Biosignature found

[Mark Milton]

While there is agreement that dimethyl sulfide (DMS) on Earth comes from living organisms, there is also evidence of abiotic DMS production in space.

Researchers recently reported detection of DMS on the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko — hardly a location brimming with life.

In September of last year, a team of researchers reported that in lab experiments, they were able to produce DMS by shining UV light on a simulated, hazy exoplanet atmosphere. This suggests that the reactions between a star’s photons and molecules in a planet’s atmosphere could provide a nonbiological way to produce DMS. And this February, a team of radio astronomers reported the detection of DMS in the gas and dust between stars. All of these results challenge the idea that DMS is a clear sign of life.

The team references the photochemical experiment in their paper, but argues that such reactions could not produce the amount of DMS they find on K2-18 b. Neither, they say, could comet impacts deliver DMS in the quantities that they observe with JWST.

There is also an issue of statistical significance in the data, basically there is at least a small chance that the DMS "signature" is a false positive

K2-18 b could have dimethyl sulfide in its air. But is it a sign of life?

Fresh data from the James Webb Space Telescope provide more evidence for what some consider a biosignature — but debate is sure to follow.

www.astronomy.com

So the aliens ain’t coming???

 

[outside shooter]

So the aliens ain’t coming???

Phytoplankton make most of the DMS on Earth, and even here they don't travel much

 

[Baller23Boogie]

So the aliens ain’t coming???

 

[hookyIU1990]

 

[UncleMark]

While there is agreement that dimethyl sulfide (DMS) on Earth comes from living organisms, there is also evidence of abiotic DMS production in space.

Researchers recently reported detection of DMS on the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko — hardly a location brimming with life.

In September of last year, a team of researchers reported that in lab experiments, they were able to produce DMS by shining UV light on a simulated, hazy exoplanet atmosphere. This suggests that the reactions between a star’s photons and molecules in a planet’s atmosphere could provide a nonbiological way to produce DMS. And this February, a team of radio astronomers reported the detection of DMS in the gas and dust between stars. All of these results challenge the idea that DMS is a clear sign of life.

The team references the photochemical experiment in their paper, but argues that such reactions could not produce the amount of DMS they find on K2-18 b. Neither, they say, could comet impacts deliver DMS in the quantities that they observe with JWST.

There is also an issue of statistical significance in the data, basically there is at least a small chance that the DMS "signature" is a false positive

K2-18 b could have dimethyl sulfide in its air. But is it a sign of life?

Fresh data from the James Webb Space Telescope provide more evidence for what some consider a biosignature — but debate is sure to follow.

www.astronomy.com

Funsucker

 

[jet812]

While there is agreement that dimethyl sulfide (DMS) on Earth comes from living organisms, there is also evidence of abiotic DMS production in space.

Researchers recently reported detection of DMS on the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko — hardly a location brimming with life.

In September of last year, a team of researchers reported that in lab experiments, they were able to produce DMS by shining UV light on a simulated, hazy exoplanet atmosphere. This suggests that the reactions between a star’s photons and molecules in a planet’s atmosphere could provide a nonbiological way to produce DMS. And this February, a team of radio astronomers reported the detection of DMS in the gas and dust between stars. All of these results challenge the idea that DMS is a clear sign of life.

The team references the photochemical experiment in their paper, but argues that such reactions could not produce the amount of DMS they find on K2-18 b. Neither, they say, could comet impacts deliver DMS in the quantities that they observe with JWST.

There is also an issue of statistical significance in the data, basically there is at least a small chance that the DMS "signature" is a false positive

K2-18 b could have dimethyl sulfide in its air. But is it a sign of life?

Fresh data from the James Webb Space Telescope provide more evidence for what some consider a biosignature — but debate is sure to follow.

www.astronomy.com

Well fvck. If Shatter says it’s unlikely it’s virtually a guarantee that they’ll be here to eat us all like livestock with a year or two…