Scientists find strongest evidence yet of life on an alien planet; Webb sees 3-sigma evidence for dimethyl sulfide

[NxNW]

Therefore, if God created life on other worlds, this life exists solely of lesser-than-human life forms. In the original plan of creation, we were supposed to subdue and have dominion over the entire universe, not just the earth. Earth is the capital of the cosmos. But sin and the curse changed the plan of history. The concept of life on other worlds fires the imagination.

This album title comes to mind.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So if scientists create dimethyl sulfide in a laboratory, have they created evidence of life?

If there are scientists on K2-18b, I would conclude there is life on that planet.

If a planet has a pocket of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and water vapor in it, does that mean that planet has life on it?

Perhaps you should read the linked article about gases that could be biomarkers on exoplanets.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you should read the linked article about gases that could be biomarkers on exoplanets.

I knew a remark like this was coming.

(Okay, I had a strong inkling it would come.)

Amazing how headlines rant about finding life elsewhere.

Until you question it.

Then it's:

Read the article.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The existence of life on other worlds is not evidence for evolution, but for creation.

O Really? How do you figure that? The bible makes no mention of life forms on worlds around the points of light in the night's sky (stars), nor says anything about life or creating life outside the Earth.

The chances that life evolved on earth are effectively zero; life on earth is evidence for creation.

Try close to P = 1. Life on Earth isn't evidence for creation either. If you'd like to make that claim find or start an appropriate thread and make an argument for your case. A bare assertion is meaningless.

Ditto for any other worlds. From my POV, the God of the Bible may have created life all over the universe, just not human-equivalent beings. Here's what creationists might expect that would be different from what evolutionists might expect: No life in early stages of evolution. For example, we would not expect to find a world with a few struggling microbes around hydrothermal vents. We would expect to find complete ecosystems. No human equivalent or superior aliens.

Based on what? The thread is about DMS detections. On Earth that is a product of microscopic life, but we certainly have more advanced life here.

There are too many biblical problems with human-equivalent aliens. Hebrews says that Christ died ONCE for sins. He did not go and die on other worlds for aliens' sins. The curse on nature due to the sin of Adam and Eve affected the entire universe, not just the earth or solar system.

The bible doesn't mention sinners on other planets, only humans.

That curse is why stars explode and why galaxies collide, for example.

Galaxies collide because the are attracted to each other by gravity. Stars explode because of various nuclear physics causes that are outside the scope of this thread. Curses are not needed.

What if the people of an alien world never sinned? What are they doing in a cursed universe of stellar and biological death, disease and disaster?

Therefore, if God created life on other worlds, this life exists solely of lesser-than-human life forms. In the original plan of creation, we were supposed to subdue and have dominion over the entire universe, not just the earth. Earth is the capital of the cosmos. But sin and the curse changed the plan of history. The concept of life on other worlds fires the imagination.

 

[sjastro]

The existence of life on other worlds is not evidence for evolution, but for creation. The chances that life evolved on earth are effectively zero; life on earth is evidence for creation. Ditto for any other worlds. From my POV, the God of the Bible may have created life all over the universe, just not human-equivalent beings. Here's what creationists might expect that would be different from what evolutionists might expect: No life in early stages of evolution. For example, we would not expect to find a world with a few struggling microbes around hydrothermal vents. We would expect to find complete ecosystems. No human equivalent or superior aliens. There are too many biblical problems with human-equivalent aliens. Hebrews says that Christ died ONCE for sins. He did not go and die on other worlds for aliens' sins. The curse on nature due to the sin of Adam and Eve affected the entire universe, not just the earth or solar system. That curse is why stars explode and why galaxies collide, for example. What if the people of an alien world never sinned? What are they doing in a cursed universe of stellar and biological death, disease and disaster?

Therefore, if God created life on other worlds, this life exists solely of lesser-than-human life forms. In the original plan of creation, we were supposed to subdue and have dominion over the entire universe, not just the earth. Earth is the capital of the cosmos. But sin and the curse changed the plan of history. The concept of life on other worlds fires the imagination.

My goodness when the Spanish began colonizing the Americas in the early 16th century they held similar ideas to your own, the indigenous peoples were "lesser-than-human life forms" because they had no souls.
It was a common justification for slavery and led to the issue of the Papal Bull Sublimis Deus in 1537 that the indigenous peoples had souls.
It was a futile attempt to eliminate the atrocities committed by the colonizers.

The question of intelligent extraterrestrial life forms is a subject that doesn't keep me up at night but if it does exist, it has a low bar to pass in terms of morality, ethics and intelligence given the recent election of one certain individual to the world's most powerful position.

 

[AV1611VET]

My goodness when the Spanish began colonizing the Americas in the early 16th century they held similar ideas to your own, the indigenous peoples were "lesser-than-human life forms" because they had no souls.

According to academia, they were half right, weren't they?

There's no evidence to suggest souls are real.

 

[SelfSim]

I've been thinking .. So let's imagine that the DMS observation improves to way better than 3 sigma and, (at a bigger stretch), let's say that new set of observations is agreed as being strong evidence consistent with the existence of microbial life, (perhaps an entire eco-system) on K2-18b. So many would still want their 'proof' of that.

Would it be possible to send a probe to the planet for a close-up look at this possible eco-system and to send the data back to Earth for verification purposes.

I don't think its currently technically possible to do that(?)

I have technical arguments lined up to support that view, but I'd be interested to hear the scientific thinkers' views here, on the feasibility of sending a probe ~124 ly distant, in order to verify it that way.
Scientific technical comments welcome .. all of 'em: (the good, the bad and the ugly).

This might have to be a new thread(?)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Would it be possible to send a probe to the planet for a close-up look at this possible eco-system and to send the data back to Earth for verification purposes.

Sure*, if you're willing to wait approximately 100,000 years for the answer.

*OK, a lot of things could go wrong in that time frame.

 

[SelfSim]

Sure*, if you're willing to wait approximately 100,000 years for the answer.

*OK, a lot of things could go wrong in that time frame.

Even if technology could be made to last for that period of time in space, carrying the energy required to get it there, is still the main issue I think.
However, if about 0.01c is the best speed currently achievable, (by say, using a solar sail), the probe still has to slow down when it gets there. So I wonder what the plan would be for doing that?

Fyi: I've duked some of this stuff out in the past, elsewhere. The target in that case, was the puny distance to Alpha Centauri (~4.4ly) and the question was about whether any useful 'affirming' data could be transmitted back to Earth over that distance once it got there. It looked feasible, but in this case of 124ly, I don't think even that would be(?)

All of this highlights the silliness of any demanding proofs by means of direct onsite observational data .. regardless of how long one would have to wait for it ..

At the same time, I find the notion of believing in science's models and test data, in this instance, to also be an unsatisfactory compromise for the sake of being able to assert the existence of mere microbial exo-life at a distance of 124 ly.

If neither of these two sides of the same argument are acceptable, then what's the purpose of looking at targets at distances of ~124ly in the first place?

 

[Hans Blaster]

(staff edit)

This (the OP) work is pushing the limits of what can be done. As such, it shows incremental difference and a marginal detection (3 sigma) with some ambiguity. (staff edit)

 

[SelfSim]

This (the OP) work is pushing the limits of what can be done. As such, it shows incremental difference and a marginal detection (3 sigma) with some ambiguity. (staff edit)

I agree.
I find myself teetering on the edge of the idea that its all about exo-life detection. If it really is, then I get a sense of sadness at the apparent loss of focus on the pursuit of realistic goal setting.
I find the pushing the technology limits as being far more rational.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I agree.
I find myself teetering on the edge of the idea that its all about exo-life detection. If it really is, then I get a sense of sadness at the apparent loss of focus on the pursuit of realistic goal setting.
I find the pushing the technology limits as being far more rational.

We have a second order possible detection going on here. The detection of DMS in the planet's atmosphere is on the edge (3 sigma), and while DMS in our atmosphere comes from microscopic life forms, we can't know for sure that it is the only way to get it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

(staff edit)

@SelfSim and @Hans Blaster ........ so let's say it's "true," however provisionally. What does it matter that a very, very distant planet about twice the size of our Earth may possibly have residual evidence for biomatter or life? What does that do for us here? And how are we going to verify it? Send a probe?

Really, until that "life" from another star system Contacts us, I'm tempted to be lulled into yawning..................

 

[SelfSim]

@SelfSim and @Hans Blaster ........ so let's say it's "true," however provisionally. What does it matter that a very, very distant planet about twice the size of our Earth may possibly have residual evidence for biomatter or life? What does that do for us here? And how are we going to verify it? Send a probe?

Really, until that "life" from another star system Contacts us, I'm tempted to be lulled into yawning..................

Which is the same position I posted in post #29 .. before you woke up with a yawn .. (looks like you still haven't woken up tho?)

 

[SelfSim]

We have a second order possible detection going on here. The detection of DMS in the planet's atmosphere is on the edge (3 sigma), and while DMS in our atmosphere comes from microscopic life forms, we can't know for sure that it is the only way to get it.

I reckon the (possible) detection of phosphine in Venus' atmosphere, (at a debatable 5 sigma level), is more relevant to this hunt for exo-life, than a 3 sigma DMS detection in a 124lyear-er!
(Yet it still isn't ..).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which is the same position I posted in post #29 .. before you woke up with a yawn .. (looks like you still haven't woken up tho?)

Alright, I'll go up and read your post #29 then. Sounds relevant.

 

[Hans Blaster]

@SelfSim and @Hans Blaster ........ so let's say it's "true," however provisionally. What does it matter that a very, very distant planet about twice the size of our Earth may possibly have residual evidence for biomatter or life? What does that do for us here? And how are we going to verify it? Send a probe?

Really, until that "life" from another star system Contacts us, I'm tempted to be lulled into yawning..................

In the K2 (2nd Kepler mission) group that have known planets and distances, K2-18 is one of the nearer stars at only 110 ly.

Even when we do send probes (and that ain't happening here) nearly everything we know is from remote sensing. It is the nature of astronomy.

As for looking for life... That is one of the prime missions of JWST to look for planets like ours and see how common they are.

 

[sjastro]

While it is not feasible to send a probe to K2-18, the technological improvements over the last sixty years provides optimism future technological advancements here on Earth and for nearby space telescopes will compensate for this.

I will use three test cases.
(1) The astronomer Martin Schmidt's discovery of the mysterious object 3C-273 in 1963 where the spectral lines for hydrogen were found to the extremely redshifted.
(2) sjastro (status rank amateur astronomer) spectrum of 3C-273 using very modest equipment outperformed the technology astronomers had in 1963.
(3) JWST spectrum of the galaxy GN-z11 which is 13.1 billion light years distant, by comparison 3C-273 is 2.4 billion light years.

Case (1).

These poor astronomers from the 1960s relied on a very noisy spectra and calculated the redshift with a comparison laboratory hydrogen spectrum.

Case (2)

​

The software converted the spectrum into an emission intensity vs wavelength graph and automatically found and identified the redshifted lines.
The difficulty was finding the object in the first place which was identified in the inset image as under its alternate name PGC 41121.
While Schmidt used the largest telescope at the time the 200 inch Hale telescope, the spectrum lines taken with a 10 inch telescope are far more identifiable as a CCD was used unlike the photographic emulsions of the time which suffered from reciprocity failure.

Case (3)
​

The extreme faintness of GN-z11 puts it way beyond the range anything Martin Schmidt or sjastro could with their respective equipment.

Finally some technological data for the three cases using AI to gather and analyse.

​

 

[SelfSim]

While it is not feasible to send a probe to K2-18, the technological improvements over the last sixty years provides optimism future technological advancements here on Earth and for nearby space telescopes will compensate for this.

