Astronomers Detect a Possible Signature of Life on a Distant Planet
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2-18b
The NYT article reports a new study in The Astrophysical Journal and links to it, but the DOI is currently not found:
https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/adc1c8
I also don't see the article yet under their Latest Articles:
https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0004-637X
Here are recent articles about K2-18b from Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,48&q=%22K2...
https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/2041-8205
It's still not out yet though. Also journals are often rather tardy or just straight up don't register the doi at all and still put it on their site, but maybe this is an embargo thing.
edit - is it possibly this after publishing? https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.18477
Like if there was no surface on earth, and only fish, there must be some very significant reason for advanced fish to even want to leave the water, let alone the atmosphere
"Now you have two atmospheres."
The fire meta get's postponed until trapping air inside bags happens (could be seaweed/skin based bags).
Then you need to make a habit of collecting a bunch of air and trapping it and then can begin exploring chemical reactions in the air.
ex: take dead but not decomposed organic matter, dry it out in hot air bag (maybe cover the bag in black squid ink and float the bag of air in the ocean out in the sun's rays for day to warm it up.
Then eventually you need to have the insight to do friction based experiments in the bag with dried materials and then one discovers fire in a massive breakthrough not dissimilar to when humans created Bose Einstein Condensates for the first time in highly specialized environments.
Nothing here says "impossible" to me. I bet if whales had fingers to easily manipulate matter they might've already done all this by now.
As such, the number of intelligent underwater civilizations, that could get near our present level of advancement, would likely be significantly lower. Not impossible (because of how large the universe is), but some order of magnitude, less possible.
Meanwhile, a few thousand lightyears away, some sort of talking crab is rubbishing the idea that industrial civilisation could arise on land; after all, they wouldn't even have access to hydrothermal vents! What would they do for energy, burn plants?
(I really think we're inclined to build a _lot_ of unwarranted assumptions into what industrial civilisation has to look like and how you have to get there, because it's what we did.)
Unless of course, having opposable thumbs and >50 year lifespan and intelligence in the water causes you to go through a completely different developmental path than land based creatures. We just don't know.
Can they not discover fire in underwater caves?
Can they not build underwater containers that hold the necessary materials to do chemistry, similar to what we do with bioreactors, flasks, beakers, and pressure vessels?
Building a rocket requires hands, and the type of intelligence that evolves only after having hands.
The ocean floor has plenty of stuff to dig into, pick up, and manipulate, along with un-anchored things like mats of seaweed.
> Land animals are more likely to develop hands.
I can easily imagine sea-creatures making the same kinds of assumptions in reverse: "Sir Blub-blub, while this hypothesis of 'land' animals is indeed intriguing, they would undoubtedly be primitive, far less likely to develop intelligent grabbers. After all, there will be nothing worth grabbing but hard 'dry' rocks! They wouldn't even be useful for propulsion, given the intangibility of this 'air'."
Is there any particular reason why an intelligent organism couldn't evolve to be able to grow and change its body into any arbitrary size and shape that it wanted to merely by thinking about it?
Perhaps aliens from another planet would consider our limitation as four limbed bipedal organisms to be absurd.
Why can't organisms chose to grow eight hands each with 16 opposable digits?
It's pretty normal for organisms to have drastically different body configurations through their lives. e.g moths
Though I'm not aware of any that have choices to make in the process.
Edit: actually lots of organisms can "choose" to change their sex
Also radio communications since radio travels much better through air than through water. Of course, they could just build antennas underwater and then float them above the surface to use them.
Navigating by the stars would be really useful, and for that you need to be able to see above the surface. I guess you don't need to go above the surface. A periscope would do the trick.
It might also be useful for energy generation. Wind power if the wind is stronger than ocean currents. Or solar because the light is stronger.
There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_vocalization which carries rather far, if not disturbed by humans.
I listened to the series, I enjoyed it a lot.
---
Intriguing.
Imagine there are 2 planets in the Milky Way where life has developed. The odds are incredibly low they're next to each other, assuming a random distribution. So it's way more likely that there are more than 2. Imagine a sphere of radius 60 LY (120/2). Our Earth is the center of one. This planet is another. That's a volume of 10^6 LY^3. The Milky Way volume (from Google) is ~17T LY^3 so there'd be roughly 170M such spheres in our galaxy.
Now imagine if the odds of simple life becoming intelligent life that we could detect and could become spacefaring is 1 in 1 million. There'd be ~170 such civilization in the Milk Way.
We have absolutely no evidence of this So simple life is a lot less common, intelligent life is a lot less likely or, and this is the scary part, something tends to wipe out sentient civilizations and that's likely in our future.
In Fermi Paradox terms, we call this a Great Filter.
The middle of the galaxy could have a wildly different composition and habitat for life than the outer reaches where we are.
Time is also another factor. Maybe the galaxy is perfect for complex life, we just happen to be early on the timescale and in another billion years or two life will be clearly abundant everywhere.
For some perspective, if you take the size of the Milky Way (100k light years) and relate it to the size of NYC (~30 miles), then 120 light years ends up being ~190 feet in NYC, or less than a city block.
In our part of the galaxy, the mean distance between stars is around 4-5 LY (at a guess) in terms of nearest neighbours and ignoring binary (and up) systems. At the galactic center it's a few light days.
We've had many events that have caused mass extinction. There are many more that could end all life as ew know it (eg gamma ray bursts, a sufficiently close supernova. We have ~10 stars within 10 LY of us. Imagine if that were millions instead. I find it hard to believe conditions would be stable enough for the millions or billions of years necessary to create and sustain complex life.
As for our galaxy being "perfect" this touches on a coupole of concepts, notably the Anthropic Principle. But again we return to Bayesian reasoning. If there was going to be 1000 spacefaring civilizations in our galaxy, what are the odds that we are first? And while the Sun is <5B years old, there are stars up to 14B years old. There's been a ton of extra time for civilizations to develop elsewhere.
Now imagine if the odds of simple life becoming intelligent life that we could detect and could become spacefaring is 1 in 1 million.
Why not assume the odds are 1 in 200 million, so that there's only one such planet in the whole galaxy and there's no Great Filter to worry about? It seems just as valid, except "200 million" is slightly less aesthetically pleasing.We already know that human-type technological civilization is extremely unlikely, since the planet was full of somewhat intelligent bipedal dinosaurs for about 100m years, yet none of them seemed to engage in mining, large-scale construction, severely disruptive extinctions, nuclear power... (humans will leave a thick geological layer of concrete and pollution, along with plentiful unique minerals coming from slag, plastic, etc.)
I really have no patience for this sort of p(doom) nonsense. If you make up numbers you can come to any quantitative conclusion you want. Mildly tweaking totally unfalsifiable odds makes the Fermi "paradox" go away entirely.
For example, predation could be a Great Filter. We made it past the threat of predation, but perhaps most life forms in the universe don’t. In this example, life could be pervasive in the universe but it’s optimizing for defensive attributes like speed and armor rather than intelligence. That could explain why we don’t see aliens colonizing the galaxy. With the Great Filter behind us, nothing would be stopping us from colonizing the galaxy ourselves, we just might be among the first to do it.
Putting the Great Filter in front of us postulates that many life forms have achieved our same accomplishments but haven’t colonized the galaxy. It could be because of doom and gloom scenarios like war, aliens, cosmic catastrophes, etc. Or it could be a beneficial Great Filter like enlightenment and the lack of desire to propagate and consume endlessly, or the ability to survive in deep space, leaving stars and planets untouched.
John Michael Godier's Event Horizon: JWST May Have Just Detected Alien Life at Exoplanet K2-18b
Episode webpage: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/john-michael-godier/...
Media file: https://traffic.megaphone.fm/APO8659624232.mp3
Even if there's life in lots of places, there may be no industry as we understand it anywhere else in the universe.
A huge star that’s going to burn out quickly isn’t conducive to complex organisms
Also in a huge star there’s less material to form planets in the first place
I’m not sure a journalist for this exalted American newspaper here knows anything about this and frankly the excited language of this article is dumb af. Probably because excited people keep paying for subscriptions to this trash.
It took my amateur self nearly 10 mins to ask around to qualified friends and research some counter ideas.
> Astronomers Detect a Possible Signature of Life on a Distant Planet
> Further studies are needed to determine whether K2-18b, which orbits a star 120 light-years away, is inhabited, or even habitable.
It's not fair to call it "trash"
> Other researchers emphasized that much research remained to be done. One question yet to be resolved is whether K2-18b is in fact a habitable, Hycean world as Dr. Madhusudhan’s team claims.
> In a paper posted online Sunday, Dr. Glein and his colleagues argued that K2-18b could instead be a massive hunk of rock with a magma ocean and a thick, scorching hydrogen atmosphere — hardly conducive to life as we know it.
> Scientists will also need to run laboratory experiments to make sense of the new study — to recreate the possible conditions on sub-Neptunes, for instance, to see whether dimethyl sulfide behaves there as it does on Earth.
> “It’s important to remember that we’re just starting to understand the nature of these exotic worlds,” said Matthew Nixon, a planetary scientist at the University of Maryland who was not involved in the new study.
Thanks for making exactly my point.
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. You started by acknowledging that it is indeed exciting, that it is something we only understand to be produced by living organisms. I wholeheartedly agree with that. And so the plausibility of an abiotic alternative is the big question.
You suggest that there are plausible abiotic pathways, but I think that's where this all starts to go off the rails, because I don't think there are in fact plausible abiotic pathways. We absolutely should attempt to model such possibilities and should be extremely careful about assumptions before working that out. But the state of our knowledge thus far counts for something too and it would suggest that such a process is pretty rare or unique. And then it really goes off the rails because instead of an actual example, you suggest not any specific known pathway, but a kind of bizarre philosophical musing that maybe there's "geochemistry we can't entirely know about."
We most definitely are capable of modeling chemical processes even if they don't happen on Earth. And there sure as heck is no such thing as a principle that things beyond Earth's surface are things we "can't" know about. I truly can't stress enough how ridiculous an assumption like that is.
We know, for instance, that gas giants are capable of producing phosphine, even though that doesn't happen on Earth. We know that the moon likely has a molten core. We know all kinds of things about atmospheric chemistry of planets and stars, because even if the abiotic processes can't be witnessed directly on Earth, we know enough about the principles of chemistry to model them in new contexts with reasonably high confidence.
And that's before we get to the idea that such uncertainty about off-world chemistry can be treated as tantamount to evidence of known abiotic process. It's nothing of the sort, it's more like "who knows, maybe it's possible." We do indeed have to figure out if there are such things as an aviotic process, but just the idea that, hey, who knows, something offworld might be happening is nowhere near enough to count.
The main scenario it rules out is one where intelligent ET life is common and we are late to the party. I feel like both those things can’t be true or we would see evidence.
I do find it fun to think about because it unfolds under scrutiny into such a vast tree of possibilities. But that same huge tree of possibilities makes it hard to say much.
One of my favorite wild speculations is that there is somewhere more interesting to go than space, and more accessible, and eventually whatever that is gets found before starships get built. What could that be? A traversable multiverse maybe?
That belongs to a subset of scenarios I call “positive great filters.” That’s where the great filter is a big success that renders space flight unimportant or uninteresting but does not result in extinction.
What about hyper-miniaturization. Maybe you can have something the size and scope of a galactic civilization without leaving home by folding your minds and everything else up into quantum states or hidden extra dimensions. Think a civilization of “sophons” (three body problem reference) with trillions upon trillions of minds occupying a few square meters of space and consuming a few hundred watts.
Yet another is some kind of remote sensing that lets you explore without physically moving, like a real equivalent to remote viewing. There’s a sci-fi novel called Blind Lake about this. Combine with miniaturized super efficient information processing and you could have superintelligences that explore everywhere and learn everything without going anywhere.
Lots of speculations and possibilities if you allow for the fact that we’ve only been doing science seriously for about 150 years and surely do not know everything.
There are a thousand scenarios where those things are true, e.g. the Zoo/Planetarium Hypothesis, but they tend to result in the conclusion that we're being somehow manipulated and can't trust our observations, so they're strongly disfavored on scientific grounds... Which does not rule them out.