Some solutions to the Fermi Paradox

Or if the swarm is complete enough we wouldn't see anything. There is actually a pretty narrow window where you'll notice the star being occluded then disappear.
We'd see a star that only exists in infra-red, actually.
Yeah, a Dyson Sphere is probably going to radiate a lot of waste heat. From a distance it's going to look like a star that emits only infra-red light. It'd probably be very noticeable with an infra-red telescope and if we saw one we'd notice that it's a very strange object.

A star with a partial Dyson Sphere is probably going to be noticeable for having a spectra skewed toward infra-red for its brightness, and possibly for variability depending on the structure of the "partial Dyson." Likely just infra-red skew: realistically a Dyson Sphere probably isn't going to be a solid object, it's going to be a very large swarm of smaller constructions orbiting the star that collectively add up to a technosphere that intercepts all the star's light. A "partial Dyson Sphere" is probably going to be just the same thing but less dense. Very possibly a Dyson Sphere wouldn't be something anyone set out to build, it'd be something that would just emerge naturally from sufficient millennia of population growth within a solar system; it might be illuminating to think of a Dyson Sphere as a Kardashev Type II civilization's equivalent of an ecumenopolis.
 
Last edited:
Well with known physics - which can be taken as universal - a planet cannot get much more difficult to lift off from than Earth is unless you are willing to use nukes.

Which we aren't, for the record. So the observation record is 0/1 advanced planetary civilizations tolerate ground-launch Orion.

You also have to discover nuclear fission for that to even be an option.
I don't mean the method of leaving, I meant that it's possible that the bodily structure of many species might be too fragile to endure high acceleration.
 
I'd argue that the Fermi Paradox and Drake Equation are both way too anthropocentric to be of any use. It's entirely possible for intelligent life to be common, but civilization to be exceedingly rare, industrial/post-industrial civilization even rarer. I think the assumption that intelligence inevitably leads to civilization (that we would recognize as such, anyway) is a very, very big one. Big enough that the rest of the paradox itself is pretty much useless, IMO.

Uh, the Drake Equation at least was very explicitly about civilizations. It was all about detectable civilizations. The idea was that if we focused on finding civilizations to contact out there, would we find any? So the last steps of the equation are indeed "how many of those intelligent lifeforms built a civilization" and "how many of those civilization would send out signals we can detect". Now, you might find "we can detect" anthropocentric, but seeing how it was all about us actually detecting them, that was just designed according to the mission.

And for the Fermi Paradox as well, different hard-to-pass thresholds have been suggested as solutions. Complex life, sapience or technological civilization, for example. Those are valid solutions to the paradox, rather than invalidating the paradox.
 
I don't mean the method of leaving, I meant that it's possible that the bodily structure of many species might be too fragile to endure high acceleration.
Kind of reminds me of big alien theory. Rhinoceros to blue whale sized aliens might not deal with high G forces as well cause it's harder to build slack for that sort of thing into a creature that's already massive. And even if they could handle high G forces just fine getting such big aliens into space would present other difficulties. For elephant to blue whale size aliens the simple weight of the astronauts would be a real issue, and then of course all the equipment and space vehicles and booster rockets would have to be scaled up accordingly. An alien equivalent of the Apollo program would be a lot more difficult if it had to be like an unironic version of that "Tyrannosaurs in F-14s!" Calvin and Hobbes comic strip with all the problems associated with T-Rex size astronauts being deadly serious. Or imagine if the aliens were the size of Argentinosaurus and the astronauts would be almost 100 tons each - I'm not sure they could even get into space without an Orion or something similarly energetic!

And such big aliens would need much more food per person, which would imply much smaller populations, which would probably seriously slow down technological progress (smaller labor force, fewer people to come up with new ideas).
 
Last edited:
Yeah, a Dyson Sphere is probably going to radiate a lot of waste heat. From a distance it's going to look like a star that emits only infra-red light. It'd probably be very noticeable with an infra-red telescope and if we saw one we'd notice that it's a very strange object.

