Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-56f9d74cfd-rbfsf Total loading time: 0.505 Render date: 2022-06-28T06:38:10.104Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Predator-prey behaviour in self-replicating interstellar probes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2019

Duncan H. Forgan*
Affiliation:
Centre for Exoplanet Science, SUPA, School of Physics & Astronomy, University of St Andrews, St Andrews KY16 9SS, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Duncan H. Forgan, E-mail: dhf3@st-andrews.ac.uk

Abstract

The concept of a rapid spread of self-replicating interstellar probes (SRPs) throughout the Milky Way adds considerable strength to Fermi's Paradox. A single civilization creating a single SRP is sufficient for a fleet of SRPs to grow and explore the entire Galaxy on timescales much shorter than the age of the Earth – so why do we see no signs of such probes? One solution to this Paradox suggests that self-replicating probes eventually undergo replication errors and evolve into predator-prey populations, reducing the total number of probes and removing them from our view.

I apply Lotka-Volterra models of predator-prey competition to interstellar probes navigating a network of stars in the Galactic Habitable Zone to investigate this scenario. I find that depending on the local growth mode of both populations and the flow of predators/prey between stars, there are many stable solutions with relatively large numbers of prey probes inhabiting the Milky Way. The solutions can exhibit the classic oscillatory pattern of Lotka-Volterra systems, but this depends sensitively on the input parameters. Typically, local and global equilibria are established with prey sometimes outnumbering the predators. Accordingly, we find this solution to Fermi's Paradox does not reduce the probe population sufficiently to be viable.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Annis, J (1999) An astrophysical explanation for the “great silence”. Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 52, 19.Google Scholar
Balbi, A and Tombesi, F (2017) The habitability of the Milky Way during the active phase of its central supermassive black hole. Scientific Reports 7, 16626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergemann, M, Ruchti, GR, Serenelli, A, Feltzing, S, Alves-Brito, A, Asplund, M, Bensby, T, Gruiters, P, Heiter, U, Hourihane, A, Korn, A, Lind, K, Marino, A, Jofre, P, Nordlander, T, Ryde, N, Worley, CC, Gilmore, G, Randich, S, Ferguson, AMN, Jeffries, RD, Micela, G, Negueruela, I, Prusti, T, Rix, H-W, Vallenari, A, Alfaro, EJ, Allende Prieto, C, Bragaglia, A, Koposov, SE, Lanzafame, AC, Pancino, E, Recio-Blanco, A, Smiljanic, R, Walton, N, Costado, MT, Franciosini, E, Hill, V, Lardo, C, de Laverny, P, Magrini, L, Maiorca, E, Masseron, T, Morbidelli, L, Sacco, G, Kordopatis, G and Tautvaišienė, G (2014) The Gaia-ESO Survey: radial metallicity gradients and age-metallicity relation of stars in the Milky Way disk. Astronomy & Astrophysics 565, A89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brin, GD (1983) The great silence - the controversy concerning extraterrestrial intelligent life. QJRAS 24, 283.Google Scholar
Chyba, CF and Hand, KP (2005) ASTROBIOLOGY: The Study of the Living Universe. ARA&A 43, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ćirković, MM (2009) Fermi's paradox: the last challenge for copernicanism? Serbian Astronomical Journal 178, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, SG (2008) All Tomorrow's Cultures: Anthropological Engagements with the Future. New York City: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Cross, MC and Hohenberg, PC (1993) Pattern formation outside of equilibrium. Reviews of Modern Physics 65, 851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denning, K (2011) Ten thousand revolutions: conjectures about civilizations. Acta Astronautica 68, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forgan, DH (2017) The Galactic Club or Galactic Cliques? Exploring the limits of interstellar hegemony and the Zoo Hypothesis. International Journal of Astrobiology 16, 349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frachebourg, L, Krapivsky, PL and Ben-Naim, E (1996) Spatial organization in cyclic Lotka-Volterra systems. Physical Review E 54, 6186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freitas, RA (1983) The search for extraterrestrial artifacts (SETA). British Interplanetary Society 36, 501.Google Scholar
Gavina, MKA, Tahara, T, Tainaka, KI, Ito, H, Morita, S, Ichinose, G, Okabe, T, Togashi, T, Nagatani, T and Yoshimura, J (2018) Multi-species coexistence in Lotka-Volterra competitive systems with crowding effects. Scientific Reports 8, 1198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gowanlock, MG, Patton, DR and McConnell, SM (2011) A model of habitability within the Milky Way galaxy. Astrobiology 11, 855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haqq-Misra, J and Kopparapu, RK (2012) On the likelihood of non-terrestrial artifacts in the Solar System. Acta Astronautica 72, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lempert, W (2014) Decolonizing encounters of the third kind: alternative futuring in native science fiction film. Visual Anthropology Review 30, 164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macarthur, R and Levins, R (1967) The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. The American Naturalist 101, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, JF and Roughgarden, J (1991) Pattern and stability in predator-prey communities: How diffusion in spatially variable environments affects the Lotka-Volterra model. Theoretical Population Biology 40, 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, JD (2004) Mathematical Biology. Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics Vol. 17. New York, New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Nicholson, A and Forgan, D (2013) Slingshot dynamics for selfreplicating probes and the effect on exploration timescales. International Journal of Astrobiology 12, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, MA and May, RM (1992) Evolutionary games and spatial chaos. Nature 359, 826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohtsuki, H and Nowak, MA (2006) The replicator equation on graphs. Journal of Theoretical Biology 243, 86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ostlie, D and Carroll, B (1996) An Introduction to Modern Stellar Astrophysics. Cambridge University Press: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Palamara, GM, Zlatic, V, Scala, A and Caldarelli, G (2011) Population dynamics on complex food webs. Advances in Complex Systems 14, 635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papagiannis, MD (1978) Are we all alone, or could they be in the asteroid belt? QJRAS 19, 277.Google Scholar
Rozhnova, G and Nunes, A (2010) Population dynamics on random networks: simulations and analytical models. The European Physical Journal B 74, 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagan, C and Newman, WI (1983) The solipsist approach to extraterrestrial intelligence. QJRAS 24, 113.Google Scholar
Smale, S (1976) On the differential equations of species in competition. Journal of Mathematical Biology 3, 5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sotos, JG (2017) Biotechnology and the lifetime of technical civilizations. arXiv e-print 1709.01149.Google Scholar
Täuber, UC (2011) Stochastic population oscillations in spatial predator-prey models. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 319, 012019.Google Scholar
Tipler, FJ (1980) Extraterrestrial intelligent beings do not exist. QJRAS 21, 267.Google Scholar
Tomé, T and de Carvalho, KC (2007) Stable oscillations of a predator–prey probabilistic cellular automaton: a mean-field approach. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 40, 12901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turing, AM (1952) The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 237, 37.Google Scholar
Vukotic, B and Ćirković, MM (2007) On the timescale forcing in astrobiology. Serbian Astronomical Journal 175, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vukotic, B and Cirkovic, MM (2008) Neocatastrophism and the milky way astrobiological landscape. Serbian Astronomical Journal 176, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, KB (2011) The Fermi Paradox, Self-Replicating Probes, and the Interstellar Transportation Bandwidth. arXiv e-prints 1111.6131.Google Scholar
1
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Predator-prey behaviour in self-replicating interstellar probes
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Predator-prey behaviour in self-replicating interstellar probes
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Predator-prey behaviour in self-replicating interstellar probes
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *