This is what Prof. Omri Vandel, an astrophysicist at the Rakah Institute at the Hebrew University, reveals in a new study. He added new parameters to the equation that account for the discovery of the prevalence of Earth-like planets in their systems' habitable zones.
The data from the Kepler space telescope, which has been searching for planets outside the solar system for several years, is encouraging in that it increases the chances of discovering a life-bearing planet, and even intelligent life, a few thousand light-years away from Earth. Says Prof. Omri Vandel from the Rakah Institute at the Hebrew University.
Recently, a study by Prof. Wendel was published in the international journal International journal of astrobiology in which he analyzes the likelihood of discovering a life-bearing planet following the many discoveries left behind by the Kepler space telescope. Prof. Wendel even lectured on the findings at a conference in New Zealand that dealt with astrobiology.
"The data collected recently by the Kepler space telescope showed that small planets are quite common and that a significant proportion of the sun has an Earth-like planet in the habitable zone. These findings fit into the Drake formula from which the spatial density of biotic planets can be derived as a function of the relatively small uncertainties in the astronomical bodies and the likelihood (so far unknown) of the development of biotic life (Fb)."
"Fb's value can be made more precise through spectral observations of biomarkers in extrasolar planets. If Fb is in the range 0.001-1 then a life-bearing planet should be expected between 10 and 100 light years from Earth. The extension of the biotic results to advanced life is derived from the expression for the distance to a civilization that is in its initial stages in terms of two additional parameters to the Drake formula - the chance of cultural development (Fc) and the proposed lifespan of an intelligent culture. For example, an optimistic estimate of the probability values (i.e. Fb and Fc are equal to one) and the lifetime of transmission capability in a few thousand years, the probable distance to the closest intelligence that can be detected by systems for searching for intelligent life in the universe (SETI is of the order of a few thousand light years. The chance of detecting intelligent signals using existing and future telescopes is calculated in this article as a parameter in the Drake formula."
Finally, Prof. Wendel describes how the discovery of signals from extraterrestrial intelligence will limit the parameters of the Drake formula.
More on the subject on the science website
30 תגובות
I believe there was a mistake and "Kepler space telescope data that searched for several years for extraterrestrial planets"
Say "outside the solar system" or something like that.
Omri / Avi
Overall we agree, it's all a matter of defining the parameters.
Abi and Nisim,
First, it is worth noting that the first part of the article deals with planets with biotic life, not necessarily intelligent, such as those that existed on Earth for most of its years. Developed and especially intelligent lives are, obviously, much rarer.
L is the average length of the period that a culture transmits in waves that we can receive. This period may end not only due to destruction (self or external) but also, for example, by moving to advanced forms of communication that do not emit radio waves, for example through optical fibers. L does not need to be squared since only the transmission period determines, the reception happens according to our current definition.
Miracles,
Why in a square? Average life expectancy L is measured in years. I agree with you that there should be an overlap between the duration of listening and the duration of the broadcast. It can be said that the whole equation only refers to the period when we started listening.
More generally, the equation was never meant to be a scientific tool in its own right, but more of a road map for understanding the factors that make intelligent life possible in the universe. Many others criticized the equation and suggested updating it. For example, intelligent civilizations may avoid advertising their existence because they fear encountering more advanced civilizations as mentioned here, so the relative number of civilizations willing to communicate should be mentioned.
Existence of life in solar systems that are not similar to ours can also be an option, as well as life on moons around gas giants. Or the discovery of life through direct observation of the atmospheres of planets, something that is not considered here, and did not exist at the time.
There is a lot of room for improvement in the equation…
Avi Cohen
You are of course right. But - L should then be squared, no? You need an overlap between the transmission duration and the reception duration, and both are equal.
In addition - you don't need a lot of technology to destroy a culture. Of course we don't need atomic weapons...
Miracles,
You didn't fully understand the equation... The last parameter in the L equation talks about exactly that: what is the average lifespan of a cellization during which it will continue to transmit. Originally, the inventor of the equation Drake thought that civilization could destroy itself, and this is the reason for the interruption of the transmission.
If it destroys itself before it starts transmitting, then the value of the statistic is zero years regarding the civilization in question (we put an average in the equation).
I would actually like to bet on that, since our only way of knowing is to look at ourselves, and we broadcast before we destroyed ourselves. In addition to this, the ability to destroy ourselves is based on understandings in physics and technology (the theory of relativity) that come after the understandings needed for transmission (the theory of electromagnetic waves).
Avi Cohen
I don't know if this is pessimistic or optimistic, but one more parameter needs to be added to the equation - what is the probability that a civilization will not destroy itself before it reaches the capability of interstellar communication.
Want to bet?
to all the pessimists,
There are several points of light that I would like to raise regarding encounters with more advanced cultures:
If indeed our culture does not succeed in overcoming its violent nature, then it is possible that it will use future technologies as weapons of war, and if the atomic and hydrogen bombs are a benchmark for relatively "primitive technology", then it is very possible that these future weapons of war will have the power to destroy human culture.
