Skip to main content

ET don't phone

I've just finished reading Marcus Chown's new book We Need to Talk about Kelvin (in the shops in a couple of weeks time), which starts from everyday observations to probe different aspects of basic physics and cosmology.

The final chapter is a little different, in that the concept being probed doesn't have a good scientific theory to cover it - it's 'why aren't the aliens here?'

The point is that it's a huge universe that should contain many planets capable of supporting life. So you'd expect there to be lots of intelligent life out there. And dismissing most UFO sightings etc. as the errors and wishful thinking that they indubitably are, we are shockingly short of alien observations. Why aren't they on the street corners? Why don't we see their probes and receive their messages?

In practice, the 'street corners' question is easy to answer. Aliens are just as limited by the speed of light as we are - and it is a very big universe. So the only sensible way to explore is using self-replicating probes - but they should be here by now.

There seem to be three serious possibilities for this situation. One is that aliens just don't want to come here. Maybe we smell (in the cosmic sense). Or we're just too insignificant. The second is that they are here, but they're too clever to let us know. And the third as that we are the only intelligent life - at least in the Milky Way galaxy.

On the whole, scientists don't like special cases like 'there's only us' - but the circumstances to produce a 'Goldilocks planet' - one that's just right for intelligent life as we know it to form on - are quite specific, and it's possible to envisage a number of scenarios where we are the only ones.

Whichever possibility is right, it's worth remembering that the concept of alien life isn't just something for the science fiction shows. It can tell us quite a lot about our place in the universe.

Comments

  1. This sounds really interesting - just not too sure about the title....clever, but....

    ReplyDelete
  2. One of my favourite episodes of the X-Files suggested that alien probes may resemble insects (specifically, cockroaches).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sue - my feelings exactly, but Marcus loves it and, hey, it's his book!

    Cath - I remember that now. Nice one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Brian
    Whilst viewing Most Glamorous’ website, I noticed that you’d had some success via her twitter comments, so I thought I’d take a look – before I investigate the mysterious blog that has appeared on her latest post. Congratulations on your award! And I hope you receive even more recognition in the future!
    I also noticed that you had posted something about aliens – one of my favourite subjects. My latest work contains aliens on earth, so I read on with interest. Solvey has read part of it, and his enthusiasm for it has caused me to do a lot more research than I intended. I want to do it justice!
    I do find it hard to believe that aliens might not know of our existence, given that the concrete evidence of the existence of this planet, of which we are a part, would suggest that we could not be invisible to them. To view a blade of grass, or a rock, or the planet as a whole which combines at least these two, suggests that we could not be excluded involuntarily. We may not be aware of them, however, if they had the means to make us unaware of them. This would suggest a greater intelligence and technology on their part – unless this just happened to be a natural phenomenon peculiar to them. If they came here after we sprouted up, then that would be a natural assumption. If they came here before us, and live here either by necessity or by choice, then we may never get to see them.
    Oh, there are a million things I would say concerning aliens, or any kind of life. There are constants to take into account, though: Light, Solidified matter (planets?), Gravity, Life itself, Intelligence. Elements that help create life are not so important – I think that life will form wherever it must. I once suggested a theory of everything L=I (Life =Infinity), where life would exist no matter the conditions, or lack of them. In other words, we cannot state a random theory as we do not have a full grasp of all of the requirements for life to hand. There may even only be one prerequisite for life, and that may be Light itself. The ‘Solar Unite’ from a film of much unintentional hilarity. Darkness is relative to the amount of light, so may have little bearing on life’s creation and may not even exist. Nuts, aren’t I lol!!!
    On another note, what would you say to the suggestion that the laws of physics never break down? That even a Big Bang is controlled by physical parameters and knock-on effects that control the events up to, during, and after such an event. If laws of physics broke down at any moment, the whole universe would collapse. Such a thing may not be possible, or allowed – by a higher intelligence in control of it!
    Endless! lol

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Esruel,
    You're right, our planet is a good sign of our existence, if you happen to look at it, but given the vastness of the universe, we're easy to miss.

    As for the laws of physics breaking down, it's certainly possible that they have varied over time, or may be different in different parts of the universe - see my latest book Before the Big Bang for more on this!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope