Did Life on Earth Come from Space?

PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/Dona...
↓ More info below ↓
Check out the new Space Time Merch Store!
pbsspacetime.com/
How did life on Earth get started? Did life on Earth originate on another planet? Either Mars, or in a distant solar system? Could Earth life have spread to have seeded life elsewhere? Let’s see what modern science has to say about the plausibility of panspermia.
You can further support us on Patreon at / pbsspacetime
Tweet at us! @pbsspacetime
Facebook: pbsspacetime
Email us! pbsspacetime [at] gmail [dot] com
Comment on Reddit: / pbsspacetime
Help translate our videos!
/ timedtext_cs_. .
Previous Episode:
'Oumuamua Is Not Aliens
• 'Oumuamua Is Not Aliens
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Matt O'Dowd
Graphics by Luke Maroldi
Assistant Editing and Sound Design by Mike Petrow
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbrown.com)
Life existing on Earth is odd. The oldest fossils are now dated to only a few hundred million years after the moment Earth first became habitable. Is it really reasonable to imagine that evolution turned an unliving chemical soup into the first true living cells in that geological eye-blink? Well, maybe. But the discovery of the early appearance of life on Earth was definitely a big “huh, that’s weird” moment. And it’s inspired some creative thinking. For example, what if the first genesis of life - abiogenesis - is actually incredibly unlikely - so unlikely that it only happened once in the entire galaxy. And that “once” was not on Earth. What if primitive life arrived on Earth after having traveled vast distances across the Milky Way. Some scientists think this is the case. This is the Panspermia hypothesis.
Special thanks to our Patreon Big Bang, Quasar and Hypernova Supporters:
Big Bang
David Nicklas
CoolAsCats
Anton Lifshits
Fabrice Eap
Justin Lloyd
Juan Benet
Richard Senegor
Shane Robinson
Antonio Park
Faisal Saud
William James Sidis
Quasar
Tambe Barsbay
Mark Rosenthal
Mayank M, Methrotra
Dean Fuqua
ColeslawPurdie
Joel Brinton
James Flowers
Vinnie Falco
Josh
Hypernova
Chuck Zegar
Jordan Young
Joseph Salomone
John Hofmann
Martha Hunt
Eugene Lawson
Barry Hatfield
Brent Mullins
Danton B Spivey
Science Via Markets
Matthew O’Connor
Ratfeast
Brent Mullins
Mark Heising
Donal Botkin
Shaun Williams
Edmund Fokschaner
Max Levine
Vitaly Kovalenko
Thanks to our Patreon Gamma Ray Burst Supporters:
Alexander Rodriguez
Alex Soto
Alexey Eromenko
Antonio Ruiz
Brandon Cook
Brandon Labonte
Carlo Mogavero
Conor Dillon
Daniel Lyons
David Crane
David Matteson
Dustan Jones
Florian Stinglmayr
Fabian Olesen
Fauzan Ardhana
Greg Allen
Greg Weiss
Jack Frosch
James Hughes
JJ Bagnell
Jessica F
Jinal Doshi
Jon Folks
John Pettit
Joseph Emison
Josh Thomas
Kenneth F Leonard
Kirk Mathews
Loro Lukic
Kevin Warne
Malte Ubl
Marc Lagarde
Mark Vasile
Nathan Leniz
Nathan Hitchings
Nicholas Rose
Nick Virtue
Peeter Durocher
Scott Gossett
Shannan Catalano
Shawn Azman
Tim Stephani
Tommy Mogensen
سلطان الخليفي

[@TheRubberStudiosASMR]

I love this dude. Great to watch when you want to drift off to sleep dreaming about the universe.

[@rotmg4ios]

TheRubberStudiosASMR yeah I always watch SPACETIME when I go to bed!

[@liamburgess1150]

In glad I'm not the only one. Sci-show and vsauce videos are favourites of mine too

[@bumpcontrol]

I listen to his videos every night before bed lol

[@maxvazquez9351]

Amazing to watch when your zooted as well :)

[@knodalishell5636]

how about drifting off into space instead of dreams? let’s all go into crytomiosis and populate this universe

[@kamoroso94]

I just had my Astronomy final today, and I'm gonna miss that class. This show made me decide to take it in the first place, and I'm glad I did. This channel is probably my favorite one from PBS!

[@AspLode]

5:08 Choice hand-gesture for the point being made LOL

[@commentguy4711]

How this isn't top comment, I'll never know. you sir know how to watch a video.

[@eaterdrinker000]

God does not play dice with the universe, but He prefers manual release.

[@ShivaPrakash]

He was explaining how panspermia works

[@TheCimbrianBull]

ROFL! 🤣 😂 😅

[@ariskpriest262]

@@commentguy4711 my thoughts exactly!

[@Raniar]

Life forms surviving space or reentry to a planet. I sometimes feel like I barely survive day to day. Thats some impressive stuff.

[@Giantcrabz]

just biohack your DNA to include tardigrade genes

[@laurachapple6795]

I just want to draw everybody's attention to the automatically generated subtitles, which transcribe 'panspermiating' as 'pants-permeating'.

[@giovannirafael5351]

Also, it is pants-permeating lifeforms

[@NeonCicada]

​@@giovannirafael5351 ...kinky 👽

[@TheActionBastard]

"squashing dreams and killing the buzz since 2015" Make... a shirt... I need it.

[@FortWhenTea]

me 3

[@keithduff6312]

Perhaps the early organisms had all of the traits necessary to survive the harsh conditions of space, but evolved to lose these traits over time since they were not necessary for survival on Earth.

[@puppypi9668]

bit.ly/2QoPTYs

[@tensevo]

The problem with the Theory of Evolution is that it is predicated upon survival. If we evolved out of the Earth, then that runs counter to the idea of survival, since why does something that is dead (the Earth), need to come alive, in order to "survive". It makes little sense in the grand scheme of things. There is no evidence to suggest that "primitive" organisms could survive the levels of radiation in space. You are still left with the problem, how did we get primitive organisms? Whether they/we were brought here by Aliens or burst out of the dead Earth, both ideas seem unreasonable.

[@puppypi9668]

​@@tensevo Survival only applies after they become self-replicating. It's not really about survival fundamentally but rather about replication-survival is simply a necessary prerequisite to replication/reproduction XD So as soon as something becomes capable of replicating itself, you end up with more of it. Doesn't that make sense? The question is how likely it is for random molecules to end up in any arrangement that's capable of even crappy replication (that is, capable of rearranging nearby molecules into the same arrangement. It's really the _arrangements_ that are replicating-we are all arrangements of atoms just like books are arrangements of letters after all :) And the answer to that is we don't know. Thus assuming it's unlikely is just as unfounded as assuming it's likely. But it would have to be _pretty unlikely_ for it to not have happened even once in the entirety of all hundreds of billions of planets in the hundreds of billions of galaxies in just the observable portion of the unknowably larger universe...which is what would have to be true for the conclusion to be that it was most likely intelligently designed.

[@tensevo]

@@puppypi9668 What do you mean it is about replication? That somehow implies that the dead Earth, with zero plant matter or any organism, decided one day, that it needed to replicate and spawned single cell life from nowhere, then that single celled life just decided that the game in town was replication. It is kind of recursive and goes little towards explaining anything.

[@puppypi9668]

​@@tensevo It indeed sounds crazy that life is made of atoms, and that there isn't a fundamental difference between living and dead matter at the atomic scale, until you understand a lot about biology and the fallacy of Vitalism. (But I have neither the desire nor the practical ability to share the entire foundations of modern biological knowledge in KZbin comments XD ) But much like how the roundness of the Earth, or that diseases are caused by tiny invisible animals inside us, or that we and our thoughts exist as colonies of tiny independent organisms stuck together (cells), it is nevertheless true in spite of its apparent craziness, and that's just part of what makes this universe so beautiful, from the farthest to the nearest reaches..of Spacetime :)

[@oloferiksson4179]

This channel is awesome! SO glad to have found it. Thank you so much for making all these informative and interesting videos!

[@Tfin]

Which is more likely: 1. Life can get started really easily if there's nothing stopping it. 2. Life is really rare, but at the same time so abundant that it found our planet as soon as the planet existed, even though we've seen no trace of it out there since.

[@zazenora7225]

Panspermia... I've pondered about this a lot. I just didn't know there was an actual term for it. Great discussion!

[@MrSvenovitch]

for a DIscussion there have to be at least 2 participants. What you experience here is a MONOlogue. You're welcome

[@SpecialEDy]

We have the technology to start seeding nearby solar systems. That makes the earth an organism and humans the reproductive system?

[@TheAlison1456]

That's a valid analogy

[@Goldenretriever-k8m]

or it just makes us gardeners? i dont know. but it looks like we will never do it until we are sure there is no life in those places which seems to be just exhausting to verify

[@ChronusZed]

More like we're the pollinators

[@SpecialEDy]

@Chris Canavan II Sure we do. Voyager 1 & 2 and New Horizons are already headed into interstellar space. All we need to do is load up an assortment of extremophiles onto probes and start launching them at nearby star systems. It would be extremely easy compared to other space missions. In 10's of thousands of years, those probes would arrive at their destinations, target the most habitable terrestrial planet, and deorbit. All it takes is one cell surviving and reproducing to kick off evolution in that star system.

[@Goldenretriever-k8m]

@@SpecialEDy waaait a second.. assuming you could keep a probe on course for 100,000 years or so, assuming you could even plan that out, to land on an earthlike planet or moon, you would run out of energy surely, even if it was to be reactivated as soon as it close enough to the other star via solar power, how could it possibly survive that long of time.. I dont know.

[@Scorch428]

The only problem with Panspermia is... even if life did get here from somewhere else... it still had to be created SOMEWHERE. So you're right back to the same problem... how did life start?

[@Jerbod2]

Well if somehow we'd be able to prove we came from elsewhere we wouldn't have to search here for the beginning anymore. Which is good.

[@darthdaddy6983]

Pss some people have a problem for every solution ☹️

[@stiimuli]

Why would it have to be 'created'? Using such a term unnecessarily paints the event with a connotation of conscious will.

[@JM-us3fr]

Yes, but if panspermia happened here, it means understanding that initial creation is MUCH harder than just studying the early earth. It means life could have arisen from ANY possible condition the universe could cook up, not just the specific conditions of earth's formation. If we're gonna try to think of how life first arose, this is definitely a question we need to figure out.

[@impalabeeper]

Look up Miller-Urey experiment.

[@farmdve]

Hi Matt, can we expect a new video on the paper about dark matter being negative gravity?

[@TS1336]

What paper?

[@ryenkrusinga4947]

Seconded. I really want to see him cover this.

[@ryenkrusinga4947]

@@TS1336 arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962 motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjey9v/a-new-theory-unifies-dark-matter-and-dark-energy-as-a-dark-fluid-with-negative-mass

[@Paul-Gray]

@@TS1336 The paper thats in today's biggest news story

[@aidenvrenna9943]

It seemed like an odd thing to say - that a fluid or tensor with negative mass is the explanation for all of the missing normal, positive mass. It was written by people smarter than me, so I'm sure the misunderstanding is mine. I would love it if Matt or an educated viewer could shed some light on that.

