Did JWST find a MARKER OF LIFE in an exoplanet atmosphere?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 тра 2024
- There’s been a big claim of a marker of life, known as a biosignature, found using JWST in the atmosphere of an exoplanet known as K2-18b. The data also confirmed this planet was a “Hycean” world, a planet with a liquid water ocean surrounded by a hydrogen dominated atmosphere. The biosignature that’s claimed to have been found is dimethyl sulphide, a molecule that on Earth is mostly produced by phytoplankton in the ocean. But how strong actually is the evidence for this claimed detection of dimethyl sulphide?
Madhusudhan et al (2023; JWST observations of K2-18b) - arxiv.org/pdf/2309.05566.pdf
Bell et al. (2023; JWST methane detection in the atmosphere of WASP-80b) - arxiv.org/pdf/2309.04042.pdf
Benneke et al. (2019; HST observations of K2-18b and detection of water) - arxiv.org/pdf/1909.04642.pdf
Hu et al. (2021; prediction of the molecules present in a hycean world atmosphere) - arxiv.org/pdf/2108.04745.pdf
Greaves et al. (2021; phosphine detected in Venus’ atmosphere) - arxiv.org/pdf/2009.06593.pdf
Constantinou et al. (2023; the different JWST reduction pipelines for exoplanet data) - arxiv.org/pdf/2301.02564.pdf
Seager et al. (2013; biosignatures in exoplanet atmospheres) - arxiv.org/pdf/1309.6016.pdf
JWST proposal 2722 - www.stsci.edu/jwst/phase2-pub...
JWST proposal 2372 - www.stsci.edu/jwst/phase2-pub...
Dr Jake Taylor on Twitter: / astrojake
Dr Jake Taylor on TikTok: / astrojaket
Dr Ryan MacDonald on Twitter: / martiancolonist
Prof Jayne Birkby on Twitter: / jaynebirkby
00:00 Introduction
01:24 What do we already know about K2-18b?
04:01 How we use JWST to study exoplanet atmospheres
06:00 What has JWST found in the atmosphere of K2-18b
12:17 The caveats to these results (especially the DMS claim)
14:08 What’s next? How can we confirm or deny this claim of DMS?
15:52 Bloopers
Correction: 02:38 K2-18b is LESS dense than Earth, not more dense. Verbal typo.
Video filmed on a Sony ⍺7 IV
---
📚 My new book, "A Brief History of Black Holes", out NOW in hardback, e-book and audiobook (which I narrated myself!): lnk.to/DrBecky
---
📚 "The Year In Space" celebrating all things space in 2022 from me and the rest of the Supermassive Podcast team: geni.us/jNcrw
---
👕 My new merch, including JWST designs, are available here (with worldwide shipping!): dr-becky.teemill.com/
---
🎧 Royal Astronomical Society Podcast that I co-host: podfollow.com/supermassive
---
🔔 Don't forget to subscribe and click the little bell icon to be notified when I post a new video!
---
👩🏽💻 I'm Dr. Becky Smethurst, an astrophysicist at the University of Oxford (Christ Church). I love making videos about science with an unnatural level of enthusiasm. I like to focus on how we know things, not just what we know. And especially, the things we still don't know. If you've ever wondered about something in space and couldn't find an answer online - you can ask me! My day job is to do research into how supermassive black holes can affect the galaxies that they live in. In particular, I look at whether the energy output from the disk of material orbiting around a growing supermassive black hole can stop a galaxy from forming stars.
drbecky.uk.com
rebeccasmethurst.co.uk - Наука та технологія
Correction: 02:38 K2-18b is LESS dense than Earth, not more dense. Verbal typo.
Thank you
There are huge numbers of explanets which do not transit their star (?):
Great science on this BTW - wavelengths etc 😎👍
D'oh!
Yep, about 0.48 times as dense...forgot the radius has to be cubed in the calculation
@@benjaminzotter6338 You're squaring 2.6, you should be cubing it. 2.6^3 =17.6.
As a scientist who is not an astrophysicist, this is exactly the right level of complexity for me. Great explanation! Learned a lot
As a regular person, I know some of these words!
As a layman passionate about science, it is for me too!
As a caveman, I understand the scrawls on the cave walls! And the stars are so bright! 🌌
As a janitor, I can secretly solve these equations and knock it outta that pahk!
As Norman Osborn, I'm something of a scientist myself!
Honestly, as someone currently pursuing a degree in biochemistry with the goal of working as an astrobiologist, I think people are far too quick to dismiss how INCREDIBLE it is that we now have such excellent evidence for the existence of liquid water and a thick atmosphere on the planet's surface. If there's one thing we seem to find consistently here on Earth it's that if there is water, there is life. While this is no guaruntee, the presence of liquid water is an amazing discovery. Biosignature or not, the chances of there being life on that planet just increased exponentially!
It's also great news to know a roughly earth-sized planet is capable of sustaining such conditions orbiting a red dwarf.
I really don't understand how a 64 in 65 chance isn't good enough. This detection isn't particle physics it a binary yes or no. This skepticism seems a bit silly.
@@Kali_Yuga_Surfer The problem is that there is too high a chance that the detection itself is simply an error. Look at it like this: how comfortable would you be getting a nose job if 1/64 people who got one died? Probably not very. But 1/1,000,000 is much more reasonable. That would likely only happen under extreme circumstances, so it probably won't happen to you. While no one will die if we are wrong about a biosignature, scientists like to treat their level of certainty in a similarly serious manner. Generally, results are only reported or given any significance if the statistics support an overwhelming level of probability that the result is correct.
Yeah! This is an amazing discovery, difficult to create the idea in our minds
Fun fact: plankton is Greek for wanderer and is a synonym of planet, also a Greek word for wanderer. Plankton was first used in biology by Victor Hensen in the 19th century, to describe microscopic life that wanders the sea, because they are organisms that are unable to propel themselves against the current, thus they drift.
@@bsblleon01 "organism that lives in a large body of water and is unable to swim against the current," 1891, from German Plankton (1887), coined by German physiologist Viktor Hensen (1835-1924) from Greek plankton, neuter of planktos "wandering, drifting," verbal adjective from plazesthai "to wander, drift," from plazein "to drive astray," from PIE root *plak- (2) "to strike." Related: Planktonic.
@@bsblleon01 wiktionary is really good for etymologies:
Plankton:
Borrowed from German Plankton, coined by German zoologist and marine biologist Victor Hensen and derived from Ancient Greek πλαγκτός (planktós, “drifter”), from πλάζω (plázō, “I turn aside, wander”).
Planet:
From Middle English planete, from Old French planete, from Latin planeta, planetes, from Ancient Greek πλανήτης (planḗtēs, “wanderer”) (ellipsis of πλάνητες ἀστέρες (plánētes astéres, “wandering stars”).), from Ancient Greek πλανάω (planáō, “wander about, stray”), of unknown origin.
Did plankton wander all the way over to K2-18b? Are plankton the underlying cause of the panspermia hypothesis?? Is the whole Universe full of plankton??? IS DARK MATTER ACTUALLY PLANKTON???? 😮
Plankton and planet are cognates, would be a better description of it
The French word "flaneur" comes from the same root, via Old Norse "flana" meaning "to wander aimlessly or without purpose", and a derived word is used in modern Swedish as the dialectal slang word "flane" meaning a fool or a hapless person.
My cousin is an alien and lives next to K2-18b and he says there's nothing going on over there.....
can you ask him to come to my place for bbq. tell him to bring beer
I appreciate this clarification so much. Also the respectful way you presented it, making it clear what the authors actually presented, as opposed to what the media made of it. I’m going to look up “hycean” to see if there’s an accepted pronunciation yet.
Easy in German, something like 'huytseyan'. 😁
Yeah, of course it's "the media" again, never mind the fact that it was literally claimed in NASA's own press release.
Excellent video. I liked your mention of Drs. Jake Taylor, Ryan MacDonald, & Prof Jayne Birkby as consultants to the analysis. This highlights the collaborative aspect of scientific research in my view. Of course, this channel always notes the authors of the publications and links their papers in the notes, which is one of my favourite features.
Very interesting and understandable video explanation of the K2-18b paper from the JWST observations!
I've been waiting for your (inevitable) video on this paper, as you usually make very good explanatory videos after big science news from papers being published after JWST observations. For my (layman's) perspective, I really appreciate your breaking it down so that even us more "common" non-scientific folks can understand exactly what all is going on here.
Great video - Thanks for this Dr. Becky!
But if the radius of a sphere is doubled, surely the volume would increase by a factor of 2^3 = 8. In this case, the radius seems to be 2.61 times Earth's, giving a volume of 2.61^3 = 17.78 times that of the Earth. Meanwhile, its mass is estimated at 8.63 times that of Earth. So doesn't that indicate that its density is slightly less than half that of our planet?
PS: Portmanteaux should be banished!
Was wondering the same
Yes, I came here to say the same thing. The radius probably includes the atmosphere, which reduces the average density.
@@thomasdalton1508 Yeah that might be right, but I still think it's a mistake in the video or at least just very confusing wording
@@veuriam Yes, it's definitely a mistake.
I agree. She said it's a mini Neptune, and Neptune's density is less than a third of Earth's (1.638 g/cm3 to 5.513 g/cm3), so it's likely just a brainfart.
This is so cool. I did an EPQ on this topic a year ago (Which Exoplanet had the Greatest Potential for life) and it’s so amazing to see JWST analysing the atmospheres. Amazing video, please keep it up. :)
I'd love to hear more about this "missing methane" problem you were talking about.
I've found it right here! *farts on your direction*
I'm assuming it was mostly a measurement issue. Either not looking with the right instruments or simply not having the right instruments to measure it in the first place.
@@caracatoacacepe As in, “I fart in your general direction?”
Obviously, this is a planet inhabited by aquatic cows.
This was the best explanation of this exo-planet on the whole internet.
Thanks!
Thank you for all you do on your great channel! I’m a high school Earth science teacher in NYC and you help me stay up-to-date on my astronomy so I can then share these exciting new discoveries with my students.
Glad I can help Jessica :) glad you enjoy them! Say hi to your high schoolers from me
As a recent subscriber, I would like to note that Dr. Becky is really fun to watch and learn from. I'm not a scientist, just an astrophysics geek with an appetite for this type of news. Learning something new is simply icing on the cake, and that's what you get by watching Dr. Becky. Bravo! Suggestion: Dr. Becky goes to Finland for a chat with Tuomas Holopainen! 😃🤘
Same.
we were here!
So you have an appetite for CGI cartoons as an adult
@@davidsheckler4450 tell me you don't understand without telling me you don't understand
@@davidsheckler4450 let me guess the earth is flat and God did it all
I'm glad Ryan's group contacted you (I gave him the tip when you shared one of his previous works).
Great explanation . I have seen several but this one was the most elaborated and nuanced , still very comprehensible. Thank you.
As a linguist and graduate of Cambridge, I endorse your pronunciation of "hycean." That makes two of us, which is a bigger consensus that is often achieved!
I disagree, it's clearly pronounced "hycean"
You're both wrong! It's pronounced "hycean". Stop misinformation.
@@adriantcullysover4640 This is just like what just happened to me on Facebook. I asked how to pronounce the name of the tiny town of Canon, Georgia, because I had heard someone on the radio pronounce it "Canyon" and wondered if that could possibly be correct. Several people told me it was pronounced "Canon." They couldn't understand why I found this uninformative. Finally one came out and said it is pronounced "cannon" not "canyon" and I had my answer.
Another great vid Dr Becky. Seems like Webb is getting closer to closing in on some spectacular results. There must be so much data being produced by JWST that planetary scientists must be overwhelmed.....excited but overwhelmed lol.
Thanks for this detailed exposition of the results. I was already skeptical of the DMS claim, because it was described as a marginal detection, but you've given more reasons for caution (such as the degeneracy) and, more hopefully, suggested that studying longer wavelengths could resolve whether the detection is real (up to the statistical significance required). The results about confirming this is a hycean world and that there is indeed methane in some exoplanet atmospheres are perhaps more significant since these detections are robust so this adds to our knowledge of exoplanets and their atmospheres.
Hi, I was chatting to Maddhu after a lecture yesterday at the Cambridge IoA and he feels that their paper correctly explained that the possible presence of DMS is only tentative. It's just the media that have latched onto it. If it's presence was confirmed through further observations and modelling it would be very interesting though as it would mean biological activity or some currently unknown chemical process. By the way he pronounces Hycean the same way as you. Always look forward to watching your videos, they are great ! Kev
I really like 2 things about this video.
1. how you breakdown the NGST data and updates. This is why I am here.