However, our current infrared telescopes have only ruled out Dyson Spheres to a distance of 500 parsecs or so. The Magellanic Clouds (for example) could be full of them and we wouldn't be able to distinguish them from normal stars at that distance. A Dyson Sphere would be a pretty long-term capital investment and our galaxy's core has sometimes been rather active in the last few million years -- it might make more sense to build such things on the far outskirts, rather than our part of town.
 
However, our current infrared telescopes have only ruled out Dyson Spheres to a distance of 500 parsecs or so. The Magellanic Clouds (for example) could be full of them and we wouldn't be able to distinguish them from normal stars at that distance. A Dyson Sphere would be a pretty long-term capital investment and our galaxy's core has sometimes been rather active in the last few million years -- it might make more sense to build such things on the far outskirts, rather than our part of town.
We are on the outskirts, though. We are on the fringe of the Orion Spur, which in itself is not even a proper arm of the Milky Way, but an inter-arm structure. Indeed, being thus away from catastrophic events and radiation probably helped evolution a lot here.

Meanwhile, dwarf galaxies account for less than a tenth of the entire stellar mass and are overwhelmingly made up of red dwarves. I mean, so are the big spiral galaxies, with 80% M class stars, but that rate is far higher in the dwarf galaxies, and metallacity there is typically poor, too, so probably less planet formation. So basically, dwarf galaxies like the Magellanic Clouds are negligible in scope, and a poor environment for life to form, too.
 
I don't mean the method of leaving, I meant that it's possible that the bodily structure of many species might be too fragile to endure high acceleration.

These are related. If Earth had higher gravity, acceleration to get into orbit would need to correspondingly be more violent. A 2g Super Earth, while possibly a fantastic super-habitable target for advanced space-faring us, is likely not a Fermi Paradox problem because of how difficult using early chemical rockets on it would be.
 
These are related. If Earth had higher gravity, acceleration to get into orbit would need to correspondingly be more violent. A 2g Super Earth, while possibly a fantastic super-habitable target for advanced space-faring us, is likely not a Fermi Paradox problem because of how difficult using early chemical rockets on it would be.
Takeoff and reaching orbit wouldn't necessarily be more violent because when you need more delta-V you can always add more stages. More difficult and much more expensive? Definitely.

Figuring out safe re-entry and landing, OTOH, might make an engineer go insane.
 
Or maybe all civilizations eventually discover a trick to break physics for infinite resources & they leave the material universe alone as a nature preserve to grow new civilizations.
 
These are related. If Earth had higher gravity, acceleration to get into orbit would need to correspondingly be more violent. A 2g Super Earth, while possibly a fantastic super-habitable target for advanced space-faring us, is likely not a Fermi Paradox problem because of how difficult using early chemical rockets on it would be.
Point about this issue: a 2 G super-Earth is probably about as massive as a planet can get without being an ice giant. Approximately, mass scales by radius^3 and surface gravity resembles radius (this is because mass scales with volume which scales by radius^3, and surface gravity scales with mass divided by surface area, and surface area scales with radius^2). Mars has about 1/8 of Earth's mass, half of Earth's radius, a little less than 1/3 of Earth's surface area, and more than 1/3 of Earth's surface gravity. Luna has about 1.2% of Earth's mass, almost 1/3 of Earth's radius, 7.4% of Earth's surface area, and a bit less than 1/5 Earth's gravity.

If it has the same density as Earth, a 2 G Earthissimo would be 8 Earth masses, which is a really big superterrestrial planet and IIRC pretty close to the line where it would be big enough to hold onto molecular hydrogen and probably become a ice/gas giant. This is probably a fairly extreme world and much more massive than most terrestrial planets.