[@BenTajer89]

PBS spacetime is run by an alien, an AustrAlien! ...sorry...

[@P-G-77]

PBS Space Time... Amazing for me...

[@jonathanfarmer5458]

I really expected the subject from eons or one of the other channels on PBS. But after watching it I’m so happy that space-time covered this. Great video

[@rainandthundersounds]

Well, Earth is in space so...

[@julesviant7632]

ΣHAANTI I’m smarter than you, and space times full cast

[@bamfyfe]

And Earth came from Space too. so most likely that **life** did too.

[@BNSFGuy4723]

ΣHAANTI Wish I could like your smartass comment more than once. Damn KZbin limitations :

[@BNSFGuy4723]

Gísli Brynjólfsson The universe is actually a single bubble in a sea bubbles that form and pop in a cosmic Coca-Cola bottle that’s on sale at Walmart. Scary shit if you think about it.

[@facetentacles6528]

Yeah all life was formed under the firmament and the moon is just a spotlight the government shines on the dome to keep everyone under control. Also, chupacabras are demons sent by the devil

[@christophervalkoinen6358]

If interstellar panspermia was the source of life on Earth, and life arrived so soon after the planet became habitable, it is probably safe to assume that new life has continued arriving on Earth on a frequent (geologically speaking) basis ever since. Surely this would be something we could verify, as the implication would be that not all life on Earth shares a common ancestor. That is unless there is some reason that life has stopped successfully making it to this planet (e.g. life can only successfully arrive during the proto-planetary disk phase of the solar system or perhaps our sea of viruses and bacteria quickly gobble up new arrivals in a war of the worlds kind of way), or interstellar life is so similar to that which exists here today (despite billions of years of evolution) that we wouldn't recognise it as being any different.

[@kyjo72682]

But if LUCA is alien in origin then we would still have common genetics with the new arrivals. So they might just sneak into out biosphere without anyone noticing.. but yeah, they would probably get eaten WoW-style soon after impact. :)

[@Jerbod2]

We'll only find out in the long run. If for some reason there's an astroid cloud out there in space which comes by every 4 billion years and drops new seeds here (and hasn't since since the beginning) we'd only be able to verify that once it comes back around. Or maybe it doesn't come around, has gone in a straight line opposite of us. Who knows. The thing is, I doubt we'll ever get to that point of being able to find every astroid out there and looking for life on it. After all, there might be a planet X (a planet in our solar system so far way we haven't even noticed it yet, no bullshit theory here, scientific articles talked about it this year or last year)

[@garethdean6382]

There's the possibility that new life is arriving, but being outcompeted by existing life. One issue is that the life that originally inhabited Earth was anaerobic, with oxygen a poison to it. But life now is nearly entirely aerobic, newly arriving life might hit our aerated oceans and immediately die. If it survived it'd be behind by billions of years of adaptions for this world.

[@gravijta936]

I feel alienated by this topic!

[@Master_Therion]

I'm not saying you're an alien... But you're an alien.

[@boobyman0784]

i love science

[@gregoryfenn1462]

I see what you did there.

[@peterlongdong5359]

This is my new favorite series on youtube. you guys should release episodes bi-weekly or monthly that just focus on whats happening in the forefront of physics today

[@zebdawson3687]

15:45 Damn, I love me some free content, but you’ve got a REALLY good point here. Maybe we SHOULDN’T insist on everything being free... Either way, I love this channel, I’m very glad I stumbled across it. I’ve been binging these videos for days now! One thing I really like, is in one of the videos (I’ve actually seen 2 so far) you corrected something in a previous video that was less-than-correct after being presented with evidence to the contrary. That takes a massive amount of integrity. Stuff like that earns my subscription. Thanks for such great content!

[@hitengoel2958]

This makes the Fermi paradox even more paradoxical !!!

[@d3m3nt3dmous3]

"Stages of Panspermia" sounds like a truly awful conversation with a doctor.

[@MysticWanderer]

Or one in clinical language with your spouse.

[@jonathangleeson7077]

It would be very interesting if when we do find aliens they end up using the same 4 basic units of DNA that we do. I think that would be the only way to prove panspermia.

[@TheExoplanetsChannel]

Maybe aliens are wondering the same in another *exoplanet*

[@adlockhungry304]

The Exoplanets Channel , seems plausible.

[@KayOScode]

Yes, yes. We are... er ... I mean they must be wondering that

[@DrOrder]

It's a reductio ad absurdum meaning that life has to begin somewhere.

[@DrOrder]

@Jason / I don't understand the question in point.

[@DrOrder]

@Jason / I still don't understand the point of your logic.

[@DeclanMBrennan]

17:35 "PBS Space Time- Quashing dreams and killing the buzz since 2015" . Now that's what you should put on some of your merch for fans of both physics and irony.

[@farmdve]

1:28 there's a typo, it says "bioshere" rather than biosphere.

[@pierreabbat6157]

Also "endolyth" for "endolith".

[@mheermance]

good eye

[@sammcclain129]

You're hired.

[@carlosmejia5728]

Biosphere is here.. 😝

[@thomasoosthuyse6328]

Well it's the location it would need to hit to boot up life ;)

[@heathentheheretic4909]

Well if earth is in space than technically yes! Life did come from space lol

[@halulife35]

"squashing dreams and killing the buzz since 2015" i want this shirt

[@rfvtgbzhn]

11:36 actually for spacecraft often the swing-by method is used. If a rock ejected to space randomly gets on a path that is like a swing-by path, it can reduce the required velocity when launched from earth. For a single rock this is very unlikely, but if there are many of them ejected, it might be not so unlikely anymore that one of them gets on a path like this.

