Drake equation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dr. Frank Drake

The Drake equation is a probabilistic argument used to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy.

The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the first scientific meeting on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).^[3][4] The equation summarizes the main concepts which scientists must contemplate when considering the question of other radio-communicative life.^[3] It is more properly thought of as a Fermi problem rather than as a serious attempt to nail down a precise number.

Criticism related to the Drake equation focuses not on the equation itself, but on the fact that the estimated values for several of its factors are highly conjectural, the combined effect being that the uncertainty associated with any derived value is so large that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions.

Equation

The Drake equation is:

${\displaystyle N=R_{*}\cdot f_{\mathrm {p} }\cdot n_{\mathrm {e} }\cdot f_{\mathrm {l} }\cdot f_{\mathrm {i} }\cdot f_{\mathrm {c} }\cdot L}$

where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);

and

R_∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy

f_p = the fraction of those stars that have planets

n_e = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets

f_l = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point

f_i = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)

f_c = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space^[5][6]

History

In September 1959, physicists Giuseppe Cocconi and Philip Morrison published an article in the journal Nature with the provocative title "Searching for Interstellar Communications".^[7][8] Cocconi and Morrison argued that radio telescopes had become sensitive enough to pick up transmissions that might be broadcast into space by civilizations orbiting other stars. Such messages, they suggested, might be transmitted at a wavelength of 21 cm (1,420.4 MHz). This is the wavelength of radio emission by neutral hydrogen, the most common element in the universe, and they reasoned that other intelligences might see this as a logical landmark in the radio spectrum.

Two months later, Harvard University astronomy professor Harlow Shapley speculated on the number of inhabited planets in the universe, saying "The universe has 10 million, million, million suns (10 followed by 18 zeros) similar to our own. One in a million has planets around it. Only one in a million million has the right combination of chemicals, temperature, water, days and nights to support planetary life as we know it. This calculation arrives at the estimated figure of 100 million worlds where life has been forged by evolution."^[9]

Seven months after Cocconi and Morrison published their article, Drake made the first systematic search for signals from communicative extraterrestrial civilizations. Using the 25 m dish of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank, West Virginia, Drake monitored two nearby Sun-like stars: Epsilon Eridani and Tau Ceti. In this project, which he called Project Ozma, he slowly scanned frequencies close to the 21 cm wavelength for six hours per day from April to July 1960.^[8] The project was well designed, inexpensive, and simple by today's standards. It was also unsuccessful.

Soon thereafter, Drake hosted a "search for extraterrestrial intelligence" meeting on detecting their radio signals. The meeting was held at the Green Bank facility in 1961. The equation that bears Drake's name arose out of his preparations for the meeting.^[10]

As I planned the meeting, I realized a few day[s] ahead of time we needed an agenda. And so I wrote down all the things you needed to know to predict how hard it's going to be to detect extraterrestrial life. And looking at them it became pretty evident that if you multiplied all these together, you got a number, N, which is the number of detectable civilizations in our galaxy. This was aimed at the radio search, and not to search for primordial or primitive life forms.

—Frank Drake

The ten attendees were conference organizer J. Peter Pearman, Frank Drake, Philip Morrison, businessman and radio amateur Dana Atchley, chemist Melvin Calvin, astronomer Su-Shu Huang, neuroscientist John C. Lilly, inventor Barney Oliver, astronomer Carl Sagan and radio-astronomer Otto Struve.^[11] These participants dubbed themselves "The Order of the Dolphin" (because of Lilly's work on dolphin communication), and commemorated their first meeting with a plaque at the observatory hall.^[12][13]

Usefulness

The Allen Telescope Array for SETI

The Drake equation amounts to a summary of the factors affecting the likelihood that we might detect radio-communication from intelligent extraterrestrial life.^[1][5][14] The last four parameters, f_l, f_i, f_c, and L, are not known and are very difficult to estimate, with values ranging over many orders of magnitude (see criticism). Therefore, the usefulness of the Drake equation is not in the solving, but rather in the contemplation of all the various concepts which scientists must incorporate when considering the question of life elsewhere,^[1][3] and gives the question of life elsewhere a basis for scientific analysis. The Drake equation is a statement that stimulates intellectual curiosity about the universe around us, for helping us to understand that life as we know it is the end product of a natural, cosmic evolution, and for helping us realize how much we are a part of that universe.^[6] What the equation and the search for life has done is focus science on some of the other questions about life in the universe, specifically abiogenesis, the development of multi-cellular life and the development of intelligence itself.^[15]

Within the limits of our existing technology, any practical search for distant intelligent life must necessarily be a search for some manifestation of a distant technology. After about 50 years, the Drake equation is still of seminal importance because it is a 'road map' of what we need to learn in order to solve this fundamental existential question.^[1] It also formed the backbone of astrobiology as a science; although speculation is entertained to give context, astrobiology concerns itself primarily with hypotheses that fit firmly into existing scientific theories. Some 50 years of SETI have failed to find anything, even though radio telescopes, receiver techniques, and computational abilities have improved enormously since the early 1960s, but it has been discovered, at least, that our galaxy is not teeming with very powerful alien transmitters continuously broadcasting near the 21 cm hydrogen frequency. No one could say this in 1961.^[16]

Modifications

As many observers have pointed out, the Drake equation is a very simple model that does not include potentially relevant parameters,^[17] and many changes and modifications to the equation have been proposed. One line of modification, for example, attempts to account for the uncertainty inherent in many of the terms.^[18]

Others note that the Drake equation ignores many concepts that might be relevant to the odds of contacting other civilizations. For example, David Brin states: "The Drake equation merely speaks of the number of sites at which ETIs spontaneously arise. The equation says nothing directly about the contact cross-section between an ETIS and contemporary human society".^[19] Because it is the contact cross-section that is of interest to the SETI community, many additional factors and modifications of the Drake equation have been proposed.

