11–20 of 38 posts
I wonder if there is any models exploring the possibility that our system is uncommon due to 2 systems merging? IOW, Sol ejected a companion star and assimilated the planets from the other.
Perhaps it just seems like such large inner exoplanets are so common because they're easier to find with our current techniques?
I would have liked to hear about how they are now accounting for the inherent bias of our detection process to find large, close-to-star planets, because those are the ones that produce the best signals. I remember that that used to be a big issue in drawing any statistical conclusions about expolanet data. Has there just finally been enough data collected that we can model our own bias?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's likely there is no great filter; there exist reasonable claims that the Fermi Paradox has been "dissolved" [1] [2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17302924 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17560462
If I understand this study correctly, their conclusion is that it is likely that intelligent species are very rare in the universe. This still implies a "Great Filter", but it would have to be behind us.
But it was never more than a heuristic, and the data is increasingly coming in that the Copernican Principle breaks down at the solar system scale. In fact our Solar System is at least somewhat rare. It is certainly possible that the more we study the rarer it will become. (It can't really go the other direction at this point.)
It's going to take decades for this to properly percolate through the philosophy of science and its implications to be properly chewed on for a lot of the Big Questions.
(Note I'm not making any claims about the outcome of that process here; any such things you read into this are your own worldview poking out. I'm just saying, this is a really big event in the history of science. The sort of result that 23rd century textbooks are going to be calling out in the primary text as an important event.)
Could this mean the great filter is likely behind us?
It's likely there is no great filter; there exist reasonable claims that the Fermi Paradox has been "dissolved" [1] [2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17302924 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17560462
There is nothing reasonable or new in either one of those links. Seems like people quoting trash is how myths perpetuate.
P.S. Wrapping a quoted quote in the same kind of quotation marks is kind of liberating after years of " 'ayyy' " or "\"ayyy\"".
Off-topic, but I really appreciate that they offer "Cookie Settings", giving me the option to disable ad-tracking cookies. Yes, the button is almost invisible gray-on-gray, but it's there. Is this the GDPR showing its usefuless already?
So, this is actually a big deal, in the "centuries-long arc of science" sense. For hundreds of years, science has operated under the Copernican Principle [1], which in a nutshell is that there is nothing particular special/unique about us. Our position on the planet is not special. Our planet is not special. Our solar system is not special. Our galaxy is not special, etc. It has been a scientifically-fruitful tool fo…
> Half of nearby stars have at least one (and often several) worlds with masses substantially greater than Earth and orbital periods ranging from mere days to weeks Perhaps it just seems like such large inner exoplanets are so common because they're easier to find with our current techniques?
That's common. It's half!
They're also easier to find, sure. Maybe the other half are exactly like Sol but we can't tell yet.
But nothing can make 1 out of 2 stars near enough to make out into something uncommon, except our local cluster of stars itself being weird in some way. Which is possible.
I would have liked to hear about how they are now accounting for the inherent bias of our detection process to find large, close-to-star planets, because those are the ones that produce the best signals. I remember that that used to be a big issue in drawing any statistical conclusions about expolanet data. Has there just finally been enough data collected that we can model our own bias?