The Astronomy Thread

Sanrith Descartes

Von Clippowicz
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
41,539
107,630
What if by some chance Einstein was right and no one in the Universe can exceed the speed of light? We could have lots of intelligent life forms but they are so far apart that they can't meet up due to speed limitations.
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,820
8,149
The odds of life ever advancing to the point of reasonable intelligence needs two trillion galaxies with 100 billion stars to even happen.

We don't have enough information to put odds on that.

What if by some chance Einstein was right and no one in the Universe can exceed the speed of light? We could have lots of intelligent life forms but they are so far apart that they can't meet up due to speed limitations.

He's right unless we're lucky and there's some weird new physics that defies everything we currently think we know. While almost anything is possible given enough time, the engineering challenges, energy costs, and time delays involved in physical interstellar travel would seem to make it a singularly unappealing activity other than as a species insurance policy. (It makes more sense for AIs.) Even then, that doesn't actually do anything for the originating society other beyond giving them warm fuzzies. For biological life, I could totally understand not investing in interstellar travel in favor of local development.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
7,958
9,653
What if by some chance Einstein was right and no one in the Universe can exceed the speed of light? We could have lots of intelligent life forms but they are so far apart that they can't meet up due to speed limitations.
You don't need speed of light for Fermi's paradox. If you can only do 1% of the speed of light, with AI (just getting kickestarted and looks like it can work out), artificial wombs (being developped as we speak right now) and frozen embryo (already worked out), a species that can last "forever" can colonize all life-compatible planets in the galaxy within a hundred million years (so 2% of the lifetime of Earth - long enough to get it colonized before we can even evolve).

Most of the answers to Fermi is "hard" (in which case we're the first or almost so) or "easy but not lasting" (in which case, I'll enjoy my days of Earth knowing it'll be over someday soon).
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Cybsled

Avatar of War Slayer
16,535
12,043
Assuming FTL can never be cracked, then interstellar travel would have limited uses

1) Something happens to our solar system that requires evacuation (such as a rogue Star or super giant planet or blackhole will pass through and fuck up everything)
2) people want to make their own government/society on a different planet
3) something very valuable is located there that cannot be found in our system and it is so valuable that the massive costs for the enterprise is worth it
You don't need speed of light for Fermi's paradox. If you can only do 1% of the speed of light, with AI (just getting kickestarted and looks like it can work out), artificial wombs (being developped as we speak right now) and frozen embryo (already worked out), a species that can last "forever" can colonize all life-compatible planets in the galaxy within a hundred million years (so 2% of the lifetime of Earth - long enough to get it colonized before we can even evolve).

Most of the answers to Fermi is "hard" (in which case we're the first or almost so) or "easy but not lasting" (in which case, I'll enjoy my days of Earth knowing it'll be over someday soon).

You still need a reason to do that, though. The problems with those “x should have colonized the galaxy” calculations is they never account for WHY a species would want to do that. Let’s look at mankind. Let’s say we could just send out ships into the void that will make human colonies fresh to order with humans grown at site. That is very expensive and uses lots of resources. We are expending those for something that provides no tangible benefit to the builders beyond the thought that humans will live on another planet and probably never be in direct contact. There won’t be any trade.

Realistically the only feasible drivers would be species survival or some strong ideological push to do as such. #1 only happens when shit is about to hit the fan unless you’re some type of Zerg/Tyranid type life that acts like space locusts, and #2 requires pretty devoted backers (think space Mormons like The Expanse).
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users

Kharzette

Watcher of Overs
4,974
3,640
There's a link to the really long papers inside.
McCulloch's modified inertia stuff correctly predicts wide binaries as well.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
7,958
9,653
You still need a reason to do that, though. The problems with those “x should have colonized the galaxy” calculations is they never account for WHY a species would want to do that.
That's the "It only takes one" argument for you. If you have lots of species around, and colonizing the galaxy is doable... the one that does it will colonize the galaxy, and make it so that we don't even evolve. You need an argument about why almost every species won't do that, just why one wouldn't.
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,820
8,149
That's the "It only takes one" argument for you. If you have lots of species around, and colonizing the galaxy is doable... the one that does it will colonize the galaxy, and make it so that we don't even evolve. You need an argument about why almost every species won't do that, just why one wouldn't.

We're just in a low information state right now. We're not in a technological position to colonize ourselves and don't fully understand the cost/benefit of such a massive undertaking. Our detection abilities are still crap. We can barely find planets, never mind do fine-grained analysis of their current habitability/habitation status. It's entirely possible that advanced life IS everywhere, just with relatively small footprints because solar-system+ scale large engineering is a waste of energy and resources and everyone is scared of the Fermi paradox and tries not to engage in massive radio broadcasts. Or not.

