Slashdot Mirror


Simulation Pinpoints the Most Likely Spots For Life In the Milky Way (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit writes: Our home galaxy isn't as hospitable to life as you might think. Cosmic radiation, supernova explosions, and collisions with small galaxies make much of the Milky Way too hellish for biology. But a detailed new simulation locates quiet and fertile cosmic neighborhoods, including a surprising locale: wispy streams of stars flung far beyond the main body of the Milky Way.

4 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What about that other galaxy, by pipedwho · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's old news from a long time ago.

  2. Lots of assumptions by surfdaddy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, we are carbon life forms and we are looking at the situation from our perspective. I would say the chances of these simulations being accurate are vanishingly small. Do we REALLY understand how and where life forms? Being carbon-based, is it really realistic to assume any and all life is like us, formed like us (even if our other assumptions about our own formation are correct)? At one time we thought we were the center of the universe, right here on earth. We also thought that Mars has always been dry, and we thought that Pluto would be a featureless cold world. And THAT's only assumptions within our solar system!

    You can be pretty confident that this "detailed new simulation" isn't very accurate at all.

  3. Observer bias by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the premise of the study is to highlight the risks of near stellar neighbors and cluttered neighborhoods, of COURSE the conclusion will be that remote systems are 'safer'.

    This is like asking a cancer doctor where it's safest to live, and getting the answer "in a sealed lead-lined vault"....yes, disregarding the need for air, water, and food, and only focusing on the cancer risk, that's probably great.

    While we simply don't KNOW the primary drivers of life generation (or the Drake equation would be a lot less hand-waving), and while yes, there's a danger of nearby stellar events, one might also consider:
    - our solar system didn't just appear ex nihilo: the heavier elements present suggest that our system formed from nova or supernova remnants. A more cluttered stellar neighborhood is going to have more of such events. While these events would be indeed dangerous (likely exterminatory) for nearby life, life might regrow with such staggering frequency that the stellar scales are outmatched
    - radiation: dangerous, sure, but we exist because of mutations. LIFE is based on mutation. (And hell, there's persuasive evidence here on earth that living with higher level of background radioactivity actually increases life span; then again, that could also be a raised average due to selective weeding by same.) A higher-radiation environment is not necessarily inherently bad for life, and may actually accelerate the mutative processes.

    These are just a couple of reasons that inner regions might be better. A lot of it is simply guesswork at this point.

    --
    -Styopa
  4. Contradiction in terms by tomxor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Forget the summary or the article, the title makes no sense... "pinpoint" and "likely" are pretty close to antonyms of each other... that's like saying a weather simulation has pinpointed where it's going to rain next week.