According to this escape velocity calculator, a planet with 8 Earth masses and twice Earth's radius would have a first cosmic velocity (minimum velocity to put something in orbit) of 15.82 km/s and an escape velocity of 22.37 km/s. By comparison, Earth has a first cosmic velocity of 7.9 km/s and an escape velocity of 11.2 km/s. A planet with "just" 4 Earth masses and 1.6 Earth diameters gets you a first cosmic velocity of 12.5 km/s and an escape velocity of 17.7 km/s.

Or maybe all civilizations eventually discover a trick to break physics for infinite resources & they leave the material universe alone as a nature preserve to grow new civilizations.
One possible partial Fermi Paradox explanation I've considered for my own science fiction is the same branch of physics that allows hyperspace travel in that setting might also eventually allow access to "layers" of the universe that are more habitable for a highly advanced civilization on the level of Orion's Arm Archai (though not necessarily more habitable for primitive flesh and blood beings like us), and really advanced civilizations tend to move to these "super-habitable layers" and abandon our "layer." Like, you know the aestivation hypothesis? Maybe there's a layer that's already got a CMB temperature of some tiny fraction of 1 K, so they can move there and skip the billions of years of waiting. Alternately, there might be a layer that's much denser and more energy-rich than our layer, if highly advanced civilizations prefer those conditions. Heck, both might exist and really advanced civilizations might live in the cold layer while "mining" the hot layer for energy and matter, getting the best of both worlds. One of the setting conceits is "fast" interstellar travel is possible by taking a short-cut through a sort of "basement" of our universe that kind of resembles our "level" of the universe maybe a few tens of million years after the Big Bang when it was in a much more compact state and has a correspondence between locations in the "basement" and locations in our space. A ship can go into the "basement," travel maybe a few hundred AU, go back into the "living room" level, and be in the Alpha Centauri system. This "basement" is fairly useless for anything but a short-cut; I'm thinking its environment kind of resembles a giant molecular cloud but with a "warm" cosmic microwave background temperature of maybe around 50 K (still deeply cold by human standards; Uranus upper atmosphere temperatures) and made of almost pure hydrogen and helium (like our "layer" of the universe before the first stars). But if this "basement" exists, maybe there's other "levels," including "attics" that are sort of like the way our "level" might look in the deep future black hole era and other "basements" that are more energy-rich. The idea I have is the universe is sort of an "onion" with many of these "layers," the "basement" we're familiar with is just the one that's energetically "closest" to our "living room" layer and therefore the only one accessible to relative primitives like us (or maybe one of the only ones; there might be a deeper "basement" that's too energetically "far away" for ships to go to but is used by humans for interstellar communication).

Of course, this is psuedoscientific fantasy, but not really more so than FTL.
 
Last edited:
The reason you can't have FTL has nothing to do with light. It's about information. Information either moves instantly, or it has a speed. If it is instant, then how do you define distance?
 
The reason you can't have FTL has nothing to do with light. It's about information. Information either moves instantly, or it has a speed. If it is instant, then how do you define distance?
Well, if you're talking about my hyperspace idea, it isn't instant, and the idea is that the ship never actually travels FTL, the "basement" is just a possible path where space is curved in a way that e.g. the distance between Sol and Alpha Centauri is less than 4 light years. It's kind of analogous to how being able to move through the interior of a sphere would allow you to take short-cuts compared to being limited to travelling on its surface, so e.g. if the sphere was the size of Earth you reach the other side by taking a 6371 kilometer route through the center instead of a 40,000 kilometer route along the outer circumference. It's a common science fiction concept, though I have tried to add a little originality to it. But I respectfully suggest that this is the "some solutions to the Fermi Paradox" discussion, not the "discuss science fictional FTL concepts" discussion, so this tangent is getting pretty off-topic now and should be ended or re-oriented to be more relevant to the discussion topic.
 
Last edited:
This. I've sometimes heard it called the "Machiavelli theory of human intelligence"; that we have mainly become as intelligent as we are by scheming against each other and defending against such schemes. Which is a runaway process, since no matter how smart we become unlike non-human threats our competitors are always just as smart as we are because we're the same species.

