The Drake Equation

2009 April 19

By Andy Kaiser
Article ID: 1317

I’m about to prove to you that aliens exist. I’m talking space aliens. Whether they’re the traditional Little Green Men, bug-eyed monsters, or something incomprehensible to the human mind, they exist, they’re intelligent, and they’re trying to find us.

I’m going to prove this to you by using the most powerful tool on Earth: mathematics. Ready? Here we go:

The number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy

Our planet Earth resides comfortably in the Milky Way galaxy, a pinwheel-shaped collection of at least 200 billion stars. You know how our sun is just ONE star? Give it 200 billion friends. That’s 200,000,000,000. At the time of this writing, this is roughly thirty times the number of humans living right now on this planet. Personally, I can’t even visualize a number that high. Again, that’s why we’re using math – even if we can’t see it or fathom it, we can represent it and come up with meaningful answers.

So, we have 200 billion stars. We know this number fluctuates – new stars form and die. Astronomers think that the birth rate of stars in the Milky Way galaxy is roughly one star per year.

Can you count the stars? How many of those do you think contain planets with life?

The percentage of stars that have planets

Next, let’s look at all those stars. How many have planets around them? They’re hard to see, but we’re sniffing them out. NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory tell us we’ve so far found hundreds of “extrasolar planets”.  As of April 2009, the count was at 344. Some astronomers think at least fifty percent of all stars have planets! We’ll be more conservative. Let’s cut the ratio in half, and estimate twenty-five percent of all stars have a planet.

The number of “Goldilocks planets” per star

Now look at the planets spinning around all those stars. Of those planets, how many (per star) are capable of sustaining life? Such habitable places are sometimes humorously called “Goldilocks planets”, meaning that conditions for life (as we know it) are not too cold, not too hot, but just right.

In our own solar system, we have an idea of this number. Earth is such a planet. As we explore further, we may find that other places in our solar system are also “just right”. Or say you have a solar system with a Venus-like planet, where the greenhouse effect has escalated beyond control and turned the planet into an acidic-raining wasteland which is hot enough to melt lead. Take that hellish planet and move it away from the sun. Get it out far enough and you’ll find a sweet spot, where the planet is warm enough (thanks to the greenhouse effect), but not so hot it kills everything on the surface.

There are endless possibilities and plenty of conjecture as to the number of habitable planets per star. For now, let’s use the number as dictated by our only example, ourselves: let’s assume that of the stars which have planets, one planet is capable of supporting life in some form.

The fraction of planets where life evolves

This leads us to a conversation about life itself: on planets capable of sustaining life, what are the chances that life exists? Some biologists think that if life can exist somewhere, it will. Their opinion is bolstered by so-called “extremophiles” – Earth-based life that has adapted to some truly nasty conditions. Extremophiles can exist without sunlight, or under massive pressure, or bombarded by amounts of radiation that would make The Incredible Hulk blush. With evidence here on our planet, this is why many suggest that if life can exist somewhere, it will. Others say that getting to that point – the point where life begins – is very difficult. We know it’s possible, of course, because I’m writing this and you, my fellow human, are reading it. But let’s err on the side of caution. Let’s say that on life-capable planets, only one percent of those will harbor living beings.

The fraction of life evolving into intelligent life

So we’ve got a lot of stars. They have a lot of planets. Some of those planets are capable of supporting life, and some of those actually have life. Our next question is: is that life intelligent? Yes, the discovery of any form of life outside Earth would be world-changing, but remember, we’re talking about aliens. The things that you see in movies where they sneak up on people before revealing themselves to be evil killers. Or cute, huggable geniuses. Or both.

This is another contention point: some people think that if you have life, intelligence will evolve as a survival trait. Some disagree, and say that intelligence isn’t needed in order to survive. Let’s just take a guess here, and assume that if life occurs, there is a fifty percent chance it will become intelligent.

The fraction of intelligent life trying to communicate

Next we have communication. What fraction of that intelligent life will actively try to communicate with other intelligent races? What fraction has the capability and, more importantly, the desire? Because this is as nebulous as the previous estimate, let’s use the same fifty percent value.

How long does a communicating civilization live

We’re almost done. We’ve got one variable left. It’s an important one: how long does an intelligent civilization live?

Because we humans are the only example we know of, let’s look at ourselves: The sun and Earth in their present forms will be around for another ten billion years. But the human race might just destroy itself with nuclear war, bioweapons, or some other self-inflicted suicide. What about a solar flare or meteorite impact? How long can the human race survive? With Earth as our only home, we are in a very vulnerable position.  If we manage to explore outside of Earth and begin colonization of our solar system and beyond, the human race could live a very long time. At the risk of depressing my audience, let’s assume the human race – and any intelligent race such as ours – will last 100,000 years before it’s completely obliterated from existence.

The proof that aliens exist

There. I did it. I proved aliens exist, that there are many, many intelligent races in our galaxy, and that they’re trying to communicate with us.

What, you don’t follow?

The previous thousand words are nothing more than a big math equation. Here’s the short form of everything I just said:

The Milky Way galaxy creates one new star per year. 25% of all stars have planets. 1 planet per star is capable of supporting life. 1% of those planets have life. 50% of those evolve intelligent life. 50% of those civilizations are trying to communicate with other beings outside their home planet. Such races live at least 100,000 years.

If we do the math and run this equation, we get a number. That number will tell us how many races (besides us humans) exist in our galaxy. That number is 65.There are 65 other civilizations covering the Milky Way, all of them wondering why we aren’t answering our galactic phone.

The Drake Equation

I really wish it were that easy. It’s not. While the numbers above may sound reasonable, while the math involved makes perfect sense, while the number “65″ even seems low for a galaxy with two hundred billion stars, I’ll share with you an uncomfortable secret: None of this proves anything.

This whole exercise was an example of plugging in values to The Drake Equation. The Drake Equation is a formula created by astrophysicist and astronomer Frank Drake in 1960. Frank Drake is also the guy who created the SETI program, the formalized search for extra-terrestrial life.

To paraphrase Neil ArmstrongThe Drake Equation is an important step for man, but one giant leap of faith for mankind.

Drake, however, didn’t intend for this equation to specifically predict a certain number of intelligent races. The way I used the equation in this article is a popular and fun way to use it – but that’s not how it was intended. The Drake Equation enables us to understand the many factors enabling (and preventing) life on other worlds.

Use this tool to play with values and results in the Drake Equation.

When someone uses the Drake Equation to supposedly “prove” the existence of alien life, there are a number of flaws with that claim:

1) Some values in the equation are directly observable, like the number of stars in our galaxy and the number of planets orbiting other stars. But other values are completely unknown, like the chances of life emerging on a “Goldilocks planet”, and the chances of that life evolving intelligence. The Drake Equation has too many unknown values to produce a meaningful result.

2) We only have one example of intelligent life: us. Therefore, we know for sure that a correctly-formulated Drake Equation will give us a value of at least one! But besides those funny, fragile, bipedal occupants of the third planet from the sun, we have no other examples in which to base our guesses. Are we unique or not? Do intelligent races have a long lifespan, or does advanced technology bring about inevitable extinction? Without any other examples, and being such a young race, we just don’t have enough information. At least, not yet.

Drake formulated his famous equation to define and analyze the factors responsible for intelligent life. This allows us to research those individual factors, and study how they affect us and the chances of other life. This gives us a better understanding of life on Earth, and will eventually help us get out of our celestial sandbox and really start exploring.

The Drake Equation is indeed important. But realize what it’s intended to do. It’s not meant to predict or prove anything. It’s not supposed to impart hidden knowledge. It was designed to help discuss the possibility of life on other worlds, and to better define our lives in this incredible planet, galaxy and universe.



Other articles related to this topic:

15 Comments
2009 April 20
infi permalink

Great explanation, thanks for covering this! I’ve seen the Drake equation abused on both sides of various arguments, by alien visitation proponents/conspiracy theorists, as well as by purported rationalists, without really covering the sheer speculation involved in the variables. It does have its utility, but is used far more often as evidence or proof than is remotely warranted.

2009 April 20

Thanks, infi, for the compliment.

…and on a completely unrelated note, I love your Gravatar image. Laughed out loud when I first saw it, and I have no idea why. That’s quality humor.

Andy

2009 April 20

Andy I wouldn’t quote Armstrong, can’t trust him, we never went to the moon. Can’t delete it if it’s in context right?

2009 April 21

“I’m about to prove to you that aliens exist”

Whoa, I started listening to this and after the first sentence I thought you went over the deep end. Then you went on with “Assuming..let’s assume..let’s use..” and I really went all sour puss.

“None of this proves anything”
Phew!

I know that was probably the effect you were going for.

One gripe, this assumption is not well supported:

“Let’s just take a guess here, and assume that if life occurs, there is a fifty percent chance it will become intelligent.”

If we go by the evidence (our planet), I would think that this chance becomes something like one in a billion, depending on how you define intelligence. Billions of species of plant, germs and animals rose and fell over 4 billion years, very few intelligent.

I know that ruins the #65. But I would have included this picture and discussed how many galaxies there are.

2009 April 21

TechSkeptic,

I know that was probably the effect you were going for.

It was. I was hoping that the people who thought I was an idiot up to that point would at least stay to the “reveal” – that I was exaggerating/lying in order to make my point. I probably should have waited till April Fool’s Day to publish this one. :)

One gripe, this assumption is not well supported:

“Let’s just take a guess here, and assume that if life occurs, there is a fifty percent chance it will become intelligent.”

I agree. And you are correct – I had to wiggle the numbers and assumptions around a bit to get the 65 value. But that’s also one of the points – almost every number is debatable. For example, my personal opinion is that the “Goldilocks planet” existence is an extremely small percentage, nowhere near one planet per system.

As a science fiction buff, I’d love to be proved wrong on any of these points. Until then I’ll think of the Drake Equation as a cool and fun toy, but not a very functional tool.

Andy

2009 April 21

p.s. While doing this article, I spent way too much time browsing NASA archives to find an appropriate picture. And I had a hard time making a decision – there are a ton of amazing deep space photos. The one you linked to is definitely one of them.

2009 April 21

“As a science fiction buff, I’d love to be proved wrong on any of these points”

Well, if it helps any, it wasn’t until recently the thinking was that the existence of planets around stars was thought to be an extremely rare occurrence also…that no longer seems to be the thinking.

When I look at that picture I linked to, I get this huge argument from incredulity…”No way is life restricted to earth!”

2009 April 23
Nicholas permalink

Regarding the number of habitable bodies in a star system, do not forget moons, nor alternative sources of energy (gravitational collapse aka. “heat of formation”, tidal heating in a multiple body system) that do not require proximity to/interaction with the star.

Also, a consideration should be made of the melting/boiling points of solvents other than water. Methane is often cited as one example. This extends the range of temperatures that can qualify as suitable for life.

Mars was once habitable to life as it presently exists on Earth. Europa and Titan may also be habitable, even if only sporadically. Seeds can lie dormant for centuries before germinating. Elliptical orbits that could host active metabolism for part of their period.

And to the above commenter who states that the chance of life becoming intelligent is one in a billion, you’re misunderstanding the equation. That factor is the probability of any life form on the planet becoming intelligent. I would consider dolphins and great apes to qualify for this, therefore on our planet, the value is two. There is insufficient evidence on the intelligence of extinct species from other genera to include anything else. Of course, dolphins can’t build radio dishes, so they would be discounted by the communication factor. I would lump humans, orang utans, chimps and gorillas together as one evolution of “intelligence”. Dolphins evolved intelligence independently. The ability to communicate with other planets is a very recent development in the brief history of humans. We have been intelligent for a long time without having this facility.

2009 June 4
Geoman permalink

Hrrrmm.

The 50% of civilizations trying to communicate is also bogus.

How many civilizations have been on Earth? Hundreds? Thousands? The development of technology was not inevitable.

Here’s a thought problem. How many civilizations were technologically far ahead of Western Europe, but eventually fell way behind? Do we have any reason to assume that Egypt, China, the Mongols, the Aztecs would have EVER developed technology?

2009 June 4

Thats a weird thought. I can see why you may think that. However, for fun, I’ll just point out that all of those civilizations that you mentioned had the exact same type of initial efforts to understand the universe around themselves. They mapped the stars, they hypothesized about the moon and sun and nature. There really isnt a group of people on the planet who don’t display the same curiosity and zest for improvement or even the cravings to create something better (and sell it!). Oh and don’t forget power and fame goals also.

We also have multiple points of evidence where completely isolated people developed the same concepts at the same time (darwin/wallace type of thing) becuase cumulative understanding and information sharing just made it the right time.

Seems to me, even if it took an extra 1000 years, if westerners hadnt excelled, someone else would have eventually.

2009 June 4

Geoman,

Hrrrmm.

By any chance are you a Watchman fan?

The 50% of civilizations trying to communicate is also bogus.
How many civilizations have been on Earth? Hundreds? Thousands?

True. Though I never said that. I said, “What fraction of that intelligent life will actively try to communicate with other intelligent races?” In our case, I wasn’t talking about any particular civilization, but about the human race as a whole. So my guesstimate could be rewritten to say: “given a planet populated with intelligent beings, 50% of the time they will try to communicate with other races outside that planet.”

Of course, all this is pretty meaningless (or academic at best), since the Drake Equastion isn’t even meant to be used this way.

Andy

Andy

2009 July 6
Dave permalink

And don’t forget your physics.

Over Very Long galaxy distances time is space.

In Geological terms (ie compared with the age of the Earth), Mankind has been around only a tiny fraction of time – If the Earth were a year old, mankind has existed for mere seconds.

The Earth is millions of years old. The Universe Millions of Light Years. So of your 65 proven alien races, all would have to exist in the same seconds-long window of existence within which the others are transmitting and receiving. That’s the killer for me.

Regards

Dave

2009 July 6

I actually love to think about that. The first time I encountered the chronological separation between possible civilizations was during the “first” star wars in the starting text: a long time ago in a galaxy far away.

I’m sure that thought is what keeps a lot of UFO people going….there could be a civilization out there that is millions of years ahead of us in technology. With that kind of head start why couldn’t they be here? (the immediate thought i my mind as an answer is physics and probability)

By the way, you should change your “millions” to “billions”.

2009 July 22
somebody permalink

There are 2 things I would like to point out:

1) A Allen according to the dictionary is considered to be “A creature from outer space” nobody ever said they had to be intelligent or be able to communicate??? that puts the last 4 variables all to 100% putting N (the answer) into the thousands only for our galaxy then multiply that by 125 billion galaxies to get the answer for our universe. You do the maths my calculator isn’t big enghough!

2) If this was directed at intelligent life there should be another variable(s) added that take into account that a very intelligent race may half colonized several solar systems creating higher numbers of colonized planets in separate solar systems. It’s something that has always bothered me with the drake equation.

2009 July 22
somebody permalink

Ment to say “Alien” sorry about the typo.

Comments are closed for this entry.