Life in other worlds, almost a confirmed reality?

[Chiletrek]

Hello:
Some days ago I've read how the Cassinni probe confirmed the presence of organic molecules in Enceladus' deep oceans thanks to the geysers. And now, for what I've seen around, in an interview with one of NASA's chief scientists, he said and quote "We're close to finding and announcing alien life on Mars... but is the world ready?"

But what did he mean by that? Because a study revealed humanity is way more optimistic about the news than otherwise ( https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02308/full ). Or is about the possibility of not finding anything in the next couple of years after the arrival of 2+ new probes?

 

[dvatreknerd314]

"We're close to finding and announcing alien life on Mars... but is the world ready?"

What he means by that is he needs to be overdramatic for an interview. When most of us think about alien life, we think about intelligent alien life, not microbes, though the latter brings up the possibility of the former. I don't think there are very many people left who believe Earth is the only planet that could ever exist where life could evolve, so the idea of finding life from other planets really isn't all that far-fetched.

Now something else he could have meant, since the life forms found seem to be primarily micro-organisms, is this: "Is Earth ready to start swapping germs with everything else that might be out there?" To me, that's probably the more terrifying idea.

 

[Rifraf]

What he means by that is he needs to be overdramatic for an interview. When most of us think about alien life, we think about intelligent alien life, not microbes, though the latter brings up the possibility of the former. I don't think there are very many people left who believe Earth is the only planet that could ever exist where life could evolve, so the idea of finding life from other planets really isn't all that far-fetched.

Now something else he could have meant, since the life forms found seem to be primarily micro-organisms, is this: "Is Earth ready to start swapping germs with everything else that might be out there?" To me, that's probably the more terrifying idea.

I don't think it's meant to be over dramatic, but you're on the right track. However, there are also far deeper connotations as well. Some will see other life forms as just another resource to exploit. We are human after all. Or militarize germs and viruses to be used and abused. Some will be caught up in hysteria of us being taken over by aliens. And then there's the Bible. Are we going to throw it out the window? Some won't look too kindly at the implications it will have on religion.

 

[Hellkite]

​

 

[Chiletrek]

Hello:
This is one I like about MSFC, all of you are polite and all of you bring very valid points. As a matter of fact, I didn't even think about the use of bacteria like those likely to be in Enceladus, to make biological weapons.

 

[TUB_Husker]

Hey,
During my studies I visited Astrobiology with Dirk Schulze-Makuch. Here is a link to topics from these lecturers.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dirk_Schulze-Makuch

And Books of him:
https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/1441916466/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i1

https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B000PY4HKA/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i2

Astrobiology is cool, it is interdisciplinary, complex, includes nonlinear physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, biology and even imagination.
With basic knowledge in natural sciences the books are understandable. And the books aren't
a popular science scrap.

Hello:
Some days ago I've read how the Cassinni probe confirmed the presence of organic molecules in Enceladus' deep oceans thanks to the geysers. And now, for what I've seen around, in an interview with one of NASA's chief scientists, he said and quote "We're close to finding and announcing alien life on Mars... but is the world ready?"

But what did he mean by that? Because a study revealed humanity is way more optimistic about the news than otherwise ( https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02308/full ). Or is about the possibility of not finding anything in the next couple of years after the arrival of 2+ new probes?

Not overrated, CO2 is also an organic molecule, because of the C, all chemistry with carbon is organic. organic, non organic chemistryis is a historically grown defenition, like the defenition of life, or intelligence.

What he means by that is he needs to be overdramatic for an interview. When most of us think about alien life, we think about intelligent alien life, not microbes, though the latter brings up the possibility of the former.

That is the point.

I don't like the Drake Equation. The equation is a gamble with probability. But without knowledge of a probability density absolutely meaningless.


The important thing is, if we find life on Enceladus (microbes) or Europa, Titan, Mars,
all hostile to life (how you define life), than it's possible to find over all life.
I mean, then you have an argument that life is nothing excellent in the universe.

 

[Chiletrek]

Hello:
Awesome comment there! .

Speaking of statistics but with current data specially thanks to the Kepler Observatory. The ammount of planets that can have life is enormous. Considering only stars like the Sun (not even Red Dwarves who are far more plentiful and have Earth-like planets) which are around 10% of the galaxy's stars and that is confirmed that 25% of them have Earth-like planets (considering mass, size, distance to their star, orbital period ~ it's year). We are talking 5000000 of Earth like planets in stable Sun-like stars as a low estimate .

Links! -> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ab31ab and https://phys.org/news/2019-08-earth-like-planets-sun-like-stars.html

Buuuuut, it is unlikely we'll get there anytime soon (where are you Thor!), so I am kinda more excited about the findings n our Solar System .

 

[TUB_Husker]

Hey Chiletrek,
ok you say

Speaking of statistics but with current data specially thanks to the Kepler Observatory. The ammount of planets that can have life is enormous. Considering only stars like the Sun (not even Red Dwarves who are far more plentiful and have Earth-like planets) which are around 10% of the galaxy's stars and that is confirmed that 25% of them have Earth-like planets (considering mass, size, distance to their star, orbital period ~ it's year). We are talking 5000000 of Earth like planets in stable Sun-like stars as a low estimate .

The Problem with earthlike is, we have only one Reference (Earth) and our Sol System and we project this over the universe (overbearing). Life need water (it's only a defenition, a drawer), but what is with other better solvents, like alcolhol or H2O2. We search only for habitabel zones because of the water.

"The ammount of planets that can have life is enormous." that isn't a proof, if you find a earthlike planet. It gives indicators for life, like methan concentration or FCKW (intellegent life). I mean it gives no proof that life needs earthlike planets.
Ok with high probability you find around blue giant stars nothing, because of the radiation pressure, which blow all away. You need colder suns for planets.
But with other stars I can imagine that it gives life, if there is enough energy for chemical reactions and solvents. I mean with other stars also stars in the final stage, like white dwarfs or neutron stars.
On Earth is life very adaptable and this fact is ignored, because we search only after earthlike.

Too bad because you can't measure entropy otherwise you could prove life through the entropy flux of a planet.

 

[Chiletrek]

Hello:
Well, yeah, Earth is our only reference and it is the obvious type of planet that would be prime candidates, not only to find life but because humanity is always looking to invade... I mean, to colonize other worlds. If Venus, Mars, Enceladus and Europa prove to have life then those will become new references. The more you learn the wider your horizons become.

True, but first you have to locate the worlds first, so if those chances are high then it is hopeful. And the point of Yellow Stars like the Sun is because they are very stable stars. Even Red Dwarves (the most plentiful in the universe) are very dangerous specially in their radiation output.

As for chemicals, there were studies (sorry, no links because those I lost in my catastrophe here) that mentioned how chemestry is getting more complex as the universe gets older, so in 2000 million years, chemestry will allow for much more life than we can ever hope to find now.

Entropy, the ultimate adversary that nobody can defeat.

 

[obriensucks]

This morning I was reading about subglacial lakes and their feasibility for life. Specifically, Lake Vostok under the Antarctic ice sheet and how it possibly has a contained ecosystem; this of course is very exciting and bodes well for the possibility of life in similar subglacial lakes that have been detected in our solar system like Europa or Enceladus, or even Mars, as the Mars Express Orbiter detected one on the martian south pole two years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars#Subglacial_liquid_water

So aside from the Drake Equation and looking for signs of higher forms of life, it does seem likely that it is only a matter of time before we find microbial life very soon, especially with the Mars 2020 rover launching this week!

 

[TUB_Husker]

I hate the Drake Equation, it is only a simple equation which play a bit with statistic. The drake equation say nothing about how life start, what life really need e.c.. But I am sure we find life in our sun system, Mars (I am sceptic), but sure on Titan, Enceladus, Europa, hey Europa it could be funny if they find under the ice crust, lifeforms like octopuses or jellyfishs, more possible are micro organisms, they not need complex nutrients, hey they can eat sulfur or other things. More complex lifeforms need complex nutrients, because of that we need to eat other life, becaues only life can produce this complex nutrients and this can be only a result of a complex ecosystem. But how complex a ecosystem must be for "higher" lifeforms this question can't anwser the drake equation as a example. The equation makes no scientific predictions, gives no clues as to where and what to look for.

I think life is like an infection, if the conditions are right there is life and it is a question of the environment, if the entropy flow is high enough there is life. If the entropy flow is much higher, for example, a complex ecosystem results in a higher life form.

We don't understand life, we define it and the definition only reflects our picture of life.
The question is also whether if we discovered extraterrestrial life we would see a living organism or just a stone, crystal (silicon crystallized in contact with oxygen) as an example

 

[Chiletrek]

Hello:
Both of you bring very interesting points of view. Of course if life is a precious result of chemestry or just an infectious result of chemestry is a matter of subjectivity, combined with our ever-growing understanding of it, and a clear topic of hot debate when the higher institutions would finally release the confirmation of life in other worlds.

Enceladus is a very good candidate because part of the geyser contents have been analysed already and it shows to have the building blocks of organic life. Titan would be another good candidate since it's thick atmosphere is very much lkike Earth's original atmosphere.

The Drake Equation might not be the best, but we cannot forget that was one of the first attempts, so it still has it's merits... despite been so lacking because we now know much more than back then.

 

[TUB_Husker]

Also interessting with the drake equation is the Fermi paradox, why we not hear from aliens. And I think about it. And every time I ask me what is with the 1/r^2 law and with the divergence of waves.
I mean you must imagine how long a lightyear is or how huge the sun system really is, hey that is really huge. And now to my ask. If you want to contact via electromagnetic waves a person in 500km distance you need a relative big antenna and transmission power. Because the amplitude of a electromagnetic wave become quadratical lesser with a certain distance.. That means in the startpoint you have a transmission Power of P in 2m, you have P/4 in 3m, you have P/9 e.c.. And you have the problem that the waves diverge, that mean allways (also because of the Heisenberg uncertain principe) that the wave not exist really on one frequency, that the wave is a superposition of many waves with different frequencies and because of that, the waves at the different frequencies interfere, because they have a different phase speed, that means the amplitude from your signal become through that weaker and weaker and weaker and go under the background noise and under the detection limit. And now you must imagine how long a lightyear is and what you need for a transmission power. Because of that or Signals (Television, Radio) don't reach out of the sunsystem, not like it was shown in Contact (Jodie Foster Film). And because of that I thinkt the Seti Project is money wasting. The whole Transmission Power of the world is not enough to send messages light years away. And without subspace and warp aliens have sure the same problem, limit power.

 

[Chiletrek]

Hello:
Hmm... human curiosity is never ending and while you say is true but that doesn't mean other civilizations wouldn't have the required power to do such things... although as VERY inconvenient as EM communications are over vast distances, but other theories are far more disheartening.

Other theories postulate that the reason we have not seen alien civilizations is because they are dead. The universe is quite hostile despite the fact our galaxy is in a quiet corner of the universe. Still, Earth got some pretty close calls in the past: As one of the mass-extinction events was likely caused by a Gamma-Ray Burst. People like Stephen Hawking knew about that and that is why he insisted in the idea of we have to leave Earth and spread in no less than 200 years, to ensure long-term survival.

Let's hope other civilizations are out there, but comparing the size of the galaxy and the range of our telescopes? We have lots to explore

 

[TUB_Husker]

Maybe it's a matter of development and self destruction. Nuclear fusion is a difficult issue, but it seems to be working.
But perhaps many civilizations will destroy themselves (war, pollution, disease, insufficient genetic diversity, etc.) and will not reach the point of technology to generate nuclear fusion energy. I read that a civilization may only last 5,000 to 10,000 years. Maybe nuclear fusion is too late for us when I look at the world, perhaps we reached the 10k years. A lot of problems arise from our way of life. We destroy our own foundation of life. Maybe that's not human error (perhaps stupidity is natural important, oh god), maybe that's an essential point in life to destroy yourself (Hey, the Apocalypse is the unfulfilled dream of mankind). And humans are nothing special or excellent, so it could be that many aliens destroyed themselves before they had the technological opportunity to travel to the stars. Or perhaps the technology killes the aliens. Hey today, sometimes I think our live is not natural, ok this is a perspective view. But perhaps technology reach a point, that we can't survive, because all is to much, because we can't be humans, because the technology become more and more a prison. I don't know how I can expalin this in the moment in a acurat way.