Clues of Life's Origins Found In Galactic Cloud 80
astroengine writes "Finding things like amino acids in space directly is a difficult business. So, instead of finding them directly, a team using West Virginia's Green Bank Telescope, led by Anthony Remijan, discovered two other molecules – cyanomethanimine and ethanamine — both of which are precursor molecules. In other words, these molecules are the early steps in the chain of chemical reactions that go on to make the stuff of life. The researchers found these molecules near the center of the Milky Way inside a hulking interstellar cloud known as Sagittarius B2 (Sgr B2), spanning 150 light-years in size, up to 40 times as dense as any other cloud the Milky Way has to offer."
Life (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a feeling that if we could get out there and explore we'd find at least 'primitive' life is near ubiquitous. The precursors are all around, and given the vastness of the Universe there has got to be plenty of life out there. It is unfortunate that we might never leave our Solar System with meaningful exploratory tools, but I'm still hopeful. We probably won't know in our lifetime though.
Re: (Score:1)
Why would we never leave our solar system? We're already knocking on Mars' door...
Re:Life (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a misrepresentation in your post. It is true that Voyager 1 is 17 light hours away and it has taken 35 years, yes, but that's not the point of Voyager 1. The mission of Voyager 1 wasn't to see how far it could get in 35 years. If we needed to get a craft 17 light hours from Earth in the fastest time possible it certainly wouldn't take 35 years, even with 1960s technology.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FTL (Score:2)
Realistically we (humans, not just robotic probes) are not going to be going to other star systems until we invent/discover: Warp Drive/Hyperdrive/hyperspace/jumpgates/stargates/Alderson points/Warp points or [Insert your favorite FTL technology here]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
which is inexorably dependent on it's host planet for resupplying oxygen, fuel, food and crew (who get muscle fatigue from microgravity after lengthy periods there)
We cannot do #1.
Re: (Score:3)
Or #2.
We cannot do #1 or #2... in space.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually he was talking about the planet, not the ISS.
Re: (Score:2)
What remains is that the genetic pool can't be refreshed easily during the long journey, when multiplying the conventional way. So enough sperm and ovules would be required to have the crew survive
Re:FTL (Score:5, Insightful)
Man I hate that argument. You are saying if we can't even figure out how not to harm the Earth's environment we can't or shouldn't be working on how to create a good environment in space right?
That is so backwards! We learn by doing the smaller things first, then the large ones. What do you think is more complicated, the environment of a complete planet or the space within a spaceship? Maybe by figuring out how to live on the space ship we will actually learn something we can apply to managing our resources back on Earth! For example... I bet people will develop some really good waste processing technology when they are reliant on it directly for drinking water!
At the very least, any steps we take in space are not likely to harm any existing liveable natural environment unlike pretty much everything we do on Earth. If anything environmentalists should want us OFF the planet, not on it! Some people seem to be more concerned about poluting our dead moon than they are our living planet! WTF are people smoking?
Re: (Score:2)
We can't work out how to do #1 [survive indefinitely in space using only available resources] with our current "spaceship", and that's in nice stable orbit around a star with a preexisting life support system.
Nah; we know pretty well how to do that on such a large "spaceship". It's just that we've given the controls to businessmen and religious leaders. The former have a "moral" objection to any strategy other than short-term personal gain, while the latter are "morally" opposed to limits on population growth, and both oppose teaching the general population what we know about how biological systems work. But all have to do is kick them out of their controlling positions and replace them with people who want
Re: (Score:2)
Why would somebody mod that down? Just because of the 'F' word? Grow up moderator!
This is right on! Given what we are learning about our outer solar system and just begining to notice around other stars it would seem space isn't quite as empty as we thought. Without FTL travel people can still spread out, one rock/iceball at a time until eventually they end up in other solar systems. That route just takes longer but... if we develop that ability to live out there.. and FTL turns out ot be impossible or we
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Nope, it's far more simple than that, thanks to Einstein's discoveries. All we need is a ship that can produce a 1g thrust over a long time ...
Sure. I've done the math. Theoretically, you'd reach the speed of light in about a year's time. But it won't happen and in fact, Einstein's "discoveries" were among the first to explain WHY it can't happen. :)
1. As you accelerate toward the speed of light (so-called "relativistic" speed), your mass approaches infinity. You reach a point where you can't generate
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. You can always push the ship faster because the relativistic mass never reaches infinity, it just asymptotically approaches is. Yes, it gets harder to accelerate the ship, but at no point does it become theoretically impossible.
Re:Life (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a misrepresentation in your post. It is true that Voyager 1 is 17 light hours away and it has taken 35 years, yes, but that's not the point of Voyager 1. The mission of Voyager 1 wasn't to see how far it could get in 35 years. If we needed to get a craft 17 light hours from Earth in the fastest time possible it certainly wouldn't take 35 years, even with 1960s technology.
The Helios probes did set the record at 157,000 mph which is much faster than Voyager's 38,000 mph. However, Helios did not sustain that speed, while Voyager has. But even if a probe of sufficient size to do the job could sustain that speed, in 35 years, it would still be less than 3 light days away.
Re: (Score:1)
The nearest star system is Alpha Centauri. The nearest star is Proxima Centauri.
Re: (Score:1)
We probably won't know in this lifetime, but anything is possible.
Hey, wait a sec... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm on one of the graduate students on this project! Feel free to ask me anything if you're interested!
Since the article didn't post a link to the paper (my #1 pet peeve as a scientist), here it is on arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0909 [arxiv.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Very cool, man, very cool.
Re: (Score:1)
So how will this play into the fate of Green Bank?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hey, wait a sec... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not just finding amino acids. Yes, as yous say amino acids are have been detected before. the problem is that there are a lot of different amino acids, and only some of them are essential to the fundamental building blocks of life. What this research is showing is that they have detected some of the essential amino acids, rather than the general variety known about before. It's somewhat like the difference between knowing that there is carbon in interstellar space, and finding diamonds, graphine or bucky-tubes. Knowing that there is carbon there does not imply that you will find one of the specific forms, but if you find one of those forms, you can deduce that it is much easier to start from there as a building block for other things (presuming you know things that use them as building blocks.)
Likewise just because the building blocks of life are in interstellar space doesn't mean that life is everywhere, just that when conditions are favorable, it's reasonable to presume that the amino acids necessary can show up.
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise just because the building blocks of life are in interstellar space doesn't mean that life is everywhere, just that when conditions are favorable, it's reasonable to presume that the amino acids necessary can show up.
We hear this a lot about having the building blocks of life and amino acids and such (I'm not a scientist), so if it is known all the blocks that make life and theorized it's possible, how come we are not running experiments constantly pulsing electricity through millions of different combinations of these building blocks to see if we can jumpstart life ourselves in the lab (or are we)? Or has it happened and just not made the 'joe public' newscast? Stories such as this come across as taking for granted
Re: (Score:1)
There is a lot of data available on that. I remember reading about at least 100 different experiments from Nat Geo and biology textbooks. It's out there and I'm tempted to say "google" but wikipedia is maybe a more direct alternative, start digging through sources. We've even created self replicating molecules at this point I think in a lab somewhere but don't cite me on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> the missing ingredient is time
Yep. But given that the age of the universe is about 14 billion years, and that it spent the first 8-9 billion years of that creating all of those chemicals (primarily via stellar nucleosynthesis -- i.e, supernovae), there's not a whole lot of time available, on a cosmic scale. Whatever finally ends up being proposed for abiogenesis will have to be a VERY efficient process.
Finding the pre-biotic chemicals in stellar clouds is an important first step. This is amazing stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We've found amino acids in a comet yet but thats only 1 instance in our local area (glycine in a comet) where we already know life exists. The question now is understanding how these molecules got there, can the others be produced, and how abundant can we expect them to be.
The chances of detecting the full amino acid by IR or radio astronomy is very slim unless they were very very high in abundance(due to their "large" size and large number of species in the sample) thus in order to understand if they are
Re:Hey, wait a sec... (Score:5, Interesting)
What's really interesting in the context of chemistry is the chemical or physical mechanism for generating complex molecular substance in an early protoplanetary system (either in a cloud, or a disk around a young star, or whatever). We can't really attempt to recreate the conditions of space -- we can do cold, we can do fairly low pressures (though obviously not as low as interstellar space), we can make stuff on surfaces, we can even bombard it with an intense and high-energy photons -- but it's mostly just simple models for the intense conditions of a star forming region.
Most of the research does point to the conclusion that most of the complex organic material gets formed on surfaces of various ices or grains -- it's really the only thermodynamically viable way of forming stuff at such extreme conditions. But how do we probe this spectroscopically? It turns out spectroscopy on surfaces kind of sucks (no offense to surface scientists) -- the absorptions are broad and fairly uncharacteristic, especially on a surface with a potentially complex mixture of molecules of both high and low abundance. It turns out the best way to get resolution is to go to gas-phase. Problem here is that it's damn cold! Complex stuff can't get formed sub-20 K temperatures. But we do see stuff, like this molecule, that give us some sense of what's really going on. There's no way to detect whether or not this stuff is being made on ices or grains and then getting heated off by the absorption of a photon, or whatever, but it's likely the case (especially since there is experimental evidence of ethanimine and cyanomethanimine being formed on cold ice surfaces).
