Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Studies Doubt Mars Water Theory

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the doubting-thomases dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Two groups of scientists have doubted the Mars rover scientists' theory that Mars was drenched with water for a significant time. If their dry Mars theories are supported, it is unlikely that life ever existed on Mars. The first group say that rock features that indicate water are actually caused by meteorite impacts. The second group argue that these features are caused by volcanic activity. Steve Squyres, the Mars rover lead scientist, is sticking by his original findings."

29 comments

  1. Time Warp... by mashade · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the....

    What's with articles showing up from earlier times?

    Remember that 14 some hour stretch without a post? The same thing happened.. the void got filled.

    --
    Technology tips and tricks.
  2. settle the debate? by rodentia · · Score: 2, Insightful


    If the robot can hold out long enough, it may gather enough data to settle the debate.

    More likely just enough to exacerbate it.

    --
    illegitimii non ingravare
  3. And the third group... by node+3 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Claims the rock features are the result of Intelligent Geology.

  4. Life on Mars by jgardn · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Sorry to rain on everyone's parades here, but to find any signs of life on Mars would really damage the current theory of how life got to be here.

    See, the chances of life spontaneously being created on a planet is so astronomically small as to be almost impossible. The universe is vast, and finding a handful of other planets in different galaxies that also bore life at one point in their histories would corroborate this. In fact, finding no planets with any signs of life corroborates it even better.

    However, if we find life on our next door neighbor, we have some explaining to do. How did life get there? Was it transplanted from earth? Or was earth life transplanted from Mars? If life can propogate across the void of space between earth and Mars, what's to stop it from propogating across solar systems and perhaps even galaxies in astronomical time scales? How old is life anyway, and where did it really come from?

    All of a sudden, earth won't seem so unique anymore. And we'll start wondering why SETI hasn't turned anything up yet.

    Now, if we found HUMAN life on Mars, that would really destroy all of the ongoing theories of the origins of life on earth. Either we are a spacefaring species and thus earth is not our home, or somehow, despite all odds, humanity has evolved on two separate planets that just happen to be right next to each other.

    I can't predict reliably one way or the other, but my guesses are that Mars is a dead as the moon. As with anything in science, it's the surprises that are interesting here.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    1. Re:Life on Mars by badfish99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the other hand, NASA scientists really need to promote the idea of finding life on Mars, no matter how unlikely it really is. Their projects cost vast amounts of money, and each time this starts to run short there is an announcement that they are about to find signs of life.

    2. Re:Life on Mars by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      However, if we find life on our next door neighbor, we have some explaining to do. How did life get there? Was it transplanted from earth? Or was earth life transplanted from Mars? If life can propogate across the void of space between earth and Mars, what's to stop it from propogating across solar systems and perhaps even galaxies in astronomical time scales? How old is life anyway, and where did it really come from?

      Well, the chances of Mars life reaching Earth, or of Earth life reaching Mars, are pretty good. The two planets are close together; chances are that sooner or later a rock is going to get knocked from one to the other with some spores on board. I would not be at all surprised to find that Mars life (if it exists) and Earth life share a common ancestry.

      However, the interstellar spread of life seems less likely to me. While it's quite likely that a rock from Earth might by chance find its way to Mars, it's very unlikely that it would ever escape the solar system entirely. The energy needed to leave the Sun behind is enormous, and the odds of a loose rock ever actually getting somewhere of interest are minute. If life spreads from star to star, it'll do so because it's evolved a form capable of building starships.

      Now, if we found HUMAN life on Mars, that would really destroy all of the ongoing theories of the origins of life on earth. Either we are a spacefaring species and thus earth is not our home, or somehow, despite all odds, humanity has evolved on two separate planets that just happen to be right next to each other.

      I don't think anyone sane is suggesting that that's likely to happen.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:Life on Mars by Tango42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If life can propogate across the void of space between earth and Mars, what's to stop it from propogating across solar systems and perhaps even galaxies in astronomical time scales?

