Interstellar travel?

[hobbsyoyo]

Interstellar FTL travel might be possible if you could shrink things really, really small like elementary particles small and then shoot them through a mini wormhole and then have them somehow reconstruct on the other side? If you wanted to get back up to macrosize, that shouldn't be a huge problem as your micro-particles would look for some kind of planet and then start upscaling itself. Eventually, you'd be able to recreate "yourself" on the other side assuming that you had all the necessary ingredients.

DNA probably isn't small enough to do the traveling bit, but it certainly fits the bill for the self-recreation bit.

The actual FTL part would be extremely quick but the wandering through space until you hit a planet that has the necessary elements could be mindbogglingly or improbably long. However, once it did happen, it should only take a couple million to billion years to recreate "yourself."

The main problem with this idea isn't whether it's possible -- it probably is (we just can't find, let alone "aim", mini wormholes). The main problem is what do you consider "you?" If we mean a bit by bit copy -- this obviously isn't it. But if you have a much bigger version of what you is -- this certainly fits the bill.

I'm going to go out on a limb and state that antman-style size transformations is even less realistic than some FTL variants.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

There was a lovely old book I read one (as in from the 70s I would guess) called "Man and the Stars" by Duncan Lunan. It all goes a bit Von Daniken in the last quarter of the book, but the bulk of the book is basically a long discussion of various possible mechanisms for interstellar travel and the issues involved, ranging from current technology to very hypothetical future technology.

 

[uppi]

If someone gives me a giant bag, and I pick a white marble out of it.. A betting man will see two possible scenarios here:

A. I got really lucky! The bag had only 1 white marble and 50 billion black ones, and I happened to pick out the white one. I have never been this lucky before, but it's possible that today is the day

B. 50 billion marbles and I got the only white one? It makes a lot more sense to bet that there is at least one more white marble in the bag. Easy money!

But today is you lucky day. This was established that at the moment you pulled the white marble out of the bag. Whatever the odds were, you have beaten them. Statistically, that you have beaten them once does not have any inclination on how good they were.

Imagine you are being presented a bag with 100 marbles every day over on year. Every day you pull out a black marble, except for the last day of the year, when you pull a white marble. Would you still bet at even odds that there is another white marble in that bag? If you do, then maybe I should start betting games with you.

The problem is that you don't know how many other warpi have been pulling marbles from bags. You might be the first that ever tried and if you get a white marble on the very first try, there might be a point in betting on another one being in the bag. But if there were already millions of trials and you are the first to pull a white one, then maybe you shouldn't. The problem is, that there no statistical knowledge in a successful trial, if we make the successful trial a precondition for investigation.

Astronomical numbers don't change that statement at all, because the chance of life occurring might also be inversely astronomically small. We have exactly zero knowledge about how probable life is (well, from the solar system we can conclude that the probability of intelligent life evolving on a planet is not 1). That we exist tells us nothing what the probability was that we exist, because we need to exist to make the observation that we exist.

 

[El_Machinae]

Humans didn't pull a white marble from a bag. We were handed a marble and a bag, and then told to guess what was in the bag. There are statistical tools regarding our genesis (sample size one), but the bag analogy just isn't appropriate.

 

[red_elk]

I have to add that we cannot deduce any additional information about how probable life on other planets is using only probability theory and the fact that life on Earth exists.
But we also have information from other fields - astronomy, biology, chemistry, etc.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

We don't have any information about life in other star systems from astronomy. We could use chemistry/biology/geology to work out a plausible working theory for how abiogenisis might have happened here, then work out a probability based on that, but we don't have that model yet. That's about it isn't it? What else do we know that helps here? The argument that the building blocks of life are incredibly common, therefore life probably is too, is akin to saying the building blocks of bricks and mortar are incredibly common and therefore exact replicas of your house are probably abundant throughout the universe.

 

[red_elk]

We don't have any information about life in other star systems from astronomy.

If you mean that we haven't yet discovered life there, then yes, I agree.
But no information at all - that's a bold claim.

The argument that the building blocks of life are incredibly common, therefore life probably is too, is akin to saying the building blocks of bricks and mortar are incredibly common and therefore exact replicas of your house are probably abundant throughout the universe.

My house is an artificial object. I can say there are probably lots of planets similar to Earth as it was ~3 billion years ago. Exact kind of knowledge astronomy can give us. 30 years ago we didn't know even how abundant planetary systems were, either almost every star has planets or our Solar system is almost unique.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"Doppleganger Theory" taken to the galactic extreme?

