Why Fermi’s Paradox Isn’t

It’s all about the constants you start with, but if you think any aliens out there are exploring the galaxy at 10 percent of the speed of light, as physicist Rasmus Bjork proposes, then it’s not surprising that we haven’t met any yet (and aren’t likely to for a very long time).

2 thoughts on “Why Fermi’s Paradox Isn’t”

  1. I don’t think this one is about choice of constants, it’s about choice of function. He assumes (absurdly) that the function is linear over time. It would be exponential, at least. The explorers would build more explorers, generation after generation, and the sphere of known space would expand at very nearly (1/10)c. The entire galaxy could be explored in a million years, which is far less than its age.

    The paradox remains. I’m inclined to think life is rare in the universe, for some reason.

  2. Well I frankly disagree. The Fermi’s Paradox isn’t because one of its very components: the Universe age and size. Actually is Fermi himself who is wrong by guessing a linear continuity “more space then life and more time then more probability of encounter”.

    Such suposition is very naive. We dont know if (for example), after certain time, the life tends to dissapear instead of going to outter space in an exploratory fashion.

    Also we dont know the stadistic relation between life and number of planets, thats IS a constant that Fermi takes, because he is trying to refute another constant basic specific theory.

    So, Fermi’s paradox is not. Or at least is not from a cientific standpoint.

Comments are closed.