Colonization 

It has been proposed to generalize the Drake equation to include additional effects of alien civilizations colonizing other star systems. Each original site expands with an expansion velocity v, and establishes additional sites that survive for a lifetime L. The result is a more complex set of 3 equations.^[19]

Reappearance factor 

The Drake equation may furthermore be multiplied by how many times an intelligent civilization may occur on planets where it has happened once. Even if an intelligent civilization reaches the end of its lifetime after, for example, 10,000 years, life may still prevail on the planet for billions of years, permitting the next civilization to evolve. Thus, several civilizations may come and go during the lifespan of one and the same planet. Thus, if n_r is the average number of times a new civilization reappears on the same planet where a previous civilization once has appeared and ended, then the total number of civilizations on such a planet would be 1 + n_r, which is the actual reappearance factor added to the equation.

The factor depends on what generally is the cause of civilization extinction. If it is generally by temporary uninhabitability, for example a nuclear winter, then n_r may be relatively high. On the other hand, if it is generally by permanent uninhabitability, such as stellar evolution, then n_r may be almost zero. In the case of total life extinction, a similar factor may be applicable for f_l, that is, how many times life may appear on a planet where it has appeared once.

METI factor 

Alexander Zaitsev said that to be in a communicative phase and emit dedicated messages are not the same. For example, humans, although being in a communicative phase, are not a communicative civilization; we do not practise such activities as the purposeful and regular transmission of interstellar messages. For this reason, he suggested introducing the METI factor (messaging to extraterrestrial intelligence) to the classical Drake equation.^[20] He defined the factor as "the fraction of communicative civilizations with clear and non-paranoid planetary consciousness", or alternatively expressed, the fraction of communicative civilizations that actually engage in deliberate interstellar transmission.

The METI factor is somewhat misleading since active, purposeful transmission of messages by a civilization is not required for them to receive a broadcast sent by another that is seeking first contact. It is merely required they have capable and compatible receiver systems operational; however, this is a variable humans cannot accurately estimate.

Biogenic gases 

Astronomer Sara Seager proposed a revised equation that focuses on the search for planets with biosignature gases.^[21] These gases are produced by living organisms that can accumulate in a planet atmosphere to levels that can be detected with remote space telescopes.^[22]

The Seager equation looks like this:^[22][a]

$${\displaystyle N=N_{*}\cdot F_{\mathrm {Q} }\cdot F_{\mathrm {HZ} }\cdot F_{\mathrm {O} }\cdot F_{\mathrm {L} }\cdot F_{\mathrm {S} }}$$

where:

N = the number of planets with detectable signs of life

N_∗ = the number of stars observed

F_Q = the fraction of stars that are quiet

F_HZ = the fraction of stars with rocky planets in the habitable zone

F_O = the fraction of those planets that can be observed

F_L = the fraction that have life

F_S = the fraction on which life produces a detectable signature gas

Seager stresses, “We’re not throwing out the Drake Equation, which is really a different topic,” explaining, “Since Drake came up with the equation, we have discovered thousands of exoplanets. We as a community have had our views revolutionized as to what could possibly be out there. And now we have a real question on our hands, one that’s not related to intelligent life: Can we detect any signs of life in any way in the very near future?”^[23]

Estimates

Original estimates

There is considerable disagreement on the values of these parameters, but the 'educated guesses' used by Drake and his colleagues in 1961 were:^[24][25]

• R_∗ = 1 yr⁻¹ (1 star formed per year, on the average over the life of the galaxy; this was regarded as conservative)
• f_p = 0.2 to 0.5 (one fifth to one half of all stars formed will have planets)
• n_e = 1 to 5 (stars with planets will have between 1 and 5 planets capable of developing life)
• f_l = 1 (100% of these planets will develop life)
• f_i = 1 (100% of which will develop intelligent life)
• f_c = 0.1 to 0.2 (10–20% of which will be able to communicate)
• L = 1000 to 100,000,000 years (which will last somewhere between 1000 and 100,000,000 years)

Inserting the above minimum numbers into the equation gives a minimum N of 20 (see: Range of results). Inserting the maximum numbers gives a maximum of 50,000,000. Drake states that given the uncertainties, the original meeting concluded that N ≈ L, and there were probably between 1000 and 100,000,000 civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy.

Current estimates

This section discusses and attempts to list the best current estimates for the parameters of the Drake equation.

Rate of star creation in our galaxy, R_∗

Latest calculations from NASA and the European Space Agency indicate that the current rate of star formation in our galaxy is about 0.68–1.45 M_☉ of material per year.^[26][27] To get the number of stars per year, this must account for the initial mass function (IMF) for stars, where the average new star mass is about 0.5 M_☉.^[28] This gives a star formation rate of about 1.5–3 stars per year.

Fraction of those stars that have planets, f_p

Recent analysis of microlensing surveys has found that f_p may approach 1—that is, stars are orbited by planets as a rule, rather than the exception; and that there are one or more bound planets per Milky Way star.^[29][30]

Average number of planets that might support life per star that has planets n_e

In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy.^[31][32] 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting sun-like stars.^[33] Since there are about 100 billion stars in the galaxy, this implies f_p · n_e is roughly 0.4. The nearest planet in the habitable zone is Proxima Centauri b, which is as close as about 4.2 light-years away.

The consensus at the Green Bank meeting was that n_e had a minimum value between 3 and 5. Dutch astronomer Govert Schilling has opined that this is optimistic.^[34] Even if planets are in the habitable zone, the number of planets with the right proportion of elements is difficult to estimate.^[35] Brad Gibson, Yeshe Fenner, and Charley Lineweaver determined that about 10% of star systems in the Milky Way galaxy are hospitable to life, by having heavy elements, being far from supernovae and being stable for a sufficient time.^[36]

The discovery of numerous gas giants in close orbit with their stars has introduced doubt that life-supporting planets commonly survive the formation of their stellar systems. So-called hot Jupiters may migrate from distant orbits to near orbits, in the process disrupting the orbits of habitable planets.

On the other hand, the variety of star systems that might have habitable zones is not just limited to solar-type stars and Earth-sized planets. It is now estimated that even tidally locked planets close to red dwarf stars might have habitable zones,^[37] although the flaring behavior of these stars might argue against this.^[38] The possibility of life on moons of gas giants (such as Jupiter's moon Europa, or Saturn's moon Titan) adds further uncertainty to this figure.^[39]

The authors of the rare Earth hypothesis propose a number of additional constraints on habitability for planets, including being in galactic zones with suitably low radiation, high star metallicity, and low enough density to avoid excessive asteroid bombardment. They also propose that it is necessary to have a planetary system with large gas giants which provide bombardment protection without a hot Jupiter; and a planet with plate tectonics, a large moon that creates tidal pools, and moderate axial tilt to generate seasonal variation.^[40]

Fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life, f_l

Geological evidence from the Earth suggests that f_l may be high; life on Earth appears to have begun around the same time as favorable conditions arose, suggesting that abiogenesis may be relatively common once conditions are right. However, this evidence only looks at the Earth (a single model planet), and contains anthropic bias, as the planet of study was not chosen randomly, but by the living organisms that already inhabit it (ourselves). From a classical hypothesis testing standpoint, there are zero degrees of freedom, permitting no valid estimates to be made. If life were to be found on Mars, Europa, Enceladus or Titan that developed independently from life on Earth it would imply a value for f_l close to 1. While this would raise the degrees of freedom from zero to one, there would remain a great deal of uncertainty on any estimate due to the small sample size, and the chance they are not really independent.

Countering this argument is that there is no evidence for abiogenesis occurring more than once on the Earth — that is, all terrestrial life stems from a common origin. If abiogenesis were more common it would be speculated to have occurred more than once on the Earth. Scientists have searched for this by looking for bacteria that are unrelated to other life on Earth, but none have been found yet.^[41] It is also possible that life arose more than once, but that other branches were out-competed, or died in mass extinctions, or were lost in other ways. Biochemists Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel laid special emphasis on this uncertainty: "At the moment we have no means at all of knowing" whether we are "likely to be alone in the galaxy (Universe)" or whether "the galaxy may be pullulating with life of many different forms."^[42] As an alternative to abiogenesis on Earth, they proposed the hypothesis of directed panspermia, which states that Earth life began with "microorganisms sent here deliberately by a technological society on another planet, by means of a special long-range unmanned spaceship".

Fraction of the above that develops intelligent life, f_i

This value remains particularly controversial. Those who favor a low value, such as the biologist Ernst Mayr, point out that of the billions of species that have existed on Earth, only one has become intelligent and from this, infer a tiny value for f_i.^[43] Likewise, the Rare Earth hypothesis, notwithstanding their low value for n_e above, also think a low value for f_i dominates the analysis.^[44] Those who favor higher values note the generally increasing complexity of life over time, concluding that the appearance of intelligence is almost inevitable,^[45][46] implying an f_i approaching 1. Skeptics point out that the large spread of values in this factor and others make all estimates unreliable. (See Criticism).

In addition, while it appears that life developed soon after the formation of Earth, the Cambrian explosion, in which a large variety of multicellular life forms came into being, occurred a considerable amount of time after the formation of Earth, which suggests the possibility that special conditions were necessary. Some scenarios such as the snowball Earth or research into the extinction events have raised the possibility that life on Earth is relatively fragile. Research on any past life on Mars is relevant since a discovery that life did form on Mars but ceased to exist might raise our estimate of f_l but would indicate that in half the known cases, intelligent life did not develop.

Estimates of f_i have been affected by discoveries that the Solar System's orbit is circular in the galaxy, at such a distance that it remains out of the spiral arms for tens of millions of years (evading radiation from novae). Also, Earth's large moon may aid the evolution of life by stabilizing the planet's axis of rotation.