More like many worlds theory I think, which is a reasonable interpretation at this point, maybe even more than Copenhagen.

I will also say that "I suspect there is ET life". My next question is "will we discover evidence of life from an advanced civilization or a primitive life first?". I don't know. I cross my fingers on Europa, I cross my fingers on SETI. We're now looking for evidence of Dyson Spheres out there. And we're trying to use spectroscopic analysis to determine atmospheric composition of far-away planets.

I'm not sure we want to discover primitive life at all. Doing so gives us a second data point which suggests to at least some degree the filter is in front of us rather than behind. If we turn out to be unique for whatever unknown reason we have less reason to expect we're going to wind up killing ourselves off or giving up as a species.

It'd be interesting if something like Lexicus' guess is what actually happens and everybody just puts their minds into super energy efficient computers and winds up not caring much about long term existence in this reality.

We don't know there is a multiverse.

No we don't, and even if we did I see no reason to expect we'd be able to interact with others. There's nothing in the MWI that suggests it's actually possible for any kind of causal interaction with other "Ws" to happen, even in principle.

I'm going to go out on a limb and state that antman-style size transformations is even less realistic than some FTL variants.

That's not going out on a limb at all . I guess you could make a case that these are all equally unrealistic (IE none of them are possible even in principle as far as we know). Antman would certainly ruin our reality's day though.

Though watch, 20 years from now someone is going to make us all look stupid and start mass producing negative energy machines or something. Probably not though.

 

[uppi]

Humans didn't pull a white marble from a bag. We were handed a marble and a bag, and then told to guess what was in the bag. There are statistical tools regarding our genesis (sample size one), but the bag analogy just isn't appropriate.

I admit that it is very much a toy model, but as such it isn't that bad. If the universe contained x planets with life evolving on y of them, then a model equivalent to a bag with x marbles, y of them white would be my first approximation to describe the distribution. If you want to make any statistical argument you need to assume some model. Of course this is all highly model-dependent , but the fact that even with the most simple approximation we cannot say anything about the underlying probability should be enough to show that any statistical argument about probability of life in the universe is a fools errand right now.

 

[El_Machinae]

While any specific statistic is suspect, there are some things that could cause our prediction of life to increase or decrease. Finding out that there were ultra-old Brown dwarfs with Goldilocks planets caused me to bump my estimation up. If we found out that gas giants had an average of 3 Europa-like moons, I'd bump up my estimation again. But I gotta say, I don't really follow the statistics hardcore. I watch the data and then fine-tune my gut feeling.

 

[uppi]

While any specific statistic is suspect, there are some things that could cause our prediction of life to increase or decrease. Finding out that there were ultra-old Brown dwarfs with Goldilocks planets caused me to bump my estimation up. If we found out that gas giants had an average of 3 Europa-like moons, I'd bump up my estimation again. But I gotta say, I don't really follow the statistics hardcore. I watch the data and then fine-tune my gut feeling.

To bump your estimation either way, you would need to have an estimate first. Having a gut feeling is not bad, but should be in no way confused with statistics.

 

[Akka]

The argument that the building blocks of life are incredibly common, therefore life probably is too, is akin to saying the building blocks of bricks and mortar are incredibly common and therefore exact replicas of your house are probably abundant throughout the universe.

That just sounds like a Creationist argument, seriously.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That just sounds like a Creationist argument, seriously.

I think it is seriously easy to disregard anything that doesn't fit your view as "just a creationist argument."

At the end of the day we have a question that opens a conversation in which there are no facts. Some arguments might be disregarded because they "sound creationist." Some might be challenged on a whim. Some might be analyzed mathematically ad nauseum despite there being no numerical data to work with. What will not happen is for any of them to be proven or disproved.

In these circumstances the only thing I am inclined to challenge is certainty.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^ we do have some facts (we can rule out life identical to our own at 90% of stars for example), but the evidence we have isn't enough to make useful predictions beyond those obvious ones. I'm not a fan of the mental gymnastics to push extra probability that isn't there. Especially when we haven't 100% solved the exact processes that we're guessing happens or doesn't at some arbitrary probability, all while using sample size 1.

You can make a more predictions by holding preferred assumptions true, but those predictions only work/are reasoanble if the assumptions in question actually prove true. Without that knowledge it's fabricated evidence and mostly a game of what if.

 

[Akka]

I think it is seriously easy to disregard anything that doesn't fit your view as "just a creationist argument."

