Original subtitles

Is there life in the rest of our universe?

In this episode, we discuss the probability

that it may be abundant.

Is there life in the rest of the universe?

It's a good question.

But there is many pieces of information

that we need to have in order to answer it.

Of course, if we look at the abundance of life

on our planet, the assumption would

be that there should be similar planets

in the rest of the universe.

From early times in my research, I

calculated some of the probabilities.

And I came to conclude that there most likely was

a lot of life in the universe.

I had a lot of difficulties convincing my colleagues

at the time because there was assumptions

that were made early on that were completely incorrect.

One of the assumption that was made

was that it would be rare to find a star that has a planet

because most of the environment around stars are pretty harsh,

and it would be hard to find a planet then

that would be in the Goldilocks zone or the zone

where the planet is not too hot from its star or not too cold

away from its star to sustain life.

And here, we have to make this distinction as well,

that we're talking about life as we know it.

Now, life can develop in situations and circumstances

that we thought impossible.

For instance, early on, we thought it was impossible

that life would develop in some deep vents inside the ocean,

where the water is almost boiling,

and there is almost zero sunlight.

We thought life could never sustain in those depths,

in those temperature, and in these low light environment.

And when we finally built submarines and probes that

could go down there, we discovered life

that we didn't know existed, that lived down there happily

in the dark and in the boiling water.

So we have a pretty limited idea of what life needs in order

to sustain or to develop.

Who says that life could not develop in very, very

hot environment, in atmospheres that are completely

different gas, sulfuric gas, or nitrogen, very

high in nitrogen. Rich gas with all kinds of things

that we think of completely toxic to life here,

but that could develop completely

differently somewhere else.

But this early assumption that planets were very rare

around stars start to break apart

in the late '90s, when we discovered that they seemed

to be planets orbiting pulsars.

Not really astonished physicists because the environment

near a pulsar is very, very harsh.

A pulsar is a result of a star that has exploded, a supernova.

It was thought that there should be nothing around there,

certainly not planets.

And so it was kind of surprising to find the first evidence

of planets near pulsars.

I predicted that they would be there

because remember, our model of the universe

that we discussed earlier, in which the vacuum

structure organized in smaller vortices

around stars that makes aggregate the matter

and makes planets.

These vortices would be very, very

much prominent after the explosion of a star, which

would throw a whole lot of energy

into the structure of the vacuum,

into the structure of space time, which

would make very strong vortices around that star.

And all the material that was ejected by the supernova

would be perfect building blocks to build planets

around what used to be a star and is now called

a pulsar or a black hole.

That was astonishing, but since then, we've

made great strides in being able to detect exoplanets, planets

outside our solar system, and we found many of them.

In fact, in 2013, we were astonished

to find that there was planets around almost every star we

looked at.

So there's a lot of planets out there.

But the estimate in 2013 was about 40 billion planets

in our galaxy that are in the Goldilocks zone.

Planets that could sustain life as we know it.

40 billion.

That is a lot of planets.

Well, that's because there's a lot of stars in our galaxy,

and most stars have planets.

And so the probability of some of these planets

to be in the right zone to sustain life is pretty high.

So the probability for life or at least for a planet

to be in the right zone to sustain life in our galaxy

is very high.

If we extrapolate that to the universe,

the numbers are staggering.

In 2012, we thought there was about 200 billion galaxies

in our universe.

We've now updated that in 2016 to about 2 trillion galaxies

in our universe.

We were missing a few.

And if you extrapolate the 40 billion

Earth-like planet that would be in those galaxies,

you end up with about 80 billion trillion planets

that could sustain life in our universe alone.

And that is remarkable.

So imagine a universe that's teeming with life.

However, you need other elements than a good planet

in the right zone to get life to emerge.

You need elements, such as water being

one of the fundamental building blocks of life.

This is one of the arguments I would get from my colleagues

in the '90s.

Well, even if there is a plan that's

out there that could sustain life,

they probably don't have water on them

because water is extremely rare in our universe.

Those assumptions were wrong.

In the '90s, in the 2000s, we sent probes out

to measure and look for spectral lines of water

all over the universe.

And we haven't been able to find a place in the universe

where there's no water.

There's water everywhere.

It's remarkable.

Even in interstellar space, we see spectral lines of water,

which is very high vacuum.

But even as well intergalactic space

has been shown to have water molecules in them.

So we see spectral lines of water even between galaxies.

So there's water everywhere we look.

And in fact, when we look at stars developing,

like the birth of stars, typically

we see a lot of water in that region.

And we see the star forming from the middle of that water,

like immense universal placentas birthing stars.

So we know that all the building blocks for life are there.

They're abundant.

The planets that would sustain life are abound.

Some of them are extremely large.

Some of them have atmospheres and so on.

And so it is clear that life can and should

be found in the universe.

And then the complexity of that life

is most likely present as well.

Because for the system to increase in complexity,

the abundance of the elements, and all the minerals

and amino acids, and all the stuff

that is necessary for life eventually

would create this complexity.

So all you need is time for the system

to have enough feedback structure to eventually produce

that complexity.

