> This means either this is life, or it’s some sort of physical or chemical process that we do not expect to happen on rocky planets. We really went through all possible pathways that could produce phosphine on a rocky planet. If this is not life, then our understanding of rocky planets is severely lacking.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dUWrpm...
What I'm asking is some ballpark idea of the relative plausibility of (1) microbes, compared to (2) having discovered some new physical/chemical processes.
Is it a case where we feel like we've got our understanding of (2) locked down, and so "it would have to be a chemical process we've never seen" is a way of saying it's highly likely to be life? Or is it very plausible that we do have much more to learn about chemical processes, and it's just a face value statement? Are we talking 99% life, 1% likelihood of new process? 50/50? Something else?
While I would love for this to be true, ignorance requires fewer assumptions than life at any level of complexity.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/9/110923-neutri...
No one said it would be surprising (though it would to a great many people), the point is that it would require a LOT of assumptions about how life develops to get us to that point whereas human ignorance is the sole assumption we need to make to assume that these measurements are not life-related.
I think life is everywhere in the universe and that we will find that it descends along a great many entropic pathways in a great many frames of reference. But I also believe any given hint of life is more likely than not going to be related to human error, only because we have so many assumptions we need to make until we understand the underlying processes better.
Of course it is possible. Everything is possible. But we have never seen such a process and we have seen life. So if life explains it but nothing else does except "possibly something" then life is the simplest explanation. The alternative really is no explanation, only speculation.
We could be living in a simulated universe, everything is possible, the simulation can include logically contradictory simulated laws of physics in other words "miracles". But such speculations don't really explain anything, they only say it is always possible that some other explanation may be found at a later time. Until an alternative equally good or better explanation is found it is best to use as working hypothesis the simplest explanation which explains all the observations, which seems to be "life" according to these scientists.
From the Quora article:
"The volume of Phosphine observed was stunning. They ruled out minerals blown into the atmosphere, volcanism, lightning and other known sources as there is simply no process that could maintain this abundance. So much Phosphine was observed we could conclude that the atmosphere of Venus is “teeming with life”."
I mean, I realize not all life necessarily engages in photosynthesis that emits highly reactive O2 into their atmosphere and radically and highly visibly transforms the entire atmosphere, but since the only energy source on the geological time frames those bacteria are going to be able to count on in the high atmosphere is going to be sunlight one would rather expect "teeming with life" to have very obvious spectra effects, i.e., "turning the planet funny colors" as life uses light energy in some sort of photosynthesis-like reaction, not merely creating an unexpected abundance of phosphine.
"Life scraping by" is a lot easier to believe than "teeming with life". "Teeming" life has no compelling evolutionary reason to also be well-hidden from us, and a lot of pathways to being very obvious as it exploits the energy available.
Energy it has in abundance, but where is it getting the atoms it's made out of? Carbon and oxygen are readily available, but you need more than that. Water is minimal in the atmosphere, and mere presence isn't enough, you need to be able to gather it against the strong osmotic pressures pulling it back out. (Earth life seems to have needed hundreds of millions of years just to grow on Earth land, a wildly more friendly environment than an atmosphere that still has puddles of nearly pure water to work with. Even a cloud is, by comparison, water-poor.) How do you get any nitrogen? Lightning may fixate it as it does on Earth, but then it immediately dissipates. It's very difficult to use N2 directly, although some Earth life manages. After that what's left in the atmosphere is some vicious acids and some noble gasses. So in the basic CHON equation, C & O are covered, N is exceedingly chemically difficult, and H is almost missing. Trace elements are also not available because they don't float, except sulphur (we use this ourselves, but it's not the most useful one), and while bacteria may get by without using as much of them as we do, I'm not sure you can make a life form out of nothing but CHON, let alone CO(Nish).
I think this will be the critical thing to effectively communicate publicly. Given what we know about phosphine synthesis, a subject I presume most people aren't super familiar with, how confident are we that a new abiotic process is possible? Or is it so unlikely that life is a more plausible explanation?
Those aren't rhetorical questions. I wonder about the relative plausibility of one vs the other.