There is nothing that makes scheming against each other lead to advanced tool use. Mormyridae is full of fish that have been in a race with each other to advance their electromagnetic communication skills. It is so important that without them they can not tell genders apart. The brain is huge in proportion to body mass and far beyond what you would need to be a bottom feeder probing around in the dark. The thing is nothing of this race to compete with each other to be the best at communication has lead to any tool use. Intelligence is not a single stat and is is very easy for the 'runaway' process to be running away on not the exact right collection of traits.

Also it is important to remember that evolution is random. For a while maybe fancy tool use and group hunting is the sexy thing for a while. The thing is at any point something weird like having a red butt or headbutting can be the sexy thing. Intelligence then stops being as important and will randomly mutate with no direction or even degrade as it is very expensive. Keeping the right set of traits being the ones to 'runaway' for a long time is hard. It can as easily run away into peacock tails.
 
There is nothing that makes scheming against each other lead to advanced tool use.
But since intelligent beings are difficult to predict, it might lead to large amounts of brain tissue dedicated to reasoning about novel situations and learning new rules for handling them, and that might lead to culture and advanced tool use (beyond the "just smart enough to make fire and spears" level we might have topped out at if surviving what nature threw at us was the only pressure toward higher cognitive capacity we had).

Which I guess is another possible outside chance Fermi Paradox explanation. If the "Machiavellian hypothesis" is true the flexibility of our intelligence might be down to it being easier to create relatively generic brain tissue than to create neural machinery hyper-specialized for social learning. If our biology lent itself to neurological specialization more we might have ended up a species of idiot-savant Donald Trumps who spend their days playing intricate five dimensional chess social games with and against each other but never reached Australia and topped out at the technological sophistication of the Middle Stone Age because we lack the flexibility to redirect that social intelligence to solving physical problems.

I guess "humans are the autistic techie nerds of the galaxy" might be an interesting HFY scenario.
 
Last edited:
There is nothing that makes scheming against each other lead to advanced tool use.
But we evolved tool use first, so our growing brains could take advantage of that. We had hands and basic tools long before we started seriously outstripping the intelligence of other animals.

And given pre-existing tool use it's not quite true that scheming against each other doesn't lead to better tool use. Keep in mind that not all such "scheming" is about crudely attacking rivals; attracting mates or impressing other tribe members by creating pretty, pleasant or impressive things works fine.
 
Or maybe all civilizations eventually discover a trick to break physics for infinite resources & they leave the material universe alone as a nature preserve to grow new civilizations.

Plenty of direct and indirect commentary on an Oasis or Holodeck being the last thing a civilization invents. Not counting situations like Kim Stanley Robinson's 2312 where we start to have necessary* advances to go interstellar (radical bioscience) but people mostly realize the vastly increased sexy possibilities from said...

---
*Unlike KSR's Aurora where the mission is trying to use normal humans. Of course the lack of realistic planning is part of his point there...
 
But since intelligent beings are difficult to predict, it might lead to large amounts of brain tissue dedicated to reasoning about novel situations and learning new rules for handling them, and that might lead to culture and advanced tool use (beyond the "just smart enough to make fire and spears" level we might have topped out at if surviving what nature threw at us was the only pressure toward higher cognitive capacity we had).

Which I guess is another possible outside chance Fermi Paradox explanation. If the "Machiavellian hypothesis" is true the flexibility of our intelligence might be down to it being easier to create relatively generic brain tissue than to create neural machinery hyper-specialized for social learning. If our biology lent itself to neurological specialization more we might have ended up a species of idiot-savant Donald Trumps who spend their days playing intricate five dimensional chess social games with and against each other but never reached Australia and topped out at the technological sophistication of the Middle Stone Age because we lack the flexibility to redirect that social intelligence to solving physical problems.

