Alien Life on a Meteor?

[3113]

Well, evidence of it, or so says NASA.

In what's sure to rekindle the debate over the question of life beyond Earth, a scientist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center says he has fossil evidence of bacterial life inside of a rare class of meteorites .

Writing in the March edition of the Journal of Cosmology, Richard B. Hoover argues that an examination of a collection of 9 meteorites - called CI1 carbonaceous meteorites - contain "indigenous fossils" of bacterial life.

"The complex filaments found embedded in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites represent the remains of indigenous microfossils of cyanobacteria, " according to Hoover. That matter-of-fact sentence also underscores the shout-out-loud implication that the detection of fossils of cyanobacteria in the CI1 meteorites raises the possibility of life on comets. And Hoover does not shy away from offering that very conclusion.

http://www.mentalfloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/435_alf.jpg

Could Alf be far behind?

 

[Zodia195]

Hehe I am one of those people who think life does exist elsewhere. Love the Alf pic. I remember that show when I was little hehe.

 

[Xelebes]

Bad Astronomy/Universe Today - Journal of Cosmology (thread)

 

[JackLuis]

Heck, we've got aliens here.

 

[mynameisben]

Cyanobacteria? Who cares. I don't consider it "life" until it passes the BJ test.

And that goes for the whole lot of you.

 

[3113]

Bad Astronomy/Universe Today - Journal of Cosmology (thread)

AFAIK, it is far from a serious journal. A quick look at the contents of some of the issues suggests that their standards - for accepting a submission for publication - are, um, not high. If your manuscript was not accepted by Nature, Science, ApJ, AJ, MNRAS, PhRvC, PhRvD, PhLB, A&A, ... then you might consider this one.

Oh, foo. You mean to say that Mr. Hoover there may not be reputable? I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked!

 

[trysail]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/05/recycling-research-meteorite-alien-life-discovery-dubious/


By Ryan Maue

...Anyhow, Adrian Chen at Gawker has found that this research is hardly new, and simply an update or recycling of claims made since 2004 by Dr. Hoover:

So, we’re calling bull$h%t on Richard Hoover’s discovery, and Fox News’ ‘exclusive’. Maybe Hoover really has found life (probably not). But it’s not news, and it’s far, far from certain.

However, in his zeal to dismiss Fox News as a propaganda outlet for NASA, or engaging in tabloid journalism, I guess Chen missed Andrew Revkin’s piece over at the NY Times:

The buzz is building over a paper by Richard Hoover, an award-winning astrobiologist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, concluding that filaments and other features found in the interior of three specimens of a rare class of meteorite appear to be fossils of a life form strongly resembling cyanobacteria.

While this so-called discovery may be entirely correct, perhaps Hoover should have called up the Union of Concerned Scientists instead of Fox News in order to peddle his wares. Revkin publishes first then promises to follow up later:

Rudy Schild, the journal’s editor in chief, said in a note accompanying the paper that reactions to the research, “both pro and con,” will be published on the journal’s Web site between March 7 and 10. I’ll check back in then of course, and I’m reaching out to Hoover and others working in this field now.

Is this a legitimate press release by a scientist with a profound new discovery or another example of “science by press release”? We report, you decide...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I don't think there's much doubt that bacterial level life exists on other planets. Bacteria are extraordinarily tough and resistant. Anything that can eat sulfur and live hundreds of feet under ground can live just about anywhere. That has nothing at all, however, to do with any discussion of whether or not mulit-cellular life, let along intelligent life, exists anywhere else in the galaxy. The only question it raises is, "Okay if life was brought to earth from meteorites and comets, where did it originate and how?" Even if Mr. Hoover is right, so what?

 

[squarejohn]

Well, evidence of it, or so says NASA.



http://www.mentalfloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/435_alf.jpg

Could Alf be far behind?

Maybe it's true; maybe it's a publicity stunt.

A few years back it was announced that a fossil-filled rock was found in Antarctica, and it was determined that the rock came from Mars and landed on Earth 25,000 years ago. How they made that determination is beyond me, but my guess would be that it was made in the offices of NASA's public relations arm. Shortly after this "discovery" was announced, NASA sent up another mission to Mars. A year or two later it was announced that the fossilized microbes were figments of an over-active imagination.

 

[TxRad]

If we're the only life in the Universe, it sure is an awful waste of space.

 

[stephen55]

This is not a publicity stunt...

AFAIK, it is far from a serious journal. A quick look at the contents of some of the issues suggests that their standards - for accepting a submission for publication - are, um, not high. If your manuscript was not accepted by Nature, Science, ApJ, AJ, MNRAS, PhRvC, PhRvD, PhLB, A&A, ... then you might consider this one

Not even close to being true. Not only wrong, but very wrong.

The Journal of Cosmology is a peer reviewed, open access journal that serves to advance science. The Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor is Rudolf Schild, Ph.D., of the Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian, Cambridge, MA.

It is a serious and respected online journal with editors and contributing editors such as Sir Roger Penrose, FRS. from the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, John McKim Malville, Ph.D., from the Department of Astrophysical, Planetary, and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA, and Carl H. Gibson, Ph.D., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences. These people are serious and well respected scientists.

The journal serves as an online forum for papers to be seen and reviewed, not only by scientists in the field, but also by interested members of the general public.

The actual journal paper...

http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html

...was shown to 100 invited experts in the field and also to 5000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis, before it was published. This level of peer review is unprecedented in the history of scientific publishing and was done because of the highly controversial nature and scientific importance of the paper.

Richard B. Hoover, Ph.D. NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, is also a serious and well respected scientist. He is not the kind of guy to make unsubstantiated claims. Read the actual paper and then decide if this is some kind of a publicity stunt.

 

[Xelebes]

AFAIK, it is far from a serious journal. A quick look at the contents of some of the issues suggests that their standards - for accepting a submission for publication - are, um, not high. If your manuscript was not accepted by Nature, Science, ApJ, AJ, MNRAS, PhRvC, PhRvD, PhLB, A&A, ... then you might consider this one

Not even close to being true. Not only wrong, but very wrong.

The Journal of Cosmology is a peer reviewed, open access journal that serves to advance science. The Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor is Rudolf Schild, Ph.D., of the Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian, Cambridge, MA.

It is a serious and respected online journal with editors and contributing editors such as Sir Roger Penrose, FRS. from the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, John McKim Malville, Ph.D., from the Department of Astrophysical, Planetary, and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA, and Carl H. Gibson, Ph.D., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences. These people are serious and well respected scientists.

The journal serves as an online forum for papers to be seen and reviewed, not only by scientists in the field, but also by interested members of the general public.

The actual journal paper...

http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html

...was shown to 100 invited experts in the field and also to 5000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis, before it was published. This level of peer review is unprecedented in the history of scientific publishing and was done because of the highly controversial nature and scientific importance of the paper.

Richard B. Hoover, Ph.D. NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, is also a serious and well respected scientist. He is not the kind of guy to make unsubstantiated claims. Read the actual paper and then decide if this is some kind of a publicity stunt.

I read the paper. It is a publicity stunt. *shrug*

Further questions on JoC.

 

[Owlwhisper]

.....

 

[stephen55]

Maybe it's true; maybe it's a publicity stunt.

A few years back it was announced that a fossil-filled rock was found in Antarctica, and it was determined that the rock came from Mars and landed on Earth 25,000 years ago. How they made that determination is beyond me, but my guess would be that it was made in the offices of NASA's public relations arm. Shortly after this "discovery" was announced, NASA sent up another mission to Mars. A year or two later it was announced that the fossilized microbes were figments of an over-active imagination.

Wrong and also somewhat disingenuous.

Meteorites contain traces of radioactive elements rarely or never found naturally on Earth. They are created by exposure of the meteorite to intense radiation, mostly in the form of cosmic rays, while in space. The amount of these radioactive elements can be used to measure how long the meteorite was in space.

Once on the earth, these radioactive elements decay at known and highly predictable rates. Measuring the amounts of decay products gives an accurate time stamp on when the meteorite landed on Earth.

The meteorite was known to be from Mars by close examination.

Meteorite ALH84001 is a softball-sized igneous rock weighing 1.9 kilograms (4.2 pounds). It is one of twelve meteorites discovered on Earth which are thought to be from Mars. Most meteorites formed early in the history of the solar system, some 4.6 billion years ago. Eleven of the twelve martian meteorites have ages less than 1.3 billion years, ALH84001 at 4.5 billion years old being the only exception. All twelve are igneous rocks crystallized from molten magma in a way which suggests they formed in a planetary-sized body, not an asteroid. They have similar oxygen isotope characteristics to each other and higher concentrations of ferric iron, water, and other volatiles than other meteorites. All twelve also show evidence of shock heating, presumably as a result of the impact which ejected them into space. Gas bubbles trapped in one meteorite, EETA79001, have a composition which matches the current martian atmosphere as measured by the Viking Landers, compelling evidence that this meteorite and by association the others, including ALH84001, came from Mars.

http://www.spacecentre.co.uk/spacenow/newsitem.aspx/2/957/Launch_Into_Space

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html

The evidence from back in 1996 was hardly dismissed as figments of an over active imagination.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/thumbnail/marsfossil.jpg

While this image is not generally accepted as being evidence of a fossil organism, particularly because the individual ovoids are only 20 to 100 nanometers in size, making them much smaller than any known micro fossil on Earth, there was plenty of other evidence in the meteorite, including an abundance of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, evidence of life, that did not appear to be earthly contaminants which had leaked into the meteorite from it`s exposure here on Earth.

There is a saying in science, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming to have found signs of extraterrestrial life is certainly an extraordinary claim. Thus, it is expected that the proper initial course should be one of a high degree of skepticism.

The Journal of Cosmology will be publishing reviews and criticisms of this paper in the near future. If Richard B. Hoover, Ph.D. has got the extraordinary evidence, we will all know soon enough.

 

[squarejohn]

AFAIK, it is far from a serious journal. A quick look at the contents of some of the issues suggests that their standards - for accepting a submission for publication - are, um, not high. If your manuscript was not accepted by Nature, Science, ApJ, AJ, MNRAS, PhRvC, PhRvD, PhLB, A&A, ... then you might consider this one

Not even close to being true. Not only wrong, but very wrong.

The Journal of Cosmology is a peer reviewed, open access journal that serves to advance science. The Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor is Rudolf Schild, Ph.D., of the Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian, Cambridge, MA.

It is a serious and respected online journal with editors and contributing editors such as Sir Roger Penrose, FRS. from the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, John McKim Malville, Ph.D., from the Department of Astrophysical, Planetary, and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA, and Carl H. Gibson, Ph.D., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences. These people are serious and well respected scientists.

The journal serves as an online forum for papers to be seen and reviewed, not only by scientists in the field, but also by interested members of the general public.

The actual journal paper...

http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html

...was shown to 100 invited experts in the field and also to 5000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis, before it was published. This level of peer review is unprecedented in the history of scientific publishing and was done because of the highly controversial nature and scientific importance of the paper.

Richard B. Hoover, Ph.D. NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, is also a serious and well respected scientist. He is not the kind of guy to make unsubstantiated claims. Read the actual paper and then decide if this is some kind of a publicity stunt.

I said only that it could be a publicity stunt. "Publish or perish" is the devoutly held belief of scientists. When their name gets public attention, the chances of turning their grant proposals into cash, are greatly enhanced.

In NASA's case, they probably want to generate public support for projects that are theirs, properly, instead of "reaching out" to the Muslim world. I'm not dismissing their claim; I'm saying that I'm skeptical.

I'm also skeptical about the different versions of the big bang theory, and of black holes. Global warming, anyone? Don't make me laugh.

 

[Xelebes]

More questions on the article.

 

[squarejohn]

Wrong and also somewhat disingenuous.

Meteorites contain traces of radioactive elements rarely or never found naturally on Earth. They are created by exposure of the meteorite to intense radiation, mostly in the form of cosmic rays, while in space. The amount of these radioactive elements can be used to measure how long the meteorite was in space.

Once on the earth, these radioactive elements decay at known and highly predictable rates. Measuring the amounts of decay products gives an accurate time stamp on when the meteorite landed on Earth.

The meteorite was known to be from Mars by close examination.

Meteorite ALH84001 is a softball-sized igneous rock weighing 1.9 kilograms (4.2 pounds). It is one of twelve meteorites discovered on Earth which are thought to be from Mars. Most meteorites formed early in the history of the solar system, some 4.6 billion years ago. Eleven of the twelve martian meteorites have ages less than 1.3 billion years, ALH84001 at 4.5 billion years old being the only exception. All twelve are igneous rocks crystallized from molten magma in a way which suggests they formed in a planetary-sized body, not an asteroid. They have similar oxygen isotope characteristics to each other and higher concentrations of ferric iron, water, and other volatiles than other meteorites. All twelve also show evidence of shock heating, presumably as a result of the impact which ejected them into space. Gas bubbles trapped in one meteorite, EETA79001, have a composition which matches the current martian atmosphere as measured by the Viking Landers, compelling evidence that this meteorite and by association the others, including ALH84001, came from Mars.

I can't disagree with your position, but that's not the same thing as saying that I agree with it. The question in my mind is: We know how the Viking Landers reached Mars, but how did the rocks get from Mars to Earth? Debris from an asteroid impact is an obvious answer. Certainly, no one threw them. Because the gas bubbles match the current Martian atmosphere doesn't mean that Mars' atmosphere is the same as it was 25,000+ years ago. It's probably a good bet that the objects came from Mars, but on the other hand, they could have come from anywhere.

It is one thing to be presented with a set of facts and reach a conclusion by the use of reason, but it is at least equally possible that one could examine the same facts and rationalize a different conclusion, one that matches what he wants believe, (or wants others to believe).

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I can't disagree with your position, but that's not the same thing as saying that I agree with it. The question in my mind is: We know how the Viking Landers reached Mars, but how did the rocks get from Mars to Earth? Debris from an asteroid impact is an obvious answer. Certainly, no one threw them. Because the gas bubbles match the current Martian atmosphere doesn't mean that Mars' atmosphere is the same as it was 25,000+ years ago. It's probably a good bet that the objects came from Mars, but on the other hand, they could have come from anywhere.

It is one thing to be presented with a set of facts and reach a conclusion by the use of reason, but it is at least equally possible that one could examine the same facts and rationalize a different conclusion, one that matches what he wants believe, (or wants others to believe).

Well put. Logic is a fine tool but it can lead you down blind alleys. More evidence, more evidence.

 

[TE999]

Leave us not forget that this came to Earth on a meteorite.

 

[stephen55]

I can't disagree with your position, but that's not the same thing as saying that I agree with it. The question in my mind is: We know how the Viking Landers reached Mars, but how did the rocks get from Mars to Earth? Debris from an asteroid impact is an obvious answer. Certainly, no one threw them. Because the gas bubbles match the current Martian atmosphere doesn't mean that Mars' atmosphere is the same as it was 25,000+ years ago. It's probably a good bet that the objects came from Mars, but on the other hand, they could have come from anywhere.

It is one thing to be presented with a set of facts and reach a conclusion by the use of reason, but it is at least equally possible that one could examine the same facts and rationalize a different conclusion, one that matches what he wants believe, (or wants others to believe).

The origin of the twelve meteorites mentioned in the 16 August 1996 issue of Science magazine was determined by reputable scientists at NASA, the Lunar and Planetary Institute (LPI) in Houston and the JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) in Pasadena. Not being a pro in the field, I'll just go with their conclusions. As far as I know, no one in the field has argued otherwise.

And while the original 1996 paper in Science is not generally considered solid evidence of fossilized bacteria, there is little doubt of the science behind the origin and dating of the meteorite itself. So, leaving aside the possible presence of the fossilized bacteria, according to NASA, it went like this...

1. The original igneous rock solidified within Mars about 4.5 billion years ago, about 100 million years after the formation of the planet. (Based on isotope ages of the igneous component of the meteorite)

2. Between 3.6 and 4 billion years ago the rock was fractured, presumably by meteorite impacts. Water then permeated the cracks, depositing carbonate minerals and allowing primitive bacteria to live in the fractures.

3. About 3.6 billion years ago, the bacteria and their by-products became fossilized in the fractures. (Based on isotope ages of the minerals in the fractures)

4. 16 million years ago, a large meteorite struck Mars, dislodging a large chunk of this rock and ejecting it into space. (Based on the cosmic ray exposure age of the meteorite)

5. 13,000 years ago, the meteorite landed in Antarctica.

6. The meteorite, ALH84001, was discovered in 1984 in the Allan Hills region of Antarctica.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html


And now we have Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites by Richard B. Hoover, Ph.D. NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center.
http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html

This paper will be subjected to the same type of scrutiny as the 1996 Science paper. Time will tell if it survives the scrutiny.

 

[squarejohn]

4. 16 million years ago, a large meteorite struck Mars, dislodging a large chunk of this rock and ejecting it into space. (Based on the cosmic ray exposure age of the meteorite)

5. 13,000 years ago, the meteorite landed in Antarctica.

I'm willing to grant all of Hoover's conclusions; I wasn't arguing them in the first place, only suggesting, as a relatively uninformed layman, another possibility.

Since Nasa knows when the meteorite left Mars, and they know precisely where and when it landed, it should be a relatively easy task to calculate backward, the meteorite's orbit when it was a meteor, and determine the site on Mars from where it originated. The future missions to Mars could visit the site and verify the science that led Hoover to his conclusions.

I'm glad this subject came up just because I was unaware of the Journal of Cosmology. Cosmology is one of my interests although I regard it, in it's present state of evolution, as being speculation.

 

[Xelebes]

One of the sad things about the Journal of Cosmology rarely, if ever, discussed Cosmology. Cosmology at best is the field of theoretical particle physicists and astrophysicists. Ones who call themselves with any gravity cosmologists are too often quacks.

 

[squarejohn]

One of the sad things about the Journal of Cosmology rarely, if ever, discussed Cosmology. Cosmology at best is the field of theoretical particle physicists and astrophysicists. Ones who call themselves with any gravity cosmologists are too often quacks.

The problem for cosmologists, genuine or quacks, is the lack of hard data. Trying to make something of what data is available, is a task equal to reading a book in which all the nouns and verbs have been removed. You have to use your imagination to fill in the blanks, and then you're left with guesswork anyway. The missing data may be beyond the reach of humans, given the present state of our sciences development and understanding of the laws of physics.

 

[stephen55]

Cosmology is the study of the very big picture; the beginning of, the evolution of and the likely ending of the universe as a whole. It certainly encompasses particle physics and astrophysics, but it is also more properly a branch of astronomy. The ability to look at galaxies across the visible universe allows one to see galaxies being formed only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang and study their evolution simply by looking at a series of ever closer galaxies.

It can be said to have started as a science with Einstein's general relativity in that the theory encompassed the universe as a whole. It certainly suffered from a lack of hard data during it's formative years. However, since the COBE and the WMAP satellites, with their hard evidence from the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and a reliable age of the universe (13.9 billion years), and then the solid evidence from two supernova teams that conclusively proved that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, cosmology is now on a sure footing. While the CMB doesn't rule out all alternatives to the Big Bang as the start of the universe, it certainly put an end to the Steady State theory.

The WMAP data also pinned down just what the universe consists of. While the fact that ordinary matter (the stuff that we and the stars are made of) makes up only about 4% of the universe, dark matter about 23% and a whopping 73% is made up of dark energy, may appear mind bending, it's never-the-less true.

As for calculating backwards and figuring out where on Mars the meteorite came from...no. Radioactive decay dating comes with a built-in uncertainty. If that uncertainty is a small as one half of one percent either way, (one percent total), saying that the meteorite left Mars 16 million years ago gives a range of 160,000 years. No one has a clue where Mars was in it's orbit when the meteorite left the planet. And even if the dates were perfect, after 16 million years in space and countless gravitation interactions, back tracking a course is impossible.

And while there certainly are quacks out there who call themselves cosmologists, the legitimate field is populated by serious scientists doing serious science.

Making something of the data is not guesswork. Ongoing research at places like CERN where the Large Hadron Collider very well may answer the question of the identity of dark matter, perhaps finally capture the so far elusive Higg's boson and maybe, just maybe provide hard evidence for unseen higher dimensions. All of this will continue to further our knowledge of physics and by extension, cosmology.

NASA is a big player and with the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope, and missions in the works to search for gravity waves and to sort out the nature of dark energy, new data in cosmology is far from the reach of humans.

 

[mynameisben]

I remember registering late one semester, and the only class I could take that was not completely full was a course in Cosmology. I missed the first three class meetings, but I signed up for it anyway. I got myself pretty psyched up for it, actually. I had read Stephen Hawking And Carl Sagan's books before, and I skimmed them once more before attending my very first cosmology class ever.

When I entered the classroom, I was surprised to find Cosmology-101 was filled with gorgeous young women applying mascara to styrofoam heads. I didn't learn very much at all about celestial mechanics or life on Mars, but I got an A- anyhow.