Stephen Hawking's last paper: multiverses follow the laws of physics

[Onyx]

However, lol: it's interesting that the huge edifice of modern science with all its research facilities and equipment, and with all its full knowledge of DNA, the Genome, etc -- is still unable to create even the most basic living molecule from a non-living source -- while at the same time assuming that life will almost definitely spring up by happy accident anywhere in the universe that offers even the most basic conditions for it?

Haven't they?

Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

 

[Vertigo]

Haven't they?

Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

His point still stands. Even knowing the chemical make up for the last half century we still find it exceedingly difficult to recreate (as opposed to simply modifying) life. Which I also feel, as @RJM Corbet points out, casts some doubt on the optimistic belief that life will be abundant on any planet capable of supporting it. But this is not the thread for that discussion....

 

[Onyx]

His point still stands. Even knowing the chemical make up for the last half century we still find it exceedingly difficult to recreate (as opposed to simply modifying) life. Which I also feel, as @RJM Corbet points out, casts some doubt on the optimistic belief that life will be abundant on any planet capable of supporting it. But this is not the thread for that discussion....

Life came about by taking a planet with a surface area of 36 million square kilometers and bombarding it with lava, ash, radiation, lightning and meteorites for tens of millions of years to get a result that is lot like those monkeys we have working on the Shakespeare re-writes. No brief lab experiments can match the scope of that. You can only increase the reaction rate so much and not damage the delicate organic compounds you're trying to get to interact.

In a few decades we went from making amino acids to ribonucleotides. How much faster would be required to count as optimistic?

 

[Amberlen]

However, lol: it's interesting that the huge edifice of modern science with all its research facilities and equipment, and with all its full knowledge of DNA, the Genome, etc -- is still unable to create even the most basic living molecule from a non-living source -- while at the same time assuming that life will almost definitely spring up by happy accident anywhere in the universe that offers even the most basic conditions for it?

Ducks for cover ...

EDIT: Hawking defined life as anti-entropic and able to reproduce ...

Why ya ducking? Computers cars and anything else don’t assemble in their own-why then should it follow the most complex of things did? *shrugs-making no apologies for my belief*

 

[RJM Corbet]

Haven't they?

Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

Well, the creation of RNA would be truly groundbreaking. So groundbreaking that it's occurring in 2009 in an article buried on page five, so to speak, seems suspect. If true, created from non-living chemicals, it would change everything. Creating the constituents of a chocolate pudding isnt the same as making one?
Any substantiation?

 

[Onyx]

Well, that would be truly groundbreaking. So groundbreaking that it's occurring in 2009 in an article buried on page five, so to speak, seems suspect. If true, created from non-living chemicals, it would change everything. Any substantiation?

The Wired article says the research was originally published in Nature.

 

[Amberlen]

Well, I don't know. I have really gained a lot from this thread too, but I'm not sure most people have the appetite to push it further, Amberlen. I'm flattered to have somehow earned your following

Aren’t you the silver tongued devil
you and @Onyx @BAYLOR are my friends here so far...
You and onyx have great discussions so idk about appetite, but I will always read them, even if I dont contribute and Baylor has given me a 6mth-year worth of book recommends
So what could be better? Sff books,great discussion,new friends and I even get to tease now and again

 

[RJM Corbet]

The Wired article says the research was originally published in Nature.

Yes. I've edited my post. It's an irritating habit. I assumed the article referred to the actual creation of RNA, not just some molecules which are part of RNA? It sounds too glib? I'm sorry, I'm really going to be out of my depth here. Biology isn't a subject I have any real knowledge of. I think @Vertigo is probably right, this isn't the right thread? You could create one? But my input would not be very useful, I'm afraid.

 

[Venusian Broon]

However, lol: it's interesting that the huge edifice of modern science with all its research facilities and equipment, and with all its full knowledge of DNA, the Genome, etc -- is still unable to create even the most basic living molecule from a non-living source -- while at the same time assuming that life will almost definitely spring up by happy accident anywhere in the universe that offers even the most basic conditions for it?

Ducks for cover ...

EDIT: Hawking defined life as anti-entropic and able to reproduce ...

I feel you are arguing a strawman here. Firstly, we don't have a full knowledge of genetics and cellular processes, that's on-going research. Secondly, we don't really know what the conditions were like on Earth when life first appeared which is important for trying to work out what happened. And thirdly, I'm not sure that 'science' assumes that life will almost definitely spring up by happy accident etc...

I think if we find fossilised bacteria on Mars or actual life on Europa then perhaps we can be a bit more optimistic on life's chances throughout the universe. Let's get some samples and evidence first, yeah?

Also, it's an interesting & fascinating problem but really most of the research labs and equipment are working on other things that have more tangible results on our lives!

Personally I find it suggestive that we continually push back the likely origin of life on Earth further and further back, till we are actually close to the point (okay, about a couple hundred million years after formation, but that's pretty early given the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old or so) that the Earth-moon system formed. So I sincerely believe that bacterial life forms pretty much as soon as it can in the universe, when the conditions are right. But that is purely my belief. I would like to see some evidence to back this up!

 

[RJM Corbet]

Seems they did actually create RNA, not just it's ingredients. Still a long way though from creating a living, anti- entropic, self reproducing ... thing?

 

[RJM Corbet]

I feel you are arguing a strawman here. Firstly, we don't have a full knowledge of genetics and cellular processes, that's on-going research. Secondly, we don't really know what the conditions were like on Earth when life first appeared which is important for trying to work out what happened. And thirdly, I'm not sure that 'science' assumes that life will almost definitely spring up by happy accident etc...

I think if we find fossilised bacteria on Mars or actual life on Europa then perhaps we can be a bit more optimistic on life's chances throughout the universe. Let's get some samples and evidence first, yeah?

Also, it's an interesting & fascinating problem but really most of the research labs and equipment are working on other things that have more tangible results on our lives!

Personally I find it suggestive that we continually push back the likely origin of life on Earth further and further back, till we are actually close to the point (okay, about a couple hundred million years after formation, but that's pretty early given the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old or so) that the Earth-moon system formed. So I sincerely believe that bacterial life forms pretty much as soon as it can in the universe, when the conditions are right. But that is purely my belief. I would like to see some evidence to back this up!

But VB isn't the whole peaceful science of space exploration about finding life elsewhere? Surely the same interest should be going into reproducing it in the laboratory? We can make anything else. My phone, laboratory diamonds, medical drugs etc, no problem. Why the excuses?

I really am ignorant and would prefer to step-out of trying to debate this with my huge ignorance.

 

[Onyx]

But VB isn't the whole peaceful science of space exploration about finding life elsewhere? Surely the same interest should be going into reproducing it in the laboratory? We can make anything else. My phone, laboratory diamonds, medical drugs etc, no problem. Why the excuses?

I really am ignorant and would prefer to step-out of trying to debate this with my huge ignorance.

Looking for alien life tantalizes the public, but there are all sorts of reasons to explore space. Finding life out there might be interesting, but it is also a hazard and potential barrier to exploration and exploitation.

 

[BAYLOR]

Looking for alien life tantalizes the public, but there are all sorts of reasons to explore space. Finding life out there might be interesting, but it is also a hazard and potential barrier to exploration and exploitation.

Even if we found a planet capable of supporting life, It's possible that we may never be able set foot on it . Why? This is speculation on my part but, I think that the bacteria and viruses in our bodies could prove to be harmful to the biosphere of the planet . And bacteraia and viruses from that planet could pose an equal danger to us and life on earth.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions. - PubMed - NCBI

I can't attach the actual PDF but there's the paper for anyone who can decipher it. (Well, apparently not. Sorry. But if you google around you'll find it.)

In honesty, it may be a degree of evidence for the process of abiogenesis.

But that's it. I'm out of this one, chaps, lol ...

 

[Onyx]

Even if we found a planet capable of supporting life, It's possible that we may never be able set foot on it . Why? This is speculation on my part but, I think that the bacteria and viruses in our bodies could prove to be harmful to the biosphere of the planet . And bacteraia and viruses from that planet could pose an equal danger to us and life on earth.

We could wear those space suit things.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Of course I'm still reading it, lol

 

[BAYLOR]

We could wear those space suit things.

The explorers would never vibe able to remove those suites .

 

[Onyx]

The explorers would never vibe able to remove those suites .

Not even after they went through a sterilization and airlock?

There isn't a lot of difference between isolating biological hazards and exploring a planet with no viable atmosphere.

Given that free oxygen appears to be the result of biological processes like photosynthesis, it is super unlikely that space explorers will ever find a planet with a breathable atmosphere that doesn't have life on it. So airlocks and spacesuits are going to be de rigueur for the foreseeable future on any wild planet. If there is a breathable atmosphere, we'll need to worry about alien germs as much as infecting the aliens. Otherwise, it will be an atmosphere we created.

 

[Amberlen]

Do you guys even consider maybe there is another planet we can exist on-without spacesuits or airlocks? I’m curious to know if you do or is all alien bacteria and harmful gas?

 

[Onyx]

Do you guys even consider maybe there is another planet we can exist on-without spacesuits or airlocks? I’m curious to know if you do or is all alien bacteria and harmful gas?

Like I said, it would be really miraculous to have free oxygen in the atmosphere without some sort of life process to separate it from ammonia, CO2 or water as it is normally found in the wild. You could have a planet that has a non-breathable atmosphere that is the right pressure and temp for use with SCUBA gear, but that would still be odd without life to regulate the temp out of the greenhouse or ice age zones.

It is more likely that there'd be a place full of life that is fundamentally different in organization that earth life just doesn't interact with it, like our biologics are plastic to each other.

That's off the top of my head. I'm interested in hearing something different.