Idea for why potential aliens would have no reason to interact with us

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

they do not, physics is a non answer, it begs the question "why do physics prevent or allow" what ever the question is. 

As I recall, trying to get you to give scientific/analytical support for your conjecture about interstellar travel in the past has been like pulling teeth. I’m not interested at this time.

[StringJunky]

8 hours ago, Moontanman said:

That is not an answer, I could say the same thing when asked could they visit us. 

No they do not, physics is a non answer, it begs the question "why do physics prevent or allow" what ever the question is. 

Until someone finds a method/principle  that sorts out the physical problems of travelling surviving astronomical distances , it's no more plausible than Star Trek. You can't assume that they aren't bound by the same physical constraints that we are. We may as well assume God exists. I can accept that aliens exist, but I can't accept, in the light of present scientific knowledge, that we have the means to make either aware of the other.

Edited June 11, 2022 by StringJunky

[Alex_Krycek]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Until someone finds a method/principle  that sorts out the physical problems of travelling surviving astronomical distances , it's no more plausible than Star Trek. You can't assume that they aren't bound by the same physical constraints that we are. We may as well assume God exists. I can accept that aliens exist, but I can't accept, in the light of present scientific knowledge, that we have the means to make either aware of the other.

Well, of course there is a theoretical principle that would answer this question: an Einstein-Rosen Bridge. 

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.101102

[Markus Hanke]

12 hours ago, TheVat said:

Assumes that advanced starfaring races are greedy consumerists.  Assumes that scarce resources are worth the enormous energy expenditures of traversing vast interstellar distances and decades-long or centuries-long haulage.  Assumes our solar system has something that's rare elsewhere, which doesn't seem to fit with current research on exoplanets.  Assumes aliens are racist dickheads* who have no moral restraint about running roughshod on us.

Actually, the Dark Forest conjecture assumes only this:

1. The primary goal of any civilisation is survival, before any other consideration

2. Civilisations develop, evolve and expand, but local resources available to them do not - they remain finite

3. Any possible communication between distant civilisations is subject to the constraints of the laws of physics, in particular the finite speed of light. This means they can’t be sure about one another’s psychologies and ethics (communication takes longer than cycles of technological evolution), leading to a ‘chain of suspicion’

The rest is simply a straightforward application of game theory - it’s called a sequential game with incomplete information. You can work out the possible evolution of such ‘games’, and the results aren’t pretty. A strong case can indeed be made for the most rational course of action being either to remain hidden, or to initiate a preemptive strike and destroy all other known races. This sounds dark and terrible, but I’m afraid it is logically and mathematically sound.

Of course you can add ethics into the game - but then you need to make an additional assumption of all (!) other civilisations being somehow self-bound by some code of ethics that modifies or qualifies point (1) above. That’s a pretty heavy assumption to make, given that you have no way of knowing anything about another race’s psychological make-up and ethical motivations, and the results are disastrous should you get it wrong - if just one civilisation chooses to disregard that code of ethics and goes rogue, everyone else ends up being wiped out.

Here’s a good article with a few more details:

https://towardsdatascience.com/aliens-the-fermi-paradox-and-the-dark-forest-theory-e288718a808

[Alex_Krycek]

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

You can work out the possible evolution of such ‘games’, and the results aren’t pretty. A strong case can indeed be made for the most rational course of action being either to remain hidden, or to initiate a preemptive strike and destroy all other known races. This sounds dark and terrible, but I’m afraid it is logically and mathematically sound.

We shouldn't forget that if indeed mankind has been observed by aliens for any length of time, their suspicions about our destructive behavior will have been completely confirmed.  They will have witnessed firsthand the scale of slaughter human beings have wrought not only on the animal kingdom (decimating the populations of countless species) but also on our own species, through countless episodes of genocide.

Given the verifiable  track record our species has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate, it would be completely insane to land in Times square and start handing out olive branches to such a species.  Human beings have already proven the Dark Forest Theory to be entirely justified.

 

[dimreepr]

46 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Human beings have already proven the Dark Forest Theory to be entirely justified.

Mostly because we only understand human...

[TheVat]

Thanks to @Markus Hanke and @Alex_Krycek for elucidating the game theory behind Dark Forest.  I was operating more from an assumption I see was hidden in my previous post, which is that civilizations without ethical constraints and the cultural mechanism to limit consumption would become nonviable and therefore never pose an existential threat beyond their own solar system.  But I do see your points and agree that I cannot say absolutely "never" as regards survival to an interstellar phase.  Will try to get at some of your specific points later - am dealing with that American curse, "the busy weekend."

[Moontanman]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

As I recall, trying to get you to give scientific/analytical support for your conjecture about interstellar travel in the past has been like pulling teeth. I’m not interested at this time.

 

15 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Until someone finds a method/principle  that sorts out the physical problems of travelling surviving astronomical distances , it's no more plausible than Star Trek. You can't assume that they aren't bound by the same physical constraints that we are. We may as well assume God exists. I can accept that aliens exist, but I can't accept, in the light of present scientific knowledge, that we have the means to make either aware of the other.

I have given several solutions to the premise, you have the possibility of generation ships, machine probes that make humans after they arrive at the system, some type of cold sleep to name but a few. Why do you dismiss these possibilities out of hand? 

[Markus Hanke]

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

I was operating more from an assumption I see was hidden in my previous post, which is that civilizations without ethical constraints and the cultural mechanism to limit consumption would become nonviable

I can see what you mean, but I’m not sure if this is in fact true. Look at the animal kingdom, eg ants - I don’t think ants share any kind of ethics with us, and neither do they have any cultural mechanisms to limit expansion and consumption (other than an equilibrium with their environment). And yet as a species they have been very viable for an amazingly long time. Of course an individual ant isn’t intelligent, and even its degree of sentience is debatable - but then, who’s to say that an alien intelligence isn’t distributed, akin to ant colonies? This is, in fact, a much more resilient form of intelligence than having everything centred in a relatively small number of highly complex, but intrinsically vulnerable individual brains.

Of course, this is all speculation.

[swansont]

20 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I have given several solutions to the premise, you have the possibility of generation ships, machine probes that make humans after they arrive at the system, some type of cold sleep to name but a few. Why do you dismiss these possibilities out of hand? 

Because these are waving-of-hands with no analysis backing them up. It’s the Sidney Harris  “then a miracle occurs” cartoon - you need to be more explicit in step 2.

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php

(it’s reminiscent of the joke in our D&D group when a tough foe was encountered: “we kill them and go on”) IOW the devil’s in the details

[dimreepr]

On 6/11/2022 at 6:33 AM, Alex_Krycek said:

Well, of course there is a theoretical principle that would answer this question: an Einstein-Rosen Bridge. 

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.101102

Surely that could only benefit communication, which is notoriously difficult to understand (imagine trying to decode a radio message from a Chinese speaker, when you don't speak Chinese.); and there's no reason to believe actual travel is possible.

So how, even if the hypothesis is correct, does it answer the OP?

20 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 

I have given several solutions to the premise, you have the possibility of generation ships, machine probes that make humans after they arrive at the system, some type of cold sleep to name but a few. Why do you dismiss these possibilities out of hand? 

Why include them?

What makes you think the initial conditions match the present?

[ALine]

Guys guys guys, let's just discuss/focus this in terms of the new framework I created because of its being able to exist in the framework of reality on what we know. This way we can have a meaningful and useful conversation about its possible implications.

What would the drone(s) do based on what the Lax would want it/them to do?

Edited June 12, 2022 by ALine

[Moontanman]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Because these are waving-of-hands with no analysis backing them up. It’s the Sidney Harris  “then a miracle occurs” cartoon - you need to be more explicit in step 2.

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php

(it’s reminiscent of the joke in our D&D group when a tough foe was encountered: “we kill them and go on”) IOW the devil’s in the details

Those are not hand waving, other than the sleeper ship, the only assumed technology we do not have is controlled fusion and everyone knows we'll have that in 20 years. I assumed no "Clark Tech" and other than the fusion, and fusion could conceivably be replaced by fission, the technology to do these things either exists or is in the realm of possibility. Hand waving would be aliens obviously have warp drive or something like that.  

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Surely that could only benefit communication, which is notoriously difficult to understand (imagine trying to decode a radio message from a Chinese speaker, when you don't speak Chinese.); and there's no reason to believe actual travel is possible.

So how, even if the hypothesis is correct, does it answer the OP?

Why include them?

What makes you think the initial conditions match the present?

My "hand waving" is based in reasonable advances in technology or technology that we could manage right now. No "Clark tech" is required for a generational ship, such things were being proposed by scientists in the 1950s and 60s. Interstellar travel is possible, very difficult, but still possible. In fact we currently have plans to send a probe to alpha centauri, with current tech, engineering problems have to be solved but there are no reasons why it couldn't be done. Warp drive however is improbable, not impossible but it's not simply an engineering problem, it is a physics problem unlike slow ships between stars. . 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Those are not hand waving, other than the sleeper ship, the only assumed technology we do not have is controlled fusion and everyone knows we'll have that in 20 years. I assumed no "Clark Tech" and other than the fusion, and fusion could conceivably be replaced by fission, the technology to do these things either exists or is in the realm of possibility. Hand waving would be aliens obviously have warp drive or something like that.  

