Nonterrestrial artifacts hard to pin down
(PhysOrg.com) -- Two Pioneer probes left our solar system carrying plaques about humankind, and two Voyager probes will soon join them to gather information about places far out in our galaxy. We can and will send more autonomous probes into outer space, but why have we never found evidence of other civilizations doing the same? A pair of postdoctoral researchers at Penn State, approaching the problem mathematically, shows that we have not looked in enough places to ensure that no extraterrestrial artifacts exist in our solar system.
"The vastness of space, combined with our limited searches to date, implies that any remote unpiloted exploratory probes of extraterrestrial origin would likely remain unnoticed," report Jacob Haqq-Misra, Rock Ethics Institute, and Ravi Kumar Kopparapu, Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, in a paper accepted by Acta Astronautica and posted online on ArXiv.
So far, we have not found any nonterrestrial artifacts in our solar system. The Fermi paradox, originally formulated by Enrico Fermi, asks, if intelligent life is common, why have no technological civilizations been observed. Answers to this question could include life is rare, intelligent cultures inevitably destroy themselves, intelligent beings have not gotten here yet or they are here but not revealing themselves. Even without actual contact, like us, other civilizations could be sending unpiloted probes to quietly peek at our civilization.
These probes, like ours, would be small and might be hidden in a variety of places. In the asteroid belt they would probably go unnoticed, especially if these nonterrestrial objects are only 3 to 33 feet in size, weighing little more than a ton.
"Extraterrestrial artifacts may exist in the solar system without our knowledge simply because we have not yet searched sufficiently," said Haqq-Misra and Kopparapu. "Few if any of the attempts would be capable of detecting a 1 to 10 meter (3 to 33 foot) probe."
Haqq-Misra and Kopparapu use a probabilistic method to determine if we have looked closely enough anywhere in the solar system to definitively say there are no nonterrestrial objects here. The analysis is based on answering the question, how sure can we be that we should have already found any nonterrestrial objects lurking in the solar system.
They view the solar system as a fixed volume and figure out the percentages of that volume that would need to be thoroughly searched using a discovery capability small enough to detect these probes, assuming that the probes are not consciously camouflaged. The researchers note that most searches to date have not been fine enough to locate such small probes or to totally rule out anywhere.
After taking into account a variety of potential biases, such as "the universe is teeming with life" or "life is rare," the team developed an equation that can be applied to a portion of the volume of the solar system and determine whether sufficient searching has been done to ensure that we can say there are no nonterrestrial objects within that volume.
The researchers found that it is, at this point, difficult to say that there are not nonterrestrial objects in our solar system.
"The surface of the Earth is one of the few places in the solar system that has been almost completely examined at a spatial resolution of less than 3 feet," said Haqq-Misra and Kopparapu.
But even as humans have spread across the solid surfaces of the Earth, there are still caves, jungles and deserts as well as the ocean floor and subsurface areas that have not been explored. Even with this, the Earth does have a high confidence that no nonterrestrial artifacts exist.
The moon and Mars have been searched to a small extent. An ongoing mapping project, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, is looking at the moon at a resolution of about 20 inches, so we may eventually be able to determine if there are no nonterrestrial objects on the moon. The researchers caution that surface maps may not be sufficient to distinguish between a space probe and a rock.
The surface of Mars is still mostly unsurveyed and the researchers' confidence in the probability of no nonterrestrial artifacts is low. Similarly, locations like the Earth-moon Lagrange points, the asteroid belt and the Kuiper belt might also shelter extra solar system probes, but the vast majority of the solar system's volume is uninvestigated.
"Searches to date of the solar system are sufficiently incomplete that we cannot rule out the possibility that nonterrestrial artifacts are present and may even be observing us," said Haqq-Misra and Kopparapu. They add that "the completeness of our search for nonterrestrial objects will inevitably increase as we continue to explore the moon, Mars and other nearby regions of space."
Provided by
Pennsylvania State University
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
4 comments
-
Distance of planets from stars and revolution
5 hours ago
-
revamping general concept and cosmological principle
May 25, 2012
-
Transiting Exoplanet Light Curve
May 25, 2012
-
Math behind Theoretical Physics
May 24, 2012
-
Do we know whats at the center of galaxies yet?
May 23, 2012
-
Structure of the Milky Way?
