BBC News - Tantalising sign of possible life on faraway world
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66786611

Never heard before about this DMS molecule, only life can produce?
120 light years away, too far away I think?

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:39:19 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 September 2023 at 21:56:06 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
> > BBC News - Tantalising sign of possible life on faraway world
> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66786611
> >
> > Never heard before about this DMS molecule, only life can produce?
> > 120 light years away, too far away I think?
> They only used about three "may bes" in that article meaning...may be.
> Right now, the best bet is an ocean on a gas-giant's moon in our solar system.

Yes, but ocean alone don't generate DMS, it needs life, like plankton!
If there are plankton, then use your imagination!
We may try to communicate with this planet 120 light years away, if there's some kind of intelligent life there, may respond?
Yes, a lot of "Ifs"!
Any way, something to keep an eye on, until bigger, better telescopes, technology comes around?

On 13/09/2023 02:56, StarDust wrote:
> BBC News - Tantalising sign of possible life on faraway world
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66786611
>
> Never heard before about this DMS molecule, only life can produce?
> 120 light years away, too far away I think?

It is a very interesting observation if it can be confirmed with a
better signal to noise in due course it makes a good case. On Earth DMS
and DMSO are byproducts of algal photosynthesis in the oceans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfide

It isn't a likely molecule to arise by pure chance in a molecular cloud.

Here is a bit of background from an abstract (article is paywalled)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304420305002410

I wouldn't go so far as saying "only life can produce it" but it is a
well known byproduct of the simplest algal life on Earth and so could be
a visible marker of photosynthesis in some form occurring on another
planet. What colour their "plants" are may depend on the parent star(*)
or luck.

Sulphur and phosphorus isn't so abundant as H,C,N,O so seeing either
chemistry active (particularly in an oxygen rich atmosphere would be a
likely indicator of detecting life - as in replicating coloured slime).

The next Mars probes will use stable isotope mass spec and isotopically
labelled (ie non-natural abundances of sulphur isotopes) to look for any
signs of life metabolising suitably labelled food. It will be able to
distinguish between life which preferentially grabs onto the lower
masses and inorganic reactions like peroxide oxidation which don't.

(*) remember that our most successful plants on Earth are green because
the first photosynthetic red pigmented photosynthetic organisms had
already bagged the more energetic blue photons.

Photosynthetic pigments come in a range of colours but the green plants
won the race for supremacy on Earth. It might be different elsewhere.

https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss3/pigments.html

It is an impressive observation and will be even more so if it is
confirmed independently by another group of observers.

--
Martin Brown

On 13/09/2023 04:07, StarDust wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:39:19 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 12 September 2023 at 21:56:06 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
>>> BBC News - Tantalising sign of possible life on faraway world
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66786611
>>>
>>> Never heard before about this DMS molecule, only life can produce?
>>> 120 light years away, too far away I think?
>> They only used about three "may bes" in that article meaning...may be.
>> Right now, the best bet is an ocean on a gas-giant's moon in our solar system.
>
> Yes, but ocean alone don't generate DMS, it needs life, like plankton!

Plankton and coloured photosynthetic slimes of various sorts might well
be ubiquitous on any planets with all three phases of water present.
Life evolved to that state very quickly on Earth but then didn't do much
for 1.5-2 bn years (about half of the planets lifetime).

> If there are plankton, then use your imagination!

Complex life at least on Earth required that some unicellular organisms
swallowed other cells without quite killing them and acquired a turbo
charged metabolism and a nucleus as a result - birth of the more coplex
and now dominant lifeforms Eukaryotes...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote

Then there was another checkpoint of multicellular organisms and
evolving to survive outside of the oceans. That step might possibly
require having a decent sized moon to allow tidal range to vary.

It is all conjecture until we find definitive life on another planet
that evolved independently of that on Earth. This observation is a
tantalising glimpse into what might be one of many such exoplanets.

> We may try to communicate with this planet 120 light years away, if there's some kind of intelligent life there, may respond?
> Yes, a lot of "Ifs"!
> Any way, something to keep an eye on, until bigger, better telescopes, technology comes around?

Trying the same experiment and looking for other characteristics of an
atmosphere that is not in chemical equilibrium would be one way.

--
Martin Brown

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 10:25:49 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>On 13/09/2023 04:07, StarDust wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:39:19?PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 12 September 2023 at 21:56:06 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
>>>> BBC News - Tantalising sign of possible life on faraway world
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66786611
>>>>
>>>> Never heard before about this DMS molecule, only life can produce?
>>>> 120 light years away, too far away I think?
>>> They only used about three "may bes" in that article meaning...may be.
>>> Right now, the best bet is an ocean on a gas-giant's moon in our solar system.
>>
>> Yes, but ocean alone don't generate DMS, it needs life, like plankton!
>
>Plankton and coloured photosynthetic slimes of various sorts might well
>be ubiquitous on any planets with all three phases of water present.
>Life evolved to that state very quickly on Earth but then didn't do much
>for 1.5-2 bn years (about half of the planets lifetime).

My guess is that simple life is ubiquitous on planets with liquid
water. And simple multicellular life, as well. But complexity probably
requires a high degree of planetary stability, meaning a star in a low
density region of the galaxy, a star that itself is very stable, a
planetary system with only a few planets, a planet with a very large
moon, maybe some other factors, all of which drive down the number of
suitable planets significantly.

On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 6:25:29 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 10:25:49 +0100, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 13/09/2023 04:07, StarDust wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:39:19?PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 12 September 2023 at 21:56:06 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
> >>>> BBC News - Tantalising sign of possible life on faraway world
> >>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66786611
> >>>>
> >>>> Never heard before about this DMS molecule, only life can produce?
> >>>> 120 light years away, too far away I think?
> >>> They only used about three "may bes" in that article meaning...may be..
> >>> Right now, the best bet is an ocean on a gas-giant's moon in our solar system.
> >>
> >> Yes, but ocean alone don't generate DMS, it needs life, like plankton!
> >
> >Plankton and coloured photosynthetic slimes of various sorts might well
> >be ubiquitous on any planets with all three phases of water present.
> >Life evolved to that state very quickly on Earth but then didn't do much
> >for 1.5-2 bn years (about half of the planets lifetime).
> My guess is that simple life is ubiquitous on planets with liquid
> water. And simple multicellular life, as well. But complexity probably
> requires a high degree of planetary stability, meaning a star in a low
> density region of the galaxy, a star that itself is very stable, a
> planetary system with only a few planets, a planet with a very large
> moon, maybe some other factors, all of which drive down the number of
> suitable planets significantly.

Yes, a planet like ours, with a big Moon, stabilizing it.
I read, Mars never had a large moon, so it's axis swing, wobble 90 degrees.
That's why life never could form on Mars, very unstable.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 07:13:43 -0700 (PDT), StarDust <csoka01@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 6:25:29?AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 10:25:49 +0100, Martin Brown
>> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On 13/09/2023 04:07, StarDust wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:39:19?PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
>> >>> On Tuesday, 12 September 2023 at 21:56:06 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
>> >>>> BBC News - Tantalising sign of possible life on faraway world
>> >>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66786611
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Never heard before about this DMS molecule, only life can produce?
>> >>>> 120 light years away, too far away I think?
>> >>> They only used about three "may bes" in that article meaning...may be.
>> >>> Right now, the best bet is an ocean on a gas-giant's moon in our solar system.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but ocean alone don't generate DMS, it needs life, like plankton!
>> >
>> >Plankton and coloured photosynthetic slimes of various sorts might well
>> >be ubiquitous on any planets with all three phases of water present.
>> >Life evolved to that state very quickly on Earth but then didn't do much
>> >for 1.5-2 bn years (about half of the planets lifetime).
>> My guess is that simple life is ubiquitous on planets with liquid
>> water. And simple multicellular life, as well. But complexity probably
>> requires a high degree of planetary stability, meaning a star in a low
>> density region of the galaxy, a star that itself is very stable, a
>> planetary system with only a few planets, a planet with a very large
>> moon, maybe some other factors, all of which drive down the number of
>> suitable planets significantly.
>
>Yes, a planet like ours, with a big Moon, stabilizing it.
>I read, Mars never had a large moon, so it's axis swing, wobble 90 degrees.
>That's why life never could form on Mars, very unstable.

Life could form on Mars (if it had liquid water). But likely not very
complex life.

