Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1*Tt0NrRSR2eVmgnoJs_TXNA.jpeg
Illustration of glycine molecules on a surface of interstellar dust being bombarded by cosmic-ray protons (p+) to produce peptides, the building block of proteins and life-as-we-know-it. (Image Credit: Alfred Thomas Hopkinson et al. 2026, from a Nature Astronomy paper published here. The stars are adapted from Webb telescope image of the Cosmic Cliffs, NASA/ESA/CSA/STScI)

A new paper published in Nature Astronomy here, reports tantalizing results from laboratory experiments which demonstrate that the building blocks of proteins and life-as-we-know-it could form naturally on the surface of interstellar dust grains and are not, as previously thought, restricted to liquid-water chemistry on the surface of habitable Earth-like planets. This suggests that the `Lego-pieces’ for life could be assembled in the cold and rarefied environments of interstellar space and are ubiquitous in the Universe.

This realization is fully consistent with the discovery of protein-synthesizing amino acids and the five nucleobases used in RNA and DNA, within the material delivered to Earth from the asteroid Bennu by the OSIRIS-REx mission (as reported here).

The traditional notion for the origin of life on Earth was shaped by a landmark 1953 study (reported here) by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey who simulated early Earth’s conditions to show that simple organic molecules, like amino acids, could form spontaneously from inorganic precursors The experiment used methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O) and applied an electric spark — simulating lightning, to demonstrate the natural production of amino acids.

The new experiments were conducted at Aarhus University in Denmark and at the HUN-REN Atomki research facility in Hungary. The physical conditions encountered by interstellar dust particles were reproduced in an ultra-high vacuum chamber with a temperature as low as 13 degrees Kelvin above absolute zero (or -260 degrees Celsius).

Previous experiments already demonstrated that simple amino acids, like glycine, can form in interstellar space, but the new experiments demonstrated that more complex molecules, like peptides, could form naturally on the frigid surface of dust grains before these grains get incorporated into planets. Peptides are short chains in which individual amino acids link together. When peptides bond, they form proteins, which are essential for life. Identifying where and how protein precursors originate is a key step in figuring out the origin of life.

The new experiments placed glycine inside the vacuum chamber and exposed it to simulated cosmic-rays using an ion accelerator at HUN-REN Atomki. As a result of bombardment by energetic particles, the glycine molecules started reacting with each other to form peptides and water. This indicates that the protein production could occur on the surface of interstellar dust grains which coagulate to make rocks and planets in giant molecular clouds which serve as the nurseries of newly-born stars

If peptides are widespread on the surfaces of interstellar dust grains, then they can be easily delivered to the surface of habitable Earth-like planets — where the chemistry of life in liquid water can proceed. The reaction that links amino acids together into peptides follows the same basic rules of chemistry everywhere, making the early steps in the origin of life universal throughout the Milky-Way.

Nevertheless, the emergence of proteins is only one piece in the puzzle of life’s origin. Other pieces include membranes, nucleobases, and nucleotides, whose natural formation is actively studied in advanced laboratory experiments such as those carried by Jack Shostak at the University of Chicago (as described here).

Mainstream astronomers focus on the search for microbes beyond Earth. But as I often argue, it would be prudent to hedge our bets and also search for extraterrestrial intelligence at the same time. One of the benefits of discovering advanced extraterrestrial scientists is that they can educate us about the knowledge they acquired concerning the history of “Life in the Cosmos” (which happens to be the title of the textbook I co-authored here with my former postdoc, Manasvi Lingam in 2021). Dating someone smarter than us allows us to grow our knowledge base. As often is the case in science, the best is yet to come.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

1*yg28gE8f2onH9DadxS8bnA.jpeg
(Image Credit: Chris Michel, National Academy of Sciences, 2023)

Avi Loeb is the head of the Galileo Project, founding director of Harvard University’s — Black Hole Initiative, director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the former chair of the astronomy department at Harvard University (2011–2020). He is a former member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and a former chair of the Board on Physics and Astronomy of the National Academies. He is the bestselling author of “Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth” and a co-author of the textbook “Life in the Cosmos”, both published in 2021. The paperback edition of his new book, titled “Interstellar”, was published in August 2024.

stat?event=post.clientViewed&referrerSou

View the full article

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Topics

    • By UAPResearcher
      Danny's analysis in the video suggests that there are substantial roadblocks preventing UFO disclosure from gaining the momentum it needs within the White House. He highlights various factors that contribute to the current stagnation, suggesting that despite the increasing public interest and the release of documents by the Department of War (DOW), the government's response remains lackluster. This situation feels particularly pressing given the ongoing discussions about transparency and accountability in government concerning UAPs.
      One key point raised is the disconnect between public pressure for disclosure and the internal dynamics of government agencies. Danny argues that, although there are efforts to push for transparency, bureaucratic inertia and perhaps even political maneuvering may be holding back meaningful disclosure. This raises questions about who truly drives the conversation around UAPs and what influences their decisions.
      The video references the sixth tranche of records released by the DOW, which could provide more insight into past military encounters with UAPs. However, the effectiveness of these releases depends on how they are perceived and acted upon by policymakers. While documents can reveal historical data, their interpretation and the political context in which they are released are crucial for understanding their impact on public discourse.
      Danny emphasizes the need for a more coordinated approach within various government factions to facilitate open discussions about UAPs. This notion sparks thoughts about the past UAP hearings conducted by Congress, which aimed to create a unified stance on the phenomena. Yet, the lack of follow-up or actionable outcomes from those hearings raises doubts about whether the government is genuinely committed to transparency.
      As we consider the implications of Danny's insights, it's important to recognize the limitations of the evidence presented. While the video suggests that disclosure could realistically happen before January, it does not detail specific actions or timelines that could lead to such a development. The lack of concrete steps from the government leaves much open to interpretation, which is a significant barrier for those who seek clarity on the issue.
      As the conversation around UFOs continues to evolve, one must wonder: what specific actions should be prioritized to break the current stalemate in UAP disclosure? Moreover, how can we ensure that public interest translates into policy changes rather than mere rhetoric? These questions remain pivotal as we navigate the complexities of government transparency in relation to UFOs.
    • By UAPResearcher
      The YouTube video titled 'Catastrophic UFO Disclosure Could Happen At Any Minute' raises some intriguing points about how technology has changed the landscape of UFO reporting. It suggests that, unlike in the past, when the government could easily downplay or dismiss sightings with vague statements, today's advanced technology makes that much more difficult. This shift is particularly relevant when considering notable mass sighting events such as the Phoenix Lights in 1997 or the Stephenville UFO sightings in 2008.
      The video highlights how smartphones with high-resolution cameras, along with other technologies like meteorological radar and crowd-sourced tracking networks, have made it almost impossible to ignore mass sightings. This technological evolution could imply that future disclosures regarding UFOs may need to address the substantial evidence that individuals now have at their fingertips. With such tools, witnesses can capture and share sightings in real time, complicating any narrative that relies on downplaying the phenomenon.
      However, while the video's assertions are compelling, it does not delve into specific incidents or government responses related to these technologies. For example, it would be interesting to know how the Pentagon has adapted its strategies for dealing with public perception after high-profile incidents were captured on personal devices. The lack of concrete examples leaves a gap in understanding whether these technological advancements have genuinely forced government transparency or if they merely change the way information is presented.
      The video also seems to imply an expectation of imminent 'catastrophic disclosure,' without defining what that would entail. This vagueness makes it hard to engage with the claim critically. What kind of disclosure are we talking about? Are we expecting a full admission of governmental knowledge regarding UFOs, or a more structured acknowledgement of sightings? The terms lack specificity, which could lead to a range of interpretations among viewers, further muddying the conversation.
      Furthermore, the comment section of the video reveals a mix of excitement and skepticism from viewers, with some expressing hope that the government will finally provide clarity, while others remain doubtful about the motivations behind such disclosures. This disparity in public sentiment underscores the challenges of navigating the UFO discourse in the current climate, where trust in government narratives is at an all-time low.
      In conclusion, the video touches on significant themes regarding public access to evidence and the evolving nature of UFO reporting, but it leaves many questions unanswered. It would be helpful to explore how recent advances in technology have influenced specific cases and what that means for future government interactions with the public regarding UFOs. Given the current atmosphere and the historical context of UFO sightings, are we equipped to handle the truth if it comes? What would a 'catastrophic disclosure' really look like, and how would it impact public perception and policy moving forward?
    • By SpaceObserver
      A detail that might get lost in discussions about extraterrestrial life is the common argument that the vast distances in space make alien visitation impossible. Astroparticle physicist Matthew Szydagis, in an interview with Ross Coulthart, suggests that this argument overlooks fundamental principles established by Albert Einstein over a century ago. Szydagis discusses how many seem to forget their own textbooks when it comes to understanding the universe's potential for life beyond Earth.
      Szydagis points out that Einstein's theories on relativity provide a framework for understanding how time and space are interconnected. He argues that while the distances to other stars and galaxies are indeed daunting, that doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility of intelligent life traveling across them. In fact, given the nature of space-time, there might be more ways to traverse these distances than we currently understand, such as the concept of wormholes or advanced propulsion technologies that could one day be realized.
      This conversation also touches on how modern astrophysics, including missions like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), is reshaping our understanding of the universe. The JWST is already providing insights into the atmospheres of exoplanets, allowing scientists to search for biosignatures that could indicate the presence of life. Szydagis’s remarks remind us that while we often consider the physical limitations of traveling across the cosmos, the advances we’re making in astronomy could offer new answers to those questions.
      However, it’s crucial to recognize the limitations of Szydagis’s claim. While theoretical physics opens up fascinating possibilities, they remain speculative without empirical evidence. The scientific community continues to grapple with the challenges of detecting and confirming extraterrestrial life. The increasing amount of data from missions exploring exoplanets does fuel optimism, but it doesn't provide definitive proof of alien civilizations existing or having the capability to visit us.
      As we delve deeper into the cosmos, it's worth considering the role of theoretical physics in guiding our understanding of these vast distances. Szydagis’s exploration of these ideas compels us to think critically about the assumptions we make regarding space travel and the possibility of life beyond Earth. It raises an important question: Are we limiting our view of the universe by focusing solely on the distances involved, rather than considering the potential for breakthroughs in our understanding of physics?
      As the debate continues, it would be interesting to hear thoughts on how advancements in theoretical physics could reshape our search for extraterrestrial life. Are we on the verge of discovering new methods that challenge current limitations, or will we always be bound by the vastness of space? This discussion opens up avenues for both skepticism and hope in our quest to uncover the mysteries of the universe.
    • By UAPResearcher
      ETH Zurich and the SETI Institute announced a strategic scientific partnership today. The US-based research organization will provide start-up funding for a new assistant professorship and associated research activities at ETH Zurich. Bill Diamond (left), SETI Institute President and CEO, and ETH President Joël Mesot seal the partnership at ETH’s main building in Zurich. (Image: Daniel Winkler / ETH Foundation) September 1, 2026, Mountain View, CA --The question of how life originated and whether it exists elsewhere in the universe has fascinated humanity for centuries. Now, ETH Zurich and the SETI Institute in California are joining forces to seek answers. The two institutions have agreed on a strategic partnership and signed a corresponding agreement. At the heart of the collaboration is a new assistant professorship, to be called ‘Earth and Planetary Evolution’, which will be based in
      The source gives us a useful starting point, but the underlying details and evidence are still worth examining closely.
      Which detail in this report do you think deserves the closest follow-up?
      https://www.seti.org/news/seti-institute-and-eth-zurich-join-forces
    • By DisclosureWatch
      A recent discussion featuring Avi Loeb on Jesse Weber Live highlights the Pentagon's recent waiver that may allow UAP whistleblowers to share crucial information without legal ramifications. This is particularly significant given the historical context of UAP disclosure efforts, where whistleblowers have often operated under the threat of punitive measures for revealing classified information. The promise of this waiver could open doors to more transparency in UAP investigations, potentially leading to a more comprehensive understanding of what these encounters entail.
      Loeb emphasizes that the information shared by whistleblowers could provide insights beyond what the released UAP footage has shown. Much of the public's understanding of UAPs comes from these brief snippets of video, which often lack sufficient context or detailed explanations. If whistleblowers can speak freely, they might offer more in-depth accounts of their experiences and findings, lending credence to the ongoing investigations by the AARO (All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office).
      Moreover, the timing of this waiver aligns with the increasing pressure from Congress for more accountability regarding UAP phenomena. As hearings continue to unfold, the expectation for reliable testimonies and evidence is mounting. The waiver could serve as a pivotal tool, allowing former military officials or other insiders to present their observations more candidly, which in turn could shape future legislative actions or directives regarding UAP investigations.
      While this waiver is a step in the right direction, it also raises questions about the reliability of the information that could emerge. The nature of the whistleblower's accounts might vary significantly, depending on personal experiences or biases. The challenge lies in distinguishing between anecdotal evidence and verifiable claims. Therefore, ongoing scrutiny and critical assessment of any new information shared under this waiver will be crucial to ensure that it contributes meaningfully to the body of knowledge surrounding UAPs.
      In conclusion, the potential for increased transparency regarding UAPs through whistleblower testimonies is promising, yet it also demands a cautious approach. As these individuals come forward, how do we ensure that their accounts are rigorously evaluated against existing evidence? This critical balance between openness and scrutiny will be vital for the integrity of future UAP investigations.
×
×
  • Create New...