Current Events > Alien life may not be carbon-based, new study suggests

(+) Yeah! (+)

Intriguing 'autocatalytic' reactions appear to be far more common than scientists had thought.

Self-sustaining chemical reactions that could support biology radically different from life as we know it might exist on many different planets using a variety of elements beyond the carbon upon which Earth's life is based, a new study finds.

https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common

So basically Volus

The utter dominance in earth-life of carbon is that it's tetracovalent. Silicon can do the same, but it needs to be about a hundred kelvins cooler.

What if earth is the only planet with carbon life and every other civilization is silicon based

In the galactic community, earth would be seen as freaks. Disgusting carbon monstrosities

Maybe that's why nobody ever visits us. We disgust them and terrify them

Zikten posted...

What if earth is the only planet with carbon life and every other civilization is silicon based

The great irony is, a hundred kevlins cooler, silicon may not be prevalent.

Here on earth, silicon is everywhere. By mass, silicon is 27% of the earth's crust, but life largely ignores is.

You could eat several pounds of sand (silicon dioxide), right now, and all you'll get out of it is a really bad poop.

There's way more silicon on earth than carbon, yet carbon-based life evolved here. I'm no chemist, but iirc it has to do with the strength and stability of bonds that it makes with other elements, something it does better than silicon bonds do, apparently.

Life somewhere else in the universe may not be carbon-bases like Earth's? No waaay

First, we've known of this possibility for many years now.

Second, life that we know nothing about that may or may not exist may or may not be carbon-based. Yes. Right. Very informative.

Gene Roddenberry and the Star Trek TOS writers like Gene L. Coon were truly ahead of their time with episodes about non-carbon based life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_in_the_Dark

One of the most under-rated TOS episodes when they do the top ten episodes lists, it's solid sci-fi, about as good as it gets on 1960s television.

Boron nitride is graphite analog, and exolife could arrange around that,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boron_nitride

Something that I've suggested to my astrophysicist friends during & since grad school. Yes, it's against the models, but it may be true.

Questionmarktarius posted...

The great irony is, a hundred kevlins cooler, silicon may not be prevalent.

Here on earth, silicon is everywhere. By mass, silicon is 27% of the earth's crust, but life largely ignores is.

You could eat several pounds of sand (silicon dioxide), right now, and all you'll get out of it is a really bad poop.

Imagine if you had diarrhea afterwards. Your ass would be a sandblaster.

Or an assblaster.

Zikten posted...

What if earth is the only planet with carbon life and every other civilization is silicon based

In the galactic community, earth would be seen as freaks. Disgusting carbon monstrosities

Maybe that's why nobody ever visits us. We disgust them and terrify them

A classic https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/thinkingMeat.html

Questionmarktarius posted...

The utter dominance in earth-life of carbon is that it's tetracovalent. Silicon can do the same, but it needs to be about a hundred kelvins cooler.

In theory then, that would extend a star's habitability zone. At least for life that isn't like us.

nexigrams posted...

There's way more silicon on earth than carbon, yet carbon-based life evolved here. I'm no chemist, but iirc it has to do with the strength and stability of bonds that it makes with other elements, something it does better than silicon bonds do, apparently.

Well, there's also been theories about the possibility of life that uses Chlorine rather than Oxygen. I mean, Oxygen and Chlorine are both incredibly reactive gasses, chlorine even more so than oxygen to the extent it can bind with gold. Which, is damn near impossible to do.

But the issue with it is Chlorine is both heavier and generally rarer in nature than Oxygen is. And I believe its own reactivity works against it, it's so reactive that theoretical life would either not be intelligent, be in a primitive stone age, or else use methods of attaining a comparable society to us that we can't possibly fathom. Titanium reacts exothermically, rather spectacularly. And on the more simple end, it's a major factor in why seawater destroys steel/iron. An analogue to the human iron age would be incredibly unlikely.

Granted, how violently chlorine destroys everything around it depends entirely on if it's "wet" or "dry". But we're assuming that water is needed for life, so therefor our theoretical planet has water, therefore "wet" chlorine. Dry chlorine leaves iron and copper alone. Of course, we're also assuming water is needed for life to develop. So if there's a liquid that works like water, without making chlorine more reactive, it's possible to include that to our planet.

Tom_Joad posted...

Imagine if you had diarrhea afterwards. Your ass would be a sandblaster.

Or an assblaster.

Well... That made me wince. Hopefully you don't have hemorids. I guess you won't when you're done....

Crazyman93 posted...

In theory then, that would extend a star's habitability zone. At least for life that isn't like us.

Sol has three planets in its habitiliy zone, and three planets have several moons that maybe also could.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Sol has three planets in its habitiliy zone, and three planets have several moons that maybe also could.

I might have to look it up again, because I've always seen the zone as incredibly narrow compared to the vastness of the solar system. So there's us in the zone, clearly, am I right to assume the other two are Mars and Venus?

Crazyman93 posted...

I might have to look it up again, because I've always seen the zone as incredibly narrow compared to the vastness of the solar system. So there's us in the zone, clearly, am I right to assume the other two are Mars and Venus?

Venus, Earth, and Mars
Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn are the ones with theoretically habitable moons.

Sorry I didn't explain it the first time.

I've always wondered why we a deem a planet unfit for life. What if there is lifeforms that can exist on a gas planet floating around like jellyfish?

so we can still kill them aliens, right?

molybdenum-based lifeforms abound; they are just imperceptible to our instruments

Sufferedphoneix posted...

I've always wondered why we a deem a planet unfit for life. What if there is lifeforms that can exist on a gas planet floating around like jellyfish?

Or even life in space, or on or inside a star. I can't remember its name but I once read a sci fi book about a ship encountering animals that swim in stars like its water

Torgo posted...

Gene Roddenberry and the Star Trek TOS writers like Gene L. Coon were truly ahead of their time with episodes about non-carbon based life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_in_the_Dark

One of the most under-rated TOS episodes when they do the top ten episodes lists, it's solid sci-fi, about as good as it gets on 1960s television.

Eh, Id say its usually regarded just around top 10 or 15

Questionmarktarius posted...

Venus, Earth, and Mars
Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn are the ones with theoretically habitable moons.

Sorry I didn't explain it the first time.

It's alright, like I said, I may have a skewed view on how large the habitability zone of star is.

Also, I'm not sure we can count Earth's moon as "Theoretically habitable" personally, unless we're using that to mean "can be terraformed".