SETI: Science or Pseudoscience?

[apoger]

Is SETI science? Sure, they use the scientific method.

Is SETI an efficient use of resources? That's debatable. However they certainly aren't likely to ever contact extraterrestrial life via radio.

If Seti was paid for with public money it would make me upset. However as it's a privately funded I have no issue with it. Indeed I heartily support any organization that spends it's own money on exploration and discovery. Take for example the James Randi Educational Foundation and their quest for evidence of the paranomal.

The value that I see in SETI is that it is a morale booster. Let's face it, most humans would rather eat a double helping of glass shards rather than bore themselves with "science". SETI engages the imagination and passions of the common person. It acts as a cheerleader for science. Even though they may never find what they are seeking, I feel SETI still has a positive impact on humanity.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I've been notified I should have added a 'bad science' option for the poll. I agree.

If Seti was paid for with public money it would make me upset. However as it's a privately funded I have no issue with it. Indeed I heartily support any organization that spends it's own money on exploration and discovery. Take for example the James Randi Educational Foundation and their quest for evidence of the paranomal.

Would you support any foundation studying paranormal topics then, or only certain ones?

The value that I see in SETI is that it is a morale booster. Let's face it, most humans would rather eat a double helping of glass shards rather than bore themselves with "science". SETI engages the imagination and passions of the common person. It acts as a cheerleader for science. Even though they may never find what they are seeking, I feel SETI still has a positive impact on humanity.

Science isn't a popularity contest though. Morale booster it might be, but if it doesn't come up with any results, shouldn't it be time to get it out of the science category?

 

[CFLarsen]

Two major differences I can think of:

1) It's not claiming to have found anything yet, and

2) presumably it won't until it actually does find something.

This answer is completely ignored by T'ai Chi.

Fascinating.

 

[MESchlum]

On evidence:

Once (yes, I'm optimistic) we find a potential signal, we will tell every astronomer we know about where the signal was from, at which frequencies, and so forth.

And we won't go any further until we get confirmation. We're already using a number of methods to filter terrestrial sources out, but more proof is better.

What happens afterwards is still a fairly open book - with so many people knowing about it, I expect there will be a fairly wide range of responses.


On means of communication:

Electromagnetic waves are good: they move at the speed of light. Physcial objects are bad: they move at fractions of c and cost a fortune to bring up to speed.

Chemical rockets? Maximum speed of 0.01% c, so 40.000 years to get to Alpha Centauri - imagine everything that can go wrong over that period.
Nuclear fission? To get to 0.1 c (40 years) you need 38.000 times the mass of your ship as fuel. 0.2 c (20 years) takes 2.300.000.000 times ship mass.
Fusion is a bit better, you can get to .4 c (10 years) with 150.000.000 times ship mass.
Perfect matter-antimatter conversion? you can get close to c, requiring 34 times ship mass, and expending enough energy to melt the ship at takeoff.
Solar sails? Fun idea, accelarating takes too much time (no exact figures, sorry - but I've been told things on the orders of millenia, *when stars are close*)


On detection:

Ideally, a narrowband beacon is best - and is possible if others are trying to be detected.

If others are not using beacons, or are using wideband transmissions, the noise they produce is still detectable, still recognisable as artificial, and we are working on signal processing techniques that alleiviate the problems. Detection isn't as good as in the best of all worlds, but remains possible.

Arecibo (our biggest radio telescope) could communicate with another telescope of the same size at a rate of 1 bit / second up to 1000 light years away.

The principles of the new ATA (Allen Telescope Array, in Hat Creek, California) allow multiple observations at once, covering a lot more of the sky, and modular size increases, so we can reach more, and further, than before.

So we are working on getting the tools to perform significant studies, and are producing side benefits in other areas as we go.

 

[apoger]

Would you support any foundation studying paranormal topics then, or only certain ones?

As long as they are using their own money, more power to them!
I would only be concerend if the parties involved used public resources in an inefficent manner.

Morale booster it might be, but if it doesn't come up with any results, shouldn't it be time to get it out of the science category?

As Wrath of Swarms pointed out earlier, a lack of contact is a result, just not the one we are hoping for. It's still science.

