Best I can tell, it’s the equation of how many planets there are in the Milky Way Galaxy that have intelligent life at least equal to our own.
1) the average rate of star formation, R∗, in our galaxy, 2) the fraction of formed stars, fp, that have planets, 3) for stars that have planets, the average number of planets that can potentially support life, 4) the fraction of those planets, fl, that actually develop life, 5) the fraction of planets bearing life on which intelligent, civilized life, fi, has developed, 6) the fraction of these civilizations that have developed communications, fc, i.e., technologies that release detectable signs into space, and 7 the length of time, L, over which such civilizations release detectable signals,
Current “best conservative estimates” puts N (the answer - the number of intelligent civilization on other planets) at 10,000 planets.
That’s 10,000 just in the Milky Way Galaxy. Keep in mind there’s 100s of billions of galaxies.
Of course several of the variables are pure guesses and the ultimate answer can range from 1 (only Earth) to maybe several million.
Regardless, Earth has been sending out radio waves in all directions since the first radio waves were generated (sometime around the year 1900).
Every radio broadcast, tv show, presidential broadcast, etc, have been leaving the Earth in all directions at the speed of light.
So for about 117 years.
Thus evidence of our existence is now ~ 117 light years away - beyond several stars already. (The closest star is only ~ 4 light years away)
Unfortunately these radio waves dissipate and after several light years become indistinguishable from the cosmic background noise. At least by our technology.
Does it take into account, the relative size vs a microscopic molecule, that particular window of near human sized that "intelligent life" would have to be in order for humans to interact with it.
Or the local experience of time, meaning if their atoms don't vibrate at near the same speed of humans, we'd never be able to interact with it, if it were moving forward through time at 100 times faster, or 100 times slower than life experiences here on earth, we'd never be able to interact with it consciously.
That's not why I responded.
I responded to say IF it's an equation, that means it's nowhere near the Artic right?
It's that fc that gets me. Fraction that have developed communications.
How many years of radio waves would it take to make contact with the planet of the apes, plantet of the gators, planet of the whales, planet of the ants, or planet of the foreign language speakers, or planet of the birds. <---- I think we have something, Parrots!
Parrots, and Canaries, we are in danger of contact with extra terrestrial parrots, making contact with imitating birds.
Poly want a "Watson come here!"
I agree with what's his name, the spinal cord injury genious, If intelligent life is out there, don't go looking for it.
Aliens are so vastly different from us. They almost always wear their hair differently, wear a different style of clothes, and speak with strange English accents.
There's lots of good discussion on this brought by Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
A lot of the theory, facts, and thoughts challenges classical religious beliefs.
Yeah, they've discussed this on deGrasse Tyson's StarTalk. They've said that the Drake Equation isn't perfect, but it's one of the best things we have to go on.
I find it amazing. But like was said, radio waves from 117 years ago probably weren't as strong as what we send today.
I get a bit nervous about it though. The idea that other planets/civilizations might hear us (and that we're even going as far as advertising ourselves to other planets/civilizations). I think Voyager has some sort of map to show exactly where we are (and anyone that hears our radio waves would be able to figure it out).
But as I mentioned in this thread, if someone wanted to contact back to us (or get here if they could travel light speed), they'd have to be pretty close. If our waves travel at the speed of light, then they'd have to be like 60 light years away or closer.
In the sense of Drake's Equation, that's like really close, and chances are no one has heard us and visited or probably even heard us period.
Supposedly according to this website, the blue dot is how far our broadcasts have gone. The Galaxy is huge. And that's not even taking into account that radio waves diminish in power as they travel further and further away. So someone would near like a huge satellite or something to pick up anything
I'm not an astronomer but based on your equation, aren't 4, 5, and 6 all 0 at the moment as far as we know? Therefore, since they are all multiplied by each other, isn't N=0?
I'm not an astronomer but based on your equation, aren't 4, 5, and 6 all 0 at the moment as far as we know? Therefore, since they are all multiplied by each other, isn't N=0?
No, we know there is at least 1, so near 0, but not 0.
I'm not an astronomer but based on your equation, aren't 4, 5, and 6 all 0 at the moment as far as we know? Therefore, since they are all multiplied by each other, isn't N=0?
I'm not an astronomer but based on your equation, aren't 4, 5, and 6 all 0 at the moment as far as we know? Therefore, since they are all multiplied by each other, isn't N=0?
No, we know there is at least 1, so near 0, but not 0.
I'm not an astronomer but based on your equation, aren't 4, 5, and 6 all 0 at the moment as far as we know? Therefore, since they are all multiplied by each other, isn't N=0?
No, we know there is at least 1, so near 0, but not 0.
Which one is that?
Earth ... but I get what you're saying. Numbers 4, 5 and 6 are entirely speculative. If you go by the current "data" that you currently have, then you're looking at a fractional value for those numbers which is going to be 1/(the number of planets in the galaxy) ... which means the equation would work back out to being N=1.
I think there are greater chances of life on moons than planets. Here in our solar system there are something like 4-5 moons where life is likely to be found but only 1 planet. If those odds hold true throughout the galaxy, then that throws the formula off because it is only considering planets.
1. #GMstrong 2. "I'm just trying to be the best Nick I can be." ~ Nick Chubb 3. Forgive me Elf, I didn’t have faith. ~ Tulsa 4. ClemenZa #1
I think there are greater chances of life on moons than planets. Here in our solar system there are something like 4-5 moons where life is likely to be found but only 1 planet. If those odds hold true throughout the galaxy, then that throws the formula off because it is only considering planets.
Maybe for life, but i'm not sure intelligent life.
Keep in mind that the largest known moon in our solar system is about the size of mercury. 3270 miles in diameter. We're 7900 miles in diameter (which would give us a surface area of 7.84x10^8 Miles Squared vs 1.34×10^8 (on the biggest moon in the solar system). It's a significant size difference. And that's from the biggest moon.
I imagine most moons are smaller. And thus I'd assume that life would be less diverse on moons, and less likely to achieve what we would call "intelligent"
How intelligient is it to think that the idea of finding life means finding life that fits into human measurables. I think the odds are much higher and that things like telescopes looking for gamma rays in space are the right track.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