No, this case is truly a nearly-strict equivalency of a Creationist "argument" (namely : "evolution is like saying that a shiny Boeing 747 will emerge from a junkyard after a storm").
Also this very flawed argument (using an instance - and even more restricted, an exact copy - as a counter of a process) is already one I pointed out previously.
A process is not a specific number at the lottery.

At the end of the day we have a question that opens a conversation in which there are no facts.

There is tons of facts, just not definite proofs. We don't know a lot about abiogenesis, but we certainly have a crapton of examples of life to understand how it works, and we know it's certainly not magic. It's regular matter using regular physical mechanisms. There is nothing exceptional (physically speaking) about it, and we just don't know yet which would be the specific circumstances kickstarting it (and even then, we have several hints and leads).

I really wonder where the hell comes this weird thinking that "not knowing" means "everything has equal chances to be true".

In these circumstances the only thing I am inclined to challenge is certainty.

There is degrees in certainty. Recognizing the limit of knowledge doesn't mean suddenly giving up on the difference between "probable" and "far-fetched".

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If you mean that we haven't yet discovered life there, then yes, I agree.
But no information at all - that's a bold claim.

No useful information then? We've discovered no positive evidence of their existence, but also we don't have enough information to have ruled it out anywhere than other planets in our solar system either (and even then we're not sure). In the context of the current conversation I'd say that counts as no information.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That just sounds like a Creationist argument, seriously.

Lol, okay. I don't quite see how, but okay. Wouldn't there need to be some sort of "therefore God" clause in the argument for that to be true?

No, this case is truly a nearly-strict equivalency of a Creationist "argument" (namely : "evolution is like saying that a shiny Boeing 747 will emerge from a junkyard after a storm").
Also this very flawed argument (using an instance - and even more restricted, an exact copy - as a counter of a process) is already one I pointed out previously.
A process is not a specific number at the lottery

Ah okay... so by this logic doesn't that mean that the example of an infinite number of monkeys writing Shakespeare is also a "creationist argument"?

If it makes it better replace "exact copy of your house" with "something very much like a modern human dwelling".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, this case is truly a nearly-strict equivalency of a Creationist "argument" (namely : "evolution is like saying that a shiny Boeing 747 will emerge from a junkyard after a storm").
Also this very flawed argument (using an instance - and even more restricted, an exact copy - as a counter of a process) is already one I pointed out previously.
A process is not a specific number at the lottery.

There is tons of facts, just not definite proofs. We don't know a lot about abiogenesis, but we certainly have a crapton of examples of life to understand how it works, and we know it's certainly not magic. It's regular matter using regular physical mechanisms. There is nothing exceptional (physically speaking) about it, and we just don't know yet which would be the specific circumstances kickstarting it (and even then, we have several hints and leads).

I really wonder where the hell comes this weird thinking that "not knowing" means "everything has equal chances to be true".

There is degrees in certainty. Recognizing the limit of knowledge doesn't mean suddenly giving up on the difference between "probable" and "far-fetched".

Well, yeah, we have a "crapton" of facts. Like charges repel. That's a fact. Provides absolutely no indication whether life is unique to the one place we know it exists, or is scattered all over the universe, but it is certainly a fact. As you suggest, there's a "crapton" of facts. However, applying them to a question that they do not directly apply to, then pretending that having done so sheds any light on the question so we can spout probabilities based on nothing and compare "degrees of certainty" as if they were penis lengths is just ridiculous, IMO.

The way you leap to "smacks of creationism!" or "It isn't magic!" (as if anyone said that it was) or whatever the next dismissive line you will use to make yourself feel more certain is hysterically funny.

 

[Broken_Erika]

That just sounds like a Creationist argument, seriously.

All Life was created, by his noodly goodness.

 

[red_elk]

No useful information then? We've discovered no positive evidence of their existence, but also we don't have enough information to have ruled it out anywhere than other planets in our solar system either (and even then we're not sure). In the context of the current conversation I'd say that counts as no information.

We have two hypotheses:
1) Earth is the only planet with life.
2) There are other habitable planets in our Universe.

We cannot prove either of them so far (first one is unlikely possible to prove in any foreseeable future). It doesn't mean we cannot research this problem and look for hints and clues which eventually may lead us to the solution. Useful information is anything which makes either hypothesis more likely and gives us ideas where to search.

For example, existence of exoplanets in habitable zone makes 2-nd hypothesis more likely. Discovery of water oceans in Europa and Enceladus, organic matter on Mars, gives us directions for further search.
All this is useful information.