i thought i yold tou wat the sont dtop
mine friends and I are the awsomest people in the world
http://uconnfreepress.org
here's my article for this week's issue
Are we alone in this universe? Is there life, possibly intelligent life, elsewhere in the universe? Humans have asked themselves these questions ever since they grasped what the stars in the sky were. Should we be able to resolve this question, one would think it would have a major effect on the collective ideologies of this planet, especially if we should find that there is indeed life outside of earth. For example, one would hope that ideas such as radical nationalism would fall by the wayside if we were to realize more palpably that we are all merely citizens of earth. Religious strife may be alleviated since the major religions would know that their ideologies are at least somewhat less than absolute since they do not account for life beyond earth. These are just some examples of what COULD happen IF we were to discover life beyond our planet. While we have yet to actually find any extra-terrestrial life, we have reached a point where we should accept that it is nearly impossible for us to be alone in the universe.
The beautiful picture that adorns this page is known as the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (see more at: http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2004/07/images/a/formats/print.jpg). The image was captured because NASA scientists wanted to know if there was anything to be seen in areas of space that appeared to be “empty” in all previous observations. The powerful Hubble Space Telescope, which orbits outside of earth’s dense, observation-constricting atmosphere, was fitted with new, advanced cameras and spectrometers in 2002. Scientists then pointed the telescope at a one degree section of the sky near the big dipper that covers approximately 1/10 the size of the moon in the night sky. They captured over 100 hours of exposures and layered them on top of each other so as to capture even a single photon of light. What they found is that in this space that had appeared to be “empty” we could actually see thousands of galaxies. Some galaxies in the image are approximately 13 billion light-years distant. That means that not only are the galaxies in this image the most distant objects ever captured, but also that they are the oldest. The light that reached the Hubble telescope left the galaxies 13 billion years ago. Bear in mind that scientists estimate that the big bang formed the universe just over 14 billion years ago. As interesting and beautiful as this is, the true reason to explain this picture is to give an example of the density of galaxies in the universe. We now know that there are thousands of galaxies in every small corner of the sky, in addition to the millions we have already identified.
Returning to the issue at hand; is there life elsewhere in the universe? To help make it abundantly clear that it is impossible for this not to be the case, some absurdly conservative estimations will be employed as we look for a ratio, 1:X, X being the number of bodies that may potentially sustain life as we know it.
Let us begin with galaxies. As I articulated earlier, established observation and extrapolation from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field led to the assumption that there are billions and billions of galaxies in the universe. Yet let us conservatively say that there are only 100 billion. Next we have stars. We have discovered approximately 300 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy. The closest major galaxy to ours, the Andromeda galaxy, has approximately 4 trillion stars. For the sake of this example let us pretend that our galaxy is actually larger than average and say that the average number of stars in a galaxy is 200 billion. As far as planets go, we actually know very little. Earth is one planet of roughly 10 orbiting around a star we call the sun. We have discovered 170 extra-solar planets, or planets orbiting stars other than the sun, since the early 1990s when the first were discovered. However we have yet to positively identify a complete solar system outside of our own. Therefore we do not yet have a realistic way of knowing the average number of planets orbiting stars. For the sake of this argument, let us say again that our solar system is above average in terms of numbers of planets. Let’s assume the average is four planets per solar system.
Now comes the least scientific part: what is the probability that a given planet can sustain life? Life as we know it requires a very important element, liquid water. Earth’s dense atmosphere and the location of earth in the solar system, aided by gas giant Jupiter’s gravitational pull, are among the many factors that allow earth to have liquid water on the surface. It has recently been discovered, through the research of NASA’s Mars rovers, that Mars was once “soaked” in liquid water. Foolish would we be to think that because one or two of the ten planets in our solar system could sustain life that the probability of a given planet being able to do so would be one or two in ten. Again for the sake of absurdly conservative estimation let us say the ratio is actually one in one million-or, for a jolt of extreme tomfooleresque absurdity-how about one in one billion. Now we have the figures and it’s time for the math.
(100 billion galaxies x 200 billion stars per galaxy x 4 planets per star) / 1 billion = X
If you follow along on your calculator, you will find that X = 80,000,000,000,000.
Therefore, using absurdly conservative estimation, we still find that the probability that there are no other planets in the universe that sustain life as we know it is one in 80 trillion. Not only is that probability incredibly small, it is difficult to think of anything smaller. The odds of winning the Powerball lottery jackpot are 1 in 120,526,770. You are more likely to win that jackpot a half dozen times, being struck by lightning each time as a black cat crosses under a ladder and some other nonsense than for there not to be life elsewhere in the universe. George W. Bush is more likely to be eaten by a ravenous pack of lobbyists who were hexed by Jack Abramoff’s Indian tribes than for there not to be life elsewhere in the universe. Iraq is more likely to survive the next ten years without a civil war than for there not to be life elsewhere in the universe. Phillip Austin is more likely to rip off one of his Armani suits during a Board of Trustees meeting to reveal a skin-tight superman costume which he spent weeks locked in the basement of Gulley Hall making himself and proclaim, “I am Superman and I can do anything!” than for there not to be life elsewhere in the universe.
To summarize, the likelihood that we are alone in this universe is literally the least probable thing one could conceive of. So what are we going to make of that?
http://uconnfreepress.org
here's my article for this week's issue
Are we alone in this universe? Is there life, possibly intelligent life, elsewhere in the universe? Humans have asked themselves these questions ever since they grasped what the stars in the sky were. Should we be able to resolve this question, one would think it would have a major effect on the collective ideologies of this planet, especially if we should find that there is indeed life outside of earth. For example, one would hope that ideas such as radical nationalism would fall by the wayside if we were to realize more palpably that we are all merely citizens of earth. Religious strife may be alleviated since the major religions would know that their ideologies are at least somewhat less than absolute since they do not account for life beyond earth. These are just some examples of what COULD happen IF we were to discover life beyond our planet. While we have yet to actually find any extra-terrestrial life, we have reached a point where we should accept that it is nearly impossible for us to be alone in the universe.
The beautiful picture that adorns this page is known as the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (see more at: http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2004/07/images/a/formats/print.jpg). The image was captured because NASA scientists wanted to know if there was anything to be seen in areas of space that appeared to be “empty” in all previous observations. The powerful Hubble Space Telescope, which orbits outside of earth’s dense, observation-constricting atmosphere, was fitted with new, advanced cameras and spectrometers in 2002. Scientists then pointed the telescope at a one degree section of the sky near the big dipper that covers approximately 1/10 the size of the moon in the night sky. They captured over 100 hours of exposures and layered them on top of each other so as to capture even a single photon of light. What they found is that in this space that had appeared to be “empty” we could actually see thousands of galaxies. Some galaxies in the image are approximately 13 billion light-years distant. That means that not only are the galaxies in this image the most distant objects ever captured, but also that they are the oldest. The light that reached the Hubble telescope left the galaxies 13 billion years ago. Bear in mind that scientists estimate that the big bang formed the universe just over 14 billion years ago. As interesting and beautiful as this is, the true reason to explain this picture is to give an example of the density of galaxies in the universe. We now know that there are thousands of galaxies in every small corner of the sky, in addition to the millions we have already identified.
Returning to the issue at hand; is there life elsewhere in the universe? To help make it abundantly clear that it is impossible for this not to be the case, some absurdly conservative estimations will be employed as we look for a ratio, 1:X, X being the number of bodies that may potentially sustain life as we know it.
Let us begin with galaxies. As I articulated earlier, established observation and extrapolation from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field led to the assumption that there are billions and billions of galaxies in the universe. Yet let us conservatively say that there are only 100 billion. Next we have stars. We have discovered approximately 300 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy. The closest major galaxy to ours, the Andromeda galaxy, has approximately 4 trillion stars. For the sake of this example let us pretend that our galaxy is actually larger than average and say that the average number of stars in a galaxy is 200 billion. As far as planets go, we actually know very little. Earth is one planet of roughly 10 orbiting around a star we call the sun. We have discovered 170 extra-solar planets, or planets orbiting stars other than the sun, since the early 1990s when the first were discovered. However we have yet to positively identify a complete solar system outside of our own. Therefore we do not yet have a realistic way of knowing the average number of planets orbiting stars. For the sake of this argument, let us say again that our solar system is above average in terms of numbers of planets. Let’s assume the average is four planets per solar system.
Now comes the least scientific part: what is the probability that a given planet can sustain life? Life as we know it requires a very important element, liquid water. Earth’s dense atmosphere and the location of earth in the solar system, aided by gas giant Jupiter’s gravitational pull, are among the many factors that allow earth to have liquid water on the surface. It has recently been discovered, through the research of NASA’s Mars rovers, that Mars was once “soaked” in liquid water. Foolish would we be to think that because one or two of the ten planets in our solar system could sustain life that the probability of a given planet being able to do so would be one or two in ten. Again for the sake of absurdly conservative estimation let us say the ratio is actually one in one million-or, for a jolt of extreme tomfooleresque absurdity-how about one in one billion. Now we have the figures and it’s time for the math.
(100 billion galaxies x 200 billion stars per galaxy x 4 planets per star) / 1 billion = X
If you follow along on your calculator, you will find that X = 80,000,000,000,000.
Therefore, using absurdly conservative estimation, we still find that the probability that there are no other planets in the universe that sustain life as we know it is one in 80 trillion. Not only is that probability incredibly small, it is difficult to think of anything smaller. The odds of winning the Powerball lottery jackpot are 1 in 120,526,770. You are more likely to win that jackpot a half dozen times, being struck by lightning each time as a black cat crosses under a ladder and some other nonsense than for there not to be life elsewhere in the universe. George W. Bush is more likely to be eaten by a ravenous pack of lobbyists who were hexed by Jack Abramoff’s Indian tribes than for there not to be life elsewhere in the universe. Iraq is more likely to survive the next ten years without a civil war than for there not to be life elsewhere in the universe. Phillip Austin is more likely to rip off one of his Armani suits during a Board of Trustees meeting to reveal a skin-tight superman costume which he spent weeks locked in the basement of Gulley Hall making himself and proclaim, “I am Superman and I can do anything!” than for there not to be life elsewhere in the universe.
To summarize, the likelihood that we are alone in this universe is literally the least probable thing one could conceive of. So what are we going to make of that?