2. Is how you present it.
Hycean seems to be sticking. I am a bigger fan of wet giant to go with ice giant and gas giant.
Death by snu snu
How long until someone officially calls that world Hyacinth?
How about liquid giant. Wet giant sounds...icky.
@@erinm9445 moist giant? damp giant? soggy giant?
@@CrushnautSoggy, I vote soggy!
Thanks DrB for your healthy dose of scientific skepticism - keep publishing, keep educating
No.
K2-18b is not denser than earth. The volume is growing with the radius to the power of three, that means, a planet with the density of earth and thie radius of 2.4 times of earth's radius would have nearly 17.6 times the mass of earth. But it is only 8.63 times heavier, that means its density is only half of that of earth and is not denser than earth as was stated at about 2:20 .
Or did I miscalculate something?
Pretty sure you're right. I calculate a density of 0.49 times of that of Earth. The larger size though still causes higher surface gravity than Earth though. Article I found says it'd have a surface gravity of 12.43 m/s^2, or 1.27x that of Earth's gravity.
That doesn't seem so bad, actually.@@Ergzay
While I'm thrilled with the results of JWST, it is frustrating to know we'll never actually see these planets in our lifetime, if ever. Although it's close in astronomical terms, 124 light-years is still quite a distance away. Thank you, as always, for your great, informative videos - Much appreciated!
Really great video Becky! Thanks for the shoutout, I love chatting science with you :)
Great video as always, you had a slight edit error at about 7:55 min though lol.
Also loved the last blooper, Malfunctioned... sorry, are you a cyberman?
Thank you for the excellent explanation. I do public outreach about JWST and this helps significantly with addressing this finding.
Thanks! Glad it could help
Thanks for your analysis of this story Becky. Regardless of whether future JWST observations improve our confidence of a DMS detection in the atmosphere of K2-18b, I think any scientific data that helps us further understand the nature of Hycean planets is breaking important ground and it captures the imagination given their absence from our own solar system.
this is why i watch you instead of the regular media. you actually know what you are talking about and dont overhype stuff
Thanks as always for great technical explanation of recent research.
As a technical note, there’s a 3-second glitch that repeats 7:57-8:00 at 8:00-8:03
Great explanation of the benefits of this paper as same as its limits. It is exiting to try to imagine how would this alien world look like. And it is amazing how many things we can get to know about it, even though it is insanely far away.
Exciting?
Dr Becky thank you for a very detailed and very understandable explanation. 👍
I am grateful for your sober and cooperative approach
I try to wait before watching videos on some "challenging" claims on emotional stuff
...except for wanting more and bigger telescopes in space!
Thank the Stars for your analysis on this one Dr Becky..., I find it HILARIOUS that the media has jumped SO HARD on the "Dimethyl Sulphide" wagon for K2-18b. When the Uncertainty error is so minute & outside of the Spec where this claim can be made. Still an exciting Spectra none the less , & loving the JWST Exo-planet atmospheric detention data thats coming thru. So pleased that JWST has been an insurmountable success !! ps great bloopers reel on this one ;p
Thanks for the video Dr. Becky! I'm sure you heard of the black holes that burp out the remains of stars that fell in, somehow *years* after they fell in. I look forward to your video about the mystery.
Great video as always. Just one issue: a radius of 2.61Re at the same density of Earth would have a mass of 2.61^3 = 17.8 times the mass of the Earth. Since this planet has a mass of just 8.6Me, it’s average density must be about half that of Earth, not higher.
I've been waiting for this video for weeks! Frustrating, but worth the wait.
so, i just wat to reflect on the bloopers.
both the actual scientfic content and the bloopers do amaze me.
if you hear something that is most likely a corner grinder powered by an internal combustion engine, it is so maculine in the most positive way as it can be. i mean, i was talking to my friend about a very recent experience, that was about the thing called toxic masculinity (that we hardly understood until now) and this is actually the opposite. i'm sorry if i offended anyone, but i had to get this off my chest.
i recommend using corner grinders more often for any reasons, using all necessary safety measures. it's fun. for real. they are very delicate tools.
keep up the good science!
Thanks for the outstanding summary. It's so easy to get lost in the hype of the media outlets. This channel is outstanding at presenting information in an approachable, coherent, and measured manner. It's really wonderful to find a resource like this channel on a topic that is typically slightly out of reach for a standard observer. Keep up the great work, Dr. Becky!
Well, I used to pronounce it hycean, but now I pronounce it hycean.
No. It's pronounced hycean.
Loved you in Highlander! Lol
@@wiseted I tried to type the tarzan yell but cant figure out how to spell it.
@@christopherlambert5264 😂
I think that, in your discussion of why K2-18b wasn't rocky (2:23), you got the density-comparison backwards:
"it is 8.63 times heavier than the earth but has a radius of only 2.6 times wider meaning that it is much denser than Earth".
Since mass is proportional to the cube of the linear dimension, an Earth-like planet with a radius of 2.61 x Earth would have a mass of about 17.8 x Earth. Given that K2-18b has a mass of only 8.63 x Earth, it's mean density must be about 48% that of Earth. That said, saying that it is more Neptune-like is correct (since Neptune's mean density is about 30% of Earth's.)
👍👍 great to hear this news and clarification on the context!
Hi Dr. Becky
What are your thoughts on trappist-1, and the other four planets? I know the first 3 don't have atmospheres, but what about the last four?
And I have another question. What are your thoughts about rogue planets? Could they have atmospheres?
I do like these videos as a complete layman, because the explanations are so clear. Technology has come on leaps and bounds. As I am writing this comment, I am busy imaging the Andromeda galaxy with a tiny little £500 device ( a Dwarflab II ) contolled by my smartphone.
News about space, especially potential discoveries of life, are always exciting, but I know to temper myself and wait for an explanation that I, a layman, can understand. Very grateful for your weekly videos, Dr. Becky.
Good coverage and analysis, Becky!
You obviously have an effect on Google. 😉 I typed "hycean" and one of the early suggestions was 'How to pronounce." Your viewers wanted to check. However I also saw different opinions, couldn't say what's definitive.
Another great video, loved the discussion. The best part was I suddenly felt myself in awe of the fact that we can make the observations that can raise these questions. Considering that just a short time ago we really didn't even know for sure if there were exoplanets, I think this is pretty terrific. Thanks for helping to keep my mind buzzing along.
Thanks for this. I’m not a scientist but you presented the information in a clear and digestible format for the lay man.
I'm not a scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn!
Great video - thank you. 1 in 66 chance it's a statistical fluke doesn't sound too bad too me, but I appreciate that scientists tend to wait for near certainty before claiming a discovery.
Then you compare that with religious claims and even if there is a 1 in 2 chance of something being a fluke it's frequently taken as "proof" for their claims on reality. Nothing can beat the scientific way. It's not just about trying to eliminate reasonable doubt, but going far and away beyond reasonable doubt to extreme astronomical odds before something is declared "this is a scientific fact".
Knowing reality through probabilistic truths, is simply far better than pretending to know reality with religious claims of absolute truths confirmed by little to nothing.
It depends, did they measure just this planet? or did this one become known because of this value?
Because if you've measured 500 planets that 1 in 66 becomes really, really weak...
@@SuperErickelrojo Exactly!
Thank you for clarifying these results. I have been looking forward to watching this episode since it came out, and I finally got the opportunity to do so. As always, I learned a lot from your videos.
I do have one question. As I understand it, phytoplankton on Earth eventually transformed our early atmosphere into the oxygen rich air we breathe today. So if there is phytoplankton on an alien world producing dimethylsulfude in detectable quantities (a big 'if'), wouldn't there also be a detectable quantity of Oxygen in that atmosphere?
Great explanation, Dr. Smethurst.
What do you think about his new press release today?
Thanks a bunch for all the explanations, dr. Becky! 😊
Let's see what more observations tells us. But I'm still organizing the fishing expedition there and I already have a list of interesteds. 😬
Anyway, stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
This was so fascinating and so very well explained! Thanks 👍🏻
can you remake this with updates when the time comes and make it a series maybe? Like what is needed for life -> what we look for -> what we can see -> what does the best research on it say
Thanks for posting, I wish I understood more than I do but am getting the gist I think and it is incredibly fascinating. I often wonder how much our world would change if we found any form of life elsewhere.
I expect that lots of folks hear “1 in 66 chance” and think, “okay, so there’s like 98.5% chance that it’s a real observation? Isn’t that enough to say that it’s most likely?” What I don’t think gets explained often enough is that if we have many different observations and each observation has many different aspects that could be unusual by chance we can expect that we’ll get 1 in 66 chance observational errata all the time.
