The Russell Stannard Questions: Life

The following questions (Q) are taken verbatim from those poised by Russell Stannard in his 2010 book The End of Discovery [are we approaching the boundaries of the knowable?]; Oxford University Press, Oxford. I consider these typical of the sorts of modern Big Questions that are part and parcel of the philosophy of modern science, especially physical science.

My answers are based mainly with the thought of our being in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe that has been constructed by one or more Supreme Programmers. However, some of the answers apply regardless of what the nature of our ultimate reality is.

Q. Why is the universe life-friendly?

A. The universe is both bio-friendly and not bio-friendly. 99.999% (add a few more 9’s here) of the cosmic environment is decidedly bio-unfriendly and would snuff you out so quick-smart you wouldn’t know what hit you. Of course the cosmos is also bio-friendly otherwise you wouldn’t be here reading this. If you reject a supernatural explanation, that leaves coincidence, a multiverse, or software. Coincidence is stretching things since there are just so many dials that have to be set to a very narrow range. The multiverse appeals to probability statistics – think of those millions of monkeys at millions of typewriters one of whom will type “Hamlet” word-for-word – eventually. That leaves software, or in other words a Supreme Programmer programing our universe in a bio-friendly way. 

Q. Is there extraterrestrial life, and if so, how do we humans stand in comparison as regards intellectual capacity?

A. Given the vastness of the cosmos, and the sheer number of galaxies in the observable cosmos, and the numbers of stars per galaxy with associated solar systems and the number of planets per solar system not to mention possible rogue/orphan planets and how interstellar cosmic organic chemistry associated with life is, well, cosmic, etc., you would have to be pretty brave to bet the family farm arguing Planet Earth being the proverbial cosmic IT when it comes to life. Even going up the chain from the origin of life ‘living’ molecules to unicellular life to multicellular life to intelligent life to technologically advanced life forms and advocating extreme difficulty in getting from one step to the next step on up the line, there must be – if you’re a betting person – millions of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations throughout the cosmos and a goodly number in our galaxy too. Further, we humans are the new boys on the block, so the odds are that any other extraterrestrial intelligences will have been around way longer that we have, and thus have evolved greater intellectual capacity that we have yet achieved. However, the interesting bit is that once intelligence is achieved, natural selection gives way to artificial selection, and part of that artificial selection might ultimately be the transition from biological intelligence to artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence which will further evolve via artificial selection as machine intelligence designs ever better machine intelligences.



Astronomers On E.T.

The bulk of books, articles, documentaries, written and presented on the subject of life in the universe are by professional astronomers. However, much of the subtopics that make up the broad-brush picture have nothing to do with professional astronomy. As such, readers interested in the subject need to be highly critical when astronomers wax lyrical about extraterrestrial life as most what they pontificate about is personal, not professionally based opinion.

When it comes to the subject of extraterrestrial life, exobiology or astrobiology, the profession most oft associated is that of the astronomer*. That should be nonsense as the focus should be on the word “life” or “biology” not on the word “extraterrestrial”, “exo” or “astro”. I’ve often said that when it comes to UFOs, for example, astronomers are out of their league because the subject of UFOs is not a proper astronomical subject for astronomers to professionally study and thus comment upon in a professional capacity. Astronomers, being human and all that entails, do not always draw a line in the sand between what they believe professionally through academic study and research and what they believe personally, without benefit of academic study and research.  

The only astronomer who ended up making a serious professional study of UFOs, in fact employed as a consultant to the USAF on UFOs – astronomical at first, hence all facets – was the late J. Allen Hynek, so he’s qualified to wax lyrical. What’s interesting is he started off sceptical on the bona-fides of the field, but came around to the opinion that UFOs were serious scientific business. 

The turf of astronomers starts at the top of Earth’s atmosphere and goes outward bound from there, although I’d maintain that things like meteorites are the realm of mineralogists; Transient Lunar Phenomena (TLP) and the ‘Face’ on Mars and other dynamic visible features on planetary and satellite ‘surfaces’ are more the turf of meteorologists, geologists, and maybe even oceanographers (i.e. – Jupiter’s moon, Europa).

WHAT ASTRONOMERS CAN, SHOULD, CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT COMMENT ON REGARDING EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE

Probability of Extraterrestrial Life: Astronomers can tell us roughly how many stars there are per galaxy and what kind of stars they are and how many galaxies there are in the visible universe and roughly what the average solar system might be like, it’s components and constituents, but that’s as far as it goes. When it comes down to whether life arises and evolves on any of these extra-solar planets up through and including intelligence and technologies is an exercise better left to biologists and anthropologists.

Extra-Solar Planets and Planetary Systems: Astronomers are doing an outstanding job in discovering planets orbiting around other stars than just our Sun. They can pretty much estimate, maybe guesstimate, their size and orbital characteristics. They can also determine what the atmospheric constituents are – if any. However, what precisely that composition signifies – constituents perhaps in chemical disequilibrium suggestive of biomarkers – is an analysis best left to chemists and biochemists.

Origin of Life and Panspermia: Astronomers have no academic bona-fides that enables them to wax lyrical on these topics. Maybe terrestrial life originated on Earth; maybe it came via spores (or some such) from outer space (panspermia), but that’s not a subject that’s part and parcel of astronomy, even if extrapolated to abodes somewhere out there.

Transition from Simple (Unicellular) to Complex (Multicellular) Life: Any pontificating on this subject by astronomers is pure and simply their personal opinion. Astronomers would be pissed if evolutionary biologists got press coverage for commenting on the astrophysics of Black Holes, yet astronomers seem to feel capable of practicing biology, as long as it’s called extraterrestrial biology, astrobiology or biology in outer space.

Evolutionary Rise of Intelligence, Technology and the Longevity of Civilizations: Any such speculations are best left to anthropologists as these topic fall way, way, way outside of the realm of academic astronomy.  

Life Not As We Know It: Any speculation on alternative biochemistries (substitute silicon for carbon; ammonia for water; etc.), in fact the entire definition of what life itself is, is best left to biochemists and related disciplines.

Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI): Professionally, astronomers seek out photons – visible light photons; radio photons, microwave photons, gamma-ray photons, infrared photons, ultraviolet photons, etc. Astronomers have a good handle on what naturally originating photons are like and what they can tell us about astronomical objects. Thus, astronomers should be able to spot anomalous photons – artificially originating photons with the accent on the artificiality. If astronomers spot unnaturally emitted photons then the odds are rather good that they have found an extraterrestrial intelligence, an intelligence that has the ability to emit artificially produced photons – like radio signals, optical (laser) signals, etc. Of course there have been false alarms. Pulsars were first thought to be artificial signals; ditto some quasars; and there were those who thought they had picked up radio broadcasts from Mars in the early years of the 20^th Century. However, once astronomers have detected anomalous photons and unanimously concluded they came from an extraterrestrial technological civilization, then any extrapolation from that is out of their bailiwick and resides more with anthropologists, linguistics experts, and other social science academics. 

First Contact: While there are lots of terrestrial examples of first contact, astronomers aren’t historians, sociologists or anthropologists and thus shouldn’t professionally speculate as being all-knowing on the subject of extraterrestrial first contact.

AREAS WHERE ASTRONOMERS NEED TO REALLY BUTT OUT

Visitors from Outer Space: Astronomers are qualified to tell us about the vastness of the cosmos and the immense distances between stars and our neck of the woods. But, the ability of advanced technological extraterrestrial civilizations to transverse those distances is a matter for engineers not astronomers.

