Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
18. How well would a person from 1000 AD hear us?
Tue Apr 22, 2014, 11:40 AM
Apr 2014

Today, we do long-range communication via radio waves.

Someone from 1000 AD could not "hear" our technology at all - they lacked the equipment to detect our communication. Similarly, we may lack the technology to "hear" more advanced species. RF is totally unsuitable for communication over interstellar distances, so an interstellar species is going to have to use something else.

Additionally, our radio waves are only strong enough to be detectable in our local neighborhood. If there is a clone of our species 250 light-years away, that was broadcasting 250 years ago, we can't hear them. The signal is too weak by the time it reaches Earth.

And to make that problem even worse, our RF is getting weaker. We peaked in about the 1960s. Since then, we have been using lower and lower power RF signals. We are using lots more RF from cell phones, wifi and the like. But the signals are about only 200mW to 2W. "Wolfman Jack" broadcasted from a 250,000W radio station.

It is extremely likely that other species went through the same RF pattern - nothing for millennia, then a very short high-powered window, followed by weaker and weaker signals. And that high-powered window only reaches a couple dozen stars before it is overwhelmed by background static.

The distances involved are so mind-bogglingly vast that it is utterly different from our Earth-bound experience.

Finally, Kepler data indicates there's roughly 40 billion planets in the habitable zones around the stars in the Milky Way alone. Even if advanced life is a 1-in-a-billion chance, that means there's about 40 advanced species in just our galaxy. But those 40 are spread out over hundreds of billions of light years. When a signal only goes about 200 light years, it's very, very unlikely that it's going to stumble across another one of the 40.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

An article to consider exboyfil Apr 2014 #1
I am more sympathetic to that argument vis-a-vis intelligent life cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #4
I tend to agree with you exboyfil Apr 2014 #5
As the article notes, we have a sample of exactly one, so we don't know... not yet. Warren DeMontague Apr 2014 #7
Ward, Brownlee and Fermi are right. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #2
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2014 #8
... or if a spectrometer detects oxygen on one of those extrasolar planets. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #11
How well would a person from 1000 AD hear us? jeff47 Apr 2014 #18
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2014 #21
The universe is big, but it is also old. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #22
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2014 #25
Personally, I think we *are* the leading edge of intelligent life. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #30
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Apr 2014 #33
Is that sort of like an extension of the Monroe Doctrine? Crunchy Frog Apr 2014 #50
Agree with this. joshcryer Apr 2014 #65
Even if the galaxy hosts 2 or 3 of them at a time why have they not spread? lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #66
I think it's unlikely they would spread out. joshcryer May 2014 #70
I sort of see that as the last gasp Crunchy Frog Apr 2014 #51
There's only one piece of evidence on the topic. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #54
True, but meaningless. Crunchy Frog Apr 2014 #61
Me either. Duppers May 2014 #75
It should be coined the "rare intelligence hypothesis." joshcryer Apr 2014 #64
6000 years ago! zappaman Apr 2014 #3
Doubt it. We're a specieis totally unsuited for life on this planet... Mondavi Apr 2014 #6
I know, we need those flappy thngs snooper2 Apr 2014 #12
There is a middle ground between anthropocentrism and misanthropy. NuclearDem Apr 2014 #14
It is humans who have destroyed the planet .... Mondavi Apr 2014 #35
The planet's destroyed? TransitJohn Apr 2014 #41
Possibly you haven't been paying attention? Mondavi Apr 2014 #44
No, I think it was actually you engaging in hyperbole. eom TransitJohn Apr 2014 #45
Is Global Warming and death of species "hyperbole"? Mondavi Apr 2014 #46
No, but claiming Earth is already destroyed is eom TransitJohn Apr 2014 #47
Global Warming is destruction of the planet... Mondavi Apr 2014 #48
So you don't understand physics as well as geology. TransitJohn Apr 2014 #49
Rather you seem to not understand physics or geology.... Mondavi Apr 2014 #52
I'll just put my degrees in the dustbin, then. TransitJohn Apr 2014 #58
If your education leads you to believe that Global Warming ... Mondavi Apr 2014 #63
Now you're willfully misconstruing what I've said, this is about you saying the Earth is destroyed. TransitJohn Apr 2014 #67
Nonsense Mondavi May 2014 #69
How do you continue posting from a destroyed Earth? TransitJohn May 2014 #71
a few million years after we're gone the planet will be good as new, don't sweat it. we just won't dionysus Apr 2014 #57
You can't discuss real issues with people who have a belief that life or Earth are sacred TransitJohn Apr 2014 #59
"... humans who have destroyed the planet ...." They have? oldhippie Apr 2014 #68
What does this have to do with the OP? NT Adrahil May 2014 #72
See Mondavi May 2014 #73
No, we are extremely well suited for life on African savannahs. jeff47 Apr 2014 #17
We cannot survive the extremes of Global Warming .... Mondavi Apr 2014 #36
So your complaint is that we are flammable and don't have gills. jeff47 Apr 2014 #37
All "climate" has been and is being changed by Global Warming ... Mondavi Apr 2014 #40
Except that isn't what you were talking about above. jeff47 Apr 2014 #42
You're misreading what I said .... Mondavi Apr 2014 #43
I subscribe to the defacto7 Apr 2014 #53
Sadly, wholeheartedly agree with you. Mondavi Apr 2014 #56
Occam's Razor says we are not special. bemildred Apr 2014 #9
I thought that meant "a second later" Otelo Apr 2014 #10
Yep. Natural selection and what not. NuclearDem Apr 2014 #13
Yes -- Statistically there must be a huge number of planets supporting advanced life Arugula Latte Apr 2014 #15
There's another factor for those large hydrocarbons jeff47 Apr 2014 #16
Excellent point. Yes. cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #20
wRONG! gOD DID IT! Iggo Apr 2014 #19
. JaneyVee Apr 2014 #23
My guess.... Junkdrawer Apr 2014 #24
Unless.............. dipsydoodle Apr 2014 #26
Space Supplements! Warren DeMontague Apr 2014 #27
Yes. But where's the caffeine and taurine? Junkdrawer Apr 2014 #29
Meteorite Vites! chrisa Apr 2014 #55
Still need some sort of competition and selection.... Junkdrawer Apr 2014 #28
I only found that by accident just now when I posted it. dipsydoodle Apr 2014 #31
Which, in turn, came from... Junkdrawer Apr 2014 #32
There is a Tibetan story WhiteTara Apr 2014 #34
Human lives are not rare; there are over 7,000,000,000 of them in existence currently FarCenter Apr 2014 #38
Compare human life to ALL sentient life on this planet WhiteTara Apr 2014 #39
Leaving aside the stereotypical UFO visitation IDemo Apr 2014 #60
Pfffft. Some loud and vocal people think some invisible sky fairy snapped his fingers and we were Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #62
Go, Tardigrades! Creatures with more survivor potential than even cockroaches. Hekate May 2014 #74
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!! chervilant May 2014 #76
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Life on Earth arose about...»Reply #18