How do you envisage aliens will look when we finally meet them?

[Pyan]

Actually, the universe probably hasn't got an edge; it is non-infinite but non bounded, and expanding at the speed of light, and any point in it can be accurately considered as the centre from which it's all expanding (it can't be expanding into anything, because to have dimension into there has to be spacetime, and the definition of the universe is that it is everything that exists, all the matter and energy and all the spacetime, too)
Still while, if you accept the big bang theory, the universe is non-infinite, it is still unimaginably large, and there's space for lots of strange things, even without introducing suplementary dimensions.

Oh yes. I found this site a while ago, and it has the most humbling pictures you will ever see:
Astronomy Picture of the Day

Here's a picture from it; these are whole galaxies approximately twelve billion light years away:makes our problems look small, doesn't it?

 

[Dr. Atomic]

Actually, the universe probably hasn't got an edge; it is non-infinite but non bounded, and expanding at the speed of light, and any point in it can be accurately considered as the centre from which it's all expanding (it can't be expanding into anything, because to have dimension into there has to be spacetime, and the definition of the universe is that it is everything that exists, all the matter and energy and all the spacetime, too)
Still while, if you accept the big bang theory, the universe is non-infinite, it is still unimaginably large, and there's space for lots of strange things, even without introducing suplementary dimensions.

Now how can I possibly argue with that?

 

[chrispenycate]

Now how can I possibly argue with that?

Very easily, actually; you merely disagree with me. My infallibility is noticeably permeous, and, while I might defend my positions, it's not at the expense of listening to others'.

Oh, you meant that as a rhetorical question

 

[Dr. Atomic]

Very easily, actually; you merely disagree with me. My infallibility is noticeably permeous, and, while I might defend my positions, it's not at the expense of listening to others'.

Ah, but what you wrote sounded authoratative -- and in some parts of the Internet, sounding right is often as good as being right.

 

[ScottSF]

First, with disbelief; secondly, scared - very scared.

You win spaceship! I had a smart alec response but yours is way better. Props!

 

[Mighty mouse]

Actually, the universe probably hasn't got an edge; it is non-infinite but non bounded, and expanding at the speed of light, and any point in it can be accurately considered as the centre from which it's all expanding (it can't be expanding into anything, because to have dimension into there has to be spacetime, and the definition of the universe is that it is everything that exists, all the matter and energy and all the spacetime, too)
Still while, if you accept the big bang theory, the universe is non-infinite, it is still unimaginably large, and there's space for lots of strange things, even without introducing suplementary dimensions.

I have, for my sins, just been wading through Lee Smolin's 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity'.
He suggests that string theory and loop quantum gravity may be part of a single theory.

The 'fairly precise' analogy he offers is space is not empty but woven from a network of loops.
Strings are large loops in the weave. We can just 'see' these, not the smaller weave.
So string theory could turn out to be an approximation of a more fundamental theory describing the entire 'weave' where strings are descriptions of small waves travelling through spin networks.

So, I think I would have to disagree with non-infinite as if the universe is made of this 'weave', like the once touted ether, it does not necessarily derive from the big bang. But I may be missing something here (perhaps quite a lot!).

 

[Whitestar]

I have mixed feelings on this. A part of me strongly believes in extra terrestrial life, however, the prospects of them looking more or less like us, as in bipedal species is slim to none. Different planetary atmospheres and environments will form different lifeforms. Evolution occurs through accidents and probabilities, so its a little hard to swallow that there are bipedal aliens out there. You only need to look at our own planet to have that fact verified. Look at how many strange and weird species exist on Earth, especially in our oceans. The reason why we've become so used to seeing such "aliens" is because Hollywood has imbedded in our brains as to how aliens might or should look like. Plus, its easier and cheaper to employ actors masquarading as aliens, as oppose to creating truly exotic aliens with CGI. On the other hand, there's a part of me that believes we are alone in the universe and if that turns out to be true, then its our obligations to expand our seeds of life out there in the universe. From there, our descendents will evolve on different planets and will perhaps become alien!

