is it mathematically impossible for us to be the only planet with life?

Question

I ask because I read this and saw a show (NOVA or something like that) where this scientist made that very statement.
I think it must be wrong, for this reason:

no matter how far you count you will run into the number 3 only one time! You will encounter the digt 3 often, but the number 3 only once, so, if anything, math would lend itself to showing that we ARE the only planet with life.

what is your take?

I used the number, not the digit 3 to represent life.

Answer 1

Practically, it is mathematically improbable for us to be the only planet with life.

Let me explain it this way:-

There are 70 sextillion(i.e 70 thousand million million million, or 7 x 10^22) visible stars, and the number of visible stars is just a very very small fraction of the number of actually existing stars.

Now, lets consider this eqn:

FRANK DRAKE'S EQUATION:

N = Ns fp ne fl fi fc fL

where

Ns = 200 billion = approximate number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy.
fp = 10% = fraction of stars I(I=> Dr Frank Drake) think have planets around them (<2x10^-10 assumed)
ne = 0.33 = number of planets per star I guess are ecologically able to sustain life
fl = 0.000001% (1 of 1,000,000) = fraction of those planets where I think life evolves
fi = 0.000001% (1 of 1,000,000) = fraction of fl where I think intelligent life evolves
fc = 0.0000001% (1 of 10,000,000) = fraction of fi I think can communicate
fL = 1/100,000th (100.000 y) = fraction of time during which I think culture survive.
N = 6.6 x 10^-24 = probabilities on existence of communicating civilizations in Milky Way galaxy. (note: ^ represents "raised to the power of")

This equation was devised by Dr. Frank Drake (a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz) in the 1960s in an attempt to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy with which we might come in contact. The main purpose of the equation is to allow scientists to quantify the uncertainty of the factors which determine the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.

Now lets disregard the fc (fraction that can communicate) and fi (fraction for intelligent life) parameters, coz ur question is regarding only the existence of life, then

N = 6.6 x 10^-24 / (fc x fi)
= 6.6 x 10^-24 / (10^-7 x 10^-7)
= 6.6 x 10^-10

So this shud be the probability of existence of life within our galaxy(Milky way), lets assume that the number of existing stars in the universe is 700 sextillion(just 10 times more than visible stars today) and apply the Drake eqn to the entire universe, then

Number of biological systems having life = N x total number of existing stars
= (6.6 x 10^-10) x (7 x 10^23)
= 46.2 x 10^13

Therefore, number of planets having life = 462 x 10^12

That shows that the entire universe has 462 million million biological systems( you can simply put it as planets) harbouring life. We have concluded this even after considering extreemly skeptical fl numerical value!

However, theoretically it might be possible to prove that we are alone in this universe!

Answer 2

You are making a statement of fact. One of these scientist ultimate goals is to find life or intelligent life somewhere else within the universe. This leads them to devise equations as to the possiblity of life elsewhere. The difference is they are looking for the possiblity to keep themselves going, you merely stated a fact. The two have nothing to do with each other. The occurance of life has many variables that have the possibility of being meet within the universe in other places than our own. 3 is 3, but i can have the number 3 written here just as well as you could have the number 3 written there.

Answer 3

Hoyle's calculation assumes the right enzymes in an entire kit in a very smart cellular. yet no scientist interior the international has ever claimed that existence arrived on earth completely shaped and smart. yet, of direction, Biblical creation assumes precisely that - that god poofed existence into being, completely smart, in an instant. So Hoyle et al have proved that the the opportunities of there being a author god are merely approximately nil. and additionally you're splendid this mathematical evidence that a author god is impossible has by no ability been refuted.

Answer 4

Linked is one probability of life supporting planets. You can make arguments for and against, and both come up with great big probabilities. But, if there were, it would be very unlikely for us to detect them anyhow. Radio propagation at galactic distances would require immense amounts of power. The proverbial advanced civilization would need to harness the equivalent energy of a small star. So that basically leaves star systems in our galaxy, and the probability of that is still pretty hard to calculate. Also, the power requirement is still pretty high. To get a stable microwave link to Alpha Centauri, I figure it would take about the electrical generation capacity of all man at this point in time. Not to say that there couldn't be highly advanced civilizations, but, the likelihood of them living nearby is pretty low right now. Unless, of course, they don't want us to know.... (to the theme of TZ)

Answer 5

The guy's wrong.

It is mathematically possible that Earth is the only place in the universe which contains life. It is, however, extremely unlikely that we are the only place to have evolved life. The sheer size of the universe (there are 200 000 000 000 stars in our galaxy *alone*), the number of (projected) available habitable zones, and the tenacity of life on earth along make it unlikely to have been a one-off occurence.


Hope this helps!
The Chicken

Answer 6

I think it's in Contact where it's said that if we are the only life out there the universe is an awful big waste of space. If you look at the odds there are an uncountable number of stars out in the universe, a good chunk of them being identical to Sol. I think it is impossible for us to be the only life out there, at the very least heinously improbable. Granted I'm no mathmetician, so I really couldn't tell you the odds.

Answer 7

wow...that's interesting, never heard of that before.

but didn't you just prove with math that we are not alone? your statement says that even though the number 3 (human beings) is only there once, the digit 3 (other lifeforms, similar to human beings) shows up more often...that is if I understood your question and reasoning correctly.

Answer 8

It seems to me that it is HIGHLY unlikely that there is life on other planets. With all the sophisticated tools at our disposal---we have not managed to be ABLE to 'create' life ourselfs from 'nothing'......it seems almost bizzar that life **ever** came into being at all if we are to believe it is just spontaneous without a creator.

Answer 9

thats number 3 thing is weird but i do believe that theres life out there than earth...be a astronaut and find out :)