Unidentified Flying Objects: UFO crashes in general and Roswell (July 1947) in particular falls way outside the province of professional astronomy (unless such a ‘crash’ can be positively identified as an impacting meteorite). Yet astronomers feel quite capable to wax lyrical on the subject. However, any opinions expressed by astronomers are really personal, not professional ones, and have no more validity than comments by Joe and Josephine Citizen.

UFO abductions, or abductions by ufonauts (the ‘greys’), fall outside the province of professional astronomy and are more properly the province of mental health professionals.

Government programs associated with investigating UFOs, UFO censorship or cover-ups fall outside the province of professional astronomy. Astronomers aren’t experts in national security matters, defence protocols, political science and other associated areas that deals with intelligence operations.

Close Encounters of any kind including geophysical, physiological, electromagnetic, ground trace cases, fall outside the province of professional astronomy.

Analysis and commentary on UFO films and photographs fall outside the province of professional astronomy.

Analysis of radar returns from UFOs, a rather technical and complex matter, tends to fall outside the province of professional astronomy even though radar has been used to probe some of the planets and satellites of our solar system, and thus their ground topography which puts such data in the realm of the geologist in any event.

Alien motivations (i.e. – why don’t they land on the White House lawn, etc.) fall outside the province of professional astronomy. At best this is a matter for psychologists and anthropologists and sociologists, though when it comes to what motivates an alien or alien culture neither is anyone else really qualified for that matter.

The only intersection between astronomy and UFOs is where assistance is required in ruling in or out astronomical bodies (the moon, planets, stars, meteors, etc.) as the cause or unlikely cause of a UFO sighting event. Or, perhaps where statements by so-called ‘contactees’ contradict known astronomical data. Otherwise, UFOs are the province of meteorologists, experts in optics and atmospheric optical phenomena, psychologists, etc.  Yet astronomers wax lyrical on all facets of the UFO phenomena as if all things UFO were exclusively part and parcel of their turf.

So 99% of what astronomers do (like Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Seth Shostak, and Donald Menzel) when pontificating about UFOs, are in reality spouting off personal opinions, not professional or professionally related (i.e. – astronomical related) factual knowledge.

Ancient Astronauts: Astronomers are not archaeologists, anthropologists, historians or usually conversant with mythologies, and thus should steer clear of anything to do with the subject of “ancient astronauts”.

Associated Facets:

Crop circles fall outside the province of professional astronomy, even though IMHO crop circles have probably nothing to do with ETI.

The animal (wildlife and livestock) mutilation phenomena fall outside the province of professional astronomy.

Ball lightning and other associated anomalous lights (like the Australian Min-Min Lights) fall outside the province of professional astronomy or astronomers who are not geophysicists.

Again, any commentaries by astronomers on these issues quasi-associated with ETI are, when all is said and done, when crunch comes crunch, are personal, not professional commentaries.

* And if not the astronomer then physicists. In fact the bulk of material dealing with life in the universe is penned by physical scientists, not biological or life scientists or naturalists. When I did a course in the subject of life in the universe, SUNY @ Stony Brook, it was of course taught by an astronomer, Tobias C. Owen, who has since co-authored along with Donald Goldsmith an entire textbook on the subject “The Search for Life in the Universe” (third edition - 2001).



A Lifeless Universe: Part Two

You know and I know that at this point in time, our Universe is inhabited. Even if nowhere else in the cosmos, Planet Earth is host to terrestrial life. However, the Universe didn’t start off with any life, especially human life. This puts the kibosh on a certain brand of quantum philosophy, the brand that encompasses the role of the observer and the role played by probability.

Continued from Part One…

In a universe without life, it’s probably pretty meaningless to talk about concepts like free will. Then there’s that whole sackful of concepts related to good-and-evil like morals, ethics, sin, badness, righteousness, etc. and as such there’s no need for the concepts of heaven or hell. As such, scratch salvation, redemption, forgiveness, or damnation.

There are no emotions, suffering, pain, sorrow, pleasure, consciousness, or psychology. There’s obviously no disease.

There’s another bagful of concepts like the afterlife, reincarnation or resurrection that can go by the boards. Speaking of the latter, there’s no such thing in a lifeless universe as miracles. There is no such concept required like survival of the fittest; there are no wars, no death, and certainly no taxes! There were no soft science concepts around like society, culture, education (no homework), politics and government (no politicians), no economics (no bills), no religion (no thou shalt nots), no philosophy (who needs angels and pins), history (all those names, dates and places) and no environmental issues that needed addressing. There was no beauty (and no ugly either). In short, that pre-life era – that was what is known as the really good old days!

There’s one other important contrast between a lifeless universe and the universe that, in this case specifically contains and singles out humans and human concepts, and that is probability.  

Probability or uncertainty (two sides; same coin) dominates our existence. What odds my next child will be a female? What odds the next time I fly the plane will crash? What odds I win the lottery this week? What’s the probability I will be promoted this year? What’s the probability that I am normal, being of average height, weight, age, etc.? Even in science as performed by humans, probability or uncertainty dominates. Every measurement has error bars. Every forecast has some degree of uncertainty. Even the Sun rising tomorrow is not absolutely guaranteed (though I wouldn’t lose any sleep over that unlikely event). Every theory can ultimately be found to be wrong or incomplete. And just where is that damn electron anyway?

The fundamental question is, is probability an intrinsic property of Mother Nature like mass and gravity, or is it a human invention; a human concept? IMHO, there are no error bars in Mother Nature’s reality. Mother Nature knows the temperature is this, not around this but within this range. Mother Nature notes it will rain tomorrow, not just a chance of showers. Mother Nature knows that the Sun will rise tomorrow even though it will go nova the day after that. Mother Nature knew that Einstein’s theory of gravity was more precise than Newton’s theory of gravity millennia before Newton or Einstein was conceived of in anyone philosophy. And Mother Nature knows exactly where that damn electron is because the electron is. 

Any observer, via instrumentation or via the five senses, usually has to interpret what that observation actually represents – it’s not always obvious. If it was, science would have concluded its work decades ago, or just be engaged in refining things from the tenth to the twelfth decimal place. Interpretation – the choice between two or more possibilities – well that’s weighing probabilities.

* We’ve all observed a cat rubbing its head along an object. What’s the probability the cat is putting its scent on the object or the probability does it have an itch to scratch?

* We might have observed a boat passing away from us and disappearing over the horizon. Is this because the Earth is probably round or did the boat probably sink?

* In quantum physics, observations suggest a wave-particle duality. But is it more probably a wave or is it more likely a particle? 

* Is that unusual light in the sky probably an alien spaceship or is it probably a weather balloon?

* Does viewing a sunrise suggest t you that the Sun probably goes around the Earth or that the Earth probably is rotating around its axis?

* You spot that tornado on the horizon – maybe it will miss you or maybe it won’t. What are the odds? It certainly can’t both hit you and miss you at the same time and place.

* Is Pluto probably a real planet or isn’t it (and does it even cosmically matter)?

* My friend has a cold. I have a cold. Did I probably catch his or did he probably catch mine or was there probably something contagious in the meal we shared several nights ago?

* That Sasquatch I saw. Was it probably too much to drink or was it probably real and if it was real was it probably a bear or was it probably an unknown primate?

* Did the apple fall to earth because it’s probably seeking its natural place or was it probably due to an external force called gravity?

* Is Schrodinger’s cat probably dead or probably alive? It can’t be both simultaneously despite what quantum physics suggest.