[@DeanBatha]

Panspermia doesn't really answer the question of how abiogenisis occured. It just shifts the location to some far distant (in space and time) location. The exact chemical and thermodynamic recipe for making life from non-life remains unaswered.

[@puppypi9668]

Absolutely! But if it's the case, then the space of statistically allowed chemical pathways is far greater, including even very improbable ones since it only has to happen once.

[@Shaden0040]

Does a visiting space object have to strike a solar system object to deliver its payload of life? In the case of 'Oumuamua we know it is possibly out gassing which would explain its increased speed. In that out gassing could be particles of ice and dust that contain micro life spores or endoliths which could then gently drift around our solar system to infect each body in our solar system over time. So long as the microbe found warmth, water moisture and chemicals to continue its life processes it will thrive and adapt quickly, or it will take the slow route not changing/evolving much at all, yet still replcating itself Waiting for more chance encounters with other objects to once again place it in a solar system or interstellar trip.

[@garethdean6382]

In general such 'scattering' processes leave the life very exposed. Initially to solar radiation, then the radiation belts surrounding Earth (Or other planets.) You're looking at a lifetime measured in days at best. And such small particles are generally blown by stellar wind into space. So it doesn't improve your chances much.

[@KayOScode]

Gotta admit, it's refreshing coming here. I have spent the last 5 months arguing with people about whether evolution is real. I've responded to gems such as:" I cant believe people are so stupid there is no evidence for evolution" Many of their comments have no punctuation and I can't read them.

[@m_i_g_5108]

Stop wasting your time talking to people :D

[@LebesgueIntegrator]

Well, please don't forget the "First Observer" problem of Quantum Mechanics, which Aspect (1982) used with Bell's Theorem & the Einstein, Podelsky, Rosen (EPR) challenge to Quantum Mechanics, to show Quantum Mechanics trumps Relativity. Relativity is a GOOD APPROXIMATION in many cases, except when Quantum Entanglement is involved. You might also want to check out UC Berkeley's "Quantum Eraser" discovery in the 1990s! There is a later version using NULL MEASUREMENTS (i.e. the fact we see nothing at a detector, so we've seemingly literally "disturbed" *nothing relevant,* but the universe *acts provably* differently because we know *nothing* happened there!) that's a little more complex, but still not too hard to follow -- but there's AMAZING machine shop work engineering the apparatus & thinking of it! And the results are wonderfully shocking! Then Sir Roger Penrose, Professor Emeritus at Oxford, with Professor of Anesthesiology at the University of Arizona, Stuart Hameroff just PROVED this year, after TWO DECADES of ridicule: Microtubules carry Quantum Information, and that information remains stored outside this "spacetime," because it keeps changing how this place functions! In other words, YES, they proved an Afterlife exists! Then try to explain how, in a Universe where *nothing ever "happens" without an Observer*, this place can be an accident! There is a First Observer, or we wouldn't be here! And that is all well-established Physics... I'm annoyed sometimes by what you describe, but I remind myself they have good intentions (or are bots/trolls), and I've been blessed with an education they may not have had available... However, it's curious that as daft as some of those posts sound, in Science, we still have been completely unable to solve the problem that would answer their statement *either*! This suggests we both *might* actually *agree with each other's conclusions*, but not Methodology... Just like Heisenberg & Schrodinger trashing each other's formulation of QM, until a year later, Schrodinger realized & proved they were mathematically equivalent formulations. They thought they were castigating each other in every venue available, and they were, but they were also castigating *themselves* just as much... A curious thought indeed!

[@LebesgueIntegrator]

To be clear, this persists even when the Microtubules decay & are no more! (I didn't mean to leave a confusing note there -- my apologies!)

[@KayOScode]

@@LebesgueIntegrator I didn't think it was a question about whether microtubules carried quantum information. Technically, everything carries quantum information. This includes individual atoms. Quantum physics is defined by the movement of subatomic particles. This being said, I am actually somewhat convinced that there is no afterlife and we in fact live within a computer simulation. What evidence do I have? Well, quantum physics. When you consider the placement of electrons as a probability wave, and that when you observe said particle, it picks a random location along that curve, it becomes clear that not even the universe knows where that particle is at a given point in time. That said, the universe does not qualify as an observer. Then you should ask yourself, what qualifies as an observer. Essentially, an observer is anything which requires that particle to reveal its position. Now that we have established that the universe doesn't know the location of the particle, you should ask yourself why. In our video games and simulations, we keep track of the locations of objects as points relative to the origin transformed by a point relative to the object. We do this for optimization of both memory and of speed. It's quite possible the universe simulation makes similar optimizations when it comes to single particles. Instead of using the memory and time to store the exact position of each particle, it simply stores their location as a probability function. This explains the interference patterns we observed during the double slit experiment. Another side topic, we previously thought that the fastest information could be transferred in a vaccum was the speed of light. With quantum entanglement, it is very possible to send information with no time delay. Experiments conducted a few years ago reveals that the time it takes for the other electron to respond is at least as fast as the speed of light, but we cannot yet confirm it is faster.

