The Fermi Paradox - Why we haven't been contacted by aliens

[Chief_For_Life58]

Interesting read. What's your opinion?


http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Hydrae

What makes you think that a beam of particles can travel any faster than the speed of light? The same limitation still applies.

IBM theoretical physicists way back in 1993 were saying its possible. In the late 90's they successfully teleported photons. The key in the quantum mechanics was to disrupt the particles before teleportation to get around the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Without it the math and data storage to do the quantum theoretical calculations would make it impossible.

We are doing it successfully now with particles. We have found a way around Heisenberg principle. So yes, I think its possible.

[Chief_For_Life58]

wow I just read thru the whole thread and i'm glad people found this article as interesting as I did.

I really don't know what to think tbh. the math says that there's no advanced alien life form out there but then on the other hand you've got thousands upon thousands of first hand testimonials and if you think about it a civilization that's billions of years more advanced than us, you've gotta think they've found out ways past conventional physics and developed flight speeds and technologies that we can't even comprehend.

I like thinking about it

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by scott free

I can respect that, but as far as the rank and file... what about a veeery highly vetted lightbird who's very familiar with literally everything, ours and theirs, in the air during his time?

When he and his trained crew see the same things over and over during the course of two nights doesn't it atleast raise serious questions in your mind?

Anyhoo, I digress, it often takes a direct experience to pull the wool off... keep your mind open is all I'm asking, you're more than smart enough to do that.

There's always someone with a higher paygrade and security clearance.

[tooge]

The great filter may have already happened for mankind. There was a genetic bottleneck some million years ago or so where it has been estimated that less than 1000 individuals of our species survive some event. That's cutting it pretty close.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by tooge

The great filter may have already happened for mankind. There was a genetic bottleneck some million years ago or so where it has been estimated that less than 1000 individuals of our species survive some event. That's cutting it pretty close.

I remember seeing an article about that. It's amazing to imagine an earth with 1,000 humans on it.

[Beef Supreme]

Originally Posted by displacedinMN

The laws of physics and light apply to all.
I think that there has be be life out there somewhere.

It would take 100,000 light years to cross our galaxy.
We do not have the capability to travel at the speed of light.
Others may not have either.

Even at the speed of light, space travel is a bitch. How does a species get enough resources to
last even 5 light years? (which is a heck of a lot longer in our travel time)

I just don't think we will ever see life from another place.

At the speed of light, time stops. So why would it take light "years" to do anything?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

At the speed of light, time stops. So why would it take light "years" to do anything?

That's not necessarily true, since we don't have proper physics to explain things happening at the speed of light. It's not possible to form a frame of reference for a photon. It has no detectable mass, and is traveling faster than c. We can't apply special relativity to a photon for those reasons. Our physics aren't complete enough yet. It might be better to say that at the speed of light, time in unable to yet be defined.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Fish

That's not necessarily true, since we don't have proper physics to explain things happening at the speed of light. It's not possible to form a frame of reference for a photon. It has no detectable mass, and is traveling faster than c. We can't apply special relativity to a photon for those reasons. Our physics aren't complete enough yet. It might be better to say that at the speed of light, time in unable to yet be defined.

The duality of light has always bothered me.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Donger

The duality of light has always bothered me.

Yeah, me too. I expect that someday we'll reach a point where our definitions of light/mass/etc will be changed drastically because we're currently missing something important...

[Beef Supreme]

Originally Posted by Fish

That's not necessarily true, since we don't have proper physics to explain things happening at the speed of light. It's not possible to form a frame of reference for a photon. It has no detectable mass, and is traveling faster than c. We can't apply special relativity to a photon for those reasons. Our physics aren't complete enough yet. It might be better to say that at the speed of light, time in unable to yet be defined.

OK. But the faster the relative velocity, the greater the magnitude of time dilation. And obviously our physics aren't complete, or we wouldn't be speculating about how an alien in a ship might cross the vastness of space.

And if we are talking about aliens in a ship instead of light photons, 100,000 years may have passed on the planet zebu, but said aliens in ship might have only experienced a few minutes.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Donger

The duality of light has always bothered me.

Yeah, but "lawn chairs" in the garage bother you. You should get a grip on that mind blowing concept with that before you leap into modern physics.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Donger

The duality of light has always bothered me.

I was fascinated by that too and did some experiments. It turned out that I just had a three-way bulb.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Yeah, but "lawn chairs" in the garage bother you. You should get a grip on that mind blowing concept with that before you leap into modern physics.

That wasn't very nice.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Fish

No offense dude, but what you've just typed is a logical fallacy called argument from authority. There's nothing wrong with having an open mind. But that's different than allowing a logical fallacy to overcome standard skepticism. The stories are interesting as hell. Lots of fun. But without actual evidence of any kind, it's just a story regardless of the credentials of the storyteller. It does take direct evidence. I'd gladly welcome that experience much more than you could imagine.

Logical fallacies only invalidate an argument from the point of view of pure logic. Arguments from authority can still be highly convincing if you're citing the right authority. If I tell you the peanut butter is in aisle 6 at the local grocery store based on what my wife, who has shopped there weekly for the past decade, says, you can be pretty confident that peanut butter is in aisle 6 even if I haven't proven it logically.

That said, there's no reason to believe that any given Lt. Colonel pilot in the AF knows about all or even most highly classified aircraft.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Logical fallacies only invalidate an argument from the point of view of pure logic. Arguments from authority can still be highly convincing if you're citing the right authority. If I tell you the peanut butter is in aisle 6 at the local grocery store based on what my wife, who has shopped there weekly for the past decade, says, you can be pretty confident that peanut butter is in aisle 6 even if I haven't proven it logically.

That said, there's no reason to believe that any given Lt. Colonel pilot in the AF knows about all or even most highly classified aircraft.

That was the reason for pointing out the logical fallacy.