Nature Article: Is a doomsday catastrophe likely?

topic posted Mon, December 12, 2005 - 6:20 AM by  Unsubscribed
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
NATURE|Vol 438|8 December 2005
ASTROPHYSICS

Is a doomsday catastrophe likely?

The risk of a doomsday scenario in which high-energy physics experiments trigger the destruction of the Earth has been estimated to be minuscule1. But this may give a false sense of security: the fact that the Earth has sur­vived for so long does not necessarily mean that such disasters are unlikely, because observers are, by definition, in places that have avoided destruction. Here we derive a new upper bound of one per billion years (99.9% confidence level) for the exogenous terminal-catastrophe rate that is free of such selection bias, using calculations based on the relatively late formation time of Earth.
Fears that heavy-ion collisions at the Brook-haven Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider might initiate a catastrophic destruction of Earth have

The catastrophe timescale cannot be very short. The probability distribution is shown for observed planet-formation times, assuming catastrophe timescales, , of 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Gyr and infinity (shaded yellow), respectively (from left to right). The probability of observing a formation time 9.1 Gyr for Earth (area to the right of the dotted line) drops below 0.001 for 1.1 Gyr.
focused on three possible scenarios: a transi­tion to a lower vacuum state that propagates outwards from its source at the speed of light2; formation of a black hole or gravitational singularity that accretes ordinary matter2; or creation of a stable ‘strangelet’ that accretes ordinary matter and converts it to strange matter3. A careful study1 concluded that these hypothetical scenarios are overwhelmingly more likely to be triggered by natural high-energy astrophysical events, such as cosmic-ray collisions, than by the Brookhaven collider.
Given that life on Earth has survived for nearly 4 billion years (4 Gyr), it might be assumed that natural catastrophic events are extremely rare. Unfortunately, this argument is flawed because it fails to take into account an observation-selection effect4,5, whereby observers are precluded from noting anything other than that their own species has survived up to the point when the observation is made. If it takes at least 4.6 Gyr for intelligent observers to arise, then the mere observation that Earth has survived for this duration can­not even give us grounds for rejecting with 99% confidence the hypothesis that the average cos­mic neighbourhood is typically sterilized, say, every 1,000 years. The observation-selection effect guarantees that we would find ourselves in a lucky situation, no matter how frequent the sterilization events.
Figure 1 indicates how we derive an upper bound on the cosmic catastrophe frequency 1 that is free from such observer-selection bias. The idea is that if catastrophes were very frequent, then almost all intelligent civiliza­tions would have arisen much earlier than ours. Using data on planet-formation rates6, the distribution of birth dates for intelligent species

can be calculated under different assumptions about the rate of cosmic sterilization. Combin­ing this with information about our own tem­poral location enables us to conclude that the cosmic sterilization rate for a habitable planet is, at most, of the order of 1 per 1.1 Gyr at 99.9% confidence. Taking into account the fact that no other planets in our Solar System have yet been converted to black holes or strange mat-1–3 further tightens our constraints on black hole and strangelet disasters. (For details, see supplementary information.)
This bound does not apply in general to dis­asters that become possible only after certain technologies have been developed — for example, nuclear annihilation or extinction through engineered microorganisms — so we still have plenty to worry about. However, our bound does apply to exogenous catastrophes (for example, those that are spontaneous or triggered by cosmic rays) whose frequency is uncorrelated with human activities, as long as they cause permanent sterilization. Using the results of the Brookhaven analysis1, the bound also implies that the risk from present-day particle accelerators is reassuringly small: say, less than 10 12 per year.

Max Tegmark*, Nick Bostrom† *Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA e-mail:tegmark@mit.edu

†Future of Humanity Institute, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 4JJ, UK
1.
Jaffe, R. L., Busza, W., Sandweiss, J. & Wilczek, F. Rev .Mod. Phys. 72, 1125–1140 (2000).

2.
Hut, P. & Rees, M. J. Nature 302, 508-509 (1983).

3.
Dar, A. & De Rujula, A. Phys.Lett. B 470, 142–148 (1999).

4.
Carter, B. in IAU Symposium 63 (ed. Longair, M. S.) 291–298 (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1974).

5.
Bostrom, N. Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy (Routledge, New York, 2002).

6.
Lineweaver, C. H., Fenner, Y. & Gibson, B. K. Science 203, 59–62 (2004).


Supplementary information accompanies this communication on Nature’s website. Competing financial interests: declared none. doi:10.1038/438754a
CORRIGENDUM
Avian flu: Isolation of drug-resistant H5N1 virus
Q. Mai Le, Maki Kiso, Kazuhiko Someya,
Yuko T. Sakai, T. Hien Nguyen, Khan H. L. Nguyen,

N. Dinh Pham, Ha H. Ngyen, Shinya Yamada,
Yukiko Muramoto, Taisuke Horimoto, Ayato Takada,
Hideo Goto, Takashi Suzuki, Yasuo Suzuki,
Yoshihiro Kawaoka
Nature 437, 1108 (2005)

We omitted the accession numbers for the sequences of the A/Hanoi/30408/2005 clones, which are registered in the DNA Data Bank of Japan. These are: AB239125 20051020120345.25409 for the haemagglutinin gene in clone 9; and AB239126 20051020122743.63420 for the neuraminidase gene in clone 7.
doi:10.1038/438754b

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS ARISING online
. www.nature.com/bca see Nature contents.
©2005 Nature Publishing Group

posted by:
Unsubscribed
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Nature Article: Is a doomsday catastrophe likely?

