Could Fermi's Paradox be explained by quantum physics?

Could Fermi's Paradox be explained by quantum physics?
If quantum fuzziness increases the longer it's been since an entangling interaction with something, then presumably a planet with life could become a planet without life if left unobserved for long enough.

Not from the perspective of said life of course, since quantum effects are an observation of many universes, but if two life forms went too far apart, they might start to decay from each other's perspectives.

It'd explain why we haven't encountered a race that spans millions of galaxies despite there probably being numerous planets with life per galaxy and no obstacle to each of those planets having a good chance of eventually resulting in such a race.

First of all, the Fermi """"""paradox"""""" is not a real paradox. It essentially boils down to "hurr durr why doesn't reality behave like my infantile beliefs I acquired by watching shitty fiction movies". Bad news, kiddo, this is not how reality works. The universe is not obliged to host alien life only because some manchildren want their fantasies to be satisfied. Science starts with observation, not with belief, and if there turns out to be no other life in the universe, science will find an explanation.

Take your pedophile cartoons to

jesus christ it's not even anime. Now they're straight up posting screenshots from animated porn games that include animals, dickgirls and rape.

The Fermi Paradox doesn't say "why haven't we found life in the universe despite all the cool science fiction having it".
It says "why haven't we found life in the universe despite the fact that any occurence of intelligent life would span galaxies in a fraction of the age of the universe and that there are quadrillions of planets from which possible life still could have reached us by now if they started spreading a cosmologically reasonable amount of time in the past".

As time goes on, "inhospitable" planets keep seeming more and more hospitable, the number of planets on which life could possibly evolve is staggering.

you're uneducated

don't post on Veeky Forums anymore please

I'm a math PhD student. Come at me, faggot.

They would observe themselves, so no.

Quantum effects are relative to the observer, self observation only affects the perspective of the thing that observed itself.

Observation is a weird word that sometimes confuses people when it comes to quantum mechanics. Observation is essentially just getting matter to interact with an external system. If a photon hits an atom and increases the atom's energy then the photon has been observed.

The speed of light itself is a limiting factor on finding life. Anything we can see that's further than a few thousand lightyears will not "show us" life because the life probably didn't even exist at that time.

Even if it's just a fucking game, we don't want your degeneracy over here

Hey shill, observation requires a theory (an hypothesis) which is basically a belief to prove for science to work

Even more abstract than that, an observation is statistical.

>mfw autists on Veeky Forums get mad about animeposting on an anime imageboard

...

Trips win by convention, sorry m9, the dice have spoken.

>hi I'm too much of a dainty twinkie queer to realize that Veeky Forums is now in the mainstream and will never be for pedophile cartoons again

Keep your numerology games off the grownup board.

>Veeky Forums is now in the mainstream
>>>/reddit/

oh lad

Samesummerfag

Just fuck off to already you dumb pedophile. This board is not suited for pedophile pandering cartoons.

...

Just go over there and everything is solved you fucking loser.

u first desu wa

But the "external system" has to include the observer, in this case Earth.
If planet A is the observer and planet B is extremely distant, perhaps a thousand particles entangled with planet B (either coming straight from B or coming from elsewhere but being entangled indirectly) might interact with A every second.
That's a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of interaction at a closer range, and thus the version of planet B that A sees is one where quantum effects are much more pronounced; something that could be lethal for any life that would otherwise develop on B.

LAMO

1st off, it isn't a paradox. Because it is just something postulated by morons who really don't know anything about physics let alone anything else.

see
With all our knowledge of science, the odds of us not running into a "Type III" civilisation seem tiny and they seem smaller every day with our improved planetfinding techniques showing the universe to be not as inhospitable as we thought.

The odds of not encountering alien life are small enough that our failure to encounter any does warrant the term "paradox", because even if we do the math with ultra-pessimistic factors:
>Average number of civilisations per galaxy: 1
>Age of all civilisations: 10m years
>Chance of civlisation having branching, near-light-speed growth: 1%
Then we still get the answer of a 61% chance of encountering aliens.
In reality all three numbers should be considerably higher: There should be much more ancient aliens which can thus come from far further away, there should be more civilisations per galaxy, and as long as they don't perform a perfect genocide of themselves they should achieve boundless growth.
And if you put in those more realistic numbers, the odds of encountering aliens start looking more like 99.99999%.

