TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

I’m Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s

477 点作者 simulate超过 5 年前

25 条评论

alister超过 5 年前
What, no mention of ALH84001? I was mesmerized by the live TV press conference by a large group of NASA scientists back in 1996 of evidence of life on Mars from the analysis of a meteorite:<p>&quot;Scientists headed by David McKay of the JohnsonSpaceCenter in Houston found that the rock, called ALH84001, had a peculiar chemical makeup. It contained a combination of minerals and carbon compounds that on Earth are created by microbes. It also had crystals of magnetic iron oxide, called magnetite, which some bacteria produce. Moreover, McKay presented to the crowd an electron microscope view of the rock showing chains of globules that bore a striking resemblance to chains that some bacteria form on Earth. “We believe that these are indeed microfossils from Mars”&quot;[1]<p>I was disappointed that the story fizzled out. One microbiologist concluded that bacteria from Earth had &quot;contaminated the Mars meteorite. Other scientists pointed out that nonliving processes on Mars also could have created the globules and magnetite clumps.&quot; But I don&#x27;t think life is ruled out. This meteorite is hanging in as a &quot;just maybe&quot; like the Viking mission discovery.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.smithsonianmag.com&#x2F;science-nature&#x2F;life-on-mars-78138144&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.smithsonianmag.com&#x2F;science-nature&#x2F;life-on-mars-7...</a>
评论 #21230370 未加载
eindiran超过 5 年前
It looks like a lot of people think the presence of the oxidizer perchlorate is the cause of the false positive, but there isn&#x27;t consensus yet.<p>```<p>On August 2008, the Phoenix lander detected perchlorate, a strong oxidizer when heated above 200 °C. This was initially thought to be the cause of a false positive LR result. However, results of experiments published in December 2010 propose that organic compounds &quot;could have been present&quot; in the soil analyzed by both Viking 1 and 2, since NASA&#x27;s Phoenix lander in 2008 detected perchlorate, which can break down organic compounds. The study&#x27;s authors found that perchlorate can destroy organics when heated and produce chloromethane and dichloromethane as byproduct, the identical chlorine compounds discovered by both Viking landers when they performed the same tests on Mars. Because perchlorate would have broken down any Martian organics, the question of whether or not Viking found organic compounds is still wide open, as alternative chemical and biological interpretations are possible.<p>...<p>In a paper published in December 2010, the scientists suggest that if organics were present, they would not have been detected because when the soil is heated to check for organics, perchlorate destroys them rapidly producing chloromethane and dichloromethane, which is what the Viking landers found. This team also notes that this is not a proof of life but it could make a difference in how scientists look for organic biosignatures in the future.<p>```[0]<p>It&#x27;s funny that perchlorate is likely what confounded the LR experiment, as the discovery of perchlorate in the soil made a lot of folks less optimistic about life being able to survive on the Martian surface.[1]<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Viking_lander_biological_experiments" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Viking_lander_biological_exper...</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pmc&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC5500590&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pmc&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC5500590&#x2F;</a>
评论 #21230642 未加载
amingilani超过 5 年前
&gt; Inexplicably, over the 43 years since Viking, none of NASA’s subsequent Mars landers has carried a life detection instrument to follow up on these exciting results<p>I&#x27;m very surprised by that.<p>Especially since, as the article says, &quot;NASA maintains the search for alien life among its highest priorities&quot;.<p>I thought that would obviously translate to sending life-detection instruments to B̶a̶r̶s̶o̶o̶m̶ Mars.
评论 #21230350 未加载
评论 #21232066 未加载
avian超过 5 年前
&gt; Ghost-like moving lights, resembling will-O’-the-wisps on Earth that are formed by spontaneous ignition of methane, have been video-recorded on the Martian surface;<p>I was surprised by this statement. I thought atmosphere on Mars is too thin to support any kind of combustion.<p>After some searching the closest thing I found was a bunch of popular science articles seeing aliens in white pixels on images from Curiosity [1]. It seems all very much like people trying to make a thing out of image artifacts. NASA&#x27;s much more reasonable explanation is stray reflections in the optics or cosmic particles striking the detector.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnet.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;nasa-mars-curiosity-rover-saw-a-weird-light-but-dont-freak-out&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnet.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;nasa-mars-curiosity-rover-saw-a-we...</a>
api超过 5 年前
I get the feeling that contrary to rhetoric the search for life on Mars or anywhere else is almost an anti-priority. Not much designed to look for life has been sent since Viking in spite of direct observation of water ice, brine, and other features suggesting ideal landing sites for such experiments.<p>If perclorates were the cause of the Viking positive as many suggest, why not send a new experiment designed to rule that in or out? Why not send a whole lot more chemical tests for biology, or a microscope for that matter?<p>I suspect there is strong concern about the social effects of the revelation of any extraterrestrial life, even microbes. From what I see of the mass psychosis that is most of current political discourse this concern might not be unfounded.
评论 #21229680 未加载
评论 #21229582 未加载
评论 #21229777 未加载
psaux超过 5 年前
I often wonder why these are always auxiliary conversations. Ever since I was young, like most kids (I have 4), I also had this deep yearning for knowledge on life external to earth. Wonder why this never has gone mainstream.
评论 #21230397 未加载
评论 #21229749 未加载
评论 #21230739 未加载
评论 #21231264 未加载
评论 #21230966 未加载
jayalpha超过 5 年前
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary data. We don&#x27;t have this data. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Viking_lander_biological_experiments#Scientific_conclusions" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Viking_lander_biological_exper...</a><p>It is &quot;inconclusive&quot; at best.
评论 #21237175 未加载
评论 #21232013 未加载
评论 #21231894 未加载
评论 #21232204 未加载
评论 #21232242 未加载
mellosouls超过 5 年前
Whatever the evidence, a major factor in this man&#x27;s belief is likely to be the emotional attachment to the idea.<p>It&#x27;s his life&#x27;s crowning achievement as the project leader, and seeing indicators that turned out to be nothing must be a tough thing to come to terms with.
Razengan超过 5 年前
Excuse the cliche question, but what <i>is</i> Life?<p>If we make an AI whose thoughts and communication are practically indistinguishable from humans, and it controls a bunch of things that affect the physical world, is it alive?<p>If there&#x27;s a disembodied mind somewhere that can think and imagine but never communicate or interact with anything, is it dead?<p>What about a human in a coma or permanent dreaming state? What about when they later wake up?<p>Okay nevermind thoughts and communication; What if there&#x27;s an armada of &quot;dumb&quot; robots, spawned from a single factory, that can&#x27;t think, only acts according to preset instructions, but still goes on to affect many things for hundreds of years, what should they be classified as? Would they be considered &quot;artificial&quot; life or automatons even if they existed for thousands of years and their creators were no longer around?<p>I don&#x27;t think there is any single absolute criteria to classify all possible entities that must be out there or could theoretically exist, but the answer to &quot;What is life?&quot; is probably this:<p>Whatever other life thinks is life.
评论 #21231000 未加载
评论 #21231028 未加载
评论 #21230997 未加载
评论 #21231118 未加载
评论 #21231282 未加载
评论 #21231249 未加载
aazaa超过 5 年前
&gt; On July 30, 1976, the LR returned its initial results from Mars. Amazingly, they were positive. As the experiment progressed, a total of four positive results, supported by five varied controls, streamed down from the twin Viking spacecraft landed some 4,000 miles apart. The data curves signaled the detection of microbial respiration on the Red Planet. The curves from Mars were similar to those produced by LR tests of soils on Earth. It seemed we had answered that ultimate question.<p>This article does a poor job of explaining the experiment in question: &quot;Labeled Release&quot; (LR).<p>According to Wikipedia:<p>&gt; ... In the LR experiment, a sample of Martian soil was inoculated with a drop of very dilute aqueous nutrient solution. The nutrients (7 molecules that were Miller-Urey products) were tagged with radioactive 14C. The air above the soil was monitored for the evolution of radioactive 14CO2 gas as evidence that microorganisms in the soil had metabolized one or more of the nutrients. Such a result was to be followed with the control part of the experiment as described for the PR below. The result was quite a surprise, considering the negative results of the first two tests, with a steady stream of radioactive gases being given off by the soil immediately following the first injection. The experiment was done by both Viking probes, the first using a sample from the surface exposed to sunlight and the second probe taking the sample from underneath a rock; both initial injections came back positive.[1] Subsequent injections a week later did not, however, elicit the same reaction, and according to a 1976 paper by Levin [author of the linked article] and Patricia Ann Straat the results were inconclusive.[12][13] In 1997, Levin, Straat and Barry DiGregorio co-authored a book on the issue, titled Mars: The Living Planet.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Viking_lander_biological_experiments" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Viking_lander_biological_exper...</a><p>To recap, martian soil was incubated with small organic molecules bearing a radioactive label. A chemical process that converted them into CO2 would give off some radioactive gas. The gas was detected by both landers the first time the experiment was run, but not the second time.<p>It should be kept in mind that non-biological processes can also convert small organic molecules into CO2. Simple combustion will do this, for example.<p>This possibility is discussed later in the Wikipedia article (but not in the linked article):<p>&gt; Despite the positive result from the Labeled Release experiment, a general assessment is that the results seen in the four experiments are best explained by oxidative chemical reactions with the Martian soil. One of the current conclusions is that the Martian soil, being continuously exposed to UV light from the Sun (Mars has no protective ozone layer), has built up a thin layer of a very strong oxidant. A sufficiently strong oxidizing molecule would react with the added water to produce oxygen and hydrogen, and with the nutrients to produce carbon dioxide (CO2).<p>However, this does not explain the discrepancy between the first and second test. And it leaves open the question of why both landers&#x27; experiments gave the same odd result (first test positive, second test negative).<p>The small organic molecules used as nutrients were those produced in a famous lab simulation of early earth. Its results showed that many of the basic building blocks of life could be formed by passing an electrical current through gases thought to be present in the early Earth atmosphere.
评论 #21229780 未加载
评论 #21230614 未加载
chkaloon超过 5 年前
I wonder if there is an incentive to NOT find life there because of what that discovery might do to slow industrialization and colonization plans. Do we need to conserve that life? Do we need to set up preserves that are off limits to development? Opens a big can of worms (or bacteria) that I imagine some would rather see kept closed
评论 #21229805 未加载
yummybear超过 5 年前
But if the CLR comes back positive, doesn’t that still mean there’s room for “it could be some unknown nonbiological process”. Wouldn’t saying with certainty that there is life on mars need somerthing like a microscopic image of cells dividing?
claudeganon超过 5 年前
Good book about it:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sandkings_(novelette)" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sandkings_(novelette)</a>
therealbilly超过 5 年前
Here&#x27;s the deal. There seems to be a default mode of behavior where people automatically reject news that conflicts with the status quo. In this case, these people are senior scientists not involved in the original mission. It&#x27;s very unfair. Breakthroughs in knowledge could be happening right beneath our noses and people (not involved in the project), are actively surpressing or invoking pretzel logic to belittle the findings.
NoPicklez超过 5 年前
It seems like finding life on another planet is held to secrecy, but in my mind wouldn&#x27;t a country want to take credit for finding the first signs of life outside of Earth? And therefore, if a country was to find and confirm life of another planet wouldn&#x27;t they report it immediately?
Causality1超过 5 年前
I&#x27;d be flatly amazed if impact ejecta never carried any microorganisms from earth to Mars.
sandGorgon超过 5 年前
&gt;<i>Our nation has now committed to sending astronauts to Mars. Any life there might threaten them, and us upon their return. Thus, the issue of life on Mars is now front and center.</i><p>I&#x27;m pretty sure this is the whole point of the article.
speedplane超过 5 年前
Science is not about finding life per-se, it&#x27;s about satisfying curiosity. Articles like these conflate real science (satisfying human curiosity) with finding life on other planets (we&#x27;re not alone). Of course, finding life on another planet would be an amazing discovery, but for any true believer in science, it would just be the beginning of a million more questions, not the end goal.
评论 #21231895 未加载
outworlder超过 5 年前
Lots of conspiracy theories here.<p>Planetary Protection is already a thing, even though we haven&#x27;t found anything yet.
edoceo超过 5 年前
&quot;microbial respiration on the Red Planet&quot;<p>I want to believe.
ropiwqefjnpoa超过 5 年前
IDK, what would be the motive to hide that?
评论 #21229589 未加载
评论 #21230362 未加载
评论 #21229677 未加载
评论 #21229702 未加载
starvingbear超过 5 年前
&gt; The curves from Mars were similar to those produced by LR tests of soils on Earth. It seemed we had answered that ultimate question.<p>Maybe it was on earth
hirundo超过 5 年前
&quot;Our aspirational goal is to send our first cargo mission to Mars in 2022. The objectives for the first mission will be to confirm water resources, identify hazards, and put in place initial power, mining, and life support infrastructure. A second mission, with both cargo and crew, is targeted for 2024&quot; -- spacex.com&#x2F;mars<p>Maybe NASA should book space for a biologist on that flight. A botanist would do.
评论 #21230180 未加载
评论 #21229841 未加载
sgt101超过 5 年前
The search for life is the way NASA gets funding.<p>If life is found NASA will not get funding.<p>Therefore NASA is doing all the science it can before it does a test for life. At least we will be able to say something about what it is and the context that it&#x27;s in.<p>Then the plug will get pulled.
评论 #21231384 未加载
RobertRoberts超过 5 年前
Science becomes corrupted when the research focuses on finding proof of and ideal instead disproving it.<p>There are no aliens. With the money wasted on looking for aliens we could have saved millions of lives with clean water, shelter, food and education.<p>Scientists need to stop deluding themselves and tricking congress into funding pet projects that are so far fetched they border on fraud.
评论 #21231741 未加载
评论 #21231737 未加载
评论 #21231807 未加载
评论 #21231900 未加载