* Why is the night sky dark? Is it probably because the Sun’s not shining in the sky at night or probably because the Universe is expanding or probably because there’s only a finite number of stars and galaxies giving off light.

* Why did the chicken cross the road this morning? You may not know (though you can probably come up with a half-dozen possibilities) but the chicken probably does.

There’s little doubt in my mind that to all of these probably observations there is but one answer(s). In many cases we’ve sussed out the answer(s). We don’t have the answer(s) in all the cases. I say answer(s) because there can be more than one answer acting jointly, like there really was a Sasquatch and yes, you were also really, really drunk; yes the Earth is round, but yes, the boat sank as well. But its an either/or certainty of an explanation(s), not a bit of both ways by sometimes probably having your cake and sometimes probably eating it too, probability, as in sometimes the apple falls to earth because it is seeking its natural place and sometimes it falls to earth because of gravity; or that Pluto is a planet on odd days or in months containing an “R” and not a planet on even days or non-“R” months; or sometimes the night sky is dark because the Sun isn’t in the sky, but at other times the night sky is dark because the Universe is expanding and at yet even on other occasions its only dark because there’s only a finite number of stars and galaxies.

The bottom line is that the Universe isn’t governed by probability. Given identical sets of circumstances or conditions, the outcomes remain the same. Observers and observations are irrelevant. That’s made crystal clear during all those millennia the Universe was observer-free.   

A Lifeless Universe: Part One

You know and I know that at this point in time, our Universe is inhabited. Even if nowhere else in the cosmos, Planet Earth is host to terrestrial life, from the humble bacteria through to plants, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. In terms of sheer numbers of species and total biomass, microbes and insects rule the roost, though humans alone pat themselves on the back. However, the Universe didn’t start off with any life, especially human life. This puts the kibosh on a certain brand of quantum metaphysics, the brand that encompasses the role of the observer and the role played by probability.

I think everyone would agree that before they were thought of in anyone’s philosophy, the Universe existed. You’d agree that the Universe existed before humans existed, unless you’re one of those fundamentalists who interpret the Book of Genesis literally, and even then there were a few days for the Universe to enjoy a pre-human existence. If you’re not one of those extreme right wing all-things-literal Christians, then you’d go along with the Universe existing before life, any kind of life, arose on Terra Firma (or anywhere else in the cosmos for that matter). You’d also have to go along with the notion that the Universe existed before the Earth (and therefore the Sun and solar system) existed, since the parent (the Universe) has to exist before the offspring (Earth, Sun and solar system). In fact, to bring this string to its logical conclusion, the Universe existed even before our home parent galaxy, the Milky Way existed.

The origin of our Universe via that Big Bang event was roughly 13.7 billion years ago. Our own galaxy didn’t come into its own until three plus billion years post Big Bang. Planet Earth (plus Sun and solar system) came about some 4.5 billion years ago; the first stirrings of what we’d call life happened on Earth within a half a billion years of Earth’s origin event. If you want to equate life in the Universe with life on Earth (terrestrial biology is the proverbial IT), then the Universe has been lifeless for the first 9.7 billion years of its existence.

Our Universe is bio-friendly otherwise we wouldn’t be here to discuss the issue. That’s often termed the Weak Anthropic Principle. A bio-friendly Universe is a Goldilocks Universe, albeit a dangerous Goldilocks Universe with lots of places that are too hot or too cold or otherwise not quite right and not quite bio-friendly. But, any port in a storm.

But before life was thought of in anyone’s (not that there was anyone) philosophy, we’re certain that:

* Chemistry still happened.

* Stars still shined and photons still did their photon thing.

* Gravity still grabbed; Black Holes still formed.

* Radioactivity decay still proceeded.

* Neutrinos still whizzed their merry way along the cosmic byways and pathways.

* Electrons still quantum hopped from orbit to orbit giving off and absorbing energy.

* Quarks still carried on their threesome relationships inside protons and neutrons.

Okay, there clearly was a time when the cosmos was lifeless and the above were cosmic truisms. There clearly might come such a time again if Planet Earth is the proverbial IT when it comes to the life part of “life, the Universe and everything”. Humans aren’t immortal; Planet Earth isn’t immortal, and as I said earlier, the Universe can be a dangerous place. Perhaps humans don’t even need assistance from the Universe at large to bring about their extinction and the extinction of all life on Earth. If life on Earth goes kaput, then:

* Hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, blizzards, floods and droughts will still happen on Terra Firma.

* Volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, avalanches, Ice Ages, tsunamis, meteor impacts, erosion, mountain building, and continental drift will still happen on Terra Firma.

* The tides will still ebb and flow; the Moon still waxes and wanes.

Now the $64,000 question is why is a lifeless Universe of any interest whatsoever? The answer is “observers”, or in the case of a lifeless Universe, “no observers”.

Many, especially the religious, think the Universe had a purpose, and that was to be fruitful and produce life, intelligence and consciousness, a way of the Universe being able to contemplate its own navel. That’s often termed the Strong Anthropic Principle. Most scientists give that the thumbs down on the grounds that the Universe just is. The Universe doesn’t have a consciousness, or a deity controlling it, and therefore the cosmos can’t have a purpose to its existence, nor a ways and means that it can consciously direct itself toward such a goal.

However, many quantum physicists suggest that the Universe cannot have achieved a reality until such time as observers (life) appeared to give the Universe reality. That’s often termed the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. The idea is that all possible realities exist in a state of superposition and only one becomes reality when someone actually observes and forces the numerous possibilities down to one certainty. All possible realities are grouped together and termed the probability wave-function or wave of probability. When crunch-comes-crunch and someone peeks, Mother Nature is forced to make a decision, the wave-function collapses and one and only one certainty results.

Until life appeared then, the Universe was in a superposition of all possible realities, a wave-function that was a composite of all possibilities. That first observer hence collapsed the wave-function of near infinite possibilities down to one reality. Or is that just so much bovine fertilizer?

Now between the time of the creation, that Big Bang event some 13.7 billion years ago, and the time of that first observer arising, the cosmos expanded and evolved. Stars formed, solar systems formed, galaxies formed, and so on. Now all that suggests that there was one reality, one chain of events, and a causality that was universal – the Universe was not in a composite of all possible states of reality even while no life existed. It’s silly to think that that ever first proto-cell billions of years ago determined the single structure or reality of the Universe we see around us today. For observers to have come into being, the Universe had to have already been in a state of being. Therefore, the Copenhagen Interpretation of all things quantum is utter nonsense.

So, does the Universe exist even if nobody is looking? Yes! Did the Universe exist even when there was nobody to look? Yes! Are observers relevant? No!

Having settled the observer question, let’s move on to the next phase.

To be continued…

Jovian Life: The Moons Versus the Planets: Part Three

In our solar system, the planets are divided between the inner terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars and of course the Earth) and the outer gas giants, collectively called the Jovian planets (after Jupiter, but including Saturn, Uranus and Neptune), which along with their many moons form the Jovian system. Since it’s easier to look in our own planetary backyard neighbourhood first for alien life, there’s been much speculation about what pieces of solar system real estate, if any, might be suitable abodes for extraterrestrial life. While Mars has always been top-of-the-pops, a once heavily favoured Venus fell by the wayside a while back, only to be replaced with a few bits of real estate somewhat further out. It’s those “somewhat further out” bits of real estate that are now under-the-gun. While most speculation is on selected Jovian satellites, I put the accent on the parent bodies.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Uranus: CHON: Uranus is similar in atmospheric and chemical composition to Neptune (see below), but both are slightly different in their chemical composition than their larger gas giant sisters, Jupiter and Saturn. As such, astronomers sometimes place them in a separate category called the "ice giants" because these planets contain a lot of – wait for it – “ices” like water (the O in CHON), ammonia (the N in CHON), methane plus other hydrocarbons (your C and your H in CHON) that includes ethane, acetylene, methylacetylene, and diacetylene. In short, instead of say liquid water vapor, you have ice crystals. Uranus's atmosphere is however similar to the “gas giants” in having the majority of its stuff consists of hydrogen and helium, hence followed by methane (there’s some more of your C). Even more C is present in carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide which has been detected. While carbon consists of only about 3% of the composition of Uranus, that’s still vastly more carbon relative to the solar percentage, so Uranus has been enriched in carbon.

