Aliens: Are We Looking in the Wrong Place?

Big Alien Theory explanation website - www.thebigalientheory.com/
Thanks to everyone who supports MinutePhysics on Patreon! / minutephysics
Link to Patreon supporters here: www.minutephysics.com/supporte...
Music by Nathaniel Schroeder, / drschroeder
REFERENCES:
Big Alien Theory explanation website - www.thebigalientheory.com/#size
Size of Planets research paper - arxiv.org/abs/1503.07804
Development of intelligent life paper - arxiv.org/abs/1601.05063
Stars in the universe - www.skyandtelescope.com/astron...
Stars in the universe - www.universetoday.com/102630/h...
Marginal distributions - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margina...
Bayesian Statistics Parameter Inference - ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/S...
Conditional expectation - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditi...
Common Blood types - www.redcrossblood.org/learn-ab...
World population data - esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Download/S...
US State population data - www.ipl.org/div/stateknow/popc...
MN county population data - www.minnesota-demographics.com...
Premier league popularity - fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/t...
number of fans of Man U - www.bbc.com/news/magazine-2147...
List of World Religions - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
“Other” religions - www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/gl...
Old Trafford Stadium: www.google.com/maps/place/Old...
MinutePhysics is on Google+ - bit.ly/qzEwc6
And facebook - / minutephysics
And twitter - @minutephysics
Minute Physics provides an energetic and entertaining view of old and new problems in physics -- all in a minute!
Created by Henry Reich

[@Zwerggoldhamster]

And somewhere aliens are making the exact same argument...

[@gracechen3740]

Lol

[@jonashansen8907]

+Zwerggoldhamster Humans are curious by nature. If there is any intelligent life out there, then they probably don't care if there is any other life forms in the universe. Curiousity is a great gift to mankind, it is what made us to who we are today.

[@gavinishavinabadday2035]

+Jonas Hansen So you're saying that other species can't be curious?

[@jonashansen8907]

Cancer McGee Never said that. Read: "Probably". Which means most likely. There is a chance, we cannot know. That's just my idea, feel free to think whatever you want. :-)

[@C0d0ps]

+Jonas Hansen You're saying that "most likely" humans are the only intelligent species that are curious? That sounds really far-fetched since we know absolutely nothing about any other intelligent species that are out there..

[@Blummineck]

You failed to take into account that the majority of Manchester United fans do not count as intelligent life.

[@ion716]

lol

[@TheBadbro12]

lol good one.

[@andreas4010]

+Blummineck ''insert unecessary political remark''

[@leoninja]

+Blummineck NIce!

[@AkhilPisharody]

+Blummineck lmao! That cracked me up!

[@Zerginblubber]

So... What you're saying is that alien life probably live on planets that are less influenced by the sun... And that are smaller (less gravity)... So... If I go to an alien planet, I'll be like SUPERMAN!!!

[@khoainuong1993]

Lol

[@penitent2401]

+Hudson Bryant you'll be a very small superman, most alien species would be the size of polar bears.

[@pmac139]

+penitent2401 MINI-SUPERMAN!! I, for one, will take it.

[@rewrose2838]

Sorry for popping that bubble but no you won't be a 'super-man'

[@Zerginblubber]

+Joe Sadoski Haha! Touché, my friend!

[@still_guns]

But what if we're the AFC Wimbledon looking for Manchester United?

[@michaelsommerfeld8115]

It might as well be but this is just the most likely outcome. Also the trail mix analogy is better.

[@spartida3850]

yeah I think it's a bit generous to say we're manchester united

[@xdolphin7337]

City is waiting for you, United.

[@Sophiebryson510]

Or Liverpool looking for cobblers

[@Freakhealer]

Can anyone explain me why is the most likely outcome?

[@ZimM804]

We also assume intelligent life is upright or a vertebrae. It could be a Gas cloud or flying Spaghetti monster

[@remphz3321]

yea

[@Valkyries733]

Flying Spaghetti Monster!

[@backfromvancouv]

"Fart" from Rick and Morty

[@mvenezian9705]

they can be a dickbutt or like the ayy lmao aliens

[@liqwidmediaworkztv]

"flying spaghetti monster" lol you're right though

[@KevinknPham]

Nurse: "What's your blood type?" Me: "Probably O"

[@bethcollings3495]

Kevin Pham I don't get it

[@nolanwestrich2602]

Uh, probably red.

[@rodrikforrester6989]

Everything should be fine if they have O- in storage. You can pour O- to literally anybody.

[@Xelee1]

@The Einherjar To assume planets must be earth like to be inhabited by intelligent life is to assume all life must of necessity be like human life. That's an unfounded assumption. It's even a big assumption to assume other intelligent life forms must reside on other planets at all. There are more life forms right on earth that are too small to see and who knows what might be existing in other dimensions or just hiding in other light spectrums other than the small area of light visible to us. Yet science has decided to relegate all ideas of non corporeal intelligence or other dimensional intelligence to the realm of supernatural. Gorillas were once thought to be supernatural or a hoax and I'm sure this has been the case in other situations. It takes too long for science to catch up with a few individuals who know something exists. Reality exists with or without the scientific proof. I'm female but novone reading this has so proof of that. Lack of proof doesn't change the reality. I (and some unknown number of others) know for a fact that intelligent life exists within another realm right here on earth yet few scientists even speculate much on it . To my way of thinking science is extremely limited and biased which makes it unscientific. No I don't expect anyone to assume I am honest or sane even if I say I saw and photographed intelligent being that is non human . Yet I myself know as a scientific thinker and prior non believer , I actually had a CT scan done and blood tests to rule out brain tumor . Then later when I actually got photos I knew for a certainty alien life exists and it's high tech beyond y understanding. I can't say if it is benevolent or malevolent but it exists. I admit humans are fallible and suggestible, prone to brain diseases, wild imaginations, mistakes and any number of problems that might cause delusions and hallucination including such things as sleep paralysis and other sleep disorders (which I suffered all my life). but I'm pretty sure my phone cam has no imagination or hallucination.