      The nearest galaxy to ours is 25,000 ly away. Even assuming a speed of 1% of the speed of light, which is very fast, it would take 2.5 million years to get there. Considering 0.01c is over 1000 times faster than the escape velocity of the galaxy at the position of the sun, it's not a very realistic speed, so the actual time will be much larger. If random bits of life go off in random directions they're unlikely to meet anything any time soon, so it will probably take billions of years before something goes in the right direction and then billions of years for it to get there - astronomical time scales would be at most 10 billions years or so(the universe is less than 15 billion years old by the last estimate I read, and it takes some time for galaxies, stars, planets and finally life to form), so the chances are very very slim, although prehaps not impossible.

      Life transporting between stars is easy enough though. A meteor hits earth, a bit of rock flies off and ends up in either earth or solar orbit (probably wouldn't fly off fast enough to leave the solar system), the bit of rock then gets hit by a comet on a parabolic course from the oort cloud going in towards the sun and then out towards another star, the rock sticks to the comet, is carried to the other star where it crashes into a planet. Over the 4 billions years or so that life has existed on earth, that could easilly have happened.

    4. Re:Life on Mars by i8a4re · · Score: 1

      How about this, a few billion years ago, there is a planet that has large, vast oceans. This planet is where life begins. It's nothing more than bacteria. The life spreads throughout the ocean. Some floats on the surface, some in the mid-water, and some lives on the rocks at the bottom of the ocean. One day, an asteroid hits this planet. The asteroid completely destroys the planet sending debris in every direction. Since most of the planet was water, the water that didn't vaporize instantly is frozen almost instantly as it enters the cold of space. Now, the drops of water, many containing a few bacteria, are flying in every direction, many with enough velocity to escape the planet's sun.

      Now, we could be the next solar system over, we could be in the next galactic arm, or we could be in an entirely different galaxy. All it would take is for conditions to be right on Earth and for 1 single bacterium to land in a pool of water. Given this, why would it be so far fetched that life could have come from a different solar system or even galaxy?

      --

      If I drive fast enough at the red light, it'll appear green.
    5. Re:Life on Mars by panthro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry to rain on everyone's parades here, but to find any signs of life on Mars would really damage the current theory of how life got to be here.

      Why? The "current theory" is that life arose from complex molecules eventually forming reproducing organisms, evolving over time to the level of complexity we see today on Earth. How would the discovery that something similar happened on Mars damage that theory in the least? Besides, the invalidation of theories is a big part of scientific progress, so if anything, it's a good day for science when a theory is disproven.

      See, the chances of life spontaneously being created on a planet is so astronomically small as to be almost impossible.

      First, you can't just state facts like that without any hint that they are supported by evidence (to quote Sagan, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). Second, even if we are to accept this as truth, just how small are these chances, numerically? Third, it's entirely possible for two next door neighbours to both win the lottery in the same week.

      However, if we find life on our next door neighbor, we have some explaining to do.

      Sure we do. And if we don't find life there, we still have some explaining to do. That's the purpose of science: to explain.

      All of a sudden, earth won't seem so unique anymore. And we'll start wondering why SETI hasn't turned anything up yet.

      Sounds like a creationist fnord to me. Life on Earth only seems unique because so far it's the only example we have. To flipside a previous analogy, it's possible for an entire city to go a hundred years without any of its inhabitants winning the lottery.

      Now, if we found HUMAN life on Mars, that would really destroy all of the ongoing theories of the origins of life on earth.

      Back on topic. No one said anything about human life. In any case, I'd like to hear about this supposed plethora of ongoing theories of the origins of life are. Intelligent design is going out of style.

      --
      If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
    6. Re:Life on Mars by jgardn · · Score: 0

      Thirty years ago the idea of finding life ANYWHERE but here was equally preposterous. We thought our solar system was one in a billion because it had a rock large enough to sustain life around it. But we started studying the stars and guess what? The number of stars out there with planets that are roughly earth's mass and earth's distance from the sun is surprisingly large. Even binary stars have planets around them, which people thought was impossible!

      I'm just saying that even though nobody actually believes we will find any type of intelligent life on Mars, let alone HUMAN life, it is in the realm of possibilities (however infinitessimally small!)

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    7. Re:Life on Mars by jgardn · · Score: 0

      In the vast realm of possibilities that all agree with the current theories of evolution, these are some of the interesting ones I've heard of or thought of. These are all possibilities. Nobody can say what the likelihood of each are, except that they are all really, really improbable.

