Are we alone ?

[parsifal]

Great post Butters. With regard to interstellar travel, Einsteins theories remain solid, however I am troubled by the fact that light, a supposedly massless phenomena, cannot have all of its properties explained, unless it also has mass. if it has mass, then relativity is out the window. if relativity is out the window, then velocities above the speed of light may be possible, and perhaps something different happens to mass time and energy than was predicted in the Special relativity theories????? If that is a true statement, then perhaps the little green men in flying saucers is plausible??????

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont see how the "we are the only ones with a moral dimension" argument has any sway one or the other as to the existence of life. And to be frank, I am not convinced that we are the only species with a sense of moral dimension. I do know this, we are about the only species that kills for the sport, will kill for no reason, and will kill in the name of something we have never seen and have no proof of existence.

The thing that strikes me in these sorts of discussions is that the people peddling them, be they christian, muslim, atheist, whatever, is that they always "know" that they are right, and that the moral high ground belongs to them. You know something....it doesnt. The best that we can do when it comes to questions of morals, is to arrive at some mutually acceptable set of standards and behaviours and then judge according to those standards. All those discussions about freedom of speech, human rights, the right to self determination, the rule of law, respect for others and their beliefs, and above all, tolerance are things that float into my mind when I think of morals. Amongst that general concept is the right to paractice ones religious beliefs without fear.

But none of this discussion has any place in a discussion about the possibility of alien life. We can not know if such ELFs have a sense of morals or not, heck, we cant even know if there is intelligent life out there. If we start bringing some alleged moral or religious code into the debate, then we have taken this enormous step backwards, to somewhere equivalent to the Inquisition. We should simply look at the facts, or even the potential facts, based on verifiable source material, and avoid making judgements based merely on beliefs. Basing decisions on beliefs rather than facts, or observations, reduces our cognition to the level of voodoo basically

Agreed, and very well said.

Besides the argument that GOD created this species and planet, so we are the only life forms is not valid anyhow. If you want to believe in that, then who is to say that there are not other GOD'S (that none of us on Planet Earth believe in) that did not create life in other parts of the universe.

 

[drgondog]

Great post Butters. With regard to interstellar travel, Einsteins theories remain solid, however I am troubled by the fact that light, a supposedly massless phenomena, cannot have all of its properties explained, unless it also has mass. if it has mass, then relativity is out the window. if relativity is out the window, then velocities above the speed of light may be possible, and perhaps something different happens to mass time and energy than was predicted in the Special relativity theories????? If that is a true statement, then perhaps the little green men in flying saucers is plausible??????

Parsifal - The three concepts to dig into include Quantum Electrodynamics, the Quantum Field Theory and the duality of wave and particle whe describing the behavior of all matter and energy.

They bring the 'particle vs wave' discussion from Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into solid theory and behavior predictibility for all matter AND energy from Boson/meson, through electron/positron and photon to black holes.

General relativity brought the properties of light into describable (and predictible) behavior in space-time context. Quantume FIELD Theory combined with Shroedinger and Hesinenburg ad Dirac's contributions led to Quantum Electrodynamics.. and so on.

The math is heady 'stuff' - I'm just an Engineer that stopped at Calculus of Variations and Chaos Theory but I can wade through the math - but struggle with synthesizing all the implications.

If a Physics pro dabbling in Quantum Electrodynamics and the extension of Quantum Field discussions down to sub atomic energy states, suddenly dives into this discussion, he will quickly slip past my comfort zoe

 

[Civettone]

I didn't read through these discussions but I recall my philosophy classes and when we came to cosmology and the change that life also exists on other planets, and given that there is an innate mechanism towards more complex lifeforms, it seemed that there are two possibilities:

- either we are a change of one in a billion (or more) , so we're totally alone!
- either there will be an evolutionary mechanism leading to intelligent lifeforms on all planets capable of supporting those lifeforms. And given that there are unnumerable planets out there ... there may be a whole lot of life out there. And it will be (or will become) intelligent!