We have generational ships? Fusion hasn’t been 20 years away for the last 60 years?

How long does a fission reactor last, vs the travel time for interstellar travel? This is but one example of the details you gloss over in these discussions.

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

such things were being proposed by scientists in the 1950s and 60s.

“Proposed” is not solved.

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, ALine said:

Guys guys guys, let's just discuss/focus this in terms of the new framework I created because of its being able to exist in the framework of reality on what we know. This way we can have a meaningful and useful conversation about its possible implications.

What would the drone(s) do based on what the Lax would want it/them to do?

The drone's would do what they're programmed to do, trudge slowly to the next village, like our Voyagers that, in 50+ year's have only just left the very small village; and the next village is fucking miles away...

In the meantime the Lax that sent them are dead.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

In the meantime the Lax that sent them are dead.

Assuming they have similar lifespans to ours. And if they do, that the interest level in these probes continues even though there is no feedback for a long, long time. And they maintain the technology to interface with the probes (though this is not quite like needing to find a device that lets you read an 8" floppy disk, which is only ~50 year-old tech, and hoping your software can read whatever files are on it)

[Moontanman]

17 hours ago, swansont said:

We have generational ships? Fusion hasn’t been 20 years away for the last 60 years?

How long does a fission reactor last, vs the travel time for interstellar travel? This is but one example of the details you gloss over in these discussions.

“Proposed” is not solved.

You cited physics as the reason aliens aren't here, I pointed out that physics is not a reason, engineering might be a problem but physics does not rule it out like it rules out FTL. The 20 year wait for fusion is a joke 🤣 The 20 year wait has been asserted since I was a teenager. 

The fact remains that star travel is not prohibited by physics, star travel is at worst an engineering problem... A problem than IMHO can be solved. 

Tons of uranium can be carried if need be for the fission reactor to be refueled many times over the course of the ships traveling. Still, I have to agree that fission isn't exactly the gold standard. If you are of the opinion  that controlled fusion will never be solved I can't argue that point but it does seem rather pessimistic. 

I am glossing over nothing, you however evidently have no hope for the future being significantly more advanced than it is today.  

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Assuming they have similar lifespans to ours. And if they do, that the interest level in these probes continues even though there is no feedback for a long, long time. And they maintain the technology to interface with the probes (though this is not quite like needing to find a device that lets you read an 8" floppy disk, which is only ~50 year-old tech, and hoping your software can read whatever files are on it)

Indeed, they could live for a thousand year's and still be dead chuffed with their new fangled technology.  

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Tons of uranium can be carried if need be for the fission reactor to be refueled many times over the course of the ships traveling.

You have to have many reactors, too, because the containment vessel will fail owing to fast neutron embrittlement. And all the components will wear out, which makes for logistical problems. But you didn't address this, just as you don't address any other solutions you present. There's never any detail. If you've glossed over nothing, show me where you go into the details of any of the proposed solutions to show that they are viable and not just a pipe dream. Instead of just saying "generation ship" how about estimating its size and what must be carried to travel even 1 LY through space.

There's probably some very interesting science and engineering to discuss, but it's never come up, because you stop at e.g. "generation ship" and go no further.

 

I cited physics as the reason that "They can travel to different areas at will" is a bad assumption (that's the only mention of physics by me in the thread before now). If you think that being limited to some (probably small) fraction of c and relying on some future generation to be alive at the destination is getting somewhere "at will" then I guess we have different definitions of "at will"

 

[Moontanman]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

You have to have many reactors, too, because the containment vessel will fail owing to fast neutron embrittlement. And all the components will wear out, which makes for logistical problems. But you didn't address this, just as you don't address any other solutions you present. There's never any detail. If you've glossed over nothing, show me where you go into the details of any of the proposed solutions to show that they are viable and not just a pipe dream. Instead of just saying "generation ship" how about estimating its size and what must be carried to travel even 1 LY through space.

There's probably some very interesting science and engineering to discuss, but it's never come up, because you stop at e.g. "generation ship" and go no further.

