Oxygen is not definitive evidence of life on habitable extrasolar planets

AI Thread Summary
Oxygen, traditionally viewed as a definitive biomarker for life on habitable extrasolar planets, may not be a reliable indicator, according to research by Norio Narita and Shigeyuki Masaoka. Their hypothesis suggests that large quantities of abiotic oxygen can exist in planetary atmospheres, challenging previous assumptions that oxygen must be produced by biological processes like photosynthesis. The discussion highlights the importance of interdisciplinary studies in astrobiology, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of oxygen's origins. Critics argue that while abiotic sources of oxygen exist, the presence of oxygen still strongly suggests biological activity. This evolving perspective underscores the complexity of identifying life beyond Earth.
PF_SpaceNews
Oxygen is not definitive evidence of life on habitable extrasolar planets

The Earth's atmosphere contains oxygen because plants continuously produce it through photosynthesis. This abundant supply of oxygen allows life forms like animals to flourish. Therefore, oxygen had been thought to be an essential biomarker for life on extrasolar planets. But now, a research assistant professor Norio Narita of the Astrobiology Center of National Institutes of Natural Sciences (NINS), which was founded in April 2015, and an associate professor Shigeyuki Masaoka, of the Institute of Molecular Science of NINS, have presented a novel hypothesis that it could be possible for planets to have large quantities of abiotic (non-biologically produced) oxygen. This study is a good example of interdisciplinary studies that combine knowledge from different fields of science to promote astrobiology in the search for life on extrasolar planets. The study is published in Scientific Reports on Sep 10, 2015.

Continue reading...
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
"Until now, it had been thought that if a planet has oxygen, that must mean that some form of plants are producing it through photosynthesis. Therefore, it had been assumed that when searching for signs of life on habitable extrasolar planets, the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere could be considered a definitive biomarker."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-09-oxygen-definitive-evidence-life-habitable.html#jCp

Bit of an overstatement to reach an obvious conclusion that "necessary" is not the same as "sufficient."
 
Bystander said:
Bit of an overstatement to reach an obvious conclusion that "necessary" is not the same as "sufficient."
Where do you see that?

Before: "We don't know abiotic sources of molecular oxygen, if we find oxygen in an atmosphere it should come from life"
Now: "We know an abiotic source of molecular oxygen, if we find oxygen in an atmosphere we don't know where it comes from"
 
mfb said:
Before: "We don't know abiotic sources of molecular oxygen
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q="iron+oxides"+"mantle+rocks"
See Lev Epplebaum (5th or 6th item in list) for clear statement of T, P stability of FeII over FeIII in mantle rock. Bottom line? Plenty of well-known sources of free oxygen in large quantities for atmospheres on rocky planets.
 
OK so a planet with a substantial surface layer of Titanium Oxide orbiting a star with strong UV emission might have an atmosphere with a lot of free oxygen.
That doesn't make it less plausible that free oxygen is a strong marker of photosynthetic life.
In fact I think that Titanium Oxide coated planets would be considerably more rare than planets having surface water and an abundance of Carbon/Nitrogen/Oxygen compounds, the prerequisites for organic chemistry.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Both have short pulses of emission and a wide spectral bandwidth, covering a wide variety of frequencies: "Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are detected over a wide range of radio frequencies, including frequencies around 1400 MHz, but have also been detected at lower frequencies, particularly in the 400–800 MHz range. Russian astronomers recently detected a powerful burst at 111 MHz, expanding our understanding of the FRB range. Frequency Ranges: 1400 MHz: Many of the known FRBs have been detected...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
7K
Replies
11
Views
27K
Replies
6
Views
6K
Back
Top