Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userExoplanet Biosignatures: Future Directions
86
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Exoplanet science promises a continued rapid accumulation of new observations in the near future, energizing a drive to understand and interpret the forthcoming wealth of data to identify signs of life beyond our Solar System. The large statistics of exoplanet samples, combined with the ambiguity of our understanding of universal properties of life and its signatures, necessitate a quantitative framework for biosignature assessment Here, we introduce a Bayesian framework for guiding future directions in life detection, which permits the possibility of generalizing our search strategy beyond biosignatures of known life. The Bayesian methodology provides a language to define quantitatively the conditional probabilities and confidence levels of future life detection and, importantly, may constrain the prior probability of life with or without positive detection. We describe empirical and theoretical work necessary to place constraints on the relevant likelihoods, including those emerging from stellar and planetary context, the contingencies of evolutionary history and the universalities of physics and chemistry. We discuss how the Bayesian framework can guide our search strategies, including determining observational wavelengths or deciding between targeted searches or larger, lower resolution surveys. Our goal is to provide a quantitative framework not entrained to specific definitions of life or its signatures, which integrates the diverse disciplinary perspectives necessary to confidently detect alien life.
rate research
Read More
Finding life on exoplanets from telescopic observations is an ultimate goal of exoplanet science. Life produces gases and other substances, such as pigments, which can have distinct spectral or photometric signatures. Whether or not life is found with future data must be expressed with probabilities, requiring a framework of biosignature assessment. We present a framework in which we advocate using biogeochemical Exo-Earth System models to simulate potential biosignatures in spectra or photometry. Given actual observations, simulations are used to find the Bayesian likelihoods of those data occurring for scenarios with and without life. The latter includes false positives where abiotic sources mimic biosignatures. Prior knowledge of factors influencing planetary inhabitation, including previous observations, is combined with the likelihoods to give the Bayesian posterior probability of life existing on a given exoplanet. Four components of observation and analysis are necessary. 1) Characterization of stellar (e.g., age and spectrum) and exoplanetary system properties, including external exoplanet parameters (e.g., mass and radius) to determine an exoplanets suitability for life. 2) Characterization of internal exoplanet parameters (e.g., climate) to evaluate habitability. 3) Assessment of potential biosignatures within the environmental context (components 1-2) and any corroborating evidence. 4) Exclusion of false positives. The resulting posterior Bayesian probabilities of lifes existence map to five confidence levels, ranging from very likely (90-100%) to very unlikely ($le$10%) inhabited.
In the coming years and decades, advanced space- and ground-based observatories will allow an unprecedented opportunity to probe the atmospheres and surfaces of potentially habitable exoplanets for signatures of life. Life on Earth, through its gaseous products and reflectance and scattering properties, has left its fingerprint on the spectrum of our planet. Aided by the universality of the laws of physics and chemistry, we turn to Earths biosphere, both in the present and through geologic time, for analog signatures that will aid in the search for life elsewhere. Considering the insights gained from modern and ancient Earth, and the broader array of hypothetical exoplanet possibilities, we have compiled a state-of-the-art overview of our current understanding of potential exoplanet biosignatures including gaseous, surface, and temporal biosignatures. We additionally survey biogenic spectral features that are well-known in the specialist literature but have not yet been robustly vetted in the context of exoplanet biosignatures. We briefly review advances in assessing biosignature plausibility, including novel methods for determining chemical disequilibrium from remotely obtainable data and assessment tools for determining the minimum biomass required for a given atmospheric signature. We focus particularly on advances made since the seminal review by Des Marais et al. (2002). The purpose of this work is not to propose new biosignatures strategies, a goal left to companion papers in this series, but to review the current literature, draw meaningful connections between seemingly disparate areas, and clear the way for a path forward.
Here we review how environmental context can be used to interpret whether O2 is a biosignature in extrasolar planetary observations. This paper builds on the overview of current biosignature research discussed in Schwieterman et al. (2017), and provides an in-depth, interdisciplinary example of biosignature identification and observation that serves as a basis for the development of the general framework for biosignature assessment described in Catling et al., (2017). O2 is a potentially strong biosignature that was originally thought to be an unambiguous indicator for life at high-abundance. We describe the coevolution of life with the early Earths environment, and how the interplay of sources and sinks in the planetary environment may have resulted in suppression of O2 release into the atmosphere for several billion years, a false negative for biologically generated O2. False positives may also be possible, with recent research showing potential mechanisms in exoplanet environments that may generate relatively high abundances of atmospheric O2 without a biosphere being present. These studies suggest that planetary characteristics that may enhance false negatives should be considered when selecting targets for biosignature searches. Similarly our ability to interpret O2 observed in an exoplanetary atmosphere is also crucially dependent on environmental context to rule out false positive mechanisms. We describe future photometric, spectroscopic and time-dependent observations of O2 and the planetary environment that could increase our confidence that any observed O2 is a biosignature, and help discriminate it from potential false positives. By observing and understanding O2 in its planetary context we can increase our confidence in the remote detection of life, and provide a model for biosignature development for other proposed biosignatures.
In this outlook we describe what could be the next steps of the direct characterization of habitable exoplanets after first the medium and large mission projects and investigate the benefits of the spectroscopic and direct imaging approaches. We show that after third and fourth generation missions foreseeable for the next 100 years, we will face a very long era before being able to see directly the morphology of extrasolar organisms.
Exoplanets number in their thousands, and the number is ever increasing with the advent of new surveys and improved instrumentation. One of the most surprising things we have learnt from these discoveries is not that small-rocky planets in their stars habitable zones are likely common, but that the most typical size of exoplanet is that not seen in our solar system - radii between that of Neptune and the Earth dubbed mini-Neptunes and super-Earths. In fact, a transiting exoplanet is four times as likely to be in this size regime than that of any giant planet in our solar system. Investigations into the atmospheres of giant hydrogen/helium dominated exoplanets has pushed down to Neptune and mini-Neptune sized worlds revealing molecular absorption from water, scattering and opacity from clouds, and measurements of atmospheric abundances. However, unlike measurements of Jupiter, or even Saturn sized worlds, the smaller giants lack a ground truth on what to expect or interpret from their measurements. How did these sized worlds form and evolve and was it different from their larger counterparts? What is their internal composition and how does that impact their atmosphere? What informs the energy budget of these distant worlds? In this we discuss what characteristics we can measure for exoplanets, and why a mission to the ice giants in our solar system is the logical next step for understanding exoplanets.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
