Scientists Discover Interstellar ... Sugar? 159
Vicnice writes: "The discovery of simple sugars in the cosmos raises the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe a notch or two.
Specifically, the sugar molecules were located in a gas cloud near the center of our galaxy. From the National Radio Astronomy Observatory release: "The scientists identified glycolaldehyde by detecting six frequencies of radio emission in what is termed the millimeter-wavelength region of the electromagnetic spectrum -- a region between more-familiar microwaves and infrared radiation."
Ooh! (Score:1)
===
-J
Drake Equation (Score:3)
This is good news, though, adding a bit to the likelihood of their being other civilizations out there somewhere.
God(tm) 2.0 - Mankind's best invention! (Score:1)
Is there a God? Well, if there was not a God, what would life mean? Nothing! Is life meaningless? Do you want your life to mean nothing? I sure don't! Therefore, there is a God.
So what you're saying is that God exists solely to add meaning to your otherwise worthless and meaningless life? Sounds like He has quite a job in front of Him.
Are you also saying that people who have meaningful lives without Deity live in a Universe sans same? Are we beings from parallel Universes, occupying the same space-time continuum; some of us made in God's own image and some being naturally occuring phenomena?
When I was 5, when I first heard about evolution, I asked my grandmother if people evolved from apes, or if they were made by God. She said that it depended on the person - God made some, the rest are directly related to monkeys. I finally grok what she meant.
Once you see the light, follow me over and try Jesus for yourself.
I personally prefer www.askjesus.com myself, but then again God smiles onto some and frowns onto others.
Douglas Adams? (Score:1)
Rather funny I thought
Re:When will you guys learn? (Score:1)
You have to bear in mind that this is a text based medium,sarcasm is hard to spot.
You are evil grappler (Score:1)
mwahahahahahahaha
"Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n."-Paradise Lost, Book I, line 263
Re:When will you guys learn? (Score:1)
--
grappler
Re:When will you guys learn? (Score:1)
--
grappler
Re:When will you guys learn? (Score:2)
But that's precisely what's so beautiful about it - you have only the words themselves to interpret what the poster really means. It such an encounter was face-to-face, this form of humor would be impossible. Either you use a sarcastic tone of voice, making it obvious to all, or you use a sincere tone, which screws it all up unless it is done perfectly. I love extracting meaning from this kind of stuff based on what is left unsaid.
I guess my original plan was to post something likely to attract posts arguing with it, and then to those posts I would respond with something so outrageous that they would know I wasn't serious. When people still didn't grasp it, I upped it even more. After reading the resulting replies, I got frustrated as all heck
Oh well, if some people laughed, it served its purpose. It sucks that all I get to see is the negative reactions.
--
grappler
Re:Obviously you think it is?? (Score:1)
I hope you are just another troller otherwise your statements are just plain ridiculous. You advise in your posts for these 2 groups to CEASE and DESIST and then you say that one of the views is pure nonsense.
Thank Eris you are no Hostage Negotiator!!
I gotta say this (Score:1)
(fuck you, moderators!)
Re:When will you guys learn? (Score:1)
Oh! And if YOU feel you are ready, you too can try Jesus [tryjesus.com]!
--
grappler
Re:I Can't Believe it (Score:1)
I hope this helps a little. You can learn more by looking at the webpage of my lab, http://soral.as.arizona.edu
note: all of our instruments run using Linux
note: The guys who wrote the paper on Moore's law and slacking which appeared on
Re:Interstellar brewery (Score:1)
No one "realises" (Score:1)
Re:www.screwlifetoday.com (Score:2)
For your enjoyment, you can also check out www.wwjd.com, which presents a silly attempt at a new "hip", "totally rad", "awesome" and "amazing" face for Christianity, thus making it "cool" and "with it".
--
grappler
Re:Life is mostly sugar, water, salt, and amino ac (Score:1)
Re:When will you guys learn? (Score:1)
What makes grappler's posts more important than the rest that his posts start life at +2 automatically?
Those people were not actually created by Almighty God. They are creatures of a more demonic sort, and since their skin is not pure and white like that of decent folk, they are born hellbound, and need to know their place.
