New Analysis Casts Doubt On 'Biosignatures' Found On Planet K2-18b (npr.org) 13
Initial claims that life-associated gases were detected on exoplanet K2-18b are being challenged, with independent reanalysis by Jake Taylor suggesting the data is too noisy to support such conclusions and that stronger, model-independent evidence is needed. NPR reports: Rather than seeing a bump or a wiggle that indicated a signal, "the data is consistent with a flat line," says Taylor, adding that more observations from the telescope are needed to know what can be reliably said about this planet's atmosphere. "If we want to claim biosignatures, we need to be extremely sure."
What this new work shows is that "the strength of the evidence depends on the nitty gritty details of how we interpret the data, and that doesn't pass the bar for me for a convincing detection," says Laura Kreidberg, an expert on the atmospheres of distant planets at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Germany who didn't work on the original research team or this new analysis.
She explains that astronomers can make a lot of different choices when analyzing data; for example, they can make different assumptions about the physics and chemistry at play. "Ideally, for a robust detection, we want it to be model-independent," she says -- that is, they want the signal to show up even if the underlying assumptions change from one analysis to another. But that wasn't the case here.
What this new work shows is that "the strength of the evidence depends on the nitty gritty details of how we interpret the data, and that doesn't pass the bar for me for a convincing detection," says Laura Kreidberg, an expert on the atmospheres of distant planets at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Germany who didn't work on the original research team or this new analysis.
She explains that astronomers can make a lot of different choices when analyzing data; for example, they can make different assumptions about the physics and chemistry at play. "Ideally, for a robust detection, we want it to be model-independent," she says -- that is, they want the signal to show up even if the underlying assumptions change from one analysis to another. But that wasn't the case here.
I didn't believe it from the very beginning. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I didn't believe it from the very beginning. (Score:5, Interesting)
> These researchers are always so quick to make these announcements
Journalists. Not researchers. Researchers release their results so others can study and peer review. Journalists are the ones that translate "We found via XXX analysis markers that are consistent with YYYY" into "BREAKING NEWS! ALIENS ON THEIR WAY TO ATTACK EARTH!"
Researchers are "quick to" release their findings because they want feedback from the scientific community to see what they've missed, not because they're trying to get money from some government agency that doesn't exist outside of the X-Files.
It never ceases to amaze me that self described nerds can't fathom the difference between a scientific analysis and a news article about that scientific analysis. But this is the same forum that regularly complains scientists keep "changing their mind" about the safety of alcohol (for example.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this wasn't it. These researchers are always so quick to make these announcements in an attempt to justify or procure more government funds, and it's a competition to see who can lie the most. This is how we wind up with George Santos shit. These people can say anything they want, and because we have no way to ever get to these places to verify it, it's meaningless.
I didn't believe it either, but for less conspiratorial reasons.
90% of the hype came from the media, but a bit from the researchers as well.
But they did it for the same reason everyone else got excited. They're nerds who became astronomers because they're interested in thinks like life in space and it would be super cool if it's true.
The claim they These researchers are always so quick to make these announcements in an attempt to justify or procure more government funds doesn't make sense. The results getti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
These researchers are always so quick to make these announcements in an attempt to justify or procure more government funds
Unfortunately, science has degraded to just another form of marketing and often tainted by whatever the researchers' biases/motivations are.
A larger issue (Score:2)
Normally, I'd say pareidolia is a huge issue when interpreting data... but in this case, isn't the biggest issue that the 'signatures' in question have already been positively identified in places we know can't host life?
They did not detect "biosignatures". (Score:4, Informative)
Elements + heat + pressure + time = compounds.
But it's blatantly obvious that there are obviously other ways for the universe to achieve this combination of factors other than what we see on Earth. Applying assumptions based on Earths complex biome to the rest of the universe is intellectual malpractice.
This plotline is disinformative. It might be true so its not disinformation, but the media handled this story in a way that's clearly an attempt to get people to believe something that simply isn't supported by the fact pattern. These two chemicals aren't proof of biological life.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But it's blatantly obvious that there are obviously other ways for the universe to achieve this combination of factors other than what we see on Earth.
Hardly a given unless you can point out exactly how it happens instead of handwaving like the above.
Re: (Score:2)
Why did you feel comfortable lying about the nature of universe?
Re: (Score:2)
"Gas-phase formation routes of dimethyl sulfide in the interstellar medium" [arxiv.org]
If DMS can be formed in interstellar space, then finding it anywhere else doesn't mean it had to be formed biologically there. It could have been formed s
It's dead, Jim (Score:2)
The alien biosignature...flatlined?