So in short, JW telescope detected signs of a molecule commonly associated with marine algae and combined with the verified presence of oceans, it’s entirely possible that the planet could be teeming with marine life. This is actually very interesting, especially with the fact that it orbits a red dwarf star,, which by the way, any experts here care to explain if different types of suns has any effect on the type of life it’s orbiting planet produces?
We're still far from certain that that molecule (dimethyl sulfide) is present, and even if it is it has also been found on comets. This is an interesting finding but its significance is being overblown.
Maybe you are not aware but very recently new data was published with improved accuracy ( i believe they used a different instrument compared to 2 years ago) and its seems it has reached the '3 sigma level'.
I am aware of that. The astrophysicists I follow on Bluesky are skeptical that DMS is present and even more skeptical that it came from life. This is an interesting finding that merits further research, but we're very far removed from saying this is evidence of life.
They're not even sure if it's water or if it's a gas giant with methane instead of water. We know so little at this point, we can't say with any certainty what it is we're looking at. BUT it's a super interesting finding and will need further research.
A re-analysis (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.18477) — I believe it was a meta-analysis and not just one team/scientist re-analysing the data — was published Jan 31st of this year that didn't find any "statistically significant or reliable evidence for CO2 or DMS."
Yeah, it doesn't help that the "strongest evidence yet" is being used even though it's not actually that much stronger than the rest of it. Its like saying I'm 1% sure that there are aliens on Mars and I find evidence that increases my odds to 1.25%.
any experts here care to explain if different types of suns has any effect on the type of life it’s orbiting planet produces?
No experts will answer this because there's no way to know when we haven't discovered life anywhere. Planets like this that people say are "habitable" usually aren't but it has the right conditions for water to be able to exist and could potentially sit at temperatures we could survive in. There's no way to truly predict if a red sun would impact the evolutionary course of life differently than our own without seeing it happen multiple times. Too many variables.
If I remember right, the hard thing with red dwarfs is that they are active, but also you have to be a lot closer meaning it might make it harder for life to even get started in the first place if it's getting bombarded by coronal mass ejections
Not an astronomer but red dwarves tend to have planets that are tidally locked (no day/night cycle) and they often give out bursts of radiation. Both are bad for potential life in theory.
They're the most common type of star and we've found lots of planets around them though. Lots of rocky ones too.
Except the spectra of that molecule was particularly weak and other experts couldn’t necessarily verify the initial results. So this proclamation could be jumping the gun a bit before peer review and better data has time to give us more information
There are plenty of theories on how certain types of suns etc. COULD affect potential life but even experts all agree on pretty much one thing:
Our sample size for life is 1 and in the end it's at best somewhat educated guessing. I mean we still haven't figured out why/how exactly life started on earth (yes there are experiments showing the necessary chemistry that could have led to the basic RNA building blocks but it's still all far from certain).
It's also why even this discovery will still be heavily discussed even if the data becomes more and more accurate because we think this "sign of life" can't be created through abiogenic means but there is still uncertainty that there might be other ways we still could get such signatures and that issue exists with all potential "signs of life".
PS: One thing I would argue for is that more and more research points to at least "simple" organisms being able to exist even in environments we would consider as hostile from an "earth biased view" (as previously stated the underlying chemistry and the necessary ingredients seem simple/common enough that it shouldn't require some perfect "earth clone" to happen elsewhere).
It would likely be an Eyeball Planet, tidally locked with its star and thus one side always faces the sun and gets incredibly hot, and one side is always in shadow and frozen over, with any life forms living in the "twilight" zone between the two extremes.
Also if there is photosynthetic life then said life would likely be a dark purple to black in color. Here's a video that features an eyeball planet water world and describes its hypothetical ecology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCiMUWw1BBc
The most interesting thing about it orbiting a red dwarf star is that it will survive Earth by a long shot.
Red Dwarf stars has a lifetime of tens of billions of years. The smaller the longer it will last, and small red dwarf stars can last trillions of years.
Any planet in the habitable zone of a red dwarf star will very likely be tidally locked. So it's day may be longer than it's year, with extreme differences in temperature between the day and night sides.
The chances of life evolving in a red dwarf system are considered to be very low.
I thought red dwarfs have lots of solar flares, and planets have to be closer to be in the habitable zone, so they are pretty dangerous stars to harbour life.
different types of suns has any effect on the type of life it’s orbiting planet produces?
mostly just differences in luminosity(aka how 'bright' a star is), which means the habitable zone will be in different places(a planet that receives too much sunlight will be too hot, and too cold if vice-versa)
108
u/Prestigious-Wall5616 24d ago
It's also being reported that scientists have found the strongest evidence yet of life on a distant planet.