Only one harbouring life. Can it really be possible?
2007-12-15 07:20:39 · 7 answers · asked by Trys 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
no. as you can see the odds are in favor of life beign on more than one planets.
its ridiculous to think that only one 1 out of hundreds of BILLIONS could possibly support life.
remember, we cannot see the rest of the universe yet, only a small chunk of it, so the amount of planets out there could acutally be BILLIONS of BILLIONS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw
2007-12-15 07:50:32 · answer #1 · answered by Mercury 2010 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes it really can be possible.
It all depends on how you estimate the likelihood of the factors which are necessary to support life.
I've seen estimates which say only 1 in 100 planets could support life. I've also seen estimate which say the conditions are so rare that only 1 planet in 10^30 could support life. We don't know which number is right. The second number is several orders of magnitude higher than the number of planets in our universe, which would not only suggest that ours is likely the only planet with life on it but actually suggests that the vast majority of universes have no planets with life on them.
Here's one example of how you might calculate the possibilities. Suppose our universe had, has, or will have, a total of 10^24 planets. 99.99% would orbit a star which is too hot or too cold, so that leaves 10^20. 90% would be too massive or too small, so that leaves 10^19. 99% wouldn't have a strong enough magnetic field to protect the surface from the solar wind, so that leaves 10^17. 99.99% would either be too close to their star or too far away or have orbits which are too erratic, so that leaves 10^13. 99.9% would be lacking in one of the basic chemical components for life: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, so that leaves 10^10. 99% would have no large moon to stabilize their rotation, so they'd tumble every few thousand years, making it very difficult for life to evolve beyond simple microbes, so that leaves 10^8. 99.9% would orbit a star which is too close to the galactic center or too far away, either of which would mean excessive bombardment with stray meteors, periodically wiping out life just as it was getting started, so that leaves 10^5. According to this calculation with numbers I just made up, only 10,000 planets ever have existed or ever will exist that could develop life on them some day.
But even if you assume that our universe will have billions of planets which have the right conditions where life might eventually form, we still might be the only planet that has life right now. Of all the planets where life would grow, one of them has to be first. Why not ours?
And, even if life already has formed on several planets, would it really matter? They would probably be off in distant galaxies millions of light-years away, where we could never contact them and they could never contact us.
That's probably a good thing. In its own way, the limit of the speed of light is enforcing a kind of prime directive of non-interference.
2007-12-15 16:29:28 · answer #2 · answered by dogwood_lock 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most scientists believe that life is not only likely on other worlds, but highly probable.
The challenge is finding it, since life that evolved in a different environment than the carbon dioxide/oxygen/liquid water we are familiar with may not be recognizable to us.
Its really a matter of getting out there and looking - which humans are doing (to some degree) with the Mars rovers and future planned missions to Europa and Titan.
2007-12-15 21:53:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anything is possible.
2007-12-15 15:27:25 · answer #4 · answered by poolboyg88 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yeap, but very narrow minded.
2007-12-15 15:43:54 · answer #5 · answered by aap1970 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is life out there, whether you believe or not.
2007-12-15 16:23:38 · answer #6 · answered by Emsky 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, but we will never find it.
2007-12-15 15:27:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