[ExI] Fwd: A new answer to the Fermi paradox?

Sat Jul 18 23:41:21 UTC 2026

I got a message blocked error. Retrying..

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] A new answer to the Fermi paradox?
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>

On Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 2:30 PM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 18, 2026 at 10:33 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> *>> A super massive Black Hole like the one at the center of our galaxy
>>> will decay in about 10^100 years because of Hawking radiation, but there
>>> are theoretical reasons for believing that, given enough time, a proton is
>>> not stable and its half life is about 10^34 years, which is VASTLY less
>>> than 10^100. A proton will decay into a positron and a neutral pion, which
>>> itself will almost immediately decay into 2 gamma ray photons and a
>>> neutrino. *
>>>
>>
>> *> I don't think there's strong evidence for proton instability.*
>>
>
> *There isn't. There are theoretical reasons for thinking a proton is
> unstable, but if its half life is 10^34 years then it's not surprising that
> we don't have any experimental evidence of it. *
>

Some theories. 10^34 is the minimum length it could be given experimental
data.

> *>But should that be the case, we can use either smaller black holes,*
>>
>
> *Small star sized black holes decay sooner than supermassive Black Holes
> that you were talking about. *
>

You were talking about proton decay being less than BH evaporation tome. I
am saying use smaller holes that will evaporate before protons decay.l so
their energy can be used fully.

>
>
>> * > or perhaps future engineers will develop computers not based on atoms
>> as we know them.*
>>
>
> *So now we've gotten to the point where you need to invoke new physics in
> order to explain the Fermi Paradox!*
>

I am not postulating new physics, only new engineering.

Also note, it was you who injected the speculative physics here (the
assumption that protons are unstable). In any case, the lower bound of
proton instability is well below the hypothetical time for the universe to
reach its lowest temperature.

* I can explain it with nothing but existing Physics, we are simply the
> first in the observable universe, and as I keep saying, somebody has to be
> the first. *
>

I am not advocating for any position, I only thought it was worth sharing
this new possibility with the list. You seem motivated to disproving it for
some reason. That we are the first is another possibility.

*Also, you seem to think there is a way to turn the entire mass/energy of a
> star into work, and that would also require new physics.*
>

I am not sure about that. Hawking radiation turns 100% of mass into
radiation. Stephen Hawking spoke about using small holes as power plants.
The engineering problem is whether we can create small enough holes that
will operate on the time scales life can operate on the universe. If
protons are stable then we could exploit the hawking radiation of galactic
BHs for 10^100 years.

* Invoking new physics should always be the last resort not the first thing
> you jump to.*
>

I agree. But no one is doing that here.

* But even new physics can't provide a reason for not intercepting the
> energy of the sun right now and using that energy to perform a
> calculation. *
>

If there were a way to stop stars from fusing now, that would be preferable
to trying to exploit their solar radiation for computations today.

>
>> *>>We don't know if Dark Energy is constant so we don't know if the
>>> universe will ever reach these super low temperatures, and even if they do
>>> there is no reason for not doing some computations right now.*
>>>
>>
>> *> No one is saying we can't do some computations now.*
>>
>
> *Those who claim it is an explanation for the Fermi paradox are.  *
>

The is a large middle ground covered between 1. doing no computations at
all, and 2. building Dyson swarms around every star.

>
>> *> They're only saying: don't exhaust all energy sources now because it's
>> wasteful*
>>
>
> * Wasteful? The low entropy energy that is radiating into infinite space
> right now from our sun we are NEVER GOING TO GET BACK NO MATTER WHAT WE DO.*
>

Let me express these numbers in terms that humans are more adept at
comparing:

1¢ = all energy that will be lost to fusion of stars

$2.00 = all energy remaining in the rest mass of matter after the last
stars have burned out.

$200,000,000 = lower bound (10^8 multiplier) increase in computational
efficiency that we get by waiting to use energy when the universe is cooler.

$2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = upper bound (10^30 multiplier)
that we get waiting for the universe to cool completely based on our
currently understanding of physics.

You fret a great deal over this lost cent. But perhaps there are better
ways of spending energy resources now than building Dyson swarms. On earth,
there is the concept of ERoEI (energy returned on energy invested), so
while a wind turbine might return slightly more energy than it cost to
build it, of there were a higher ERoEI technology, it would not make sense
to invest finite energy resources on wind turbines.

The same may be true of Dyson swarms. If the ERoEI of Dyson swarms is much
less than say, fusion plants, or BH engines, or other exotic technologies
we have yet to conceive of, then it doesn't make sense for anyone to be
making Dyson swarms now, even if they have a net positive yield in terms of
their energy return on energy invested.

*  So how is intercepting a low entropy photon before it radiates away,
> make it power a calculation and turn into a high entropy photon, and only
> then release it into infinite space, wasteful?! *
>
> *> you dismiss the potential 10^30 X benefit of saving energy for the
>> future.*
>>
>
> *Please explain what exactly we are "saving" and how our descendants
> 10^100 years from now will be better off because of our present energy
> frugality, because I just don't get it.  *
>

>From our last conversation on this you seemed stuck on in the idea that we
can't go above 100% efficiency, and didn't seem to appreciate that
progressively colder temperatures enable progressively more computations
for the same unit of energy. Do you now agree that there is this
multiplicative effect that comes from using colder heat sinks?

Jason

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260718/e214e7d8/attachment.htm>