• The Drake Equation
    36 replies, posted
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/4/7/847914dec26cc45ac2957da0054683de.png[/img] [i]This[/i] is 'The Drake Equation'. The Drake Equation is unique no matter how you look at it, even though it may appear to be a simple algebraic equation with no more than eight variables. In this thread, I will show you why it is such a unique equation, and in doing so explain to you how it works and why it exists. [b][u]Origin of the Drake Equation[/b][/u] During the year 1960, something incredible happened. This something was so incredible, so curious, that eventually every human in every developed country would eventually hear of it before he or she died. It was a search. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI]SETI[/url], or the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, was officially started during this year. How? An extremely important meeting, called the Green Bank meeting, was held to discuss the possibility of making contact with an intelligent species from somewhere out of this world. It featured many of the world's smartest men and women. As a result of this meeting, SETI would be started. However, we will focus on one individual who participated in said meeting. His name is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Drake]Dr. Frank Drake[/url], who currently a professor at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California]The University of California[/url]. He is the man who formulated The Drake Equation, which was made in preparation of The Green Bank meeting. Ironically, he never expected such an equation to become so well known, but nonetheless, people around the world that participate in the SETI program use The Drake Equation as a staple in their work. [b][u]The Way the Drake Equation Works[/b][/u] Dr. Frank Drake made The Drake Equation to organize the factors that would contribute to the rise of intelligent life, and thus calculate the number of intelligent civilizations in The Milky Way Galaxy. Below is the what each factor stands for in The Drake Equation. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/4/7/847914dec26cc45ac2957da0054683de.png[/img] [quote]The Drake equation states that: where: N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible; and R* is the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.[/quote] [i]Copy-pasted from Wikipedia for the reason of: 'Wikipedia writes it better than I ever could.'[/i] [b][u]Criticism of the Drake Equation[/b][/u] There are obvious problems to the effectiveness of the equation. Obviously, a lot of the factors listed in this equation are unknown to mankind. Therefor, when a person plugs in values into this equation, it is most likely that the result of the equation is a meaningless and worthless number. Scientists are well aware of this. In response to this problem though, The Drake Equation is purely used to test testable hypotheses using the scientific method. Therefor, while The Drake Equation might not give us the probability of an intelligent civilization existing in our galaxy, the equation can still help us reach the goal of finding the probability of an intelligent civilization existing in our galaxy. ----- Well there you go. If you didn't know about the equation before, now you do. By the way, here's a good interactive to help you get the idea: [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/drake.html[/url]
this equation is still very inaccurate because the average person doesn't know the info required to calculate. still fucking neat nonetheless.
I'm really starting to become fascinated with space exploration and the possibility of alien life existing somewhere out there. Why do you think I ended my life clinging to a space shuttle? Thanks for this. I'm gonna watch some Star Trek.
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” - Albert Einstein If imagination is also put into this, we can really do discover an intelligent civilization in our galaxy. :dance: :science:
Really informative, I had heard of it before hand, but this really explains it very well.
I've thought about it for a bit once. Yeah, it's good as a testable hypothesis but not much else.
[QUOTE=NachoPiggy;15625783]“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” - Albert Einstein If imagination is also put into this, we can really do discover an intelligent civilization in our galaxy. :dance: :science:[/QUOTE] That would be amazing. Goddamn, I wish I was born a few hundred years from now. Heh, of course a few hundred years from now, we may very well have destroyed ourselves. I'm looking at you, North Korea!
Cool
Third variable: Fp, that's gold.
Can we just discover an alien species already? Goddamn this is taking forever. In very unrelated news, there is a server named 'Emmett Brown'. Very nifty.
[QUOTE=Kougar;15625923]Third variable: Fp, that's gold.[/QUOTE] the more we post on facepunch, the more likely we'll make contact with aliens [editline]09:10AM[/editline] [QUOTE=tarkata14;15625938]Can we just discover an alien species already? Goddamn this is taking forever. In very unrelated news, there is a server named 'Emmett Brown'. Very nifty.[/QUOTE] Discover one. Become famous.
Sorry, but to be honest that equation is just a load of bull. I can insert any number I want and get the results I want. I don't even know where it can be used. [img]http://spacecynic.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/the_drake_equation.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Swebonny;15625958]Sorry, but to be honest that equation is just a load of bull. I can insert any number I want and get the results I want. I don't even know where it can be used. [img]http://spacecynic.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/the_drake_equation.png[/img][/QUOTE] I addressed this in the OP.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;15625958]Sorry, but to be honest that equation is just a load of bull. I can insert any number I want and get the results I want. I don't even know where it can be used. [img]http://spacecynic.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/the_drake_equation.png[/img][/QUOTE] Hopefully you didn't just draw that conclusion from seeing that xkcd comic and then letting that bias your research. My dad is a SETI enthusiast and amateur astronomer, he's walked me through this.
