Slashdot Mirror
Molecular Basis for Life Found on Extrasolar Planet
DarkProphet writes "NASA scientists have discovered the first evidence of organic molecules on an extrasolar planet. Using the Hubble Space Telescope, they detected trace amounts of methane on a swirling gas giant about 63 light-years from our own planet. Being a gas giant, there's almost no chance this discovery represents extrasolar life. A unique find, just the same. 'HD 189733b, a so-called "hot Jupiter," located 63 light years away, has proven a boon for scientists studying exoplanets. Its large size and proximity to its star mean that it dims the star's light more than any other known exoplanet. Combine that with its home star's high brightness, and scientists find that the system creates the best viewing conditions of any known extrasolar system. At different wavelengths, every atom and molecule has its own telltale footprint, so scientists can convert what are known as absorption spectra into the chemical composition of the object they're looking at.'"
Someone was bound to find something eventually. If the universe is as big as we seem to think it is, it was bound to happen eventually. Who knows, maybe some of those religious guys might be right. Too bad it would simply be accidental ;)
just beam a high power radio signal that way and if your lucky in 124 years you might get a 'hello there' back.
Actually it would be pretty cool to establish contact with an alien civilization even if there is a 250 year lag. Just ask a question and your great-great-great-grandchildren might get an answer, "No we haven't developed hyperlightspeed propulsion yet either".
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I've heard many times of the extraordinary odds against life even existing in the universe. Yet, here we are and some still try to prove that it's impossible for themselves to exist. It's unfortunate that life is likely so prevalent in the universe but really really difficult to bridge the gap and make contact, even at the speed of light.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Wasn't it already posted on Slashdot a while ago?
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/12/1414257they found methane which is quite common in our solar system, its not that they found methane being present thats is the breakthrough here, its the fact that they have fine enough instruments to measure a planet ~60 light years away, this absolutely amazing! fairplay!!
the planet in question is bigger than Jupiter and closer to its sun than mercury, so its way too hot for any life "as we know it" to survive
We just went over this exact occurrence just a month ago. Go ahead with the flatulence jokes all the same though, it would be a break of tradition if you didn't.
I got a catholic block.
Here's a quote from one of the workers:
HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
The ability to resolve the spectral lines is a great advance. The hype is getting old. We know that small "organic" molecules are not hard to come by; we expect to find them everywhere we look, yet the press goes ape whenever we find them. Worse, since we have no idea what "life" is, it seems a bit odd to go crazy over molecules that are somewhat related to our kind of "life".
Well, it's cool that we can find proof of any kind of molecules on extrasolar planets, but I'm still waiting for the discovery of O2 on an extra solar planet, that will be the discovery of the century. Methane is not so cool.
I bet the Slylandro beg to differ.
I was under the impression that methane was fairly common in the Universe. For example, Uranus is full of methane.
There is nothing unusual about methane being detected in the atmosphere of a gas giant, what is unusual is the fact that carbon monoxide is supposed to be more abundant than methane at this temperature. Of course we knew about this over a month ago... btw, methane without water or ammonia or any number of other chemicals required for abiogenesis is utterly unremarkable, they make it sounds like they found DNA in the atmosphere or something equally amazing... sheesh
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Seriously though, I'd like to know exactly what makes life on gas giants so unlikely. You've got all sorts of chemicals swirling around, different temperatures at different depths, and frequent capture of diverse debris. We've hardly explored the interiors of the gas giants right here in our own system, so what's the basis for ruling out life on gas giants 60 ly away?
I'm sure there's good science involved, I'm just curious to know what it is.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Ok, it would still be hard to physically get there, but what we got there would likely grow.
It's funny, you were modded troll even though what you said is both true and relevant. We really need to rename that planet.
It isn't necessarily biologically produced. But any chemical involving carbon and hydrogen is called 'organic' even if it is inorganic in origin.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
IANA exobiologist, but one guess would be the chaotic currents in a gas giant take away many chances of self-organization and replication. Some life-related organic chemical reactions take time, and the probabilities of those occurring diminish vanishingly as the subject molecules are disturbed by electrical/gravitational/radiation disturbances.
IANAXB, but I'd hazard a guess that it's mostly due to the lack of liquid water, and the relative inability of other solvents to substitute for it in conventional biochemistry. It's been proposed in sci-fi on quite a few occasions tho.
Nobody expects the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
"We found methane gas..." => "Molecular basis for life..."?
Political double-speak is the cause of the polarization problem in communicating science, not the solution.
