ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



A new equation for life

Posted: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:01 PM by Alan Boyle


NASA / msnbc.com
 What factors go into a planet's "habitability index"?

Astrobiologists are trying to work out a mathematical equation to quantify how suitable other planets are for life, similar to the famous Drake Equation for judging the chances of contacting extraterrestrial civilizations.

The exercise could help future generations figure out where to look for aliens - or where to settle down. But coming up with a new "habitability index" isn't just a matter of arithmetic.

"To be honest, it's really difficult to find a way forward here," said Axel Hagermann, a planetary scientist at The Open University in Britain who is raising the habitability issue at this week's European Planetary Science Congress in Potsdam, Germany.

Hagermann and a university colleague of his, Charles Cockell, are aiming to develop a single indicator that combines all the factors thought to make life as we know it possible. "What we're looking at is, 'If you've got this, and that, and the other, you've got life. Otherwise, you can't have life,'" Hagermann told me.

Based on their study of earthly examples, scientists generally list three factors: the presence of liquid water, chemical compounds that can be combined in organic reactions, and an energy source to fuel those reactions. But is it possible to quantify the factors behind habitability to such an extent that you can give Mars a habitability index of 0.5, the ice-covered moons of Jupiter and Saturn a 0.2, or the faraway planet called CoRoT-7b a 0.001?

Hagermann said the problem of measuring habitability is "getting more and more complicated, and more and more interesting."

Life on Earth ... and beyond?
The more researchers learn about life on Earth, the harder it is to draw a line between habitable and non-habitable zones. Organisms can be found in places that seem absolutely inimical to life - for example, the Antarctic sandstone outcroppings where microbes lurk or the deep-sea volcanic vents where weird creatures thrive.

Looking beyond Earth, Hagermann is finding that the questions become more complicated, even when he focuses exclusively on how the light from an alien star could help or hinder the development of life.

"For instance, while visible and infrared wavelengths are important for life and processes such as photosynthesis, ultraviolet and X-rays are harmful," he said in a news release. "If you can imagine a planet with a thin atmosphere that lets through some of this harmful radiation, there must be a certain depth in the soil where the 'bad' radiation has been absorbed but the 'good' radiation can penetrate."

Some astrobiologists hold out hope that may be the case on Mars, where a few inches of soil and a trickle of subsurface water might yet provide a haven for Red Planet life. But how do you quantify that?

"I feel like we're looking at a toolbox here," Hagermann told me. "We've got a problem: 'Put nail in wall.' Now we've got the toolbox, and we're trying to figure out which tool to use to solve that nail-in-wall problem ... but we don't know what the nail looks like."

One possibility would be to factor in the characteristics of an alien star's radiation, the distance from that star to a planet, measurements of the planet's atmospheric filtering ability, the composition of the surface, the chemical potential for transforming energy inputs into organic outputs, and ... well, you now see how complicated the calculations can get.

Hagermann hopes his presentation will generate more discussion - and eventually help astrobiologists nail down exactly what it is they're looking for when they look for alien life. "In a way, it's not about maths, it's about methods," he said. "A cry for help? That might be a way of putting it."

Sympathy from SETI
Seth Shostak, senior astronomer at the SETI Institute in California, sympathizes with the British researchers. "It's a good thing to try to do, and if nothing else, it confronts you with the difficulty of doing it. Which tells you something," he said.

He pointed out that "there's no definition of life that really works very well." Even if you were able to define life as we know it, you might be missing out on life as we don't know it.

Shostak and others involved in SETI (the search for extraterrestrial intelligence) are primarily interested in the complex kind of life that broadcasts its existence. In fact, some of those broadcasters may not be life forms at all, but spacefaring machines sent out by alien civilizations, Shostak said.

The way Shostak sees it, not-so-intelligent life should be much more common in the universe than intelligent life is.

"If you're willing to settle for microbes, then there are lots and lots of habitats," he noted. There could be as many as seven such habitats in our own solar system, not counting Earth. (The list includes Mars, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Enceladus, Titan and maybe Venus. In fact, water's disappearance from Venus was the subject of another presentation at the European science meeting.)

Veteran radio astronomer Frank Drake, the author of the Drake Equation and the director of the SETI Institute's Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, agrees with the view that primitive life is probably widespread in the universe.

"Any planet that's like Earth is going to produce it," Drake told me. "There are so many pathways to the origin of life that it's going to happen. ... If you knew a system had planets with bodies of water on them, that would be a habitability index of 1."