[@LebesgueIntegrator]

Young Bryce Thank you for a VERY thoughtful reply, and you raise some very rich research areas - are you also an Academic & Researcher? Aspect (1982) showed FTL (faster than light) entanglement effects beyond any reasonable margin of error, UC Berkeley’s Quantum Eraser REALLY forces us to confront some “intuitive definition errors,” (and has been used to confirm the effect) and all of this research has been expanded. This past year, China demonstrated via a Quantum Computer onboard a satellite that Quantum Entanglement beats Relativity at the largest distance we have produced in any public experiment, which was a shock for several reasons... In fact, aspects of Quantum Computing and QEEC (Quantum Error Correction Codes for Decoherence) are brilliant - but VERY challenging attempts to address this issue. You raise a terrific issue in the Philosophy of Science & Ontology, as well as Mathematics, Numerical Methods, and Integration! Do we live in a simulation? Well, first, we would have to see “outside” the system to even know *what that means* in terms of our reality! We not only cannot falsify a simulation hypothesis, but I can prove it right now - with the SAME kind of tautological argument that “Completeness Relation Factorization” approaches use: Ignoring the far more wondrous Lebesgue Integral and Measure Theory (which I’’m assuming for now you may have studied and use in Research, but correct me if I’m wrong, please!) for a moment, for a more general audience, let’s consider the Riemann Integral. This is the same kind of integration over the Continuum that is typically (or able to be) used to solve ALL sufficiently well-behaved Partial Differential Equations. Let’s just consider a function in a 1-D domain (“X”), which maps to a 1-D Co-Domain (Range) “Y = f(x); x in X.” Many of us remember drawing all those rectangles of width delta-x, finding trapezoid convergence, then taking the limit as delta-x gets infinitesimally close to zero - but is still greater than zero. Formally-speaking, this means that X is a “Topologically Connected Space,” since there are not “gaps” an “insider (in X)” would notice. This creates an “Open Covering,” which we use to add up all our base*heights of infinitesimal precision. This is how EVERY deterministic Differential Relation in science is handled, in one form or their... BUT WHY? If f(x) is constant or linear over [0,1] and [2,10], then if I’m integrating, I REALLY need more samples from [1,2], because that is where the function may wander strangely.... So WHY did I think to equally weight the “Riemann Rectangles/Trapezoids”? Well, if I can obtain an Analytical Solution (which is great for “spherical cows with no friction or gravity,” but *real-world problems* usually require numerical methods to solve for real-world Potentials and other factors. (ASIDE TO NON-MATHEMATICIANS OR BUDDING MATHMATICIANS: This is a field called Numerical Analysis. All sciences need more experts in these techniques, because it is becoming a lost art, when we most need it for many problems, and it is actually an AMAZING source of insight for solving any number of problems you would not expect... unless you’d devoted an arguably excessive amount of time studying many branches. ) If we have a linear function or constant response over [0,1] and [2.10], why not just take a few samples in that region that span it, since they will be well-behaved. Now suppose f(x) goes a bit wild over [1,2[... Why don’t we use 70% of our processing power on RANDOMLY SAMPLING from [1,2], knowing that as with Riemann as our sample N->Infinity, we will have comparable precision! (Identical AT infinity, ceteris paribus.), and we will achieve either the answer or something AMAZINGLY close, unless the function is pathological. (Like integrating the Dirichlet Function...) As our sample N->Infinity, ANYTHING WE KNOW HOW TO DESCRIBE DETERMINISTICALLY (or even pre-decoherence / “wave function collapse”) can be solved by a Monte Carlo Simulation, if it’s reasonably well-behaved! But what does this *mean?* We choose which operators we’ll use to invoke the Projection Postulate, such as position or momentum - or a less accurate set of combinations. But what we tend to call “Particles” don’t really exist *at all* - at least not with “ping pong ball” descriptions. They are far more intricate.. Sure, if we measure them directly, under decoherence, we might locate them briefly or measure momentum, but it is like a fish in a muddy Aquarium bumping against the glass. Once we’re not causing decoherence by measurement, the “particles” are actually Probability Fields in the Complex Plane, interacting with other Probability Fields, whose properties are specific to the form of the field. The “Particle” is a “vanishingly small,” deceptive, and illusory glimpse at the universes. However, if we do not recognize their Field nature, we will be led astray. In other words, to say the Universe (inasmuch as it is deterministic outside of our observations) is able to be modeled by Partial Differential Equations (PDEs) turns out to be ISOMORPHIC - THE SAME - as saying “We live in a simulation,” To clarify Penrose & Hameroff, thank you for asking your question. There is a broad audience, and some care more about the answers (and have been blessed with stronger backgrounds) than others. I sense that you are among those who genuinely care and are interested. Yes, microtubules and fibre bundles “carry quantum information,” but we haven’t known.*WHERE* in many cases! Where does the information gets carried?! You greatly helped my pedagogy and clarity by raising your question, so thank you! What Penrose & Hameroff showed was that the information is carried *outside of this visible universe*, in such a way that it maintains persistent effects! For example, consider the classic double-slit experiment. If we have a graduate student watching detectors, we should see two bulges on the film or photon detectors. However, if something goes horrible wrong for said student (or they’re turning 120 years old, for a happier thought,), if they die, the Universe still knows the information they obtained while alive! They somehow have a DEMONSTRABLE MEMORY that causes the experiment NOT to revert to interference patterns, even if the students didn’t record or report their actions or their results! So yes, we live in a simulation, but what that MEANS isn’t readily apparent. If it IS an INTENTIONAL SIMULATION, we are evidently “free agents,” who choose what we observe, in part by our actions. This presents a deeper question: Since we store histories of our memories (even Quantum Uncertainties) outside this physical system, we most certainly must also be the impetus that chooses, by some complex mechanism, which projection operators we employ with our actions to obtain observations. This begs a BIG question: Since the Universe is VERY complex and extensive, and an Integral is only posed to answers a question about a system and the functions that govern its equations of motion, which are largely detailed in our many texts and papers, WE are the real VARIABLES entering the Simulation! The rest, what we would otherwise think of as variables, turn out to be “parameters!” So: Question: If this is an Intentional Simulation & not merely a tautological one, WHAT is the *function* that SOMEONE cares about so much that this place was constructed, and WHY is it that WE are the real components being evaluated?! This is the most fascinating aspect of the “Intentional Simulation Hypothesis!” Lookup Penrose & Hameroff’s work and two ten-minute interviews before you conclude things about the Afterlife prematurely! They give two great 10 minute interviews, but their scholarly works are *extremely* impressive (unsurprisingly)! Also, probability waves aren’t Entropy Maximizing constructs - they are just part of the “Rules of this System,” because we make observations, which means some eigenstate has to be selected for us to observe. Otherwise, consider Quantum Computers: They are potentially very powerful, not “just random,” which is why we research them so intently! Also, what happens when we check the slits on the double-slit experiment or any other decoherence process we cause? Entropy INCREASES! For living things, that’s not exactly good news, is it? I wonder... is there any ancient text somewhere that says - seemingly absurdly, especially for an ancient text - our ability to obtain a certain *type* of Information brought death into the physical world?.That would be an astonishing prediction, confirmed by modern science, n’est pas? Was this helpful, and might I clarify anything that I was unclear regarding? You are an excellent scientific conversationalist, and you have some great questions that overlap with much of my research!