Uranus: Environment: Uranus (as well as Neptune), are often refereed to as the “ice giants” instead of the “gas giants” as noted above. One other distinction is that relative to Jupiter and Saturn, Uranus (and Neptune) are way smaller in volume. That apart, the “ice giants” are way more akin to the “gas giants” than to any of the Jovian moons or any of the terrestrial planets for that matter, both in terms of composition and in terms of relative volume. While pretty god-awful from a human’s perspective, some hardy microbes might love to call Uranus home.

Uranus: Mixing: Any lump of gas molecules, or molecules in a liquid, almost by definition, isn’t going to sit still, unlike say the molecules in a lump of rock. A puff of smoke emitted into Earth’s atmosphere gets dispersed; a drop of ink plonked into a bowl of water will equally get dispersed, or mixed in and throughout.  I’d expect nothing less in the non-solid soupy atmosphere of Uranus. In any event, wind speeds have been clocked at up to 900 km/hour – that’s pretty breezy!

Uranus: Energy: Uranus radiates just ever slightly more heat than it receives in the form of solar radiation. In case you think that makes Uranus frigid through-and-through, you’d be wrong. The interior core temperature still approaches over ten to twenty times the maximum temperature of your average home oven! So, while solar energy is just about zilch, energy percolating upwards nevertheless is present for utilization by the locals – if any. However, of all the four Jovian planets, Uranus is probably the least likely planet to have achieved the distinction of harbouring local (Uranian) life forms.

Neptune: CHON: Neptune’s atmosphere is mainly, as you’d expect one that consists mainly of hydrogen and helium, but with substantial amounts of water, ammonia and methane. CHON is present, as are various sulphide compounds.

Neptune: Environment: While the top of the atmosphere is very cold, as you’d expect being so far out from the Sun, the interior core is hot indeed – many thousands of degrees hot. Obviously, somewhere in-between, you’ll get a happy Goldilocks medium as far as biology is concerned.

Neptune: Mixing: Neptune has lots of varied weather and storm systems, all contributing to atmospheric mixing. The temperature differential between interior temperatures and the atmospheric ‘surface’ temperatures, like on Earth, will drive wind systems leading to mixing of the chemicals that make up the CHON-rich atmosphere

Neptune: Energy: Despite being farther away from the Sun than Uranus, Neptune radiates quite a bit more heat than it actually receives from Sol. In fact, slightly over two and a half times more heat. From the point of view of this analysis, the exact reason(s) aren’t overly relevant, just the fact that it does so. Of course being so very, very far away from the Sun there’s no chance in hell of photosynthesis; chemosynthesis is possible, even probable.

In conclusion, I suggest that the soupy atmospheres of the giant planets have all the fundamentals required not only for the origin of life, but long-term habitability for any biological organisms that have been and are being provided with appropriate CHON, a Goldilocks environment (at least in places), an energy supply, and mixing. The CHON box is ticked on all four Jovian planets. With respect to CHON, there are probably all sorts of way more complex organic molecules present in the four Jovian atmospheres but in such relatively small quantities that are dispersed widely and deeply so as to have escaped detection to date from our relatively faraway fly-by and orbiting probes. The habitable environment box on all four Jovian planets is also ticked; ditto the mixing box; and ditto the available energy supply box. You also have had over four and a half billion years for interesting biological happenings to have occurred. In addition, there’s a lot of volume in each of the Jovian planets for interesting stuff to happen in. The odds of things all coming and getting their act together in a small pond is small relative to a large ocean.

That all four Jovian planets have evolved life is problematical; that at least one has become a biological abode is much more certain, IMHO. Throw in one or more of their satellites like Europa and Enceladus that offer a liquid water ocean environment – well that’s a bonus. On top of all that, the Jovian planets have the highest gravities apart from the Sun. Now that means they suck in more than their fair share of other solar system debris – like comets and asteroids. Now comets and asteroids, the leftovers of that initial stuff out of which our solar system was made, also tend to be rich in CHON. No doubt they, via impacts with the Jovian planets, have contributed their CHON bit to the already potential suitability of those abodes as habitable abodes.

So what sort of Jovian life might we expect? On Planet Earth there is a sharp boundary between the atmosphere and the hydrosphere. On the four Jovian planets one just slowly merges into the other as one goes deeper and deeper. Terrestrial but airborne microbes, bacteria, germs, and other single-celled beasties, and their marine equivalents, like plankton and other unicellular critters, occupy both environments and are happy little campers. There’s no reason for there not to be Jovian equivalents that ‘swim’ and multiply in whatever region of the various four varieties of Jovian atmospheric ‘soups’ that have a comfortable, Goldilocks temperature regime. Of course that Goldilocks region could extend over hundreds of vertical kilometres in range. Some organisms might be better adapted to the thinner cooler upper regions; others to the murkier but warmer depths. Regardless, it gets dark fast so eyesight in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum might be problematical. Of course phosphoresce, not all that uncommon in marine life here on Earth, can’t be ruled out of course.    

If simple life forms originated and evolved on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and/or Neptune, then more complex and far larger ‘marine’ and ‘aerial’ life forms might be present too. Their trick, in order to stay in the Goldilocks zone, will be to have evolved the capability to maintain neutral buoyancy, but also to be able to rise if turbulence pushed them downwards towards greater heat; be able to sink if currents push them too high where chill factors come into prominence. So ‘gas bag’ floaters or ‘fish’ with ‘airbags’ might be possible Jovian alien life-forms. There’s no reason such critters couldn’t have developed a relatively sophisticated degree of intelligence. It’s possible to have intelligence without the means of developing technology as our whales and dolphins and even the humble octopus demonstrate.

The fly in the ointment is that our on-site investigation is going to prove to be an extremely daunting technological task, one that most certainly won’t happen in the next several decades – probably much longer. In the short term, the best bet is to use remote spectroscopic analysis of the atmospheric ‘surfaces’ or actual surfaces (in the case of the satellites) to identify biological signatures – compounds that just cannot be accounted for by non-biological processes. An example would be the pinkish-red areas on Europa noted above. 

Jovian Life: The Moons Versus the Planets: Part Two

In our solar system, the planets are divided between the inner terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars and of course the Earth) and the outer gas giants, collectively called the Jovian planets (after Jupiter, but including Saturn, Uranus and Neptune), which along with their many moons form the Jovian system. Since it’s easier to look in our own planetary backyard neighbourhood first for alien life, there’s been much speculation about what pieces of solar system real estate, if any, might be suitable abodes for extraterrestrial life. While Mars has always been top-of-the-pops, a once heavily favoured Venus fell by the wayside a while back, only to be replaced with a few bits of real estate somewhat further out. It’s those “somewhat further out” bits of real estate that are now under-the-gun. While most speculation is on selected Jovian satellites, I put the accent on the parent bodies.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Now on to the major players! It’s time to introduce the main players, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, and those four essentials: CHON, environment, mixing and energy. If there is life-as-we-know-it on these four planets, then we need CHON, we need a proper environment, we need mixing to bring essentials together at one time and place, and we need a source(s) of energy.

One clarification is in order first. Although the Jovian planets are usually called “gas giants”, that is a slight misnaming. While it’s true that relative to Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, the Jovian planets are indeed great big balls of gas, they still must have at their centre a solid rocky core, due to, if for no other reason, that over 4.5 billion years of their existence, asteroids, maybe even small planets, meteors, dust, and comets have all slammed into them. The rocky stuff, ultimately, must sink to the bottom forming a solid heavy element core. With that clarification made, let’s see what there is to be speculated upon. 

Jupiter: CHON: Jupiter, a gas giant, is composed mainly of molecular hydrogen (the H in CHON) and helium (much like the Sun’s composition and in roughly the same ratios). There are certainly ammonia (probably as ice crystals) and ammonia compounds (like ammonium hydrosulphide) in the atmosphere, adding nitrogen (the N in CHON) to the mix. Methane (which contains the C in CHON), as does the carbon contained in carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are also present in the upper atmosphere. Water vapour (the O in CHON) is certainly present, even though in small proportions relative to hydrogen and helium. The colourful bands of latitude could easily be suggestive of complex, even organic chemistry involving not only CHON but sulphur and phosphorus and other trace elements. The upper atmosphere of Jupiter contains small amounts of simple hydrocarbons such as ethane and acetylene, which forms from methane under the influence of the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation and the highly charged particles incoming from the Jupiter’s magnetosphere.   

Jupiter: Environment: There’s no disputing that the cloud tops are bitterly cold; the deep interior is way too hot. But, that alone suggests that there will be a Goldilocks area in-between, probably extending vertically for hundreds of kilometres, and extending as well horizontally around the globe. That volume, given Jupiter’s size, comprises a lot of Goldilocks territory. 

Jupiter: Mixing: Since Jupiter has a very hot interior core and the top of the atmosphere is extremely cold, and since heat rises and cold descends, that alone suggests that mixing in Jupiter’s primarily gaseous/quasi-fluid body must take place. Quite apart from that, all one needs to do is view time-lapse photography of Jupiter’s upper atmosphere to see all the turbulent motion that takes place. A tranquil pond Jupiter isn’t.

Jupiter: Energy – Solar energy is highly unlikely to drive any Jovian biology because the atmosphere is very thick, and just like with our terrestrial oceans, things get very dark very quickly as one descends. However, chemical energy is a possibility, like that which drives terrestrial hydrothermal vent communities. Then there’s infrared (instead of visible) radiation. Jupiter radiates much more heat that it receives from the Sun, the heat being slowly radiated outward from Jupiter’s original quota of primordial heat energy largely stored in the core of the planet.  Jupiter is a fantastic place to visit if you’re fond of thunderstorms. Lightning really lights up the Jupiter’s skies. Lightning is a prime source of energy for driving chemical reactions. Translated, all up, Jupiter is awash with potentially useful energy sources to drive any local biology.

Saturn: CHON: The atmosphere of Saturn (which is what the mainly planet is – a ball of gas) consists of one hell of a lot of molecular hydrogen and some helium, a really skewed ratio relative to those elements found in the Sun, but that’s another story. However, it does explain why Saturn, if you could find a freshwater ‘pond’ large enough, would float in it! That aside, the atmosphere contains trace amounts of ammonia (there’s your nitrogen), acetylene, ethane and methane (and your carbon), plus phosphine - all have been detected. The upper atmosphere has clouds composed of ammonia crystals, while the lower atmospheric clouds appear to be composed of ammonium hydrosulfide and/or water (thus some oxygen).

Saturn: Environment: The same discussion that applies to Jupiter applies to Saturn, although because Saturn is a smaller planet (albeit massive relative to Earth) the habitable volume of Saturn’s quasi-liquid atmosphere will be somewhat less.

Saturn: Mixing: Saturn also has that hot interior, cold exterior dichotomy that exists in this gaseous/fluid planetary ball. It’s akin to the convection that occurs when you heat water on your stove. Hot water rises; cooler water descends. And while not as dramatic as time-lapse films of Jupiter’s atmosphere, it’s also obvious that Saturn’s visual ‘surface’ is anything but tranquil. In fact the winds on Saturn are among the highest of any planetary body in the solar system. However, being farther from the Sun, Saturn’s chemistry is not going to be quite as dramatic as closer-in Jupiter, and thus Saturn’s atmospheric ‘surface’ is a lot blander appearing.

Saturn: Energy – As is the case for Jupiter, and for much the same reason, solar energy (photosynthesis) is out on Saturn; chemical energy and infrared radiation (heat energy) will be the way to go. Saturn also radiates more heat that it receives from the Sun – two and a half times more in fact; Saturn is also a fantastic place to visit if you’re fond of thunderstorms. Lightning also lights up the skies of Saturn.

To be continued...

Jovian Life: The Moons Versus the Planets: Part One

In our solar system, the planets are divided between the inner terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars and of course the Earth) and the outer gas giants, collectively called the Jovian planets (after Jupiter, but including Saturn, Uranus and Neptune), which along with their many moons form the Jovian system. Since it’s easier to look in our own planetary backyard neighbourhood first for alien life, there’s been much speculation about what pieces of solar system real estate, if any, might be suitable abodes for extraterrestrial life. While Mars has always been top-of-the-pops, a once heavily favoured Venus fell by the wayside a while back, only to be replaced with a few bits of real estate somewhat further out. It’s those “somewhat further out” bits of real estate that are now under-the-gun. While most speculation is on selected Jovian satellites, I put the accent on the parent bodies.

If you are a professional scientist interested in astrobiology (exobiology), searching for life in the Universe, your mantra is “follow the water”. If you want to find life, find liquid water first. But liquid water isn’t the total be-all-and-end-all when it comes to finding LGM – Little Green Microbes. Water, based on Planet Earth’s own terrestrial life as the only statistical sample we have, is certainly critical, but so to are lots of other things as we shall soon see.

Astronomy textbooks written until around or about the 1970’s gave little shrift to the Jovian system as an interesting place to look for extraterrestrial life. The Jovian planets and moons were obviously outside the solar system’s habitable or Goldilocks zone, of which Planet Earth was square in the middle of. My how times change, because, following our robotic exploration of the outer solar system, that point of view has had to partly fly out the window, at least with respect to three pieces of Jovian real estate – the moons Europa, plus Titan and Enceladus (orbiting Jupiter and Saturn respectively). Actually Titan is only really interesting from a pre-biotic perspective. While rich in organic molecules/compounds, it’s considered way too cold for really active chemistry and biochemistry to take place. Titan froze before life could actually grab hold. It lacks a viable energy supply, one of the key items required for life-as-we-know it.  

Alas, the parent bodies, including those gas giants further out (Uranus and Neptune) continue to be overlooked as habitable abodes for ET. The logic of this escapes me as we shall soon see, for the idea that the Jovian planets could in theory harbour life forms as complex as jellyfish or other quasi-aquatic life forms even up to and including the equivalents of Jovian dolphins and whales can’t be ruled out. While Jovian extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) might be possible, Jovian ETI with technology can pretty much be ruled out, and for much the same reason as to why dolphins and whales here on Earth aren’t a technological species - they can’t build things in the environment to which they have adapted to.

So what’s needed to build us an ET? Well, minimum requirements are 1) appropriate life-as-we-know-it chemicals (CHON – Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen – and of course water or water vapour); 2) a proper comfortable environment for life-as-we-know-it (an appropriate temperature range for liquid water or water vapour); 3) mixing that brings the various inorganic and organic chemicals required into proximity; and 4) an energy source(s) to drive things along, like solar energy does for many terrestrial organisms on Earth.

Mars, though not part of the Jovian system, has been associated with extraterrestrial life for over the past century and then some. That association remains to this very day. Mars is still the poster-boy and remains the prime target in the hunt for ET – even though that association has suffered a downgrade from Martians with ray-guns (as in “The War of the Worlds”) to Martians as microbes – though a microbial ET is just as significant a discovery as a Martian pointing a ray-gun at you. The principle is the same; otherwise it’s just a matter of relative biological complexity. 

Europa (Moon of Jupiter): Science fiction writers can sometimes really hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head. Take Arthur C. Clarke’s “2010: Odyssey Two” (1982) and “2061: Odyssey Three (1988). Clarke had aliens taking an interest in the primitive life forms under Europa's ice. They transform Jupiter into a star to kick-start their evolution. Fifty years later, Europa has become a tropical ocean world from which humans are banned. Well, the aliens, transforming Jupiter and the tropical ocean are flights of fancy, but the primitive life under the ice of Europa might be something else yet again.

Actually Clarke was tipped off by the two Voyager space probe flybys in 1979. The data and images that were captured strongly suggested to scientists that Europa had to have a salty ocean, perhaps a hundred kilometers deep, but an ocean underneath a vast ice sheet, perhaps up to ten kilometers thick. The energy source was tidal friction, the endless to-and-fro tugging via gravity on the moon by Jupiter and Europa’s companion sister moons. The flexing heated up Europa’s interior, and as heat escaped upwards, melted the covering of ice. The freezing temperature of outer space (Europa has no atmosphere to speak of) freezes the surface which then insulates the heated ocean below from further freezing.

So, you have water, an energy source, mixing, and given the water is in a liquid form, you apparently have a suitable habitat for life-as-we-know-it, well sort of. There’s not going to be any photosynthesis, not that far out and sunlight is not going to be very effective in any event after penetrating kilometers of ice. Translated, the oceans of Europa are going to be pitch-black. The analogy with terrestrial biology is life in our marine hydrothermal vent communities – life driven by Earth’s interior heat and the venting of various chemicals from beneath the ocean floor, and chemosynthesis instead of photosynthesis. Europa’s interior composition mirrors the terrestrial rocky planets – iron and silicates and stuff like that. What is less certain is whether there are abundant sources of carbon and nitrogen.

The one really interesting feature we can see on Europa’s surface is numerous streaks of pinkish-red lines and markings. The source is probably upwelling of the waters below as the surface ice rotates and cracks, sort of like ice floes in our polar oceans. There are lots and lots of organics with pinkish-red colors, though organic chemistry doesn’t of necessity mean biochemistry. Still, perhaps examples of Europa’s life (probably microbial) lie as frozen fossils on the surface. That pinkish-red stuff would be prime material for sampling when and if a probe lands on Europa. In conclusion however, the C and the N in the CHON is the big question mark IMHO.

Enceladus (Moon of Saturn): Europa has competition in our local solar system’s ‘where are the aliens?’ extraterrestrial life debate. We move now from the fifth to the sixth ‘rock’ from the Sun. In 2005 the Cassini spacecraft performed several close flybys of the moon of Saturn, Enceladus, revealing a water-rich plume venting from the moon's South Polar Region. This discovery, along with the presence of escaping internal heat and very few (if any) impact craters in the South Polar Region, suggests that Enceladus is geologically active today. The water vapor spewing from Enceladus's surface would indicate the presence of liquid water immediately under the surface of the moon, which, using NASA’s mantra of “follow the water” might make it possible for Enceladus to support life. The presence of liquid water under the crust means there has to be an internal heat source. That heat source is actually sources, a combination of radioactive decay and tidal heating as tidal heating alone is not enough to explain the amount of heat required.

So the data from instruments on the Cassini spacecraft produced evidence of what’s now termed cryovolcanism - cold volcanism - where water and other volatiles comprise the ‘molten’ stuff that gets erupted from these cold ‘volcanoes’ instead of molten iron and silicate rock – like terrestrial lava that is erupted from our own hot volcanoes.

These cold volcanic eruptions – basically ejections of vapor clouds into space - have been, as noted above, discovered on Enceladus. The detailed composition of these gas clouds are in the main mostly water vapor, plus some other minor volatile components like molecular nitrogen, ammonia, methane, and carbon dioxide. Additional observations have revealed further chemicals in the plume, including both simple and complex hydrocarbons such as propane, ethane, and acetylene. These chemicals and their relative abundances are similar to those seen in many comets. Perhaps Enceladus was once a super-giant comet that got captured by Saturn’s gravity!

All up, these findings raise the possibility for the existence of potential life forms existing beneath the surface of Enceladus. The composition of the gas cloud plume strongly suggests that its source is a subsurface salty ocean or subsurface caverns filled with salty water. Enceladus is therefore a prime candidate for those wishing to investigate non-terrestrial sites harboring potential extraterrestrial life. We have CHON, energy sources, an appropriate temperature regime underneath the surface, and probable mixing, since liquid water facilitates mixing.

Titan (Moon of Saturn): I’ve already noted that while Titan is fascinating from an astrobiology point of view, that point of view is from those interested in pre-biotic organic chemistry that leads to biochemistry, not those hopeful of actually seeing things wiggle. Translated, while it has the CHON, and probably mixing, that’s just about it. The environment is way too cold which suggests that energy available to drive biology is in pretty short supply.

To be continued...

SETI: 49 Years On: Part Two

SETI has been a lengthy experiment in trying to detect our extraterrestrial equals or better somewhere out there by detecting their electromagnetic radio (sometimes optical or infrared) transmissions.  Five decades on, the quarry remains elusive. My advice to SETI scientists is not to put all your SETI eggs in the electromagnetic (EM) basket.

SETI stands for the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Kindly note that the word ‘radio’ appears nowhere in that phrase, yet searching for artificial radio transmissions from extraterrestrial civilizations seems to be near synonymous with SETI, as reinforced via the popular movie “Contact” (based on Carl Sagan’s novel). Now there is nothing wrong with radio SETI. The search for radio waves has been well thought out and would appear to offer up the maximum chance for success.  But, there are more ways to skin the SETI cat (as it were), and after 49 years of searching primarily via radio, I suggest that some more ways be adopted and explored. Any part of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is suitable and up for investigation, such as optical SETI (looking for laser beams) or infrared SETI (searching for Dyson Spheres) or just looking for alien artefacts (as in the novel/movie “2001: A Space Odyssey”). From that, we note that one can approach the study of UFOs and/or ancient astronauts as representing a form of SETI. Whatever investigation tells you that extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) exists, or once existed, or doesn’t exist at all (and a negative result is as important as a positive one) is SETI.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

What SETI is the best SETI? It used to be radio telescopes tuned to the 21 cm frequency of neutral hydrogen (H). Then it became the ‘water hole’, that band of frequencies between neutral hydrogen and the hydroxyl (OH) radical – H + OH = the water molecule, hence the ‘water hole’ (a terrestrial place where many different species gather together for a common purpose). Since then, lots of astrobiology/SETI scientists have proposed lots of other possible radio frequencies, such that today, SETI searches tend to be broad spectrum ones rather than focusing on just one or two frequencies.  