Drake's equation takes initial assumptions about the prevalence of habitable planets in our galaxy, and multiplies that number by other factors to come up with a smaller number for the prevalence of intelligent civilizations. But when it comes to rating the potential habitability of specific alien planets, Drake thinks we have to learn more about those planets first.

"Once we learn more, we can start to do this seriously," he said. "Right now, our information is so incomplete that we can't do a good job of coming up with something like a habitability index."

What do you think? Check out our Drake Equation calculator, then see if you can develop your own formula for life in the universe. Leave a comment below to let the rest of us know what you come up with.

More on the habitability question:


Join the Cosmic Log team by signing up as my Facebook friend or following b0yle on Twitter. And reserve your copy of my book, "The Case for Pluto," which is coming out next month.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

cool pic
got a larger image?
A definitive answer about microbes on Mars would go a very long way toward filling in these equations.  

Let's push for sample return missions!  Even though they might be difficult and expensive, the results, positive or negative, would be priceless.
Earth certainly fits the bill ... but for over 90% of the time the planet has existed, the most complex life form was bacteria. Habitability, whatever that is, does not guarantee the presence of life, whatever that is. I think we're looking at a lot of empty space. You're wasting your time if you're holding out for Klingons and Ferengi.
I usually just use a hammer on a nail, I really don't care what the nail looks like.  Also, could the nail be invisible, cause that might be a problem in and of itself.  It is depressing that someone would spend so much time trying to quantify something that a person with common sense would just say no that is stupid to.  For example, don't worry about quantifying habitability on Mars, no one really wants to live there.  
Rhawn Joseph has pointed me to his paper on panspermia, posted on the Journal of Cosmology Web site:

http://journalofcosmology.com/Cosmology1.html

You'll also find an array of commentary relating to the paper:

http://journalofcosmology.com/Cosmology1.html#OpenPeerCommentary  

And for a bonus round, check out the fresh links at Brig Klyce's Cosmic Ancestry site:

http://www.panspermia.org/whatsnew56.htm
Habitability is a process that leads to life...”a collection of activities that often require many different types of input"  The "many" in this instance would refer to EVERYTHING.  From Hydrogen and Helium to rocks and water...it's all moving towards habitability and eventually, living things.  There is no definite place to draw a line between alive and inanimate. BTW, my Grandma spends 90% of her time cooking and only 10% eating...seems like a good trade off, considering the yummy results.
Why is this a news article?  It's just a couple guys scribbling ideas on paper.  Nobody is seriously trying to figure out an equation for habitability, because that would require knowing the requirements for life.....which we obviously don't.  
We could use three different sets of equations in looking at other planets in any search for "life" because the development of life is a process, not a result, and its presence depends entirely upon a planetary change over time.

Earth's lithosphere, aquasphere and atmosphere has evolved though many stages until its biosphere was enabled to develop into us.

We need equations to describe the conception, birth and evolution of life, each of which requires separate situations to support its occurrence.
I have ABSOLUTE proof that LIFE EXISTS IN THE UNIVERSE! Incontrovertible proof that it exists in extremes that we cannot believe! Extremes that have us questioning our long held beliefs as to what factors are needed to support live. Extremes that will even challenge us as to the very definition of live itself!

My Proof

Is called

EARTH!!! (exists in the universe! ;-) - On the other hand, I am sorry but it is a NO BRAINER that the Universe is FILLED with live! The only people I have met that have a problem with this concept are fundamentalist christians and mosloms who believe for religious reasons, that ONLY Earth has life on it!
Life in the infinite universe is as common as sand on a beach, rather than rare and unique. The very basic building blocks of life are common throughout space. That doesn't mean that "intelligent" life is common, it simply states that life from primitive microbes up to what we call mammals or reptiles are abundant and universal. Each Galactic formation will contain millions of life sustaining star systems, but true intelligent evolved life as we know it, {from Neanderthals to (sic) “Klingons”}are extremely rare and exceptional.
Assuming just a 10% validity to the Drake Equation, one finds it provides for 1 -3 intelligent developed planets just in our own Galaxy. (And we know there are “billions” of galaxies!)
The real unknown question is what level does that life thrive?  Would it be from our early years 10 thousand years ago, or our position on Earth 500 thousand years from today. Or, does intelligent life eventually self destruct. Compound in the factors that physics of space and natural disasters may eventually destroy what was created. Gamma ray bursts from nearby star systems, black holes, interstellar collisions, solar exhaustion, and extinction-level events may all have the capacity to stunt advanced  intelligent life. Considering time travel, even within our own galaxy could take thousands of light years across, we just have not yet matured enough on Earth (Technologically wise) to visit or be contacted by advanced civilizations. (sorry UFO’rs!)
OK, sounds like it's about time for y'all to take your little pink (return to reality) pills, because you've been spending way to much time in Fantasy Land ingesting Star Trek movies and Carl Sagans 'Far Out'  fictional stories on this same subject. LOL See what happens when you've spent to much time Mind Melding with Spock? LOL
Life on earth is  based on D-ribose in nucleic acids and L-amino acids in proteins. In principle the other three possibilities should be equally likely and mutually exclusive, not being able to feed on each other. So why in the entire history of our earthy 'paradise' with presumably optimal conditions don't we find evidence of the other possible forms? Life may be much rarer than is currently supposed.
The Drake equation is effectively obsolete because it tends to be overgenerous in it's original assumptions.  When you factor in habitability zones for the planet (composition, tilt, albedo, water content) and extend that to the solar system, local star cluster (supernova with 5-10 light years could be really bad news), galaxy habital zones too close in or hovering out into higher radiation zones is bad news, and these values aren't 1 in 10 but somes times 1x10-80 against and the chances for intelligent life (much less microbial life) start to approach near zero.  The Sterile Universe hyptothesis is starting to gain acceptance within the astrophysics community when you realize a more accurate Drake equation now has about 60 variables in the equation for Intelligent life and about 30 for microbial life, and these have very high probabilities against life at all.  These more recent astrophysist papers are pretty grim reading but provocative nonetheless.
While contemplating life on other planets some consideration ought to be given to preserving life on this one!
I don't know why they don't get it: Look at all the places life is on Earth (There are bacteria in underground caves that eat *rocks*). If there ever was life on Mars, or anywhere else for that matter, it would still be there, and all over the planet. And these could likely be places missed by a rehashing of the Drake equation.
To correct a previous comment, all religious groups believe in aliens and extra terrestrial life.  I know of no religion who thinks their "god" lives like us on earth.  Therefore he/she/they must live extra terrestrial.  They all worship alien life forms.
Excellent equation Alan!  It is so interesting what scientists can do with equations.  I doubt there will be just one equation for proving life exists on some planet.  Seth Shostak is correct that we'll need different equations for microbial life and intelligent life.

I so enjoyed Carl Sagan's awesome Cosmos series where he did an equation to discover the number of habitable planets with intelligent life in our galaxy.  But it all comes down to our ability to see what's out there, the one limiting factor that will make it hard to prove the equations work.  I enjoyed reading the story the other day about discovering the first rocky planet even if it is hot as Mercury.
For the sake of argument, suppose that life does/did not evolve on its own but, rather, was induced by God.  I accept that evolution has been proven (and that it may be the method God uses with life) but I have yet to be convinced that life can arise spontaneously on its own.  Some may call this an ignorant view but to my knowledge noone has yet proven otherwise.  Since this possibility of life's origin could actually be true, it makes the calculation of the odds of life an impossibility.  God may have chosen to initiate life on billions of worlds or just one.  Since the "God factor" cannot be calculated and has to be considered a possibility, the whole equation will always be skewed and thus probably not accurate.
In the course of planetary existance with life, bacteria and microbes would exist for evolution to begin the process to higher and more complex forms.  Had extremophilic bacterial life existed billions of years ago on Venus and within the oceans, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may have been removed but still the atmosphere had a high concentration > 5,000 ppm of CO2 so one could argue the point that an oxidation event did not occur on Venus, thus leading to the current conditions upon and within Venus.  

For those that argue that bacterial or microbial life is the predominant form of life on planets, that statment is both true and false.  We only know of the geological history of the Earth, and that geological record is imperfect.   Therefore, one cannot apply the Earth conditions to other planets or even moons within the solar system or furthermore to the large aspects of the Universe.  

Bacteria and microbial life has been the predominant form of life on Earth.  It is thought to exist on another planet, such as Mars, but is unknown and thus remain further verification that it exists.  

Even if a planet does evolve life and higher forms of life, why does that life form have to reach our state of "human intelligence"?   This planet would have intelligent life even if all the humans died tomorrow in a mass plague.  Dolphins and Elephants have high levels of intelligence, despite the use of tools or development of cities.  What if a planet were to exist for 50 Million years without a 'human analogue' to intelligence life.  The Earth has existed for 65 Million years since the demise of the dinosaurs.  Out of which 1.2 Million years the existance of Homo erectus probably had the cognitive capacity of a 5 year old, and chimps have the capacity of a 2 year old.   So for millions of years, Earth did not have intelligent life but did have higher life forms than bacterial or microbial speices.  