In the next 100 years we're certain to have a better understanding of all of this.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cybsled

Avatar of War Slayer
16,535
12,043
By that, you can logically infer that no species do that, or no species do that anywhere near Earth and have yet to expand far enough to be detected by Earth

Life expanding outward in the universe is just a scaled up example of life expanding in ecosystems. Life typically only expands out into areas if the benefits outweigh the benefits of where they are - be it less competition or they can exploit a resource other species can’t. Assuming life everywhere is more or less the same in terms of biological drivers, then unless there is a benefit to spreading outward, there is little need to spread outwards unless you have surplus resources you can expend on it
 

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,473
2,277
You don't need speed of light for Fermi's paradox. If you can only do 1% of the speed of light, with AI (just getting kickestarted and looks like it can work out), artificial wombs (being developped as we speak right now) and frozen embryo (already worked out), a species that can last "forever" can colonize all life-compatible planets in the galaxy within a hundred million years (so 2% of the lifetime of Earth - long enough to get it colonized before we can even evolve).

Don't forget all of these machines would have to work for hundreds or thousands of years without being able to get spare parts or materials for repairs beyond what can be taken with them. We've never built anything remotely like that.
 

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
7,958
9,653
Don't forget all of these machines would have to work for hundreds or thousands of years without being able to get spare parts or materials for repairs beyond what can be taken with them. We've never built anything remotely like that.
Voyagers are getting on 50 years already in space and work good enough (when you don't upload the wrong command). So, designing things to not work, but be ready to work, isn't far fetched.

Granted, they're using old technology made by Boomers, not a modern one by Gen Z...
 

Cybsled

Avatar of War Slayer
16,535
12,043
50 years is impressive, but still a far cry from centuries or millennia. The power source on the probes are suspected to fail by the end of the decade or so and they’ve had to sacrifice many probe functions to keep other ones running

Not saying it is impossible, but a much more difficult engineering challenge
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,820
8,149
Voyagers are getting on 50 years already in space and work good enough (when you don't upload the wrong command). So, designing things to not work, but be ready to work, isn't far fetched.

Sure, 50 years. Voyager is on track to make it to the next star in another ~40,000 years. We'll see if it's still working then.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,811
93,677
Sure, 50 years. Voyager is on track to make it to the next star in another ~40,000 years. We'll see if it's still working then.
Theoretical future human spacecraft wouldnt take 40k years to get to Alpha Centauri.

With fusion you could get there in around 100 years or so. Which is why on million+ year timescales we could easily colonize most of the galaxy.

Which makes you ask where are the Aliens? Is fusion impossible? Is other intelligent life nonexistent?
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,820
8,149
Which makes you ask where are the Aliens? Is fusion impossible? Is other intelligent life nonexistent?

Alternatively, why expand when you're introducing best case 100- year physical delays and multi-year informational delays between fragments of your society? You can't do anything with the resources at the other end that will benefit anyone at the origination. Sure, you get species redundancy, but like I said before that's just warm fuzzies. Maybe the aliens all decide to spend the effort fixing problems where they already are.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

sleevedraw

Revolver Ocelot
<Bronze Donator>
1,802
6,048
Alternatively, why expand when you're introducing best case 100- year physical delays and multi-year informational delays between fragments of your society? You can't do anything with the resources at the other end that will benefit anyone at the origination. Sure, you get species redundancy, but like I said before that's just warm fuzzies. Maybe the aliens all decide to spend the effort fixing problems where they already are.

Mmm, I still think sending people out for resources might make sense depending on the exact type of depletion. If the origination planet is in overall good shape other than the one resource, there is no easy way to "work around" loss of the resource (i.e. substituting with another resource), and it is known that the resource is depleting (but the depletion rate is slow enough that a 100-year lag is manageable), I could still see a species sending people out in this scenario, especially if said species is longer-lived and has a different time scale than we do.
 
Last edited:

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,811
93,677
Alternatively, why expand when you're introducing best case 100- year physical delays and multi-year informational delays between fragments of your society? You can't do anything with the resources at the other end that will benefit anyone at the origination. Sure, you get species redundancy, but like I said before that's just warm fuzzies. Maybe the aliens all decide to spend the effort fixing problems where they already are.
Your neighbors are assholes is a good reason, at least for humans.

More to the point when you look at life here on Earth its spread and established itself in every possible region it has the ability to. If we discover a seemingly habitable world around Tau Ceti why wouldnt we go expand there? Just look at humans in centuries past, lots and lots of people left their homeland to colonize some other land with no inclination of ever returning to their homeland.
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,820
8,149
Your neighbors are assholes is a good reason, at least for humans.

