Venus is alive
Discussion
there are some major issues with the way the paper deals with the possible routes for the production of phosphine. It brazenly rules out multiple routes that should be considered. e.g. the highly acidic atmosphere on Venus would produce phosphine by reacting with phosphide minerals like iron phosphide or nickel phosphide containing rocks. these are known, but rare, on earth. the authors dismiss them as a source of PH3 by saying the geology of Venus should be similar to Earth... we simply do not know that. then there are some issues with the reactions they modelled that would remove PH3 from the atmosphere, which are built on some iffy chemical assumptions. this would lead them to errors in the estimated rate of PH3 production.
in short, geochemistry is the best explanation and we need to know more about the geology and chemistry of Venus before we rule it out or even advance life as a possible explanation. geochemical processes that don't occur on earth could easily occur on Venus, the atmosphere is at 80 bar and has high concentrations of sulphuric acid.
it is very unlikely to be new chemistry, we know the chemist of PH3 and related compounds in quite some detail.
in short, geochemistry is the best explanation and we need to know more about the geology and chemistry of Venus before we rule it out or even advance life as a possible explanation. geochemical processes that don't occur on earth could easily occur on Venus, the atmosphere is at 80 bar and has high concentrations of sulphuric acid.
it is very unlikely to be new chemistry, we know the chemist of PH3 and related compounds in quite some detail.
Polite M135 driver said:
there are some major issues with the way the paper deals with the possible routes for the production of phosphine. It brazenly rules out multiple routes that should be considered. e.g. the highly acidic atmosphere on Venus would produce phosphine by reacting with phosphide minerals like iron phosphide or nickel phosphide containing rocks. these are known, but rare, on earth. the authors dismiss them as a source of PH3 by saying the geology of Venus should be similar to Earth... we simply do not know that. then there are some issues with the reactions they modelled that would remove PH3 from the atmosphere, which are built on some iffy chemical assumptions. this would lead them to errors in the estimated rate of PH3 production.
in short, geochemistry is the best explanation and we need to know more about the geology and chemistry of Venus before we rule it out or even advance life as a possible explanation. geochemical processes that don't occur on earth could easily occur on Venus, the atmosphere is at 80 bar and has high concentrations of sulphuric acid.
it is very unlikely to be new chemistry, we know the chemist of PH3 and related compounds in quite some detail.
Boooo!in short, geochemistry is the best explanation and we need to know more about the geology and chemistry of Venus before we rule it out or even advance life as a possible explanation. geochemical processes that don't occur on earth could easily occur on Venus, the atmosphere is at 80 bar and has high concentrations of sulphuric acid.
it is very unlikely to be new chemistry, we know the chemist of PH3 and related compounds in quite some detail.
Terminator X said:
Life or intelligent life? No one gives a f
k about bacteria surely?
TX.
The point is that if any life at all has developed on Venus independently of Earth, it implies life is very common. Therefore increases the chance of complex or even intelligent life having evolved somewhere. k about bacteria surely?TX.
stuartmmcfc said:
But life, if it exists, on Venus may not have developed independently.
I was listening yesterday to a theory that life developed on Mars and was “seeded” else where by asteroid collisions to earth and Venus?
I find that unlikely, Mars lost its atmosphere relatively early on in the timeline of the solar system, I think most scientists agree that there wasn't enough time for life to develop on Mars as there wasn't time before it went tits upI was listening yesterday to a theory that life developed on Mars and was “seeded” else where by asteroid collisions to earth and Venus?
The conditions for life may exist or have existed on a number of planets or moons in our solar system. Whether it survived on any particular planet or moon will be down to
a) whether life arose in the first place
b) how far that evolution had gone before conditions on the moon or planet changed to the point where the survival of life became more difficult or impossible.
We are still very much in the dark when it comes to understanding how life gets going in the first place. What we do know is that it seems to have started quite early on in the history of earth. That does indicate that it could have started early in other locations too - but whether it could have survived is another matter.
a) whether life arose in the first place
b) how far that evolution had gone before conditions on the moon or planet changed to the point where the survival of life became more difficult or impossible.
We are still very much in the dark when it comes to understanding how life gets going in the first place. What we do know is that it seems to have started quite early on in the history of earth. That does indicate that it could have started early in other locations too - but whether it could have survived is another matter.
The Sky at Night Venus programme put it well I thought.
The information is limited, really just to the headline, and almost everything else is speculation. This is, as TSaN pointed out, the first step. It's a discovery that needs an explanation. Currently, the only viable one is that it is life, but not as we know it.
It's exciting though. 'Well I'm damned.' went through my mind. Cool.
The information is limited, really just to the headline, and almost everything else is speculation. This is, as TSaN pointed out, the first step. It's a discovery that needs an explanation. Currently, the only viable one is that it is life, but not as we know it.
It's exciting though. 'Well I'm damned.' went through my mind. Cool.
Back in 1976, one of the tests carried out on Martian "soil" by the Viking lenders sent back a very strong "biological activity" signal. However, the scientists were very reluctant to start shouting about "finding life on Mars" because, back then, the conditions that existed within Martian soil were pretty much unknown and they were not sure that such a signal could REALLY be interpreted as a signature for life.
In the end they decided that it wasn't a biological signature and in the intervening 44 years we have learned enough about conditions on the surface of Mars to know that the cautious interpretation was most likely the correct one.
I have a feeling that the situation on Venus will turn out to be something similar - although in the case of Venus we are looking at conditions in the atmosphere rather than in the soil.
In the end they decided that it wasn't a biological signature and in the intervening 44 years we have learned enough about conditions on the surface of Mars to know that the cautious interpretation was most likely the correct one.
I have a feeling that the situation on Venus will turn out to be something similar - although in the case of Venus we are looking at conditions in the atmosphere rather than in the soil.
Beati Dogu said:
It looks like a compound image of the famous "Earthrise" photo taken from Apollo 8 overlaid on a surface image from a later Apollo mission.
That's quite a collection of images though. Would make a nice poster.
I thought it looked a bit "composed". If you are on any location on the side of the moon facing the earth, the earth will always be on view in a more or less fixed position in the sky. The only change would be the "phases" of the earth from crescent to full to crescent etc.That's quite a collection of images though. Would make a nice poster.
Edited by Beati Dogu on Wednesday 16th September 12:23
When looking at that picture, I was trying to work out where on the moon a lander would have to be to get that image and then, were there any landers sitting at such a location. I think the answer is no. The earth also looks way too big.
Here is a genuine shot of the earth taken from the surface of the moon -
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff