  | Matthew D | 20 Sep 10 8:57 AM MST |
 | One project that really stands out in my head is the SETI project. Yes, people have a lot of reactions to it (searching for ET). However, the project uses math like crazy, and one of those functions is a fourier transformation. Sifting through three dimensions of signal (time, frequency and amplitude) requires a lot of work using many aspects of math. The fourier series just happens to be one of those that can help find repeating signals (>periodic< repetitions) in a sea of frequencies.
|
|
 | Karena C | 20 Sep 10 10:02 AM MST |
| | I've never heard of the project, but I'm sure it can be interesting. I don't believe in ET's but I'm sure it has quite a following. Is it still ongoing?
|
|
| | Corey S | 20 Sep 10 7:17 PM MST |
| | Karena how can you not believe there could be life out there. Of the billions of solar systems out there the odds of there being another planet suitable for life is pretty good really. I guess I like to believe in the possibility but this isn't the place for that conversation lol.
I suppose I will be using this (if I can figure it out) in my electronics circuits and freq. generation.
|
|
| | Karena C | 21 Sep 10 9:08 AM MST |
| | I know they are looking at other planets for life. All I keep thinking about is that movie with John Cusack where only the wealthy could afford the tickets for the boats to stay alive!
|
|
| | Corey S | 24 Sep 10 8:49 PM MST |
| | Well I guess we all better make our billions then. It doesn't matter though with this kinda math we can just build our own space ships huh (lol)
|
|
| | Matthew D | 24 Sep 10 8:58 PM MST |
| | You know, I'm reminded of the book "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams. I believe in it is a part that has something identical to this, only backwards. If I remember correctly (not owning a book to refer back to), at some point, the people of earth take the "nearly useless" people and send them off into space (people like phone sanitizers and a few other examples he illustrates). The reason for this is they think that useless people get in the way of everything and the world would be better off without them. So they put them all into a bunch of spaceships and send them away.
The only thing is, shortly afterwards someone contracts a deadly disease off of a phone handset and the entire population dies, leaving the ones in space as the sole survivors of the entire planet.
I should also mention that it wasn't earth but some other planet, since earth was blown up to make room for an interstellar highway in the beginning of the book.
|
|
| | William L | 21 Sep 10 8:44 PM MST |
| | There maybe billions and billions of planet out there but they must be the exact distance from the sun to allow for life. The most memorable line I ever heard was if we we 1 degree closer to the sun we would burn up if we were 1 degree farther we would freeze to death.
|
|
 | Kasey N | 21 Sep 10 10:54 PM MST |
| | I think the odds are too favorable on the side of life on other planets. Think of this; The conservative estimate for the number of stars in your galaxy are around 200-500 billion. Outside of our galaxy there are 'at least' 100-200 billions galaxies in the universe. Since we can only see a fraction of our universe these are guesstimates at best. The number is probably a lot lot more. Now if the chances of the exact circumstances for our planet to sustain life are a 1 in a billion chance, well those are pretty good odds that their may be repeat circumstances on other planets. Even in our own back yard, mars, they found frozen water 2 inches below the surface by the phoenix mars lander in July '08. Water, the right temperature, and a little biological goo, and you have life. Maybe the life isn't sentient but I'd bet its out there.
|
|
| | Matthew D | 22 Sep 10 2:24 PM MST |
| | If you're talking odds, here's something else to add to your equations (since this IS a math class). There are more life forms out there than just carbon based life forms. There are silicon based forms, forms that metabolize differently (CO2 vs. O2 for example), bacteria that survive volcanoes and liquid nitrogen... Life exists everywhere.
During a trek to the bottom of the ocean to study methane hydrate deposits and phenomena, scientists found worms on the sea floor inside the hydrates (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=4742). Keep in mind, the temperature for these hydrates to form is below freezing, meaning that regular water (regular life forms) would be frozen. Also, the pressure of water at 1800' below the oceans surface is 795 psi. Not a very pleasant environment. And the sun doesn't penetrate that far either.
So, while the chances of life out there identical to ours is very good, the chances of life in general is statistically certain. While we may not discover intelligent life close enough to make contact with, there is definitely a chance of finding traces somewhere.
And for those curious, the SETI project (which is illustrated in the movie Contact) is at http://seti.berkeley.edu/, and also has an application run at home which has all the mathematical stuff that can be run on signals.
|
|
| | William L | 24 Sep 10 8:33 AM MST |
| | It is a nice assumption that because there are billions and billions of planets in the universe that life must be on them. In order for life to be on them the planets must be the same distance from the sun as we are. This reduces the odds dramatically. Again to close we burn up, to far we freeze. Really a little biological goo you have life. Personally I would recommend watching Ben Stein Expelled. Ignore the commentary, he has a portion which illustrate the odds of life forming that is fascinating. Second, If Ben Stein may grate your reasoning. Watch the show Manswer, specifically the episode concerning spacesuits.
The key concept to close to the sun you burn up to far and you freeze. You can not escape this fundamental concept.
|
|
| | Matthew D | 24 Sep 10 2:54 PM MST |
| | True, but only for life IDENTICAL to ours (carbon based human structures...). We have already seen on our planet alone that there is life forming and developing in environmental conditions that we ourselves would have no chance of surviving. There are frogs that can survive conditions below freezing (where cells would normally freeze and burst, thereby destroying the life form). There are worms living in areas that would freeze and crush us, aside from the fact that there is nothing in the area that we can metabolize. Bacteria have been in places we didn't know anything could exist.
So, while it's true that conditions need to be just so for our version of life to form, it is not the same for every form. Just like the series equations we're working on this week. If f(x) = a0 + a1 + a2 + a3 +...+ b1..., we're really just something like a2 where f(x) = all life.
|
|
| | Kasey N | 24 Sep 10 10:41 PM MST |
| | I was watching history channel the other day, a program called 'The Universe' - dark future of the sun. It said somewhere between 1-5billion years in the future(not sure which), due to the normal life cycle of a star of our sun's size, it will approach the red giant phase. During this time it will swell immensely, swallowing mercury and Venus ultimately, and it's heat output will greatly increase. Over time earth will become uninhabitable due to the heat. Maybe as the suns heat increases, mars will become the new earth. Maybe its frozen water will melt and its atmosphere will become habitable with an optimal temperature range reached. point is this cycle most likely repeats itself all over the universe with all the stars. Planets unable to support life now may paint a different picture in a few billion years. The formula for life might not depend necessarily on an exact set of conditions but the time line in which favorable conditions fall.
btw Matt, Neat site even though I have never seen 'Contact'
|
|
| | William L | 25 Sep 10 1:09 AM MST |
| | To follow your example if anything Pluto would become habitable and earth and anything closer to sun will still be uninhabitable.
|
|
| | Verna H | 24 Sep 10 7:19 AM MST |
| | Corey, I'm with the professor because I don't believe in ET either but that don't stop people like yourself from believing in it.
|
|
| | Corey S | 24 Sep 10 8:51 PM MST |
| | Lol my wife doesn't even believe in space.
|
|
| | Matthew D | 24 Sep 10 9:10 PM MST |
| | How is that? Are you talking like doesn't comprehend space? Or are you talking product of the 60's, thinks space is a government conspiracy to control the people space?
As for me, I don't know if I would take the ET (movie) standpoint, or others like it. But to think that we are the only planet in this entire universe that has life seems incomprehensible to me. Whether you take a scientific, mathematic or religious standpoint, it's easier to assume there is other life out there, intelligent and not. Mathematics favor the odds. Science favors the methodology (using the odds). And religion is it's own boat that has an entire spectrum devoted to extra terrestrial life ranging from life exists elsewhere to ET will come rescue it's stranded children and take them back to the soaring comet.
Personally, I find it harder to explain why and how space (and outer life) doesn't exist than I do thinking about the different varieties that could exist (using Ockham's Razor here).
|
|
| | William L | 25 Sep 10 1:17 AM MST |
| | I don't want to sound like a broken record but how do you figure mathematics favor the odds. The fact we are here is the probability against our existence. Don't want to sound like a broken record but 1 degree closer we would burn up and 1 degree further away we would freeze. Leaving aside religion and just relying on science. I would recommend Expelled Ben Stein movie just for the probability aspect and MANswer purely for the less than 30 second flash bang concept of our existence.
|
|
| | Matthew D | 26 Sep 10 8:11 PM MST |
| | And yet, here we are. That's the problem with math. Take Riemann sums for example. Do it on the left side, you can get to high. On the right, you're to low. Even the middle can get you an answer that's just far enough off to cause error.
Not to discount any ideals, but I'm not sure how much I rely on Ben Stein (a financial whiz) or MANswer (a male oriented organization) to detail how the math should work for life (a completely abstract piece of concrete ideas). As the saying goes, amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
|
|
| | Kasey N | 26 Sep 10 10:30 PM MST |
| | The way I look at it is, under the assumption that our sentient existence was a one-in-a-billion chance, you are right in 999,999,999 instances of similar circumstances. In instance one, a planet is a degree to close and the planet is too hot to support life. In instance two, another planet is a degree too far and is too cold. Instance three is way too cold or way too hot. This continues on and on under a myriad of circumstances up until instance number 1 billion. Then, just like our earth, the circumstances are just perfect for life to exist. The point is that the fact that we exist at all, in such a fragile culmination of circumstances, is proof that with trillions upon trillions of other planets and stars in the universe that the circumstances will inevitably repeat and support life elsewhere.
|
|
| | Corey S | 26 Sep 10 5:48 PM MST |
| | Ok first of all there is no use in getting into my wife's believes. There is no logic behind it and she can't explain it. Half the time I think she is just teasing me but she is so serious.
Also I agree with you Matthew I mean look at evolution to start. Things grow and change to their environment. Saying something couldn't evolve because a planet is 1 degree farther or closer than earth is just funny. I guess it just doesn't make since to me that its not possible for life to start somewhere else.
|
|
| | William L | 25 Sep 10 1:10 AM MST |
| | Now that is funny. |
|
|