Isn't that a gamblers fallacy though? It doesn't change the fact there's a 98.5% chance it's a real observation, which is pretty damn probable.
@@stonemuncher9494 it’s not gambler’s fallacy because unlike the kinds of scenarios that give rise to that (such as being a gambler!) all the results are not presented in succession for us to look at. Rather, we have a large basket of unordered results already in the basket so to speak, and we pluck out the interesting ones to inspect. In a dataset of 1000 observation events, a detection result that has a 1 in 66 chance of happening purely by chance is going to show up in the data roughly 15 times even without it being a real observation.
The real numbers here are often far larger, of course, with billions or quadrillions of observation events and results that are one in a million or one in a trillion showing up regularly without being meaningful evidence that they’ve really observed an interesting phenomenon.
@@stonemuncher9494gambler’s fallacy would be if someone considered the events that had already occurred and thought, “unlikely chance result X hasn’t been seen in a while, so we’re due to see one soon. The likelihood of it occurring by chance on our *next* observation is elevated.”
@@nathanpowell195 I don’t understand your point then. ‘We have loads of observations with many different aspects so we can expect to get 1 in 66 chance observational errata all the time‘. What’s the point of saying that? How does it relate to whether you can say 98% probability of being real is most likely or not?
@@stonemuncher9494 if you have a single observation and it yields a particular result you were testing for* that only happens by chance 1/66th of the time, then it is fairly strong evidence. But that’s rarely the situation. Usually there’s huge numbers of observations that can be interesting in innumerably different ways. If someone looks at a spectrogram, there’s a huge amount of data in there and different possible ways that random noise could paint different interesting pictures. Now, if you come to a spectrogram with one particular exact scenario in mind and the spectrogram matches that scenario within the margin of error, that’s really momentous. But if you look at 100 spectrograms from 100 different locations to see if any of them match any of 1000 scenarios of interest, then it’s very likely that there will be at least a few that match purely by chance. Each one of those particular matches might be quite unlikely, but the existence of unlikely matches is very likely.
Of course, the next step is always to take note of all those unlikely matches and find other ways to test them. If they *still* match then we’re in the place where you were checking for a specific exact match and found it, which means it might be time to start celebrating.
I think the scenario described in the video is more of a middle ground in that they had a narrower range of possible scenarios in mind for the particular set of available observations, so the 1/66 is at least suggestive, but a lot more than 1.5% doubt is still justified.
Hopefully that clarifies things!
*recall that if a random number generator picks a number 1 through 1000000, its pick will be “one in a million” every single time. It’s when it picks a number we already had in mind that it’s a “one in a million” event in the colloquial sense.
Thank you for an excellent presentation. I have been happy to follow you and buy your excellent merch. Keep looking up.
Jesus Christ Becky, it would take me 3 months to set up this presentation alone, with all the research and the preparation of the slides and the explanation. But you do it ON TOP of a full time job researching , making videos, writing books and whatever...Where do you find the time and energy?
I have no science background whatsoever, but you explain it in a way i understand although since english is my 4th language some details are lost on me cause i don't speak perfect english. But i "get" 85% of it. Job well done
maybe you have adhd
I just watched a LBC video on this subject, posted a day ago (at time of writing) and so I naturally sort out Dr Becky to see if she had covered this topic, and of course she had…7 months ago now. So glad I did and although most of the science went over my head, I got the gist.
I saw that LBC interview too. Thought this was new but considering this video was made 7 months ago, it looks like nothing came of it.
@@salvadormarley If I understand right, we're now in the "what's next" chapter of doing measurements that may confirm the finding.
@@ronald3836 Interesting Ronald. I'm not a science guy but do find the thought of life on other planets extremely interesting. Let's hope they HAVE discovered it.
2:38
2.6 time bigger radius means 2.6^3 = 17.5 times bigger volume
it's half as dense
Another great video and thank you for the information. The data isn't complete and it's like only using one set of data or statistics and not having all the information. Great information very helpful and I enjoy the channel.
Been waiting for this video. :) Going to grab a snack and a drink and dig in
I would pronounce it more like "Hycean"
those hycean eyes.
Loved your Chris Eubank impression at the end of the outtakes.
