Question life in andromeda galaxy

[plvto6]

I'm starting to get into the science and the astronomy behind the universe, so excuse me if this sounds dumb. But isn't it plausible that there technically isn't any conscious life in the andromeda galaxy at this moment since it is so far away that we are seeing it in its past before it had a big bang moment? If there is life in the andromeda, there isn't proof since we are looking at it in the past, when infact there could be life there in the present. If that is true, all other sentient and conscious life could be thinking the same about us.

Also just to ramble on a little bit more, if the multiverse theory were plausible, wouldn't it likely be impossible to go outside of our universes width since it's expanding rapidly as we speak. If the universe is expanding ever so rapid, and considering the multiverse is real, where is the space for us to grow? How exactly would the universe expand in a web of different universes that are also prone to expansion considering that they took the same approach to life as we did?

 

[rod]

Setting aside M31 and the multiverse, when it comes to searches for E.T. phoning home exoplanets are closer to home. You may enjoy these two exoplanet sites I use for my personal studies. http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/

Also https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/index.html

There are more than 700 stars documented now with solar systems ranging from 2 to 8 exoplanets orbiting them and much more than 4,000 exoplanets.

 

[Trevize62]

For what I remember, the galaxy M31 has a very active giant black hole in its center, that it means higher level of radiations than Milky Way, but also here on Earth life can adapt to much more prohibitive conditions (see the bacterium Deinococcus Radiodurans, for example).
But why would we search go so far?
I agree that exoplanets like Kepler-62f and Kepler 186-f are much more suitable for such a research.

 

[Helio]

I'm starting to get into the science and the astronomy behind the universe, so excuse me if this sounds dumb.

They aren't dumb questions and they aren't all that uncommon. There are a ton of cool astronomy facts, and these will help serve such wise questions....

But isn't it plausible that there technically isn't any conscious life in the andromeda galaxy at this moment since it is so far away that we are seeing it in its past before it had a big bang moment?

Prior to the 19th century there were no galaxies other than the Milky Way . Confidence that they were collections of billions of stars took telescopes like the 100" dia. at Wilson. Hubble is the one who was the main astronomer there at the time it saw first light. He also used a technique that showed about how far away Andromeda is.

His distance got tweaked to today's value of about 2.3 million lightyears, so, yes, what we see is of its past 2.3 million years ago.

But that time and distance should have little to no effect on the question of life there. It contains, no doubt, star systems like the Sun. Extremely few will have an Earth-like planet, and the hope for life on them.

We just can't say what is plausible or not without understanding how abiogenesis can naturally (or not) take place. What we learn from Mars in perhaps only the next 10 or 20 years may have a lot to say on this issue, especially if indigenous life (e.g. microorganisms or fossils) are discovered.

If there is life in the andromeda, there isn't proof since we are looking at it in the past, when infact there could be life there in the present.

Yes in the sense that we would only be able to detect life from 2.3 million years ago, and that is still beyond our technology.

If that is true, all other sentient and conscious life could be thinking the same about us.

Yes, but they will have to first understand stars, star systems and what those smudges are. It's hard for extragalactic folks to ask informed questions without being informed.

Also just to ramble on a little bit more, if the multiverse theory were plausible, wouldn't it likely be impossible to go outside of our universes width since it's expanding rapidly as we speak.

If the supposition for a multiverse were ever a real scientific theory, then a lot of questions could likely be answered. A theory, especially big ones, require the ability for us to falsify claims (predictions) that are made by it. We only have one universe where we can conduct any tests. That's why they call it the observable universe. It's, so far, impossible to argue scientifically what may or may not be beyond the expansion itself. It's easy to argue it, however, philosophically.

If the universe is expanding ever so rapid, and considering the multiverse is real, where is the space for us to grow?

The expansion is creating more space (spacetime) and no one knows what may or may not be beyond our universe. Worse, there doesn't seem to be any way to see beyond the "beyond". The only possibility may be if another universe had somehow collided with ours in an area we could see. That appears highly unlikely so far, given the isotropy of the CMBR.

How exactly would the universe expand in a web of different universes that are also prone to expansion considering that they took the same approach to life as we did?

If there is some sort of place for them, then some ideas include that spontaneous universes just pop-up without the need of energy to do so by having an equal amount of positive and negative energy (net E = 0). Very subjective science but without any hard objective evidence , IMO. Science is objective-based, though the ideas that form all hypotheses and theories start subjectively. The multiverse ideas are precursors to what may, or may not, develop into scientific theories.

 

[Helio]

There are more than 700 stars documented now with solar systems ranging from 2 to 8 exoplanets orbiting them and much more than 4,000 exoplanets.

Thanks Rod, but how are you qualifying those 700 star systems? Are those G class only, or what?

 

[rod]

Thanks Rod, but how are you qualifying those 700 star systems? Are those G class only, or what?

