Way out in deep space, astronomers spot precursor of carbon based life Astronomers wielding the James Webb Space Telescope have detected methyl cations – important precursor molecules needed to create proteins and DNA and therefore fundamental to carbon-based life forms. The molecules were spotted 1,350 light years away in a protoplanetary disk known as d203-506, located in the Orion Nebula. The …
Welcome our CH3+ overlords and ask that they be kind.
You probably already know the answer to that one, which is "it depends". All life depends on cat-ions? I think the cats already know they're the overlords, but this is probably why there are great efforts to ban methane and prevent further evolutionary manipulation by their ions.
The James Webb wouldn't have been possible without the Hubble
I'm not so sure I would agree with that statement. The JWST operates in the near- and mid-infrared bands with a limited capability of seeing red and orange visual light (since red and orange frequencies are adjacent to infrared), while the HST primarily operates in visual bands; based on that I would argue that JWST is descended more from IRAS, ISO (which I actually worked on as a part of the ground system team) and Spitzer lines than HST.
In what universe is CH3 balanced and neutral?
CH3 isn't even really a cation, which exists in solution / electrostatic equilibrium. CH3 is a free radical and extremely catalytic as a result.
Well, yes and know. CH3+ is a cation, it has a positive charge; CH3. is a radical, it is neutral, but has an unpaired electron, making it very reactive, and CH3- is an anion with a negative charge because it has grabbed an electron from somewhere else. All of them can exist as species floating around in space, and all would interact differently with other molecules they come into contact with. If the article says it's talking about CH3+ then I'm going to accept that this is what the article is talking about, and not CH3..
Chemistry in deep space is very different to terrestrial chemistry, because it takes part in a near vacuum. Even a protoplanetary disk isn't necessarily something particularly dense, like gases at atmospheric pressure, where all of these species would be very short lived, and parts of it are likely to be very rarefied indeed.
Life in organic form, we understand the organisms, but we don't really know what the life bit is.
So life could exist in a form other than organic. Or could be organic but adapted to exist in an environment that we would consider uninhabitable.
It could exist and be all around us, but not be perceivable. We keep looking for a bit different version of ourselves. But now for something completely different must be far more likely.
The problem with detecting "it's life Jim but not as we know it" is we have no idea what to look for so it's far simpler to look for what we know works.
For all we know the gas giants could be teeming with life, maybe plasma life in the sun or incredibly slow life out in the outer reaches of the solar system but we don't have a clue about what metabolites we should be looking for, so we don't. Anyway at reasonable temperatures and pressures carbon is the only game in town, no other element has the effectively unlimited variation than carbon compounds can form.
As a scientist, I never much minded the use of boffin: even though it generally seems overloaded with old fashioned and inaccurate stereotypes, I never really felt that it was being used in a negative way (especially around here), and so was (or would be) happy to let it pass.
Others may differ of course. Some (or perhaps many) nowadays do not seem to mind "geek" or "nerd"; although to me they were initially experienced as terms of insult or abuse, and the modern (arguably positive) usage doesn't sit very easily. But such is language.
When I did my physics PhD it was a standing joke that we should just say we did a bit of modelling...
...
... but whether it happened to be modelling of laser trapping systems, optical parametric oscillators, soliton propagation, or whatever else, should remain unsaid.
*Some (or perhaps many) nowadays do not seem to mind "geek" or "nerd"; although to me they were initially experienced as terms of insult or abuse..."
I've happily identified as a geek for decades. They were, indeed, often used in a derogatory manner (and probably still are) but I never gave a bugger about what anybody else called me. Growing up as the astronomy obsessed kid surrounded by peers with more, erm, conventionally athletic interests, I quickly learned to disregard such things.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