In the next few years rocky world planets will be discovered.  After about 100 or so of those, 10 worlds probably will be discovered that possibly could have life and within the favorable "Goldilocks Zone" of the host star or solar system.  

Intelligent life, on par with Human intelligence or even evolved artificial life...it is unknown but pausible to exist within the Universe.  
Get over it, we're it. How do we know that life is just a 'freak' of nature and as such is just one facet of existence. Our planet has been around for 4.3 billion years, or so it goes. You would think at some point in history some sort of contact would have been made. Perhaps some DNA record? Just like the belief in ghosts and spirits and such, lots claim to have seen them, but no evidence exists, certainly no scientific proof. Nope, we are alone. Or at least I hope not.
Why must all of this thinking be so woefully terracentric?  I understand it's a place to start, but we are severly prejudicing our potential for discovery with the absurdly arrogant assumption that all life must require liquid water simply because we require liquid water.  Why must we be so small-minded?
We sure like to put the chicken before the egg, don't we? Science is looking at the possibility of life the wrong way. Sure, life exists in some very harsh conditions on earth, but we seem to forget it didn't originate in those harsh environments. It originated in more hospitable areas and spread as it evolved to take advantage of less hospitable areas, however harsh they may be. Scientists need to stop wasting energy on this type of garbage and focus on solving the space/time barrier that prevents us from finding life, elsewhere. Then we can start by visiting solar systems with stars similar to our own. This is not a question that can be solved mathematically. Life has likely been around for a very long time, yet we still have that "Earth is the center of the universe" mentality. Science talks about the Big Bang as if it's the only Big Bang ever to have occurred. Here's a thought...Are life's elements scattered and re-scattered throughout the universe with each Big Bang? The Universe is expanding at an increasing rate. At some point, it reaches a pace of expansion at which space time ceases to exist, and boom, new big bang. Matter doesn't have to contract back to a central point because space and time cease to exist for a brief moment. A brief moment is all it takes. Hahahaha...I'm not even high!
Tim; My God is not an "alien", he is the Creator.  He is both in and separate from this universe.  Existence as we can see/understand is a mere reflection of his glory.  Just as you are not alien to your parents, and your children are not alien to you, we are not alien to our Creator (teenagers notwithstanding).
I would suggest a few courses on religion or talking to a pastor/priest you trust.
Each planet that harbors life in the universe should be viewed like a pebble that's thrown into a pond.  Planets that harbor bacterial life only are like throwing a grain of sand in the pond - so will be very hard to detect.  Planets with intelligent life would compare to throwing a large rock in the pond.  The chance of two intelligent forms of life finding each other depends not only on size and location, but also when the ripples are made.  In other words, if otherworldly life doesn't make a large enough splash close enough to us, when we are around to see it, we would never know it's there.
The Birth of the Moon by Lewis Manson (1978)
All and Everything by GI Gurdjieff (1950)

Both books describe a catastrophe that a comet/meteor hit earth in the past, the impact caused: a piece of earth to break off and eventually become the moon, effect on other planets was to destroy the atmosphere on Mars which caused water to escape.

Fact or fiction? Time will tell.
Life appears to me to be so inconsequential to the overall that I don't know why it doesn't exist everywhere.
I sit back and just have to chuckle at Drake's statements like "Any planet that's like Earth is going to produce it... There are so many pathways to the origin of life that it's going to happen." Really? If there are so many ways to the origin of life then please, Mr. Drake, tell us how life sprang from the inanimate hydrocarbons floating around in that primordial soup. What's that? Silence?

It is equally amusing how these "scientists" then infer, from this utter lack of understanding, that life can just spring up anywhere there is an earth-like planet. You know, early on, scientists used to think maggots sprang up spontaneously anywhere there was rotting meat. Spontaneous generation is a myth. Life comes from the living. There is no "natural" process that can convert nonliving molecules into even the simplest of microorganisms. Anyone that denies that commits the atrocity of having faith in the unknown which unwittingly makes them as ignorant as they claim Christians to be.

The Christian has one thing Mr. Drake does not. We have a historically verifiable figure to point to that proved his authority over all things by prophecy, miracles, and raising himself from death. We have His words recorded as verifying the living God as the giver of life. So, again, life only comes from life. Christians are able to base their faith on real events and verifiable history. In contrast, Drake and those of similar mindset must rely on blind faith in the myth of life's spontaneous generation. If one were to apply Occum's razor to the dilemma, which is the simpler explanation: that molecules beat the impossible odds and self-assembled into a living organism, or that the living God (objectively verified in history through Christ) planted life here on this planet? Hmmm, gotta go with God every time on that one.

A new equation for life? Clueless assumptions based on faulty foundations. Worthless.
This is only half the picture. If you talk about life and evolution thereof, you first and foremost must start with the star. Specifically what kind of star. Too small=too cold=incorrect conditions for life to evolve. Too large/hot=star that burns out quickly=not enough time for intelligent life to evolve. Our star is a main sequence star which seems to to be the right combination of factors. Look then at other known main sequence stars and then look for orbiting planets. If your waiting for SETI, think again folks- SETI is a carrot to placate the masses. ET evolved off basic radio more than a millenium ago. Then think beyond the tip of your nose and look at main sequence stars older than ours and you just might find something- star HD20807 is one example!
robbie.."A new equation for life? Clueless assumptions based on faulty foundations. Worthless."

Who are you to decide what is "clueless"?

Actually these are assumptions WITH a clue...not science in the least, but conjecture at best...so what?...I still don't know why people like you have to inject "God" into this. Maybe you should explain.

Thomas Ashby,
The article deals with the question of the origin of life. How can one not bring God into it as He is the very essence of life and the creator of all living things.  God is extremely relevant and essential to this topic. That is why “people like me” inject God into these discussions.
Drake makes the statement that any earth-like planet will produce life. He also asserts that there are many paths to the origin of life. The statement essentially says that science knows of no way that non-living molecules can transform themselves into living organisms, but it is known for sure there are many ways that this process can be achieved. How can many ways be known when not one is known? This is a self-contradicting statement. Using slang, one might even say "clueless".
Without first knowing the originating process of life on Earth, it is a futile exercise to derive equations to calculate the probability of this unknown process occurring throughout the universe. Given that the foundation on which these equations are based is missing, or fanciful speculation at best, the margin of error for the calculations must be 100%, which indeed makes them quite worthless.

It seems that the more we learn of the geology, chemistry and biology of our planet, the more we realize how infinitely small the probability is for intelligent life to have developed. Some indeed call intelligent life, a mystery or even a miracle, a freak accident in the universe. Many specific factors from the galactic to the stellar to the planetary to the evolution of life and the seemingly well orchestrated sequence of mass extinctions have all come into play at the right place and at the right time to have produce Homo sapiens on Earth. So my reckoning is we are all alone in the Milky Way Galaxy. As regards Drake's Equation, it works prefectly well only on the drawing board. Life specifically intelligent life is far to complex to be predicted or analyzed by equations. Life's rarity thereby behooves us to protect it by all means possible. Stop Global Warming! Stop the Extinction Now!
"God" maybe exists but he doesnt want to show himself yet, however, we human trying to understand life as it is. And we think for ourselves~ There's no reason for you to bring god into this. As we try to figure out the question of life, and we are still human and all we have is assumptions, and things we can see to believe.... until one day god shows up and shows us paradise~ lets believe based on wat we can see and can learn now. It just Amazing how we learn new things everyday. Maybe He wants to tell us something. for now... let's chill... dont make the god debate serious
Vien,
God has shown himself to us. Look at the complexities of the universe, the grand design of even the simplest of cells, the human mind, all of nature reflects a grand designer though God’s natural revelation. He has shown himself by becoming one of us through Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. He has shown himself through the written words of the scriptures. To say God has not revealed himself to us is simply a matter of one not wanting to see. Christians do not believe in some fairytale myth, but our trust is objectively based on what was seen and learned from Jesus. Jesus was physically here on Earth, made a claim to be God incarnate, and proved it through his miracles and raising himself from the dead. He is the truth and the answer to life. God is the origin for all things, so there is every reason to bring Him into this debate. We will never know truth until we seek Him first.
It is good for man to explore the universe, for the truths found there ultimately speak to the grandeur of God’s grand design. My point is that to leave God out of that exploration is like studying music but denying the composer or reading a book and claiming the words deposited themselves on its pages in absence of an author.
God did show up one day and he did show us paradise.  While hanging on the cross to atone for our sins, he told the thief on the cross next to him, “Today, you will be with me in paradise.”
Vien, the God debate is serious, not by my own making, but because the foundation of all reality begins and ends with God. I can only hope that one day the scales are peeled from your eyes, so you are able to see the truth God has revealed through His creation.
To me the very term 'astrobiology' is rather premature. On a very basic level, it is a field without a single example of what it purports to study. Sorry, sea-floor colonies of life do not count; they are terrestrial. In point of fact the very question "What is life?" is not fully agreed upon, and how it came about, apparently only once on Earth, is little understood. The Drake 'equation' itself is just a list of speculative geusswork dressed up to look like Mathematics, apparently to lend an air of credibility to the thing. And the value of virtually every term in it is unknown to one degree or another; some are basically made up out of wholecloth. And even dressed up as it is, it strikes me as pretty smug on our part to assume that we HAVE all or even most of the algebraic terms that should be in it.  I think it also contributes to an unfortunate lack of imagination on the parts of many people who should know better (as evidenced by the "3 things needed for life"). For example, WHO SAYS life MUST have water? Yet it is explicitly encoded in the Drake thingy, and is precisely one of the reasons we are so set on looking for water everywhere.