Clearly there's something we don't know about the universe.

something you fail to account for is that most planets we've discovered are too large for rockets to leave the surface.
without rudimentary space exploration, it is impossible / very difficult to make more advanced methods.

also this is baseless conjecture. you cannot in good faith make the assumptions necessary to satisfy the Fermi paradox.

The reason the planets we discover are so large is because they're the easiest to spot.
We started by finding only gas giants, now we're finding super-earths.

And they're very reasonable assumptions.
As far as we can tell, there's nothing particularly special about Earth, this period in cosmic history, or any reason why aliens shouldn't spread unbounded.
Plenty of planets have a composition similar to ours and lie in the goldilocks zone, there's nothing saying aliens couldn't have evolved a billion years ago, and there's no reason why an advanced civilisation can't send off a colony ship at 90% of lightspeed to every corner of the galaxy as well as every nearby galaxy.

>Math student
>Thinks he's qualified to comment on astrobiology topics
>This is what $300k starting actually believe

It's not a paradox.
They're already here.
Youre just simply not important enough for them to communicate with you.

That's the alternative, although it does raise questions such as "if we're already known to aliens but there's an official policy on interacting with humans, how come there aren't unauthorised aliens who ignore such policies, in the same way that random people keep on visiting tribes in the jungle cut off from the rest of the world?".

It's definitely worth exploring quantum mechanical explanations for why the universe seems lonely.

>, how come there aren't unauthorised aliens who ignore such policies
1) First, I'd like to check your dubs.
I think there are and have been many of such instances. But think about it: if aliens were to show up and say hi to you, give you a little tour of their bases and ships, how would you tell other people about it? Wouldn't you be seen as a loon? Additionally, what if aliens are here but are trying to figure out how to conquer the humans? There's every reason to conclude aliens exist and NO reason to think they're friendly.

>>Average number of civilisations per galaxy: 1
What? Your premise relies on every galaxy being just like this one

Evidence of four prehistoric supernovae

Take our encounters with those aforementioned tribes as an example.
We don't pick out some stray, show them cool technology, then have them go back blabbering about the crazy stuff they just saw.
Why would aliens be any different?

If any alien stories are real then they clearly get a kick out of revealing themselves, but then it wouldn't make sense that they wouldn't do something funnier such as giving someone magic technology or going public.

It might be though that they don't get a kick out of that like we do, in which case an anti-interaction policy could hold since there'd be no personal benefit or pleasure in violating it.

No it doesn't.
The math still works out the same with random distributions, although if less simplified math was used that accounted for varying age between civilisations, the distribution pattern would matter since if 100% of civilisations spread unbounded then having them in every galaxy would mean we'd see aliens sooner than if they weren't in every galaxy.

>Chance of civilization having branching near light speed growth - 1%

Way too fucking high.

It's not a paradox.

Also, space is really fucking big. People always fail to understand how big it really is.

Problem with Fermi's Paradox is that you're assuming that the growth of any given alien civilization is limitless. When, simply to get into space, they'd have to create a balance between growth and available resources on their own planet first.

A species set on infinite growth likely wouldn't become space fairing to begin with. They'd, most likely, run out resources and go extinct first.

A species that has deliberately limited and/or capped its growth is much more apt to be successful. Such a species wouldn't need more than a handful of planets or systems to be prepared for any cosmological disaster that might threaten it, save those few that'd require it to leave the galaxy to avoid. Similarly, such a species isn't going to be creating super structures to generate infinite power.

Thus, odds are, any highly advanced civilizations out there are likely going to be small in scale and difficult to detect. Colonizing an entire galaxy would only ever be the goal of a doomed civilization incapable of ever doing so.

Fermi's paradox is a sequence of assumptions whose conclusion fails to match observations. We are supposed to be Veeky Forumsentists, the obvious solution is that one or more of the assumptions are wrong, its not that complicated