Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Super-Sensitive Motion Sensor Could Be Used To Hunt For Extraterrestrial Life

Posted by Soulskill on from the it's-life,-jim,-but-not-as-we-know-it dept.

Zothecula writes: People often state that certain planets are too hot, cold or toxic to support life. The catch, however, is that those people are really just talking about life as we know it here on Earth. By that same token, when rovers exploring other planets seek out chemical signatures associated with life forms, they're only able to identify chemicals that we know to look for. That's why Swiss scientists from the EPFL research center have created a device that identifies microscopic life based on nanoscale movements instead of chemistry (abstract).

21 of 38 comments (clear)

  1. We have trouble with defining life on earth. by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    Life: Grow, Reproduce, Consume Energy.

    Virus cannot reproduce on their own.
    Crystals seem to show many properties of life.
    Fire can Grow, Spread and it consumes energy.

    What about individual cells that are part of a larger organism...

    It still kinda comes down to Ill know if it I see it.

     

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:We have trouble with defining life on earth. by gatkinso · · Score: 2

      Revisit contemporary definitions of life. Chemical reactions (crystals, fire) comprise only a part of that definition.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    2. Re:We have trouble with defining life on earth. by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      I raise you another link: http://www.popsci.com/science/... ;-)

      The point being, we don't know what's out there. There universe is literally infinite. If crystalline life is possible... and it certainly looks like it is... then it has to be out there somewhere. The question is how common is it?

    3. Re:We have trouble with defining life on earth. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Life: Fight, Eat, Fuck, Sleep

      It doesn't get any simpler...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:We have trouble with defining life on earth. by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      Life: Fight, Eat, Fuck, Sleep

      It doesn't get any simpler...

      Not necessarily in that order. Also, I have married friends that have replaced sleep with offspring, and fucking with more fighting. Apparently there is wiggle room.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    5. Re:We have trouble with defining life on earth. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      If crystalline life is possible... and it certainly looks like it is... then it has to be out there somewhere. The question is how common is it?

      we better keep an eye out for the Crystalline Entity. That thing is a bitch and a half.

    6. Re:We have trouble with defining life on earth. by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "we better keep an eye out for the Crystalline Entity. That thing is a bitch and a half."

      Her name is Karma.

    7. Re:We have trouble with defining life on earth. by dissy · · Score: 1

      We have trouble with defining life on earth.
      Life: Grow, Reproduce, Consume Energy.

      Fortunately science doesn't much care about our definition of life (or the lack of definition, in this case)

      Virus cannot reproduce on their own.

      But discovering a thing acting similar to a virus but doesn't operate by any of the methods we know would still be an amazing discovery and a wealth of knowledge to research.

      Crystals seem to show many properties of life.

      Discovering a thing similar in structure to a crystal where no known methods of crystal growth are apparent would also be an amazing discovery and a wealth of knowledge to research.

      Fire can Grow, Spread and it consumes energy.

      Discovering a chemical reaction that is different from any known chemical reaction would too be an amazing discovery and a wealth of knowledge to research.

      What about individual cells that are part of a larger organism...

      History shows us both the individual cells as well as the larger organism, not to mention the cell behavior, higher structures formed out of the cells, and the organism as a whole will all be fascinating and a wealth of knowledge to research.

      It still kinda comes down to Ill know if it I see it.

      If any of the things on your list was discovered and found to not work in a way we already know about, someone somewhere on our planet will jump at the chance to research it - life or not.
      And the best part, even if that would come to be and we do discover any of those things completely different from what we know, it will matter as little afterwards as it did before if they are called life or not.

      More knowledge being gained is always a good thing, since the worst case is no gain but no losses and the best case is huge gains with no loses.

      Gaining just some knowledge instead of much more than some knowledge is not a valid reason to avoid learning.

  2. Obligatory Alien Quote by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    "Micro changes in air density, my ass."

    -- Ripley

    --
    -kgj
  3. Is it the first thing that comes to one's mind? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    A super sensitive detector. And the first thing that comes to mind is hunt for extraterrestrial life? Not smuggling people in shipping containers or improving earthquake monitoring or something?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Is it the first thing that comes to one's mind? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      You don't need a super sensitive detector to find people in shipping containers, and certainly not to detect earthquakes

      so yes, people with more practical sense than you thought of other things.

    2. Re:Is it the first thing that comes to one's mind? by ledow · · Score: 1

      Quote at the bottom of Slashdot:

      It's hard to think of you as the end result of millions of years of evolution.

      Nobody says it's the first thing that comes to mind.
      Nobody says it's even USEFUL in those jobs.

      (To be honest, finding extraterrestrial life is probably ALWAYS going to be of more priority to scientists than finding some guy who's fled his country under persecution and hidden in the back of a shipping container.)

    3. Re:Is it the first thing that comes to one's mind? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Your criticism is valid, and I deserve the rebuke. I misread and posted in hurry. sorry.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  4. The reason we search for C life is simple by aepervius · · Score: 2

    Barring utterly unknown chemistry, other atoms offer limited chemistry, bonds too strong, bonds too weak, limited atoms to which they can bond. That's why we concentrate on carbon based chemistry, with Oxygen or sulfure. Sure we could be missing something, but is it likely ? We have to concentrate on what we know we CAN find, as we can't send too many intruments out there like on the mars rover.

    If the approach followed here allows for a good detection of KNOWN organic life with p0.05, then it sounds a good approach.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:The reason we search for C life is simple by doconnor · · Score: 1

      Can the problem with bonds being too weak or strong be overcome by living at a different temperature?

  5. how does a motion sense avoid the problem by Zecheus · · Score: 1

    A motion sensor would find the motion that matches the motion of life on earth. Isn't that the same trap?

    1. Re:how does a motion sense avoid the problem by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It finds motion. Rocks don't wiggle.

      The idea is that if you've got a bit of something that don't settle down to equilibrium, but rather keeps wiggling, it's more likely alive. Maintaining active processes is part of a reasonable definition of life, and those active processes imply movement.

  6. Re:Why bother? God didn't make life anywhere else! by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    Slashdot is slowly but surely turning into 4chan. *sigh*

    which is funny because 4chan is slowly turning to junk and all the cool kids are going to 8chan or infinitychan.

  7. Develop laser pistols first by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    We're going about this all wrong. Develop laser pistols before motion scanners. Doesn't help to know where the aliens are if you're shooting lead at them. I suppose you could load up on grenades... And don't bother with medkits until you get power armor.

    1. Re:Develop laser pistols first by Nyder · · Score: 1

      We're going about this all wrong. Develop laser pistols before motion scanners. Doesn't help to know where the aliens are if you're shooting lead at them. I suppose you could load up on grenades... And don't bother with medkits until you get power armor.

      True story.

      --
      Be seeing you...
  8. Not really by aepervius · · Score: 1

    See if you increase the temperature to overcome some bonds which are too strong, you get confronted that other bonds become too weak (remember for any kT you have a temperature gaussian spread so your bonds are likely not surviving the high end) and you seriously limit some of the chemistry we know (oxy/reduction, what most likely any life is based on). C is good because it allows for a zone of relative stability which can still be broken. I am not a high pressure or high temperature chemist, but the few I know shows me that such island of stability does not exists in the "high" zone. Keep in mind my expertise is QM, so not the subject at hand which I know only from my studying years.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org