Possible signs of possible ET Life.

[Gargamel]

Of course, we’ll have to wait for further analysis and interpretation of the paper, but hey, this is cool.  
 

Tantalising sign of possible life on faraway world https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66786611

[cubinator]

I'd be interested to hear about all the abiotic processes that can produce that molecule.

[Gargamel]

32 minutes ago, cubinator said:

I'd be interested to hear about all the abiotic processes that can produce that molecule.

From what I read, there isn’t any.  

[darthgently]

Very tantalizing, but the key phrase is "may have detected".  I'm remembering phosphine and Venus

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

1 hour ago, cubinator said:

I'd be interested to hear about all the abiotic processes that can produce that molecule.

From what I read, there isn’t any.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfide#Industrial_processes

Quote

In industry dimethyl sulfide is produced by treating hydrogen sulfide with excess methanol over an aluminium oxide catalyst:^[19]

2 CH₃OH + H₂S → (CH₃)₂S + 2 H₂O

 

Methanol, dihydrogen sulfide, alumina...

[Gargamel]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfide#Industrial_processes

 

Methanol, dihydrogen sulfide, alumina...

Those are biotic processes, as they require life to make the factories.  

Edited September 12 by Gargamel
Typo

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

@Gargamel  - that's cool!

 

Will definitely be something to watch for future updates. 

 

I am, however, reminded of this: (Venus)

After a team of scientists controversially announced that they had found phosphine gas in the clouds of Venus back in 2020, speculation about life in the clouds of Venus at temperate altitudes has run pretty rampant.

 

But the idea is not a new one; indeed, biophysicist Harold Morowitz and astronomer Carl Sagan proposed the idea over 50 years ago, back in 1967.

 

More recently, scientists have proposed that the chemistry could contain clues – and that life in the clouds of Venus may have developed sulfur-based metabolism, similar to what we have seen in microorganisms here on Earth. The signature of a compound of sulfur, sulfur dioxide (SO2), is very peculiar on Venus: abundant at lower altitudes, but really quite low at higher.

https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-we-can-detect-no-signs-of-sulfur-munching-life-on-venus

... 

 https://www.space.com/venus-sulfur-clouds-mystery-computer-model

 

Edited September 12 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Gargamel]

7 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

however, reminded of this: (Venus)

They do address this on the article, saying confirmation and further research is needed. 

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

Those are biotic processes, as they require life to make the factories.

Those compounds are the most common compounds in the universe, without any biolife.

Edited September 12 by kerbiloid

[Gargamel]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Those compounds are the most common compounds in the universe, without any biolife.

Just because certain compounds occur in nature, doesn’t mean they happen without life.     The article you linked even states that.
 

Can we come up with an answer that doesn’t necessarily mean life?   Sure.     The findings need proved out.   But let’s not go spinning words just  to have a say.  

[Kerbart]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfide#Industrial_processes

One can argue that a chemical plant sustaining an industrial chemical process using a reactor with a catalyst makes it a very likely indicator of not just  life, but technologically advanced life as well.

Not sure why there's so much nitpicking over an article that very clearly states the various caveats. It's also interesting to see that we can look for something else tah an atmosphere with a high O₂ content.

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

One can argue that a chemical plant sustaining an industrial chemical process using a reactor with a catalyst makes it a very likely indicator of not just  life, but technologically advanced life as well.

I'm fairly sure that the point was that the precursors existing without life could combine in some natural process without a chemical plant involved yet still achieve the dimethyl sulfide result, and so abiotically.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding one or both posts

[Kerbart]

3 hours ago, darthgently said:

I'm fairly sure that the point was that the precursors existing without life could combine in some natural process without a chemical plant involved yet still achieve the dimethyl sulfide result, and so abiotically.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding one or both posts

The article was pretty clear that DMS, to our knowledge, is not formed in a natural abiotic process. Scientists are not very eager to say it can't be done (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence — an approach that is scientifically correct but has caused irreparable harm to society), but the point of the discovery was that, unlike amino acids which can be created relatively easy under the right atmospheric conditions, no process is known that would synthesize DMS outside a biological or artificial setting. And simply listing the components and then suggesting "it will happen, DOH" is a bit simple and requires a better argument.

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Just because certain compounds occur in nature, doesn’t mean they happen without life.     The article you linked even states that.
 