As for continuing with no contact yet, and likely no contact ever, that's none of my business as long as they are private and take no money from me.

 

[T'ai Chi]

From seti.org:

What is the Drake Equation? The Drake Equation, originally developed as an agenda for a 1961 scientific meeting, provides a way of estimating the number of intelligent civilizations existing in our galaxy that might be broadcasting signals. Among the factors considered are the number of sun-like stars in our galaxy, the fraction of habitable planets supporting communicating civilizations, etc. When these various factors are multiplied together one can compute N, the number of transmitting civilizations. Unfortunately, many of the factors are poorly known, so estimates of N range from one (we are alone in the Galaxy) to thousands or even millions.

So... what use in estimating does it actually have then? As far as I am aware, the use of estimating is to not provide just a number, or numbers that are all over the place, but a number with bounds on the error (which are hopefully small), and then use that estimation to take action.

Can anyone find any scientific papers where the Drake equation was used?

(some background on the Drake equation from http://btc.montana.edu/ceres/html/Drakebackground.htm, edited to summarized)

---
N = R*fp*ne*fl*fi*fc*L, where

N - Estimate of the number of communicating civilizations that exist in the Milky Way Galaxy.

R - The number represents how many billions of stars in the galaxy meet the following two criteria:

1. The star must be a second or third generation star formed from an interstellar cloud that included the necessary heavy elements for life (e.g., carbon, oxygen, etc.).

2. The star must release enough energy to have a sizeable habitable zone. A habitable zone is the region around a star where liquid water could exist on an orbiting planet.

A reasonable estimate for the number of target stars is 30 billion.

fp - This number represents the fraction of those stars meeting the above criteria that also have planets or planet systems around them.

ne - This number represents how many "earth-like planets" there are at the right temperature for liquid water to exist (i.e. in the habitable zone). In our solar system, the number ranges from one to three depending on if you include Venus or Mars. If Saturn were to migrate into the habitable zone, its 22 moons would make this number much larger.

fl - This number represents the fraction of earth-like planets where life actually develops. Some scientists believe that the evolution of life is inevitable when the conditions are right. Alternatively, we only know of one instance where life has successfully developed (Earth), therefore it is difficult to estimate this fraction.

fi - This number represents the fraction of earth-like planets where at least one species of intelligent life evolves.

fc - This number represents the fraction of earth-like planets where the technology to communicate beyond the planet exists.

L - This number represents the number of years that communicating civilizations have existed out of the total lifetime that the galaxy has existed.
---

Any statisticians out there want to calculate the variance of this estimator?

 

[T'ai Chi]

As Wrath of Swarms pointed out earlier, a lack of contact is a result, just not the one we are hoping for. It's still science.

By that reasoning a search for anything you believe to exist but that has not yet been discovered can be called scientific.

As for continuing with no contact yet, and likely no contact ever, that's none of my business as long as they are private and take no money from me.

So as long as no one wastes your money you are ok with it??

 

[toddjh]

Nuclear fission? To get to 0.1 c (40 years) you need 38.000 times the mass of your ship as fuel. 0.2 c (20 years) takes 2.300.000.000 times ship mass.
Fusion is a bit better, you can get to .4 c (10 years) with 150.000.000 times ship mass.
Perfect matter-antimatter conversion? you can get close to c, requiring 34 times ship mass, and expending enough energy to melt the ship at takeoff.
Solar sails? Fun idea, accelarating takes too much time (no exact figures, sorry - but I've been told things on the orders of millenia, *when stars are close*)

Strangely enough, the most practical idea I've seen for interstellar travel is one that is barely even theoretical at this point: exotic matter. If we could create matter with negative mass (which is an open question -- negative energy density is a predicted consequence of quantum mechanics, but the forms it might take are unknown), then you could have a "ship" consisting of equal amounts of regular and negative matter. One consequence of having regular and negative mass in close proximity would be that gravity (or the electromagnetic force, which might be better if you could charge the masses) would cause the negative mass to be attracted to the positive mass, but the positive mass to be repelled by the negative mass, with the result that the entire system takes off at a constant acceleration which is a function of the distance between the masses. Note that the net mass of the entire system is zero, so momentum is conserved.