      (1) Life was generated on earth, evolved on earth, and stayed on earth. No interplanetary travel of life. To discover life on Mars would suggest that life tends to develop on most planets with earth-like mass and orbits. Thus, the earth is not unique, where are the intelligent aliens?

      (2) Life was not generated on earth, but somewhere else, and was transplanted to earth, where it further evolved. The mechanics of the actual transport can range from a stray meteor causing bacteria or fungus to be ejected into the upper atmosphere and beyond, to some intelligent species actually transplanting life intentionally or not.

      (3) Life was generated on earth, and from earth it spread. Again, the mechanics could be a stray meteor to the actions of intelligent life.

      Stretch your mind and think of the possibilities. Are we really alone in this cold, dark universe, or have other species evolved over time? Are we the most advanced that Homo Sapiens has ever been (IE, is Atlantis more than a myth?) Have there been other intelligent species before Homo Sapiens that could have been space-faring? With the understanding that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, there can be a whole lot going on around us that we are totally ignorant of.

      Now, common thinking is that earth is a unique thing, life started here and evolved here, and we 21st century animals are the pinnacle of our race and indeed any race that has ever lived on this planet. But why is this common thinking? If we discover evidence that even hints at any one of these assumptions being wrong, do we dare question common thinking? Any sane scientist would have to answer, "Yes!"

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    8. Re:Life on Mars by panthro · · Score: 1

      While there is nothing to positively discount any of the possibilities you mentioned, you cannot say that all of those theories have equal merit simply because none have been either proven or disproven. Occam's Razor is a good principle; we shouldn't waste time exploring anything more complicated than your first theory until we have evidence that necessitates making other assumptions (such as finding life forms similar to Earth's on Mars).

      This is not an indication of a closed mind, but rather a solid scientific principle that prevents pseudoscience, mysticism, self-serving bias and other nonsense from creeping into and tainting the study of our universe. Scientists have (or should have) no problem questioning "common thinking" as long as there is some factual basis for doing so.

      --
      If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
    9. Re:Life on Mars by jgardn · · Score: 0

      You missed my point entirely. I wasn't arguing the merits of the possibilities. I was merely pointing them out.

      Our sampling of the universe (we only have a good look at one planet in this universe, and very little information on 8 others) means that we don't know enough to say definitively any way. When we start to build up a larger sampling, with a good understanding of extra-solar planets, then we can start saying for sure where exactly life started and whether or not it is confined to our planet or solar system alone. Until then, we are ignorant on the subject, and anyone who supposes otherwise is trusting their guesses more than observation plus logic. On the origins of life, scientists say, "We don't know for sure, but here's our best guess that is subject to change pending more observation." At least the scientists that truly understand the body of evidence we have today.

      I find it interesting that you incorrectly use Occam's Razor as a way to reinforce the first notion. Occam's Razor says leave the irrelevant stuff out when explaining something. It doesn't say throw out the more complicated but different explanations. Often the simplest explanation is wrong. Newtonian Mechanics and even Quantum Mechanics is not the complete story of particle motion. Hence the excitement over string theory. Occam's Razor, if it is what you think it is, would state that the classical physics model (pre-Newton: IE, things move, but then they tend to stop after a while) was more correct because it was simpler to explain than Newton's three laws.

      While I agree with you that scientists should not have a problem questioning common thinking, unfortunately, history demonstrates otherwise. Even in our enlightened times, people would rather stick with prevailing theories than examine alternate explanations in the face of new evidence. It's almost the same as it was back in Galileo's day, except we are much better at not killing each other based on our beliefs.

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    10. Re:Life on Mars by panthro · · Score: 1

      I didn't use Occam's Razor incorrectly. My logic would not have you throw out quantum mechanics and relativity in favor of Newtonian physics or something even more primitive, because there is extant factual evidence that requires you to formulate something more complex. I didn't say to always use the simplest explanation, I said to always use the simplest explanation that fits all of the facts, or in other words, formulate the simplest and most elegant theory that could produce the entire corpus of observations we have. Anything else is a waste of time, pointless at best, dangerous at worst.