So, until and unless there is *evidence* for life, any claims about "we are the only life in the universe" or "life is more common than sand on a beach" are just beliefs and have no foundation in fact. They are, as math guys (and girls) would say, just "handwaving arguments".... To me, there are warning signs that we are fooling ourselves about how much we know, and don't know, about Life (the Universe and Everything:).

All negativity aside, I *DO* actually think we need to look for life. It is a very fundamental question of great importance. I just don't think we should invent things like 'astrobiology' and the Drake equation and pretend they mean we know more than we do. We need to do it with eyes open, and not mistake beliefs and wishful thinking for facts. A symptom of this happening was all the hoopla that surrounded the release of the study of meteorite ALH84001 a few years ago. I remember thinking at the time that (1) some people had fooled themselves, and (2) the evidence for life would not stand up. And sure enough, over the following months and years first one piece, then another, then another.... of the evidence fell. Unfortunately a surprising number of people well-remember the blaring announcement, but didn't hear the slow unravelling of the case....  (This is why I am not a big fan of sensationalism or grandstanding in Science.)

42
J Chappelow
Fairbanks AK

ps. to  Thomas A. and Vien: As Thomas Paine (I think) said, and I paraphrase: "To debate with a person who has left reason behind is as useless as to administer medicine to a corpse...."
Oh, and  the statement: "Any planet that's like Earth is going to produce it. There are so many pathways to the origin of life that it's going to happen." Is a perfect example of someone who HAS turned his belief into a fact, in his own mind and is NOT being objective.

All is unified and reduces to 1. However your awareness of this only takes root when you find yourself. Then the journey down the rabbit hole becomes clearer.
     We Are Trying

Honesty would seem to require all to say we don't currently know. Indeed, we may never know and must, with the same mentioned honesty, say we don't currently know if we may ever know.
 We can never, scientifically, know if our universe is infinite; therefore, claims of its infiniude are not scientifically supportable. We do, scientifically, know that the observable universe is FINITE due to the, scientifically, established finite speed of light. The scientifically established finitness of the observable universe, however, does not prevent our universe from being infinite in areas not bound by scientific requirements.
 One can believe whatever it pleases one to believe whether it can be supported by science or not. To say that science is the only credible thing that humans have is obviously wrong except for those who close their minds to anything but science. Science, at present, has many questions that it can't answer and some may not have scientific answers. Physicists know that physics and science have BRUTE FACTS, often defined as things science takes for granted without being capable of scientific proof. Some physicists would say that the value for the maximum speed of light is such a "brute fact", but that is not an absolute certainty because a valid TOE (Theory Of Everything) might be able to derive that speed. Some physcists would say that gravitational attraction is a "brute fact" (it's just the way of our universe and we have to just accept it), but TOE, again might derive it. One "brute fact" of our physical universe that a TOE (hence, it can't; then, really be "Of Everything") that seems must always remain (there are others) is the "brute fact" of our physical universe that motion at constant velocity is relative (two observers, if alone in our universe, can't determine which one is moving and which is at rest if they are, say, approaching each other; like Einstein's black catin a dark cellar that isn't even there). Our physical universe "says" that asking which is moving is a pseudo question because in our physical universe there is no way the two can prove one is moving and the other is at rest. Our physical universe is an "equal opportunity" universe in that either observer can claim rest and motion for the other. They can be in mutual contradiction as to who is moving and BOTH can still be CORRECT. Now there's a lesson of TOLERANCE for ALL from our physical universe. Our EXPLANATIONS (stories, myths, opinions, beliefs, etc.) can be in mutual contradiction (our universe, however, shuns self-contradiction); yet, BOTH stories can still be correct in discovering the truths of our physical universe, specifically, if we change nothing we are going to collide. The collision can be called a brute fact (absolute truth) of our physical universe while the explanations are mutually contradictory (relative). To my claim: "You (Mary) crashed into me (Tom)." our physical universe allows you to contradict with your claim: "No way, you (Tom) crashed into me (Mary).". Remember, to make the point easier to see and avoid the complications of other observers not moving in tandem with either To or Mary, the two observers, Mary and Tom, are alone in our physical universe. If some complain that there is no way two can be alone in our real physical universe, a thought experiment, try this one; our physical universe is so consructed that there is no physical way you can distinguish motion at a constant velocity from being at rest if inside, say, a box that allows no way for you to see what is going on outside. Finally, eating meals on a plane that is moving through smooth air requires nothing different in the use of eating implements than if sitting at your dinning table at home. If the air gets bumpy you notice difficulty and are made aware that you are in a plane not at home. No honest physicist can scientifically derive this "brute fact" of our physical universe without stepping outside science or simply assuming it from wide experience (which is not proof). Religious physicists might say that the answer is: "Because God made the physcal universe that way." The non-religious might say: I can't scientifically derive it for you; so, I do not wish to give any answer; or, lucky chance did it so that you can eat on planes and levitating trains. :-)
 Physicists and other honest scientists will agree that there may be other realms aside from the physical realm of our universe, but they can not venture there and remain scientific; they, usually, prefer to leave such things to experts in those realms.
Robbie.." How can one not bring God into it as He is the very essence of life and the creator of all living things."