[@NardeanShadow]

@@Xelee1 I'd seriously like to see that picture since I've always been highly interested in fields loke this

[@TheEconomicElder]

There's a whole world of super intelligent alien ants laughing at this vid.

[@sleazymeezy]

Living in an alien ant farm?

[@hieronymusnervig8712]

Good news everyone, the 10,000 giant Aliens invading our planet are probably half their population!!!

[@CaelReader]

Wait, doesn't this logic work the other way too? If use Earth instead of Humans, shouldn't we assume that Earth is part of a larger group of similar planets, and thus be looking for them since they should be fairly common?

[@hugekingkibblefan6980]

But we're not looking for a planet we're looking for intelligent life. Just because a planet has the same characteristics as Earth doesn't guarantee it has intelligent life

[@sehfisch2350]

@@hugekingkibblefan6980 Then lets say we take humanity as the individual and since humanitys planet is earth like and most alien species should be like humanity the planets they live on should also be earthlike

[@firestar4404]

Your right!

[@EuroUser1]

@@sehfisch2350. Taking humanity as an *individual* sounds totally wrong to me.

[@sehfisch2350]

@@EuroUser1 would you care to explain why?

[@darksycho]

What if we're the giants? What if we have a small population compared to the majority of other worlds? What if our atmosphere is actually dark and hazy compared others? We only know what we've experienced. You need to two points to make a line.

[@joukovilander]

yah

[@nachoqt]

+darksycho He explained in this video that this is all hypothetical based off one data point. If we ever got a second data point, they'd start working on a new approach given the new information. Having two points to make a line would be nice, but you gotta make do with what you've got.

[@el-drk]

+darksycho Just looked for that comment instead of saying that myself. Totally agreeing. The video is just misleading and unscientific.

[@TheAurgelmir]

+darksycho That is a possibility, BUT the whole point is that statistically we probably are not. So we should should work out of the assumption that we are not, and then change our hypothesis accordingly when new information arises!

[@Grescon_]

+darksycho Problem is with your atmosphere comment: look outside, if its a sunny day you will see that our atmosphere is very light and bright. It is a reasonable assumption to say that more planets will have darker atmospheres than ours and by that logic we can call ourselves the giants. Also based upon the style of star that we have: if you look at the other options they must be Bright Big stars (class A blue stars) with distant, larger planets. I can say from statistics (that exist mind you) that these series of solar systems are much more rare than ours. By that it is reasonable again to say that our planet is the bigger one (Class D stars with the planets he mentioned are also significantly more common). I know what your saying, but mathematics is a wonderful thing and can allow us to gain information like this. Also: Statistically probable.

[@coolnobodycares]

If everyone assumes their in the big group simply because it's statistically more likely than for them to be in a large group than small group, are aliens looking for planets that are smaller than theirs with life forms physically larger than they are but with a smaller total population than they have?

[@renatohaidamous9225]

nice thought!

[@01FNG]

+coolnobodycares Yes. And thats why we haven't found any yet. Thanks to statistics.

[@GeminiLeague]

+coolnobodycares Which is exactly why the video is wrong. You cannot make any assumptions based on a single data point. Not any with any basis tho.

[@thomasr.jackson2940]

You solved Fermi's Paradox!!! All the aliens are hanging out on a cozy little "in" planet, talking trash about those big planet aliens that aren't cool, like them!!

[@mroverdose14]

It's not wrong, it's an assumption with probability so say it can be "wrong" but, that's the whole point it's more likely it's right cause it account for both outcomes.

[@KreeZafi]

Why are we looking for Earth-like planets, though? I get that we would assume similar planets are more likely to have life on them, but that would only apply to lifeforms similar to Earthlings. What if lifeforms were to evolve on a completely different planet in completely different conditions? They might not need water like we do, or be largely carbon based like we are. They might live under conditions that seem impossible to us. After all, when lifeforms evolve they will automatically adapt to their environment.

[@darksilo24]

+KreeZafi My thoughts as well. What if there are life forms in Mars we're unable to detect. probably because we don't consider it as our definition of "life"

[@darksilo24]

+KreeZafi My thoughts as well. What if there are life forms in Mars we're unable to detect. probably because we don't consider it as our definition of "life"

[@Koospa]

+KreeZafi Correct me on this if I'm wrong but there is a deep water lifeform that lives without oxygen and relies on some poisonous gas instead. I think I saw it in some documentary a while ago. It could suggest that extraterrestrial life forms can be NOTHING like us and live in planets deemed by us as completely uninhabitable.

[@icantthinkofausername8964]

Exactly! Everybody thinks they need what we need, but they are aliens and we are humans. There is a difference!

[@GamingVidsPs3]

Right but theres billions and billions of places to look, you need some sort of assumption to narrow it down.

[@LilDrFiz]

This is really interesting!

[@whig3982]

YAS.

[@SLIVERTOUGN]

+Orga Itsuka Mikazuki will avenge Biscut!

[@DiabloDBS]

+Orga Itsuka Well yes ^^ hopefully we don't encounter one of those few similar races first.. might very well end into the first interstellar war of humanity .. i'd vote for our first interstellar war to be like in Macross .. and if they are indeed giants then we should actually call them Zentradi... +TheTacticalCucumber The question is if it will happen in this season or if there will be a second season which is more a necessity than a bonus at least from my point of view.. i am still missing this mutual understanding part that usually is reflected ... there was a glimps of it here or there... Akihiro Brother, Biscuit Brother. But it really doesn't feel like it should ... and the Masked Guy is also quite lame in comparison :-/ I am getting nervous that they will mess up the end if they rush it now :-X Actually as the story was unfolding until now it actually calls for more than 50 episodes .. and that is without the recur of events in the usual sequel ^^

[@Donanzador]

+Orga Itsuka I second that!

[@kazenriq]

this was orgasmiteresting

[@RohitKavuluru]

You don't need to look for AFC Wimbledon, Akinfenwa is large enough to see from billions of lightyears away 😂

[@XxWoOkiExX1]

ahahahh

[@venkyratnam]

yeah! i was wondering the same.

[@dennisbergkamp1553]

Ayyy Wimbly Womblys forever

[@SmilingJack100]

+Rohit Kavuluru Holy crap, he's so much bigger, is he an alien?!?!

[@intelligentskeptic5849]

Lel

[@avicohen2k]

the fact that i managed to follow and understand this on the first time just shows how good you guys are in explaining it!

[@thomasr.jackson2940]

+jz Fish Or not. The problem with science is that it's data driven. Drake equation speculations don't really prove anything, as much as we want to believe. Until we actually find evidence, SETI folk (of which I am one, btw) are the Creationists of the science nerd crowd, just trying to prove what we want to believe.

[@deltax930]

I'm not sure your comparison makes sense. In the blood type example, and the Manchester example you start out with only one individual and make the inference that it is part of the larges group. However with humans, we have data for the whole group and we are trying to make inferences about other groups. If you pick a blood type or football team at random, on average it will have an average number of members or fans. By the same logic if you pick a life bearing planet typically it will have a population, member size, ect that is average.

[@limboproductions224]

it would be the median, and not the average

[@Nuclearburrit0]

Thing is that by selecting yourself you have your random individual. If you could pick a group at random then yes that group will most likely be average. But we CAN'T pick a group truly at random. We can only pick this group and that choice is weighted since we only chose our own group because it's the one we happen to belong to. Basically, we are more likely to use Humanity as our data point compared to other species if there are more humans.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

The types of planets you are talking about are still considered Earth like planets. The idea is that our search is focused on planets with a solid surface (as opposed to gas giants such as Jupiter and Saturn) and planets who's temperature is within the range necessary for life as we know it here on Earth. Although these assumptions may be wrong, planets like the ones mentioned in this video would still fall within these assumptions.

[@FergusSimpson]

Hey Eugene! There is certainly some ambiguity here, in that 'Earth-like’ can be used as quite a broad term, but it is also often used to refer to those habitable planets which are particularly close in mass or composition to the Earth. There is an understandable fascination with finding and studying Earth analogs, but as the video highlights, that may well be a suboptimal strategy in the hunt for extra-terrestrial life.

[@sleazymeezy]

It's life Jim, but not as we know it

[@wthilmi]

Im early, let me tell you a joke manchester united

[@dengchier2139]

your life is a joke

[@kilderok]

+Deng Chier ^Manchester United fan

[@theJellyjoker]

+Juan Fredic Carlos I don't get it, what is a manchester united?

[@TheStrictlyAwesome]

+Jeffery Liggett its a big club in the english barclays premier league but if ur american then (soccer) team

[@Deathnotefan97]

+Juan Fredic Carlos Just once I would like these type of comments to be an actual joke, with a set up and punchline and everything

[@klesk4never]

Well that's just great, but do you know why the majority of exoplanets we had discovered is big? It's not because we had searched for bigger planets, it's because currently we do not have the sensitivity of instruments to search for earth like or smaller planets except for the stars that are close.

[@mackenziechizik6283]

These videos are so interesting, I love watching them. Keep on making them man, you're great

[@veryrareteddybear2789]

Last time I was this early, mom and dad were fighting

[@daraj02]

k

[@maliktube7374]

+Watermelon Person that one's maybe a liiiiitle bit too far.

[@kilderok]

+Legendary DeagleMaster Nah, just the right amount of far. His comment now hosts life, for it is in the Goldilocks Zone.

[@kilderok]

+WaterDoge Wait...would that actually DO anything...? I mean...they're Neurotypicals.... #WouldBeheadingTheNeurotypicalsActuallyDoAnything

[@BrandonSLockey]

+Watermelon Person can someone explain the joke please?

[@viperstrike0]

its sorta hard to look for planets smaller than us

[@icedragon769]

+viperstrike0 At the moment. James Webb Space Telescope (launch next year) should be able to find extraplanets smaller than Earth and directly image them.

[@MilesKubicki]

Why

[@viermidebutura]

+icedragon769 "directly image them" haha what a overstatement

[@ricksavage3498]

+Miles Kubicki one of the main ways we find planets around other Stars is by seeing the stars dim when a planet passes in front of it. the smaller the planet the less noticeable the change

[@icedragon769]

viermidebutura How is that an overstatement? That's literally one of the telescope's primary missions.

[@PaulJones-dz5jr]

Love watching your videos. Very informative and interesting, and the humor keeps it from getting anywhere near boring (for me). Keep up the good work!

[@krishnagusain9359]

I'm amazed to see what you have explained clearly and simply ,keep making these videos for us for better understanding of physics

[@noturaveragewatcher]

How do you know it's not the other way around

[@Neimonster]

Assumptions.

[@sabaca304]

+noturaveragewatcher We don't know. It's simply more likely that it is this way around. So it is smarter to follow the possibillity that is more likely.

[@strika234]

+noturaveragewatcher listen to what he says at 1:48. We are more likely to be part of one of the larger groups then we are the smaller

[@petrino]

+noturaveragewatcher if you dont know how many people there are. would you assume you are different from most people or similar to most people? it is safer to assume that you are the same as most people than different from them.

[@pppluronwrj]

because WE are finding them. the other way around is THEY finding us

[@John77Doe]

I think that we are making very brave assumptions. With just one data point, we are leaping to conclusions.

[@dpcubing1521]

the point isn't to be right. The point is to look in better places so we have a better chance of finding something. These are our best bet with the knowledge we currently have.

[@luisandrade2254]

But they are reasonable conclusions nonetheless

[@John77Doe]

@@luisandrade2254 On a sample of one, unless you took no statistics at all, you know how unreliable that is. 😔 😔 😔 😔

[@joelabraham708]

there are twelve kinds of people: those who know how to extrapolate from partial data sets ...

[@zacyquack]

We aren’t really, given that we know the requirements for life to exist. Sure that knowledge is based on ourselves, but the only alternatives are under very extreme circumstances. 1. No other molecule besides carbon (and silicone at… very high temperatures) is stable, active, and complex enough to be able to form the structures required for life to exist. 2. Temperature is very important for most biochemical and organic interactions. For carbon-based life, they are usually best in an environment with a temperature similar to our own. That happens to be around the narrow range of temperature where water is liquid. 3. Oxygen is almost certainly going to be a requirement. It is highly reactive because the O2 molecule has two unpaired electrons, and also thus is an amazing electron acceptor. A atmosphere completely filled with Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Helium, etc. wouldn’t be able to support life.

[@David_Last_Name]

+minutephysics Wait, but if you look at entire species instead of an individual then this same logic will show the opposite. Lets assume everything you said is true (what you said makes sense, and I'm not doubting any of it). That means that EVERY intelligent species, when it first starts looking for other aliens, will also come to this same conclusion. That they are a member of the large group, and most other aliens are in smaller groups. Now, we can't all be correct, right? So even though we are assuming we are in a large group, everyone else is assuming that as well. This means MOST alien species are wrong about this. So what are the odds that the human species is one of the few that is correct? Pretty low. Humans are far more likely to be one of the small groups that is incorrectly assuming we are in a large group then to be one of the few species that is both assuming they are in a large group and are correct about it.

[@ibbi30]

Minute said if you draw an individual at random you can expect him to belong to a big group, which means most individuals are correct in assuming they belong to a big group. If you draw a group at random you can expect the group to contain few individuals, not many. Which means most alien species would be right in assuming they are a small group. These arguements conflict, one assumes earth has a big group of sentient creatures and the other a small group of sentient creatures. I guess we have to figure out on what level we sampled. I would argue since we are individuals, not a collective conciseness, we should expect us to belong to a big group.

[@AdrianDiemer]

We didn't pick an individual at random. Since we don't know any sentient beings except us, we cant pick uniformly random. We can only pick one from the group of humans which renders the whole argument about probabilistic rules invalid.

[@ibbi30]

Adrian Diemer Imagine a meta-cosmic lottery. Everything that could possibly exist is taking part in the lottery and you are one of them. The winners get to exist. The chances of winning, of being born, hatching or however you would come to exist is probably less than 1/grahams number. You turn in every week to watch the draw and notice that most of the winners belong large groups, that the results follow this trend seen in groups descibed in the video. One week you win. You know most winners belong to large groups. Is it more likely you belong to a large or a small group?

[@AdrianDiemer]

That was a very nice explanation. And I think you might be right. I always get a headache when thinking about probabilistic problems... Let's just say, I accept your argument but I'm not convinced beyond a doubt. ;)

[@ibbi30]

Adrian Diemer Thank you :). And fair enough, you have a right to have an inkling of doubt. I think I didn't make a mistake but will be a bit vary as well :).

[@LouisNothing]

Great videos. Tight and concise information from a physics standpoint; I'm subscribing.

[@FlorianCalmer]

Polar bear sized aliens guys !

[@petrabanjarnahor229]

Mamals.

[@Drivebymumble]

+Petra Marbun What? That's not even a word.

[@kilderok]

+Florian Calmer Polar Bear aliens would be the best result of all this data. #PolarBearsWereTheAliensAllAlong

[@ender_scythe2879]

+kilderok #I #have #been #seeing #too #many #hashtags #on #KZbin.

[@guybuddy3917]

+Florian Calmer I feel like in a far off starwars-esque future with many aliens races being okay with eachother generally, we'd be the scrappiest bastards in the galaxy

[@daytonforges8928]

This entire video was just a build up to roast AFC Wimbledon. Lol

[@katherineleavitt]

+Dayton Forges ehh, it was stating AFC Wimbleton has less fans. However, I'm guessing that of people watching this video, there are many more nerdfighters/AFC Wimbleton fans than there are Machestor United fans.

[@MinimalObzerver]

Wich reference do you use to state that humans have a high population? Wouldn't you need other groups of intelligent lifeforms to make that assumption with statistical significance?

[@FergusSimpson]

The assumption is that other intelligent species exist (which is a fair assumption if you're trying to look for them) and that they don't all have a population of 7 billion (which must be true given that the human population has changed substantially over time)

[@DrWhom]

Whatever the population sizes of the sapient worlds are, they can be sorted in ascending order and the list can be cut in two: a lower 50 percentile and an upper 50 percentile. You are right, we have no further reference, so we are as likely to be in the lower 50 percentile as we are of being in the upper. We could gather more stats, about stars and their Goldilocks zones. For one thing, we do know that most stars are redder and dimmer than ours, but we do not know enough yet about the stats of the planets that circle them.

[@FergusSimpson]

The key point is that there are two lists which can be cut in two: the list of individuals and the list of groups. One cannot self-consistently believe that the probability of being in either half is 50% for each list (unless all groups are the same size).

[@DrWhom]

Fergus Simpson The group size is neither here nor there. The critters in any given group win or lose together. That's how 95% can win a 50/50 bet.

[@FergusSimpson]

Alright let's do the maths: Let x denote the population of your group GM denotes the group median (middle group, equivalent to Slovenia in the case of countries) IM denotes the group of the median individual (equivalent to Pakistan in the case of countries) Now let's try to take the stance that it's "50:50" to be either side of either list, then for example p(x > IM) = 0.5 or p(x GM for all non-singular probability distributions.

[@sitioprueba2855]

You're doing great videos! this is amazing! Perfect preparation. Thank you

[@oafkad]

One of the coolest videos I've watched in a while. Great stuff.

[@Michaelsp9]

When he started talking about the statistics aspect, I got so confused...

[@namdreamzz6428]

But everything is here so presumptuous. You can expect those results. But that doesn't mean we are in that group. No matter how statistical likely it is. Looking for the same instances we're familiar with is the only way to know we might find something

[@thomasr.jackson2940]

Yup. It is the Drake Equation all over again, though maybe a bit more informed choices, I'll give them that. What might help clarify the usefulness of the model is calculating, given the list of assumptions, the probability that the projections are wrong. What is the point of a statistical model without standard deviations or the like reported?

[@namdreamzz6428]

+Thomas R. Jackson but the problem with that is: it's hard to provide any standard deviation when you have one instance to judge from (earth). You generally need multiple data points (as in you need more than one known instance) in order to extrapolate a mean and deviations from it. Or am I wrong? Haha

[@namdreamzz6428]

+Thomas R. Jackson but I also understand what you mean. Variability does need to be represented in some way for this to be accurate.

[@FergusSimpson]

Great questions. The error bars are highly asymmetric, so that’s why no standard error is quoted in the video. Here’s a summary of the limits which are in the paper, with 95% confidence: Alien planet radius: 25 kg Alien population: < 1 billion Now, how do we get the variance with only one data point? For a crude analogy, imagine that the only data point we had regarding human running speed was the time of an olympic 100 metre runner of 9.9 seconds. With that one data point we could confidently make a powerful prediction, that anyone we pick from the world population will almost certainly take more time to run 100 metres. Essentially it doesn’t matter what the variance is, because we’re taking an unfair sample from the tail of the distribution. Either the variance of the running speed is small, and everyone runs about 10 seconds, or the variance is large, and most people take much longer than that. Either way, based on that single data point, we can conclude that it is very unlikely you will find someone running the 100m in under 6 seconds.

[@thomasr.jackson2940]

+Fergus Simpson Drat. You were just getting started and your post was cut off!

[@OrchidAlloy]

Cool, but it's still kind of ridiculous to assume all of that from, again, a single data point.

[@lightsidemaster]

Exactly. And fucking arrogant at that.

[@PrometheusXV]

It's not arrogant, it's mathematically justified. We don't *know* what they look like or where they are, as we have yet to discover them, making discovering them more difficult, however, due to our most educated estimates, we can assume what they would most likely resemble, where they would reside, and things of the nature. It's not a certainty, it's a possibility.

[@lightsidemaster]

Wolf Blade Exactly, but the way people talk about it, they make it seem like that that's definitely what it's going to be like. Also those calculations are good and all, but life is so incredibly complex. SO complex actually, that they are sure to overlook a few aspects that should be in the calculations, which will result in the calculation being wrong. We haven't seen one extrasolar lifeform yet, we don't know jack shit, if you excuse my language.

[@PrometheusXV]

***** That's completely true, we don't know jack shit, but through the little we do know, we can estimate and try to increase our chances of learning more. Obviously we couldn't know the slightest about extraterrestrial life, there's still so much about life on Earth we don't understand, but we speak so matter-of-factly about what we do know, as if it were fact, because it's all we know, so to us it is the most logical answer, even if we someday discover it to be massively incorrect.

[@lightsidemaster]

Wolf Blade Very well said! Yes you're right, it's the only information that we have and so it's being treated as if it were a fact until we get direct observations.

[@basicnpcc]

Great video! Here is a scientific question. If we send Donald Trump to Mars would it be considered a planet with intelligent life? Or would it become the only planet in the universe where the inanimate objects have more intelligence than the organisms?

[@mwildish]

+God Gabe The second thing

[@daraj02]

The 2nd option

[@fransliszt]

+God Gabe Trump would make Mars great again

[@Scoma19]

+God Gabe Correction, It would be the only planet that has been made great again.

[@NickGreyden]

+God Gabe We know Mars is there, ok. And we have a lot of brilliant people working on that. I know a like of brilliant people and they all know a lot about Mars. And what we do know is that that is a question and it is a question that deserves an answer. And I think a lot of people want to know and I have that answer. And it is a good answer because I'm kind of a big deal and I know a lot about a lot of different things. So it is important that we not only are asking, but asking the big questions. And the right questions are important too. And we all know that things are going to get worse before they get better, but I know what to do.

[@Nvd1987]

This is absolutely beautiful in its clarity and explanation... :)

[@doodelay]

I didn't want this video to end so about to watch again!

[@TheLegoJungle]

The analogy at the end was awesome :D

[@immersivecomics1603]

"I'm going to build a wall so the aliens can't get in!" Trump 2016

[@mertboy94]

lmao

[@PigsBeFlying]

build a giant glass sphere outside of earth

[@ShiKazumi16]

+Not Important Oh, wait, we already have it.

[@Planetdaz68]

+Immersive Comics Make the aliens pay for it too

[@Kalidor99]

+Immersive Comics ..and the Aliens have to pay for it!

[@aaron4820]

These kick ball analogies went way over my head, and I'm in the UK.

[@Nulibrium]

+aaron4820 Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are too fast. I will catch it.

[@Yalikejazzboi]

+Loki LOL

[@calebboud90]

+Loki drax

[@kzeich]

This guy's a genius. All his videos have wonderful aha moments, etc.

[@bekimjusufi]

These videos are awesome and keep up the googd work! +1 sub

[@wir8]

This reminds me the Vsauce episode with all the %20s and %80s.