    Mon, December 12, 2005 - 10:39 AM
    Given our scant knowledge of such events as Hypernova irradiation and a plethora of other naturally occurring phenomenon -- it can be safely said that our species might never see what hits us...

    That being stated, Earth seems to have had a “grace period” of sorts (from both planet wide vectors and external sources) for the last 500 million plus years that has permitted higher orders of life to evolve.

    The question is how long shall that good fortune last -- on our niche in the Universe, let alone else-ware?
    • Unsu...
       
      Interesting point -- there hasn't been a sterilization event (natural or man-made) in our neck of the woods yet. I'm thinking that natural sterilization events (such as gamma ray bursters) do not adequately account for the FP. I say this because our civilization appears to be on the cusp of posthumanism, artificial superintelligence, and molecular assembling nanotechnology -- the ingredients required for a space-faring species. (although, I shouldn't assume that postbiological/superintelligent species are immune to catastrophes wrought by naturally ocurring events)

      It's highly probable to assume, therefore, that other civs have reached our level of technology and even surpassed it *before* being wiped out by a sporadic and quasi-random natural event. Consequently, it's more likely that a sterilization or extinction event be instigated by the civilization itself. This would account for the FP and reconcile the condundrum in the form of the Great Filter argument.

      In other words, we are soon to achieve the developmental plateau that all civilizations reach before they wipe themselves out.
  • Re: Nature Article: Is a doomsday catastrophe likely?

    Mon, December 12, 2005 - 10:26 PM
    Wouldn't there be some evidence of other planets in our system being destroyed by such particles if it were likely? As long as the planet doesn't completely explode it still has mass which can be detected. You could always argue that destruction of Mars and out would have destroyed Earth too via asteriods or something. But Mercury and Venus are still there.

    On the other hand, perhaps this is where all that dark matter came from.
    • Re: Nature Article: Is a doomsday catastrophe likely?

      Mon, December 12, 2005 - 10:47 PM
      Despite all the media, any technological society we are likely to detect will be at bear minimum century plus ahead of us in technological prowess.

      And besides, the Universe could abound with sentient creatures. It does not mean that they achieve a technological level to be detected; let alone utilize a technology we currently can detect.

      We are barely detectable as it is, even with our recent electromagnetic emissions. We might not even be worth exploring compared to other societies.
    • Unsu...
       
      A gamma ray burst, the single most powerful cataclysmic force known to us, occurs at a rate of about 1 per minute across the entire Universe. That's a rather terrifying figure considering the terrible punch that these explosions pack.

      Likely the result of a black hole being created from a dying star, a GRB radiation blast spreads out evenly, with the gamma-ray energy released by the burst being equivalent to that which would be produced by converting the entire mass of a star 1.3 times the mass of our Sun completely into gamma radiation. Put into perspective, if a GRB were to happen as far away as 2,000 light years, it would shine twice as bright in our night sky as the Sun does during the day. Given a GRB close enough to Earth, it would rip apart our ozone layer and likely extinguish life on our planet.

      Consequently, it is speculated that GRBs are a major factor in regulating the presence of extraterrestrial civilizations across galaxies. Some believe that a GRB can sterilize as much as a quarter of an entire galaxy. Given even modest guesses about the number of extraterrestrial civilizations per galaxy, and given that a GRB happens at a rate of 1/minute across the Universe, it's safe to assume that mass civilization extinctions are happening across the Universe on a daily basis.
      • Yep. On the surface of a planet, it might be "survival of the fittest", but on an interstellar scale, it's "survival of the luckiest".

        I wonder what it would take to make a GRB cocoon. Can ANYTHING conceivably block a GRB's effects if it's far enough away?
        • B
          B
          offline 126
          Funny I finally have some time to read a Brief History of Time and I was thinking about the same things.

          Recently a better map of your position in the Universe was made. We are in a region between spiral arms that I sparsely populated with stars. Now I wonder if being at the center or in a spiral arm would flood a planet with a gamma ray burst at a rate, which would kill off life as it evolved to a higher intelligence.

          There are also theories being formed that mans intelligence happened faster than previously thought. SO if an event were to wipe out man maybe a new intelligence would come up in 50,000 years or so.

          And of course in the desire to learn about the universe maybe intelligent life unleashes the secrets of planetary destruction. And poof there is no one to tell. After all to achieve space travel of the distances and time we need to spread we have to understand more physics and that is the downfall.

Recent topics in "Fermi Paradox"