I guess "humans are the autistic techie nerds of the galaxy" might be an interesting HFY scenario.
Why are we presuming that fire and spears is less intelligence than is required for atom-cracking and traveling to other planets? We didn't exactly pure genius abstract thought our way into cracking the atom alone in the woods. We did it as the result of centuries of recorded experiments and practical development supported by our huge organized societies. Human social organization is what made us capable of all the technological feats of modern society, being just smart enough to kick that off is all that was needed.
 
No idea what you're talking about.

AFAIK the only method that holds any water is using a wormhole to break causality. And by "holds water" I mean it'd require harnessing all the energy of an exploding star using some kind of space god magic.

Did I mention any FTL would also be a time machine, as far as we can tell right now?

What faster than light travel does is contradict the usual axioms of relativity as we understand them, so any civilization that builds an FTL capable vehicle or transmission has not necessarily violated causality, merely all the axioms of how we understand relativity meaning we arrive at paradoxical conclusions by applying our axioms and understandings of relativity to it. The issue is that all our means of measuring and understanding relativity travel (wait for it.) at the speed of light is. But by definition if you've managed to travel at faster than the speed of light than either you've found a loophole so you've not actually traveled at the speed of light, as with a theoretical Alcubierre Drive (which would resolve space around it to correct for this.) or Wormhole, or a second option: Humanity's current approximations for how the universe works are incomplete/wrong which wouldn't be a big surprise, as we already know our models of how the universe works are incomplete and/or wrong.
 
I think the whole premise is flawed. We're like a person standing on the shoreline yelling across the water and trying to figure out why nobody's responded after a few seconds. For all we know an entire galaxy billions of light-years away is slowly being encased in Dyson swarms bit by bit, and we wouldn't know about it for billions of years. We've barely been searching for signs of life in space. It's a bit premature to say it's more empty than we expected when all we have to base that off are vague hypotheticals.
 
I think the whole premise is flawed. We're like a person standing on the shoreline yelling across the water and trying to figure out why nobody's responded after a few seconds. For all we know an entire galaxy billions of light-years away is slowly being encased in Dyson swarms bit by bit, and we wouldn't know about it for billions of years. We've barely been searching for signs of life in space. It's a bit premature to say it's more empty than we expected when all we have to base that off are vague hypotheticals.
I mean, "galaxy billions of light years away" is rather irrelevant to begin with. Due to the lightspeed barrier and the expansion of the universe, we will never be able to interact with that galaxy anyway. What matters is life in this galaxy, or at least local group.

And the thing is, at that more meaningful scope, any attempts at mega-engineering would probably emit so much energy that we would notice something. Indeed, that is most likely true of any activities of advanced species, a very notable energy use. That, at least to me, is part and parcel of the Fermi Paradox. It isn't even "If there is other life, why isn't it here?" it's also "Why don't we see it?".

Why are we presuming that fire and spears is less intelligence than is required for atom-cracking and traveling to other planets? We didn't exactly pure genius abstract thought our way into cracking the atom alone in the woods. We did it as the result of centuries of recorded experiments and practical development supported by our huge organized societies. Human social organization is what made us capable of all the technological feats of modern society, being just smart enough to kick that off is all that was needed.

I don't think it's that outlandish a claim. Here's the thing... as you probably know, tool use is well documented in animal species beyond just humans. Chimpanzees, crows, etc, they all can use tools. However, that is stuff like a stick to, well, stick into an ants nest or a simple stone dropped. Nothing of the sort of spears, specially worked and cut stones or fire. And yet that doesn't seem to be a cultural development. Those animal species are not progressing from sticks and stones to spears and finely cut stones. It seems those simple tools are in fact the limit of their ability.