[@raywellington7048]

I really like that analogy at the end of the video lol

[@clarianken4223]

+Ray Wellington i know soccer, but i dont know everything about soccer teams. So can you tell me, is it that the greater team is just being compared to the weaker team and trying to have a match?

[@raywellington7048]

+CLARIAN KEN Manchester United is one of the biggest football club in the world based on number of fans. Currently Manchest United are in the highest tier/level of england footballing system which is the Premier League. He's comparing Manchester United to AFC Wimbledon which is a club from League Two, about 3 Tier/3 Level below the Premier League. In terms of how big AFC Wimbledon is it's very small compared to Manchester United. Hope that helps!

[@NathanArizona]

I like viewing videos about mysterious things! I may have to return to your YT channel and follow your work!

[@Tylerl128]

I have been watching your videos for a long time, and i don't comment a lot, but i click like on every video i watch, and i really appreciate your contribution to the educational side of KZbin. Keep doing what you're doing, you make a difference in every video you make.

[@nishtagram2802]

I didn't thought of that

[@crion98]

+Manish Sija think*

[@Greg-ku7rn]

I can tell...

[@Tyler.8046]

+Ali Fraiha +matthijs achtereekte actually, never* "I never thought of that" as opposed to "I didn't think of that" Obviously he wasn't the one who thought of it, however I would assume he's referring to the fact that this concept never crossed his mind. So, I do believe your correction was, albeit grammatically correct, still incorrect.

[@nishtagram2802]

Tyler Wardle yes ..i didn't know about this kind of concept .. Sorry for my grammar

[@Tyler.8046]

Manish Sija Sorry that wasn't meant to correct you, it was unnecessary for them to correct you as your sentence was perfectly readable, albeit a little confusing. It was simply because "grammar nazis" prowl the internet looking for their first opportunity to correct someone unfamiliar with the language despite not entirely comprehending the basics of the language themselves.

[@TheZALGOisCOMING]

"How to over-generalize statistics into wild claims, the video."

[@ilyem999]

Or you could go read the paper the video is based on. These are not baseless assertions it's a presentation of one hypothesis. He left out a lot (all of) the math because it's boring and the video would be five hours long.

[@TheZALGOisCOMING]

It's still a weak hypothesis. We're more likely to be in one of the few big groups because the few big groups have more members than the many small groups, yes. But that's not just true for humans, it'd be true for the aliens too! Any aliens we meet are likely to be in a big group for the same reason that we are likely to be in a big group.

[@ChiaraBells]

And the majority of aliens would be right to assume that - however, not the majority of alien SPECIES. So, most alien SPECIES that exist will be as described in the video - assuming that we are in fact part of a larger group (which is probable). You can, however, make the argument that it might be easier to find a species with a large population. And in that case, what you learned in this video isn't all that helpful in predicting which kind of species you are likely to find.

[@TheZALGOisCOMING]

An individual may be more likely to be in a large group, but the species is more likely to be a small group? Then I refer you again to my second comment: what is true for humans is true for aliens, and vice versa. An individual human may be more likely to be in a big group, but the SPECIES Homo sapiens is more likely to be a small group.

[@Kwen666]

I get that humans are likely to be in a big group, but not why we're likely to have a larger population size. That part seemed entirely random without any data to back it up

[@lynlix1086]

This video is awsom, i love it !!!!

[@andrewparker318]

This video was so fascinating! A very nice break as well from all the Fermi paradox nonsense videos I always see

[@Slithy]

So we need to basically look for Protoss :D

[@AlanmanAaron]

I understood that reference

[@NicoFireBlood]

+Slithereenn And Zergs.

[@sallylee4924]

Wait..... The fallacy of this logic is that ALL intelligent beings can make the same assumptions based on the same logic and statistics. So all intelligent beings will inevitably believe they are the abnormal ones in the universe.

[@FergusSimpson]

+Sally Lee Careful with the distinction between 'ordinary individual' and 'ordinary species'. Ordinary individuals are members of abnormal species, while ordinary species consist of abnormal individuals.

[@thomasr.jackson2940]

And most of them will be right.

[@insertpersonhere4871]

+Thomas R. Jackson Most individuals will be right, but most species will be wrong.

[@Anonymous-zd1ow]

What an interesting way of looking at things

[@luthfimuhammad3068]

This is just a statistic theory. this theory has more probability to be right

[@TheRedstoneTaco]

I love his drawings. They are so cosmetically pleasing.

[@ryanconnor3480]

I love this channel so much

[@VegetableHero]

very good video, maybe a little debatable but i love the idea

[@azioprism3635]

i just hope that we meet aliens somehow and we won't kill each other :)

[@John_Fx]

Extremely unlikely. If they are even out there the distances are so vast it is almost impossible to ever reach them even with communication.

[@ydfjkougghgdxnutfb9604]

@@John_Fx Ye unlikely but you never know how humanity could progress super quick

[@PseudoResonance]

I feel like we've simply been searching for humans throughout the universe instead of life...

[@PseudoResonance]

***** What I meant is that we've mainly been looking for conditions humans need for life. Who says there can't be life that needs different conditions? We have no proof that all life needs water. Perhaps there is life out there that depends on liquid carbon dioxide, something we generally would think of as a poison to us.

[@carteradams43]

Or carbon dioxide or something else to breathe

[@JO-so1dk]

this is a good video. good theory. thank u

[@LampDoesVideogame]

Basically, some Bayesian math, along with the pareido principle or Zipf's law?

[@kilderok]

+LampDoesVideogame People thumbed up because they have no idea what those words are so you must be really smart and therefore correct. lmao....humans. Am I right...? Also, yes. You are correct.

[@LampDoesVideogame]

+kilderok Yeah, they probably did... Don't take that to mean I don't know what I'm talking about. Logic would also dictate backwards, looking for larger planets with smaller creatures, smaller brains, etc.