[@aerith784]

The more important question: How non-organic matter became single-celled?

[@istvansipos9940]

havin' sex is faaar more exciting than being a rock. but it is a long journey so first came single cell life

[@jacoboneill2494]

Minerals help. You should look into the data on undersea vents.

[@thomassaldana2465]

One possibility; kzbin.info/www/bejne/gWLbn4x8eL9sj8k

[@jsveterans6949]

@@thomassaldana2465 TY, good overview... In the mid 90's my mum worked at RPI on this exact issue.. Neat to know that she was on the front of figuring out the origin of life.

[@thomassaldana2465]

@@jsveterans6949 It would be interesting to hear about her research. Is there an article somewhere? I don't know if we'll ever know the answer for sure, but it seems that a few good hypotheses have been suggested, which helps to get rid of the old "I don't know, therefore god" assumption.

[@lucofparis4819]

The problem with Panspermia, no matter how plausible, is that it doesn't solve the issue, it only displaces it: life has to appear somewhere. Epistemologically speaking, abiogenesis is so much more economic in the number of "What if" that Panspermia becomes absurd... Since even with Panspermia some form of abiogenesis must occur *before.* Still a very cool topic though, and I wonder if biology may not be a good hint at how feasible Panspermia is anyway: remember, all those microbes we've tested are *modern, evolved ones.* There is absolutely no guarantee that simpler, less evolved lifeforms from our past could survive those insane conditions. Which is concerning, since Panspermia suggests all lifeforms on Earth come from a common ancestor that _was_ able to make it. It really seems way too much of a stretch, especially when we weigh in the Fermi Paradox.

[@sleepvark1]

Very well done guys! Having completed a course on the interstellar medium, I have come to understand that PAH’s, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, are ubiquitous throughout time and space. This presents us with not just the basic atoms derived from stellar nucleosynthesis, but also the molecular building blocks from which biological stuff can be produced. In other words, the entire universe is one gigantic organic soup cloud. The possibility of living organisms popping up everywhere we might look in every galaxy and every star system becomes the new reality. Panspermia really isn’t a requirement for ubiquitous life. It can very conveniently be home grown anywhere. This leaves me feeling rather small and unimportant, but at the same time elated at the prospect of meeting new alien friends, and perhaps extended family members. Live long and prosper!

[@sammjust2233]

So Mars might already be contaminated with Earth life?

[@Yora21]

I think it's actually quite likely. Though none of it might have been able to get far from their meteorite before dying off.

[@noahhounshel104]

Yes, although we've taken care to try and prevent that. It's a possibility that we hope doesn't happen until we can conclusively prove one way or another

[@gcisbani]

It was, for sure. Rovers and other landers have transferred there some Earth bio contamination. Decontamination process is not perfect.

[@jasonkinzie8835]

I think there are definitely Earth microbes on Mars. They could be dormant are they could be dead. They might even be alive and reproducing although that's much less likely. Mar's is relatively hospitable compared to almost all other places in the solar system, ( an interesting exception might be high in Venus's atmosphere, where temperature and air pressure are relatively earth like, although human habitats would have to float to avoid sinking to the hellish surface below), but it is still incredibly inhospitable to Earth life, (even most microbes). But some extremophiles might be able to live in such harsh conditions provided they found liquid water.

[@jsveterans6949]

Possibly... Though, the space agencies put a lot of effort in ensuring we do not contaminate environments.. It's why we sterilize and burn up satellites (like on Saturn instead of it possibly ending up on a moon and creating a false positive for future explorers) in atmosphere's and quarantine astronauts. Our smart people have decent forethought.