If there is an extraterrestrial civilization with advanced technologies hundreds of years ahead of us, it may be a sign that they have been able to outrun the same destructive creature we are still trying to deal with, otherwise they would have destroyed themselves by now.
In addition to this, for some reason there is a tendency to describe foreign and distant cultures (both geographically and chronically) as more violent than ours. This was the case during colonialism with cultures in Africa and America that were described as cannibals, and this was also the case with the Neanderthals who were described as powerful savages (something that may not have been completely disproved, but was certainly reduced in its strength with recent discoveries).
Chen T,
Can be detected by the current technology of the DOHA, which at this stage includes radio signals and laser beams. If the technology on Earth develops beyond that, the chances of finding extraterrestrial signals will increase. But according to our physical theories now, there is nothing faster than light, therefore it is most effective to transmit in electromagnetic waves.
Even if there is a civilization developed 1000 years ahead of us, which transmits in a way that we are not yet able to receive, it is very possible that 1000 years ago it transmitted using the same means that we now transmit, and the same signals are currently within a radius of 1000 light years from that civilization, which may be its distance from us. and therefore we can absorb them today.
It doesn't matter how primitive the transmissions are (FM or AM etc...) what matters is that there was a transmission and we can receive it, even if we don't manage to decode it, it is still an electromagnetic wave.
Am I the only one who has a problem with the phrase "detectable signals"?
Can be discovered by what technology and under what advanced technological stage?
If there is a civilization that is more advanced than us, even if only by 1000 years, why would it transmit signals that we can receive and decipher?
And if they are only 100 years behind us, what chance do we have of absorbing them? Do you remember at what stage the radio broadcasts were in 1914?
The article was of course published in the International Journal of Astrobiology
And not as written.
which also appears on the Internet http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.1302 You will see what is new and why the Kepler satellite data greatly increases the likelihood that life (even primitive) is common.
I would appreciate comments on the article.
Cultures is another story and this topic is also addressed in the article.
Thank you miracles.
Now it's clearer.
Yigal
First of all - a huge range. Second thing .. 2 means we and someone else in the whole galaxy. It will be hard to find.
Miracles
In the range: 2 – 280,000,000
Why not something?
A civilization that is able to produce a map of an area with a diameter 10-100 light years away from us, means that we have reached gravity propulsion for example and created something like a wormhole if physics still allows its existence, and moved through it at a speed higher than the speed of light. Recently, the professor from the USA challenged the possibility of the existence of singular points and black holes. The mathematics in her paper requires expertise in general relativity combined with string theory.
They haven't had time to respond to the article yet. If it is indeed possible to produce singular points in space, then in principle movement is possible at speeds that allow arrival within years (if it is the speed of light) or fractions of time if it is above the speed of light. When a culture reaches these technological levels, if it has reached maturity both culturally and morally, then there is also the possibility that that culture will be able to search for an inhabited planet, and then maybe appreciate it enough not to destroy it if it comes across it. I let my imagination run wild without interruption.
There is no result because the distance between the civilizations is large enough. If there is a supreme supervision and if not, the civilizations are separated.
As Carl Sagan said in the mythological series Cosmos, suppose two civilizations meet. One precedes the other by a million years. Possession will destroy the weak. What do we do to the animals that are a little inferior to us to the chimpanzee? eat them And what do we do from a strong power to a weak country? kill them It makes sense that there is life out there somewhere, and even here we see the light at the end of the energy problem, but the people prefer to deal with the nightmare of religious wars and senseless murder thousands of years back in time.
Yigal
The results of the formula are something in the range: 2 – 280,000,000
Nothing ….
Because the formula is interesting but there is no result
I meant Jupiter-like
In any case, it is written in the formula: n with e (small)
But how much is N? With all the tools we have today, why isn't it told?
Yigal
I suppose that according to the chemical composition and the temperature, one can tell the state of aggregation.
Beyond that, there is no obstacle to having life in the sea or in the air...
How can you tell if it is a gas or rock? Perhaps most of them are gaseous... and this has no expression in the above calculation, so where will they sit there, on the moons?
: )
It was apparently published in the International Journal of Astrobiology
Long live the little difference.
to the stag,
are you sure you want
Call Opiuki's emergency line,
you're the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy
Ender's Game (and "And the country does not know").
It is better that they do not reach us, but that we reach them...
So where are they? I want to see them.
Asaf
This is definitely true. But, this does not invalidate the formula - the formula talks about the percentage of stars at the appropriate temperature. You said that the average person has one egg - but that doesn't mean anything about the average man... shall we?
Miracles,
You misunderstood my intention. Let me rephrase it: if half the stars are too cold and half too hot on average they are all suitable for life.
Asaf
The example you gave actually deleted the argument - if you take a million people then you will have close to a million eggs. What is wrong with this conclusion?
The problem with the Drake formula, in my opinion, is the "right-hand" data. We have no way of quantifying these parameters.
According to statisticians, on average there is only one egg per human being.
Playing with statistics is nice, but multiplying some numbers and hence inferring the amount of life in the stars near us is not serious.
Oops… astrology? "It was recently published in the International Journal of Astrology"