you can Digg this:
    http://digg.com/space/Extraterrestrial_life
    • Lythium, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6Way to promote your own submission -.-
    • MtheoryX, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Promoting own submission == dugg down, and submission burried, regardless of the quality of said submission.
  • Akraz, on 08/08/2008, -0/+10Yes there may be earth-like planets... but to reach them and inhabit them? A whole new ballgame.
  • SEANWOOKIE, on 08/08/2008, -0/+14It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination. - RIP Douglas Adams.
    • santaliqueur, on 08/08/2008, -10/+2"It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in"

      I'd love to see the evidence on that one. Because we can't possibly measure the size of the Universe, does not automatically make it infinite.
      • eqisow, on 08/08/2008, -1/+7It's, umm, a quote, from a science fiction (emphasis on the fiction, in Adam's case) novel.

        The "RIP Douglas Adams" bit is the clue here.
      • santaliqueur, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Yeah I get it, and I was questioning the validity of it. Unless it was not intended to be taken literally, of course, I've not read the material the quote comes from.
    • JQP123, on 08/08/2008, -8/+2"Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. "

      Mathematically, this is not necessarily true.

      Uninhabited planets may outnumber inhabited ones by a factor of 10 or 100 or 1000 but this does not preclude the possibility that inhabited planets are also infinite. In other words; as illogical as it may seem; mathematically, it's possible to have *both* an infinite number of inhabited as well as uninhabited.

      Infinity divided by 10 or 100 or 1000 is still infinity. Things get a little odd once you reach infinity.
      • Lythium, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4Jeez... don't take it the wrong way, but you and santaliqueur above you both need to get your pedantic noses out of textbooks and read something for fun once in a while. Since you didn't catch it or just didn't get it - the quote is from a _science fiction comedy_ by the late and much-lamented Douglas Adams (as is more or less specified after the quote). Not everything in the world is deadly-serious; it's ok to poke fun at science too.
      • warriorscot, on 08/08/2008, -3/+1It really wasn't very clear you have to have read Douglas Adams and that is not something all that many will have done, even the best science fiction writers don't have huge audiences and even when they do they aren't the kind of people that say "hey check this book out" as science fiction is definately one of those marmite subjects you either love it or hate it.
      • JQP123, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2"... the quote is from a _science fiction comedy_"

        Is that like where broken logic is OK as long as those who don't know any better find it humorous?

        Come to think of it, that is a little funny ... but probably not in the way you intended.
    • Niightwitch, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1It was my understanding that there would be no math questions.
  • BaudiIROCZ, on 08/08/2008, -3/+10More reason to believe we are not significant in the universe.
  • OUChevelleSS, on 08/08/2008, -9/+1Everything is sure coincidental...
    • eqisow, on 08/08/2008, -1/+6If everything wasn't just so, we wouldn't be here to observe how "coincidental" it is. See, when particularl numbers are the only ones that could lead to you observing them, that's certain to be what you observe. Or, to keep it simple, it is what it is. :p
      • Lythium, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2Yeah, I also have to laugh at the assumption that life can only arise in conditions more or less identical to those of the Earth. That kind of thinking leads to the sloppy assumption that everything was created specifically to suit our needs, which is a rather bass-ackwards way of looking at the world.
  • ppktechno, on 08/08/2008, -4/+7I know that there are earth like planets, but the question is "Are there any beautiful women there?"
    • Jektal, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6Oh, you wouldn't believe the lovely carapaces of the women on Centauri IV
      • Niightwitch, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I'd love to tap on that carapace.
  • ylikone, on 08/08/2008, -4/+5I will still hold to my theory that life is a VERY rare thing and we are mostly likely alone in our observable universe. Maybe somewhere out there the conditions are just perfect for life to have popped into existence, but extremely unlikely that we'll ever find it (unless we figure out warp space travel or something).
    • dildoolielly, on 08/08/2008, -3/+6--------------"I will still hold to my theory that life is a VERY rare thing and we are mostly likely alone in our observable universe."--------------------------

      And where did you get your "theory"? Out of your ass?
      • B1663r, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3It is called rare earth theory... And at the moment all the science seems to indicate it is correct...

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

        I ~prefer~ rare earth as a solution to Fermi paradox, because the alternative solutions seem to be worse than being alone in the universe...
      • Lythium, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3Hypothesis =/= theory.... In fact, hypothesis < theory by a hell of a lot. Ye gods, people, if you're gonna talk about science, at least use the right terminology. Each of the terms has a very narrow, very specific, very carefully defined meaning.

        Hypothesis = a possible idea or explanation
        Theory = an explanation tying together several pieces of data, and able to accurately extrapolate future events based on that data.

        Also - you "PREFER" a particular solution? What the hell kind of an approach it that? Scientific theories are supposed to be based on data and experimentation. If you're looking for what makes you "feel better," you're looking for a religion.

        /end rant
      • mycatsasha, on 08/08/2008, -2/+0Out of the article, if either of you read it.
    • eqisow, on 08/08/2008, -3/+3Life? Or intelligent life?

      Also, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but I 2nd dildo.
    • warriorscot, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2In an system as big as th universe "very rare" is something other than we think of it even if there is only one life form in every dozen galaxies that is still a massive amount of life.
      • B1663r, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Im not meaning to blow your mind. But... if there is any advanced intelligent life out there, say a post singularity or post biological society (type 2 or 3), thinking about survival in cosmic terms, their first goal is going to be to eridacate any other intelligent life because in cosmic time scales the universe appears to be getting smaller... For the same sorts of reasons that we fight for oil here on tiny insignificant planet earth.

        For all our sakes, and the future of humanity, I am hoping there is only one per super cluster. Any more than that, and we have a future of wars that are measured in quadrillions of dead people... If we win... Losing such an intergalactic war would mean total annihilation.
  • coyote1284, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5"- like planets being thrown into the sun"
    That's just the Planet Jackers fueling their sun.
    /taquitos!
    • snek, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Whahaha..

      Prepare for screaming temporal doom!
    • facelesscoward, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3I LOVE YOU

      Edit: Sorry about that, Invader Zim reference reflex.
  • qbthemc, on 08/08/2008, -5/+3I have heard this so many times.
    • eqisow, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2No, you haven't.

      The headline, perhaps, but if you rtfa you'll actually see some pretty new info.
  • dildoolielly, on 08/08/2008, -9/+5Yesterday's Flat Earthers are today's Christians

    And in 100 years from now Christians will be just a small fringe group of lunatics, perverts, psychotics, derelicts, retards, criminals, pedophiles and insane people.

    Look in the mirror Christians. Today's Christian is really yesterday's Flat Earther.
    • warriorscot, on 08/08/2008, -4/+3"lunatics, perverts, psychotics, derelicts, retards, criminals, pedophiles and insane people" Sounds allot like allot of the christians I know now forget about a century away.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Sounds a lot like most of society...
    • CATSCEO2, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2What does that have to do with this?
  • itsmikeh, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1We can be hopeful :D
  • Favrallon, on 08/08/2008, -4/+1I'm pretty sure that "if things went differently" is code for wasted tax money on another worthless study.
    • eqisow, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4Science is about the only worthwhile thing we spend our (federal) taxes on...
    • CATSCEO2, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Indeed. Our tax money is better spent killing people.
  • itsmikeh, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1We can always hope :D
  • Rudegar, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1my seti@home received something along these lines from one of those planets

    personals

    zzzzzzkrarararaaaaazzzzzv

    turn ons
    long tentacle crawls along the liquid nitrogen sea
    cooking 40 humans
    eating mate

    turn offs
    busy probes
    intergalactic laser beams
    inc cost of living
    and banks handing out loans you cant cover

    they are almost but not entirely unlike us :P
  • bentaisan, on 08/08/2008, -8/+3It is possible God created other Earth-like planets.

    After all, 6 days is a lot of time to an omnipotent Being.
    • eqisow, on 08/08/2008, -5/+4No no, God is outside the universe, and thus outside time (which is a construct of the universe). If he was in, or a part of, the universe, he wouldn't be God - just really really powerful.

      Of course, if there's no time, it seems to me that you can't *do* anything, since action requires the passing of time, by definition.
      • bentaisan, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2I am not sure how to respond.

        I don't think we have anything to argue about.

        You have presented some nice abstract thinking about the nature of Being.
      • nitsuj, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1The magnitude of the assumptions from both of you are truly staggering. Not a single shred of evidence exists for anything put forward.

        But I guess that's why it's called faith, right?
  • santaliqueur, on 08/08/2008, -0/+8If the Universe was truly infinite, Earth-like planets would not only be common, there would be an infinite number of them.

    In an infinite universe, everything that can happen, will happen, and infinitely often. This means that the Earth as we know it has already been reproduced.

    This also means that somewhere out there, there are an infinite number of Digg users. *shudder*
    • Rudegar, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1but can it be infinite if it was collected into a single mass pre the big bang and we know how long ago it was and the speed of the particles centered in that mass?
      • B1663r, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3Once you start talking about things like inflation... The early universe didn't actually ~need~ any starting mass. Inflation ~created~ all the mass from the virtual particle stew.

        The ~creation~ event made space and time. Matter is just a side effect...
      • eqisow, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4There is no "speed of the particles" since the big bang (a bit of a misnomer imo) is the inflation of the universe itself. Since the fabric of space-time is itself expanding, it's not restricted by the speed of light, or by any arbitrary speed.

        It also wasn't a single mass, as we think of mass, with all of the properties that mass implies. Rather, it was a single point, which without space, isn't really accurate either. The point is, the matter in the universe was created in the big bang, and did not exist prior.

        "Prior to the big bang" is also nonsense since, as I said earlier, time is a construct of the universe

        It's all quite confusing.
      • arcticblue, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3but what if there was more than one big bag? there could have been an infinite number of big bangs creating infinite universes for an infinite amount of time.....my head hurts.
      • Coslenchip, on 08/08/2008, -3/+1So let me get this straight, something like mass but not mass existed in a place before places existed before time existed and ended up creating all that we now have in our universe out of a "particle stew".

        Hmm, so what's the difference between the big bang and intelligent design?
    • Niightwitch, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I'll accept the idea that there are an infinite number of diggers out there somewhere....the question is, how do you get them to read and digg your submissions an infinite number of times, and what prize would I win?
    • MacHarborGuy, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1actually, this statement makes more sense, from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy...

      "It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination."

      I like that one better.
  • Chassit, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Of course.
  • silveravnt, on 08/08/2008, -4/+3"The study illustrates that if early conditions had been just slightly different, very unpleasant things could have happened - like planets being thrown into the sun or jettisoned into deep space."
    Sounds like we are lucky or someone planned our world for us very carefully.
    • CATSCEO2, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1Yep, we are lucky.
    • tr909, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1nope. Just the Anthropic Principal. Out the the thousands of millions of stars in the galaxy and thousands of millions of known galaxies, eventually there will be the right conditions for life. Then when that DOES happen there will be life there, self reflecting about their existence pretending they were "lucky".

      It's like that one lottery winner out of the 18 million to 1 odds saying there must have been a plan in him winning. Nope, Just the odds.

      If there was one galaxy with a handful of stars and we still existed, then YES it would be insane luck.
    • Niightwitch, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I don't know the ultimate reality, but it would be nice to be able to believe that someone planned our world for us very carefully rather than it just happened by luck.
  • yosserhughes, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Plug in your own numbers to the Drake equation;

    http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/d ...



