Well... not just that.
We (and I do mean I as a part of we) are looking for evidence that there may be *intelligent* life in other solar systems.
Our definition of intelligence is, fortunately, much easier to match than many others'
"Intelligence is shown by the operation of large antennas"
Ideally, of cource, they are emitting (so we don't have to wait), and have something to say (unlike the satellite television broadcasts sent out from Earth).
So we are trying to find out how common life is elsewhere (other planets to start with: they are closer and so easier to investigate than other stars!), to get an idea of how far too search is far enough.
In the course of our work, we are developping new and improved data processing techniques, telescope concepts, and a lot more (and we have the - useable - patents to show it).
True, we have not found anything so far - besides being able to do better detection work than NASA for specific topics. So there is a component of belief, that something is out there to be found, which may seem off.
But given the resources we've got, the size of the universe, and the time scales necessary, the amount of study we have performed is tiny. For SETI, messages can literally take centuries to be received, and someone needs to pay attention all that time.
So perhaps the assumption that there is life elsewhere is too optimistic (though the sheer number of stars goes against this), but we are aware of the fact that our work probably will not produce results for a *long* time. But if it isn't done, nothing ever will come of it.
And if we get the money (and Moore's law does not break down too badly we should be able to get decent coverage of a significant portion of the galaxy within 60 years or so. If by then nothing turns up (and we have actually done the job), we will at the very least acknowledge that life is a lot less common than we hoped.
And if we have the resources to do it, we'll change our search methods, not by looking for UFOs, but thinking about what and how to establish beacons that can outlive us, to tell future worlds about all we have acheived (or other things).
We (and I do mean I as a part of we) are looking for evidence that there may be *intelligent* life in other solar systems.
Our definition of intelligence is, fortunately, much easier to match than many others'
"Intelligence is shown by the operation of large antennas"
Ideally, of cource, they are emitting (so we don't have to wait), and have something to say (unlike the satellite television broadcasts sent out from Earth).
So we are trying to find out how common life is elsewhere (other planets to start with: they are closer and so easier to investigate than other stars!), to get an idea of how far too search is far enough.
In the course of our work, we are developping new and improved data processing techniques, telescope concepts, and a lot more (and we have the - useable - patents to show it).
True, we have not found anything so far - besides being able to do better detection work than NASA for specific topics. So there is a component of belief, that something is out there to be found, which may seem off.
But given the resources we've got, the size of the universe, and the time scales necessary, the amount of study we have performed is tiny. For SETI, messages can literally take centuries to be received, and someone needs to pay attention all that time.
So perhaps the assumption that there is life elsewhere is too optimistic (though the sheer number of stars goes against this), but we are aware of the fact that our work probably will not produce results for a *long* time. But if it isn't done, nothing ever will come of it.
And if we get the money (and Moore's law does not break down too badly we should be able to get decent coverage of a significant portion of the galaxy within 60 years or so. If by then nothing turns up (and we have actually done the job), we will at the very least acknowledge that life is a lot less common than we hoped.
And if we have the resources to do it, we'll change our search methods, not by looking for UFOs, but thinking about what and how to establish beacons that can outlive us, to tell future worlds about all we have acheived (or other things).
Wrath of the Swarm
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,855
We don't need to believe that's there's life out there to think it's possible, and that it's worth looking for.
There may or may not be a unicorn standing next to me, but how difficult is it to open my eyes and look?
There may or may not be a unicorn standing next to me, but how difficult is it to open my eyes and look?
I'm surprised I'm the only "pseudoscience" voter. SETI is rather firmly mired in the "hopes and dreams" category of science; it's about as scientific as a multimillion dollar search for Bigfoot or a unicorn. It may be conducted in a scientific manner, but the underlying reason is wishful thinking at best - and quite possibly just plain nonsense.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
What's wrong with a little wishful thinking, as long as you don't convince yourself that your wish has come true without some evidence?
~~ Paul
~~ Paul
Dylab said:
Well, let's start with:
Black holes and white dwarfs are predicted by some sensible equations. It's my understanding that SETI is founded on (literally) Drake's Equation. Drake's Equation as it stands is a bunch of meaningless doodles. It's factors involve quantities that we simply don't or can't know.
(My true feelings on Drake's Equation are a bit more vitriolic than this. But I think I got the basic idea across well.)
scribble said:
Putting upper or lower limits on some of those quantities seems like a worthwhile research goal in itself.
My objection to SETI is that it assumes a communications paradigm that even we are not going to cling to much longer: broadcast analog transmissions. Right here on Earth, we are rapidly switching from broadcasting to point-to-point data transfer (if the aliens are all using cable TV, we'll never spot them). We are also switching to digital, which, when optimally encoded, resembles random noise even if it is a powerful enough signal to reach another star.
After barely half a century of visibility, Earth is about to go dark. Even if there were a civilization right next door, that's an awfully small window to spot them in.
Jeremy
toddjh said:
Maybe - but SETI doesn't do that.
There's a lot of reasons to object to SETI; I was just going to build my case one point at a time. Honestly, I think the inanity of Drake's Equation is enough, but there's lots more to be said if need be.
T'ai Chi said:
I find these kind of topics insulting. If you were trying to make a case for the legitimacy for research into 'psi' stuff just say so in your topic.
Having said that I think we have 'some' reason to suspect that some alien life form is out there that we might be able to contact. I agree with scribble that the chances of us finding something is fairly unlikely but I don't think it is completely a shot in the dark. We know that intelligent life arose on this planet and we know that there must be other planets out there with similar conditions as ours. It might be very unlikely that any of these planets harbor aliens that decide they want to send a message to us but I don't think it is comparable to invisible unicorns or "psi stuff" where we have no reason to suspect the possibility of its existence.
Dylab said:
I'm not. I asked SETIs proponents to say how it is any different. If you believe it insulting, you just need to explain why you feel SETI is science.
So you'd feel justified in comparing psi stuff to invisible pink unicorns, but you wouldn't compare hypothetical aliens who can communicate with us to invisible pink unicorns?
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
MESchlum said:
Just to be silly for a minute, I had a dream once, in which some aliens in a spacecraft (who looked sort of like soft, brown, oil barrels and had mouths at the top of their, well, barrels) picked up some old I Love Lucy reruns and decided on the face of them that Earth obviously had to be destroyed, just on general principles.
At the same time, an Earthman had crash-landed on a large moon and met an alien who looked like a grasshopper, only with legs that went to the side, who had also crash-landed. The Earthman shared his food, which for some reason largely consisted of frozen broccoli. The alien really liked it.
They joined forces and made one fighter from the parts of both and did battle with the oil-barrel aliens on the grounds of, if Earth were destroyed, no more frozen broccoli.
Here is an interesting page I just found: http://www.theness.com/articles/seti-nejs0101.html.
SETI has made no claim. There's nothing to falsify yet. They're Searching. Attempting to gather evidence.T'ai Chi said:
When SETI says they've found evidence of ET's the evidence could be refuted.
No one should give researchers a hard time for looking into the paranormal. But, I want evidence to back up the claims. No big deal, I have no stake in it either way.