301
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

Webb finds molecule only made by living things in another world::undefined

all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FrostyCaveman@lemm.ee 81 points 1 year ago

Only a 1 sigma confirmation at the moment so needs to be thoroughly reinvestigated

[-] M500@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 year ago
[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 65 points 1 year ago

Sigma is basically a representation of certainty that your result isn’t a statistical fluke. It comes from standard deviation in statistics but 1 sigma is 68% certain. 2 sigma is 95%. 3 sigma is 99.7%.

By convention, astronomy uses 3 sigma for “significance,” meaning you almost definitely found something. Particle physics, since it’s usually done in controlled experiments, usually requires 5 sigma (99.99994%).

It’s similar to margin of error in political polls.

[-] ohlaph@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

All of our homies like 3 sigma.

[-] cashsky@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Oh that's where 6 Sigma comes from. TIL

[-] Kingcong@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 year ago

By saying 1 sigma, they are basically saying tgat are 68% confident in the results. As you increase the sigma, your confidence in the results increases. Here is a site that goes into more in depth explanation: https://news.mit.edu/2012/explained-sigma-0209#

[-] FrostyCaveman@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago

It’s a number that statistically represents how strong the result is in the data basically. As far as I understand it, with astronomy the typical sigma value expected is 3

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Technically, this is astrochemistry, not astronomy. I don't know what the expected sigma value there is.

[-] supercheesecake@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago

It’s 3 plus/minus 1 sigma

[-] Womble@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Whats less than 0 sigma? I kid but only a little Astrochemistry is fantastically difficult, it involves large networks of reactions, many of which have multiple orders of magnitudes of uncertainty on their rates. Different groups can tey to model the same conditions and end up with over a factor of 1000 difference in the abundences of key tracer speices.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That's why I'm positive but not excited yet. It's a good sign. We need to see if detecting it can be replicated... although I'm not sure how to do that except with the Webb again.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 49 points 1 year ago

A chemical only produced by life on earth. But can it be produced by abiotic conditions on other planets? I’m not sure that has been ruled out at this point.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 23 points 1 year ago

Yeah, this headline is bullshit. It's indication of possible life, but it isn't what the headline makes it sound. There's always other possible methods, even if we aren't aware of them yet. It's interesting, but doesn't confirm anything yet.

[-] JaymesRS@midwest.social 27 points 1 year ago
[-] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago

it picked up hints of a substance only made by living things — at least, that is, on Earth.

What other process could theoretically produce it?

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

if you have methanol, hydrogen sulfide and enough heat along with a specific rock, it will get formed. or probably methane, hydrogen sulfide and UV

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 year ago

there are many ways, and what i'm saying it's likely a massive clickbait

t. organic chemist, currently working with sulfur compounds

[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I would also hesitate to automatically rule anything out. The Fermi paradox exists for a reason, and it makes logical sense that if life can appear in one place, it can (and will) do it again. In a universe as large as ours, it's basically inevitable that we will eventually discover some form of alien life, even if it's just single-celled organisms (assume we as a species survive long enough).

I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in because whenever anything like this comes up, you get a rush of two kinds of people: "omg aliens!" and "omg look at all the idiots who thinks it's aliens; everyone knows aliens aren't real". It frustrates me because the existence of alien life shouldn't be controversial. If anything, imo, the idea that alien life doesn't exist should be controversial (the Fermi paradox exists for a reason). Just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's honestly scarier imo if it doesn't exist due to the implications of it.


someone who woulda probably been an astrophysicist if they'd been given a chance earlier in life

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

i said nothing about aliens, all i say is that claim "dimethyl sulfide = definite sign of life" makes it a powerful clickbait, because there are processes that can provide it abiogenically from something similar to earth's primordial soup

your assumption seems overly optimistic

[-] Dani551@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 1 year ago

Given the vast differences in atmospheres (or the lack thereof) and their conditions, I wouldn't be surprised if those were the culprits

[-] M500@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

Sadly they cannot be communicated with in a single human life time; assuming they are intelligent and possess the capability to respond.

[-] Zron@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

Even if Webb were to basically spot earth 2 5 light years away, I’d caution about getting excited for a radio chat.

Remember that life has existed on earth for something like 3 billion years, but multicellular life has only been around for 500 million or so years, humans in various forms have been around for about a million years, and we’ve only had radio for about a hundred years.

The vast majority of life that has ever existed on our planet has been single called organisms. Finding evidence of any life on another planet is huge news, but we should temper our expectations.

It’s way, way more likely for alien planets to have oceans full of plankton analogues as the dominant life. Considering the rest of this planet’s atmosphere is composed mostly of hydrogen, even their plankton would be weird by our standards.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We could irradiate Earth2 with so much RF radiation the crearures of the other planet all develop immune to cancer!

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 12 points 1 year ago

It's a planet 8x the mass of the earth with a heavy hydrogen atmosphere and is considered very hot, the water is in a super critical state. I think if we found anything it would just be bacterial life.

My bet is on "previously unknown chemistry" creating the chemicals we found. It's never aliens :(

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

But the definition of a single human lifetime could very well change within one human lifetime from now.

[-] Chriszz@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

To me it’s not a matter of whether live exists anymore, but where it exists

[-] Art3sian@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I’d be pretty happy to put $100 right now on life being found on almost every planet and moon throughout the galaxy where liquid water exists.

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Im seriously excited to get to Europa

this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
301 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

60466 readers
3618 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS