Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By News Staff | April 16th 2008 01:01 AM | 27 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
Infinity was invented to account for the possibility that in a never-ending universe, anything can happen. Life on other Earth-like planets, for example, is possible in an infinite universe, but not probable, according to a scientist from the University of East Anglia.

The mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low because of the time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining life span of the Earth. Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth and this process might be governed by a small number of very difficult evolutionary steps.

Prof Watson, from the School of Environmental Sciences, takes this idea further by looking at the probability of each of these critical steps occurring in relation to the life span of the Earth, giving an improved mathematical model for the evolution of intelligent life.

According to Prof Watson a limit to evolution is the habitability of Earth, and any other Earth-like planets, which will end as the sun brightens. Solar models predict that the brightness of the sun is increasing, while temperature models suggest that because of this the future life span of Earth will be ‘only’ about another billion years, a short time compared to the four billion years since life first appeared on the planet.

“The Earth’s biosphere is now in its old age and this has implications for our understanding of the likelihood of complex life and intelligence arising on any given planet,” said Prof Watson.

“At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life. If we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we’d suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed.”

Prof Watson suggests the number of evolutionary steps needed to create intelligent life, in the case of humans, is four. These probably include the emergence of single-celled bacteria, complex cells, specialized cells allowing complex life forms, and intelligent life with an established language.

“Complex life is separated from the simplest life forms by several very unlikely steps and therefore will be much less common. Intelligence is one step further, so it is much less common still,” said Prof Watson.

His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.

Each step is independent of the other and can only take place after the previous steps in the sequence have occurred. They tend to be evenly spaced through Earth’s history and this is consistent with some of the major transitions identified in the evolution of life on Earth.

Comments

Jim Myres's picture

Prof. Watson, unfortunately, may be correct in his conclusion that "life on other Earth-like planets...(is)..not probable."  He may have proved the opposite by introducing infinity, "Infinity was invented to account for... a never-ending universe."

"His model... suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years."  Less than 0.01% of infinity is a pretty big chunk of celestual relistate even over four billion years.  Intelligent life may be impossible to find - the proverbial needle-in-the-haystack but with these odds we at least know that the needle is there somplace.

Had Prof. Watson not mentioned "infinity" his arguments would have been rock solid.


One mustn't forget that 0.01% doesn't apply to the universe over. Such as; 1 in 10000 planets are capable of producing life. But it means that each planet has the 1 in 10000 chance of producing life. That probability does not change over time, simply because of the vastness of the universe. Just because we find 10000 planets doesn't mean we are bound to find some form of life. And the idea of infinity is simply allowing that one can never be sure. Which is obviously prudent.

Less than 0.01%? But there are billions of galaxies with billions of stars with a handful of planets on each. 0.01% is 1 in 10000, which still means billions of planets could have life. Even if the probability of life occuring on any planet was 1 in a trillion, there would still be billions of planets with life

Wow, the probability of .01% seems like it is very likely that there is intelligent life relatively near us. Unless earth-like planets are extremely rare. To me though, it's hard to believe that the probability of intelligent life is .01%. What is the probability of molecules forming dna and cells?

Probability has no meaning in infinity, there is nothing to measure except the probable space between
planets that support life in which that is what the above caculates, again in infinity to say what is the probablity is
to say it is possible and if it is possible then it is also possible that it occurs over and over again in to infintum
in an endless cycle. A once in a trillion chance that a planet would fall into a possible sun zone that would
spark life and a trillion failures of the ones that meet the criteria for life and a trillion more that dies at
and early stage , trillions more that died out in the dinosaur age and then one in an immeasurable amount
of space and time that allowed me to make this speculation of a fool.
Albert eat your heart out

Clever, however such models are useless in the vastness of the universe if one was to consider the word infinity for example as proposed by Prof Andrew Watson. You would soon come to the conclusion that human beings can neither understand nor comprehend such words. Just by imagining infinity we thereby limit it, and convolute it to the human condition. True infinity is that which cannot be measured or even talked about, it’s a waste of energy. Taking into account infinity gives you power over it, and this too brings with it false understanding and models of probabilities, by silly professors. Anyone could claim anything, and who could stand up and say for sure that they are right or wrong. A theory of extra dimensions consisting of x numbers of universes and galaxies etc. only complicate his argument. He should focus his time on searching the skies for asteroids or something it’s far more practical. Don’t limit people’s desire to dream.

The human mind has limitations. We are not capable of contemplating infinity. Example: If you take the letters of the alphabet and scrambled the letters around and extended this pattern out to infinity would the combination of letters eventually spell out the play Romeo and Juliet or would it never occur since there are infinite possibilities?

I for one think its arrogant to believe that we are the only living things in all of infinity. I guess what we need is tangible proof of life elsewhere.

Last comment. There is no need to find conditions that fit life because life evolves to meet certain conditions. There are places at the very bottom of the ocean get zero rays of sunlight year round yet life exists there? Unbelievable pressure and cold. Life is a force that fights to live. It evolves to the conditions it finds itself in..

Let's remember one thing, science still can not tell us exactly how non-living matter turns into living, reproducing organisms. Did a bacteria eventually turn into Leonardo di Vinci? If i set my toaster outside for a billion years will it turn into a microwave oven? Doubt it. Why is there "something" instead of "nothing"? Before the Big Bang there was nothing. Can we really be sure that an object smaller than a flea turned into the entire universe. Let's stop pretending that we know where we came from.

"Let's stop pretending that we know where we came from."
Who's doing that then? I don't think any self respecting scientist would ever dare to suggest that they had an answer to that or many other mysteries of the universe.That doesn't mean that one day we won't find out though.
In the mean time these mysteries are what inspire awe in us and make life and the Universe so fascinating.

Hank's picture
Right, I am not sure why any commenters in here have objections to asking questions and seeking answers.   St. Augustine of Hippo did that same thing (tried to find an intelligible and sensible origin of the individual soul and all life) and he was hardly an enemy of religious people.    Religion was never meant to be brainwashing and isolation from creative thought - that's instead what cults do.

they mean to stop stating evolution as a fact. "...It took human beings many years to evolve..."

All that space and only us in it what a shame

logicman's picture
All that space and only us in it what a shame


"If there isn't life on other worlds, it seems like an awful waste of space."  Ellie (Jodie Foster), in Contact.

Evolution is SHIT.Take that scientologists.

Gerhard Adam's picture
Off your meds again ??

The Big Bang and Evolution are theories.I KNOW where I came from/.

Gerhard Adam's picture
Of course you do ....

Hey,
The premise of Prof Andrew Watson is that life is the result of casualty or ramdom interactions that by luck resulted in life.  Giving the other assumption of infinity, the comment of Jim Myres seems very outstanding.
Strictly speaking we do not know if any of the assumptions are right (we cannot know).
What about this, putting aside all religion thinking or belief, faith or whatever you call it; let's assume that there is some natural law which is not discovered yet, by which some elements have synergy with others (i.e. H, O, C and all elements of the organic chemistry), then the combinations of these elements will be more resilient, or once they are generated, the probability to be destroyed is is less than for any combination ramdomly created; so by natural selection there will be an evolution and more complex composites etc. will evolve.  It is just the opposite of entropy which as time pases lead to chaos, in this case because of synergy as time passes and the specimens are subject to "creative destruction" their synergy and complexity will increase.  We have examples of this in the economy or automotive industry which by the force of "competition" and the survival of the most apt or with better "synergy" the system becomes more and more complex.

Gerhard Adam's picture
The premise of Prof Andrew Watson is that life is the result of casualty or ramdom interactions that by luck resulted in life.

Actually you want to be careful here.  He actually said:

"If we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that
we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one,
we’d suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life
was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved
late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is
rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it
being very rare indeed.”

His point is not that life is rare, but rather the likelihood of finding comparably intelligent life in the universe would be more rare.  If you consider all the life forms present on the earth and then consider how many have developed the ability to communicate using radio waves, and then consider over what period of time (considering the existence of the earth), you can easily see that this is a very tiny window indeed.

Steve Davis's picture
That sounds very reasonable to me Daniel, and I think that Gerhard might have hinted at this elsewhere. This idea puts the question of probability in a whole new light.

If there is some article by Gerhard or anybody else about this idea, I would like to read it, it is very ininteresting; even I have not read anything similar before.

Steve Davis's picture
In the Related Articles section at the head of these comments theres a link to Calculating the Odds... Gerhard made a comment there that I took to mean something very much like your idea.

Gerhard Adam's picture
There are a couple of more philosophical problems with this perspective than simply the evolution of intelligent life.