[@nokandno-escorner]

We know, within a reasonable estimate, our solar system evolved from an ancient supersized sun that went super nova and eventually coalesced into the celestial bodies we know today. Perhaps the panspermia theory is closer to home than we think. Perhaps life first evolved in this region of space in the original solar system that existed here before it transformed into the solar system we have today and some of the most simplistic life forms (most likely bacteria and viruses) survived and fell back to planetary bodies during the formation. If we ever do find genetic evidence of life outside our planet within our solar system and its genetic structure is similar to our own DNA, chances are both sources of life forms came from the same primary vector. Thinking exo-planetary or even exo-solar life’s genetic structure would be DNA and that it’s universal across separate solar systems is mathematically incalculable, unless they all came from the same source. If we found life on a planet in, say, the Alpha Centauri system for example, in all likeliness the life there would not have DNA as we know it. I highly doubt DNA and RNA are the ONLY stable method of storing, relaying, and utilizing genetic information. I’m sure there’s as many or more ways of forming a genetic structure as there are different species on our own planet.

[@tensevo]

The problem you have is still, how did those lifeforms arise? We still need to explain how (why?) life came out of a dead Universe. To survive? Only to die again. Seems totally unreasonable theory. It sounds a lot like some Alien version of Adam and Eve. What do you mean by "life first evolved" ? out of dead planets?

[@lucofparis4819]

*Panspermia:* Life evolved elsewhere! *Abiogenesis:* Sure, why not, but it'd still have to emerge! How did it emerge? *Panspermia:* Ugh... Umm... I got nothing. *Abiogenesis:* Yeah, that's what I thought, you suck. *Panspermia:* But I am the cooler one! *Abiogenesis:* I create life out of primordial soups you punk! You're nothing but a glorified Amazon delivery. *Panspermia:* ....

[@quentinbell5617]

"Did Life on Earth Come from Space?" Is there anything that didn't come from space???

[@mab7727]

our infinite stupidity ...

[@xavierlugo5296]

Beat me to this question

[@ALT3REDB3AST]

Exactly. Stars spew raw materials out into the universe and the process continues down the chain...

[@joshuahudson8860]

Could these additional steps/ events below make the ejection, journey, and re-entry more survivable? And are these events possible (very low probability is okay)? 1. The parent planet of Earth’s life cools down rapidly after some existential doomsday, and all of the water on the planet freezes relatively quickly... Then, millions of years later, a large impact knocks these chunks of ice and space debris into space with preserved or “semi-preserved” organisms inside the ice. Those commits then land on other planets. 2. In the event that radio-panspermia was the source method of Earth’s life, then perhaps a commit with sufficient ice could “skip” off the parent planet’s atmosphere or slingshot around the parent planet at a close enough proximity that it picks up a couple single celled astronauts on its icy surface for the ride.

[@itsjustaname7311]

Actually that SuperPOOsition baby onesy is hilarious :D ... props to the one who had that idea! ^^

[@CmdrPinkiePie]

How about we just decide to be the aliens who originate life across the galaxy by sending tons of little lightsail probes carrying super-resistant lifeforms on board and just make the panspermia happen? Sure, we won't be around to see our space babies evolve, but hey, no plan's perfect.

[@jmr2008jan]

Sounds like a good way to have the Council of United Intergalactic Nations declare the Human race bioterrorists to me.

[@tri3183]

@@jmr2008jan 😂

[@Alienami]

@@jmr2008jan Exactly, it's potentially just smallpox blankets for the universe... #ChristiansAreBestBioTerroristsInHistory

[@Cindy-ls3dj]

Transgender Alien Ami, no doubt Christians are good at killing with bible and sword in hand but Muslims easily take the cake on genocide. Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, wrote about the medieval bloodbath that was India during 800 years of Muslim rule when Muslims invaded and occupied India and murdered over 400 million Hindus. Jesus (Christian god) never says to kill anyone... ever. Yahweh (Jew god) says to kill people "in the promised land" and false idol worshipers ONLY within Israel. But Allah (Muslim word for god) says to kill everyone not a Muslim worldwide. Your hate and anger towards Christians is wasted when a much more violent oppressive freedom killing religion is coming soon to a theater near you. (Quran 5:51) “Believers, take neither the Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another…” (Quran 98:6) "The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Bible] and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.” (Quran 9.123) “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.” (Quran 48:29) “Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” (Quran 4:56) "Those that deny Our revelations We will burn in fire... God is mighty and wise.” Quran 9:5) “When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” If you want something real to bitch about just hold on a few more years. You can start bitching about your loss of freedom and that burka/hijab that's soon to be forced on your once free Judeo-Christian society by those barbaric violent terrorist loving freedom killing Muslims.

[@CmdrPinkiePie]

Hey y'all I'm making a little joke about being the "originator aliens" trope from scifi. No need to bring in smallpox blankets references, please (I'm metis, I don't find that allusion very funny, thank you). O__O Also why bring Christians into this?!? I didn't bring up religious stuff here? It's irrelevant, I'm agnostic!

[@michaelsommers2356]

I don't see any problems with life appearing so quickly on Earth. In the beginning, it's just chemistry, and chemistry will happen whenever the conditions are right.

[@AssemblyBanditChannel]

Exactly, there is no need to say that life came from another planet or a god or gods.

[@garethdean6382]

And that's fine, IF the chemistry involved is fast enough. I can't expect an iron bar to turn to rusty dust overnight, even if it IS just chemistry. The question is whether life's chemistry was quick enough to appear so soon. (And if so, what this means for briefly habitable planets like Mars or Venus.)

