Until we learn whether or not life exists on other planets, we extrapolate on the basis of our single living world. Just how long it took life to develop is a vital question, with implications that extend to other planetary systems. In today's essay, Alex Tolley brings his formidable background in the biological sciences to bear on the matter of Earth's first living things, which may well have emerged far earlier than was once thought. In particular, what was the last universal common ancestor -- LUCA -- from which bacteria, archaea, and eukarya subsequently diverged? Without the evidence future landers and space telescopes will give us, we remain ignorant of so fundamental a question as whether life itself -- not to mention intelligence -- is a rarity in the cosmos. But we're piecing together a framework that reveals Earth's surprising ability to spring into early life. by Alex Tolley Once upon a time, the history of life on Earth seemed so much simpler. Darwin had shown how natural...

A favorite editor of mine long ago told me never to begin an article with a question, but do I ever listen to her? Sometimes. Today’s lead question, then, is this: Can we expand communications over interstellar distances to include quantum methods? A 2020 paper by Arjun Berera (University of Edinburgh) makes the case for quantum coherence over distances that have only recently been suggested for communications: …We have been able to deduce that quantum teleportation and more generally quantum coherence can be sustained in space out to vast interstellar distances within the Galaxy. The main sources of decoherence in the Earth based experiments, atmospheric turbulence and other environmental effects like fog, rain, smoke, are not present in space. This leaves only the elementary particle interactions between the transmitted photons and particles present in the interstellar medium. Quantum coherence is an important matter; it refers to the integrity of the quantum state involved, and is...

When Arthur C. Clarke tells me that something is terrifying, he’s got my attention. After all, since boyhood I’ve not only had my imagination greatly expanded by Clarke’s work but have learned a great deal about scientific methodology and detachment. So where does terror fit in? Clarke is said to have used the term in a famous quote: “Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” But let’s ponder this: Would we prefer to live in a universe with other intelligent beings, or one in which we are alone? Are they really equally terrifying? Curiosity favors the former, as does innate human sociability. But the actual situation may be far more stark, which is why David Kipping deploys the Clarke quote in a new paper probing the probabilities. Working with the University of Sydney’s Geraint Lewis, Kipping (Columbia University) has applied a thought experiment first conceived by Edwin Jaynes to dig into the matter. Jaynes (1922-1998)...

Overpopulation has spawned so many dystopian futures in science fiction that it would be a lengthy though interesting exercise to collect them all. Among novels, my preference for John Brunner’s Stand on Zanzibar goes back to my utter absorption in its world when first published in book form in 1968. Kornbluth’s “The Marching Morons” (1951) fits in here, and so does J.G. Ballard’s Billenium (1969), and of course Harry Harrison’s Make Room! Make Room! from 1966, which emerged in much changed form in the film Soylent Green in 1973. You might want to check Science Fiction and Other Suspect Ruminations for a detailed list, and for that matter on much else in the realm of vintage science fiction as perceived by the pseudonymous Joachim Boaz (be careful, you might spend more time in this site than you had planned). In any case, so strongly has the idea of a clogged, choking Earth been fixed in the popular imagination that I still see references to going off-planet as a way of relieving...

Searching for biosignatures in the atmospheres of nearby exoplanets invariably opens up the prospect of folding in a search for technosignatures. Biosignatures seem much more likely given the prospect of detecting even the simplest forms of life elsewhere – no technological civilization needed – but ‘piggybacking’ a technosignature search makes sense. We already use this commensal method to do radio astronomy, where a primary task such as observation of a natural radio source produces a range of data that can be investigated for secondary purposes not related to the original search. So technosignature investigations can be inexpensive, which also means we can stretch our imaginations in figuring out what kind of signatures a prospective civilization might produce. The odds may be long but we do have one thing going for us. Whereas a potential biosignature will have to be screened against all the abiotic ways it could be produced (and this is going to be a long process), I suspect a...

The search for life on planets beyond our Solar System is too often depicted as a binary process. One day, so the thinking goes, we'll be able to directly image an Earth-mass exoplanet whose atmosphere we can then analyze for biosignatures. Then we'll know if there is life there or not. If only the situation were that simple! As Alex Tolley explains in his latest essay, we're far more likely to run into results that are so ambiguous that the question of life will take decades to resolve. Read on as Alex delves into the intricacies of life detection in the absence of instruments on a planetary surface. by Alex Tolley "People tend to believe that their perceptions are veridical representations of the world, but also commonly report perceiving what they want to see or hear." [17] Evolution has likely selected us to see dangerous things whether they are there or not. Survival favors avoiding a rustling bush that may hide a saber-toothed cat. We see what we are told to see, from gods in...