by Gaz
Leave Earth, or Die!
8:02 pm in Ramblings, Technology by Gaz
Credit for the title of this post goes to Professor Stephen Hawking.
As a Brit in America on Independence Day, I’ve been warned not to go outside incase I get thrown on a fire like Guy Fawkes on Bonfire Night, as is apparently the custom here. Not wishing to be set alight, I decided to hide indoors and post more of my existentialist rantings here instead :-)
The Copernican Principle
In 1514 Nicolaus Copernicus first began discussing his idea that the observed retrograde motion of the planets was because the Earth, along with the other observed planets, were orbiting the Sun — and not vice versa as had been supposed previously. His heliocentric model was the beginning of the end of Ptolemy’s ancient geocentric model of our universe with the Earth at its exact centre, and the church’s anthropocentric doctrines — that the universe was here specifically for the benefit of humans (not to be confused with the anthropic principle). Thus was born, in its original form, the Copernican Principle that states the Earth is not in a central, specially favoured position in space.
More recently, the principle has been further generalised to humans are not observing from a central, specially favoured position in space. That is, just because we are observing from here it doesn’t follow that here is statistically different to any other unremarkable location in the universe. Obviously here is significantly different in light of the fact that it is on the surface of a planet orbiting a star at just the right distance to create the conditions necessary for human-like life to exist… what the modern copernican principle engenders is that there are an astronomically huge number of other places in the universe that are not statistically different to right here, and consequently observing from right here isn’t anything to get excited about.
Live to be 1480!?!
Things get interesting if we apply the same Copernican principle to time: humans are not observing from a central, specially favoured position in time. More precisely, since today isn’t a particularly significant point in my life, I might say that there is a 50% chance that I’m in the middle half of my life; as opposed to the first or last quarter. And, barring catastrophes, being aged 37 today that seems like a pretty good bet. It also gives me a means of predicting how long I’m likely to live in the absence of any other statistical data. At one end of this scale I have 75% of my remaining life ahead of me; that is, I have 3 times more years ahead of me than behind, a generous 111 years to go! Alternatively, if I have 3 times more years behind me than ahead of me, I have only 12 and a bit years left :-( In summary, I can categorically state, given no data other than my current age, that there is a 50% chance I will live between 12 and 111 years more. Big deal! Right?
Well, it’s easy to tighten up if, instead, I say that because I’m not observing from a specially favoured position in time, then there is a 95% chance that I’m in the middle 95% of my life, and not in the first or last 2.5%. And using the same maths, my remaining lifespan is most likely between 1/39th of my current age, and 39 times my current age — a 95% chance of living somewhere between 11 months and 1443 years longer, in fact! Now, that seems pretty dumb in light of all the other statistical data on life expectancy that is available, but it doesn’t make it any less true, and this very principle still comes in handy when the only thing we know about something is how long it has been around so far, and that right now isn’t an especially significant point in time relative to that something.
Even assuming you had never seen anyone drink too much and pass out, it would be pointless to try to work out how much longer I’ll remain conscious when I’ve just started my first Guinness, because it is significant that you are observing my first pint. Perhaps when I’m talking rubbish after 3 pints, you can surmise that 3 pints isn’t a specially favoured point to observe from, and that there is a 95% chance I’ll pass out somewhere between 1/13th of a pint and 57 pints from now; or after 9 pints when I can’t make it to the bar anymore, I’ll most likely pass out between about a quarter of a pint and 27 pints from now. Even with such a frivolous example, it’s plain that the system contains sensible answers within the large range of results it calculates.
Survival of the Human Race
Since we have no concrete statistical data for the survival of intelligent life, what does this imply for the future of our species? For as long as we occupy but a single planet, then we are subject to the same existential risks as every other species that lives, or has lived, here. The entirety of our existence could be erased by an errant comet, sudden climate change, or even a global zombie apocalypse in the wake of burgeoning overpopulation. Modern man has been around for close to 130,000 years. So the Copernican principle as I’ve described above gives a 95% chance that we’ll be around for between 3,300 and 5 million years more.
I’ve mentioned before our need to colonise another planet, and this adds more weight to the argument. Indeed, if we apply the same principle to our future as a space faring society, we might not have long to put it into force. So, with about 45 years of the Space Programme behind us, it’s extremely probable that we have between 1 and 1755 years remaining as a space faring species, if indeed the whole thing isn’t behind us already… It’s arguable, in fact, that the world economy today wouldn’t be able to support the Apollo programme that culminated in Neil Armstrong’s historic moon walk, so in that respect it’s probably a good thing that Kennedy was around to make it happen in the 1960′s. Yes, we could wait for another hundred years for our technology to improve further and make the colonisation all the more attainable, but what if we’re closer to the lower limit of time remaining as a space faring species? And overpopulation, or politics, or economics, or an asteroid brings our space programme to an end sooner rather than later? Bush’s 2004 new vision for the space exploration programme is not a moment too soon in planning to put a man on Mars in less than 23 years.
Considering that ever more prominent scientists backing a plan for colonisation of another planet, and that at least half of the difficulty of a Moon mission (let alone a Mars mission) is the problem of how to get back, I wonder whether the real problem is whether we should come back? With a slew of successful robotic Mars missions under their belt, I think NASA ought to launch a one-way manned mission a few years behind a robotic spearhead that sets up a sustainable artificial habitat in advance. The thing that particularly interests me here though, is the whereabouts of the tipping point for a fully self sufficient colony on Mars. Clearly, genetic diversity needn’t be a problem if a bank of frozen sperm and eggs are deposited (sic) with the first colonists, so the real problem lies in finding sufficient raw materials on Mars itself to sustain a growing colony in the absence of ongoing aid from Earth. And that, to my mind, is just the beginning of providing for the ongoing survival of our species in the event of a global catastrophe. The next problem is how to survive the death of our Sun.
Super-Duper site! I am loving it!! Will come back again, subscribed to your feed also, Thanks.
– Agreed, trying is definitely the way forward. And (jumping on the Ray Kurzweil bandwagon) it’s certainly arguable that the exponential rate of increase in our adoption of paradigm shifting technology could get us there sooner than we think… provided, of course, that the political and social will is there to make the effort in the first place! :-)
– So what happens if I shine two torches in opposite directions? Aren’t the photons moving away from each other at twice the speed of light from my perspective? (This is the part of SR that I’ve not come to grips with yet — thankyou for your continued patience).
– It all depends on our definition of habitable… if there is liquid water under the surface of Europa, it doesn’t sound entirely beyond our capabilities to adapt to living there. With respect to goldilocks zone planets in other solar systems within 20 light years of here: our abilities to detect them are still in their infancy, so not having found any yet is a far cry from saying that none exist.
– Communicating with extraterrestrial life is a whole other can of worms :-D Considering the ratio between the time that there has been life on Earth, and the time that we have been able to try to communicate with extraterrestrial life, it seems to me that having another similarly technologically advanced life form in that same tiny proportion of time, close enough to have picked up mankinds EM emissions, and replied is vanishingly small. Even if the universe is teeming with bacteria, daffodils, cockroaches and crocodiles!
I should clarify to say that I don’t think that we should stop trying, because this is what we do, and these endeavors always provide us with an unbelievable amount of new technology that we find good use for, right here on Earth… BUT… I think that the effort is ultimately in vain due to the mentioned impracticality of it all.
To “answer” your question, yes, it’s impossible, due to the mentioned spacetime distorting effects of SR.
I don’t think that we’ve found any habitable planets that are 20 to 30 light years away, nor do I expect it, since we haven’t heard from anybody that’s less than 100 light years away… assuming that they are equally developed, technologically… which is what the goldilocks enigma predicts will be the case.
It is a shame that the Biosphere 2 experiments didn’t work fully, but you shouldn’t rule out spaceborne biospheres just yet. We wouldn’t have public air transportation today if scientists had given up on that idea when early flight attempts failed so miserably.
Also, time dilation effects might make travel to the nearest stars feasible. Gradual acceleration to half the speed of light, and then turning around half way to decelerate would certainly make travel to a stars 20 or 30 light years from here achievable in an astronauts lifetime. Actually, something I never quite understood in relativity is this: motion is all relative except for a the always constant speed of light, but for arguments sake we invent an engine that can reach 51% of the light speed; if two such engines set off in opposite directions, effectively each will see the other moving away at 102% of light speed… but that’s impossible isn’t it?
What whatifs?… I stated only facts and the falsifiable predictions that fall from the known physics.
Practicallity… Can you travel faster than light, because you’ll need to, in order to get to another habitable world, since the physics predicts that you cannot make one habitable that isn’t in the goldilocks zone. While the biosphere proved that we haven’t got a chance in hell of any kind of “batttlestars galactica” scenarios, much less, an outpost on a moon or another planet that doesn’t rely on the Earth for reprovisioning.
All of this theoretical babble is sadly going over my head.
Rather than trying to comprehend what you guy’s are arguing about, i think i’ll just suggest this:
What we should be doing is thinking about what we can practically do to bring these ideas into reality, rather than dwelling on the what if’s. :)
Hi James!
Practically, I think the best contribution I can make is to evangalise the possibility of mankind as a spacefaring species, in the hope of sending out ripples in the pond of public interest. The more public interest in the space programme we have, the more media coverage it will get, and the more likely an increase in budget and scope of projects we will see.
Do you have any other ideas on what impact we can make on the status quo?
Cheers, Gary
Read the comments at salon.com. Heck, just read the editor’s choice comments and you’ll see what I am talking about as far as how people are taking Paul’s hard work:
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/07/03/pauldavies/indexnp.html?source=rss
My current thinking is that the anthropic principle explains why we live in a universe with so many finely tuned parameters, especially considering that so many of them are required for the basics of life
Right, the idea is to identify from first principles why the universe is configured in a completely unexpected manner that points at carbon based life.
An energy conservation law, for example, (which is my own understanding).
although the concept of them changing independently with time is new to me.
Careful, I was talking about features of the goldilocks enigma that evolve into being over time, like our local ecobalance, for example. I don’t think that the contants have to change “independently” in order for that the happen.
But the struggle between the green movement and big business represents one of these precarious anthropic balances, so you’re missing the local application that prevents us and other things from killing us off. The illustration that I referred correctly depicts the balanced between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies that lead to certain death if the balance could be tipped.
Which means that you should only get nervous when we AREN’T surrounded by gloom-n-doom certain death scenarios.
Thanks for the link. Actually, apart from a little snideness in the leader, the Salon remarks aren’t so awful. I’ve had far worse remarks about my books!
Are you saying that if big business stopped pulling in one direction, that the green movement is a runaway variable that left unchecked could spell the end of humanity?!?! I don’t buy that at all. While there are certainly social and economic pressures that can have enormous impact on our environment, it’s an gigantic leap to link them to the survival of our species. But maybe you’re just likening the change of manifest physical constants over time to Green Peace versus Apple, Inc.?
I have only read The Last 3 Minutes of his, but it was well written entertaining book containing little that I found objectionable. I had assumed, that (apart from the stigma attached to being a popular science writer by the hard science community) he was reasonably well respected — and certainly doesn’t come off as a crackpot in what little of his work I have enjoyed.
Again thanks for the links, there is much food for thought there. My current thinking is that the anthropic principle explains why we live in a universe with so many finely tuned parameters, especially considering that so many of them are required for the basics of life, although the concept of them changing independently with time is new to me. Even so, while I can’t refute any of what you say without more research on my part, even if I take your statement about everything only being temporarily aligned at only this moment in time in that manner which permits life as we know it at… there’s still nothing to stop humans from becoming extinct due to one of the many reasons I alluded to, even when those parameters are still in the right alignment. Living on multiple planets (preferably in different parts of the galaxy, but lets not get ahead of ourselves) is still our best insurance policy against ecological/cosmological/over-population disaster on Earth. And no amount of cosmology or philosophy can make that any less true!
People laugh long and loud at Paul Davies, but they are wrong, and they don’t use science to back up their attacks, they use only dogma. I am being honest, they are not, simple as that. Unfortunately, Paul would tell you that this disease afflicts his peers right to the top, and he’d be right. It ain’t pretty, and it ain’t funny, but it’s true. . If you look at the article that I linked earlier to the goldilocks enigma on my website, then you found an illustrated diagram of the habitable zone. If you click-on that, then you will be taken to a wikipedia article about that and take note that they are trying to combine it with the goldilocks enigma, as well they should. . http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2007/02/goldilocks-enigma-again.html . Simply illustrated, this is it: . http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/instability.gif . … and there are a vast multitude of them that must evolve over time into a temporarily alligned balance that permits life only when all of them are lined up, which is… NOW and only now.
Kinda blows your whole image about the integrity of scientific interpretation when they don’t give equal time to the most apparent implications of evidence, huh?
You don’t know the half of it, and trust me, it ain’t even pretty.
It sure does, and thanks for the links.
It seems that my problem is that I don’t understand the Goldilocks Enigma fully. Interestingly, Paul Davies (another luminary supporting the idea of a one way trip to Mars) has written a book with that very title. And which I have duly added to my reading list.
Cheers, Gary
It isn’t something that too many cosmologists like to talk about:
There are, however very recent scientific papers about it, but you can read about it in layman’s terms in this older article:
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2640
You can also get it first hand from Lawrence Krauss at edge.org
http://www.edge.org/3rdculture/krauss06/krauss06.2index.html
But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. -Lawrence Krauss
As to survival… I’m just telling you the way that the goldilocks enigma works and what it predicts. Take it for what it’s worth to you.
I wasn’t aware that the inflationary model and the WMAP anomolies are mutually exclusive. Can you refer me to an explanation of why that is so? I certainly don’t follow cutting edge science as more than an interested layman, but the last I heard, quoting NASA’s press release:
Even the strong anthropic principle does not preclude a panoply of other locations in our universe statistically similar enough to Earth to render our one point of observation nonspecial. I also don’t understand how you can claim that the anthropic principle will prevent us from being wiped out by an asteroid, or virulent planet wide epidemic (especially with this planet so well traveled).
I’m sure that Copernicus would have agreed with you about the impossibility of living elsewhere in the solar system, but plenty of other well respected modern scientists would disagree: Hawking, Sagan, Zubrin, Aldrin…
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, because the WMAP anomalies are in conflict with inflationary predictions, and we have an anthropic principle, rather than a “cosmological principle” because the universe isn’t observed to be statistically identical from any location.
We don’t need to because the anthropic physics predicts that we will only exist for a very specific amount of time, and I believe it.
It also indicates that the balance points that enable us to exist are self-regulating, so we can’t die unil we’re supposed to.
Not to mention the fact that there is no way in hell that practicality will ever allow us to get off of this rock.
That’s certainly an interesting counterpoint!
With respect to our apparent centralized location in the universe: Assuming correctness of inflationary big bang proposals, then no matter where in the physical universe we are observing from we will appear to be in the centre of a 10 billion light year radius sphere (or a curved dodecahedron if you prefer ;-) ) — most of them statistically identical to our own according to the Copernican principle. So, I see no reason for the WMAP data to look any different to an observer located 10 billion light years from us, right on the edge of our observable universe.
I agree that we currently appear to be going nowhere fast… but disagree strongly with your statement that we don’t need to! I also don’t see the connection between that statement, and all of the above…
The Copernican Principle does not extend to the observed universe, and the anthropic principle is probably tied into the apparent centralized location of the Earth that the WMAP anomalies have indicated is for real.
Don’t get that mixed up with god, but we are most apparently, very much preferred by the physics.
http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2007/02/goldilocks-enigma-again.html
We ain’t going anywhere, but we won’t need to.