More to the point when you look at life here on Earth its spread and established itself in every possible region it has the ability to. If we discover a seemingly habitable world around Tau Ceti why wouldnt we go expand there? Just look at humans in centuries past, lots and lots of people left their homeland to colonize some other land with no inclination of ever returning to their homeland.

Right, but I'm not sure the individual explorer spirit scales to interstellar travel. That's a global-level engineering effort to pull off.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cybsled

Avatar of War Slayer
16,535
12,043
Alternatively, why expand when you're introducing best case 100- year physical delays and multi-year informational delays between fragments of your society? You can't do anything with the resources at the other end that will benefit anyone at the origination. Sure, you get species redundancy, but like I said before that's just warm fuzzies. Maybe the aliens all decide to spend the effort fixing problems where they already are.

If you're at the stage of being able to pull of interstellar travel, then you're at the stage to exploit resources in your own solar system outside Earth. That would take an extremely long period of time. Sure, technology could advance to make that deplete faster, but even that type of categorization is short sighted. Kind of like back in decades past they thought we would use up all our oil by now and not taking into account more efficient usage of oil (such as cars that get more than 8 mph than the shitty boats they used to have), newly discovered oil reserves, and novel ways of extracting oil that weren't an option in the past.

The resource push outside the solar system might need to eventually occur, but I think it is more than reasonable to think it would take thousands of years to deplete the solar system completely, unless your system was virtually empty of other moons/planets. Short of discovering "unobtanium" like in Avatar, there would be little drive for resource purposes.
Your neighbors are assholes is a good reason, at least for humans.

More to the point when you look at life here on Earth its spread and established itself in every possible region it has the ability to. If we discover a seemingly habitable world around Tau Ceti why wouldnt we go expand there? Just look at humans in centuries past, lots and lots of people left their homeland to colonize some other land with no inclination of ever returning to their homeland.

If a habitable planet is relatively nearby, I absolutely believe that humans would eventually want to travel there. But that is one planet that can be reached in a "reasonable" amount of time. If there is nothing else nearby, then people aren't going to just bolt off into the cosmos to roll the dice. Without FTL, the costs and risks of traveling far out begin to exponentially increase. It might take hundreds or thousands of years even at near light speed.

Plus the other thing to consider is even if a planet has life, it still doesn't mean we can easily survive there. The organic materials there might be toxic to us, the air composition different so that we can't breath. You'd be surrounded by life that you're essentially allergic to and air you can't breath without assistance. I did like how The Expanse touched on this. Eventually they invented some machine that could solve the organics problem, but you're still at the complete mercy of your technology unless you start to genetically engineer your humans to no longer be human and be more akin to the alien life on the chosen planet.
 

Cynical

Canuckistani Terrorist
2,130
5,112
I can easily see generation/sleeper ships for mining, if we can figure out storing humans for long periods of time. Can easily have an entire sub class of workers that are willing to spend most of their lives as popsicles, have no lives or connections, and just happy with a big pay check. There's been tons of them in northern Alberta for decades.

Once the supply chain is going, and some kind of permanent stability is maintained at a HQ, it would be infinite resources essentially. Just wouldn't become reality for the next few hundred years.

If we actually manage to get off this rock and leave our system, my bet is it will all be corporate and profit driven type expansion for the the next 1-2000 years, with hundreds of expendable work camp planets, feeding a central hub of humanity nerualinked V.237 playing xplaynintendostation45x2, directly fed by wifi128g protien vat uplinks.
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,820
8,149
Once the supply chain is going

IMO it's a non-starter to transport any economically meaningful amount of mass over interstellar distances. The energy cost to accelerate/decelerate is just absurd. You're better off making whatever it is locally by fusion/fission or other atomic tech.

Even intra-solar system asteroid mining doesn't make economic sense unless you're using the material to build ships in situ. Say you brought back to Earth one of these trillion-ton gold or iridium nuggets we read about every so often. Congrats, you've just invested trillions of dollars to crash the price to zero.

my bet is it will all be corporate and profit driven type expansion

Humanity can barely plan past next fiscal quarter. Who is going to fund a transport expedition where the payoff is minimum four generations out, if not 50? That's got an NPV of zero with any positive discount rate.

And who is going to gamble on the 200-year leading price of whatever you're transporting? WHAT are you transporting? Even if you knew exactly the right resource to provide when you left your shipping point, how could you have any good expectation what it would be worth anything in 100 years when you arrive?

Our current best forecasters are wrong about pretty much everything, always. No one is taking that risk with a huge portion of global GDP.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user