Profile

resqgeek: (Default)
ResQgeek

May 2024

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
1213141516 1718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Custom Text

Most Popular Tags

A couple of weeks ago, there was a flurry of excitement when it was reported that “Russian SETI researchers are pursuing a promising signal”, as one headline put it.  It turns out that the hype was overblown, as it has been every time one of these stories has surfaced to date. While I haven’t seen that they’ve settled on a clear explanation for the signal they detected, the consensus is that it does not represent evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent life.  While that’s certainly disappointing to those, like me, who find the idea of life elsewhere in the universe fascinating, it shouldn’t be surprise.


I support the efforts of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), but I think I’m being realistic when I say that I don’t expect this effort to find any concrete evidence of any life elsewhere in my lifetime (and probably not in my daughter’s lifetime, either).  To understand why I don’t think it’s likely that we’ll detect such signals, let’s consider how signals propagate.  Isotropic signals propagate equally in all directions, so their signal strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.  The random noise emitted by a technological society would be essentially isotropic, so that by the time the signal reached us, it would be incredibly weak, unless the signal was almost inconceivably powerful to begin with.  This is what is happening to all the radio noise we’ve been emitting into space for the last century or more...it is propagating into space more-or-less equally in all directions, getting weaker at a rate that is related to the square of the distance from Earth.  However, signal strength can be improved by focussing signals in a specified direction.  The strength of such signals will decrease much less quickly than the isotropic signals, but there’s a catch.  The signal has to be directed almost directly at you for you to detect it.  In fact, the further away you are, the more precisely it must be aimed.  If we were to detect such a signal, it would either mean we had drifted across a signal intended for someone (something) else, or else that our presence was known.  Since our own signals have only propagated out for a bit more than a century, an intentional signal beamed back at us would almost certainly have to originate from less than about a hundred light years away.  There simply aren’t very many stars within that distance.


Even if, through some miracle, we did happen to detect a signal that clearly originated from an extraterrestrial source, the almost impossible to conceive distances of interstellar space raise all kinds of other problems.  Depending on how far away the signal source is from us, the civilization that created the signal could easily have disappeared since the signal was created.  A signal from a thousand light years away is going to take a thousand years to reach us.  It would not be a greeting from a current inhabitant of that point in space, but a time capsule of those who lived there back in time.  This limitation means that even if we detect such a signal, we have no ability, using our current knowledge and tools, to engage in any meaningful conversation.  And if there is life out there that has figured out how to overcome Einstein’s universal speed limit, we simply don’t know how to detect any message they might be transmitting.


Is there life out there?  There’s no way to know, at least so far.  Personally, I think it is likely, but I will readily admit that there is zero evidence to support that belief.  Would I be excited to hear that we’d discovered such evidence?  Absolutely.  Am I holding my breath in anticipation?  Ummm...not so much.
I have long wanted to write about the ways I struggle to reconcile my Catholic faith with my rationalist understandings of science. I certainly don't believe that there is any reasonable way to understand scriptures as literally true or historically accurate. Instead, we need to recognize them as attempts, in a pre-science world, to explain the universe, and that any Truths that they contain are limited to insights into human culture and relationships and how we should strive to make the world a better place.

But what about other elements of Catholicism? There are elements of Church teaching that I struggle with. One of those is the reliance upon miracles in assessing the merits of canonization of potential saints. My rationalist oriented mind struggles to accept that these miracles are what they are purported to be by the Church, namely Divine (i.e., supernatural) intersessions into our physical reality. I can't help think that some future scientific breakthrough might provide a perfectly natural explanation for these events (most of which are unexplained healings).

The Jesuit Post recently posted an entry that tackled this same issue. I find that the author, a Jesuit priest, does a pretty good job of expressing a lot of what I go through when I struggle to reconcile these conflicts in my mind. While I guess that I always figured I was not alone in my doubt, it is supremely reassuring to find that it is shared by priests as well.
My parents visited last weekend, and as always, there was plenty of lively conversation across a broad spectrum of topics. However, one idea that popped up a couple of times keeps bouncing around my head.

We were discussing the ongoing political campaigns, and I complained about how certain types of candidates are attacked as being "intellectual elitists." My mother's response gave me pause. She claimed that there is a prejudice against smart people in this country. I'm not sure that I'd ever thought about it in those terms before, but it does make some sense.

This is not to say that all (or even most) Americans are prejudiced against intelligent and/or educated people. But there does seem to be a segment (or maybe several different segments) of the population that exhibit a bias against people who value education and knowledge. I have personally experienced some of this during grade school, especially in the public schools I attended. I was often picked on because of my high grades, called names that implied that I got those grades by sucking up to the teachers.

We also talked about the current town government where my parents live. Most of the current town council have no education beyond high school, and are openly vocal in questioning the value of such town services as the public library and public pool. They never needed these services, so why would anyone else? Its frustrating to look at how many young people in that community cannot find adequate employment, who scrape by, barely, from paycheck to paycheck. Many can't even do that, and collect checks from various government agencies to survive. If we valued education, if we really put forth an effort, couldn't more of these people be more successful? I don't know, but I wonder.

Until my mother vocalized this idea, it was something I hadn't really given much thought to in a long time. Living in the prosperous suburbs, I only rarely encounter this bias. Here, the parents push their children to excel in school, and the children compete to be the best and brightest. Education and knowledge are valued. My career is also founded upon the importance of intellectual property, of promoting knowledge and learning as keys to the future. So it was a bit of a shock to be reminded that not everyone values these concepts.

I don't have any ideas about how to address this bias. How do you break through that wall and convince these people that education and knowledge are good things, tools that can help them make their lives better? I wish I knew...
Tags:

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Style Credit