On 14/09/2023 11:18, StarDust wrote:
> On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 1:12:59 AM UTC-7, Martin Brown wrote:

>> Photosynthetic pigments come in a range of colours but the green plants
>> won the race for supremacy on Earth. It might be different elsewhere.
>>
>> https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss3/pigments.html
>>
>> It is an impressive observation and will be even more so if it is
>> confirmed independently by another group of observers.
>
> Algae come in different colors on earth, but some are veri poisonous to life.

You have to remember that they originally evolved in a reducing
atmosphere and the by product of their photosynthesis free oxygen gas
changed all that and radically altered the chemistry of the oceans
laying down vast ore bodies of iron ore and red coloured sandstones.

Anything that couldn't adapt to that free oxygen environment died out in
the transition between primordial reducing atmosphere and the modern
oxygen rich one. It was much more oxygen rich in the distant past and
able to support super sized insects and more vicious forest fires.

Toxicity to other life forms is a defence mechanism of plants and some
animals. Being highly coloured is a common way of advertising that.

--
Martin Brown

On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 8:05:40 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 07:13:43 -0700 (PDT), StarDust
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 6:25:29?AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 10:25:49 +0100, Martin Brown
> >> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 13/09/2023 04:07, StarDust wrote:
> >> >> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:39:19?PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
> >> >>> On Tuesday, 12 September 2023 at 21:56:06 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
> >> >>>> BBC News - Tantalising sign of possible life on faraway world
> >> >>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66786611
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Never heard before about this DMS molecule, only life can produce?
> >> >>>> 120 light years away, too far away I think?
> >> >>> They only used about three "may bes" in that article meaning...may be.
> >> >>> Right now, the best bet is an ocean on a gas-giant's moon in our solar system.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, but ocean alone don't generate DMS, it needs life, like plankton!
> >> >
> >> >Plankton and coloured photosynthetic slimes of various sorts might well
> >> >be ubiquitous on any planets with all three phases of water present.
> >> >Life evolved to that state very quickly on Earth but then didn't do much
> >> >for 1.5-2 bn years (about half of the planets lifetime).
> >> My guess is that simple life is ubiquitous on planets with liquid
> >> water. And simple multicellular life, as well. But complexity probably
> >> requires a high degree of planetary stability, meaning a star in a low
> >> density region of the galaxy, a star that itself is very stable, a
> >> planetary system with only a few planets, a planet with a very large
> >> moon, maybe some other factors, all of which drive down the number of
> >> suitable planets significantly.
> >
> >Yes, a planet like ours, with a big Moon, stabilizing it.
> >I read, Mars never had a large moon, so it's axis swing, wobble 90 degrees.
> >That's why life never could form on Mars, very unstable.
> Life could form on Mars (if it had liquid water). But likely not very
> complex life.

According to NASA, Mars had water or some kind of liquid, but it's frozen underground.
At some of the crater's sides, show evidences of seasonal liquid flow.

On 14/09/2023 17:23, StarDust wrote:
> On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 8:05:40 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 07:13:43 -0700 (PDT), StarDust
>> wrote:

>>> Yes, a planet like ours, with a big Moon, stabilizing it.
>>> I read, Mars never had a large moon, so it's axis swing, wobble 90 degrees.
>>> That's why life never could form on Mars, very unstable.

>> Life could form on Mars (if it had liquid water). But likely not very
>> complex life.
>
> According to NASA, Mars had water or some kind of liquid, but it's frozen underground.
> At some of the crater's sides, show evidences of seasonal liquid flow.

Back when Mars was still young and had a molten core, magnetic field and
an atmosphere Mars had liquid water on its surface. The rovers have
found sedimentary rocks and rounded pebbles on the surface. Probes also
seem to find a salty permafrost not very far under the surface.

When the core froze and the magnetic field weakened then the atmosphere
was lost to the effects of the solar wind.

There have been claims of Martian micro-fossils but so far nothing
really convincing that couldn't just be a diffusion limited inorganic
reaction - which can produce some very curious structures.

There are Martian meteorites on the Earth so if life started on Mars
first it could possibly be that we are in reality Martians.
(shades of Quartermass and the Pit anybody?)

--
Martin Brown