And this is definitely present, meaning

that planetary system in galaxies

might be thousands of years older than ours,

millions of years older than ours, billions of years

older than us.

And so imagine what complexity can

emerge from a system that is billions of year older than us.

Let's just think of 1,000 years.

Think about what life looked like on Earth 1,000 years ago.

Well, first of all, there was much less people, right?

And certainly, their technology was nowhere

close to what it is today.

In fact, only in 200 years of technical development

and modern era of technology did we go from horse and buggy

to spaceships, and being able to launch satellites in space,

and cell phones, and everything we see today.

So when the technological era starts,

it can develop very fast.

So what would a cell phone look like 1,000 years from now?

Meaning that a society that would have just a little 1,000

years more evolution than us, started their evolution maybe

1,000 years earlier than us, which

is nothing cosmologically, would lead a civilization today

to have a technology vastly more advanced

than we have right now.

Like your smartphone typically gets its technology updated

every few years.

You have new software updates that happens every few months.

It continues to do better things, faster, stronger,

and to make your life a little easier hopefully.

What does your computer look like 1,000 years from now?

You're probably not using a keyboard and a mouse

to interact with it anymore.

Hopefully, you're able to just talk to your computer,

and it's doing what you want it to do.

Or it might even be able to read the wave forms in your brain

and know exactly what you want.

What does that computer look like a few thousand years?

What about a million years, which

is nothing in the universe?

Let me give you an example.

The movement of our solar system in the galaxy

is rotating around a vortex arm of the galaxy.

It takes 30 million years to go from the equator

to the equator of the galaxy and another 30

to come around back around.

So like 60 million years.

What does your computer look like 60 million years from now?

And so this is absolutely not irrational

to think of a society that could have

developed millions and millions of years ahead of us.

And that society most likely eventually

found a way to travel through the black holes and worm holes

of our world, of our universe.

That society has probably found the structure

of the vacuum, the Planck field, knows out

to utilize it as fuel, and is able to go around the galaxy

just like you go around the planet

today, getting into an airport in LA,

and landing in Sydney a few hours later,

and not thinking twice about it.

If you went on the air 150 years ago backwards

and talk to someone with a horse and buggy

and told them that in a few generations, only

a few generation, people would get

into metal objects that could fly through the air

and go across the world.

They would have burnt you at the stake.

It's not hard to imagine when we actually

consider the span of times of our galaxy or even

our universe, that an advanced civilization,

multiple advanced civilization, maybe millions, maybe billions

of advanced civilization have achieved that capability

to go around the galaxy the way we go around our planet today

and not think twice about it.

We've seen evidence of that.

We've seen plenty of evidence of that.

Now the evidence is pretty well bombproof at this point.

It's been released by military personnel

in the last few months even.

There has been encounters with objects in our airspace

that don't obey the physics that we know of,

that have capabilities that we don't

have in our technological developments.

And that seemed to have been there for a very long time

as they were reported by a many, many different individuals

throughout the ages, including ancient civilization that

claim to have had direct contact with sun gods that

came from the stars.

Are we alone in our universe?

Most likely not.

In fact, most likely, our universe is teeming with life.

This is a conservative view, since we're only

considering the possibility of life as we know it,

which would develop in water, not

in cyanide, or in some fluid metal like mercury,

where we don't think life could emerge.

We don't know.

Maybe life could emerge in mercury

under the right circumstances.

In fact, we're discovering that some

of the harshest environments we see in our universe, that

is the environment close to a black hole, where there's

a lot of radiation and high energy physics going on,

there is a Goldilocks zone, where

life requires this level of radiation to develop.

And that actually, there is a region near black holes

that have the highest possibility to actually produce

life, that life could require having

orbited in certain regions of the environment

near a black hole in order to develop.

Well, from the physics, we are discovering now,

from the physics we're writing now,

we have shown that actually all the scales are different,

meaning black holes at the atomic level

and different sized black holes in our cosmology.

These are not necessarily obvious.

For instance, people don't think of the sun as a black hole.

Well, the sun obeys the perfect condition for a black body.

A black body is a body in which all incident

light is absorbed, right?

A body in which all incident light is absorbed

would have to be a perfect emitter as well.

And so our sun actually obeys the condition of a black body.

And astrophysicists and physicists

will say, well, yeah, but the sun doesn't have the mass.

It would have to be a much shorter radius

with the same amount of material to be a black hole.

A radius very short, almost 18 kilometers,

which it is not currently.

So they will tell you that in general,

the sun cannot be a black hole.

Stellar black holes are not produced by a supernova

exploding, making the black hole.

Stellar black holes are already there,

are produced by the structure of space time spinning.

And when the stars explode, and the plasma goes away,

all this stuff that's stuck in the fluid dynamics

of the structure of space time around the black hole when

that goes away, then we see the black hole.

And we say, oh, it made a black hole.

It didn't make it.

The black hole was always there.

So these black holes are starting

to emerge as not these monsters that are just

absorbing everything around them and destroying everything,

but actually as the source of the mechanics that makes up

all of them structure that makes life possible, including

the radiation that's required for the amino acids and all

of the molecules to organize into DNA structure

and eventually life.

So they are life givers, not destroyers.

They are the source of creation and that's

a very big change in our understanding of our universe,

and how life emerge in it, and how much life

is present in our universe.

Some of the life in the universe is most likely very, very

much more advanced than us and might

have traveled across the galaxy and found our planet

a very long time ago.

Certainly, life in the universe could

develop in all kinds of different way

and may not look humanoid at all.

They might be very short, very small, very big, very hairy,

not hairy at all.

Or they might have six arms, and two hands, and so on.

I mean, life could develop in all kinds of way,

including the way it developed here.

So they could be life that is very, very similar to us

or almost exactly like us.

And they could walk in our streets, in our cities,

and we wouldn't be able to tell that they're not

from our planet.

We would have no clue.

So life could vary widely, including

that it might have a different density

than the density of life that we know on our planet.

It might have a range at a different energy level

in a different environment.

That is it might have a range within the energy

confinement of a plasma.

And so you could have life that looks much more

esoteric than the physical life we see on our planet.

You could have life that looks more

like a cloud of glowing plasma going around in a ball

or in some kind of elongated structure

in the air near a gravitational field, for instance.

If it was a plasma ball in space, when it got close to you

know tidal gravity near the surface of a planet,

it might get on gated into something more oval, something

more like the aura around a person without the person.

Just the aura.

You could have something completely different than what

we think of as life.

Because it is the flow of information

through the structure of space that

produces the organization and eventually the self awareness

of that life.

And that flow is present everywhere

and can organize in all kinds of different ways

and produce eventually a similar effect.

Remember that we talked about the brain is not

the seat of consciousness.

The brain is not producing the epiphenomenon of consciousness.

But actually, the brain is the antenna capturing

the information of the flow.

Well, the antenna might look different

in different circumstances, completely different.

I believe that actually the brain

is one part of the antenna.

Your whole bone structure, the piezoelectric dynamics

of your bone, all your connective tissue

with all the silica in it and all this.

It's your whole body that's the antenna of consciousness.

And you can think of that body looking completely different,

having a complexity range completely

different than the one we have on Earth, for instance.

So imagine that life emerged from a plasma.

That plasma could be at energy levels

that are beyond the observable energy level of our world.

It could be, for instance, that life

emerge in the coherency of the structure of the Planck field.

In our case, we are linked to the Planck field

for our consciousness and our life.

But it has a range at a scale very specific

that we see at the very specific band of frequency.

We touch and feel at the very specific scale.

We can smell at the very specific scale of molecules.

But life could develop at scales or energy level

that are nowhere close to that same band.

And that life would not be evident to us.

We wouldn't see it.

We wouldn't touch it.

We wouldn't smell it.

We wouldn't measure it.

We wouldn't know it's there.

So the building blocks of DNA, the amino acids

we see flying everywhere in the universe are present.

So of course then, DNA, which we think

of as the basis for the development of life,

could emerge on many other planets.

DNA, not being the system that actually holds the information,

but more like DNA being the antenna that's

vibrating in the structure of space

with the help of the water molecule.

If we remove to move the water molecule, then DNA falls apart.

And in fact, recently we've discovered,

this was published at the Academy of Science,

that it is the water molecule that modulate the DNA, not

the other way around.

And so the information is coming from the water molecule.

This is why all life emerged from water

as we know it, at least life as we know it.

So DNA might actually be found to exist

on many other planets, similar DNA as the DNA we see here.

But then again, they could be, as I described earlier,

entities that are far removed from this grosser or more

denser level of existence, and that

may have something that looks like DNA,

but that is made out of a plasma spiral spinning

in space, instead of mitochondria, and so on.

And so it could be vastly different,

but certainly, all the elements for the development

and the replication of DNA are present

in the various molecules we see that are present in space,

and the water, and clearly the amount of planetary systems

that are available for all that to coalesce into life.

We're clearly not alone.

That we are probably part of a galactic community that

could have millions, if not billions of members involved.

As well, the idea that they would all

be less advanced than us or not much more advanced and thus

is erroneous.

Out of the probability of all the life in our galaxy,

the most likely is societies that

have achieved faster than the speed of light travel, that

have been able to cross the universe using wormhole,

the advancements of these societies

with millions of years of development ahead of us

are tremendous and are the stuff that we can only dream of here.

So we most likely were discovered early on.

And it seems like there was some interaction with our world

very early on.

There is less now.

We're a very aggressive species.

If you just watch the 5 o'clock news,

it's pretty apparent we are not very

developed in our social relationship with each other.

We haven't managed to understand that we're one species,

and that we should stop shooting at each other.

So they're probably waiting for us

to learn some of the fundamental wisdom required

for us to enter as member of this larger community.

But all the evidence is there to show that life is probably

teeming in our universe.

And that we have an opportunity to discover that life

as we grow and understand deeper the meaning of who we are,

and how we relate to the universe,

and how the universe relate to us.