 

[j d worthington]

On the other hand, there's a part of me that believes we are alone in the universe and if that turns out to be true, then its our obligations to expand our seeds of life out there in the universe. From there, our descendents will evolve on different planets and will perhaps become alien!

Most likely would, unless it's a planet with an extremely low radioactive count, and shielded from nearly all cosmic radiation, as well. In which case, there's not likely to be much of a variety of lifeforms available on any planet we colonize ... including edible plant and/or animal forms. Even without the radiation itself, there'd be some alteration (great or subtle, depending) from absorption of an alien biochemistry; unless we really did start from scratch with a completely barren planet, seeding it with anaerobic bacteria on up....

I'm still betting that, if we really are going to get out there, we're going to have to do a little genetic playing ourselves, alter willing (or perhaps not-so-willing) members of our own species to survive in alien environments. This would probably be a fair amount of time off (though one can never tell), but we're really not likely to find anything resembling earth closely enough for our survival for a very long time.

Sadly, though, I think the likelihood of encountering any species is very close to nil. (I won't say it's impossible, but it is highly improbable.) So we may never have the answer... but it is nice to speculate ... and to hope...

 

[chrispenycate]

I think the probability is high, if we get out there, of meeting other species; I base this on the length of time between the possibility of life on Earth, and its existence. However, I see no great evidence that intelligence is a long term survival factor, so have to admit to the high probability of them being of the intellectual capacity of slime moulds (no, I didn't say anything about politicians, American or otherwise)
But check out more recent theories of evolution; it no longer requires Asimovian "pebble in the sky" radioactivity, the mutability is already encoded in our genes, just hunting for an environment where it can express itself.

 

[Leonardo]

Before I speculate in the probability of meeting other intelligent species, I think I'd like to see a definition of intelligence itself; If we consider intelligence whatever it is that makes us realize that we are infact alive, and that we can do whatever we feel like doing and screw all our instincts, then it's a concept we really don't know anything about.

People call it different things; The soul, the self, God. But how does it work? There could be different types of intelligence, beyond our scope of understanding. I have no doubts that there are species alive in all corners of the universe, but I'm very sceptical towards whether or not it would make a difference when we met them. To go along with the Douglas Adams trend, for all we know mice might be smarter than men.

Meeting with another intelligent lifeform requires us to do more than just travel to a planet that has one.

 

[j d worthington]

But check out more recent theories of evolution; it no longer requires Asimovian "pebble in the sky" radioactivity, the mutability is already encoded in our genes, just hunting for an environment where it can express itself.

Hmmm. I was thinking more along the lines of something other than Asimov; but thanks for the update, as I have indeed fallen woefully behind on the latest models for evolutionary mechanisms; about time I brushed up on such, methinks....

 

[paul l]

I think aliens will look like ants ( VERY BIG ANTS ) and will take revenge by stamping on humans.

 

[jackarcalon]

Their cells might be immortal even if the aliens aren't. When they die, they disintegrate into a cloud that then tries to infect other organisms.

 

[Who's Wee Dug]

Different

 

[Kelvin Zero]

An expanding sphere of vanishing galaxies.

The stars are either being walled off to make use of every piece of starlight or dismantled to make use of all their mass.

Because the effect is propagating at near light speed, the near edge of the sphere may reach us shortly after we first detect it.

 

[fire-in-my-soul]

About the size of a great dane (big dog), strong. feline style eyes. thick fur+6 legs, three each side, for balance. large ears and slightly longer hairs positioned around the body that act as vibration detectors. extremely fast. neolithic style culture.

 

[RidderMark]

Most likely would, unless it's a planet with an extremely low radioactive count, and shielded from nearly all cosmic radiation, as well. In which case, there's not likely to be much of a variety of lifeforms available on any planet we colonize ... including edible plant and/or animal forms. Even without the radiation itself, there'd be some alteration (great or subtle, depending) from absorption of an alien biochemistry; unless we really did start from scratch with a completely barren planet, seeding it with anaerobic bacteria on up....

I'm still betting that, if we really are going to get out there, we're going to have to do a little genetic playing ourselves, alter willing (or perhaps not-so-willing) members of our own species to survive in alien environments. This would probably be a fair amount of time off (though one can never tell), but we're really not likely to find anything resembling earth closely enough for our survival for a very long time.

Sadly, though, I think the likelihood of encountering any species is very close to nil. (I won't say it's impossible, but it is highly improbable.) So we may never have the answer... but it is nice to speculate ... and to hope...

Good post. I also think we shouldn't resort to thinking of life in only carbon based forms. More often then nought indiviudals think of life in how it relates to lifeon Earth. Oxygen, Water, the chemical reactions that drive this Earth often are what people look for when trying to find life outside of our Solar system.

What I think is important to understand is that life is simply biology making use of chemistry. All life is, is the exchange of energy through chemical reactions to support the life of an organism. Who is to say that biology cannot evolve to convert sulfur into energy, or hydrogen, or any manner of elements.

Then, if we cannot base life on the chemical make up of carbon based life forms, how does that apply itself to what Aliens will be capable of evolving into? Unfortunately this is a very difficult question.

I also agree with you J.D. that humans, to make the travels through space, may indeed have to loo kinward to create the possibility to travel outwardly to the great beyond. However the dangers of deep space, the types of energy that may likely bounce around the universe outside of the heliosphere of systems, and most importantly the distances that seperate us from other systems (even if we travel at the fastest possible speed according to the theories of special relativity by Einstien, intersteller travel would take years at a minimum). This brings the problems of communciation as signals also cannot travel faster then the speed of light (besides gamma bursts, but even then these decelerate back to light speed when the energy collides with physical mass i.e. protons/electrons/nuetrons), making communicating between these "islands" very difficult. That is unless you test the theories of known physics and apply hypothesis of wormholes, jumpgates, etc. etc.

Anyways that's far off subject. I think the first alien life forms we will ever meet will be microbial in nature, and that to introduce forms of alien microbial life into a place like Earth is inherintly dangerous. Alien life will never get closer then our outer Atmosphere to Earth IMO.

 

[RidderMark]

Actually, the universe probably hasn't got an edge; it is non-infinite but non bounded, and expanding at the speed of light, and any point in it can be accurately considered as the centre from which it's all expanding (it can't be expanding into anything, because to have dimension into there has to be spacetime, and the definition of the universe is that it is everything that exists, all the matter and energy and all the spacetime, too)
Still while, if you accept the big bang theory, the universe is non-infinite, it is still unimaginably large, and there's space for lots of strange things, even without introducing suplementary dimensions.

I agree with this too .

Personally I have always been a little skeptical of the Big Bang Theory. We know a massive energy event happened some 13 bilion years ago, but it is all completely speculation as to what that high energy event was. We just assume it was the explosion that made the universe.

As it is, being that our view of space is limited to what visable light allows us to see within our small visage (I forget the name of the theory, set down by Hubble which shows that entire galaxies can infact move away from our solar system faster then the speed of light, making it impossible for us to see them at a certien point. It is a lightly complicated theory but involves the expansion of space, the movement of galaxies through space, and how over long distances these two things can infact stop us from being able to see entire galaxies due to sheer physics.) of space. To be able to produce theories that involve the birth and death of an entire universe, we should have a larger picture of the universe and it's workings. Even now we have little understanding of the planets and moons that surround us. I think it is impossible to think we have any idea of the complex and massive thing we know as the universe. Every civilization through time has had an answer for the heavens, and thought themselves to know the "big picture" better then those before them. I think we are no different. The unknown is scary for humans, so to avoid that, sometimes we look to things as fact when it could be the farthest thing from it.

Of course that's just my two cents.