←back to thread

417 points fuidani | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
weberer ◴[] No.43714466[source]
Here's the primary source

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/adc1c8

They possibly detected dimethyl sulfide, which is only known to be produced by living organisms.

replies(5): >>43714570 #>>43715076 #>>43715316 #>>43717206 #>>43718733 #
teamonkey ◴[] No.43717206[source]
A lot of science papers are like “we found a hint of this thing, we need to do more research” and it’s reported as “ALIENS??!?”

I understand why this is the case but I think it can lead to a loss in trust in science when the reporting jumps to conclusions that aren’t supported by the research itself.

In this case the abstract is far more grounded. In particular,

> The observations also provided a tentative hint of dimethyl sulfide (DMS), a possible biosignature gas, but the inference was of low statistical significance.

> We find that the spectrum cannot be explained by most molecules predicted for K2-18 b, with the exception of DMS and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), also a potential biosignature gas.

> More observations are needed to increase the robustness of the findings and resolve the degeneracy between DMS and DMDS. The results also highlight the need for additional experimental and theoretical work to determine accurate cross sections of important biosignature gases and identify potential abiotic sources.

replies(3): >>43718291 #>>43718512 #>>43718937 #
netsharc ◴[] No.43718512[source]
Ugh, "alien life" is a reasonable title, IMO. I think the sensationalism is happening in your head, that you're imagining the Borg or little green men.
replies(4): >>43718725 #>>43719489 #>>43724020 #>>43724032 #
1. teamonkey ◴[] No.43719489[source]
I don’t think it’s an unreasonable title, but it’s also not accurate. The paper states quite clearly that they’ve found reasonable evidence of a known biomarker. They don’t know enough to say whether it’s from a biological or some abiotic process (but speculate a little about what that might mean and what evidence they would need to take that further).

That’s quite a different tone from the article, and I think the comments here and elsewhere online reflect that.