I will use three test cases.
(1) The astronomer Martin Schmidt's discovery of the mysterious object 3C-273 in 1963 where the spectral lines for hydrogen were found to the extremely redshifted.
(2) sjastro (status rank amateur astronomer) spectrum of 3C-273 using very modest equipment outperformed the technology astronomers had in 1963.
(3) JWST spectrum of the galaxy GN-z11 which is 13.1 billion light years distant, by comparison 3C-273 is 2.4 billion light years.

Case (1).

View attachment 363893These poor astronomers from the 1960s relied on a very noisy spectra and calculated the redshift with a comparison laboratory hydrogen spectrum.

Case (2)

View attachment 363894
​

The software converted the spectrum into an emission intensity vs wavelength graph and automatically found and identified the redshifted lines.
The difficulty was finding the object in the first place which was identified in the inset image as under its alternate name PGC 41121.
While Schmidt used the largest telescope at the time the 200 inch Hale telescope, the spectrum lines taken with a 10 inch telescope are far more identifiable as a CCD was used unlike the photographic emulsions of the time which suffered from reciprocity failure.

Case (3)
​

View attachment 363895​

The extreme faintness of GN-z11 puts it way beyond the range anything Martin Schmidt or sjastro could with their respective equipment.

Finally some technological data for the three cases using AI to gather and analyse.

View attachment 363896​

​

Hmm .. Maybe .. in perhaps, very specific circumstances(?)

One thought is that I don't think I've ever seen an evaluation of the task complexity required to distinguish what we call 'life', from what we call 'non-life', in the case where remote sensing is the only option available. This is because we don't yet even have a testable definition for what 'life' is, with sufficient resolution to be able to even imagine that a remote test on some exo-object, relying on light sensing alone, can possibly produce a positive result .. (other than in the limited case of intelligent life ie: SETI stuff, of course).

I mean the jury is still out on whether or not the Viking biology tests would have ever been able to distinguish between microbial vs no microbial life on Mars .. but its probably the closest to remote life detection thus far deployed .. and that required multiple (Viking) probes with onboard biology labs/mass spectrometers etc .. not astro telescopes.

The Venus phosphine 'debate' is still ongoing as far as I know too .. only a couple of possibilities have been ruled out thus far .. and they're still debating whether it was phosphine or something else that occupies that spot it in the spectrum that resulted in the phosphine claim. The only answer there at the moment is: 'We need a Venus atmospheric probe to find out'.

So many of the testing design specs rely on the nature of the evidence presenting itself .. and we have no clear evidence presenting itself.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

 

[sjastro]

Hmm .. Maybe .. in perhaps, very specific circumstances(?)

One thought is that I don't think I've ever seen an evaluation of the task complexity required to distinguish what we call 'life', from what we call 'non-life', in the case where remote sensing is the only option available. This is because we don't yet even have a testable definition for what 'life' is, with sufficient resolution to be able to even imagine that a remote test on some exo-object, relying on light sensing alone, can possibly produce a positive result .. (other than in the limited case of intelligent life ie: SETI stuff, of course).

On the subject of exoplanets, the pop-sci press generally deviate from the scientific publications by focusing more on the sensationalist aspect of looking for life forms.
As this thread has revealed, the scientific objective is to have a confidence level the so called biosignatures are real and not some statistical anomaly.

The direction technology needs to take are straightforward to go from a three sigma to a five sigma level or reveal the anomaly.

A current limitation is the light reaching the spectrometers is polluted with starlight combined with light reflected from the exoplanets or passing through their atmospheres.

To alleviate this limitation is to build larger telescopes which are in the pipeline. Larger telescopes not only collect more light but are theoretically able to resolve stars into disks which appear as point sources in smaller telescopes. This allows starlight to be filtered out before it reaches the spectrometer.

The two methods being researched are using coronagraphs which are smaller telescopes built inside the earth or space based telescope.
The other is the use of starshades which are spacecraft placed thousand of kilometres in front of the telescope and use petal shaped obstructions designed to minimise diffraction and to create a deep shadow on the telescope optics.
Both methods will greatly increase the S/N ratio.