Sure it would be nice to know for curtain if there is other life out there, intelligent or other wise. But this mathamatical equation shouldn't used as proof that life exists out there, sure i like to keep a open mind but it's hard not to be a " seeing is believeing " kind of person.
2007-09-08 18:20:25 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
No, the equation is sound science. What one chooses to plug into the coefficients, however, can very well be wishful thinking.
When I do it, the number of advanced civilizations in the galaxy always comes out somewhere around zero to ten. But I might be wildly optimistic.
2007-09-08 18:30:58 · answer #1 · answered by Keith P 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure it is wishful thinking we don't know the values for the variables. We don't have a way to prove or identify any of the variables in the equation so we have no way of determining what is what or if it is even possible. The only thing we can say is that in such a huge universe with a radius of 13.7 billion light years, the chances of there NOT being alien life is pretty slim.
"The Drake equation (rarely also called the Green Bank equation or the Sagan equation) is a famous result in the speculative fields of exobiology, astrosociobiology and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
This equation was devised by Dr Frank Drake (now Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz) in 1960, 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 such extraterrestrial civilizations.
The Drake equation is closely related to the Fermi paradox."
The formula is:
N = R x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
The variables are:
“N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate;
R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space. “
2007-09-09 01:31:50 · answer #2 · answered by Dan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The equation itself is not wishful thinking. It's just an estimate of probability, not a prediction. As we learn more and more about exoplanets, we can plug more accurate numbers into the different variables. And the outcome of the equation will become less and less of an estimate.
But until we actually find evidence of life elsewhere - and particularly intelligent life - it's still just about probability.
I've met several of the scientists from the SETI Institute, and not even they see the Drake Equation as any kind of "proof."
2007-09-09 01:56:38 · answer #3 · answered by skeptik 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In a way the Drake Equation is what the user makes of it because it's entirely up to them to decide what values to plug into it.
Keep in mind, though, that since the Drake Equation was developed many years ago, we've found almost 250 extra-solar planets, and those are right in our own backyard so to speak. It seems not only plausible and logical that there are hundreds of thousands of planets in our galaxy, but just plain likely. It follows then that the odds *against* all of those worlds being without some form of life are extremely high.
2007-09-09 02:47:14 · answer #4 · answered by Chug-a-Lug 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Drake Equation isn't proof that life exists on other planets. It uses a bunch of variables for which we don't know the proper values. If one of the variables is 0, then the Drake Equation would say there isn't life on other planets.
2007-09-09 01:32:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Drake Equation is mathematically 100% sound.
However, the variables that it relies on are, in the main, totally unknown. So it's a nice theoretical construct and a good reference point for debate, but as far as estimating the probability of intelligent life is concerned, it's entirely useless.
2007-09-09 11:41:36 · answer #6 · answered by Rolande de Haye 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, the Drake Equation is exactly correct, with the one assumption that all life evolves on planets. If you're a Black Cloud type, however, the equation is easily fixable.
What you plug in for the various parameters involves a great deal of wishful thinking.
2007-09-09 10:09:29 · answer #7 · answered by ZikZak 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The drake equation is not necessary to estimate the number of intelligent societies in the universe.
It can't be done.
There is no doubt that these entities exist in all parts of the universe,they must number in the hundreds of millions.
They are likely at such distances,and they are so short lived that no dialog will ever take place with them.
We may get proof of their existence one day but we will never meet them.
2007-09-09 08:11:09 · answer #8 · answered by Billy Butthead 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Until you have proof sitting in front of you it is just a bunch of equations.interesting theory though.
For me it is like doing all sorts of mathematical equations to see who is going to win the ncaa basketball championship, all may be valid in theory but you still have to play the game and find out who wins.
2007-09-09 01:34:05 · answer #9 · answered by J's leather emporium 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