  • fofo412, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactus#The_Devourer ...
  • dwright99, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2If Star Trek has taught us nothing it at least showed us the commonality of earth like planets. Class M to you guys.
  • gkiltz, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0This is another one of those things that certainly could be!
    Remember, of course, that throughout history, a tiny percentage of all of the things that could have happened actually did, and modern man exists for that reason!
    Only time will tell whether or not this is one of those "could be" things that actually happens!
    The long term odds don't favor it!
  • mycatsasha, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0It amazes me how many of the people posting haven't actually read the article.
  • deusny, on 08/08/2008, -1/+0i thought that said 'Earth like penis'
  • willxiv, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1I'm not happy at all with some of the words used in this article, which in some cases completely disregards the facts. Not only does the title contradict the prevalent message in the body of the article, but the underlying, repeated theme is about how our solar system required conditions that were "just right" - which reeks of (sigh) creationist nonsense.

    I was especially distrubed with the sentence:

    "The vast majority of other planetary systems didn't have these special properties at birth and became something very different."

    First of all, with the current estimate of stars in our observable Universe at around 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, NO PERSON WITH HALF A BRAIN would ever use the words "vast majority" when talking about the pitifully small amount of stars that we've observed so far with planetary systems. That is flat out WRONG and misleading.

    And here's another preposterous statement in the article:

    "We also know that the solar system is special and understand at some level what makes it special."

    If you sampled a hundred apples (the author talks about "a hundred simulations" being run) out of 70 sextillion (70 x 10 to the 22nd power), WOULD YOU PICK OUT ONE OF THOSE HUNDRED AND SAY "THIS ONE IS SPECIAL!"????

    This article is complete garbage.


    • wrmjr, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1In context, the "vast majority" is referring to the many computer simulations they ran, not to actual planetary systems.
    • joeanon, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Planet finding is based on math primarily. They develop probability algorithms based on what they consider to be the key special features that gave rise to life in the solar system.

      So, of course they don't observe all the stars. It's rather ridiculous you suggest they would.

      Garbage or not, this is the only way to look for Earth like planets with today's technology.

      Also consider, most stars as far as we know, don't have planets around them. Most stars are a million times larger than our Star.

      So you can eliminate most stars right off the bat by their size, type and age.

      But of course, we must use the flawed logic of only basing these searches on our own single example of life.

      You can't really attack science for working with the few facts they have.
      It does appear Earth's history is likely uncommon, as is our star and our planetary makeup.

      However, as you state, without spending all human efforts to observe each individual star, it's just a probability. But, I think what you fail to realize, is that's the best we can do. We cannot observe all the stars out there. Even if every person on the planet was an astronomer, we'd probably never see but a fraction of the stars even in the observable universe, which may just be a tiny fraction of the entire universe.

      On top of that you fail to mention what percentage of those stars are simply obscured from observation, which is probably most with today's limited technology.




    • vantagept, on 08/10/2008, -0/+0It should be considered that the exoplanets found thusfar are not a representative sample out of all planets that are out there. These planets have been found because of their effects on the stars they orbit. Those effects are strongest (and thus most noticeable at great distance) when the planet is heavy and close to the star, hence such (very un-Earth-like) planets are easiest to find.
  • frequentFlyer, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1We don't know jack.
  • diecastbeatdown, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1we'll blow ourselves up before we get the chance to find out.

    just cut the crap governments of the world and let's focus on getting off this rock together. cut funding for space programs, boost military and weapons. genius!

    yea, killing each other is way better than exploring.
    • Nosferotu, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Can you imagine if we quit warring and worked together toward space exploration? The things we could get out there and see...
  • ASSASSYN360, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2So I get some practice before I conquer earth.
  • kd1s, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2How about the rocky planets orbiting Gliese 581? Granted Gliese 581 is a red dwarf but it still emits enough energy to sustain life on those rocky planets.
  • joeanon, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1The proof is in the pudding. Earth planets are not common at all or we'd have detected at least an utterance of electronic communication.