So much for love thy neighbor. Lets see, what proof do you have of this assertion? Oh that's right, the Bible. How is that authoritative? Oh that's right, because it just is, and perish the thought of thinking otherwise.
This is reasoning I would expect from a 6 year old.
Re:A side thought - HOAX (Score:3)
It's not really that difficult. If you can detect the could in the first place, you can get a spectrograph of the radiation coming from it. All chemical compounds have a unique spectrographic fingerprint (though they might sometimes get lost in the noise of other compounds) and thus can be easily detected.
This is how helium was first discovered: somebody took a spectrogram of the sun and found some interesting spectral lines in it, applied some theory or other, and came up with helium.
Scepticism (Score:2)
Spectral analysis of the cloud and doing a statistical match; if the cloud absorbs several frequencies in the right proportions as a sugar, there is a good chance(not absolute) that there exists a sugar. But this doesn't rule out that there is something there *other* than sugar, just that there are things that have the same bond energies and structure as a sugar...
-AS
Your a HOAX (Score:1)
Re: How to answer your own questions (Score:1)
You easily could have found this link [scimedia.com] at ask.com, for want of a better source.
Re:A side thought - HOAX (Score:1)
Finding sugar in a gas cloud is as simple as noting missing wavelengths corresponding to the sugar. This identification technique is so accurate that it can be used to detect the doppler effect, by figuring out the amount of red-shift that must occur to turn the spectrum of a known substance into the observed spectrum.
Donny
Re:Life is mostly sugar, water, salt, and amino ac (Score:1)
The above poster ZanshinWedge [gaysexlive.com] is one of the proudest longtime members of BWUG [aacap.org].
I, being a loyal follower of ZanshinWedge [gaysexlive.com]have found true serenity and happieness in learning, not just from his oh so insightful posts on Slashdot, but more from his teachings at The Open Source Legislative Focus Foundation [shit.com].
In the OSLFF ZanshinWedge [gaysexlive.com] has taught many of us the finer tactics of "arrogance in thread" and "flame and get karma". The best part of this is that like ZanshinWedge [gaysexlive.com], you really don't need to know anything about what you're posting. A simple ME TOO! [slashdot.org] post works just fine.
I may be out of line here, but I think I speak for everyone when I say that I think ZanshinWedge [gaysexlive.com] is the most insightful, interesting and mature poster we have on slashdot. I don't think anyone here would ever call him a whore, a bedwetter or a loser.
Moderators, now that you know ZanshinWedge [gaysexlive.com] is truly deserving, make sure you drop a few points on him. He's deserves them for his insightful and interesting comment. Don't forget, all 22320 of us Meta-moderate, we'll make sure you get recognized for your efforts.
Re:How many do there have to be to be seen? (Score:1)
What the researchers in this case found was spectral lines for a single kind of molecule. That is, they found a bunch of "sugar" molecules emitting the same spectral lines. (Six lines, I think.)
As for how many you need in the cloud, well that depends on the distance to the cloud and the sensitivity of the detector. The radio sky is fairly noisy, so you need many little molecules generating signal to pull out enough signal to see it above the noise. (If I weren't so lazy, I could do the math.) In this case, I'd guess they found a whole lot of this single kind of molecule.
tc>
Re:How many do there have to be to be seen? (Score:1)
It's here [uiuc.edu].
tc>
Bizzare Eskimo Suicide (Score:1)
Re:When will you guys learn? (Score:1)
The Bible *IS* authorative allright.
Look at the SOA !!!