Kris

 

[parsifal]

Parsifal - The three concepts to dig into include Quantum Electrodynamics, the Quantum Field Theory and the duality of wave and particle whe describing the behavior of all matter and energy.

They bring the 'particle vs wave' discussion from Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into solid theory and behavior predictibility for all matter AND energy from Boson/meson, through electron/positron and photon to black holes.

General relativity brought the properties of light into describable (and predictible) behavior in space-time context. Quantume FIELD Theory combined with Shroedinger and Hesinenburg ad Dirac's contributions led to Quantum Electrodynamics.. and so on.

The math is heady 'stuff' - I'm just an Engineer that stopped at Calculus of Variations and Chaos Theory but I can wade through the math - but struggle with synthesizing all the implications.

If a Physics pro dabbling in Quantum Electrodynamics and the extension of Quantum Field discussions down to sub atomic energy states, suddenly dives into this discussion, he will quickly slip past my comfort zoe

Thanks DG ....I think

To say I understand all that would be slightly overstating my intelligence. But its a start, I will go away and try and understand at least some of what you are saying.

But the key to all of this is whether C (the speed of light) is the upper limit of velocity for matter.

Another "crackpot" theory that I have read about, but confess to not understanding is that the demarcation between energy and matter is not as clear as we like to think. Energy generally breaks down to being a wavelngth. Strangely, matter also appears to be a wavelength .....of something. Perhaps the gap in our understanding about the matter/energy thing is that there is something else behind matter and energy, something that we need to know about in order to understand the physical phenomenon better

 

[Butters]

I didn't read through these discussions but I recall my philosophy classes and when we came to cosmology and the change that life also exists on other planets, and given that there is an innate mechanism towards more complex lifeforms, it seemed that there are two possibilities:

- either we are a change of one in a billion (or more) , so we're totally alone!
- either there will be an evolutionary mechanism leading to intelligent lifeforms on all planets capable of supporting those lifeforms. And given that there are unnumerable planets out there ... there may be a whole lot of life out there. And it will be (or will become) intelligent!

Kris

Your philosophy professor should stick to what he knows. Clearly, neither math nor evolutionary theory are in that category.

The idea that biological evolution is a progressive, or goal-oriented, process is a common misconception. The evidence says otherwise. The apparent trend towards increased complexity is merely an illusion -an artifact of how humans perceive the world and the things that attract our attention. For most of life's first 3 billion years, life had been restricted to prokaryotes (single-cell organisms), and the advent of eukaryotic life-forms like ourselves in the last 500 million yrs is merely an interesting sideshow. Most life, both in numbers of species, and in terms of percentage of total global biomass, remains unicellular. And generally invisible to our eyes, if not in their effect upon our lives and planet. Complex creature like ourselves are the exception to the rule

Not only do bacteria remain the dominant life-form, but many relatively simple multicellular life-forms have descended from more complex ancestors. Simplification of anatomy is as common as complexification in nature. We just don't tend to notice it as much unless we actively look for it.

The rise of Homo sapiens is a contingent fact of history. It was not a preordained event. Nor is their any compelling reason to believe that the natural physical processes that drive the evolution of possible extraterrestrial organisms will be significantly different than what took place here. The laws of physics, chemistry, and probability are almost certainly the same everywhere in the observable universe.

JL

 

[Watanbe]

I honestly have no idea what to think on this topic, very much a fence sitter. There is evidence for both arguments. I think there may be other life forms but not at the stages of technology and sophistication that we are. Small creatures and organisms rather than the vast civilizations we all imagine.

I would love for there to be something out there, but I am very skeptical.

 

[RabidAlien]

NASA's Kepler Spots Atmosphere On Distant Planet -- InformationWeek

 

[Butters]

A planetary atmosphere may be a necessary condition for the emergence of life, but it is not a sufficient one. Mars and Venus have atmospheres, as do all the gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus) Only Mercury and Pluto lack any atmosphere whatsover.

IIRC, even a couple of the gas giants' moons have atmospheres of sorts. I can't remember which ones, tho...

 

[Civettone]

Awesome stuff Butters! I never saw it that way. Can you elaborate a bit?

for instance

Simplification of anatomy is as common as complexification in nature. We just don't tend to notice it as much unless we actively look for it.

can you give some examples?

Kris

 

[RabidAlien]

I just thought it was cool that they're lookin for stuff like that, and have telescopes capable of doing it (even if they can't see the planet directly...we'll get to that level of tecnology, though). One thing I've always wondered, though, is why do we always assume that life on other planets must be carbon-based and breathe oxygen? Why couldn't another species live on a methane-atmosphere planet? Or in a vacuum?

 

[Colin1]

I...why do we always assume that life on other planets must be carbon-based and breathe oxygen? Why couldn't another species live on a methane-atmosphere planet? Or in a vacuum?

It's no great leap of imagination to consider life forms using intra-system transport mechanisms other than oxygen/blood, it's a little more difficult to imagine life thriving in a vacuum. Just about every form of life I can think of conducts some form of cyclic exchange from inside the system to outside the system; it's difficult to know what would be getting exchanged in a vacuum.

Viruses show no signs of life until they enter a host, an analog to this could be the microbes clinging to pieces of meteor and comet that 'seed' planets (Panspermia theory) remaining dormant until they collide with a planet that has the right attributes to awaken them from their dormant state. But while they're in space (in a vacuum) showing no signs of life, can they be accredited as being 'life, living in a vacuum'?

 

[syscom3]

The advantage of oxygen is its ability to provide a lot of energy for molecular processes as compared to other gases like carbon dioxide. It might also be a requirement to have oxygen in an environment so as to provide the energy necessary to allow higher order brains to evolve.

The advantage of carbon based molecules, is its ability to produce a huge variety in the types of molecules that might be necessary for complex forms of life to evolve from. All sorts of wonderfull molecules can be formed using carbon as a base, with nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen altering the shapes and characteristics.

 

[Civettone]

I remember there being life on earth in what was always considered to be uninhabitable for life. Apparently there are life forms near highly toxic volcano wells and in water lakes totally sealed off by ice for centuries.

So yeah, I also doubt it has to be life as we know it.

Kris

 

[GrauGeist]

Another feature of Earth that many other planets do not have, is the magnetosphere that blocks harmful solar radiation that would otherwise leave this planet a barren wasteland.

Out of the countless numbers of planets out there, conditions have to be just right to sustain basic life. Things like the above-mentioned magnetosphere, proximity to it's sun, physical size (thus gravity), basic elements such as water, oxygen, etc.

And if those conditions are met, will the developing life survive natural events, such as asteroid/meteor impacts, shifts in it's land-masses, developing weather events and so on.

For example, Saturn has staggering electrical storms on a scale we can't even begin to imagine. Jupiter has raging wind storms that shame anything on Earth. Venus has an atmosphere that is caustic, including sulphuric acid rain...

Life here survives by the slimmest of margins if you step back and look at the big picture. Humans can only survive in a narrow temperature range, we can only have so much carbon dioxide/methane/ammonia in our atmosphere to breathe. We can only tolerate so much solar radiation and the list goes on.

I think it's awesome that we can look out into the cosmos and "see" other solar systems and thier planets, but the existance of comparable life (like us), while very much possible, will be rare.

 

[syscom3]

I remember there being life on earth in what was always considered to be uninhabitable for life. Apparently there are life forms near highly toxic volcano wells and in water lakes totally sealed off by ice for centuries.

So yeah, I also doubt it has to be life as we know it.

Kris

True, but this is life in a "closed" environment. Theres not much opportunity for it to evolve into more complex life forms in the same environmental characteristics.

 

[BikerBabe]

I disagree.
Life just doesn't stop evolving just because we think it has reached it's peak in evolution.

 

[Butters]

Awesome stuff Butters! I never saw it that way. Can you elaborate a bit?

for instance can you give some examples?

Kris

Thanks. I'll offer a few examples, but if you're really interested in exploring the concept, SJ Gould's, "Full House", is your best resource.

Many types of parasites have abandoned complex physiology in their adaption to a parasitic life-style, as have viruses. The argument that viruses are not truly 'alive is dependent on the premise that metabolism is the defining attribute of life. However, there are a number of multicellular organisms that can also suspend metabolic activity for varying lengths of time. Tardigrades (also known as 'water bears') are the classic example of this phenomena. Numerous vertebrates also have reduced complexity in comparison to their ancestors-flightless birds for one example, blind cavefish and salamanders for another. In certain deep-sea anglerfish, the males are basically gonads with a nose and fins. once they locate a female, they latch on near her vent and in a short time becomes irreversibly integrated into her circulatory system. Over time,the male atrophies to the point that he is no more than a sac containing the gonads...

The real stake in the heart of the premise that evolution is a teleological process, is not just the fact that the overwhelming majority of organism remain stubbornly unicellular, but the utter lack of an evidentially-supported causal mechanism for'progress' in evolution.The mutations that provide the grist for the mill of natural selection are the randomizing force in evolution. If there was an intrinsic drive towards 'improvement', you would expect that most mutations would be beneficial, whereas the opposite is actually the case.

Nature doesn't care a whit that you're loaded with fancy gizmos -all that matters is that you can handle the challenges in your immediate environment. If anything, Nature shows a bias for simplicity. Complicated organisms, much like our more complex machines, have just that much more to go wrong. A bacteria is much more durable than you are. Which only adds emphasis to Biker Babe's comment about the 'peak in evolution'. That 'peak' exists only as a parochial conceit.

JL

 

[syscom3]

I disagree.
Life just doesn't stop evolving just because we think it has reached it's peak in evolution.

Assuming the lifeforms we see in exotic locales on earth have been around since since the early days of our planet, they have not evolved much in the 3.5 billion years they've been with us.

And I suspect they wont evolve much in the next few billion years either. The environment they live in is too extreme for them to "venture forth" and colonize the oceans and lands.

 

[Civettone]

Thanks. I'll offer a few examples, but if you're really interested in exploring the concept, SJ Gould's, "Full House", is your best resource.

Many types of parasites have abandoned complex physiology in their adaption to a parasitic life-style, as have viruses. The argument that viruses are not truly 'alive is dependent on the premise that metabolism is the defining attribute of life. However, there are a number of multicellular organisms that can also suspend metabolic activity for varying lengths of time. Tardigrades (also known as 'water bears') are the classic example of this phenomena. Numerous vertebrates also have reduced complexity in comparison to their ancestors-flightless birds for one example, blind cavefish and salamanders for another. In certain deep-sea anglerfish, the males are basically gonads with a nose and fins. once they locate a female, they latch on near her vent and in a short time becomes irreversibly integrated into her circulatory system. Over time,the male atrophies to the point that he is no more than a sac containing the gonads...

The real stake in the heart of the premise that evolution is a teleological process, is not just the fact that the overwhelming majority of organism remain stubbornly unicellular, but the utter lack of an evidentially-supported causal mechanism for'progress' in evolution.The mutations that provide the grist for the mill of natural selection are the randomizing force in evolution. If there was an intrinsic drive towards 'improvement', you would expect that most mutations would be beneficial, whereas the opposite is actually the case.

Nature doesn't care a whit that you're loaded with fancy gizmos -all that matters is that you can handle the challenges in your immediate environment. If anything, Nature shows a bias for simplicity. Complicated organisms, much like our more complex machines, have just that much more to go wrong. A bacteria is much more durable than you are. Which only adds emphasis to Biker Babe's comment about the 'peak in evolution'. That 'peak' exists only as a parochial conceit.

JL

Amazing stuff! Whenever I get the chance I'm going to get me that book! Thanks for a fascinating post Butters, appreciate it !

Kris