    If you really study how the earth was formed, you know the chances of replicating that are very very low.

    However, we cannot rule out that there are thousands or millions of other models for life beside Earth, so statistical earth hunting is more or less a giant waste of money.

    We can hunt for Earth like planets, but that's under the entirely unproven assumption that Earth is THE model for life.

    There is a lot going against us finding Earth like planets.

    First off, you need an oddly weak, but stable and long living star. It took Earth about 4.5 billion years to develop complex life like ours. Most stars are thousands or millions of times brighter than Sol.

    Second, you need the planet to land in the this arbitrary zone we consider habitual, but that's zone is an observation of just one solar system. That is, the zone doesn't take into account anything but the history of our solar system. So, if like is probable at different distances from the SUN based on either the mass or simply the output we'd have just about no idea.

    Third most planets don't seem to have the huge molten core that Earth has been able to keep going all these years and without that life likely cannot make it beyond the simple stages. While molten core's themselves may not be uncommon, the exact material of the core is likely very important. The core also produces key magnetic fields and that's due to it's composition, mass and speed.

    Fourth... the MOON baby. Most planets don't have a moon ANYTHING like ours. And, this is why theories that Earth had a twin planet early in it's formation are popular. So, when you compile all the other chances together, you still have this rare chance event where Earth devoured most of it's twin adding to it's own core and producing a HUGE and very close moon, which was significantly closer billions of years ago. The moon's tidal actions may be very necessary to forming life.

    Fifth... Jupiter .. without this insanely huge planet in our solar system. Chance are we'd have been bombarded by life ENDING events several times more often in our history.



    The only thing we really have going for us in hoping life is not exceptionally rare is the hope that SOME planets could develop complex life on a much different time line. That is, some planets might fight some of the profiles and develop complex life faster than Earth, which had a contrastingly violent early life. A more stable planet might have developed complex life in only 2 billion years. The problem, of course, is that life may have easily developed and died in the blink all human history. Our planet may be a total freak.

    Still, the probability should be in favor of there being a few planets with life out there, merely because of the sheer amount of stars.

    The likelihood of us finding and being close enough to communicate however, probably not very likely in the tiny window of time that we've been looking. We only see a fraction of the universe anyway.

    The events on earth and the climate are simply amazing.

    I great documentary on earth is BBC's Power of the Planet. With the last movie being about the Rare Earth theory, which does makes a lot of sense. Especially considering how rare a twin planet impact and the subsequent formation of our moon might be.

    It may be that for our near sun Orbit our planets size is larger than usual due to the twin impact. This could be an important part of how Earth retained it's atmosphere all these years while planets like Mars could not. Of course Mars also likely lost it's molten core millions of year ago or more.

    Sadly, with only one solar system to truly study in detail, searching for Earth like planets seems to me, to be a total waste of time. Even if we find them, we have zero chance of getting there for any detailed exploration.

    Instead we should be focusing on the well being of our own planet and perhaps designing ways to survive just the events we can prove in our own planets history. We still have only a mild idea what caused the ice age of earth. Why did the great ocean conveyor shut down destroying most life on earth? How does the core even really work in detail other than it's a lot of molten stuff fueled by radioactive material?


    The one notable detail through all this is that life survived, by being underground. Humans might do well to have a subterranean complex ready for these extinction level events with the sum of human knowledge stored there and sustainable access to resources.

    Steven Hawkins says we need a presence on Mars and beyond the solar system to preserve human life. From all his years of science, he too see's life as likely the most amazing happening in the Universe and the most important to preserve.

    What if complex life like our is a 1 in a billion chance, even given the perfect conditions. We could effectively be the only complex life form within any achievable traveling distance.

    Instead of the impossible, sustaining life on Mars or pretending we have any where near the technology to make it out of the solar system.

    We should note Earth is a gem, even when it's getting hit by 7 mile wide objects. It will even in it's worst times be more habitual that millions of other planets out there. That means the best practical means for preserving humanity is most likely here on earth likely hidden deep underground positioned somewhere in the center of a tectonic plate. That is where humanity would wait out extinction level events, not Mars or a space station.

    Fuel and water will always be a problem and almost any planet out there will be less habitual than earth even if the Earth's sky bursts into flames. It would still be easier to maintain life here. You can mine minerals without the surface, you can access water without the surface, you can could life for thousands of years underground just with today's technology.

    That's the best bet for long term human survival, not just small bunkers, but fully functional cities.

    So, instead of pretending we have any chance of colonizing another planet, we should finish colonizing this one.

    These planet finding algorithms have only even proven to be useless guesstimates. Life might easily exist in forms we have on comparison to, such as non carbon based life, silicon even.
    Intelligence might take forms that we cannot fully grasp. Other solar systems might contain elements we have no examples of.

    But without a doubt we can assume, most don't, most are filled with cold dead planets or dried up balls of rock like Venus. Our efforts should be focused on better exploring the few planets we have up close examples of. It could be a million years of searching before life pops up or even a billion years. The chance that TWO intelligence life planets would be active with intelligent life at the same time is very very unlikely. Much more likely we are pinging dead planets and if life did exist, perhaps at a time they were pining us as well, but modern human knowledge is just the blink of an eye, so the chances of both species being alive and active at the same time and within communication range of each other in the billion year life cycle of planets and life has to be near impossible.

    We can find interesting planets through wobble, but the reality is we have thousands upon thousands of years to look for planets and develop real technology to let us see or even go to these planets.

    Our efforts should be more practical, we should be working on better telescopes, better engines, and a better theoretical physics for the type of high energy goals we have. We likely will never travel faster than light so some type of suspended animation or better yet cloning technology really makes more sense. We simply need better robotics as well as better power sources for these type of goals.

    It seems to me it's a waste of time using primitive planet finding techniques like looking for a wobble or twinkling of light when we have more pressing matters here and now. In 100 years it's likely we'll have the technology to scan for Earth like planets with 10 times the precision we have today and in 10 years we'll scan more than today's technology scanned in 100. Most importantly is that using primitive techniques takes forever, wastes man power and ultimately has little purpose until we have the technology to get there at least with a probe.

    Are we really going to find an Earth like planet and then wait 40,000 years for a probe to reach it ? I mean NASA is pretty good, but I don't think their probes have 20,000 year half-lives. By the time we have the technology to reach Earth like planets, chance are we'll also be able to find them many times faster than today. It's better than paying a federal panel of tea tasters, but it's still up there in the wasted astronomy efforts.











    • staffa, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Good lord dude, learn some brevity.

      I couldn't get much past the first statement so I will just start and end there.

      Our ability to detect electronic communications is not sensitive enough to detect even our own broadcasts much beyond a dozen or so light years.

      And as we become more efficient and technologically advanced, the strength of our broadcast profile is going down as we rely more on pinpoint directional communication rather then broadcast communication.

      In other words, if we are typical of other advanced races, then each race broadcasts radio waves that can be picked up within about 10 light years for about 50 years.

      There are like 15 stars within 10 light years and 50 year window out of oh lets say 8 billion years that this area of the Universe has had stars is a pretty narrow window to catch another race during the right time they might be broadcasting in.

      To put it another way, for us to have picked up the radio communication of another race. They would have to be around one of those 15 stars and have reached about the same level of technology almost at exactly the same time as we did. A point in time that is measured in individual years on a time line that is measured in billions of years.
  • gdha, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1No big surprise here...
  • FreeTalkLIve, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3No *****.
  • gmunnag, on 08/14/2008, -0/+0its good study...
    i also study on future cars....
    www.n2cars.blogspot.com
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.