In the first instance, we only have one demonstrable case of intelligent life evolving.  However, we have to be careful to not infer that this was an "objective" of evolution, therefore we have to consider the possibility that it was an "accident" whose biological merit has not yet been established.  Even if we argue about our success in populating the planet, there are many species that experience such population bursts, but they don't require "intelligence" to do so and they never last.

Additionally we have to consider what the probability is of actually being able to detect and communicate with another intelligent species at the same time interval where our technologies would align. 

However, perhaps the most important consideration is our implicit assumption that intelligence necessarily translates into the scientific method and the desire to communicate with others.  Once again, we have to consider how long we (as humans) have embraced the scientific method as contrasted with our total time on earth. 

Gerhard, Steve,
I was reading Gerhard comments to calculationg the odds... and I got amazed about his knowledge and logical way of thinking ...and patience.  I could not find the comment where a similar idea than mine was explained, but it does not matter, I'm not looking for a having a primicia (wouldn't have share it), but I want to know more about this.

About your comments Gerhard, I think you are very right about the conclusions of Prof Andrew Watson.  Only point here would be that it seems to me tht even the smallest (not cero) probability multiplied by "infinity" would result perhaps in "Life on other Earth-like planets... is probable".  To be honest, I think he would have to have done a deep mathematical analysis, which I haven't, then I wrote "perhaps".  If he would have said "Life on other Earth-like planets, for example, is possible in a finite portion of the universe, but not probable", I would totally agree with that.

Also your philosophical considerations I found them very logical and agree with them very much. 

what I wanted to explain, and I want to make clear this is not a belief or a "want it would be" or "like it would be", as an idea (as a mental experiment), is that if there is a natural law by which matter gets complex and organized as time pases (even at a very slow pace), then it is very probable that as a result inteligent living organisms would result, such as us or even more inteligent, not as an accident but as an unavoidable result.  Again, I am not saying that this is something that it has to be like that because of god or somebody having planned it since the beginning etc; I am saying that it could be, as any other possibility could. 

Gerhard Adam's picture
I would suggest you read Dave Deamer's posts for some interesting discussions regarding the origins of life and the chemistry involved.

Prebiotic Simulations Show That Organic Compounds Were Present On Early Earth
Volcanic Chemistry And Hydrocarbons In Early Earth History
Stirring The Volcanic Pot For A Hydrothermal Origin Of Life
Life: An Icy Origin?

There are others, but this should get you started.

Just to expand on something only lightly touched on (for my own amusement at least)

This .01 percent chance of intelligent life (unknowable but sounds reasonable enough) applies of course to Earth like planets only, the likelyhood of any particular solar system containing an Earth is far smaller than this:

We don't know how big the universe actually is, but taking the observable universe we have an
estimate of I think 9 billion trillion (9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars?

21 zeros almost seems like a practical infinity- but when we start dividing for known hurdles to forming Earth-like planets they start to dissapear.- some of these are very rough- but just for argument-

only 10 percent solar systems lie in Galactic habitable zone (take off 1 zero)
needs to stay there-circular orbit & correct speed
only 10 percent have protoplanetary disks not blown away by radiation
small percentage are single systems (1 star not multiple)
small percentage are Sun-like (not to hot/short lived or small/cold)
only 5% of these remaining systems observed have Jupiter-like gas giant to shield inner system from meteors

now you have a decent solar system- you need a perfect inner rocky planet
has to fit right in the habitable zone (decent chance)
but very small chance of circular orbit- most other systems observed are eccentric
You need a single very large moon to stabilize wobbles-(almost freakishly unlikely?)
correct elements for atmosphere/oceans- no tidal locking to Sun, tectonic activity/ molten core-magnetic field etc etc

what you're left with may well be a very small number of probable Earths- it depends
on more accurate numbers- and any other unknown or overlooked factors- and the actual sie of the total universe.
But the chances of one of these occuring close enough to detect, with intelligent life, at the same time as us?

My money would be on no contact ever between two planets' intelligent life?

If you are a smart gambler, you would rather be pesimistic when betting your money.

In engineering, when you make a pure technical judgment you should be pesimistic to make sure you are preventing any risk.

but very small chance of circular orbit- most other systems observed are eccentric

Is this because we are observing stars which are representative of the total universe star population or it is as a result of our detection methods or procedures limitation, for instance we are watching tiny star displacements derived from an eccentric orbit, then concluding that there is an orbiting planet, but for the circular orbit planets there is no such tiny displacements so even they may exist we do not have a suitable technology to detect them.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.