Fraction of the above revealing their existence via signal release into space, f_c

For deliberate communication, the one example we have (the Earth) does not do much explicit communication, though there are some efforts covering only a tiny fraction of the stars that might look for our presence. (See Arecibo message, for example). There is considerable speculation why an extraterrestrial civilization might exist but choose not to communicate. However, deliberate communication is not required, and calculations indicate that current or near-future Earth-level technology might well be detectable to civilizations not too much more advanced than our own.^[47] By this standard, the Earth is a communicating civilization.

Another question is what percentage of civilizations in the galaxy are close enough for us to detect, assuming that they send out signals. For example, existing Earth radio telescopes could only detect Earth radio transmissions from roughly a light year away.^[48]

Lifetime of such a civilization wherein it communicates its signals into space, L

Michael Shermer estimated L as 420 years, based on the duration of sixty historical Earthly civilizations.^[49] Using 28 civilizations more recent than the Roman Empire, he calculates a figure of 304 years for "modern" civilizations. It could also be argued from Michael Shermer's results that the fall of most of these civilizations was followed by later civilizations that carried on the technologies, so it is doubtful that they are separate civilizations in the context of the Drake equation. In the expanded version, including reappearance number, this lack of specificity in defining single civilizations does not matter for the end result, since such a civilization turnover could be described as an increase in the reappearance number rather than increase in L, stating that a civilization reappears in the form of the succeeding cultures. Furthermore, since none could communicate over interstellar space, the method of comparing with historical civilizations could be regarded as invalid.

David Grinspoon has argued that once a civilization has developed enough, it might overcome all threats to its survival. It will then last for an indefinite period of time, making the value for L potentially billions of years. If this is the case, then he proposes that the Milky Way galaxy may have been steadily accumulating advanced civilizations since it formed.^[50] He proposes that the last factor L be replaced with f_IC · T, where f_IC is the fraction of communicating civilizations become "immortal" (in the sense that they simply do not die out), and T representing the length of time during which this process has been going on. This has the advantage that T would be a relatively easy to discover number, as it would simply be some fraction of the age of the universe.

It has also been hypothesized that once a civilization has learned of a more advanced one, its longevity could increase because it can learn from the experiences of the other.^[51]

The astronomer Carl Sagan speculated that all of the terms, except for the lifetime of a civilization, are relatively high and the determining factor in whether there are large or small numbers of civilizations in the universe is the civilization lifetime, or in other words, the ability of technological civilizations to avoid self-destruction. In Sagan's case, the Drake equation was a strong motivating factor for his interest in environmental issues and his efforts to warn against the dangers of nuclear warfare.

Range of results

As many skeptics have pointed out, the Drake equation can give a very wide range of values, depending on the assumptions,^[52] and the values used in portions of the Drake equation are not well-established.^{[34][53][54][55]} In particular, the result can be N ≪ 1, meaning we are likely alone in the galaxy, or N ≫ 1, implying there are many civilizations we might contact. One of the few points of wide agreement is that the presence of humanity implies a probability of intelligence arising of greater than zero.^[56]

As an example of a low estimate, combining NASA's star formation rates, the rare Earth hypothesis value of f_p · n_e · f_l = 10⁻⁵,^[57] Mayr's view on intelligence arising, Drake's view of communication, and Shermer's estimate of lifetime:

R_∗ = 1.5–3 yr⁻¹,^[26] f_p · n_e · f_l = 10⁻⁵,^[40] f_i = 10⁻⁹,^[43] f_c = 0.2^{[Drake, above]}, and L = 304 years^[49]

gives:

N = 1.5 × 10⁻⁵ × 10⁻⁹ × 0.2 × 304 = 9.1 × 10⁻¹¹

i.e., suggesting that we are probably alone in this galaxy, and possibly in the observable universe.

On the other hand, with larger values for each of the parameters above, values of N can be derived that are greater than 1. The following higher values that have been proposed for each of the parameters:

R_∗ = 1.5–3 yr⁻¹,^[26] f_p = 1,^[29] n_e = 0.2,^[58][59] f_l = 0.13,^[60] f_i = 1,^[45] f_c = 0.2^{[Drake, above]}, and L = 10⁹ years^[50]

Use of these parameters gives:

N = 3 × 1 × 0.2 × 0.13 × 1 × 0.2 × 10⁹ = 15,600,000

Monte Carlo simulations of estimates of the Drake equation factors based on a stellar and planetary model of the Milky Way have resulted in the number of civilizations varying by a factor of 100.^[61]

Has intelligent life ever existed?

The Drake equation can be modified to determine just how unlikely intelligent life must be, to give the result that Earth has the only intelligent life that has ever arisen, either in our galaxy or the universe as a whole. This simplifies the calculation by removing the lifetime and communication constraints. Since star and planets counts are known, this leaves the only unknown as the odds that a habitable planet ever develops intelligent life. For Earth to have the only civilization that has ever occurred in the universe, then the odds of any habitable planet ever developing such a civilization must be less than 2.5×10⁻²⁴. Similarly, for Earth to host the only civilization in our galaxy for all time, the odds of a habitable zone planet ever hosting intelligent life must be less than 1.7×10⁻¹¹ (about 1 in 60 billion). The figure for the universe implies that it is highly unlikely that Earth hosts the only intelligent life that has ever occurred. The figure for our galaxy suggests that other civilizations may have occurred or will likely occur in our galaxy.

Criticism

Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Star formation rates are well-known, and the incidence of planets has a sound theoretical and observational basis, but the other terms in the equation become very speculative. The uncertainties revolve around our understanding of the evolution of life, intelligence, and civilization, not physics. No statistical estimates are possible for some of the parameters, where only one example is known. The net result is that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind, and the resulting margin of error is huge, far beyond what some consider acceptable or meaningful.^[67]

One reply to such criticisms^[68] is that even though the Drake equation currently involves speculation about unmeasured parameters, it was intended as a way to stimulate dialogue on these topics. Then the focus becomes how to proceed experimentally. Indeed, Drake originally formulated the equation merely as an agenda for discussion at the Green Bank conference.^[69]

Fermi paradox

The pessimists' most telling argument in the SETI debate stems not from theory or conjecture but from an actual observation: the presumed lack of extraterrestrial contact.^[8] A civilization lasting for tens of millions of years might be able to travel anywhere in the galaxy, even at the slow speeds foreseeable with our own kind of technology. Furthermore, no confirmed signs of intelligence elsewhere have been recognized as such, either in our galaxy or in the observable universe of 2 trillion galaxies.^[70][71] According to this line of thinking, the tendency to fill up all available territory seems to be a universal trait of living things, so the Earth should have already been colonized, or at least visited, but no evidence of this exists. Hence Fermi's question "Where is everybody?".^[72][73]
A large number of explanations have been proposed to explain this lack of contact; a book published in 2015 elaborated on 75 different explanations.^[74] In terms of the Drake Equation, the explanations can be divided into three classes:

• Few intelligent civilizations ever arise. This is an argument that at least one of the first few terms, R_∗ · f_p · n_e · f_l · f_i, has a low value. The most common suspect is f_i, but explanations such as the rare Earth hypothesis argue that n_e is the small term.
• Intelligent civilizations exist, but we see no evidence, meaning f_c is small. Typical arguments include that civilizations are too far apart, it is too expensive to spread throughout the galaxy, civilizations broadcast signals for only a brief period of time, it is dangerous to communicate, and many others.
• The lifetime of intelligent, communicative civilizations is short, meaning the value of L is small. Drake suggested that a large number of extraterrestrial civilizations would form, and he further speculated that the lack of evidence of such civilizations may be because technological civilizations tend to disappear rather quickly. Typical explanations include it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself, it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy others, they tend to be destroyed by natural events, and others.

These lines of reasoning lead to the Great Filter hypothesis,^[75] which states that since there are no observed extraterrestrial civilizations, despite the vast number of stars, then some step in the process must be acting as a filter to reduce the final value. According to this view, either it is very difficult for intelligent life to arise, or the lifetime of such civilizations, or the period of time they reveal their existence, must be relatively short.

In fiction and popular culture

The equation was cited by Gene Roddenberry as supporting the multiplicity of inhabited planets shown on Star Trek, the television series he created. However, Roddenberry did not have the equation with him, and he was forced to "invent" it for his original proposal.^[76] The invented equation created by Roddenberry is:

${\displaystyle Ff^{2}(MgE)-C^{1}Ri^{1}\cdot M=L/So}$

However, a number raised to the first power is merely the number itself.

Sense of wonder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A sense of wonder is an intellectual and emotional state frequently invoked in discussions of science fiction.

Definitions

This entry focuses on one specific use of the phrase "sense of wonder." This phrase is widely used in contexts that have nothing to do with science fiction. The following relates to the use of "sense of wonder" within the context of science fiction. In Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction the term sense of wonder is defined as follows:

SENSE OF WONDER n. a feeling of awakening or awe triggered by an expansion of one’s awareness of what is possible or by confrontation with the vastness of space and time, as brought on by reading science fiction.^[1]:179

Jon Radoff has characterised a sense of wonder as an emotional reaction to the reader suddenly confronting, understanding, or seeing a concept new in the context of new information.^[2]
In the introductory section of his essay 'On the Grotesque in Science Fiction', Istvan Csicsery-Ronay Jr., Professor of English, DePauw University, states:

The so-called sense of wonder has been considered one of the primary attributes of sf at least since the pulp era. The titles of the most popular sf magazines of that period—Astounding, Amazing, Wonder Stories, Thrilling, Startling, etc.—clearly indicate that the putative cognitive value of sf stories is more than counter-balanced by an affective power, to which, in fact, the scientific content is expected to submit.^[3]:71

John Clute and Peter Nicholls associate the experience with that of the "conceptual breakthrough" or "paradigm shift" (Clute & Nicholls 1993). In many cases, it is achieved through the recasting of previous narrative experiences in a larger context. It can be found in short scenes (e.g., in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, it can be found, in a small dose, inside the line "That's no moon; it's a space station.") and it can require entire novels to set up (as in the final line to Iain Banks's Feersum Endjinn.)

George Mann defines the term as “the sense of inspired awe that is aroused in a reader when the full implications of an event or action become realized, or when the immensity of a plot or idea first becomes known;”^:508 and he associates the term with the Golden Age of SF and the pulp magazines prevalent at the time. One of the major writers of the Golden Age, Isaac Asimov, agreed with this association: in 1967 commenting on the changes occurring in SF he wrote,

And because today’s real life so resembles day-before-yesterday’s fantasy, the old-time fans are restless. Deep within, whether they admit it or not, is a feeling of disappointment and even outrage that the outer world has invaded their private domain. They feel the loss of a “sense of wonder” because what was once truly confined to “wonder” has now become prosaic and mundane.^[4]:ix

Sense of wonder as numinosity

Numinous is defined in this encyclopedia as that which arouses "spiritual or religious emotion" or is "mysterious or awe-inspiring".