[QUOTE=Arkanj3l;15626016]Hopefully you didn't just draw that conclusion from seeing that xkcd comic and then letting that bias your research. My dad is a SETI enthusiast and amateur astronomer, he's walked me through this.[/QUOTE] Haha no of course not. I brought that comic to make the talk less serious. I'm also an SETI enthusiast and [I]amateur[/I] astronomer (2 telescopes and SETI@HOME 24/7 ;) ). And I support everything they do. The thing is, Drakes Equation can't be used for anything. I can write a similar equation in 5 minutes. Nothing can back it up. That's why I think it's kinda ridiculous to take that equation seriously. I don't deny that it sure is interesting. I mean, I can make up the N without even using the equation.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;15626105]Haha no of course not. I brought that comic to make the talk less serious. I'm also an SETI enthusiast and [I]amateur[/I] astronomer (2 telescopes and SETI@HOME 24/7 ;) ). And I support everything they do. The thing is, Drakes Equation can't be used for anything. I can write a similar equation in 5 minutes. Nothing can back it up. That's why I think it's kinda ridiculous to take that equation seriously. I don't deny that it sure is interesting. I mean, I can make up the N without even using the equation.[/QUOTE] I've seen people at my school regurgitate whatever's on xkcd thinking it's hip to be nerdy, so good on ya mate :v: My dad spent small fortune on his telescope, but most of the automated parts broke down and he can't get them fixed, so it's worth maybe half of what he bought it at. Ah, I remember when he installed the SETI@Home on our old Windows 98... good times.
[QUOTE=Arkanj3l;15626016]Hopefully you didn't just draw that conclusion from seeing that xkcd comic and then letting that bias your research. My dad is a SETI enthusiast and amateur astronomer, he's walked me through this.[/QUOTE] Thing is (I know this was in the OP), we haven't got a reliable value we can use for the probability of Earth-like planets, let alone the evolution of intelligent life. It is still cool though.
Let's see how it would look like if I used the equation: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/4/7/847914dec26cc45ac2957da0054683de.png[/img] R* = 3 stars / year. This is the rate in Milky Way. = 3 fp = I'll take 10% here. I don't know how many planets that are formed around stars... = 0.1 ne = I chose 2, because seeing as Mars in it's "childhood" was supposed to have water which could lead to life, and Earth of course. = 2 fℓ = 50% here. Since Mars is dead now. = 0.5 fi = If you ask me, it is only time it takes for life to become "intelligent" given the right conditions, but since it's only a very very small fraction of life that becomes intelligent, I chose 0.001%. = 0.00001 fc = 100% = 1 L = Since it seems that we are about to kill ourselves already now I say we are able to send signals for about 5000 years. = 5000 Which is [img]http://www.testdesigner.com/include/math/images/066/-1170288066.png[/img] and gives [img]http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?N=0.015[/img] So somehow we don't exist if let me calculate N...
Scientists estimate that 30%-50% of stars have planets.
Carl Sagan has a video explaining the drake equation. I'll fetch it for you. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ztl8CG3Sys[/media] The problem with drakes equation is a lot like a fermi equation, in that almost every variable is assumed. The accuracy of drakes equation is almost nothing, however, I think it's point is to show people that there are many things to keep into account.
[QUOTE=billeh!;15626312]Scientists estimate that 30%-50% of stars have planets.[/QUOTE] I calculate wrong the first time. Using 50% give me only 0.075...
[QUOTE=Swebonny;15626387]I calculate wrong the first time. Using 50% give me only 0.075...[/QUOTE] If the number is lower than 1, it means every civilization falls apart before really leaving the planet. :tinfoil:
i have made an equation that predicts if there's life out there Q = 1 Q is the question 1 is yes
[QUOTE=Boomersocks;15626419]i have made an equation that predicts if there's life out there Q = 1 Q is the question 1 is yes[/QUOTE] This is to figure out the number of civilzations.
How do you input said numbers into the equation? Is there a certain measurement? For example: L. Should that be seconds, minutes, years, or hours?
Yes L is years. All the percentage stuff goes like 1 = 100%, 0.6 = 60% and so on.
Average per year is what it says in OP.
I'm going to the University of California next year, so I'm sure this will pop up in some random trivia. Thanks for the info, now I can look smart.
[QUOTE=Golden-Death;15627871]I'm going to the University of California next year, so I'm sure this will pop up in some random trivia. Thanks for the info, now I can look smart.[/QUOTE] Cool, if you get a chance to meet Frank Drake, don't pass it up. He's a brilliant radio astrologist.
It's an interesting equation, not because it will give us exact results, but because it simply displays, in a mathematical way, that life is extremely rare, and that intelligent life is even more rare.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.