RE: Earth in the information blockade?
If you are very much waiting for a friend - do not take the sound of your heart for the tramp of the hoofs of his horse
Eastern wisdom quoted by I.S.Shklovsky
in the fifth reprint of the book Universe. A life. Mind"
This text is written in the form of a response to the post " Earth in the information blockade ", although in its meaning it is not. I just want to highlight the question of extraterrestrial life from the point of view of a well-informed skeptic.
In fact, 10 billion years at least. 4.5 billion years is the time of the evolution of living organisms on Earth, but these 4.5 billion years must be preceded by a few billion more years of stellar evolution. The fact is that the Sun belongs to the stars of the second generation, formed from the fragments of supernova explosions. That is why the solar system is rich in heavy elements, which were formed during the explosions.
The first generation of stars consisted almost exclusively of hydrogen, so life in their planetary systems is impossible (and, in general, the “stone” planets of the terrestrial type are impossible).
I can't imagine how this can be “confirmed”. The set of arguments for the impossibility of life based on non-water and carbon, unfortunately, is very simple:
(a) only hydrocarbon compounds can organize long chains; All the diversity of organic compounds stems from this unique feature of carbon. Without the ability to cheaply receive from limited resources connections with unique and diverse properties, life is unthinkable.
(b) it can be argued that, in some form, such chains can be obtained from other elements. But there is one more strong consideration: namely hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen (as well as inert helium) are the most common elements in the Universe (due to the participation of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen in the carbon-oxygen cycle, which is the second after the proton-proton energy source of stars). "Alternatives" to carbon (silicon, in particular) are much less common.
See: [1] , [2]
(c) in addition to the universal construction mechanism, water consisting of all of the same common elements (oxygen — hydrogen) is a universal solvent. Water has a very high dielectric constant, all other good solvents, as a rule, are much more complex compounds (unless ammonia can be considered as a water substitute to some extent). At the same time, water is chemically much less aggressive than other solvents.
The conclusion is quite simple: the emergence of life is not based on carbon, nitrogen and water - much less likely.
')
Efremov has a detailed rationale for why intelligent life will almost certainly look like us. In short, it will almost certainly be a medium-sized warm-blooded body with very mobile limbs capable of fine motor skills (and therefore there will be few such limbs). To protect the "computational node" (brain) there must be a hard cover - the skull - and it should be raised as high as possible above the ground.
Unfortunately, all attempts to estimate the number of intelligent civilizations in the Universe do not take into account one very important factor. In fact, I am ready to agree easily with the fact that (a) Earth-like planets are very numerous in space, (b) almost all of them should have life and (c) life will evolve according to the same laws as earthly.
Although item (b) is rather controversial - the issues of abiogenesis, unfortunately, remain the black hole of modern science - but there is a much more fundamental problem: at the moment there is no understanding and no hypothesis about why the development of living organisms on the Earth follows the path of continuous complications.
From the point of view of the theory of evolution, this is very strange. In order to be more fit, you do not need to be more difficult - on the contrary, since you need to pay for any complexity, in general, a more complex organism is less adapted.
This question can be developed in the following way: aromorphoses always produce the most universal — and therefore the least adapted — forms of life, and man is a graphic illustration. It is completely incomprehensible how such a weak creature, like our distant ancestors, could survive in the savanna among large predators and a small amount of food. However, our mRNAs bear traces of this paradox: all modern humans are descended from a very small group of homo sapiens, about 5 thousand individuals. In other words, about 180K years ago, our ancestors were actually on the verge of extinction and survived by some miracle.
While the problem of the complication of life in the course of evolution has not been solved, it is useless to talk about some numbers. It is likely that all these trillions of habitable planets are inhabited by prokaryotes.
I do not believe in "non-technological" civilizations, consisting entirely of philosophers.
A civilization develops and survives if it is able to provide some common benefits for its citizens, increasing their chances of survival in comparison with the ordinary prehistoric community. These are: protection from external enemies, medicine, education, heating, etc. Civilization cannot develop in the direction of transforming the environment to the needs of citizens, otherwise it will simply turn out to be noncompetitive and die.
It is so naive that it is even funny.
DNA was discovered in 1956. Molecular biology is perhaps the most progressive and most revolutionary branch of modern science.
These often occurring arguments are fundamentally wrong.
There are such strange people who condemn attempts of extraterrestrial contact, because they are afraid to "light up" (see the film Sea Battle, for example). The humor is that we lit up long ago.
For at least 70 years the Earth has been operating as a huge beacon. Since the advent of radio and television, we have continuously emitted a radio wave signal into space.
The fact is that, in contrast to shorter wavelengths, the Universe shines very little in radio waves. The radio luminosity of the Earth is comparable to the radio luminosity of the Sun - which means that the Earth is perfectly visible on radar.
Our geography is such that one side of the ball is occupied by the Pacific Ocean, where there are no repeaters. This, in turn, means that we are not only very noticeable in the radio band, we also generate a periodic (with a period of 24 hours) signal.
Such objects are very well visible. Such natural formations - pulsars - were discovered by astronomers half a century ago and caused a huge agiotage - they thought that they had found extraterrestrial life.
Extraterrestrial astronomers, if they exist, be sure, they have found our pulsar long ago and are studying it very closely.
This argument unfolds in the other direction. Pulsars are not an extraterrestrial civilization because they emit an even signal, without any kind of frequency festivals and modulations. If a source of terrestrial radio emission existed in our galaxy or even somewhere in neighboring galaxies, it would have been found long ago.
Now to the question "maybe the green men do not use the radio." All elementary particles, which can be obtained with a small expenditure of energy, have long been received and described. In addition to light quanta, only neutrinos are suitable for transmitting information - but it is extremely difficult to capture them. However, if an extraterrestrial civilization uses a neutrino, we will soon find it too.
Assuming that one and all extraterrestrial civilizations are one and all use particles to transmit information, for which they need to apply energy of tens of GeV - a few, ahem, strange.
Concluding the post, I want to say the following: I do not believe in extraterrestrial civilizations. And in the development of other star systems do not believe. Even to the development of the solar system, I am very skeptical. My personal opinion is as follows: humankind has practically exhausted its ability to understand the world around us, and in the near future it will be engaged exclusively in the release of new iPhones and insane consumption. Dixi.
Eastern wisdom quoted by I.S.Shklovsky
in the fifth reprint of the book Universe. A life. Mind"
This text is written in the form of a response to the post " Earth in the information blockade ", although in its meaning it is not. I just want to highlight the question of extraterrestrial life from the point of view of a well-informed skeptic.
Although, of course, this does not mean that it is there, because for the emergence of a carbon form of life similar to us, and its evolution to a high level, a combination of many factors and a lot of time is necessary (at least 4.5 billion years).
In fact, 10 billion years at least. 4.5 billion years is the time of the evolution of living organisms on Earth, but these 4.5 billion years must be preceded by a few billion more years of stellar evolution. The fact is that the Sun belongs to the stars of the second generation, formed from the fragments of supernova explosions. That is why the solar system is rich in heavy elements, which were formed during the explosions.
The first generation of stars consisted almost exclusively of hydrogen, so life in their planetary systems is impossible (and, in general, the “stone” planets of the terrestrial type are impossible).
But this compensates for the moment that many scientists look at life rather narrowly, suggesting that for its occurrence it is necessary to copy the earthly conditions. This is a wrong, and not at all scientific approach to business, which is proved by the fact that such intelligent people, like Tsiolkovsky, for example, put forward hypotheses about the possibility of the existence of other life forms, such as plasma ones. And this is still more likely confirmed than refuted.
I can't imagine how this can be “confirmed”. The set of arguments for the impossibility of life based on non-water and carbon, unfortunately, is very simple:
(a) only hydrocarbon compounds can organize long chains; All the diversity of organic compounds stems from this unique feature of carbon. Without the ability to cheaply receive from limited resources connections with unique and diverse properties, life is unthinkable.
(b) it can be argued that, in some form, such chains can be obtained from other elements. But there is one more strong consideration: namely hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen (as well as inert helium) are the most common elements in the Universe (due to the participation of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen in the carbon-oxygen cycle, which is the second after the proton-proton energy source of stars). "Alternatives" to carbon (silicon, in particular) are much less common.
See: [1] , [2]
(c) in addition to the universal construction mechanism, water consisting of all of the same common elements (oxygen — hydrogen) is a universal solvent. Water has a very high dielectric constant, all other good solvents, as a rule, are much more complex compounds (unless ammonia can be considered as a water substitute to some extent). At the same time, water is chemically much less aggressive than other solvents.
The conclusion is quite simple: the emergence of life is not based on carbon, nitrogen and water - much less likely.
')
At this moment, by the way, everyone should be ashamed of earthly cinema, where 95% of aliens are humanoids (galactic intolerance?).
Efremov has a detailed rationale for why intelligent life will almost certainly look like us. In short, it will almost certainly be a medium-sized warm-blooded body with very mobile limbs capable of fine motor skills (and therefore there will be few such limbs). To protect the "computational node" (brain) there must be a hard cover - the skull - and it should be raised as high as possible above the ground.
With such figures, it is quite funny to think about whether we are alone in the Universe. From my point of view, the answer is absolutely obvious.
Unfortunately, all attempts to estimate the number of intelligent civilizations in the Universe do not take into account one very important factor. In fact, I am ready to agree easily with the fact that (a) Earth-like planets are very numerous in space, (b) almost all of them should have life and (c) life will evolve according to the same laws as earthly.
Although item (b) is rather controversial - the issues of abiogenesis, unfortunately, remain the black hole of modern science - but there is a much more fundamental problem: at the moment there is no understanding and no hypothesis about why the development of living organisms on the Earth follows the path of continuous complications.
From the point of view of the theory of evolution, this is very strange. In order to be more fit, you do not need to be more difficult - on the contrary, since you need to pay for any complexity, in general, a more complex organism is less adapted.
This question can be developed in the following way: aromorphoses always produce the most universal — and therefore the least adapted — forms of life, and man is a graphic illustration. It is completely incomprehensible how such a weak creature, like our distant ancestors, could survive in the savanna among large predators and a small amount of food. However, our mRNAs bear traces of this paradox: all modern humans are descended from a very small group of homo sapiens, about 5 thousand individuals. In other words, about 180K years ago, our ancestors were actually on the verge of extinction and survived by some miracle.
While the problem of the complication of life in the course of evolution has not been solved, it is useless to talk about some numbers. It is likely that all these trillions of habitable planets are inhabited by prokaryotes.
Not necessarily all civilizations have hit IT, like humanity (maybe they are philosophers, hehe),
I do not believe in "non-technological" civilizations, consisting entirely of philosophers.
A civilization develops and survives if it is able to provide some common benefits for its citizens, increasing their chances of survival in comparison with the ordinary prehistoric community. These are: protection from external enemies, medicine, education, heating, etc. Civilization cannot develop in the direction of transforming the environment to the needs of citizens, otherwise it will simply turn out to be noncompetitive and die.
After all, if you think about it, the last 50-100 years we have only information technologies have reached an incredible speed of development, and other areas, such as medicine, have not made any fundamental breakthroughs for a long time.
It is so naive that it is even funny.
DNA was discovered in 1956. Molecular biology is perhaps the most progressive and most revolutionary branch of modern science.
The next option is that the Mymtiks decided to take a risk and make contact with us, but physically they cannot do it - the technologies are not sufficiently developed to reach us, and we do not accept messages because we don’t have such technologies or even worse. Our methods of receiving / transmitting information are very different from the methods of transmitting information of the Myths. [...] In addition, there is a very important, and slightly amusing factor - if all civilizations are actively searching for signals and sending as little as Earth, then the chance of contact is rather low. Yes, just an incorrect strategy for receiving / transmitting information. We hope that we will be noticed simply because we have an increased electromagnetic background (which has dropped since the development of new technologies, such as optical fiber), and there are very few signals from the helmet.
These often occurring arguments are fundamentally wrong.
There are such strange people who condemn attempts of extraterrestrial contact, because they are afraid to "light up" (see the film Sea Battle, for example). The humor is that we lit up long ago.
For at least 70 years the Earth has been operating as a huge beacon. Since the advent of radio and television, we have continuously emitted a radio wave signal into space.
The fact is that, in contrast to shorter wavelengths, the Universe shines very little in radio waves. The radio luminosity of the Earth is comparable to the radio luminosity of the Sun - which means that the Earth is perfectly visible on radar.
Our geography is such that one side of the ball is occupied by the Pacific Ocean, where there are no repeaters. This, in turn, means that we are not only very noticeable in the radio band, we also generate a periodic (with a period of 24 hours) signal.
Such objects are very well visible. Such natural formations - pulsars - were discovered by astronomers half a century ago and caused a huge agiotage - they thought that they had found extraterrestrial life.
Extraterrestrial astronomers, if they exist, be sure, they have found our pulsar long ago and are studying it very closely.
This argument unfolds in the other direction. Pulsars are not an extraterrestrial civilization because they emit an even signal, without any kind of frequency festivals and modulations. If a source of terrestrial radio emission existed in our galaxy or even somewhere in neighboring galaxies, it would have been found long ago.
Now to the question "maybe the green men do not use the radio." All elementary particles, which can be obtained with a small expenditure of energy, have long been received and described. In addition to light quanta, only neutrinos are suitable for transmitting information - but it is extremely difficult to capture them. However, if an extraterrestrial civilization uses a neutrino, we will soon find it too.
Assuming that one and all extraterrestrial civilizations are one and all use particles to transmit information, for which they need to apply energy of tens of GeV - a few, ahem, strange.
Concluding the post, I want to say the following: I do not believe in extraterrestrial civilizations. And in the development of other star systems do not believe. Even to the development of the solar system, I am very skeptical. My personal opinion is as follows: humankind has practically exhausted its ability to understand the world around us, and in the near future it will be engaged exclusively in the release of new iPhones and insane consumption. Dixi.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/149221/
All Articles