With a system like this, you could achieve high speeds with no need for fuel whatsoever. Far more practical than sticking with 0.001c or carrying around planet-sized fuel tanks.

Jeremy

 

[CFLarsen]

Any statisticians out there want to calculate the variance of this estimator?

This has to be the most ridiculous post ever made on this board.

Why don't you do it yourself, Oh, Ye Expert On Statistical Matters?

 

[toddjh]

This has to be the most ridiculous post ever made on this board.

Why don't you do it yourself, Oh, Ye Expert On Statistical Matters?

You're missing his point: most (all?) of the factors of the Drake equation are completely unknown, so the equation itself is useless when it comes to actually determining an upper or lower bound for the number of civilizations out there. It's an intellectual exercise, not a real, practical tool.

Jeremy

 

[CFLarsen]

You're missing his point: most (all?) of the factors of the Drake equation are completely unknown, so the equation itself is useless when it comes to actually determining an upper or lower bound for the number of civilizations out there. It's an intellectual exercise, not a real, practical tool.

I'm not missing the point at all. I am merely commenting on T'ai Chi's cry for statistical help. He, who has claimed statistical knowledge himself. I find that amusing, if somewhat devastating for T'ai Chi. But hey, that's his choice.

As for whether SETI is an intellectual exercise, well...how do you suggest we look for extraterrestrial life?

 

[toddjh]

I'm not missing the point at all. I am merely commenting on T'ai Chi's cry for statistical help. He, who has claimed statistical knowledge himself. I find that amusing, if somewhat devastating for T'ai Chi. But hey, that's his choice.

Umm...if you think he was asking for help, you are missing his point. He is saying that it's impossible to perform statistical operations based on zero data points -- or, at best, one self-selecting point. The Drake equation gives us no useful information of any kind.

As for whether SETI is an intellectual exercise, well...how do you suggest we look for extraterrestrial life?

I didn't say SETI was an intellectual exercise, I said the Drake equation was. As for how I suggest looking for extraterrestrial life, I suggest we do so with the full understanding that there is no reason to believe they exist near enough for us to ever find them, and devote resources to it accordingly.

Jeremy

 

[T'ai Chi]

Umm...if you think he was asking for help, you are missing his point.

LOL.

He is saying that it's impossible to perform statistical operations based on zero data points -- or, at best, one self-selecting point. The Drake equation gives us no useful information of any kind.

Well put.

Yeah, the worth of an equation that gives estimates that range from 1 to 10million or whatever is pretty much no worth at all, to me anyway.

 

[CFLarsen]

Umm...if you think he was asking for help, you are missing his point. He is saying that it's impossible to perform statistical operations based on zero data points -- or, at best, one self-selecting point. The Drake equation gives us no useful information of any kind.

If you - or T'ai Chi - have a better way of computing the odds of finding life outside this planet, feel free to present it. Otherwise, I think it is somewhat futile to discuss the flaws of the basis of the Drake Equation.

I didn't say SETI was an intellectual exercise, I said the Drake equation was. As for how I suggest looking for extraterrestrial life, I suggest we do so with the full understanding that there is no reason to believe they exist near enough for us to ever find them, and devote resources to it accordingly.

Correct, I should have said Drake.

Why would ET life need to be near us? We know that the Universe is one heck of a large playground, but we also know how information - in the form of radio signals - travel across the Universe. It makes perfectly sense to assume that Life Outside This Ball (LOTB) is very far away from us. So, let's work from that assumption.

If it is closer, yay!! Great! But we have to be realistic: If it is there, it is probably very far away from us.

Ergo, SETI makes very much sense.

 

[apoger]

By that reasoning a search for anything you believe to exist but that has not yet been discovered can be called scientific.

As long as the methodology used is scientific, yes.

So as long as no one wastes your money you are ok with it??[

Sure, why wouldn't it be? Many people do many things that I don't like in privacy. Is it my business to run other peoples lives? Whatever would give me the authority to tell SETI that they couldn't do what they want with their own time and money? As long as they aren't using public money, and as long as they don't break the law, I have no issue with them.

 

[CFLarsen]

LOL.

I'm sorry, T'ai Chi. I was under the impression that you had me on ignore. If you had, why are you addressing my points at all?

Either ignore me, or address my points. Don't be a flagrant hypocrite.

Please.

 

[Monster of Loch Ness]

In my mind SETI will not find anything - with radio. I'm not sure of the value of Drake equation; the civizations could be so short-lived that the equation may be moot. Yes, the equation is indeed for current situation. But for instance, if a civilization is 1 million light years from us and transmitting radio signals now, then the signal will reach SETI year 1002004. Right as well, if SETI ever receives radio signals they are propably from a civilization which is already dead.

Therefore I do not think that any mature aliens would use radio signals. It is thinkable that all civilizations in a certain point try radios for interstellar life detection but they would, in my mind notice the silliness of using radio pretty soon. It would make no sense receiveing a signal which would be thousands or millions of years old. You could not communicate. Teleportation, perhaps ? Some experiments have already succeeded.

When we critiziize a phenomena we should also consider whether the phenomena has any possible real-world spinoffs and whether we should let some harmless woo-woo walk. So to speak there is bad woo-woo and harmless woo-woo. At least the SETI blokes will develop themselves professionally, they gain some skills in radioastronomy and computer technology. So if SETI is pseudoscience it is after all, with the professinal spinoff considered, fairly harmless. Even searching The Monster of Loch Ness isn't all bad, either; at least you learn how to use sonar.

But bad woo-woo is there no matter what. Watching Uri Geller learns you nothing.

 

[toddjh]

If you - or T'ai Chi - have a better way of computing the odds of finding life outside this planet, feel free to present it. Otherwise, I think it is somewhat futile to discuss the flaws of the basis of the Drake Equation.

But that's the whole point: there isn't anything better. The data is just not available. Trying to act as though the Drake equation gives us something meaningful or useful is grasping at straws. You might as well say that SETI is worthwhile because the Magic 8-Ball responded "Could Be" when you asked if there's life out there.

Why would ET life need to be near us? We know that the Universe is one heck of a large playground, but we also know how information - in the form of radio signals - travel across the Universe. It makes perfectly sense to assume that Life Outside This Ball (LOTB) is very far away from us. So, let's work from that assumption.

Then radio is a poor medium to work with. Signal strength varies as the inverse square of the distance, meaning that it gets much, much harder to detect signals beyond a few hundred light years, unless they were aimed specifically at us -- and why would they be? No one that far away could possibly know we're here yet.

SETI also assumes that other civilizations communicate the same way we do. If they never used broadcast radio, we'd never find them. Or if, like us, they only broadcast a recognizable signal for a handful of decades before moving on to higher-tech alternatives, then the window for finding them becomes vanishingly small.

If it is closer, yay!! Great! But we have to be realistic: If it is there, it is probably very far away from us.

Ergo, SETI makes very much sense.

Not when our ability to detect signals from that far away is nonexistent. SETI only makes sense when we have the capability to search an area in which the probability of finding intelligent life that is trying to communicate is significant. We just don't have the technology to do that yet. Practically speaking, a thousand light years is about it for now; that's our own backyard in our own corner of our own neighborhood of this one galaxy. Hardly reason for optimism.

Jeremy

 

[scribble]

Edit:

Posted before I read the thread. My replies were irrelevant. Toddjh seems to be doing a great job of saying the things I'd have said anyhow (I know, I flatter myself).

 

[teddosan]

tai'chi and scribble - it seems that your entire argument has degenerated into " SETI is not worth time and/or money" whereas the original question is, "Is it science?" Although I personally believe that it IS worth it, it really doesn't matter. It is not using any of my money or your money (unless you are a private donor, which I highly doubt...) Now, if you actually believe that it is not science, then please tell us why... Looking for pink unicorns, if conducted properly, could be considered science. Is it a futile excercise? Yes, I think so... Is looking for ET a futile excercise? Well, everyone is entitled to his own opinion on that. Obviously you think so, but it doesn't mean that it is not science. If it was spending taxpayer money then maybe you could complain, but it is privately funded, so why do you care?