May 20, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - General Astronomy
More news stories
Land and sea species differ in climate change response: study
(Phys.org) -- Marine and terrestrial species will likely differ in their responses to climate warming, new research by Simon Fraser University and Australia’s University of Tasmania has found.
3 hours ago |
3.7 / 5 (3) |
2
|
Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy
Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don't understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match ...
5 hours ago |
4.8 / 5 (4) |
11
|
10 million years needed to recover from mass extinction
It took some 10 million years for Earth to recover from the greatest mass extinction of all time, latest research has revealed.
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
5 hours ago |
5 / 5 (3) |
1
|
Sophisticated simulations predict future warming
The chances of our planet being hit by a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as likely as it being hit by an increase of 1.4 degrees, new research shows. Presented in the journal Nature Geoscience, the British study ...
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
May 22, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (9) |
51
Aliens don't want to eat us, says former SETI director
Alien life probably isnt interested in having us for dinner, enslaving us or laying eggs in our bellies, according to a recent statement by former SETI director Jill Tarter.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 25, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (14) |
40
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidias competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if it will be an expensive undertaking.
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Nov 07, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (7)
Fermi was a genius for his time, but the so-called Fermi paradox was shortsighted. It has been rebutted ad nauseum.
In essence, Fermi's assumptions were wrong. Of primary importance, the assumption that other cultures would be interested in being seen by us. This represents a not-uncommon ethno-centric (Terra-centric?) arrogance of classical thinking and should be disputed by progressive minds. The fact is, many reasons exist why we have not (at least not conclusively) observed and/or communicated with nonterrestrials. This does not in any way change the potential for or abundance of life throughout the universe.
Nov 07, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Nov 07, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (3)
Your comments are inaccurate. Fermi himself postulated that if life were as abundant as others had claimed, then we should have seen some evidence. And yet, we do not.
Many others later connected themselves with Fermi's "paradox" and expanded upon the discussion. But Fermi's comments were simple and to the point.
This research directly addresses the shortcomings by attempting to show mathematically that Fermi -- like other of his contemporaries -- simply failed to see the proverbial forest for the trees.
In other words, over-optimistic estimates of both the probability of nonterrestrial life and our ability to "observe" it combined to give false importance to the paradox itself. Indeed, how many times will scientists let ego override factual evidence in the same way many in science would criticize, for example, a religionist for letting "faith" substitute for facts? Which is to say, Fermi's "paradox" was irrational to begin with, but his name alone carried weight.
Nov 07, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
Nov 07, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
First, we do not know how easy it is to travel far distances. Perhaps it is impractical or impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. Even if there is plenty of intelligent life, that doesn't mean that expansion is common.
Second, any object or probe would have had to arrive relatively recently (On geological time scales) to be recognizable. Even the stuff we left on the moon is being slowly degraded by UV, cosmic rays, micrometeorites...
Third...and by far most importantly...even if we can 'see' an extrasolar or extraterrestrial object...how close would it have to be for us to recognize it as such?? I be that our capabilities to identify one of these objects would cover less than 1% of the solar system - and we've likely searched far less than that.
But yeah, I still think we should keep an eye out, just in case we get lucky.
Nov 07, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
This makes perfect sense. We tend to get a little excited about our own capabilities, but it's obvious every time we "discover" another rock close to or on an approach to Earth that we don't have even a small portion of local space mapped to any degree of accuracy.
When you take that out a couple more AUs, we are literally making new discoveries every day. With 2011 technology. Almost anything could have come here, parked in orbit tucked in close to or on a big rock, and we'd have no way of knowing if intelligent beings were in our "backyard" waving to us right now.
Nov 07, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Nov 07, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
I realize that the "Space" industry is intent on using the US government to gain lots of income in the pursuit of getting 'man' into space, but acquiring the information that a manned exploration could would be much much less expensive using robot vehicles.
Nov 08, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I could think of a number of other reasons:
a) Civilizations that depend on technology will become more efficient with time - which means that more energy is being diverted to do what you want to do and less is diverted into losses that could be detected by others.
b) Civilizations that do not depend on technology will not be obvious as they are well adapted to their environment.
c) Civilizations where individuals have reached effective immortality will become risk averse and probably not live on planets anyhow - but move off into deep space.
d) There's absolutely no point for a superior civilization to contact an inferior one.