Helio, I just use the site exoplanet count and the stars with multiple exoplanets show up. The more than 700 host stars are a mixed bag here. TRAPPIST-1 system with 7, is a 0.08 solar mass red dwarf. Other small stars too, some larger than our Sun. https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/index.html, this site is easy to see. Just select Number of Planets column and sort descending order. They all fall out starting at 8 down to 1. You can see individual host star properties too---Rod

 

[rod]

https://astronomy.com/news/2017/01/what-is-the-multiverse, this is a 2017 report on the multiverse, easy to read. Also space.com search, multiverse and a variety of reports pop up too.

 

[plvto6]

They aren't dumb questions and they aren't all that uncommon. There are a ton of cool astronomy facts, and these will help serve such wise questions....

Prior to the 19th century there were no galaxies other than the Milky Way . Confidence that they were collections of billions of stars took telescopes like the 100" dia. at Wilson. Hubble is the one who was the main astronomer there at the time it saw first light. He also used a technique that showed about how far away Andromeda is.

His distance got tweaked to today's value of about 2.3 million lightyears, so, yes, what we see is of its past 2.3 million years ago.

But that time and distance should have little to no effect on the question of life there. It contains, no doubt, star systems like the Sun. Extremely few will have an Earth-like planet, and the hope for life on them.

We just can't say what is plausible or not without understanding how abiogenesis can naturally (or not) take place. What we learn from Mars in perhaps only the next 10 or 20 years may have a lot to say on this issue, especially if indigenous life (e.g. microorganisms or fossils) are discovered.

Yes in the sense that we would only be able to detect life from 2.3 million years ago, and that is still beyond our technology.

Yes, but they will have to first understand stars, star systems and what those smudges are. It's hard for extragalactic folks to ask informed questions without being informed.

If the supposition for a multiverse were ever a real scientific theory, then a lot of questions could likely be answered. A theory, especially big ones, require the ability for us to falsify claims (predictions) that are made by it. We only have one universe where we can conduct any tests. That's why they call it the observable universe. It's, so far, impossible to argue scientifically what may or may not be beyond the expansion itself. It's easy to argue it, however, philosophically.

The expansion is creating more space (spacetime) and no one knows what may or may not be beyond our universe. Worse, there doesn't seem to be any way to see beyond the "beyond". The only possibility may be if another universe had somehow collided with ours in an area we could see. That appears highly unlikely so far, given the isotropy of the CMBR.

If there is some sort of place for them, then some ideas include that spontaneous universes just pop-up without the need of energy to do so by having an equal amount of positive and negative energy (net E = 0). Very subjective science but without any hard objective evidence , IMO. Science is objective-based, though the ideas that form all hypotheses and theories start subjectively. The multiverse ideas are precursors to what may, or may not, develop into scientific theories.

Thank you for your response! I like learning about space, but I feel like I can’t keep up with the conversation since I’m not informed enough about the science and math behind everything. Do you have any links or suggestions on how I should inform myself about the universe and the science behind everything? I feel then I would be able to keep up with the conversations and topics.

 

[plvto6]

Setting aside M31 and the multiverse, when it comes to searches for E.T. phoning home exoplanets are closer to home. You may enjoy these two exoplanet sites I use for my personal studies. http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/

Also https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/index.html

There are more than 700 stars documented now with solar systems ranging from 2 to 8 exoplanets orbiting them and much more than 4,000 exoplanets.

Thank you rod!

 

[Helio]

So 3300

Thank you for your response! I like learning about space, but I feel like I can’t keep up with the conversation since I’m not informed enough about the science and math behind everything. Do you have any links or suggestions on how I should inform myself about the universe and the science behind everything? I feel then I would be able to keep up with the conversations and topics.

You might be surprised to learn just how many folks enjoy answering questions here in forums such as this one. As a child, I recall getting an astronomy fact book and it really impressed me that mankind could have such knowledge. That began my question asking, and I'm still asking. I'm not a scientist so I pick stuff up in many ways.

The most I've learned has come from forums like this one. It is superior, IMO, to trying to read a lot of books because the learning is via conversation so the ambiguity that typically arises can be easily resolved. Multiple Google searches when reading textbooks or, worse, scientific papers, isn't as much fun.

I would recommend one of the many Big Bang books because it gives one the big picture. Get one that gives the history behind the theory as it is both interesting and very helpful to see how those pieces came together. All science comes in steps chronologically. Specific interests, thereafter, require greater focus.

The websites, like this one, are very good.

There are also a couple of great magazines out there. They are written for the general audience, though another one I like is StarDate since it is for those with less average knowledge and the monthly publication is much smaller, thus easier, to read.

There are many YouTube videos, of course, some better than others, but most are topical for your particular interest.

There are also on-line free courses (e.g. Coursera).

Used texbooks are handy as well, and the discount used book stores usually have a nice array of these and many other astronomy books.

 

[plvto6]

So 3300

You might be surprised to learn just how many folks enjoy answering questions here in forums such as this one. As a child, I recall getting an astronomy fact book and it really impressed me that mankind could have such knowledge. That began my question asking, and I'm still asking. I'm not a scientist so I pick stuff up in many ways.