      You keep saying that we should start exploring alternative theories "in the face of new evidence," but where is this evidence? Agreed, in the past and present many scientists have and do not want to let go of obsolete theories, and granted, probably most of our current theories are incomplete pictures of reality, but that's no justification for jumping the gun and prematurely speculating on new theories when there is no evidence to require them.

      Scientists have relegated relativity and quantum mechanics to the ranges of conditions in which they work, and begun working on string theory and other theories to attempt to fit the entire body of facts. What it sounds like you are suggesting is equivalent to starting a new theory based on the assumption that a complete string theory will probably be invalidated by new evidence at some point in the future, and directing the new theory based on pure speculation about what that new evidence might be (with some romantic bias, no doubt). What if we really do have the whole picture? And even if we don't, what chance is there that you've gone in the right direction without factual guidance?

      --
      If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
    11. Re:Life on Mars by jgardn · · Score: 0

      You seem to misunderstand Occam's Razor completely. If two alternate theories fit the facts observed, then they are both equally valid, regardless of which one is more complicated. If someone were to discover an alternate theory that is different from QM or NM and that theory fits with observed phenonema equally well, then it would be just as valid as today's theories on mechanics. Occam's Razor says nothing about which theory is more correct or less correct. It only says to cut the fat from your theories and reduce it down to the bar minimum.

      BTW, string theory doesn't fit the facts as well as other theories. It is pure speculation and an exercise in mathematics. Yes, the 10 dimensional thing is interesting, but it doesn't explain very much and it is incorrect on several fundamental points. You should know that at any one time in the physics world there are several GUT (Grand Unification Theories) being passed around. Each of them are equally valid until evidence supporting one and discrediting another are found. So, yes, there are several competing theories, each of them different. Note also that Newtonian Mechanics doesn't even explain all phenonema observed in the macro world; and in QM, we know for a fact that there is behavior observed that outright contradicts it. However, it is the best we got, and until someone finds something equally good or better, it's what we're using.

      IF water is found on Mars, and IF chemicals that we attribute to biological processes are discovered on Mars, then it is very likely that there was life on Mars, or is life now. Since we can't say one way or the other, we should be looking at both and pretending in one instance that there is no life, and in another that there is. This isn't jumping the gun. Jumping the gun is saying "There is no life on Mars" when we can't tell for sure one way or the other. This is just like physicists saying, "If we find gravity waves, then..." or "If we can observe the Higgs Boson, then..." and then going so far as to teach the theories and explanations in class. Of course, physicists are much more careful in stating facts than biologists and archeaologists. "Yes, running this high-energy experiment could create miniature black holes according to some theories that are somewhat valid. And yes, according to some theories that are somewhat valid this black hole could accumulate mass and destroy the earth. However, there are other theories that say a small black hole would evaporate or that black holes don't even exist and cannot be created."

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
  5. Lack of observations colors the estimation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    See, the chances of life spontaneously being created on a planet is so astronomically small as to be almost impossible.

    Don't confuse cause and effect, or observation and theory. They're not independent. Almost everything we say about the likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe is tainted by our lack of any indications of other life so far.

    An allegedly objective estimative equation like Drake's would look very different if we actually found evidence for life, anywhere. Currently it is strongly influenced by the fact that we haven't, despite people's desire to be objective on the matter.

  6. You are nuts by MarkusQ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    See, the chances of life spontaneously being created on a planet is so astronomically small as to be almost impossible.

    That's nuts. The chances of life arising spontaneously (note: not "being created") are quite high. The individual steps are reproducible in the lab, and the overall process is quite simple. Given a heterogeneous goop capable of forming complex molecules (e.g. water with a normal assortment of space stuff), a flow of energy (source and sink) and enough time, life is pretty much inevitable.