 

I cited physics as the reason that "They can travel to different areas at will" is a bad assumption (that's the only mention of physics by me in the thread before now). If you think that being limited to some (probably small) fraction of c and relying on some future generation to be alive at the destination is getting somewhere "at will" then I guess we have different definitions of "at will"

 

I wasn't aware i was required to give a detailed engineering analysis of everything i post, no one seems to be required to do that, I can attempt to do so but I don't think I'm really qualified. I am not a nuclear engineer and i did say there would be problems with fission  and that fusion would be preferred or do I need to give a detailed engineering paper on why this would be so? Actually, as i referred to, for many if not all the way out ideas I post these engineering details have been done by others, scientists and engineers on many of the things i suggest, from O'Neil cylinders, to nuclear powered space craft. If I really need to give the links to details of everything I post i will endeavor to do so, makes me feel special. 

Perhaps if you could be a bit more detailed than a one word response like "physics" I could better provide the details required 

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Moontanman

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I wasn't aware i was required to give a detailed engineering analysis of everything i post, no one seems to be required to do that, I can attempt to do so but I don't think I'm really qualified. I am not a nuclear engineer and i did say there would be problems with fission  and that fusion would be preferred or do I need to give a detailed engineering paper on why this would be so? Actually, as i referred to, for many if not all the way out ideas I post these engineering details have been done by others, scientists and engineers on many of the things i suggest, from O'Neil cylinders, to nuclear powered space craft. If I really need to give the links to details of everything I post i will endeavor to do so, makes me feel special. 

Perhaps if you could be a bit more detailed than a one word response like "physics" I could better provide the details required 

 

An example of the size of the task: Suppose we aim for Alpha Proxima, as it's 'only' 3.2LYRs away. Suppose we had a  rocket that could travel a million mph. It'll take us 19 200 000 years to get there... and we've got to slow down as well before we arrive, so delta v to consider as well. Can you see a generation ship and its occupants lasting 19 million years? It's poppycock according to what we know now. You know this already as we've been over it umpteen times in the last 10 years or so.  All swansont should have to say to you is 'physics' and you should by now know what he means.

Edited June 14, 2022 by StringJunky

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I wasn't aware i was required to give a detailed engineering analysis of everything i post, no one seems to be required to do that

Are you new here? Have you met SFN?

Pleading ignorance of the concept of "back up what you claim" isn't going to wash. Claiming that nobody is held to this standard is ludicrous.

 

Quote

Perhaps if you could be a bit more detailed than a one word response like "physics" I could better provide the details required 

I have already clarified this (see my earlier post); it wasn't a response to you.

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

An example of the size of the task: Suppose we aim for Alpha Proxima, as it's 'only' 3.2LYRs away. Suppose we had a  rocket that could travel a million mph. It'll take us 19 200 000 years to get there... and we've got to slow down as well before we arrive, so delta v to consider as well. Can you see a generation ship and its occupants lasting 19 million years? It's poppycock according to what we know now. You know this already as we've been over it umpteen times in the last 10 years or so.  All swansont should have to say to you is 'physics' and you should by now know what he means.

And there are so many details one could consider. How quickly can you accelerate? How much fuel and reaction mass would you need for just this trip. You need even more if you need to maneuver. What of the problem of things wearing out - how much raw material do you need to fix things? Is radiation a problem? Damage to the ship because it's traveling at a million mph? How do you ensure you have the diversity of life that would allow survival for that long? Pick any aspect of the travel and there's likely a rabbit hole to go down exploring the problems that have to be overcome.

[Moontanman]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Are you new here? Have you met SFN?

Pleading ignorance of the concept of "back up what you claim" isn't going to wash. Claiming that nobody is held to this standard is ludicrous.

 

I have already clarified this (see my earlier post); it wasn't a response to you.

And there are so many details one could consider. How quickly can you accelerate? How much fuel and reaction mass would you need for just this trip. You need even more if you need to maneuver. What of the problem of things wearing out - how much raw material do you need to fix things? Is radiation a problem? Damage to the ship because it's traveling at a million mph? How do you ensure you have the diversity of life that would allow survival for that long? Pick any aspect of the travel and there's likely a rabbit hole to go down exploring the problems that have to be overcome.

 

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

An example of the size of the task: Suppose we aim for Alpha Proxima, as it's 'only' 3.2LYRs away. Suppose we had a  rocket that could travel a million mph. It'll take us 19 200 000 years to get there... and we've got to slow down as well before we arrive, so delta v to consider as well. Can you see a generation ship and its occupants lasting 19 million years? It's poppycock according to what we know now. You know this already as we've been over it umpteen times in the last 10 years or so.  All swansont should have to say to you is 'physics' and you should by now know what he means.

Ok, points taken, I withdraw my posts on this subject and apologise for being speculative.