The most I've learned has come from forums like this one. It is superior, IMO, to trying to read a lot of books because the learning is via conversation so the ambiguity that typically arises can be easily resolved. Multiple Google searches when reading textbooks or, worse, scientific papers, isn't as much fun.

I would recommend one of the many Big Bang books because it gives one the big picture. Get one that gives the history behind the theory as it is both interesting and very helpful to see how those pieces came together. All science comes in steps chronologically. Specific interests, thereafter, require greater focus.

The websites, like this one, are very good.

There are also a couple of great magazines out there. They are written for the general audience, though another one I like is StarDate since it is for those with less average knowledge and the monthly publication is much smaller, thus easier, to read.

There are many YouTube videos, of course, some better than others, but most are topical for your particular interest.

There are also on-line free courses (e.g. Coursera).

Used texbooks are handy as well, and the discount used book stores usually have a nice array of these and many other astronomy books.

Oh ok thank you! I'm really still a kid myself so im just starting to ask questions. I've always loved the universe and space itself but not I'm starting to fall madly in love with it, so im doing as much as I can to learn more about it. I think i'll never be qualified to even get a job as a college science teacher, let alone a physicist or someone who works in the departments of Nasa of SpaceX, but thanks for the tips. I'm going to be more active on this forum to learn more!

 

[Atlan0001]

Interesting, at least to me, recent study I just discovered concerning the Milky Way and Andromeda. Though Andromeda is twice as extensive as the Milky Way it may only be half as massive. Andromeda the light weight rather than the Milky Way, so to speak. I've always read that when these two collide, Andromeda will eat the Milky Way alive and go its merry way leaving only possible remnants of the Milky Way existing. If the Milky Way is the more massive, up to possibly twice as massive, It would be the Milky Way eating Andromeda alive and going on its merry way, leaving only possible remnants of Andromeda existing.

 

[Catastrophe]

Thank you for your response! I like learning about space, but I feel like I can’t keep up with the conversation since I’m not informed enough about the science and math behind everything. Do you have any links or suggestions on how I should inform myself about the universe and the science behind everything? I feel then I would be able to keep up with the conversations and topics.

When I can't keep up with anything I do a search (Google) which usually informs me, You are doing fine. Keep on participating. Cat

 

[Trevize62]

When I can't keep up with anything I do a search (Google) which usually informs me, You are doing fine. Keep on participating. Cat

In fact the research of correct informations and proofs is the correct way to proceed.

 

[Helio]

In fact the research of correct informations and proofs is the correct way to proceed.

Understanding both the facts (objective evidence) and the claims that use them is what is required to be able to use them.

However, there are no "proofs" in science, though they are important to math. I hope I'm not beating this point too hard; I just finished this point in another thread.

 

[Catastrophe]

I would be very surprised if any galaxy worthy of the name does not contain life of some form although, as Helio correctly points out, there is no proof (either way).

Cat

 

[Astro-guy]

Also just to ramble on a little bit more, if the multiverse theory were plausible, wouldn't it likely be impossible to go outside of our universes width since it's expanding rapidly as we speak. If the universe is expanding ever so rapid, and considering the multiverse is real, where is the space for us to grow? How exactly would the universe expand in a web of different universes that are also prone to expansion considering that they took the same approach to life as we did?

It is not really a web of universes as in a web everything is connected. However, I will say it is a series of parallel universes because of which the universes, no matter how much they expand wont collide with each other. Hope I answered your question .

 

[Catastrophe]

When implying questions like "what is outside the Universe?" and "how many universes are there"? you just get mangled in a tangled mire of semantic errors.

Per definitionem there is nothing outside the Universe and per definitionem there is only one Unverse. If you want such discussions you have to agree your terms.

Cat

 

[Trevize62]

The existence of multiverses is not supported in any way.
Furthermore, we have so many Earth-similar planets in our galaxy that actually do not need to search life in M31.

 

[Catastrophe]

plvto6 asks in post #1:
"Also just to ramble on a little bit more, if the multiverse theory were plausible, wouldn't it likely be impossible to go outside of our universes width since it's expanding rapidly as we speak."

In how many cases do you consider that the word "multiverses" is actually used to mean alternate realities or alternate Universes? Rather than additional possibilities - alternatives, not pluralities?

As I have inferred elsewhere, if every alternative open to every human being demands an entirely separate and distinct physical Universe, each alternative opening with each blink or flick of the finger, space time must be pretty crowded. And why limit the options to humans? Why should not butterflies and beavers, monkeys and microorganisms also have such choices. And, whilst we are about it, what about the denizens of other habitats anywhere else in the Universe?
And just to cap it off, why should only living matter have the option to initiate new universes (if one must use that awful word)? Why not have the option to kick off a new universe with the movement of each grain of sand in the desert, or of each molecule of water in a cloud.

Where are you going to draw the line?

Cat






Cat