So... I do not find it outlandish to suggest that the more complex a tool gets, the more likely it might get beyond a species' tool use ability, and that even with cultural scientific development, where one builds on the other, eventually a hard barrier might be reached. In terms of spears versus atomics, I do think there is a lot more need for abstract thinking necessary for the latter, for example. A spear is a physical object in front of you you can manipulate; atoms are basically just concepts you can't see and have to deduce. Now, of course, our own ancestors already had that potential for abstract thought; stone age humans weren't stupider than nowadays after all... but I do think we could envision a species whose tool use ability might be enough for spears but not much beyond that.
 
Last edited:
I mean, "galaxy billions of light years away" is rather irrelevant to begin with. Due to the lightspeed barrier and the expansion of the universe, we will never be able to interact with that galaxy anyway. What matters is life in this galaxy, or at least local group.

And the thing is, at that more meaningful scope, any attempts at mega-engineering would probably emit so much energy that we would notice something. Indeed, that is most likely true of any activities of advanced species, a very notable energy use. That, at least to me, is part and parcel of the Fermi Paradox. It isn't even "If there is other life, why isn't it here?" it's also "Why don't we see it?".



I don't think it's that outlandish a claim. Here's the thing... as you probably know, tool use is well documented in animal species beyond just humans. Chimpanzees, crows, etc, they all can use tools. However, that is stuff like a stick to, well, stick into an ants nest or a simple stone dropped. Nothing of the sort of spears, specially worked and cut stones or fire. And yet that doesn't seem to be a cultural development. Those animal species are not progressing from sticks and stones to spears and finely cut stones. It seems those simple tools are in fact the limit of their ability.

So... I do not find it outlandish to suggest that the more complex a tool gets, the more likely it might get beyond a species' tool use ability, and that even with cultural scientific development, where one builds on the other, eventually a hard barrier might be reached. In terms of spears versus atomics, I do think there is a lot more need for abstract thinking necessary for the latter, for example. A spear is a physical object in front of you you can manipulate; atoms are basically just concepts you can't see and have to deduce. Now, of course, our own ancestors already had that potential for abstract thought; stone age humans weren't stupider than nowadays after all... but I do think we could envision a species whose tool use ability might be enough for spears but not much beyond that.

Simply put, one can tell and show the vast majority of literate humans a book on rocket science but they still won't be able to do it. Hell I'm far above average intelligence with an advanced education and can intuitively do a lot of space-relevant math and a have vastly above normal reading ability. I still (a) couldn't invent the descriptions / proofs, and (b) still struggle to do them with the necessary precision absent computer assistance.

A species as intelligent as humans but lacking humans' quirky broad dispersion of intelligence traits over the population / culture can't do this. Again, humans themselves are at best borderline on this for multi-generational effort.
 
I don't mean the method of leaving, I meant that it's possible that the bodily structure of many species might be too fragile to endure high acceleration.
The acceleration required for leaving a planet with a rocket is surface gravity+epsilon. As long as you're sustainedly out-thrusting gravity, by any margin, you will eventually get to space.

And said surface gravity is what any species living on said surface is evolved to handle. If they don't die any time there's an earthquake, they can take off in rockets.

There would be immense engineering challenges, but the natives' resistances to g-forces can't be an insurmountable problem.
 
The acceleration required for leaving a planet with a rocket is surface gravity+epsilon. As long as you're sustainedly out-thrusting gravity, by any margin, you will eventually get to space.
Not exactly. No.
Rocketry equations are more complicated than that for a reason - while technically true this assume infinite fuel. But there are finite structual limits on how big things can be built, and the more fuel you add the more mass you need to lift. (That is why it is impossible to use conventional rockets to escape high-gravity worlds. You add mass that reduces acceleration to a greater degree than the additional acceleration provided by the additional mass. Aka more fuel literally slows you down.)

so while technically you only need gravity plus epsilon in reality you need significantly beyond that to escape before your fuel runs out.
 
Last edited:
You'd need something like a Lofstrom loop to launch payloads from a high-gravity world, which probably means a collectivist society that's good at building megaprojects, which means they're more likely to go colonize the galaxy.
 
Back
Top