I have to admit, your accent falling on my Canadian ears meant I kept hearing "Medusa Dan [and the] Haitian Planet." Which totally sounds like a reggae/electronic dance music band.
Also (this might have been mentioned but I'm not reading 730 comments to check) the vehicle you mention in the bloopers was probably a skid-steer, often called "bobcats" here in Canada. "Bobcat" is like "Xerox" or "Hoover" - a brand name that's becoming the generic noun. "Skid-steer" is more jargon, used to separate people who know about construction equipment from those who don't.
0:06: 🔬 The James Webb Space Telescope has made headlines for its exciting observations of exoplanet k218b, but there are caveats to the claims made in the paper.
3:45: 🌍 The video discusses how scientists use the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to determine the atmosphere of exoplanet K218b.
6:56: 🔬 The video explains how to analyze data from a planet's spectrum to determine the presence and concentration of different molecules.
10:47: 🔍 The claim for the detection of methane on k218b is strong, but the claim for the detection of dimethyl sulfide is not statistically significant.
13:43: 🔬 The JWST data for K218b will not be made public until 12 months after it was taken, but there are plans for more observations in the future.
Recap by Tammy AI
Love the show, keep up the great work. I'm highly curious about Apophis, now that the Earth has started shifting on it's axis. Could you please look into this? 23-38k miles isn't very far and I'm concerned.
Always go to Becky for the facts and brilliant explanation and content. Superb as always!
This video is SUPER amazing and you've certainly done a sterling job explaining it in clear concise detail, you make a lot of sense and you are amazing 😎🤗
The methane is from the cattle farms there 😂
Nah didnt you hear? Everyone who farms livestock gets Great Filtered out
I thought that the scientific paper was written by a mythical Greek creature, the medusa.
Naaa. It’s from a civilization that is full of crap. 😮 did I say that. Yup.
Space cows! .... sea cows? Space Sea Cows!!
We really need a WarpDrive and a Spaceship Enterprise to actually study all those star systems up close… - sometimes I really hate that nothing can go faster than light. Or dimensional portal / dimension breaker: when I was little I read a tiny Sci-Fi series of books for children, where humanity had built a “Dimension Breaker” in a lab on the Moon, and humanity would be sending exploration missions everywhere, and the team had a sentient robot. Sometimes I want to be that kid again, that could believe all that, without knowing all the constraints of nature as we know it.
You still got the old Star Trek episodes. Unless you watched them all already
My kitten wants to be an astrophysicist, he jumped up in front of the tv and is watching the video with great intent. He is watching the graphs and scans from one end to the other. Great level of detail while still being comprehensible.
I would love to see you and Anton Petrov collaborate together, a professional in the field and a self educated hobbyist both dedicated to accuracy and honesty would be cool to see together.
much denser than the earth??? Are you sure about that? with r ratio being 2.61, volume ratio is 17.77. Mass being 8.63, it is is
less dense! From the numbers given, it is in fact roughly half as dense as earth is.
My favourite channel. Always fantastic explanations of the topic.
Thank as always for the explanation.i'm studying to become a astrophysicist and your videos really help.thank you.
I've been waiting on a good exampling of how NIRISS could be used that isn't just seen as a slightly weaker NIRSpec. I know it can gather data in at least one way which the others can't such as Wide Field Slitless, but really nice to see how having it overlap with the Hubble which has been running for soooooo long now - might very well give us the ability for internal analysis on our devices (comparing the two telescopes & our data collection in general) alongside presenting new data at the same time.
I have a very important question though as I've come across it a few times that NIRCam & NIRISS can work simultaneously increasing the field of view under observation. Is this only important for very distance objects then/perhaps?
I really appreciate the way you counter the popular media hype on new research results: what do we know, how do we know it, what are the next steps.
(I also appreciate your correction note - I was really having difficulty wrapping my head around "more dense" given the rest of the description of K2-18b.)
@DrBecky What tool do you use to create the visualization of the plots. I would love a quick tutorial. Especially if you are doing it on data from other people.
Thank you.
You sounded so English in that Photoplankton blooper xD
Great episode, as always, thanks :)
Hi Dr Becky, saw you on Tim Peak's new show, your a natural for tv 😊
Thank you for clarifying. I said I'd be skeptical until you commented on it. You are amazing, so entertaining, so informative, so pretty and I love that accent. But the clear simple explanations is what I value the most. Thank you for what you do. And yes my real name is James Webb.
Thanks for you efforts to explain these findings Becky - we all need it and appreciate it. I would be interested in a video about how we arrive a the statistical sigma values used in these findings. Keep up the great work!
In the simplest case, you have a set of N measurements with uncertainties, you generate a matching set of N model values, using a model with M parameters (concentration of methane would be one in the present case, conc. of DMS another, add in other molecules, probably also temperature and pressure, etc etc). There is a simple procedure called least-squares fitting which returns you the best-fit values of the M parameters together with their uncertainties (plus cross-correlations). You can get the sigma value for a detection more or less by comparing the best-fit concentration with its uncertainty via a thing called the P value. It all gets pretty mathematical with matrices and gamma functions and I don't know what, and the Bayesians claim it is a nonsense approach anyway. 😉 Knowing astronomers though, I would suspect that in too many cases the answer you would get would be, "Well, that's the value the pipeline spits out, man."
@@drmaybe7680 Ha! Thanks for the response. Sounds a little complicated but interesting!
Popped in to Christ College to say hi today but didn't see you.
Such a lovely place to study or create!
Thank you for clarifying this, I knew you would! 😊👍
7:57 small editing mistake - and a glance into the raw recording process :). Had to replay to make sure the repetition wasn't a glitch in my head. Awesome video as always!
Hey Becky, would be great to have an update as apparently more data was brought to us about this today
Lovely clarity, thank you.
You explain the methods and the madness so well. A finding like this easily blows on of the media before saner heads prevail. Hopefully, we will have better data and analysis soon. Owe I hope but we need that 5 sigma data and more for such claims.
I love that Dr. Becky adds avatars with researchers' photos.
Glad you like that! It’s my way of trying to humanise science by showing the people who are doing it
Dr. Becky! About hycean, I know Anton Petrov isn't a purely English speaker, but I heard Anton pronounce it "high-sea-in", and I don't know if there's a "proper" way to pronounce it, but compared to "high-shin", I like "high-sea-in" more :)
7:57 I noticed you left in a 2-second take that I'm guessing was meant to be cut out
16:47 "What's called a data pi-cOuGhCoUgH" your vocal pipeline wasn't processing the data pipeline correctly lol
"high-shin" sounds like somebody who comes from Haiti. "high-sea-in" as a portmanteau of Hydrogen and Oceanic, I like much better
I love your videos! I wish there were shorter summary tl;dr versions for when my brain is too full to understand the full video lol
Beautifully presented. Your explanations of quite technical data are a masterclass in clarity and intelligibility.
Also - "Poky stick"
*heh heh*
Thank you so much for your videos. Your content always helps remind me that the universe is so big and vast and beyond our current existence. And that is really helping my mental health right now while I transition out of a unhealthy situation. Thank you so much. Also your book is FANTASTIC!!! I loved it😊
Dr. Becky: My take is that hycean ought to be pronounced as you say: high-shun. Here's a rationale: first, that it's a new word applied to new discoveries, so it makes sense to apply pronunciations to it the way most new words in English have applied them in the past. And that's most commonly from the source(s): *hy* - dro - gen, and o - *cean* . When English has borrowed words from other languages, it often begins by pronouncing the word as it is in the original language, with particular allowances for the fact that vowels (and even consonants) don't always match with the set of sounds English speakers are accustomed to, and hence they get a bit fractured. Here, we're still inventing new language, borrowing from English itself. We can easily pronounce each of the borrowed syllables, so there's our guide.
It's rare that pronunciations have resulted from a word's spelling. That's really occurred only in modern times, when high rates of literacy have been common. Rather, spelling has generally been copied from source language, but as the sounds become "fractured" or Anglicized, the spelling might follow suit to fit our predispositions. Or we just live with phonetic oddities. (We've got a million of them!)
All of which may be of no interest to you or the video watchers. But neither have such things mattered greatly to people in the past. Which is all the more reason for why your perfectly natural take on the pronunciation is likely to be adopted widely and become "standard" over time.
Absolutely fascinating!
I hearf about this detection. And the fact remains: this makes this planet (even more) interesring! I told my mom about it, but I made sure to say (unlike media do): "*Here on Earth*, it is only produced by life"