Sense of wonder as a concept especially connected with science fiction

George Mann suggests that this ‘sense of wonder’ is associated only with science fiction as distinct from science fantasy, stating:

It is this insistence on fundamental realism that has caused Verne’s novels to be retrospectively seen as of key importance in the development of SF. …—people in droves came to the books looking for adventure and got it, but with an edge of scientific inquiry that left them with a new, very different sense of wonder. The magic of the realms of fantasy had been superseded by the fascination of speculation rooted in reality.^[5]:10

However, the editor and critic David Hartwell sees SF’s ‘sense of wonder’ in more general terms, as ”being at the root of the excitement of science fiction.” He continues:

Any child who has looked up at the stars at night and thought about how far away they are, how there is no end or outer edge to this place, this universe—any child who has felt the thrill of fear and excitement at such thoughts stands a very good chance of becoming a science fiction reader.

To say that science fiction is in essence a religious literature is an overstatement, but one that contains truth. SF is a uniquely modern incarnation of an ancient tradition: the tale of wonder. Tales of miracles, tales of great powers and consequences beyond the experience of people in your neighborhood, tales of the gods who inhabit other worlds and sometimes descend to visit ours, tales of humans traveling to the abode of the gods, tales of the uncanny: all exist now as science fiction.

Science fiction’s appeal lies in combination of the rational, the believable, with the miraculous. It is an appeal to the sense of wonder.^[6]:42

Academic criticism of science fiction literature (Robu 1988) identifies the idea of the sublime described by Edmund Burke and Immanuel Kant—infinity, immensity, "delightful horror"—as a key to understanding the concept of "sense of wonder" in science fiction. For example, Professor of English at the University of Iowa, Brooks Landon says:

Reference to this “sense of wonder,” a term appropriated and popularized by Damon Knight, appear over and over in twentieth-century discussions of SF and may at least in part reflect SF’s debt to its Gothic and Romantic forerunners.^[7]:18

Edward James quotes from Aldiss and Wingrove’s history of science fiction in support of the above suggestion as to the origin of the ‘sense of wonder’ in SF, as follows:

In the Gothic mode, emphasis was placed on the distant and unearthly … Brooding landscapes, isolated castles, dismal old towns, and mysterious figures … carry us into an entranced world from which horrid revelations start …. Terror, mystery and that delightful horror which Burke connected with the sublime … may be discovered … in science fiction to this day.^[8]:103

Paul K. Alkon in his book Science Fiction before 1900. Imagination Discovers Technology makes a similar point:

The affinities of science fiction and Gothic literature also reveal a common quest for those varieties of pleasing terror induced by awe-inspiring events or settings that Edmund Burke and other eighteenth-century critics call the sublime. A looming problem for writers in the nineteenth century was how to achieve sublimity without recourse to the supernatural. ... The supernatural marvels that had been a staple of epic and lesser forms from Homeric times would no longer do as the best sources of sublimity. ... writers sought new forms that could better accommodate the impact of science.^[9]:2

Alkon concludes that "science fiction ever since [the 19th century] has been concerned as often to elicit strong emotional responses as to maintain a rational basis for its plots. Far from being mutually exclusive, the two aims can reinforce each other ...",^[9]:3

Edward James, in a section of his book entitled ‘The Sense of Wonder’ says on this point of the origin of the 'sense of wonder' in SF:

That the concept of the Sublime, a major aesthetic criterion of the Romantic era, has a close connection with the pleasures derived from reading sf has long been recognized by readers and critics, even if that word has seldom been used. The phrase that has been used, and which to a large extent corresponds, is ‘Sense of Wonder’ (sometimes jocularly or cynically abbreviated to ‘sensawunda’). The very first collection of sf criticism was Damon Knight’s In Search of Wonder (1956).^[10]:105

James goes on to explore the same point as made by David Hartwell in his book Age of Wonders (and quoted above) as regards the relationship of the ‘sense of wonder’ in SF to religion or the religious experience. He states that,

… in doing so, it [science fiction] can create a rival sense of wonder, which acts almost as a replacement religion: a religion for those deprived of all traditional certainties in the wake of Darwin, Einstein, Plank, Godel, and Heisenberg.^[10]:106

As an example James takes the short story ‘The Nine Billion Names of God’ by Arthur C. Clarke. He explains:

A computer is installed by Western technicians in a Tibetan lamasery; its task is in to speed up the compilation of all the possible names of God. This, the monks believe, is what the human race was created for, and on its completion the earth, and perhaps all creation, will come to an end. The technicians do their job, with some condescension, and flee back to civilization.

‘Wonder if the computer’s finished its run. It was due about now.’
Chuck didn’t reply, so George swung round in his saddle. He could just see Chuck’s face, a white oval toward the sky.
‘Look,’ whispered Chuck, and George lifted his eyes to heaven. (There is always a last time for everything.)
Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.

… what this reader (at the age of 13 or 14) learned from the story was the unimaginable size of the universe and the implausibility of some of the traditional human images of God. An almost religious sense of awe (or wonder) was created in me, as I tried to perceive the immensity of the universe, and contemplate the possibility of the non-existence of God.^{[10]:106–107}

It is appropriate that Edward James chooses a story by Arthur C. Clarke to make the point. One critic is of the opinion that Clarke "has dedicated his career to evoking a "sense of wonder" at the sublime spaces of the universe ..."^[11]:5 Editor and SF researcher Mike Ashley agrees:

If there is one writer whose work epitomizes that sense of wonder, it is without doubt, Arthur C. Clarke. It's almost impossible to read any of his stories or novels without experiencing that trigger-moment when the mind expands to take in an awe-inspiring concept. ... It's there in his novel's Childhood's End, The City and the Stars, Rendezvous with Rama and his short stories "The Star", "Jupiter V" and "The Nine Billion Names of God"—possibly the definitive "sense of wonder" story.^[12]:1

Kathryn Cramer in her essay ‘On Science and Science Fiction’ also explores the relationship of SF’s ‘sense of wonder’ to religion, stating that “the primacy of the sense of wonder in science fiction poses a direct challenge to religion: Does the wonder of science and the natural world as experienced through science fiction replace religious awe?” ^{[13] :28}

However, as Brooks Landon shows, not all 'sense of wonder' needs to be so closely related to the classical sense of the Sublime. Commenting on the story 'Twilight' by John W. Campbell he says:

... Campbell stresses how long seven million years is in human terms but notes that this time span is nothing in the life of the sun, whose "two thousand thousand thousand" risings ... As Campbell well knew, one sure path to a sense of wonder was big numbers."^[7]:26–27

Perhaps the single most famous example of "sensawunda" in all of science fiction involves a neologism, from the work of A. E. van Vogt (Moskowitz 1974):

The word "sevagram" appears only once in the series, as the very last word of ‘The Weapon Makers’; in its placing, which seems to open universes to the reader's gaze, and in its resonant mysteriousness, for its precise meaning is unclear, this use of "sevagram" may well stand as the best working demonstration in the whole genre sf of how to impart a sense of wonder.^[14]:1269

Despite the attempts above to define and illustrate the 'sense of wonder' in SF, Csicsery-Ronay Jr. argues that "unlike most of the other qualities regularly associated with the genre, the sense of wonder resists critical commentary."^[3]:71 The reason he suggests is that,

A "literature of ideas," as sf is often said to be, invites discussion of ideas; but the sense of wonder seems doubly to resist intellectual investigation. As a "sense," it is clearly not about ideas and indeed seems in opposition to them; wonder even more so, with its implications of awe that short-circuits analytic thought.^[3]:71

Nevertheless, despite this "resistance to critical commentary," the 'sense of wonder' has "a well-established pedigree in art, separated into two related categories of response: the expansive sublime and the intensive grotesque."^[3]:71 Csicsery-Ronay Jr. explains the difference between these two categories as follows::

The sublime is a response to an imaginative shock, the complex recoil and recuperation of consciousness coping with objects too great to be encompassed. The grotesque, on the other hand, is a quality usually attributed to objects, the strange conflation of disparate elements not found in nature. This distinction is true to their difference. The sublime expands consciousness inward as it encompasses limits to its outward expansion of apprehension; the grotesque is a projection of fascinated repulsion/attraction out into objects that consciousness cannot accommodate, because the object disturbs the sense of rational, natural categorization. In both cases, the reader/perceiver is shocked by a sudden estrangement from habitual perception, and in both cases the response is to suspend one's confidence in knowledge about the world, and to attempt to redefine the real in thought's relation to nature. Both are concerned with the states of mind that science and art have in common: acute responsiveness to the objects of the world, the testing (often involuntary) of the categories conventionally used to interpret the world, and the desire to articulate what consciousness finds inarticulable.^:71

Later in this same essay the author argues that "the sublime and the grotesque are in such close kinship that they are shadows of each other," and that "it is not always easy to distinguish the two, and the grotesque of one age easily becomes the sublime of another."^[3]:79 He gives as an example the android (T-1000) in the second 'Terminator' film Terminator 2: Judgment Day, saying that "the T-1000, like so many liminal figures in sf, is almost simultaneously sublime and grotesque. Its fascinating shape-shifting would be the object of sublime awe were it not for its sadistic violation of mundane flesh^[3]:76

There is no doubt that the term 'sense of wonder' is used and understood by readers of SF without the need of explanation or elaboration.^[15] For example, SF author and critic David Langford reviewing an SF novel in the New York Review of Science Fiction was able to write "I suppose it's all a frightfully mordant microcosm of human aspirations, but after so much primitive carnage, the expected multiversal sense-of-wonder jolt comes as a belated infodump rather than ..."^[16]:8

Jack Williamson in 1991 said that the New Wave did not last in science fiction because it "failed to move people. I'm not sure if this failure was due to its pessimistic themes or to people feeling the stuff was too pretentious. But it never really grabbed hold of people's imaginations".^[17]

Natural vs synthetic origin

Sharona Ben-Tov in her book The Artificial Paradise: Science Fiction and American Reality^[18] explores science-fiction's (SF) 'sense of wonder' from a feminist perspective. Her book is a "thought-provoking work of criticism that provides a new and interesting perspective on some basic elements in science fiction," including the 'sense of wonder'.^[19]:327 In his review of Ben-Tov’s work for the SF critical journal Extrapolation David Dalgleish, quoting from the text, points out that,

Ben-Tov asserts that SF's (in)famous "sense of wonder" is an attempt to evoke a sublime transcendence, achieved through Nature, and "Nature is an animate, feminine, and numinous being" (23). But in SF as Ben-Tov sees it, this natural transcendence is merely an illusion; in fact, the transcendent is only achieved through technology, achieved by alienating feminine Nature. SF has "appropriated the qualities of abundance and harmony from the romance's Earthly paradise, banishing the figure of feminine nature from the man-made, rationalized world ...(22) ... The SF ideology that Ben-Tov examines is rooted in the scientific revolution, in the changing view of nature—from living, feminine Mother, Nature becomes inert, dead matter. This twentieth-century ideology has, for Ben-Tov, disturbing implications, especially from a feminist standpoint. "Our society," writes Ben-Tov, "lost the basis for transcendent experience by losing the relationship with numinous nature"(23). Thus, SF's "sense of wonder" is a lie: "it reflects white American fantasies about nature, machines, and the `frontier' . . . . The American mythological apparatus must be comprehended thoroughly to be handled, or dismantled, effectively" (92–93).^[19]:327

Examples of the 'casual' use of the term 'sense of wonder' in science fiction criticism

• "Most science fiction writers wish to make their readers feel the thrill, the sense of wonder, that so marked SF's youth that the genre still claims it as a sort of trademark, even though it is scarcely to be found today." Tom Easton. Analog Science Fiction & Fact. New York: May 2000. Vol. 120, Iss.5; page. 134
• "The backstory. Two previous Mars expeditions have failed. ... An American crew perished further south, leaving an empty base ... and return vehicle, the Dulcinea. ... Now it's the turn of the international free-lancers ...The landing is successful, right on target and just a few minute' stroll from the Dulcinea. Sense of wonder oozes from the pages as the crew steps onto the Martian surface." Tom Easton. Analog Science Fiction & Fact. New York: Jan 2001. Vol. 121, Iss. 1; page. 135
• "I first read Thrust Into Space by Maxwell W. Hunter II 30 years ago when I was around 11 or 12. At a time when I was just discovering real science fiction, and first reading the works of Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke, this book evoked for me exactly the same " sense of wonder" as did the works of that great trinity." Jeffrey D Kooistra. Analog Science Fiction & Fact. New York: Jul/Aug 2002. Vol. 122, Iss. 7/8; page. 128
• "The story is also far less melodramatic than it might have been if published during the 1950s. Included are brief discussions of mathematical and other scientific problems that evoke a kind of old-fashioned sense of wonder about the universe without disrupting the flow of the story." Don D'Ammassa. Analog Science Fiction & Fact. New York: May 2009. Vol. 129, Iss. 5; page.101
• David E. Nye brings a keen eye to the history of technology in the United States. I used his American Technological Sublime in classes for years. I may well use his latest ... too. ... The thesis of the earlier book was—in extreme brief—that in America technological wonders—from railroads to the nuclear bomb—evoked the same emotional response as natural wonders such as the Grand Canyon. This response was the blend of awe and terror and wonder that had long been called "the sublime." There was, to me, a clear connection to the sfnal "sense of wonder" that helped explain why twentieth-century science fiction was predominantly American." Tom Easton. Analog Science Fiction & Fact. New York: Jun 2005. Vol. 125, Iss. 6; pg. 136
• "The sense of wonder that marks the SF sensibility is hard to teach and certainly cannot be dictated or overlain on a soul that lacks it. It must come from within, and when it does, all the wonders of the universe are within reach." Tom Easton. Analog Science Fiction & Fact. New York: Dec 1998. Vol. 118, Iss. 12; pg. 133
• "...if we take note of Kubrick's (and Clarke's) film 2001: A Space Odyssey, a powerful meditation on the relations of the sublime and the banal. To get into space we seem to have needed to suspend the imagination and sense of wonder that was a very important part of what made us want to get into space in the first place. Sober precise technicians were called for." Christopher Palmer. 'Big Dumb Objects in Science Fiction: Sublimity, Banality, and Modernity,' Extrapolation. Kent: Spring 2006.Vol. 47, Iss. 1; page. 103
• "He [ Stephen Baxter ] thinks it's critical for NASA and other space agencies to reestablish the sense of wonder by sending poets, philosophers, and science fiction writers into space, but he ..." Richard A. Lovett. Analog Science Fiction & Fact. New York: Apr 2006. Vol. 126, Iss. 4; page. 89
• "The best writers observe things. Sometimes these are details about the universe. Sometimes they are grand visions that instill the sense of wonder about which science fiction fans wax lyrical. Other times, the observations take the form of details about people or the lives we live: overlooked realities that ring true as they float across the page before us." Richard A Lovett. Analog Science Fiction & Fact. New York: Jan/Feb 2010. Vol. 130, Iss. 1/2; page. 56
• "It was that vision of exciting new technologies and the bright tomorrows they might create that gave us the "sense of wonder" veteran fans lament with such nostalgia. It made us the unhonored prophets of a new faith, lonely pioneers in a world of critical unbelievers bewildered by the term "science fiction. " Fellow fans were rare, and we found one another with feelings of instant kinship." Jack Williamson. 'Recollections of Analog,' Analog Science Fiction & Fact. New York: Jan 2000. Vol. 120, Iss. 1; page. 94