ArmEngine Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 The Drake Equation How can we estimate the number of technological civilizations that might exist among the stars? While working as a radio astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank, West Virginia, Dr. Frank Drake (now Chairman of the Board of the SETI Institute) conceived an approach to bound the terms involved in estimating the number of technological civilizations that may exist in our galaxy. The Drake Equation, as it has become known, was first presented by Drake in 1961 and identifies specific factors thought to play a role in the development of such civilizations. Although there is no unique solution to this equation, it is a generally accepted tool used by the scientific community to examine these factors. --Frank Drake, 1961 N = R * f p n e f l f i f c L Where, N = The number of civilizations in The Milky Way Galaxy whose radio emissions are detectable. R* = The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life. f p = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems. n e = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable for life. fl = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears. f i = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges. f c = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space. L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space. http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=179073 http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=178919 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 This equation is worthless as long as we ignore at least one of the parametrters... And we probably ignore all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmEngine Posted January 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 This equation is worthless as long as we ignore at least one of the parametrters... And we probably ignore all of them. style_images/master/snapback.png lol if u ignore one parameter in any equation its will be worthless as well. SETI is based on the idea behind this equation. Drake is one of founding fathers for SETI ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 8, 2005 Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 lol if u ignore one parameter in any equation its will be worthless as well. SETI is based on the idea behind this equation. Drake is one of founding fathers for SETI ... style_images/master/snapback.png No, it is different in this cases. The variables are all unknown, and it is not like an usual equation, where you will enter absolute values for the varriables and will find an answer. I remember one of my classes of astronomy back years ago, where the prof has shot estimate ranges, that when entering in the equation you could have found from 0 to the universe being full of intelligent being and Earth being just one among millions or perhaps billions. In such cases, the equation is useless and worthless, because we don't need it in anyway, the results themselves are no more accurate than me shoting a value without using any equations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siamanto Posted January 8, 2005 Report Share Posted January 8, 2005 (edited) This equation is worthless as long as we ignore at least one of the parametrters... And we probably ignore all of them. style_images/master/snapback.png lol if u ignore one parameter in any equation its will be worthless as well. SETI is based on the idea behind this equation. Drake is one of founding fathers for SETI ... style_images/master/snapback.png ArmeEngine, Thank you for challenging our imagination! For the record, I understand "ignore" in the statement above as "do not/cannot know/estimate the value;" NOT as "dismiss, disregard or overlook." For instance, for practical purposes, what "stars suitable for the development of intelligent life" could mean? We can hardly define "intelligence?" So it would be difficult to estimate/evalaute: "The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life." Edited January 8, 2005 by Siamanto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmEngine Posted January 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2005 ArmeEngine, Thank you for challenging our imagination! For the record, I understand "ignore" in the statement above as "do not/cannot know/estimate the value;" NOT as "dismiss, disregard or overlook." For instance, for practical purposes, what "stars suitable for the development of intelligent life" could mean? We can hardly define "intelligence?" So it would be difficult to estimate/evalaute: "The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life." style_images/master/snapback.png It’s not right to base your opinions on lack of understanding. Your argument is inherently void. Discarding a equation just because you know what lets say "stars suitable for the development of intelligent life" means is funny to me. You can make a much stronger case by arguing against the assumptions made in the equation. For example you can argue that Variables in the equation assume that variables are statistically independent or Fermi paradox, anthropic principle..... Argument based on scientific principles not personal beliefs. My 2 cents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.