Jump to content

Talk:Drake equation: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Oub (talk | contribs)
 
(216 intermediate revisions by 71 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WPAstronomy|object=|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Astronomy |importance=Top}}
{{archives}}
{{WikiProject Biology |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Telecommunications |importance=Mid |1=<!-- likelihood of technological civilization with detectable communications -->}}
{{WikiProject Technology |1=<!-- likelihood of technological civilization with detectable communications -->}}
}}
{{Archive box|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]], [[/Archive 2|2]] }}
== The Drake Equation ==


More than 50 years ago, astronomer Frank Drake came up with this equation to figure out how many intelligent civilization might exist in our galaxy. He considered the possible number of civilizations that might be capable of communicating , the fraction of stars with planets , average number of planets and how many could support life, how many would have intelligent beings who wanted to communicate , and how long those civilizations might last. Based on his assumption and today's knowledge, there could be a few thousand alien civilizations somewhere out there among the hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy. [[User:INTELLIGENT 1234|INTELLIGENT 1234]] ([[User talk:INTELLIGENT 1234|talk]]) 06:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
== This article in the press ==


:It all depends on the assumptions the person does when assigning a numerical value to each factor. That is explained in the article. Cheers, [[User:Rowan Forest|Rowan Forest]] ([[User talk:Rowan Forest|talk]]) 16:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
This article is linked to in this press article: [http://www.foxcharlotte.com/dpps/news/dpgo-Peter-Backus-uses-math-to-explain-girlfriend-woes-fc-20100112_5537488 Man Uses Math to Explain Girlfriend Woes] [[User:Samboy|Samboy]] ([[User talk:Samboy|talk]]) 05:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


== An important summary as abstract to lead the article is missing ==
So this is just a guess? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AdbMonkey|AdbMonkey]] ([[User talk:AdbMonkey|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AdbMonkey|contribs]]) 13:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
It should be stated as the first point in the article that his "equation" is only for RECEIVING signals from distant suns, and in no way tests for life, intelligent life, or interstellar civilizations in our galaxy or neighboring galaxies. This is true solely from the requirements he multiplies in his "equation".


== Wrong equation for R* ==


:Hello. The first sentence specifies that it is "used to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations". That does it, right? Cheers, [[User:Rowan Forest|Rowan Forest]] ([[User talk:Rowan Forest|talk]]) 16:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The equation


== There should be more criticism in the Criticism section ==
<math> N^{\ast} = \int_0^{T_g} R^{\ast}(t) dt , \,\!</math>
1. It should be made clearer that the "equation" was construed in an era where every civilization was outright expected to blow themselves up with an atomic bomb. This is untrue from experience.


2. The "equation" corresponds to one long list of logical impossibilities with an AND statement in between. It should be made clear that such a conditional will always yield a result extremely close to logically false, not because of what each condition constitutes, but because of the number of conditions. It should be investigated whether Frank Drake had a degree in the field of logic. It's likely, since it's just a few weeks of study at University, but it should be checked.
ignores the fact that all stars have a finite lifespan, as they will either undergo a supernova or become a white dwarf. In fact, our Galaxy is known to have multiple generations of stars, and not a single "first-generation" star (i.e. population III) has yet been discovered. Furthermore, assigning an age to a galaxy is rather ambiguous, since it is now known that galaxies (especially large ones) have undergone many mergers with other galaxies. Thus it can said that the age of all galaxies is (nearly) the age of the Universe.


3. There should be insight into how well acquainted Frank Drake was within the fields of each of the conditions he construes his "equation" from.
==Wrong statement for L==
RM below about L to talk. If L is the length of time such civilizations ''release'' detectable signals into space then [[Grote Reber]] and [[radio astronomy]] have nothing to do with this value, his antenna was a receiver, not a transmitter. Maybe the example should date back to the [[Invention of radio]]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 00:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


4. It should be investigated whether Frank Drake has previously submitted mathematical equations for peer review, or if this is his first and only one. It should also be checked whether this equation has passed peer review.
:''The value of ''L'' can be estimated from the lifetime of our current civilization from the advent of [[radio astronomy]] in 1938 (dated from [[Grote Reber]]'s parabolic dish [[radio telescope]]) to the current date. In 2009, this gives an ''L'' of 71 years. However such an assumption would be erroneous. 71 for the value of ''L'' would be an artificial minimum based on Earth's broadcasting history to date and would make unlikely the possibility of other civilizations existing. 10,000 for ''L'' is still the most popular estimate.''


Henrik Erlandsson 01:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
== Current estimate of ''f''<sub>l</sub> ==
:The information, including criticism, has to be published by reliable sources; see: [[WP:Reliable sources]]. Personal assessments are not useful. Cheers, [[User:Rowan Forest|Rowan Forest]] ([[User talk:Rowan Forest|talk]]) 03:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


:Frank Drake has published many peer-reviewed articles in top journals, including a lot of math. To see some of them, just go to [https://scholar.google.com Google Scholar] and type in "author:fd.drake" (without the quotes). It's a little hard to take your criticism seriously when you make point (4) without checking for any of his other publications. [[User:LouScheffer|LouScheffer]] ([[User talk:LouScheffer|talk]]) 14:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
In the "Current estimates of the parameters" section, it says that Drake estimated ''f''<sub>l</sub> to be 1, whereas a couple other guys more recently estimated it to be 0.13. However, in the two sections that calculate N based on the current estimates (both at the bottom of the "Historical estimates" section and the bottom of the "Current estimates" section), a value of 0.33 is used for ''f''<sub>l</sub>. Where did 0.33 come from? Should an explanation should be added regarding how 0.33 was derived, or should we be using 0.13 in our current estimate calculation of N? [[User:Snottywong|<span style="font-family:Copperplate;font-size:15px;border:#AAAACC 1px solid">{{#if:Snotty|<span style="background-color:#DDDDFF;color:#008822;">Snotty</span>|<span style="color:#008822;">#DDDDFF</span>}}{{#if:Wong|<span style="background-color:#DDDDFF;color:#006611;">Wong</span>|<span style="color:#006611;">#DDDDFF</span>}}</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Snottywong|talk]]</small> 21:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


:I took a stab at it based on 2 semesters worth of astronomy simplified to the max. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject can easily verify all the additional subject matter. AKA The sky is blue does not need to be sourced from reliable sources. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC|2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC]] ([[User talk:2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC#top|talk]]) 20:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Mayr vs Sagan out? Michael Crichton in? ==


== Mistake in the original estimates ==
Hello


I might be wrong but it is stated that R was 1 star per year in Drake's original formulation. However, all the other Wikipedia pages mention a rate of 10/year and other sources do the same : the BBC interactive page on drake equation and "information is beautiful" interactive page on drake and seager equations both mention a rate of 10 per year as the original estimate made by Drake.
The late Ernst Mayr was the most famous biologist at our times, especially in the theory of evolution which is most relevant here, and he criticised the SETI project in various occasions. I find the discussion he had with Carl Sagan, one of the fathers of SETI especially enlightening and that is why I added it. Now the current section about critics of the SETI project contains a cite of Michael Crichton, a science fiction writer and removed the Mayr link. With all due respect to Mr. Crichton but I think the critics of Ernst Mayr is far more relevant. One of his arguments, which he clearly emphasised as being speculative is based on the fact that of the many species on earth, which might be in the billions, only one developed intelligence. Now the wording of the paragraph I added can be changed of course and rephrased, but leaving Crichton in and Mayr out, seems to me sort of ridiculous. [[User:Oub|Oub]] ([[User talk:Oub|talk]]) 12:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC):
At first I made the changes to the page but then I thought that maybe I misunderstood something so I reverted it. Nonetheless, I do believe there is a mistake. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A01:E0A:28F:41F0:60AD:8550:BAFD:B755|2A01:E0A:28F:41F0:60AD:8550:BAFD:B755]] ([[User talk:2A01:E0A:28F:41F0:60AD:8550:BAFD:B755#top|talk]]) 21:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Mayr's argument is actually fallacious. The reason only one species on Earth developed a technological intelligence is that there is only one niche per planet for such a species. Reflect on the fate of the Neanderthals. [[User:WolfmanSF|WolfmanSF]] ([[User talk:WolfmanSF|talk]]) 22:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
:The cited reference [https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.1506.pdf] supports your argument. I added one order of magnitude. Please review my edit. Cheers, [[User:Rowan Forest|Rowan Forest]] ([[User talk:Rowan Forest|talk]]) 21:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


The 1/year comes from the book by Drake and Sobel. I can provide a copy of the page, if needed. [[User:LouScheffer|LouScheffer]] ([[User talk:LouScheffer|talk]]) 22:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
== factor missing in the equation? ==
:I guess the book has priority over a paper still in arXiv. I have no access to the book, but I trust you. Cheers, [[User:Rowan Forest|Rowan Forest]] ([[User talk:Rowan Forest|talk]]) 16:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
In the equation appear the factors
:''f''<sub>''c''</sub> = 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.


I dug up my old copy of Drake & Sobel and scanned the relevant pages. See [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1w1rgYMqFwEa-1ANeBQ1VZZAprXXTfLAt Drake's description of original values]. This is on google drive, but I think readable by all. Could someone check? [[User:LouScheffer|LouScheffer]] ([[User talk:LouScheffer|talk]]) 21:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
It might be, that such civilization existed for 1 million years, that would produce a good result of calculation for N.
::Wow, wow)) Can you scan that book and upload it to [[Libgen]]? There is no such book there, which is very strange, usually there are all books there. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:1370:812C:C538:69FE:7932:D193:648D|2A00:1370:812C:C538:69FE:7932:D193:648D]] ([[User talk:2A00:1370:812C:C538:69FE:7932:D193:648D|talk]]) 09:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{od}}The link you gave worked for me, and led to [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hMlED-V0rZa9iCqCY2M8lnGRkcQ8MOEc_FKc2oxNKQ8/edit this] further page on google docs. All the estimates I saw there agreed with the figures in the article except, perhaps, {{math|''L''}}, which the article puts at "1000 to 100,000,000 years (which will last somewhere between 1000 and 100,000,000 years)" and for which the book says, "In the end, it seemed that the lifetimes of civilizations would either be very short — less than a thousand years — or extremely long — in excess of perhaps hundreds of millions of years." (a somewhat wider range, which would widen the range of the result correspondingly). I do note that the article cites a 1992 edition of the book; I'm wondering whether there might be some differences between editions here. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]] [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 12:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
:::Your link labeled "this" did not allow me access. Can you make it readable by all? Thanks, [[User:LouScheffer|LouScheffer]] ([[User talk:LouScheffer|talk]]) 03:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
::::Both links work for me, but I see on taking a second look at the source that I ought to have read further. The bit I wss looking at reads: "In the end, it seemed that the lifetimes of civilizations would either be very short-less than a thousand years—or extremely long-in excess of perhaps hundreds of millions of years." However, further down says: {{"'}}We've reached a conclusion,' I said. 'Our best estimate is that there are somewhere between one thousand and one hundred million advanced extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way.' (The values for the various factors in the equation have changed over the years, but this answer remains the most probable range.)", which agrees with the article. Sorry about the confusion. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]] [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 11:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
::::: Link still gives message "You need access. Ask for access, or switch to an account with access." So I sent you an email asking for access, but this will only work for me even if you do it. So please make it readable by all. Google drive, at least, gives you this option when you create a a link. [[User:LouScheffer|LouScheffer]] ([[User talk:LouScheffer|talk]]) 13:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
:::::I rcvd your email and replied, I think, OKing access. I struggle with access issues on google. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]] [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 15:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
::::::I also send you an email. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:1370:812C:DE1A:E888:DD99:E1:5BB7|2A00:1370:812C:DE1A:E888:DD99:E1:5BB7]] ([[User talk:2A00:1370:812C:DE1A:E888:DD99:E1:5BB7|talk]]) 02:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


== NPOV ==
But if that happened 100 million years ago, and 99 million years ago that civilization disappeared, we cannot communicate. Should a "factor of same time" be added to the equation? Is there anything in the literature? --[[User:Hans W|Hans W]] ([[User talk:Hans W|talk]]) 15:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


This article seems to go against NPOV. It's clearly pro-SETI and does not use impartial tone. The usefulness section is the clearest demonstration of this. For example, "The Drake equation is a statement that stimulates intellectual curiosity about the universe around us, for helping us to understand that life as we know it is the end product of a natural, cosmic evolution, and for helping us realize how much we are a part of that universe." is clearly a subjective statement, citation notwithstanding. [[User:Bored2020|Bored2020]] ([[User talk:Bored2020|talk]]) 17:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
== ε<sub>Earth</sub> is not obtainable from Drake equation parameters ==
:{{done}} I've removed the sentence in question [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Drake_equation&diff=978931567&oldid=977575731]. It sounds like a personal opinion/essay, and I didn't see it in the source given (which was this [http://www.seti.org/drakeequation]). With a current source it could be restored, but if so it should be presented as an opinion and [[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV|attributed to someone]], and not stated in WP's voice. I'm open to looking at other examples of this in the article. [[User:Geogene|Geogene]] ([[User talk:Geogene|talk]]) 20:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


== L Years as a proportion of the age of the universe? ==
It is not true that ε<sub>Earth</sub> = ''f''<sub>p</sub> x ''n''<sub>e</sub> (where ε<sub>Earth</sub> is the the fraction of stars with Earth-like planets). Consider an extreme but illustrative example. If ''f''<sub>p</sub> = 0.01 (only 1% of stars have planets) and ''n''<sub>e</sub> = 100 (each of those stars has 100 Earthlike planets), then ε<sub>Earth</sub> = 0.01, but ''f''<sub>p</sub> x ''n''<sub>e</sub> = 1.0. You need to know the statistical distribution of ''n''<sub>e</sub> to calculate ε<sub>Earth</sub>. [[User:WolfmanSF|WolfmanSF]] ([[User talk:WolfmanSF|talk]]) 23:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


Obviously L is not actually the number of years. Why should earth years have anything to do with it. L is actually a very small number. [[User:Tuntable|Tuntable]] ([[User talk:Tuntable|talk]]) 01:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
== R* is the number of stars in the galaxy? ==
:As long as time is expressed consistently in the same units throughout the equation, then it doesn't matter what unit you choose. [[User:Geogene|Geogene]] ([[User talk:Geogene|talk]]) 01:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


== Unclear definition of "L" in the "Estimates" section ==
I'm not sure why this article emphasizes the number of stars formed per year, without multiplying that number by the number of years the galaxy has been forming stars! This matter is explained somewhat in the subsection "Alternative expression" but later ignored in the "Current estimates of the parameters" section. The result is that the first three terms of the right hand side give the number of earth-like planets formed per year. The end result, 2.31 civilizations, is an absurdly low estimate. The original Drake equation was: <math>N = N_g \times f_p \times n_e \times f_{\ell} \times f_i \times f_c \times L \! </math> where the first term on the right-hand side is the number of stars in the galaxy. <math> N_g </math> is on the order of 200 to 400 billion, not 7. I have edited the "Current estimates" section with the estimates made by James Kasting in his book "How To Find A Habitable Planet". [[Special:Contributions/70.112.186.143|70.112.186.143]] ([[User talk:70.112.186.143|talk]]) 03:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Eric


Under "Estimates", the article states:
== offensive anthropocentrism ==
I'm taking issue with the text
* ''fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life. Estimated by Drake as 0.01 based on little or no evidence. This value remains particularly controversial. Pessimists such as Ernst Mayr point out that of the billions of species that have existed on Earth, only one has become intelligent[18] and infer a tiny value for fi.''


"L = 1000 to 100,000,000 communicative civilizations (which will last somewhere between 1000 and 100,000,000 years)"
the view that Earth has only one intelligent species is ridiculous and offensive. in fact it harbours several very intelligent species. this aspect of the controversy has not been exposed in the article. some versions of the drake equation, however, do make the distinction between intelligence and technological advancement as different factors. -- [[Special:Contributions/99.233.186.4|99.233.186.4]] ([[User talk:99.233.186.4|talk]]) 01:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
: Hm, please name another intelligence species on this planet! In order to prevent a fight over the word intelligence, the basic motivation of the Drake equations is to ''communicate''. So instead of looking for an intelligent species one could say a species which posses a language with a full developed grammar, so I am curious which species do you have in mind? [[User:Oub|Oub]] ([[User talk:Oub|talk]]) 17:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC):


However, L is not the number of civilisations, that is N. In the text is notes that the original work suggested they would be numerically similar but should that not then be written as something like:
==Current estimates of the parameters: Mayr (POV) ==
The actual subsection ''the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life'' reads


"L = 1000 to 100,000,000 years during which civilizations remain communicative. This roughly implies N = 1000 to 100,000,000 communicative civilizations at any given time."
:Estimated by Drake as 0.01 based on little or no evidence. This value remains particularly controversial. Pessimists such as Ernst Mayr point out that of the billions of species that have existed on Earth, only one has become intelligent[18] and infer a tiny value for fi. Optimists note the generally increasing complexity of life and conclude that the eventual appearance of intelligence might be inevitable, meaning fi=1.[19]
[[User:GeorgeDishman|George Dishman]] ([[User talk:GeorgeDishman|talk]]) 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


== First appearance of the Drake Equation ==
several remarks:


There's is no citation to the first original article by Frank Drake that contained the drake equation in the form we know today. the current page cites the project ozma one which doesn't really have any equation!
#Mayr was a very famous biologist that should be mentioned.
#He is denoted as a ''pessimist'', that is clearly '''POV ''', it would be more accurate to call him ''realist '' but I think it is best to drop any label.
#Now [19] is cited presenting a counterargument. first of all it is written by ''enrico '', is this any known or even famous biologist? Besides in this article it '''not ''' claimed that fi=1.
Given all that I suggest to drop ''pessimist '' for Mayr and drop the link to ''enrico. '' [[User:Oub|Oub]] ([[User talk:Oub|talk]]) 22:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC):


I think we should include this.
:Famous is true, but irrelevant. Especially in this field, where little is known for sure, famous does not guarantee anything. (Einstein, clearly a famous physicist, said God does not play games with dice, but the consensus now is that he was wrong...).


as Jason Wright says in this blog https://sites.psu.edu/astrowright/2019/07/31/freeman-dysons-first-law-of-seti-investigations/, the first appearance was in this paper https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965cae..book..323D/abstract, which can be found here https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Current_Aspects_of_Exobiology/t8zYBAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA323&printsec=frontcover. [[User:Toposopher|Toposopher]] ([[User talk:Toposopher|talk]]) 23:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:Also, I provided a very solid reference to "Generally increasing complexity of life". Even if you object to some other reference, please do not remove this one. There is no doubt that many SETI folks have set the probability to 1 (that's what Meyr is objecting to....), based on (among others) this argument. So adding a "citation needed" is as far as you should go in this area.


== regarding a paper from april that was added but then excised ==
:Finally, it's not POV to summarize the two conclusions and the arguments behind them. Even though you, personally, may feel one is much stronger than the other, both have been used in the field, so they should remain. Removing, or minimizing, one of them only, is quite POV by itself. [[User:LouScheffer|LouScheffer]] ([[User talk:LouScheffer|talk]]) 19:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Drake_equation&diff=1218748533&oldid=1218704186
::'''Re: [[User:LouScheffer|LouScheffer]]''' thanks for your answer. To make this clear: Both estimates about the value of fi should be mentioned. I only objected to the version Mayr vs Enrico. The second reference you inserted is solid enough, however I would prefer to leave out the first one, but I don' want to make a war about it. The formulation which I feel uneasy about it, is the word pessimist, that in my opinion is too strong and too biased, what's about skeptic instead of pessimist. [[User:Oub|Oub]] ([[User talk:Oub|talk]]) 11:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC):


[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54700-x "The importance of continents, oceans and plate tectonics for the evolution of complex life: implications for finding extraterrestrial civilizations"]
:::The current meaning of 'pessimist' is someone who is pessimistic about making contact (for any one of a number of reasons). In this sense Mayr is definitely a pessimist, as I think he would agree. Similarly, 'optimists' are those who are optimistic about the chances of making contact, or at least about intelligence evolving. I personally think 'skeptic' is better reserved for those who believe all such calculations are unreliable at best, as opposed to those who are skeptical of making contact. Maybe we could say 'Contact pessimists' and 'contact optimists' or just replace it with the more bland 'some' and 'others'. [[User:LouScheffer|LouScheffer]] ([[User talk:LouScheffer|talk]]) 03:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


I know the paper was removed for being offtopic, but it still seems interesting enough to merit inclusion in some way, as it really is a variant of the drake equation and therefore ostensibly germane to the article [[User:Nagging Prawn|Nagging Prawn]] ([[User talk:Nagging Prawn|talk]]) 08:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::'''Re: [[User:LouScheffer|LouScheffer]]''' hm Mayr is dead, so we can't ask him. I strongly recommend not to use pessimist or optimist but ''some'' and ''others''. [[User:Oub|Oub]] ([[User talk:Oub|talk]]) 14:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC):

Latest revision as of 08:45, 25 September 2024

The Drake Equation

[edit]

More than 50 years ago, astronomer Frank Drake came up with this equation to figure out how many intelligent civilization might exist in our galaxy. He considered the possible number of civilizations that might be capable of communicating , the fraction of stars with planets , average number of planets and how many could support life, how many would have intelligent beings who wanted to communicate , and how long those civilizations might last. Based on his assumption and today's knowledge, there could be a few thousand alien civilizations somewhere out there among the hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy. INTELLIGENT 1234 (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on the assumptions the person does when assigning a numerical value to each factor. That is explained in the article. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An important summary as abstract to lead the article is missing

[edit]

It should be stated as the first point in the article that his "equation" is only for RECEIVING signals from distant suns, and in no way tests for life, intelligent life, or interstellar civilizations in our galaxy or neighboring galaxies. This is true solely from the requirements he multiplies in his "equation".


Hello. The first sentence specifies that it is "used to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations". That does it, right? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There should be more criticism in the Criticism section

[edit]

1. It should be made clearer that the "equation" was construed in an era where every civilization was outright expected to blow themselves up with an atomic bomb. This is untrue from experience.

2. The "equation" corresponds to one long list of logical impossibilities with an AND statement in between. It should be made clear that such a conditional will always yield a result extremely close to logically false, not because of what each condition constitutes, but because of the number of conditions. It should be investigated whether Frank Drake had a degree in the field of logic. It's likely, since it's just a few weeks of study at University, but it should be checked.

3. There should be insight into how well acquainted Frank Drake was within the fields of each of the conditions he construes his "equation" from.

4. It should be investigated whether Frank Drake has previously submitted mathematical equations for peer review, or if this is his first and only one. It should also be checked whether this equation has passed peer review.

Henrik Erlandsson 01:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The information, including criticism, has to be published by reliable sources; see: WP:Reliable sources. Personal assessments are not useful. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Drake has published many peer-reviewed articles in top journals, including a lot of math. To see some of them, just go to Google Scholar and type in "author:fd.drake" (without the quotes). It's a little hard to take your criticism seriously when you make point (4) without checking for any of his other publications. LouScheffer (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at it based on 2 semesters worth of astronomy simplified to the max. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject can easily verify all the additional subject matter. AKA The sky is blue does not need to be sourced from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:5F0A:5500:ED19:AC53:A1A9:EFFC (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in the original estimates

[edit]

I might be wrong but it is stated that R was 1 star per year in Drake's original formulation. However, all the other Wikipedia pages mention a rate of 10/year and other sources do the same : the BBC interactive page on drake equation and "information is beautiful" interactive page on drake and seager equations both mention a rate of 10 per year as the original estimate made by Drake. At first I made the changes to the page but then I thought that maybe I misunderstood something so I reverted it. Nonetheless, I do believe there is a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:28F:41F0:60AD:8550:BAFD:B755 (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cited reference [1] supports your argument. I added one order of magnitude. Please review my edit. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1/year comes from the book by Drake and Sobel. I can provide a copy of the page, if needed. LouScheffer (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the book has priority over a paper still in arXiv. I have no access to the book, but I trust you. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dug up my old copy of Drake & Sobel and scanned the relevant pages. See Drake's description of original values. This is on google drive, but I think readable by all. Could someone check? LouScheffer (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, wow)) Can you scan that book and upload it to Libgen? There is no such book there, which is very strange, usually there are all books there. 2A00:1370:812C:C538:69FE:7932:D193:648D (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The link you gave worked for me, and led to this further page on google docs. All the estimates I saw there agreed with the figures in the article except, perhaps, L, which the article puts at "1000 to 100,000,000 years (which will last somewhere between 1000 and 100,000,000 years)" and for which the book says, "In the end, it seemed that the lifetimes of civilizations would either be very short — less than a thousand years — or extremely long — in excess of perhaps hundreds of millions of years." (a somewhat wider range, which would widen the range of the result correspondingly). I do note that the article cites a 1992 edition of the book; I'm wondering whether there might be some differences between editions here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your link labeled "this" did not allow me access. Can you make it readable by all? Thanks, LouScheffer (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both links work for me, but I see on taking a second look at the source that I ought to have read further. The bit I wss looking at reads: "In the end, it seemed that the lifetimes of civilizations would either be very short-less than a thousand years—or extremely long-in excess of perhaps hundreds of millions of years." However, further down says: "'We've reached a conclusion,' I said. 'Our best estimate is that there are somewhere between one thousand and one hundred million advanced extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way.' (The values for the various factors in the equation have changed over the years, but this answer remains the most probable range.)", which agrees with the article. Sorry about the confusion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Link still gives message "You need access. Ask for access, or switch to an account with access." So I sent you an email asking for access, but this will only work for me even if you do it. So please make it readable by all. Google drive, at least, gives you this option when you create a a link. LouScheffer (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rcvd your email and replied, I think, OKing access. I struggle with access issues on google. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also send you an email. 2A00:1370:812C:DE1A:E888:DD99:E1:5BB7 (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

This article seems to go against NPOV. It's clearly pro-SETI and does not use impartial tone. The usefulness section is the clearest demonstration of this. For example, "The Drake equation is a statement that stimulates intellectual curiosity about the universe around us, for helping us to understand that life as we know it is the end product of a natural, cosmic evolution, and for helping us realize how much we are a part of that universe." is clearly a subjective statement, citation notwithstanding. Bored2020 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've removed the sentence in question [2]. It sounds like a personal opinion/essay, and I didn't see it in the source given (which was this [3]). With a current source it could be restored, but if so it should be presented as an opinion and attributed to someone, and not stated in WP's voice. I'm open to looking at other examples of this in the article. Geogene (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L Years as a proportion of the age of the universe?

[edit]

Obviously L is not actually the number of years. Why should earth years have anything to do with it. L is actually a very small number. Tuntable (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as time is expressed consistently in the same units throughout the equation, then it doesn't matter what unit you choose. Geogene (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear definition of "L" in the "Estimates" section

[edit]

Under "Estimates", the article states:

"L = 1000 to 100,000,000 communicative civilizations (which will last somewhere between 1000 and 100,000,000 years)"

However, L is not the number of civilisations, that is N. In the text is notes that the original work suggested they would be numerically similar but should that not then be written as something like:

"L = 1000 to 100,000,000 years during which civilizations remain communicative. This roughly implies N = 1000 to 100,000,000 communicative civilizations at any given time." George Dishman (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First appearance of the Drake Equation

[edit]

There's is no citation to the first original article by Frank Drake that contained the drake equation in the form we know today. the current page cites the project ozma one which doesn't really have any equation!

I think we should include this.

as Jason Wright says in this blog https://sites.psu.edu/astrowright/2019/07/31/freeman-dysons-first-law-of-seti-investigations/, the first appearance was in this paper https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965cae..book..323D/abstract, which can be found here https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Current_Aspects_of_Exobiology/t8zYBAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA323&printsec=frontcover. Toposopher (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

regarding a paper from april that was added but then excised

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Drake_equation&diff=1218748533&oldid=1218704186

"The importance of continents, oceans and plate tectonics for the evolution of complex life: implications for finding extraterrestrial civilizations"

I know the paper was removed for being offtopic, but it still seems interesting enough to merit inclusion in some way, as it really is a variant of the drake equation and therefore ostensibly germane to the article Nagging Prawn (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]