So, what SETI is the best SETI? Well, SETI has to be affordable and practicable. Expensive and exotic technologies probably won’t attract many research grants. To make that economic long story somewhat shorter, it got me to thinking that there’s a cheaper SETI option than current radio SETI. I refer to the mega-reams of ordinary astronomical data bits that must reside in various repositories. I don’t know how many bits of information in total exist, but I’d wager its lots and lots – enough to fill up an Australian Federal Parliament House perhaps!

Now over many decades of astronomical observations and data gathering, be it from the surface (optical and radio telescopes), balloons, satellites (in particular declassified data from military satellites), and space probes, ordinary astronomers have looked at same, written their peer-reviewed papers, and moved on to new topics of interest and observations. The interesting bit is that here we have these reams of data (and publications) by astronomers who had no interest at all in extraterrestrials (ET’s), ETI, or SETI, yet who might have, by accident, stumbled across an ETI signal without realizing it – because that wasn’t their agenda.

So, if someone with that agenda, were to comb through that already existing data (note – no need to request telescope time and associated hassles), then maybe, just maybe, there’s an ETI signal in all the pre-existing data-noise.  

For example, as noted above, I doubt if ETI would try to draw attention to themselves via targeting solar systems with optical or radio beacons. An easier way would be to inject something unnatural into their parent star. If astronomers were to look at that star’s spectra, and notice something very anomalous, an element that just shouldn’t be there, that would be a potential, and verifiable, bona-fide potential SETI hit.

I’m also pretty skeptical about Dyson Spheres, but have all infra-red objects been closely examined for evidence of same? (I’m not sure how one could distinguish an artificial infra-red source from a natural one, but I’m sure there’s a way, or Dyson wouldn’t have proposed the idea.)

There could be any number of ETI large-scale astro-engineering projects, which could possibly be evidenced by examining existing astronomical data – if one had a view to looking for same from the start.

Another possibility would be detailed examination of the multi-thousands of high resolution lunar and Martian photographs for possible anomalies suggestive of an ETI presence/visitation in the far distant past. I doubt if scientists have had yet the time to closely examine all the photographs that must be on file. The ‘Face on Mars’ proved to be a ‘bust’ (pun intended), but maybe there’s something else awaiting examination and discovery and verification.

Speaking of the moon, there’s lots of observations of, and data relevant to Transient Lunar Phenomena (TLP), which might be suggestive of ETI since one might be hard-pressed to come up with geological solutions.

Anyway, the real point is that there are lots of possibilities of examining existing astronomical data for evidence of ETI.

As suggested immediately above, there needs to be a multi-approach to the issue. One doesn’t want to have all one’s SETI eggs in the radio SETI basket. Here are a few other approach suggestions.

There’s one approach in particular I find compelling. ETI will (at least initially) explore their cosmic environment via interstellar unmanned probes, not unlike our Pioneer 10 and 11, or Voyager 1 & 2 probes, albeit ours were local explorers not designed to explore other solar systems. The advantages of the (initial) unmanned approach is that such probes will be lightweight (no shielding or other life support systems required) and one-way, probably nuclear powered during flight, perhaps solar powered at voyage’s end. The main components would be bits for broadcasting, detection instrumentation, and propulsion. Such probes, designed to survey only ‘seek out new life [in general] and new civilizations [in particular]’ (among other scientific objectives) would be passive. They would scan alien solar systems for biological signatures (like planetary atmospheres in chemical disequilibrium) and zero in on those listening for indications of electromagnetic radiation with intelligent signatures.  The probes wouldn’t actively broadcast to such worlds, rather communicate back any findings to their home world’s civilization – again, alert that populace of a potential neighbor which could be a potential (short or long term) threat.

So, assuming alien probes have probed our solar system, yet aren’t going to say “hi” – maybe they are already dead; no technology lasts forever – a SETI approach would be to look for them, a hard task I admit since probes will be small, and our solar system is vast by comparison.

In summary, here are a few fairly low cost SETI strategies. 1) Radio surveys of entire galaxies (billions of stars at a go) looking for an ultra advanced high technology civilization, the sort that would stand out in an entire galaxy. 2) Surveying nearby sun-like stars for electromagnetic leakage (like radar, radio, TV, etc.). It’s unlikely IMHO that we would be deliberately targeted by an optical or radio beacon, so we need to look for EM leakage. Because that would be relatively weak, the stars will have to be close, and should be similar to our sun. 3) Intense examination of highly detailed photographs of the moon and Mars for any signs of artificiality.  4) Examine with a fine tooth comb any existing astronomical data for anomalies suggestive of intelligence. For example, there could be anomalous spectral lines in stars, giving away the presence of atoms that shouldn’t be there but which were dumped into said star by ETI as a ways and means of attracting attention. 5) There should be a scholarly examination of terrestrial mythology, especially religious mythology, for hints of ETI. For example, do all gods in all the worlds religious mythologies live in the sky (like Heaven, or Valhalla) and possess magical (technological) powers? 6) For once, there should be a serious examination of the UFO data to determine once and for all if there is a case for some UFO events exhibiting ETI technology.    

I’ll wager one prediction based on past scientific discoveries. The first is hard, but when achieved, it leads to a flood of other similar finds. For example, in astronomy, there are extra-solar planets which were a long time in the detecting; today they are being discovered by the bucket load; likewise with Kuiper Belt objects, or near-Earth-crossing asteroids, or in biology, the discovery of extremeophiles or hydrothermal vent communities. Once you start looking and find one, Pandora’s Box just pours out her contents. I predict the same will be true in SETI. The first find will be long and hard – the next 100 discoveries will be short and easy.

I wish to make it clear that I totally support radio SETI to the hilt. It is bona fide science. Nothing ventured, nothing gained is applicable here. It’s just that radio SETI isn’t the only game in town, and I equally support and encourage any and all other search strategies. The sole exception is that if one wants to look for signs of ETI in other galaxies than our own, then radio SETI is just about the only game in town.

Conclusion: Don’t put all your SETI eggs in the electromagnetic (EM) basket.

SETI: 49 Years On: Part One

SETI has been a lengthy experiment in trying to detect our extraterrestrial equals or better somewhere out there by detecting their electromagnetic radio (sometimes optical or infrared) transmissions.  Five decades on, the quarry remains elusive. My advice to SETI scientists is not to put all your SETI eggs in the electromagnetic (EM) basket.

SETI stands for the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Kindly note that the word ‘radio’ appears nowhere in that phrase, yet searching for artificial radio transmissions from extraterrestrial civilizations seems to be near synonymous with SETI, as reinforced via the popular movie “Contact” (based on Carl Sagan’s novel). Now there is nothing wrong with radio SETI. The search for radio waves has been well thought out and would appear to offer up the maximum chance for success.  But, there are more ways to skin the SETI cat (as it were), and after 49 years of searching primarily via radio, I suggest that some more ways be adopted and explored. Any part of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is suitable and up for investigation, such as optical SETI (looking for laser beams) or infrared SETI (searching for Dyson Spheres) or just looking for alien artefacts (as in the novel/movie “2001: A Space Odyssey”). From that, we note that one can approach the study of UFOs and/or ancient astronauts as representing a form of SETI. Whatever investigation tells you that extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) exists, or once existed, or doesn’t exist at all (and a negative result is as important as a positive one) is SETI.

Why do SETI at all? That is an obvious first question. Fortunately, there are lots of good answers to that question. There’s pure scientific curiosity for starters - exploring just for the sake of exploring. Then there’s the more philosophical approach in that SETI helps to better determine our place in the cosmos. A negative answer is just as important as a positive answer in determining whether humanity is unique, top of the heap, one of the great unwashed cosmic crowd, or the new boy on the block. SETI has a practical side too in determining the existence of potential neighbours which could be sources of benefit and/or threats to us. Obviously, a select few scientists, SETI enthusiasts, have long felt that SETI was, and is, worth doing. Radio SETI is (as of this writing), a quite mature science now 49 years old.

Now if seven is a lucky number, then seven times seven should be even luckier, yet, some 49 years after the first radio SETI experiment (Project Ozma) was conducted by Dr. Frank D. Drake in 1960, there’s be no luck in detecting any sign of any other technological extraterrestrial civilization (49 years as I write this – it’s even longer now). What does this suggest to us as a life form with an evolved technological civilization? Where are our ‘kin’ out there among the stars?

Firstly, it suggests that radio SETI isn’t going to be quite as easy as first envisioned. The number-crunching back in those early days suggested that ETI with a suitable detectable technology (radio emissions or rather transmissions) would be pretty common. Even though only a relative few of those haystack stalks have been sifted for that needle, it’s becoming clearer that form of SETI isn’t going to be easy; N (the number of technologically radio communicating ETI in the cosmos) isn’t going to be an extremely large number. So, some constraints on the SETI concept and logic have come home to roost.

In terms of the search to date, it’s clear (to me anyway) that there are no Type III civilizations (able to harness the energy output of an entire galaxy) in any galaxy even remotely ‘close’ (in cosmic terms) to us. If there were any Type II civilizations (ability to command the energy output of an entire star) nearly in our own galaxy it should have proved pretty obvious by now. There have been of course many false alarms, but also a few cases that looked like a positive signal was received. Alas, all have been one-offs and have never been picked up again. Without verification, those ‘wow’ signals remain enigmas, but not proof positive of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI).

Firstly, my explanation as to why we haven’t detected ETI via radio-SETI 49 years on. I consider it unlikely in the extreme that any ETI would deliberately target our parent star and solar system. We’re just too average. There’s no compelling reason to target Sol as opposed to hundreds of thousands of other stars. Even if they did, what are the odds that their targeting us would just happen to coincide with our evolving the requited technology to detect same? What if we were targeted, but thousands, maybe millions of years ago? ETI gave up the ghost and targeted elsewhere!

The alternative is that we could detect ETI electromagnetic (EM) leakage. Alas, if we’re typical, EM leakage (radar, radio, television, etc.) will probably be something fairly short-lived in the history of a technological civilization. Our serious EM leakage is less than 100 years on, yet already the writing is on the wall that our own leakage is rapidly diminishing. Consider that one can get cable TV, radio over the Internet, etc. Earth is rapidly becoming an electromagnetic quiet location. Within another century we’ll probably be leakage free, or as near to it as makes no odds. So, what’s the probably one civilization will detect another civilization’s leakage, if said leakage only exists for a small fraction of that civilization’s existence? Also, relative to deliberate targeting, leaking isn’t very intense and thus ever less detectable at ever increasing interstellar distances. Increasing distances increase the odds that there will be a receptive ETI within the increasing spatial volume, yet by the time the odds are good for finding such an ETI, the intensity of leakage has faded too much to be detected. But still the search goes on.

It is said that the optimist is frequently, in fact usually disappointed while the pessimist frequently or usually isn’t. So is SETI a suitable research venue or course of inquiry for the optimist or the pessimist? I suggest here that to do SETI you need to be the eternal optimist, while realistically, SETI is for pessimists! Traditional SETI searches for photons, traditionally radio, increasingly optical and intra-red (IR), emitted by an ET technology, to date, going on five decades, has resulted in, well, no dice. Maybe there is no ETI, or maybe there’s ETI but little in the way of their manufactured photons.

There are two ways we can uncover, discover, or detect photons from an ETI. Firstly, there’s detection via the leakage of their microwaves emanating from their radio, TV, radar, etc. technologies. Such leakage escapes into space and ultimately finds there way to Earth, landing unto photon detectors at the business end of our telescopes. There are two difficulties with that scenario. Leakage, the tiny leftover residue of what was meant for local consumption, is going to be weak for starters, growing rapidly weaker as it dilutes quick-smart as it spreads throughout the vastness of three dimensional space. That makes it relatively hard t detect and recognize it for what it is. The other reason is that the timeframe of a civilization’s leakage could be very short lived, relative to the duration of that civilization, if we are anything to be judged by. Increasingly information is being transmitted by cable (no leakage), not broadcast. So, if you want to detect leakage photons from a civilization that exists for, say one million years, wherein that leakage lasts for only several hundred years, well, the odds are very much against you existing at the very time span when the leakage is happening.

While radio leakage is ‘bright’ relative to the environmental stellar surroundings of an ETI, optical and IR leakage will be dwarfed and drowned out by the ETI’s parent star. The traditional analogy is looking for and detecting the light of a firefly whose is within an inch of a brilliant searchlight. So, little hope in that respect.

The other way of detecting ETI photons is if they deliberately scream their photon lungs out via a targeted radio/optical/IR beacon that says, in one hell of a loud ‘voice’, “Here we are, now where are you?” Is that likely for the vast majority of ETI? Probably not, although there will always be a exceptions to how the majority rules; perhaps so small that it’s of relatively little SETI consequence.

There’s reasons why we (taking ourselves as an average ETI) are afraid of the dark and mark on unexplored maps ‘here they be dragons’. It’s fear of the unknown. Any ETI civilization, with emerging photon technology, hasn’t a clue what’s out there and what the potential dangers might be from other ETI’s. Discretion is the better part of valor; it’s better to be an alive coward than a dead hero. Maybe you can’t hide, but that doesn’t mean you need to draw unnecessary attention to and self-advertise yourself. I mean if you’re walking down a dark alleyway and see a gang of hoods in the distance you don’t exactly draw attention to your situation. Maybe they won’t notice you if you act in an inconspicuous manner.  When faced with the unknown and potentially unknown adversaries, you err on the side of caution, self-interest, and survival. “Be afraid, be very afraid” is a good strategy, and live to be scared another day.

You can’t assume that the Universe is full of cuddly and friendly ET teddy bears – here they be Klingons in the uncharted maps of deep space is a better, safer assumption. OK, so we ourselves transmitted a beacon, a signal, to M13 many years ago. This aroused a storm of protest at the time. It was an elite, incredibly tiny minority of scientists who took it upon themselves and made a decision on behalf on the entire human race, to signal our existence to the Universe – well M13 anyway.  Nobody asked for your okay, did they? Of course the counter argument was that we were already leaking, so no harm done, but then leakage is to a beacon what a candle is to a powerful electrical searchlight! [By the way, I never lost a wink of sleep over the M13 message at any time. Truth be told, it was really more a PR stunt than a serious attempt at shouting to the Universe our existence.]

The ultimate SETI upshot is, what if nearly everyone, every ETI civilization, is running scared and is in passive SETI receiving mode relative to taking the initiative, grasping the SETI bull by the horns, and doing a ‘hello, here I am’ thing? So there’s lots of ETI out there, but SETI won’t discover, or is very unlikely, to discover them.

The search goes on, and the onus, the SETI strategy, is on the searcher. One can’t assume anything about ETI advertising their existence and giving us a helping hand in detecting them. 

To be continued...