That is a belief with no proof. A statement that makes you feel knowledgable about life's origin. It's handy to say that..that's all. I guess all of science should just sit down, now that you have answered the ultimate question.
  More "Good Luck"?

  Our sun's location (hence Earth's) is in a very favorable spot in our galaxy for our observing our universe (we are in between a couple of the spiral arms). If we were, say, in some spiral arm (rather than between some), many of our recent discoveries abour our univcese with our current tehnology might not ever be possible even though great technological advances eventually came along. Surely, many of the beautiful Hubble photos would have been impossible with our current instruments. Some argue that our existence and eventual extinction are highly dependent on our being located between spiral arms of our galaxy. If all this is true, it seems, at least for efficiency, we should not be wasting our time looking for life like us on planets around suns in the spiral arms if the supply of those between spiral arms has not been exhausted. One would be prone to say "hard cheese" (tough luck) fellas and gals that you were so poorly located for discovering things about our universe. Let's send them a spaceship and bring them to our planet so that they can enjoy the wonders of our universe and see just how LUCKY we are. Who knows, they might even decide there is, after all, a benevolant creator for some beings anyway. :-)  
I wish Alan would exclude comments that obvious preaching by certain types when topics like this are chosen. Same for stories about evolution and fossil finds. The cre4ation and God crew always decend on thses topics like flies on meat and just don't have the mental ability to talk anything other than religion. If Alan wants , I suppose he could make a Religious Log. That way the realistic and science oriented could decend on the religious !  Equal time please Alan..equal time.
Thomas Ashby (9/23, 1252) wrote, "I wish Alan would exclude comments that (are) obvious(ly) preaching (proselytizing) by certain types when topics like this are chosen."
I'm on the opposite side of the religious debate than Thomas is, but we find much agreement here.  It's aggravating when people on both sides who lack the mental ability to weigh in do so anyway.  And when it's people supporting my side using stupidity to uphold their own beliefs that they don't even understand it's just plain embarrassing.  I'd love to see some form of censoring.  My vote goes to a 1 to 4 system where 1 is "OMG, my cat just coughed up a hairball the size of my head" having no relevance or merit and 4 being pertinent posts that you actually have to know something to follow.  Then a filter so I only see 3s and 4s.  It’d be a lot more work, but it’d be work for Alan, not me, so I’m for it.

However, on this page, first there is no science to speak of.  We have some rudimentary chemistry and guesses at how life could have emerged.  A scientific area in it's infancy at best.  The discussion here is strictly philosophy, which makes it fair game to religion.  Second, assuming Thomas is reacting to Robbie, he just seems to be upset because someone said God and started legitimately busting on the (lack of) science involved.  It's like a sore spot, don't touch it.  That assumption is based on his otherly reacting to Robbie.  If he’s a little bent because of some of the other posters, I’m feelin’ it too, man.  Third, the only question science can even hope to address is how.  Never why or by whom.  And even then the how is just the simple chemistry.  For the myriad of things that occur to set the conditions for those reactions we’re getting into nonlinear dynamics and even then it’s time displaced.  We don’t even come close to handling nonlinear dynamics in the now and theoretically never will be able to.  In the quest for life origins it comes down to questions of what chemical reactions occurred.  The atheist is assuming that whatever they were they occurred through random chance.  I assume they occurred with divine intervention.  The best any of us could hope to prove is that they could happen.  Even if you can set up a series of reactions in a lab that result in self replicating rna it only proves that you can produce it in the lab.  You can only prove the chemistry.  Not that it would happen, or did happen, through random chance in our, or any, primordial world.  What we do know is that life is difficult.  To this point in time the totality of scientists have been unable to set up that series of chemical reactions that leads from inanimate to animate.  When we can’t do it when we’re trying it bolsters my confidence that it didn’t happen randomly.  And my faith won’t be shaken when we finally do figure it out.  The fact is we can’t just throw a bunch of raw materials into a jar, shake and there’s life.  We’re having difficulty coming up with intermediate molecules.  It will always be the case that it wasn’t easy.  I have faith that science will eventually find the series of chemical reactions that spawns life.  It’s a tower of Babyl issue.  I also have faith that those reactions took place with a little help.  No good science can ever disprove that, and no good scientist would ever claim to.