[@JagoBridgland]

would these same rules not apply from the aliens perspective too though?

[@hankiedoodle4828]

2:15 "as individuals" Why dont we assume that we as a group are a typical group and that most intelligent species live on similarly sized planets with similar populations?

[@balavigneshk5382]

great theory!

[@DJT.on.Ethereum]

It does all fall apart if we are indeed in the less likely but still possible smaller group.

[@siprus]

+Nathanael Ries Well if we think from planets, not individual perspective, it's more likely that the planet is actually one of the smaller planets. And we should be looking at bigger planets, containing more and smaller individuals...

[@CatFishKick]

A lot of this is based upon how humans supposedly have a large population but how can you make that assumption with no comparison?

[@strat1227]

+Samuel S H K Musical no, humans MOST LIKELY have a large population. Just like your blood type is MOST LIKELY O or A+ and a random soccer fan is MOST LIKELY a fan of one of the top 4 teams. The rest of this is based on that assumption and is only "likely" to be accurate or relevant.

[@herpsenderpsen]

+Samuel S H K Musical that's... that's what the video is explaining, did you not watch it?

[@pythor2]

+Samuel S H K Musical That's the point. Since you have no comparison then you HAVE to make an assumption, albeit an assumption with the best chances. If the chances are wrong then we have won a lottery and we are more unique than we thought. I don't see a problem with this.

[@tetraedri_1834]

+Samuel S H K Musical Because it's simply more likely to be in a group with larger population than smaller ones. Actually, we don't even need to make any assumptions to know this fact. Here is an analogy: suppose we have many boxes of balls. In each box there are different amounts of balls. Now you choose a random ball (you're not choosing a box where you get the ball, you simply get one ball from all the other balls). From which box it is originated most likely? From some box, which have more balls than median, simply because there are by definition more balls in boxes above the median than below it. Now replace boxes with planets and balls with living creatures. And the randomly choosed ball is you. I think it is now pretty apparent that it's more likely that we are more populated than the median. Of course any intelligent civilization would expect this to be true, but yet it's better bet to think we are more populated than most of other intelligent species. I know, statistics is weird and often very counterintuitive =P

[@tetraedri_1834]

+Tetraedri_ Correction: any intelligent civilization would expect that they are more populated than most of the other civs, not that we are more populated =D

[@videolook6987]

nice work

[@bryanbutchmartin9260]

Fascinating stuff.

[@stoltheds7698]

How about those small planet aliens? what should they be looking for? even smaller aliens?

[@LexusFox]

+Stol Theds Wouldn't they be looking for larger aliens and smaller planets?

[@kamron5414]

What if there are aliens somewhere watching a video about the statistical analysis of what other aliens would be like thinking that they would be abnormal?

[@Sirrehpotsirch]

I love science! I don't understand most of it but it seems so cool.

[@hazardbox274]

I think I need to watch that again

[@TheWayIRage]

Do one on how many markers you go through per month, and the probability of you ever running out.

[@myrobotfish]

All I can think about is spore whenever I watch a video like this

[@thepip3599]

Spore planets are small compared to earth!!! Wow, that blew my mind.

[@warhammerworld1689]

I don’t even like science that much but your videos are great and really interesting! 👍🏻😀

[@plainollonley]

All the research is cool.

[@GreerFried]

@3:52 AFC Wimbledon Wimbly Womblys ftw!

[@PhysicsPolice]

This is a gross misapplication of statistics. Technically speaking, you didn't consider the look-elsewhere effect.

[@AthAthanasius]

+PhysicsPolice If nothing else this is a counter to the "well, the sample of one that we have is like this, so surely all others will be more likely to be like it as well?" argument.

[@GraveUypo]

he failed to take into account the being numerous might be one of the consequences of intelligent life. that being relatively small (we certainly are not, but just going with the video) might also be either a consequence or requisite for that. that life might need abundant energy to develop at all, let alone spread and evolve into high intelligence beings. also that until a few thousand years ago our total population was probably a lot less than s single one of the top-populated countries are today. he basically turned all constants into variables. like everything happens at random.

[@PhysicsPolice]

Ath Athanasius What you're describing sounds to me like the Copernican principle. Indeed we can use Bayesian statistics to check for holes in models inspired by the Copernican principle. I don't have a problem with Bayesian statistics. I have a problem with *gross misapplications* of Bayesian statistics.

[@JewishPeacock]

+PhysicsPolice oh shut up and quit being a smart ass. This is a great video.

[@PhysicsPolice]

Adam Bro The video is not great because it gullibly propagates these half-baked conclusions which resulted of a gross misapplication of statistics. You can call me names and tell me to shut up all you like. It won't change the absurdity of this pseudo-statistical argument.

[@RonnyScotVanDerVeen]

The problem is there are many more planets that fit that description as well. Your basically saying "my planet is unusually good at producing life, which means most life probably exists on less optimal planets, so I should look at less optimal planets for life" but what you ignore is that those planets are also less likely to produce life, even if in total they probably house more life. If your looking for a blue marble in an assortment of bags, dont search based on total blue marbles per bag, but on percentage of blue marbles in the bags to maximize chances of finding one with each marble pulled out of a bag.

[@davidreyn]

Who is this smooth guitarist? It's always nice to hear. Also the bassist.

[@mlemleh]

Go AFC Wimbledon!

[@mo7sino575]

If only you said Liverpool instead of Wimbeldon at the end.

[@aurieltheweeb3925]

I just noticed that he used crayola XD

[@yommish]

Woah. I need to look more into this because these inferences are pretty counter intuitive to me, but do make sense.

[@volbla]

So most individuals belong to big groups, but most groups contain few individuals. But if we look at humanity and make assumptions about all other intelligen life based on that, doesn't that assume that one human is a randomly picked individual out of all intelligen life in the universe? Is that fair? What if we look at it from the opposite side and say that humanity is one randomly picked group out of many. Shouldn't we then expect to be one of the smaller groups? Can you even decide which is the case? Whether we are making this argument as individuals or whether we're making it as a group.

[@PheonxD]

+Volbla That's exactly what I thought, in this thought experiment we should take whole population as one 'individual'. It's more of "choose a random country - how big is it compared to the others (more like middle of the pack, right?)" rather than "choose one person, statistically how big is the country that he/she lives in (very big)".

[@Ballacha]

i don't oppose the hypothesis that life is abundant in the universe considering the stupefying number of planets that are out there. but intelligence is neither the essential requirement for nor the inevitable result of ultimate survivability. remember dinosaurs walked on earth for 200 million years and there were no signs whatsoever of them developing any sort of intelligence. the prey (usually herbivores) simply evolved in size of their body and predators simply evolved in the size of jaw and teeth. they were doing just fine without being smarter than a crocodile until something too quick for them to adapt destroyed them. and that's just one example. even if we only take earth as an example, we can find the ability to jump, glide, fly, fast sprint, camouflage, toxin, sonar... and so much more ways for life to adapt and survive. if we set out sights on other planets, who knows how much more directions of evolution there can be. developing intelligence is just one in a thousand, a million or a billion ways to survive. so life may be common in this universe, intelligence life forms like/surpassing human may indeed be rare breeds.

[@verdiss7487]

+Peida Li We can't be *that* unusual*. Even if a fraction of a percent of planets with life had intelligent life, there should still be dozens to thousands of species of intelligent life out there. I do think you raise a good point though, intelligence is a very large filter.

[@TheKyshu]

+Peida Li On the other hand, there is a chance that they *were* intelligent, but simply developed in a different direction than we did. Evolution is so random that you can't really make any assumptions about these things. Also, over such a long timespan, any signs of intelligent life on earth might have simply disappeared. My point is, we only have experience with looking for signs of intelligent life in humanoids, and animal species that live today. Also, it's always a matter of how you define intelligence.

[@dariuso2657]

+Peida Li Well, what is intelligence for a life form? We don't really have this defined. Sure, a bug may not qualify for our intelligence "test", but there are some animals that are thought to be quite smart. Do we count them as intelligent life? We kinda automatically assume that if they don't communicate on our terms, they are stupid. It's quite stupid.

[@Ballacha]

Darius P the kind of intelligence we are talking about right here does have a definition and it's very simple: the ability to comprehend their position in the universe. it's not stupid. you just didn't know. now you do.

[@Pac0Master]

+Peida Li While I agree with you, If there are intelligent life out there it could be much much advanced than us. they could see us as being non intelligents.

[@Scubadooper]

Yay for the AfC reference!

[@andyl9431]

What happened to the double bass jazz music that he normally plays in his videos?

[@donkosaurus]

we should look for large planets with large dumb populations and then go on a galactic conquest

[@isunlloaoll]

Oh yea we can then all live on our own large space plantation, and own dozens of aliens. History will repeat itself!

[@sammjust2233]

I don't understand the assumption that we have a high population?

[@tristanmoller9498]

+Samm Just compared to all other live we have seen.

[@yousefavarian7456]

this is AWEOMSE

[@Sgeorge526]

I give my self a pat on the back for understanding the title of the video...the rest is just white noise

[@spookyskelebloke5388]

Or we could throw a dart at a star map and see if there's intelligent life there.

[@matteo2297]

Good luck making a 2D map of a 3D enormous galaxy

[@denisdionigidelgrande7961]

That's what we've been doing from the start.

[@Wafflical]

+RemainSilent It's called the sky

[@matteo2297]

edrudathec So, you just fly in that direction until you crash into planet?

[@Wafflical]

RemainSilent And then see if there's intelligent life.

[@sethcoleman2906]

we will colonize the universe with our gigantic population.

[@753238]

Impossible, unless you drink... me eeeeeeeeeellkkk

[@lordpinochetuttp3819]

You'd fail as much as your ideology did.

[@catoticneutral]

And we live on a bigger planet too so we are accustomed to more gravity and are therefore stronger

[@sarunotaslt]

**Rule Brittania Earrape**

[@MrASutton]

Amazing video, cant wait to find alien life WAZOW

[@TheRealSlitherShade]

But if earth is the big Manchester United, where would the city fans be? A planet that beats them at everything in the last 4 years

[@amanko1357]

+SlitherShade An asteroid cause they got no fans and they tend to damage the Earth.

[@TheRealSlitherShade]

+Hououin Kyouma hahahah

[@anatoleh1]

+SlitherShade No need for a fan when you have air conditioning :p

[@Paul-A01]

Does that mean we can expect aliens to be less sexy in general? Damn.

[@Neimonster]

Not if you like 'em thick!

[@Marconius6]

Depends on what you're into~

[@electronicsNmore]

Anyone that believes we're alone in this universe, is greatly mistaken.

[@apples2go1]

+electronicsNmore its crazy that ppl even think that we're alone in the universe. i will never understand

[@electronicsNmore]

caylen dana Actually stupid to believe we're alone.

[@apples2go1]

Gavin Burt honestly, i would hate to be like that. constantly ignorant of things bigger than us or too difficult to comprehend. i love wondering about weird shit like that...makes life a whole lot more interesting imo!

[@homerinchinatown2]

oh good, then you've found proof of extraterrestrial life! Great! What is it...? I kid, but it is presumptuous and un-scientific to call people mistaken, stupid, close-minded and ignorant about something that has not yet been supported with evidence. Before anyone gets nutty, yes it is statistically very very very unlikely that life only ever happened in one place - but it's not impossible until proven otherwise.

[@bobsmithy3103]

I didn't really understand but awesome

[@martinjp1]

Great vid, we are looking in the wrong place - we must be because we haven't found it yet!