Can we come up with an answer that doesn’t necessarily mean life?   Sure.     The findings need proved out.   But let’s not go spinning words just  to have a say.  

6 hours ago, Kerbart said:

One can argue that a chemical plant sustaining an industrial chemical process using a reactor with a catalyst makes it a very likely indicator of not just  life, but technologically advanced life as well.iron oxide decay

Methanol appears in space from CO₂ and H₂ or CO and H₂O.

H₂S is always there.

Al₂O₃, together with SiO₂ and Fe_nO_m, is what the whole space dust and rocky bodies consist of.

So, when a (protoplanetary) cloud, containing methanol, H₂S, and space dust, has proper temperature and pressure (i.e. the process is running at the required distance from the star, where the equilibrium conditions match this reaction requirement), the reaction will be inevitably running at the surface of the dust particles (containing Al₂O₃ and having enormous total surface area), and this compound just doesn't have chances to not appear.

6 hours ago, Kerbart said:

an atmosphere with a high O₂ content

Will exist at the Earth at the very end, due to the iron oxide decay and the water UV ionization.

Will mean the end of life, not existence. Proper air is made of nitrogen with oxygen admixture.

2 hours ago, Kerbart said:

The article was pretty clear that DMS, to our knowledge, is not formed in a natural abiotic process

On the Earth, because we don't have methanol lakes with alumina coasts under H₂S atmosphere.

The chemical reactor is not a magic cauldron, it just keeps proper physical conditions and required components.

What runs in the reactor, can run everywhere in space, where conditions match.

 

2 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Scientists are not very eager to say it can't be done

Scientists wrote the simple reacton in the wiki.

Other scientists need hype for money.

[sh1pman]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Other scientists need hype for money.

Or they just do their job. You know, researching stuff and making theories.

[darthgently]

10 hours ago, Kerbart said:

The article was pretty clear that DMS, to our knowledge, is not formed in a natural abiotic process. Scientists are not very eager to say it can't be done (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence — an approach that is scientifically correct but has caused irreparable harm to society), but the point of the discovery was that, unlike amino acids which can be created relatively easy under the right atmospheric conditions, no process is known that would synthesize DMS outside a biological or artificial setting. And simply listing the components and then suggesting "it will happen, DOH" is a bit simple and requires a better argument.

No one said, "it will happen, DOH".   Only argument I'm making is we don't know.  Is there a problem with that?

Edited September 13 by darthgently

[Kerbart]

11 hours ago, darthgently said:

No one said, "it will happen, DOH".   Only argument I'm making is we don't know.  Is there a problem with that?

Yes, because you're suggesting that NASA went out on a whim, didn't study any chemistry and decided blindly on looking for DMS. They're better than that. The "we don't know" does not, as you allude with an air of superiority, have a basis of ignorance to it, but rather "no one has figured it out despite trying."

When betting on scientists picking DMS as possible indicator for signs of life ("maybe we should look harder at this planet") and some random dude online, I know where I put my money.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

14 hours ago, sh1pman said:

Or they just do their job. You know, researching stuff and making theories.

Then there's the guy who recently admitted suppressing data / conclusions just to be sure he got published in Nature. 

Lots of different types in the industry 

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

Yes, because you're suggesting that NASA went out on a whim, didn't study any chemistry and decided blindly on looking for DMS

Um, no.  Did not suggest that.  The vitriol, odd interpretation of my words, quotations around things I never wrote, and mind-reading of my motives is perplexing, but not intriguing.  Maybe stop doing that

Edited September 14 by darthgently

[kerbiloid]

8 hours ago, Kerbart said:

you're suggesting that NASA went out on a whim

I can recall at least a dozen of NASA fake life sensations since I started reading this forum.

So, yes. Science is good, but hype is more gooder.

8 hours ago, Kerbart said:

didn't study any chemistry

Even its part written in wiki.

8 hours ago, Kerbart said:

The "we don't know" does not, as you allude with an air of superiority, have a basis of ignorance to it, but rather "no one has figured it out despite trying."

The person who brings a theory, brings its proofs. That's the very basics of science.

Occam's razor at our throat also makes first to try to explain the observed facts without bringing more entities.

8 hours ago, Kerbart said:

When betting on scientists picking DMS as possible indicator for signs of life ("maybe we should look harder at this planet")

There are hundreds of chemical compounds which can be produced by life.