Webb finds molecule only made by living things in another world::undefined

  • Chriszz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    To me it’s not a matter of whether live exists anymore, but where it exists

      • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        55
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sigma is basically a representation of certainty that your result isn’t a statistical fluke. It comes from standard deviation in statistics but 1 sigma is 68% certain. 2 sigma is 95%. 3 sigma is 99.7%.

        By convention, astronomy uses 3 sigma for “significance,” meaning you almost definitely found something. Particle physics, since it’s usually done in controlled experiments, usually requires 5 sigma (99.99994%).

        It’s similar to margin of error in political polls.

        • Squizzy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why such different gaps in the metric? Nearly 30% difference between sigmas to less than 5% for the next one.

          • Womble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            it comes from the shape of the normal distribution (the bell curve) it goes down slowly at first then rapidly and then slowly creeping towards 0 but never getting there.

      • FrostyCaveman@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a number that statistically represents how strong the result is in the data basically. As far as I understand it, with astronomy the typical sigma value expected is 3

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Technically, this is astrochemistry, not astronomy. I don’t know what the expected sigma value there is.

          • Womble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Whats less than 0 sigma? I kid but only a little Astrochemistry is fantastically difficult, it involves large networks of reactions, many of which have multiple orders of magnitudes of uncertainty on their rates. Different groups can tey to model the same conditions and end up with over a factor of 1000 difference in the abundences of key tracer speices.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s why I’m positive but not excited yet. It’s a good sign. We need to see if detecting it can be replicated… although I’m not sure how to do that except with the Webb again.

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    1 year ago

    A chemical only produced by life on earth. But can it be produced by abiotic conditions on other planets? I’m not sure that has been ruled out at this point.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, this headline is bullshit. It’s indication of possible life, but it isn’t what the headline makes it sound. There’s always other possible methods, even if we aren’t aware of them yet. It’s interesting, but doesn’t confirm anything yet.

  • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    it picked up hints of a substance only made by living things — at least, that is, on Earth.

    What other process could theoretically produce it?

    • Dani551@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Given the vast differences in atmospheres (or the lack thereof) and their conditions, I wouldn’t be surprised if those were the culprits

    • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      if you have methanol, hydrogen sulfide and enough heat along with a specific rock, it will get formed. or probably methane, hydrogen sulfide and UV

      • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        there are many ways, and what i’m saying it’s likely a massive clickbait

        t. organic chemist, currently working with sulfur compounds

        • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I would also hesitate to automatically rule anything out. The Fermi paradox exists for a reason, and it makes logical sense that if life can appear in one place, it can (and will) do it again. In a universe as large as ours, it’s basically inevitable that we will eventually discover some form of alien life, even if it’s just single-celled organisms (assume we as a species survive long enough).

          I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in because whenever anything like this comes up, you get a rush of two kinds of people: “omg aliens!” and “omg look at all the idiots who thinks it’s aliens; everyone knows aliens aren’t real”. It frustrates me because the existence of alien life shouldn’t be controversial. If anything, imo, the idea that alien life doesn’t exist should be controversial (the Fermi paradox exists for a reason). Just because we haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It’s honestly scarier imo if it doesn’t exist due to the implications of it.

          — someone who woulda probably been an astrophysicist if they’d been given a chance earlier in life

          • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            i said nothing about aliens, all i say is that claim “dimethyl sulfide = definite sign of life” makes it a powerful clickbait, because there are processes that can provide it abiogenically from something similar to earth’s primordial soup

            your assumption seems overly optimistic

  • M500@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sadly they cannot be communicated with in a single human life time; assuming they are intelligent and possess the capability to respond.

    • Zron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even if Webb were to basically spot earth 2 5 light years away, I’d caution about getting excited for a radio chat.

      Remember that life has existed on earth for something like 3 billion years, but multicellular life has only been around for 500 million or so years, humans in various forms have been around for about a million years, and we’ve only had radio for about a hundred years.

      The vast majority of life that has ever existed on our planet has been single called organisms. Finding evidence of any life on another planet is huge news, but we should temper our expectations.

      It’s way, way more likely for alien planets to have oceans full of plankton analogues as the dominant life. Considering the rest of this planet’s atmosphere is composed mostly of hydrogen, even their plankton would be weird by our standards.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a planet 8x the mass of the earth with a heavy hydrogen atmosphere and is considered very hot, the water is in a super critical state. I think if we found anything it would just be bacterial life.

      My bet is on “previously unknown chemistry” creating the chemicals we found. It’s never aliens :(

  • Art35ian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Time for a new version of the Bible. The Adam and Eve thing is about to look pretty silly.

    • Dave@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just expand on the current one.

      God made humans, in his image, because God is a jealous God and wouldn’t want humans to be better looking than himself. He filled the world with animals for the humans to hug and eat. On the seventh day He rested.

      On the either day, he started on some new planets, then on the ninth day He populated them with more life so that humans might expand to fill the universe he created, and find the life he scattered around for the humans to hug and eat. On the tenth day, he created intelligent life on other planets, because he is all knowing and therefore knows humans won’t feel true camaraderie without attacking and wiping out other sentient life forms. On the eleventh day, He declared a public holiday, because He felt like resting but he already decided the Sabbath is every 7 days.

      The bible was written by a bunch of religious scholars, and assembled into a series of books. There’s no reason they can’t “discover” some more books.