    -- MarkusQ

  7. Going anyways! by Ashley+Bowers · · Score: 0

    We are going to put a man and a woman on mars anyways regardless of possible signs of life, water, air, etc. When we get there we will have enough supplies to self survive the United States will probably start sending building materials there in the next few years.But then you know they will want to start going to another planet and need billions more to do that. A never ending cycle if you ask me because once we go to every planet Solar system we will want to go to another Solar System and another Glaxy and another ? :-)

  8. cold of space??? by Mahou · · Score: 2, Insightful

    cold is a relative term for when matter has lower kinetic energy than you do (or something you're referring to does). what do you mean when you say the cold of space?

    p.s. this is an actual question, not a troll

    --
    if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
    ...te?
    1. Re:cold of space??? by i8a4re · · Score: 1

      I was implying that the water would enter space and turn to ice. This could make a very good vehicle for transporting bacteria across the galaxy as they would be in or near suspended animation.

      --

      If I drive fast enough at the red light, it'll appear green.
    2. Re:cold of space??? by Mahou · · Score: 1

      but why should it lose it's heat? isn't epmty space a good insulator, like in thermos containers?

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
    3. Re:cold of space??? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      but why should it lose it's heat? isn't epmty space a good insulator, like in thermos containers?

      heat can be lost through radiation and convection. in space, you will not lose heat to convection but you will still lose heat through radiation. note how a Thermos (TM) has shiny sides in addition to the vacuum.

      strike

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    4. Re:cold of space??? by SPY_jmr1 · · Score: 1

      It is the pressure, or the lack of it, more specifically.

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles's_Law for more info.

      Roughly, when you take a liquid from a environment that is under pressure, and transfer it to a vacuum, it gets really really cold, and kerblamo, instant solid form.

  9. Mars debate oddly constrained by strangedays · · Score: 3, Interesting
    A couple of observation related to this running mars debate that bother me.
    1. I have never seen NASA publications publicly reference the excellent work and results produced by ESA. I follow this discussion with considerable curiosity and have noticed this for a while now. NASA sources and publications seem to debate the topics as if other scientific sources of information were unavailable? This article subtly discusses the debate as if the theories had to be based solely on Mars Rover data, which is bogus. Take a look at the excellent info published openly here: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/index.htm l
    2. The whole debate about standing surface water seems slightly off focus. ESA has lots of evidence now for subsurface water and even standing surface water ice. Lots of life on earth exists in the soil and subsurface, where life can survive hostile surface changes, which is true even on Earth. So thats where we should look... duh. Free standing but transient lakes of meltwater, seem like poor venues for life, given the mars atmosphere and general geological data. IANA Geologist or xenobiologist, but who needs to be, to see that one coming? The NASA spin doctors know that the Mars rovers run around on the surface, so thats where they think the scientific debate must be?

    <Swift Wild Ass Speculation>

    Nasa Mars articles are subtly and covertly constrained by NASA media censors because of the political and funding sensitivites ?

    </SWAS>
    If so, thats really bad, and should be stopped.

    If they are not constrained, then the scientists themselves give the perception of ignoring ESA data or references, which I find impossible to believe.

    Are my observations at fault? Is there a pragmatic and reasonable explanation why this debate seems so oddly limited in scope and reference to ESA etc?

    --
    There is no god; get over it already! Never exchange a walk on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage.
  10. ooh interesting by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1
    I'm ignorant on this development - last I knew we could get kind of close to life (bio sludge sort of stuff), but weren't able to reproduce the conditions to create it.

    Could you post links for studies or whatnot that lends credence to your statements? I haven't seen anything like it yet.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:ooh interesting by MarkusQ · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's kind of old (and oft duplicated) news that you can make the basic building blocks by just stewing goo; likewise, the fact that once you have "life" of some form it will evolve quite rapidly (if it breeds rapidly) is a pretty standard classroom demonstration.

      The only part that is really recent is that replication itself starts easily from the goo. The only "trick" seems to be cycling the reagents in & out (think a tidal pool) and using lots of little samples (again, think a tidal pool) rather than one big one. A quick google turns up lots of examples which (if you piece them together) cover the whole gamut. A small sampling:

      --MarkusQ

  11. danke by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the explanation, this is news to me. Will look into it this week when I have the time.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  12. Only one way to find out for sure... by realilskater · · Score: 1

    Go there. The score wont be settled until we actually get scientists there. Even though the rovers have a nice suite of intruments it seems as though the data they collect is never definate. The concensus on if there is water or not has flip flopped so many times since the rovers landed I've lost count. So, it appears that we will just have to wait until there are some people there to say for sure.