Amino acids (and nucleic acids) might be a lot more abundant than we know. But it's likely this stuff sticks to the ices and grains, or gets formed a lot later in the star formation cycle. That being said, finding these molecules that are studied precursors to major biomolecules is a good sign that the field's on the right track (for the most part. There's a lot of old ideas in the field, and with the advent of the next generation of radio astronomy starting this decade, I think we'll start to see a lot more results like this).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hey, wait a sec... (Score:5, Informative)
The radio telescopes that are used technically do record a full "column" of signal in the path between here and the molecular cloud. They key is we assume the atmosphere is relatively uniform across the time of the measurement so the telescope actually moves and points away from the source to collect a "background". This allows us to remove any signal coming from the atmosphere.
Additionally we can see the temperature these molecules are at. For this example the molecule is only sitting at a few K which is far too cold to be in the earths atmosphere (even the upper atmosphere).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
.
Ah, so you measured the spectra of the organic compounds in the laboratory environment for comparison to the astronomical observations, eh? Very cool... Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question.
Re:Hey, wait a sec... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How does this speak to the statistical probability of amino acids forming protein chains? What would the density of them be and in comparison to an earthly origin would there be greater or lesser odds?
Re:Hey, wait a sec... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
> It doesn't really resolve any of these issues.
I'm reminded of a comment made to me once by one of your fellow chemists. This guy was sharp, had even published a few papers in the literature.
I'm going from memory, but it went something like this: "you know," he said, "over in the Chemistry department, we're spending zillions of dollars, in state of the art laboratories, with tons of carefully-calibrated equipment, just to figure out how to synthesize a chemical from a sample obtained from nature.
"And ye
Re: (Score:2)
You're on one of the students? Is he/she hot?
Kidding aside, very cool. Nice work.
Re:Hey, wait a sec... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm on one of the graduate students on this project!
I trust it's consensual? :p
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
>>I'm on one of the graduate students on this project!
>I trust it's consensual? :p
Do you think ibmleninpro would be able to post on /. at the same time if it wasn't consensual?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Very interesting. My specialty is mathematics and I am somewhat of a science critic, so I shouldn't have an opinion but that has never stopped me before.
What OTHER complex chemicals are found in the dust clouds in the universe?
While there is naturally an interest in detecting our own Earth-based type of life, I feel we can get distracted by DNA-centric prejudice and may be missing out on the chemical precursors of other types of life that may even predominate in the universe.
As a meta-scientist I looked for
Fermi Paradox (Score:5, Interesting)
Kinda creepy to think about the endless possibilities out there. To quote Douglas Adams: "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space"
Re: (Score:1)
Not to argue with Adams, but it's more like the minute molecule of "peanut stuff" that causes some allergic kid to die when he inhaled it than a whole peanut, much less peanuts, plural.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I have heard some serious claims that life is pretty ubiquitous in space dust but its not commonly accepted or known about. See conspiracy. There's now been several meteors that have made noise in the scientific community which are still hotly debated by people that care to. There has also been interesting spectroscopy from mars. The scientific data from viking is still interpretable as proof for life rather then dis-proof. Its just not enough data to say "Yes life for sure". Tons of blogs and articles roam
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be claiming that there is ample evidence of extraterrestrial life, but it's covered up. If I misinterpreted your post, my apologies. If I did not, it's futile to respond, but consider this:
There are tens of thousands of people working on various projects, in various capacities, that would have access to this evidence. *All of them* (and their wives) would have to keep their mouths shut in order for your conspiracy to work. I cannot even imagine which sets of different motivations must be necessa
His imagination is better than mine. (Score:2)
Wait, are you thinking what I am thinking? Are they just teenagers with raging hormones who see images of "origin of life" in eve
pre-cursors of life? (Score:2, Funny)
Why aminoacids? (Score:3, Interesting)
Clues of Life's Origins Found In Galactic Cloud (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
How Amateurish (Score:3)
Fate of the Green Bank Telescope (Score:3)
To any of you who think this is cool science and want to make sure more of it gets done: The GBT is under very severe threat of shutting down. In the recent NSF Portfolio Review, it was recommended that given the "current" funding situation (this was last year), the NSF divest itself of certain observatories including Green Bank. That means the telescope will shut down, unless a private consortium (i.e. of universities) can scrape together enough money to take it over.
Note also that the "current" funding situation referred to was even before the sequester, so the chances of getting the NSF to change their minds have dropped significantly - there is just not enough money in the budget. But please lobby your congressional representatives to restore funding for basic research if you think this is important!