Now do you believe it's authorative ??
eagle:/mp3# dig bible.org any @bible.org
; > DiG 8.2 > bible.org any @bible.org
; (1 server found)
bible.org. 6H IN NS dns.bible.org.
bible.org. 6H IN NS icarus.ods.com.
bible.org. 6H IN SOA dns.bible.org. hamptonk.bible.org. (
991115 ; serial
6H ; refresh
1H ; retry
2w6d ; expiry
6H ) ; minimum
bible.org. 6H IN MX 20 bsf.bible.org.
bible.org. 6H IN MX 10 bible.org.
bible.org. 6H IN A 192.94.73.148
bible.org. 6H IN NS dns.bible.org.
bible.org. 6H IN NS icarus.ods.com.
icarus.ods.com. 16h59m14s IN A 192.94.73.11
bsf.bible.org. 6H IN A 192.94.73.148
bible.org. 6H IN A 192.94.73.148
Fight sugarman! (Score:1)
It's the only way we can stop sugarman.
Sure we couldn't defeat coffeeman or beerman or even that dirtbagpussie Bitterman but together we will defeat sugarman!
And dont brinng up that Triangleman b.s. I havn't got the time to explain the metaphysical laws and logic falacies of that old TMBG arguemant. Stupid humans. Ooops! Did I think that out loud? Aargh! Frickin' Intellivoice! Stupid software! I'm gonna hack you into submission. WILL YOU MONKEYS STOP TYPING FOR ONE SECOND?! I'M TRYIN' TO WORK OVER HERE! Hee hee, my co-workers hate it when I call them monkeys. Still, they type so fast it's as if they got paid in Crack. Umm. What was I doing? Oh yeah!
ahem
I order you humans to put anti-freeze in your coffee.
surarman must be defeated!
I cant wait to eat those stupid hairless apes.
Re:Drake equation values? (Score:1)
As for our chances of visiting a civilization once we detected it, it may well be that by the time we would hear signals from a civilization, they'd already be long dead.
The good news today is that this discovery (of simple sugars) seems to indicate that ne (the number of Earth-like planets) is higher than it might be otherwise. That is, there may be more planets out there with sugars like these than we previously thought.
Re:No one "realises" (Score:1)
Sugar? (Score:1)
Of course, the weight-conscious alien species will have gas clouds full of aspartame.
Donny
Re:Homer Simpson was right! (Score:1)
Or, is the doughnut a hole captured by a surface?
Is there a doughBOLT somewhere? What kind of wrench fits a doughnut?
Where are the baby pigeons?
Who the hell is Natelie Portman?
Hey wait a sec...
This isn't Ask Jeeves!
If I don't get back in ten minutes - avenge my death.
Re:When will you learn? (Score:1)
Trolling is fun
--
grappler
HOORAY! (Score:1)
no doubt is going to be playing here! i MUST meet gwen stefani! i'm going to replace all occurrences of "natalie portman" in all of my stories with "gwen stefani" and show them to her! then i'm going to say, "hey baby, there's a buffalo refuge 20 minutes from here!" Gwen will reply, "oh, open-source man! i have seen the inspiration and love behind your open-source writings! i will go see the buffalo with you and then walk in your spiderwebs! i must call my good friend, natalie portman and have her join us!"
"HOORAY!"
suspision: n. (Score:1)
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
Re:When will you guys learn? (Score:1)
Hang on... I really need to get this straight. You're actually touting this Identity Baptist "mud people" stuff? What's next? Kahzars and ZOG?
Oh yeah, your tryjesus page uses the blink tag... that's worthy of eternal damnation righ there.
Candy (Score:1)
What about Milky Way Lite?(nt) (Score:1)
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
Interstellar caffiene (Score:3)
Re:When will you guys learn? (Score:1)
What makes grappler's posts more important than the rest that his posts start life at +2 automatically?
Because my posts speak the Truth, which is outlined for us in the Word which He gave us. Everyone knows that good Karma goes to followers of the Word.
This is reasoning I would expect from a 6 year old.
And I suppose you won't like this reasoning either:
Is there a God? Well, if there was not a God, what would life mean? Nothing! Is life meaningless? Do you want your life to mean nothing? I sure don't! Therefore, there is a God.
Once you see the light, follow me over and try Jesus [tryjesus.com] for yourself.
--
grappler
Re:When will you guys learn? (Score:1)
Repent, or expect to spend eternity in Hell! For more information, head over here [directtoheaven.com].
--
grappler
Re:Spectral Analysis (Score:2)
The electrons jump up and down levels on, say, copper, absorbing and emitting photons.
However, the bonds between two carbon atoms are nothing more than electrons sharing the space between the two; they can *also* rearrange themselves in the energy configuration, and absorb and emit energies as well, but in different manners.
So they detected the emission of radio frequencies when the sugar molecule rearranged itself. As it absorbed energy from space, it enters into higher energy states. When it 'emits' energy, it enters into a lower energy state. Statistically then, the combination of the energy spectra forms a pattern fairly unique to the sugar.
-AS
Re:Sugar? (Score:3)
That's why Genetically Engineered "Smart Mice" [slashdot.org][tm] use real interstellar sugar!
Your a hoax. (Score:1)
Re:Space sugar (Score:2)
Burris
Re:this doesn't surprise me (Score:1)
--
DeCSS source code! [metastudios.com]
you must amputate to email me.
Re:A side thought - HOAX (Score:1)
> All you have to do is look at the source of a
> page you've posted on and you'll see the
> special character after the 'i'.
Actually, you can see a funny accent on top of the 'i', if you look closely enough. You have even used Timothy's e-mail address. This is dishonest, Timothy impersonator. Shame on you.
Donny
Re:Does anyone realise?? (Score:1)
Life formed in the prescence of amino acids and protiens; these were necessary for (our carbon-based form of) life to exist.
Sugars and protiens, AFAIK, have a lot in common. It seems to me that these sugars could suggest a carbon-based-life-friendly environment, but do not necessarily prove that there is life.
Re:When will you guys learn? (Score:1)
Re:When will you guys learn? (Score:1)
Now tell that to Alex Pennance [slashdot.org]
--
grappler
Easy! (Score:2)
So you can use those two elements as landmarks to determine the sugar molecules.
-AS
Re:this doesn't surprise me (Score:1)
it only seems to make sense... (Score:1)
Re:When will you guys learn? (Score:1)
Re:When will you guys learn? (Score:2)
Re:Here's another article (Score:1)
Re:A side thought - HOAX (Score:1)
Little-Known Fact: (Score:2)
Grsyzylax, Imperial Grand Jester of the Chef Nebula, declined to comment.
Mars (Score:2)
I am trying my hardest to avoid any Mars puns....
Don't laugh (Score:3)
HOAX? No, but perhaps bad science? (Score:3)
What *IS* a surprise is that there is sugar in large enough quantites to be detected.
As for how they were detected, the article says:
The discovery was made by detecting faint radio emission from the sugar molecules in the interstellar cloud. Molecules rotate end-for-end, and as they change from one rotational energy state to another, they emit radio waves at precise frequencies. The "family" of radio frequencies emitted by a particular molecule forms a unique "fingerprint" that scientists can use to identify that molecule. The scientists identified glycolaldehyde by detecting six frequencies of radio emission in what is termed the millimeter-wavelength region of the electromagnetic spectrum -- a region between more-familiar microwaves and infrared radiation.
So, as the article says, they used a bit of spectrography (or radio spec as the case is). Its the same way that Helium was discovered in the sun before it was discovered on earth. (Helios --> meaning "sun" hence Helium.)
According to the article and the information presented therin I would find it unlikely that it is a hoax. The beauty of a thing like this (and science in general) is that anyone else with a telescope capable of detecting this and a radio spectrometer can verify the results. Now, I don't have one. Still, I do know people who work at the Dominion Radio Astronomical Obseratory here in central B.C.
Now, I am not going to go ask my friends to verify this - its just not worth my time. It does however show a good point: Good science can be replicated. You can bet that there are other scientists that upon seeing this result will point their telescopes at this portion of the sky and check.
Myself, I would put money on this being good science and not bad science from the general tone of the article. It seems that the scientific method was followed, and a discovery was unvelied.
In the end, even bad science turns into good science. It just takes time.
Interstellar brewery (Score:1)
Baz
Life is mostly sugar, water, salt, and amino acids (Score:2)
hehe, btw, nice ascii schematics
Now, what's really cool about this finding (and several others) is not that there's stuff that's identical to what we have on Earth in comets etc., but all this adds up to much higher chances for life coming into existence other places in the universe.
The three most important recent and/or semi-recent discoveries in this area are (IMO) the discovery that simple sugars exist in the interstellar medium, the discovery that asteroids contain salts, and the discovery (this is older) that comets contain amino acids. Put these things together and you get some INCREDIBLY interesting chemistry. Sugars and a phosphate salt form the backbone of nucleic acids (like DNA), sugars are a great source of energy as well as a great way to store it, simple strings of amino acids can do amazing things, when amino acid strings get long and complicated enough we call them proteins.
These discoveries show that the fundamental elements of the goo that is required for life to emerge is present throughout the universe and in fairly high abundance. This means that provided a good place to "stew" for a while (which may be rare, we do not fully know yet) the chances for life coming about are very high indeed.
Less than 50 years ago we had only a vague understanding of the factors that went into determing how rare / plentiful life and intelligent beings other than our own were in our universe. Now, we have narrowed down the ranges and gotten a good handle on most of these factors. A lot of this information has come in the last 5 to 10 years! There are now many more planets known to exist outside our good ol' Solar System than inside it, we now know of 2 other places inside our Solar System that have a good chance of being suitable places for life to exist, we know that almost any place that is suitable for life to exist on will most likely be deluged (relatively speaking) with the raw essence of the basics of life. This is truly an amazing time to be alive.
Does this mean.... (Score:1)
Re:No one "realises" (Score:2)
Only if you are American...
This is the dozenth or so time I've seen stupid spelling flames like this.
I'm half-tempted to adopt British spelling, to add a certain colour to my prose. I recognise that this may annoy some people left-of-centre of the IQ bell-curve, but I recommend they have a gin-and-tonic and bloody well bugger off, the bally wankers.
Interstellar alcohol (Score:1)
A whole host of other molecules have been discovered in space using microwave and infrared spectroscopy. To lower the technical requirement as far as I can, all you need is for the molecule to have a dipole or quadrupole.
*SIGH!* (Score:2)
Re:Not really surprising? (Score:2)
Sugars aren't "strings of amino acids strung together." Glucose and other sugars are strings of hydrogen, carbon and oxygen, whilst amino acids contain nitrogen. If you don't know about a subject, you should simply not speak on that subject.
Haiku (Score:3)
Cosmic sugar found
Glycolaldehyde? how strange
Why not...galactose?
------
Re:Scepticism (Score:2)
Re:Space sugar (Score:2)
I suggest using ye olde english (Score:3)
I realize this might be controversial, but I suggest using a mixture of American and British spelling, and throwing in some olde english, and perhaps "nyew fonetik english" as well, just to give all ye grammar nazis a coronary.
Is there anything funnier or more colourful than a spelling troll or grammar nazi twitching on the ground, lost in the throes of a severe stroke?
Restraint a prerequisite to survival (Score:2)
In other words, any species capable of surviving long enough to colonize another star may have done so only be learning restraint and respect for diversity: necessary lessons if they are not to destroy the very ecosystem which sustains their existence on the home world, not to mention avoid destroying themselves in petty conflicts.
Such a species would find the notion of exponential growth intolerable: it would wipe out all other cultures and life forms in the galaxy in favor of their own, destroying biological and cultural diversity and, quite possibly, destroying the one species with the necessary insight to survive the next galaxy-wide cataclysm (e.g. 3 billion years from now, when the Milky Way and Andromeda are expected to collide).
While humans are, as a rule, incapable of thinking in such terms and along such time scales, it is likely that a species able to survive sufficiently long to colonize other stars would take such considerations very seriously, and restrain their own growth accordingly.
AminoAcids found in space (Score:3)
Some organic chemistry, simplified
Types of elements used in life
Re:HOAX? No, but perhaps bad science? (Score:2)
Mr. Fribble you are right on. Reading the obcious troll and enjoying the humor, I run across your post which outlines the story and detail better than the original.
Thank you.
A lot! (Score:2)
To answer the first question, it is a massive cloud of the same molecules, not just one.
Spectral Analysis (Score:2)
Really bright light source with a know chemical composition(stars being mostly hydrogen and helium count) emit light and energy.
A sugar is composed of bonds between carbons, oxygens, hydrogens, etc.
The bond between two atoms is a like a spring; it can store energy, or it can release energy. In a laser, you structure it to release energy of certain wavelengths. In this case, the bond will absorb these certain wavelengths out of the light put out by the star.
So if 15 different wavelengths are subtracted out from the spectra at certain intensities, we can create an image from this light.
If we take a light source of the same composition(in the lab or something) and place, say, a sugar laden gas in front of it, and get *the same* spectra, we can conclude with *some* certainty that sugar exists in the first case too. Sorta vague only because you are identifying by shadows... but it is an accepted method of identifying chemical composition
-AS
Re:Does anyone realise?? (Score:2)
Sorry to say, but sugars and proteins don't really have much in common at all. Proteins are large molecular chains of many, many amino acids strung together. Sugars are on approximately the same scale of complexity as amino acids themselves; generally sugars are short, fully saturated carbon chains (5-6C is very common) with hydroxyl (-OH) groups bound to them. Also, a double-bonded oxygen is present, making the sugar either an aldehyde (the sugar is on C1) or a ketone (the sugar is not at the end). This can reversibly condense with the alcohol at the far end of the molecule, forming stable 5 or 6 membered rings. Of course these can then be polymerized to make longer carbohydrates such as cellulose, starch etc.
The glycoaldehyde in the article is a *very* simple sugar molecule, even when compared to ones we deal with every day such as glucose. Having only two carbon atoms, it's far too small to even form a simple ring structure. The chances of this type of molecule forming through "normal" chemical processes in nebulae are about the same (if not better) than those of other organic molecules known to be present there.
Re:Mars (Score:2)
Sorry. I'm very very sorry. Must be the beer.
Drake equation values? (Score:3)
One, what are the "agreed upon" values for each variable in Drake's Equation?
Two, since our "communicative" span may be about 100 years from first radio transmissions to adoption of less leaky cable/internet/laser stuff, how low is the fb (fraction of time the society is using broadcasting technologies)?
Three, if we DO hear something, do we assume that we'll hear someone out there, during their 100 year burst of transmissions, and then be able to visit them, given that time/space curvature puts their race far ahead of ours?
Space sugar (Score:3)
It's interesting to note that the scientists were talking about the building blocks of life seem to be being formed before the planets that host that life. Kind of makes you wonder if there are some interesting life forms living in the gas cloud independent of any one planet or star.
this doesn't surprise me (Score:2)
--
DeCSS source code! [metastudios.com]
you must amputate to email me.
I can here it now.... (Score:3)
-colin
That would explain... (Score:3)
They've discovered interstellar sugar! (Score:2)
(What's the I hear? That groaning sound...)
---
Re:Drake Equation (Score:2)
This month's Scientific American has a couple of short articles about the progress of SETI, and the growing concern among astronomers about the "Where the heck are they???" question.
They do raise some troubling questions. Although things like cosmic sugar and detectable planets would seem to increase the odds calculated by the Drake, SETI has now scanned a substantial portion of the galaxy at the "obvious" frequency without finding anything, and there is a growing feeling that we should have found something by now.
My growing suspicion is that the races stupid enough to broadcast their existence don't last very long.
--
Re:A side thought - HOAX (Score:5)
I really feel I ought to explain what they are calling 'sugars' here -- it's a biochemical term that (very crudely) boils down to 'a chain of carbons with water attached' -- only the 'water' has broken into two parts ( HOH => H + OH ) and these two parts connect to the carbon, instead of each other. you can think of a 'sugar' as a chain of carbon groups that look like HO-C-H and are connected to each other at by the carbons like this:
......._____.
....../.....|
...HO-C-H...|
...HO-C-H...|
...HO-C-H...|
...HO-C-H...|
...HO-C-H...|
....H-C-OH..|
......\_____|
The big loop just indicates that the carbons are generally in a ring. The second figure indicates that not all of the carbons are always in the ring. The last HO-C-H group is backwards to indicate that major difference between many sugars of the same size is simply whether each -OH group points up or down when we lay the ring flat. "up-up-down-up-up-up" is one sugar, but "up-up-up-down-up-up" is different sugar (they may seem like reflections, but trust me, in a 3-D ring, they aren't)
The 'well-known sugars' (most of which you've never heard of) have carbon chain lengths from 3 carbons (e.g. triose) up to seven carbons (e.g. sedheptulose). However, the 'familiar sugars' are usually based on a six carbon (glucose, fructose, etc.) or five-carbon (ribose) ring. Table sugar (sucrose) consists of *two* six carbon sugars connected together. Chains of sugars longer than two can be very 'un-sugar-like' -- cellulose (wood fiber) is nothing but long linked chains of glucose (blood sugar) while glycogen (a stored fuel in your liver) is also just branched chains of glucose, but is very different physically.
Glucose (blood sugar) or fructose (fruit sugar) are C6-H12-O6. Table sugar (sucrose) is C12-H22-O12. In space conditions, it might be useful to think of carbon chain lengths as being like stacked blocks -- the kind children play with. Generally stacking two blocks is easy, but six is more than three times as hard (it tends to fall apart easily)
The so-called "sugar" they found in space is two carbons long (glycoaldehyde C2-H4-O2) and is very unlike the six-carbon (okay, 5-7) sugars we usually think of. In biochemistry, it isn't generally called a sugar at all. Three carbons was a sort of bottom limit to be sugar like, because the 'ends' often have an extra hydrogen, and a two carbon 'sugar' would be nothing but 'end' and can't form a ring. It's not very 'sugar-like'. It is an extremely simple molecule, that would be easy to make ("stack") by random, and it looks like this (where the = means a double bond)
......H.H.... -- glycoaldehyde,
...HO-C-C=O.. -- the so-called
......H.H.... -- "space sugar"
You can find more info at these pages:
The structure and function of macromolecules [phage.org] (an outline)
Some sketches of various sugars [borg.com] (let the pictures load before scrolling, or you'll lose your place)
I should have mentioned... (Score:2)
--
In A Related Story... (Score:3)
...Scientists using the Hubble Space Telescope discoverd intergalactic coffee. There is now speculation that the Big Bang was a result of the early universe being excessively "wired". Starbucks executives declined to comment.
eh? (Score:2)
Sugar in space, or maybe... (Score:2)
Re:this doesn't surprise me (Score:2)
We're talking about a few sugar molecules. And their existance hasn't even been confirmed. A mere radiation resinance doesn't prove there is sugar in the gas clouds. We have no idea what is inside one of those things.
Besides finding sugar is a long way from finding life.
Jake
Cosmic Background Radiation Explained (Score:2)
Not really surprising? (Score:2)
As far as I know, this doesn't seem particularly ground-breaking. While it's great to find it since it's really just another step in the right direction of trying to deduce that there is life out there, it's not a particularly massive breakthrough... Scientists have known the existance of amino-acids in inter-stellar objects for quite sometime now and they actually are quite common even. I have NFI about Chemistry but as far as i know glucose is just a string of amino acids strung together. As amino acids were so common, it wasd really just a matter of time before we found sth
Re:I should have mentioned... (Score:2)
You missed a vitally important point....
Their growth would still be limited by the speed of light. Instead of Exponential growth, they would at best have cubic growth limited by some fraction of the speed of light.
This leads to dramaticly different numbers.
Does that answer your question?
It's just a bad meme.... (Score:2)
Trying to convert someone to your religion is like coughing on your friends when you have a cold.
Is this worth fighting over? (Score:2)
Some people are infected with the Christianity meme, and some people have a memetic defense against that sort of nonsense.
These two groups of people can do little more that argue with one another. It's not worth the time for either of them.
Let it go already. Move on.
Re:A side thought - HOAX (Score:3)
And yes, I know you're not the real timothy. All you have to do is look at the source of a page you've posted on and you'll see the special character after the 'i'.
this was predicted (Score:2)