Goldilocks, red dwarfs, and arsenic: are we any closer to finding extraterrestrial life?

http://www.freshwallpapers.info

Three recent news stories have increased the buzz about the likelihood of there being extraterrestrial life. None of them concern actual evidence of such life, but all point to an increased probability that it exists. The first is the discovery of the "Goldilocks" (as in "not too hot, not too cold") planet Gliese 581g, described in this earlier post. As I argued there, the existence of a planet that could support life and that is located just twenty light years from us suggests that such planets could be fairly densely distributed throughout our galaxy. From that one may further infer that the probability of there being life on other planets in our galaxy is reasonably high.

David A. Aguilar (CfA)

The second is the evidence that elliptical galaxies (see artist's conception at left) contain many more stars, mostly of the red dwarf variety like Gliese 581, around which the Goldilocks planet orbits, than previously believed. Ellipticals are the largest galaxies, containing many more stars than spiral galaxies like our own. If estimates of the number of such additional stars are reasonably correct, there may be three times as many stars in the universe, most of them of a kind capable of having solar systems that include earth-like planets, than previously believed. This also raises the likelihood of there being life somewhere out there, but considering that the nearest elliptical galaxy is about 2.65 million light years away, the chances of our detecting life in any such galaxy are nil.

In considering the likelihood of there being intelligent and technically proficient extraterrestrial life that we might be able to detect using the technical means available to us, it is important to understand the Drake Equation, explained by Carl Sagan in the video clip below:

Note that the numbers used by Sagan in his brief lecture relate to our galaxy alone. That's because the only extraterrestrial civilizations we could detect using the means available to us would be ones in our galaxy. So, the fact that there are billions, perhaps trillions, more stars in elliptical galaxies that might have solar systems including earth-like planets, while it does greatly increase the likelihood of there being extraterrestrial life, even extraterrestrial intelligent life, doesn't affect our chances of discovering such life. However, the discovery of Gliese 581g nearby in our galaxy does point toward a higher probability of our discovering extraterrestrial life.

The third story does affect the Drake Equation. This is the discovery, by NASA scientist Felisa Wolfe-Simon and her astrobiology team, of bacteria living in California's Mono Lake (photo at top of post) that have substituted arsenic for phosphorus in their chemical makeup. Until now all known living things have included compounds of the following elements: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur. Other elements, such as calcium and iron, are essential to some life forms, such as ourselves, but the preceding six have been common to all.

What this tells us is that "life" is a bit more flexible than we previously believed, and may arise or survive in environments we thought couldn't support it. Whether substitutions other than arsenic for phosphorus--for example, the often speculated-about silicon for carbon--are possible isn't known, but the fact that one works at least suggests that others might. This means we can assign a higher value to the "N" sub "e" (number of planets with environments suitable for life) term in the Drake Equation, and perhaps as well to the "f" sub "l" (fraction of such planets on which life evolves) term.

So, are we any closer to finding extraterrestrial life? No, but it seems our chances are better than we thought before.

Can Terry Collins turn the Mets around?

It's a tough call. He did manage a turn-around for the Angels in the late 1990s, taking them from a losing team to one that finished second in the Designated Hitter League in his first two years there. His third year was blighted by bad luck: injuries, and a player revolt that led to his resignation after the 1999 season. Nevertheless, what he did while their skipper had something to do with the Angels' having won the 2002 World Series. His only other major league manager's job was with the Astros, before his time with the Angels. Since 1999, his only managerial experience has been in Japan (see photo), where he evidently had the courage to take on Godzilla-sized umpires, and with the Chinese national team in the World Baseball Classic in 2009. He spent the past season as the Mets' minor league field coordinator, so he has some familiarity with the organization.

The adjective most used about him is "intense". Do the Mets need "intense" now? I think they do, though whether Collins' brand of intensity is what's needed is in dispute. Ron Hart thinks not. He gives a variety of reasons. One is the usual New York as media-driven pressure cooker, which, along with the problem of being in the same town as the Yankees, he thinks will wear poorly on Collins. Nevertheless, Collins' experience in Anaheim was in a high pressure media market, and the Dodgers had the same relationship to L.A. that the Yanks do to New York. Hart characterizes Collins as a failed manager, but he had winning records in both Houston and Anaheim, though a conflict with players clouded his last season with the Angels (according to Hart, conflict with players also cut short his managerial career in Japan). Perhaps Hart's most forceful argument against Collins is that he hasn't managed in the majors for over a decade, and "[t]he ballparks have changed, the umpires have changed and the nature of the sport itself has evolved in many ways" during those years.

I suspect that Sandy Alderson, the Mets' new General Manager, may see Collins as, at the least, a short-term solution to the Mets' problems: one who can quickly impose order and change the team's course, as he did with the Angels. At 62, Collins may see the Mets job as one last shot at glory before retirement. I hope he succeeds. If he doesn't incite a player revolt, takes the Mets to a World Series championship, and manages them into his seventies (the last like the Mets' first manager, the Old Perfessor), I'll be surprised and delighted.

Thinking about Casey Stengel got me to wondering about the history of Mets managers. A quick web search got me to this handy chart. In their 49 seasons to date, the Mets have had fifteen managers, not counting Collins or four interims. Of these, only five have had overall winning records for their terms as Mets managers: Gil Hodges (1968-1971, 339-309--a 52% winning percentage), Davey Johnson (1984-1990, 595-417--59%), Bud Harrelson (1990-1991, 145-129--53%), Bobby Valentine (1996-2002, 536-467--53%), and Willie Randolph (2005-2008, 302-253--54%). It's interesting how these managers' winning percentages cluster around 53%, except for Johnson, the one outlier at 59%.