More to the points raised in this article, so much went into the development of life on earth.  Our huge moon seems to have played a key roll.  You don’t get a moon like ours by straight accretion in any model I know of.  You get little moons like we observe elsewhere.  Tectonic movement may have played a roll.  High concentrations of iridium at just the right time may play a roll in the development of life.  So there may be a window in which you need a large comet strike.  Life could be the result of a timed sequence of events dependent on extra-planetary events so that it has only occurred here out of the entire universe or it could be rare in our system on six worlds but thick everywhere else.  The idea of an equation for where life is at is somewhat ridiculous as we don’t even know what goes into making life.  As the existence of oxygen is necessary for sustaining our life and it seems that the only way oxygen exists in concentration is to have the presence of life the only thing we could hope to make an equation for is how many worlds could be terraformed.  

As far as questions I don’t see science ever answering on the subject:

Assuming we find life a half dozen places in the solar system, how many places did it start in?  Could have been a half dozen, could have been one.  If all that life is similar to Earth’s it would appear to strengthen the idea of one, which would not necessarily be Earth.  However, it could as easily mean that this is the only way to make life.  Life in a different form, i.e. silicon based, would almost definitely mean multiple locations and multiple paths.

How many times has life sprung up from a dead Earth?

How many unique times did life initiate for the life we currently have?  That is to ask did life on Earth start once and every living thing we see or find evidence for evolved from that one instance or did life initiate from inanimate soup in several locations on Earth by the same process so it was similar so it merged?

Has there ever been a different form of life on Earth, i.e. silicon based?

Is there a different form of life on Earth now?  Carbon based life uses liquid water as a medium for chemical reactions.  Is there currently a silicon based life that uses liquid magma in the same way?  Maybe feldspar is the result of another form of life.

How do we even define life?  If we find an endothermic chemical reaction whose resultant is a catalyst for the reaction is that life?  Can we exclude it?  I’d hate to exclude it as a mere chemical reaction and then find a more complex life that evolved through that process.
  Censorship Etc.
Alan seems to me to be far too wise to pay heed to calls for being some kind of censor as suggested by some posts. I and others may agree that some stuff disturbs us, but what sounds like dissonance for me may be symphonic to others an vice versa. If I don't like the way some post is going, I simply move on to others. I don't need any special efforts from Alan to do that. Indeed, I see Alan's wisdom and compassion in allowing what some feel are idiotic ideas to be published coupled with some belief that some truth may spring out of the mouths of babes which the sophisticatd could not see. Remember the emperor's new clothes? Finally, I find it very reassuring that Alan is in charge and rarely finds censoring necessary. Alan, please, keep up your great work.  
Life is found in three type of environment: hot, warm and cold. The equation just need to mingles in those simple formula. Nothings else, matter. We just have to look for them wisely and carefully or 'they' already found us and smiling from beyond...probability is they already found us and waiting to brief us on how ignorance we're of our intelligent and acceptance of life beyond earth. My question is very simple but no answer is found so far - "What are they waiting for"? My mother jokingly said: "They have sent a white envelope, half open, yet we dare not disclosed the entire letter for we afraid of our own species that is far greater intelligent then us all. We're afraid of our own finding so let the envelope left unattended for we're happier with mysteries unfolded." I have fun with Drake Equation. If Drake Equation was just a theory, when mathematic should always be a fact, then "em cee square' cannot be an energy relativity theory (of universe). Hmm!
Why dont we calculate the possibility that life exhists elswhere in reverse.Ie Take all the planets and all the stars and assume that there is life on just 1 of them besides earth.Now what is that possibility.Then get the figure and see if that fits in withall the probabilities.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=2072217

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google