How about just sticking with "We can detect methane gas on an extra-solar planet"? Isn't that cool enough by itself? Nobody on either side of the debate has problems with repeatable observations. But instead, every discovery is used as a club to beat the Big Bang or Evolution over the head of creationists, whether it has anything to do with it or not (note that the writeup concedes that there is zero chance of life despite the polarizing statement). This is why people are polarized and as long as it continues people will continue to be polarized.
The repeated statements about creationist ignorance fall on deaf ears as well (except to aid polarization), since I would doubt that anyone making them has spent more than 2 minutes at a site like Answers in Genesis to see what very good science that questions the commonly-accepted notions actually exists. Ignoring people with something important (to them) to say increases polarization.
Wishing desperately for life on other worlds isn't science. It's a dogmatic world-view. It can't be science because as of yet we don't have a single shred of evidence that such a situation exists.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Can someone explain to me why this might not be simply the spectra of methane occurring anywhere in interstellar space between the star emitting the light and the measuring device. Do these guys *only* see the methane spectra when the planet transits it's star. Do we never see methane if we look in any other direction ?
Just because carbon monoxide is present on another planet does not mean life could not exist there. Do aliens to whom oxygen is poisonous as carbon monoxide is to us examine an uninhabited section of Earth and conclude there is no life?
That we got the only Monolith.
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
carbon monoxide isn't the problem, the fact it is hot enough to react methane and water to make carbon monoxide and hydrogen *is*. it is hot enough to melt aluminum and rend any organic compounds with water into various gases, hot enough to destroy any polymer likely to exist in lifeforms.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Like they did in Futurama?
You know, Urectum does have a nice ring to it
Be careful what you call those things. For example start calling pluto an asteroid... www.shof.msrcsites.co.uk/pluto.jpg
FARNSWORTH: "I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all."
FRY: "Oh. What's it called now?"
FARNSWORTH: "Urectum."
I blame silly english pronounciation for this joke problem. In my language (Icelandic), we say it like oor-an-ush. If you say it really fast and are lucky, it can sound like "you're an ass", which is way cooler than "your anus". And no, I'm not saying that the OPs are anii (that would be the plural form, similar to virii which I also know is wrong).
More relevant here is the fact that the upper limit of stability of any carbon-based macromolecule or polymer is about 400 Celsius, even in "inert" atmospheres due to C-H bonds breaking. Though this does not rule out other chemistries, the news here is about carbon-based life.
So how are all you Icelandii doing up there in the green land next to icy Greenland? ;)
[yes, it's a sad boring day when I post simply to use the word "Icelandii" and poke fun of the Iceland/Greenland battle for identity all in one sentence.]
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Or teach people to say it correctly.
I bet you thought I was going to make a Futurama reference, didn't you?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Congratulations. You read some articles. For a second, I thought you had invented a Time Machine and discovered this amazing fact on your own. Instead, you seem to be expelling hot methane rather than being an authority on early Earth history.
How does this stuff get modded up in the first place?
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
There is lots of evidence, just look around you.
Clearly life in the universe exists, Us. There is no reason, religious or otherwise that life can't exist elsewhere. Only closed minded fools.
Why that site is crap.
Here is one example:
"The story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks is that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs 'ruled the Earth' for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists' story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view."
Where to begin with that piece of trash.
"However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages."
"The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists' story about the past."
Story? no it's science, and is backed with proven scientific methods.
actually, that would be called strata.
"In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. "
No that's not a fact, or even partly correct. Radioactive decay, strata are very accurate and proven techniques.
" Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.""
err, no.
In fact evolution theory(they idea the small genetic changes happen) predicts finds, and it fit into the theory. They didn't move the goal post, a common technique of creationists.
You can believe the world was created yesterday for all I care, but all the scientific evidence points to dinosaurs being 100's of million year old. The data is scientifically sound, and evolution is a fact. Bear in mind there are no laws, a theory IS the top of the chain. Just like Gravity is a theory. Both have falsifiable tests, both make predictions. Now iof some ne evidence is found, lets say particles pushing down causes gravity, then the theory changes to fit the new, testable, repeatable, falsifiable findings. In this case, you had have some really strong evidence repeatable test!
As for why the great sky ghost would put done evidence that the world is older then it actually is is a discussion for philosophy but has no pace in science.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They should adjust their filters to look for those telltale footprints, too.
Ok now that we are here let talk about the meaning of light years for the one who want to know about this. If we were to travel that far in a spaceship what would happen? How will the person or people's that may want to take the trip be, what will they ages be will be the same as on earth or do time change things in space. We know 60's some light year but do it mean the time that we have here on earth or the times that it will be when they get to the spot where the plant et will be? If some want to give some insight, please do tell.
Anus, is Latin for " Old Women "
;)
What's wrong with that name ?
I'd be content if people would just grow up. But I guess renaming it would be more likely.