How Many Aliens Are There?

Ever wonder how many alien races there might be in the our galaxy? Well, there's a simple way to estimate it and it's the topic of this video.
________________________________
VIDEO ANNOTATIONS
What the HECK is Light?!
• What the HECK is Light?!
Comment Responses: Variety Pack
• Video
________________________________
SCIENCE ASYLUM STUFF
Support us on Patreon:
/ scienceasylum
Advanced Theoretical Physics (eBook):
gumroad.com/l/ubSc
Merchandise:
scienceasylum.spreadshirt.com/
More videos at:
/ thescienceasylum
Facebook: / scienceasylum
Twitter: @nicklucid / nicklucid
Instagram: @nicklucid / nicklucid
Google+: www.google.com/+Scienceasylum
Main Site: www.scienceasylum.com/
Vlog: / thenicklucid
________________________________
COOL LINKS & SOURCES
Sky Charts:
www.midnightkite.com/
KIC 8462852 Location Data:
cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/h...
Kepler Space Telescope:
kepler.nasa.gov/
XKCD Drake Equation:
xkcd.com/384/
The Drake Equation:
www.seti.org/drakeequation
www.pbs.org/lifebeyondearth/li...
Star Formation Rate:
www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/n...
100 Billion Galaxies:
www.physics.org/facts/sand-gal...
100 Billion Stars:
asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/blueshift/in...
Random Exoplanet Info:
www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/sci...
www.pnas.org/content/110/48/19...
news.berkeley.edu/2013/11/04/a...
Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_e...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KIC_846...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_...)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
________________________________
IMAGE CREDITS
Logo designed by: Ben Sharef
Stock Photos and Clipart
- Wikimedia Commons commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mai...
- Openclipart openclipart.org/
- or I made them myself...
Ancient Aliens Meme:
i.imgur.com/NfCknz0.jpg
Halley's Comet:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Hubble Deep Field:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Kepler Telescope:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Stargate Atlantis Logo + Footage:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
• l'ascension dans stargate

[@DANversusWTP]

Video length: 420 Nick's estimate for civilizations in our galaxy: 420 Nick Lucid being a total stoner: Confirmed

[@ScienceAsylum]

I'll deny everything!

[@dantrivates9466]

"Are you high or just incredibly stupid?" -Spoken to George Bush character in South Park S06E12 "Ladder to Heaven" His response: "I assure you, I am not high."

[@IDMYM8]

🔥 420 *_Blaze It!_* 🔥

[@barrethbarreth]

It's also 10 times the more than the answer to life, the universe and everything. Does that mean that on average only one tenth of these civilizations have meaning?

[@kinggodwise8119]

He owes it all to clean living.

[@michellereed2535]

"Its never aliens until its aliens." Matthew O’Dowd

[@ScienceAsylum]

TRUTH!

[@askformoreinfowhichyouwont7510]

"We get to talk out our butts." I loled :) Man the more I watch your clips, the more I like them. You put clarity and honesty in physics, after years of shame and hiding of High School and University Professors and books. Subscribed! and gobling up all your clips tonight.

[@anthonysandoval9275]

Agree! He is awesome.

[@livingwill1]

I like the fact that you admit the most important numbers are made up. The fact is it could be anything from "It is a miracle that even one life form exists in the universe", which I consider very unlikely but non-zero to the "universe is teeming with life". I would consider myself moderately pessimistic. I don't think we are the only life form in the universe and probably not in the galaxy but I don;t think it is teeming with life either.

[@ddmagee57]

42.

[@glutinousmaximus]

... Deep Thought agrees with you.

[@fizzywizzylemonsqueezy1774]

@@glutinousmaximus indeed broda

[@simonlewis9487]

That was your funniest video yet.. Very well done.. Truly made me laugh with the clones' comments..

[@MrWeareone777]

Bad clone bad 😂

[@Bodyknock]

Minor clarification, the pessimist average is one civilization in the volume of our observable universe. The entire universe, though, is almost certainly much, much larger than our observable universe so even with the pessimistic numbers there are probably multiple intelligent species in the universe as a whole, they just might not be in the same observable portions of it relative to each other. Personally I'm in the moderate camp. Intelligence and tool making seem like such successful traits that once they develop they'd rapidly gain a foothold so even if the probability of heightened intelligence evolving is small it's likely to stick around once it does and any species with any intelligence will have evolutionary incentive to become more intelligent over time. Between that and the basic building blocks of carbon life being very common it seems pretty reasonable to think the odds aren't THAT bad of life evolving and then if life develops having a reasonable chance of intelligence evolving. The real kicker to me on the pessimist side is the ease with which species can go extinct. It's not actually that hard to destroy ourselves and even if the species doesn't nuke or plague themselves out of existence a random asteroid or cosmic flare or passing star, etc, can wipe out entire planets. So to me the real limiting factor isn't intelligent life evolving, it's them living long enough to make their presence knowable outside their solar system.

[@ScienceAsylum]

That's a good clarification about the universe.

[@jamestheotherone742]

Clarification to your clarification, intelligent species (or anything else) in parts of the universe beyond our observable horizon are beyond our ability to interact with (AFAWKI) so are effectively not "in our universe". :+)

[@randomguy263]

@@jamestheotherone742 Not really relevant whether we can or cannot communicate with them here, what's relevant is whether they exist or not

[@jamestheotherone742]

@@randomguy263 If you can never communicate, much less detect an alien life, then they effectively don't exist. You can presume, and expect, and look for them where you think they might exist. But if they are forever beyond your ability to interact with them, you can't even do that.

[@randomguy263]

@@jamestheotherone742 Does that matter?

[@martj1313]

I am optimistic about there being alien life, but pessimistic about our chances of survival if we meet.

[@cinders9751]

AMEN

[@BobCat981]

give me one reason why you think aliens would be hostile towards us?

[@martj1313]

@@BobCat981 We may be so far behind them in technology that they view us like we view rats, when advanced human cultures met primitive cultures they invariably were enslaved or exterminated.

[@BobCat981]

@@martj1313 Don't be mistaken - there's nothing "advanced" about those human cultures. Even today we humans exterminate rats because they carry diseases and nibble on shit. we don't go about exterminating all rats everywhere... Also today, we're severely limited in resources, which is and was the main cause of most wars. I figure that civilization that has mastered interstellar travel would have no issues with lacking resources... Don't compare what we primitive humans did with what some highly advanced and most likely enlightened civilization might do...

[@martj1313]

@@BobCat981 By advanced i was referring to technology, not socially. My point is that that whatever visit we had, it would certainly be from something for more technologically advanced than us, they might look at how we act as humans, the amount of resources we put into killing each other, how we are destroying our planet so corporations can get rich and destroy us before we start spreading out and doing it around the galaxy, or maybe we might taste really good.

[@flaviucalin]

The distances are so big in our galaxy that is almost impossible for civilizations to reach one to another, even with radio waves (or else).

[@djhinton570]

I think it's great that a planet with beings who have never been outside of their solar system can come up with such an equation.

[@dylanwolf]

Optimist in thinking that there's plenty of them. Pessimist in thinking that all civilisations are SO far apart from each other that they never actually get to interact. Optimist in thinking that there may be an outside chance that we'll find some form of life in the solar system, pessimist in thinking it will very, very primitive.

[@yogirajtambade8658]

We will go extinct before we step on Neptune

[@SquirrelASMR]

The outer music gets me so pumped to watch another episode.

[@nigeldepledge3790]

The Drake equation misses out one really important thing : the fraction of planets on which life evolves multicellularity. Moving from single cells to an organism that is multicellular took life on Earth over three billion years, so it cannot be easy. I'd estimate it to be around 1 in 1,000, which would revise your figure down to 0.42 intelligent life forms per galaxy. Infer from that whatever you will....

[@nothosaur]

Good point. And, then, the most advanced intelligent life that the Earth likely formed after hundreds of millions of years was Troodon and Deinonychus. Homo Sapiens are a very recent development.

[@the_Acaman]

Taking into account if life would develop into intelligent beings already addresses that imo

[@nigeldepledge3790]

@@the_Acaman Well, I guess that's fair enough. But the vast majority of multicellular life on earth is not what we would call intelligent, so that, to me, is an important distinction.

[@raifegeozay687]

dont forget the fact that they can go extinct before they become detectable. All it takes is 1 supernova to destroy a civilation. (sorry for english mistakes and misspells)

[@Kevin-wo3kp]

I would love to know more about the clock in your video, please! It looks good!

[@rudyalvarez6027]

We got to remember the goldilock zone is our perfect zone. Aliens may be like the heat, freezing, radiation maybe even a waterworld.. Those have to be kept in mind

[@ScienceAsylum]

The goldilocks zone isn't based on humans. It's conditions required for liquid water. This other video might clarify things for you: _What if Venus and Mars switched places?_ - kzbin.info/www/bejne/g5jaXpuDj85om6M

[@joaodecarvalho7012]

Some say that closer to the center of galaxies civilizations, or even life, are destroyed by rogue planets, black holes, gama ray bursts and other things.

[@przemysawszymusik1516]

I'm between pesimistic and moderate. If the universe is infinite that means that even in a pesimistic scenario 1 civilisation/observable universe, there are still infinetly many civilisation, variants and exact copies of them in infinite universe

[@gtheavyy8543]

+Przemysław Szymusik Yeah, I'm also somewhere there. 420 civilizations / 5000 LY in between seems like a lot; I'd believe in an 10-50-ish estimate. Although that's just a gut feeling that's not based on anything :/

[@Top_Weeb]

If a universe has infinite space, does that also mean it must have infinite matter?

[@przemysawszymusik1516]

+Saturn in theory yes. Since we have no proof for edge of space and matter should be evenly distributed that leads us to conclusion that there is infinite number of galaxys in repeting patters. But it dosent mean infinite number of civilisations. If probability for inteligent life is greater than zero that means infinite number of civilisations in ijnfinite universe. but if the probability is zero that means no covilisations in finite universe but just one or few in infinite universe.

[@RanchMan06]

The universe is infinitely big because it's everything, it does not have infinite matter and therefore infinite universes and civilizations.

[@ignacioniveiro5471]

That is silly. We know the probability of a civilization is definitely NOT zero, because it has us.

[@thewaxx25]

Good estimates. Although just an opinion ( on both ends) I tend to lean towards the pessimistic side since (in my opinion only) the Universe is plenty old enough for any life that developed technological civilization to have, at the minimum, taken control of every piece of matter/energy in its immediate environment ( maybe out to a mega parsec). I am just happy that we are here and if we never find aliens then more room for us anyways........I say 3 years after video is posted :).

[@garrysmith1029]

Now what

[@chopsueykungfu]

In Red Dwarf the 30 year TV series, which has had about a dozen seasons (because the BBC can go for years before making a new one), they have never encountered any extraterrestrial beings. Since they were in stasis for a million years before the series began, all the weird ‘aliens’ they sometimes meet are actually left over activity from the human race. It is a very pessimistic view of the universe, but somehow the show works if you just ignore that little point.

[@robbob3718]

I want to be a Mulder (prior to the recent additional seasons), but if we use our own solar system as an indicator, I’d have to go with being a moderate.

[@AtypicalPaul]

Love your videos! Thoroughly enjoy to learn :)

[@themrbadluck]

The "goldilock zone" should be redefined, since we know that there can be (and there are) objects with liquid water outside the goldilock zone, mostly due to seismic activity and gravitational tension (expansion/contraction due to a huge body in the neighborhood, like moon/planet systems - check europa and titan). Correct me if I'm mistaken!

[@ScienceAsylum]

You're right. Whether or not a planet is habitable definitely involves more than just how far it is from it's star... but those factors are hard to work into a simple formula. If you wanted, you could just include that stuff in your estimate of fraction_life. Gravitational tension isn't very stable, so that would make even the formation of life difficult. Some places like Europa though are heated from the inside like the Earth is (through radiation in the core), so that would definitely increase the number of habitable worlds.

[@themrbadluck]

Awesome stuff! Thank you for answering me. I hope we find something out there on those moons :)

[@ScienceAsylum]

Me too.

[@anthonysandoval9275]

Still have to confirm that there is life on them first, we can’t jump the gun. offense, off sides, 5 yard penalty, automatic first down.

[@LuisAlbertoPlateroMartinez]

At the moment of turning on the SETI in the 70s we had to receive "signals of technological noise" (not radio-stations, that's ridiculous) coming from "the whole history" of the universe, and there was nothing out there. Why? Because the universe is too young, only 3 times the age of the Solar System (*) and the Solar System is completely "unusual". With each new "lethal exoplanet" that we discover, the "unusual proportion" increases, and almost makes it "miraculous". Drake's equation lacks variables: Goldilocks, Water, Oxygen, Cast iron core (Mars envies us), Tides, Temperature, Paradisiacal climate, Van Allen, Moon same our Moon, Jupiter-protector, few massive extinctions, solar magnetic shield , galactic zone free of dangerous stars. (*) During the first third the prevailing conditions in the universe were lethal for life. During the second third, the heavy elements necessary for life began to appear. It does not help us to be Optimists or Pessimists. Science must approach all that it investigates in "tabula rasa attitude", because if it is a "fan" of a certain idea ---> it is no longer "science", it is "faith".

[@cas1652]

it's actually not true that we would be able to detect "technological noise" even from alpha centauri. In order for our seti to detect anything at all aliens would need to send some seriously high powered signals directly at us. So the fermi paradox isn't much of a paradox at all and even the optimistic case could still be true as far as we know.

[@jacksasson7316]

You should do a video then about the Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter

[@iain5615]

Given the hige amount of radiation if you are not in between the spiral arms of a galaxy, or the need for a stable orbit, etc. given by the moon, or the type of star, or the position of the planets in a solar system, most times the gas giants are close to the sun, etc. It really starts to look very unlikely for civilised alien lifeforms.

[@4rchfi3nd_4ct1ve]

That is a very antropocentric view. Radiation is a problem for us because we evolved is a environment we little to none radiation, but some life forms like that some fungus and Lemna aquatic plants can absorb radiation and flourish in a high radiation environment. If the planet has more gravity is easier to have liqueid water, the ionization of the atmosphere is less a problem and if it's a water planet those issues are even less problematic.

[@iain5615]

@@4rchfi3nd_4ct1ve gravity has to be around the earth's level otherwise the atmosphere thins too much. If gravity is much higher then methane and ammonia remain at ground level. Some life forms can exist in high radiation as well as in high methane and ammonia environments but they are far simpler organisms. Based on the evidence we have the likelihood of life is infinitesimally small but that is far ahead of any possibility of intelligent life.

[@4rchfi3nd_4ct1ve]

@@iain5615 If the gravity is higher the methane and amonia will spread out as much as here, and life begun in the ocean so liquid water is supposed to be our frame of reference. I understanding where you are getting but again, this is an antropic point of view. Is very unlikely that a living being in a complete diffferent environment will have our metabolic structure . Is like a deep sea creature saying that outside the ocean life is impossible because of pressure lack of water and radiation.

[@iain5615]

@@4rchfi3nd_4ct1ve many scientists used to believe that silicon-based life forms were possible but now most are in agreement that only carbon-based is possible. This gives us a good idea of what corporeal life forms would be possible. In the 60s they thought life would be everywhere when we literally knew nothing. Scientific knowledge has grown exponentially and each hour we gather far more data than was known in the 1960s. As that knowledge has grown exponentially the chance of life has diminished exponentially. No findings have supported any form of intelligent life, virtually all have made it less likely. I go with science, I am not against the concept of Alien life but I just don't see how it is reasonably possible.

[@cas1652]

after seeing these scenarios I feel like the fermi paradox has been vastly overstated. There could easly be one civ for every 35 stars and we would simply not know about them.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Right... and we're all just trapped in our own solar systems because of speed/acceleration limits on organic material.

[@mjproebstle]

Because, DUH! Most compelling argument EVER!!

[@javahalva8655]

I like that the question is not "Are there aliens" but "How many aliens"))

[@BunnyJoker]

Would you make a video explaining why we do see the same stars in the sky around the year even though we should always be facing away from the sun as the earth goes around it?

[@ScienceAsylum]

+Diego Beltran We actually don't. Only some of the stars stay the same all year round (the ones near the Earth's poles). Most of them are seasonal.

[@PIPERON]

THE STAR RACES - 15 YEARS IN THE MAKING! THE MOST EXTENSIVE AND COMPLETE ALIEN RACES AT MY CHANNEL, AND IT IS EXPANDING! You get to see all the 2D/3D models of the alien races and their bio data and a short message to humanity.

[@Staggo_L]

I would like to learn about the singularity in a black hole. What does infinite density and zero volume mean? Does the singularity have a boundry or is it like you never get there? (Putting aside dying on the way in.) If the laws of physics break down, then in what language do scientists talk about it? Did I miss one of your videos?

[@ScienceAsylum]

My videos on Black Holes: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d3SmlnmMmrlsbpY kzbin.info/www/bejne/rqPCmWepiLKqhtk

[@mrhypnagogia]

I hope aliens be chill

[@ScienceAsylum]

Me too.

[@KevinLearns2Rock]

Some people are saying if it was a megastructure built by an advanced civilization to capture its stars energy, then the laws of thermodynamics would tell us if it was true due to the amount of waste heat a structure like that would produce. But either it's not that, or maybe if it is aliens then they must have found a way to use "waste heat" in a different form by raising energy efficiency. Guess we'll have to find out after the data has been analyzed more thoroughly. Love your videos, Nick!

[@ScienceAsylum]

+Kevin Suarez Yes, it's probably not a Dyson sphere because we're not picking up the waste heat, but that doesn't mean it's not artificial. I'm excited for the results whatever they end up being.

[@eternal8song]

I'm a moderate. I'm sure that life has evolved SOMEWHERE else in the universe, even if it doesn't function the way we would expect life to be able to. that being said, there are so many factors that can determine whether life has a chance to exist in a planet, that I don't think it's possible for us to confidently estimate, and I kind of doubt we'll meet any alien civilizations in our galactic backyard

[@ScienceAsylum]

Even if there are only 2 civilizations in the entire universe, it is possible for them to be "next door" to each other... a low possibility, yes, but not zero.

[@jasonmcmaster5719]

The best part was when you pretended to have a debilitating speech impediment. That was hilarious.

[@mkch1976]

Pls do a video on EM Spectrum

[@lukecox6317]

What about the "galactic" Goldilocks zone? If life is too close to the centre, wouldn't it be exposed to a lot more potentially damaging radiation or collisions, or would that radiation or collision probability actually be helpful? Are there any factors to consider based on how far away from the centre something is? Also, isn't it a bit "carbon chauvinistic" to assume that life requires the same materials as we do? I know there isn't much else to go on, but shouldn't the theory come with some disclaimers?

[@ScienceAsylum]

Yes, the Drake equation has _all sorts_ of problems and limitations. It's not meant to be exact. It's just meant to give us a rough estimate. There are better ones that use actual statistics that I hope I can cover in future videos.

[@lukecox6317]

@@ScienceAsylum Gotcha. Thank you for your prompt response, and thank you also for this channel - I have been enjoying it greatly and it has expanded my understanding in several areas.

[@JoshuaHillerup]

I think we should add another n for planets in the habital zone that can support life. After all Mars is in the habital zone, and Venus is close, and neither of them could. Really, I think given that we have nine planets in our solar system and only one can support life (and we have seen large planets close to other stars) it should probably be something like 1/9, although obviously continuing to look at roughly Earth sized exoplanets in habital zones will help with that.

[@Thegaym]

100 billion galaxies in observable universe so there might be upto trillion galaxies beyond which brings the number to more than 1

[@sherrybell3566]

This is excellent!

[@dodavega]

The estimates do not include the geometry of the solar systems (we have several large gas giants that soak up hits for us. We also have a strong magnetic field that protects us. We also have a large moon that keeps our spin stable.) Also it does not account for binary star systems or red dwarfs.

[@andrewakaroyal]

I get smarter and entertained with every video I watch!

[@landongriffith4060]

I would think there would be two civilizations per per Galaxy

[@tinldw]

3:55 I want to make big-ass space telescopes and actually check it out instead of making uneducated guesses

[@MusicalRaichu]

given the uncertainty in the numbers, anything from the pessimist to the optimist estimates are possible within our current knowledge, that would mean it is actually possible that we are the only civilization in the universe. but the situation is a bit more complex. we really care about the *detectable* civilizations, which is why the original equation referred to radio waves. the problem is that any form of detection can only occur at the speed of light and that life is likely to take a long time to evolve. given the vast scales of the universe, we won't know about it until millions of years after it's made its presence known. for example there could be another civilization in andromeda that evolved around the same time as our own, but we won't know about it for millions of years to come, if we're still around.

[@flonomcflooneyloo7573]

We can only ever travel the distance of our local group (30-50 galaxies of varying size and habitability) due to the rate of space-time expansion. I think there's one civilization of sentients in that space alive right now (us). That means we are effectively alone. I doubt we'll ever reach space-faring (even in the solar system) capability. Cherish what we are, what we have.

[@ScienceAsylum]

That's a sad thought.

[@BaldAndroid]

Is overlap considered? They might have been and gone, or not evolve for a long time after we're gone.

[@ScienceAsylum]

It is considered with the "life time" factor at the end.... so the number calculated should be the number of (communicative) civilizations in the galaxy _right now._

[@mikehughes6582]

I'm optimistic there are many civilizations just in our own galaxy, but pessimistic of any contact. Even if there was life in the alpha centauri system, it would take almost 5 years to send a message, and 5 more years to potentially get a response, not to mention the amount of time it would take to translate. As I saw on another video, it would take thousands of years for interstellar travel unless we could travel near the speed of light. Maybe Milton could tell us how he made it.

[@thegenxgamerguy6562]

Low moderate here. I guess its around 4 to 5 in our galaxy at the moment.

[@tre6316]

What a fun, and a little bit crazy vid

[@arnoldguisa9958]

My friend had a dream of an alien that told him that there are over 1,347 races of aliens.

[@Morenito716]

And to think that we are aliens to other possibly existing aliens is mind blowing 🤯

[@cauchyhorizon5983]

3:40 Would life be able to develop around stars near/in the Galactic Bulge? Isn't there higher radiation there due to decreased separation of stars?

[@ScienceAsylum]

It is pretty violent near the bulge. Certainly too violent for us to live... but that doesn't mean some other form of life couldn't figure out how to live there.

[@cauchyhorizon5983]

Very true. Though I would imagine that such life would need to be very hardy.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Indeed.

[@cavalrycome]

Could the random dips in the light from NIC 8462852 be caused by interstellar gas clouds passing in between us and it? Why does it have to be caused by something around the star itself?

[@ScienceAsylum]

+cavalrycome I believe it was ruled out because it wouldn't have dropped the light this much. Whatever this is, it's big and it's dense.

[@cavalrycome]

+The Science Asylum But if whatever it is is a long way from the star, it wouldn't have to be as big to block its light, or as dense. If it's not something in orbit around the star it would also explain the lack of any periodicity in the observed dips in brightness.

[@benjaminsharef6589]

+cavalrycome We can actually tell what the object is using a spectrometer to tell us what elements make up the object based off of what bounces back towards us. If its a solid (dense) object, we get more of it bounce back than a less dense object (a could). Its cool that we're able to do this 15k light years away. :)

[@ScienceAsylum]

cavalrycome I see what you're saying, but this isn't just about how much the brightness went down. It also matter how it happened. If it were an object in the middle of space (not in orbit), the change would have looked different. It would have been very obvious (and likely much more regular/continuous).

[@John_Fx]

Would a black hole transiting/orbiting a star produce the same effect?

[@johansno5019]

But does a planet really have to be in the goldilock zone to enable life? What if some aliens dont require water and oxygen but other elements? Would make the sum of the equation much bigger

[@ScienceAsylum]

True. This equation only applies to carbon-based life as we know it.

[@Thraith]

I read Max Tegmark's book, The Mathematical Universe and he put up some math which meant he figured we are the only advanced life form within our local group of galaxies and that we are unlikely to exist past the year 10,000. I think that is closer to reality but we just don't know...

[@amazingworldadventures325]

I'm glad to see there was a bit of math and reason applied to this even if, as you say, some of the numbers were pulled right out of our butts. The comments below range from interesting to enlightening. And almost always entertaining. I estimate the odds of life at 1:1,000 and the odds of intelligent life at around 1:10,000. A reasonable lifespan estimate seems to be right in the neighborhood of 3,500-5,000 years. I think that would be very lumpy with some civilizations lasting tens of thousands of years and others dying out (or killing themselves off) quickly. Question: I remember reading or hearing something once that, if not carbon-based, the next most likely form that life might take is silicon-based. There was no elaboration given at the time but I also just assumed it had to do with those chemicals' promiscuity in forming bonds with other chemicals. What other options are plausible?

[@jbond9637]

I believe we live in a Star Wars type universe and that there’s probably several hundred or even thousand intelligent life forms. That doesn’t mean they all have the same level of technology.

[@ScienceAsylum]

They probably _don't_ all have the same level of technology.

[@jbond9637]

@@ScienceAsylum Unless the ones with the highest form are going around distributing the tech to various life forms 🤷🏽‍♂️

[@cavalrycome]

If life is highly likely to arise on a watery planet in the goldilocks zone, we might expect several different independent kinds of life to have emerged right here on Earth, but all life on Earth appears to have the same chemical foundation in DNA/RNA and hence a single origin. Based on that reasoning, fL is probably quite low. Likewise, given that evolution on Earth has only produced the sort of intelligence we can communicate with once, unlike adaptations such as eyes which have evolved independently in many different branches of the evolutionary tree, we should probably estimate a pretty low value for fI too.

[@ScienceAsylum]

+cavalrycome The problem is that Earth is only one data point. We really can't make any conclusions about life or intelligent life without more data (regardless of how it has occurred on Earth).

[@RonLWilson]

The problem here is that from a physical standpoint bi numbers like 10^70 or 10 ^80 seem like huge numbers but from a combinatorics standpoints these are piddly numbers. For the probability of randomly picking characters to recreate just my post here, that is up to now (say about 200 characters give or take a dozen or so, for I am not going to try to count them) would be 1/38^200 (assuming just 36 lower case and a space and period character for 38 characters. But say one allowed for paraphrases of the and say there a n such ways to paraphrase what I just wrote. The probability of that would be N/38^200. And lets say N is 200! so that would be 17,140,000,000/38^200, still a really small number. So combinatorics get really large really fast and can produce numbers that make even the number of particles in the universe seem quite small. So random evolution would avoid these combinatorics would have to make many small incremental steps, but each leap would have to be high enough to weed out the dead ends. But those dead ends might be far down the road and while the road starts out looking rosy it might not lead very far before hitting that dead end and back tracking would be problematic in that would be loosing ground rather than gaining i so these dead ends might be one way streets at that, and dismally bad dead ends at that and not anything that great.. Thus there could could be endless dead ends even if there were a series of small leaps that might eventually led to that pot of gold at the end of the evolutionary rainbow.. So in pulling these number out of the air maybe one might need to consider the problem of combinatorics and nit just be overly impress with large numbers like 10^70 or 80 when one might have combinatorics of 10^10,000 to contend with. And as such it seems some have given up on hose big numbers like 10^70 and such and are looking at infinite multiple universes to get those bigger numbers like 10^10,000 to be a bit more tractable. And maybe that is a valid thing to do, but it sort of makes one wonder too.

[@RonLWilson]

Ah, I found the link in regard to the multiverse issue in regard to probabilities, the anthropological principle. e.g. here www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/03/08/the-anthropic-principle-is-what-scientists-use-when-theyve-given-up-on-science/#f8e382a77247 So do you think that is a sound approach to this issue or do you think it is is it somehow cheating or copping out?

[@ScienceAsylum]

The anthropic principle is more philosophy than science. I personally wouldn't use it to justify _anything_ scientific. It's fun to discuss though. It comes up sometimes in my Patreon livestreams.

[@RonLWilson]

@@ScienceAsylum I agree it seems more philosophical than scientific. Thanks for the reply!

[@flaviobernardi7659]

Something I've always wondered: why we assume that the only possible life form is our life form ? I mean, we've developed under our particular circunstances, but this does not imply that all possible life forms must develop under these very equal circunstances. In that way, there is no particular zone around a star that could support life, there is just a habitable zone to our life form. I'm no expert, but I always thought that Drakes equation is too limited. What if there is life forms that does not depend on water or maybe can resist such extreme conditions like planets too far or too away from a star ? In the end Drake's equation trys to estimate the probability of another human race (or something very similar) be out there, but we all know that only the truth is out there.

[@ScienceAsylum]

There are only two elements (we know of) that can facilitate the complex chemistry we see in life: Carbon and Silicon. That limits the options significantly. If the life is silicon-based, we probably wouldn't even recognize it. The equation described in this video only applies to carbon-based life.

[@lawliet2263]

Oh yeah they're already here as seen in the poster that bob saw at S4

[@kaylaa2204]

I think I'd stay safe with the moderate viewpoint Both optimist and pessimist make some assumptons based on factors we're really unsure of, so they're actually both less liikely in accordance with Occam's Razor Moderate is statistically the more likely answer, and is probably a closer estimate than either extreme. 420 like you said seems very reasonable to me as well

[@FoxxyCZ]

An important factor is not only intelligence, but the physical ability to express it. Even if dolphins become smarter than humans, they won't be able to build a space-faring civilization.

[@TheTUDOR91]

It may turn out that the optimist point of view is more accurate, but someone has to come first. Which is a potential solution to the fermi paradox. They will all exist at some point in the future, but we're the civilisation that just happened to come first, wondering where the hell everyone is. Seems very unlikely, but possible.

[@xander6464]

My friend Beldar says there is no other life in the Universe and that's good enough for me!

[@paramountx]

Man I thought thought this was a thumbnail for Jiren from dbs

[@John_Fx]

So how do we define "intelligent life" in this equation. If we found dogs, dolphins, bacteria, or octopodes on another planet would we consider them "intelligent life"?

[@chrislaws4785]

I say that as far as life in general goes, such as plants and animals, that's almost guaranteed to be found so i'm an Optimist. Where as intelligent life that we can communicate with goes, that seems to be a litte bit more up in the air weather they exist AND weather or not there close enough for us to be able to find, so im more on the Moderate side of things.

[@MagnusSkiptonLLC]

I dunno...I'm a pessimist and there's three other data points which I think support this: 1) Intelligent life took a very long time to evolve on Earth. So long in fact that it almost didn't evolve at all. It's estimated that in 0.5-1 billion years Earth will become uninhabitable as the sun warms and the goldilocks zone shifts outwards. Given that life has existed for 3.5-4 billion years, the life bearing period is already like 80% over. 2) The stelliferous era of the universe (i.e. the time when stars are forming) is estimated to last some 100 trillion years. After that, it's unlikely life will be able to evolve any more. So, despite the difficulty above, the human race actually evolved _fantastically early_ in the life-bearing period of the whole universe. We may be as close to the beginning as possible for intelligent life to evolve (given it would take billions of years for enough heavy elements to build up). 3) If an intelligent civilization were to evolve, it could traverse and colonize the entire galaxy in a relatively short period of time, likely within a few million years assuming they can't travel faster than light. The galaxy is *BILLIONS* of years old. This has not happened, given that the solar system has not already been transformed into a Dyson swarm. For a civilization with nothing to do and millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of years to play with, it would a trivial task. These indicate to me that the human species is probably one of the first civilizations to evolve in the galaxy. If there were a whole bunch of others, at least ONE should have been able to overcome all threats to its survival and spread far and wide. The reason we don't see them is that they simply aren't there. Of course, being a scientist, I would LOVE for SETI to prove me wrong. I seriously wish them the best and hope they succeed.

[@amatacook]

Since repeating decimals go on forever, a calculator should not be able to work with them. But I have seen my calculator work very well with them. Can anyone explain this?

[@justaguy4real]

3:24 TRILLIONS of galaxies

[@ashwinianand2495]

Man! To be too optimistic, I guess life exists everywhere, it's just not the kind we're searching for!

[@uplink-on-yt]

If those aliens have a 15000 year head start in radio communications, maybe we shouldn't be too quick to make contact. They'll know about us in about 15000 years, if they scan our planet and if they haven't floated by already.

[@dennisburke6735]

Most planets are inhabited by Dinosaurs! 🦖🦕🦖

[@jaimeduncan6167]

This should have been the shortest video ever: You just start and say "We don't know", jokes aside keep the good work, subscribers will come ;)

[@vinceanthony7046]

You cannot use the entire galaxy in the equation. We live is a pretty safe zone. The deeper you are towards the center the more risk of being destroyed.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Well, in the Drake equation, that's what the fractions are for... but maybe I shouldn't have used the entire galaxy when trying to figure out the _spacing between_ civilizations.

[@creedence1819]

How does causality factor into the equation? If aliens existed sufficiently far away in time, neither species could know or interact with the other. If aliens existed sufficiently far away in space, neither species could know or interact with the other. far away in time=not know or interact far away in space=not know or interact. far away in time=not know or interact=far away in space time=not know or interact=space time=space?

[@Geo07ism]

I put my numbers in the Drake...uhm I mean Lucid Equation and I got a civilization for every 78 galaxies. I supposed that 80% of all planets in habitable zones can develop life, 1 in a million of all of the planets that developed life will develop intelligent life and a civilization lasts for 10,000 years.

[@Geo07ism]

Oh wait there is still hope. I messed up the rate at which stars are born. With the correct number, I get around a civilization for every 45 galaxies

[@GP-qb9hi]

Why are you giving intelligence such a low estimate? I think closer to 100%

[@Thuazabi]

I'd laugh so hard if the answer actually turned out to be 42.

[@Really_Skunkey]

I'm a child. It's 420 civilizations xD But for real, let's say we conclude it's an alien civilization, could we send a probe out far enough within a reasonable amount of time so that a radio signal sent their way would be powerful enough to not be dismissed as a random radio signal.

[@ScienceAsylum]

Depends how close they are, how concentrated we can make the signal, how good we are at aiming, etc. The time is the biggest issue.

[@Youcanscienceit]

I'm optimistic about the overall chances but pessimistic that intelligent life has arisen YET. It's not well thought out but I do some talking out of my ass for my explanation to the fermi paradox here: docs.google.com/document/d/1nafxbiJjAYMRr2v2sk4s8XU1dbbj6EdbFDMtiPCCR0M/edit?usp=sharing basically we may be one of the first intelligent life forms, but in the long view not the only one.

[@ScienceAsylum]

+YouCanScienceIt Yes, I've heard the argument recently that we're one of the first and that life is relatively new in the galaxy. I guess we'll find out eventually.

[@przemysawszymusik1516]

+The Science Asylum That is also very possible scenario. But check out this argument. Dont remember the name of the matematisian who came out whit that but hear how it goes: If multiverse exist and new universes are coming to existanse every second in a arithnetic way. It means that there are much more universes whit 1 civilisation less whit 2 even less whit 3 and so on. As a conclusion we hawe higher chances of living in the universe where we are first and there for alone.

[@ScienceAsylum]

+Przemysław Szymusik Yes, but there's no way to know which universe we actually live in until we go out and check.

[@mikejarvis4139]

Perhaps all races in our galaxy are shaped by the carbon imperative. So, no aliens, just a bunch of curious neighbours who don't see the need to shake hands!

[@dkkempion8744]

The development of life is oversimplified because the materials and processes that exist only lead to single-cellular life. Making the jump to multicellular life requires a few steps. And, if multicellular life requires multiple planets, then the odds weigh heavily against multicellular life forming. The odds of there being an abundance of microscopic life is actually quite high because simple life will happen wherever it's possible because chemical evolution (formerly known as "Abiogenesis") is ongoing.

[@gordonjenkins276]

The Milky Way Contains 36 Contactable Alien Civilizations

[@tmdrake]

YAY Drake Equation!

[@evangelosIt]

How are we ment to know about alien life, let alone a civilization, when we don't even know about ourselves?👽👽👽👽💃☝

[@diamony123]

All the talk about planets and evolution...i think we under appreciate the earth.... being that we came from it...much like teenagers that dont appreciate their parents.

[@_ch1pset]

The only statistic we know is true is that there has been at least 1 intelligent species(us) to have ever existed in the universe. That's the sad reality. But if you don't think in terms of fully evolved, dna based, carbon based life forms, and you think in terms of sustained and evolving chemical processes, it starts becoming more of a, "there is so much stuff out there, it is impossible that another sustained chemical process with different composition than here on Earth has not given rise to extra terrestrials."

[@ScienceAsylum]

+Twixgtx True. Carbon is not the only option.

[@sadrevolution]

Surely the number of known or inferred planets capable of supporting life has gone up?

[@manuelcheta]

Just a bunch of debris, nothing else. Aliens, yes, maybe, but not on that star :D

[@quadstack4562]

I'm somewhere between optimist and moderate. I think of us as some lonely tribe in the Milky Way. Some people in the Milky Way know of us, but most won't spend the time to come and visit us. Or even if say, 10%-30% of sightings are legit, I'd put us as maybe some small town in the US with a population of

[@jethroandal6853]

Pessismistic. In the factor for the number of planets that can support life, the only thing that was considered was the planet's distance from the star. It does not consider any propertt of the planet itself that would allow it to support life (having liquid water, etc.)

[@amatacook]

How can calculators calculate repeating decimals if repeating decimals go on forever?

[@ScienceAsylum]

The calculator doesn't actually deal with them. It just approximates really well. Calculators only have so many decimal places available, so that's as far out as they need to go.

[@DaffyDaffyDaffy33322]

Some fancier calculators take it into account by marking the last few digits "repeating". That way 1/3 becomes 0.3333333... but the calculator knows the 3s go on forever. Then multiply 1/3 by 3 and you'll get a perfect 1 instead of 0.99999. But yeah, simpler calculators tend to just ignore it.

[@diegopescia9602]

DaffyDaffyDaffy33322 great info

[@willisthehy]

Our closest neighbors are 40 light years away the grays

[@Jay-Kaizo]

I'm a realist. There absolutely is other life out there.

[@RobertK1993]

2 Grey aliens from Zeta Reticuli star system and Nordic from Plaides.

[@joshuahuntington1888]

The odds of abiogenesis are closer to 1 in 2^400,000 than 1 in a million.

[@genxlife]

I say the Drake Equation is obsolete. You should have mentioned the rare Earth hypothesis instead.

[@mackbeth182]

No views? I'm first? Color me excited :D Love Your show! Keep up the good work!

[@ScienceAsylum]

+mackbeth182 You caught me just as I posted it.