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@garethdean6382 The more I think about panspermia, the less likely it appears. Even assuming an organism survived the interstellar trip, the trip through the atmosphere, and impact, it would still have to survive on a lifeless world. That means it would have to be an autotroph, since there would be no biological food for it. If it were photosynthetic, it would need to have come from a star similar enough to the Sun that its photosynthetic stuff would work here. If chemosynthetic, it would have to arrive in a place where the chemicals it needs were present in sufficient quantity. If it lived on land, it would have to hit the 30% of Earth's surface that is land. If it lived in the sea, it would have to be able to cope with the salinity of our seas, which is likely to be different from the salinity of its home seas. It would also have to land in seas of appropriate depth; it would do no good for an organism used to shallow water to land in 4000 m water. Wherever it landed, the temperature would have to be compatible.

[@tensevo]

The problem is Michael, the Earth was dead and now it is alive. The Earth was simple and primitive and now it is complex. The issue you have is creating the conditions for a dead planet to come alive. I.e. where does the Chemistry come from and why does the Chemistry of a dead planet want to spontaneously bring itself to life - to evolve and survive? Why not just stay as a dead dormant unconscious planet??? Essentially are you saying rocks and water spontaneously started to arrange themselves into living cells?

[@lilyoyo77]

@@AssemblyBanditChannel Life can't just pop into existence and abiogenisis is not proven. You're entitled to your delusions anyways

[@garbleduser]

Tardigrades, all the way down...

[@whtbobwntsbobget]

No. You're not smart

[@garbleduser]

And you are a troll. Good bye!

[@chillsahoy2640]

It's neat that Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VII took note of cryptobiosis and used it as inspiration for Lavos and Jenova respectively.

[@Nomen_Latinum]

Just a quick heads-up: you misspelled endolith as endolyth in this video. The word comes from Greek: "endon" = "within", "lithos" = "stone". The 'y' represents another Greek letter entirely, so the misspelling loses the original meaning! Edited to add for discussion: I believe the reason panspermia is unlikely is a simple question of Occam's Razor. Panspermia isn't an alternative to abiogenesis, it is simply an added step. To have a full picture of the origin of life through panspermia, we must also explain how life originated on the planet of origin in the first place-and as far as I know we have no reason at this point to believe any planet aside from Earth would be more ideally suited for abiogenesis. So if life had to originate on some planet, why not skip the unnecessary step of panspermia and assume it happened here?

[@garethdean6382]

Occam's razor demands a theory be only as simple as it needs to be. If abiogenesis is 'easy' then we've no need for panspermia. But we cannot assume this without proof. If it turns out to be 'hard', so hard that its occurrence on Earth is highly unlikely, then panspermia becomes viable. Panspermia allows a difficult and rare process to occur once then seed a galaxy. Essentially it means ALL planets in a galaxy swap material and life with it. It's also not really competition with abiogenesis and most of its tenets are confirmed. We know rocky bodies in our solar system exchange material ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite ), we know star systems exchange material. We know life can reside in rocks. Even if abiogenesis is easy panspermia might be a consideration as a complementary mechanism.

[@Nomen_Latinum]

I think a variation on the anthropic principle throws a wrench in the works as far as the logic of this goes though. Even if abiogenesis is hard and it occurs only once, we don't need panspermia: the original planet of abiogenesis is still the planet that is statistically most likely to harbour life at any time-let alone intelligent life-regardless of the viability of panspermia. Conversely, intelligent life is most likely to find itself on the planet of origin of its abiogenesis. Surely, there may be another billion planets in the galaxy, but Earth is both our most likely origin and, to bring this back to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation thereof. Keep in mind, to obtain a full picture of the origin of life, there is still a need to explicate a mechanism of abiogenesis in companion to the seeding mechanism of panspermia. To motivate that another planet besides Earth was the original planet of abiogenesis, we would have to discover a mechanism of abiogenesis more likely to occur on a planet with a chemical fingerprint different from ours-if ours turns out to be ideal, it's hard to say why the single occurrence of life should have been on another planet, other than through sheer statistics. Another thing to note is that with panspermia as an explanation for life on Earth-i.e. if panspermia is really as effective at spreading life between planets as you suggest it may be-we would expect to see life on other planets as well. The more effective we assume panspermia to be, the more planets we would expect to find where life has flourished. So far we know of none beside the earth; not to say that there aren't any, because by no means have we exhaustively searched the galaxy for life, but both our failure to find life on other planets and the failure of any other intelligent species to communicate with us might lead us to believe that life is rather rare, and intelligent life extremely so. If life is indeed rare, it must mean panspermia isn't a highly effective seeding mechanism. This view of panspermia as a rare event (if it happens at all) is much more reasonable in my eyes, considering the vastness of interstellar space and the predicted rarity of exchange of materials between star systems (such as we saw with 'Oumuamua). But it does in turn take away it statistical force as an explanatory mechanism for life on Earth. Either way I see no real way around my initial conclusion, that panspermia is an unnecessary additional step in explaining how life ended up on Earth. I'm not saying it's false, I'm just saying it's overly complicated and otherwise unlikely.

[@Nomen_Latinum]

Thanks for the thought-out reply, by the way! Made me really think through the statistical aspect of the whole matter.

[@annoloki]

It would explain why we don't seem to have any major competitors for the main DNA/RNA system found in all life on earth... one would expect that if life came about so quickly on the planet, that a different system could have been arrived at that we would have found too.

[@davidbudo5551]

Or Earth won the lottery of correct variables for life to coalesce.

[@aidenvrenna9943]

Everything alive is under pressure from predators, parasites, and other invaders, and they're in competition for food on top of that. It's like being constantly on the front lines in a never ending battle. The code of DNA and RNA allow the slow accumulation of biological "technology" which is "learned" through natural selection. Now that DNA- and RNA-based life forms have accumulated this ever-improving technology, completely separate/parallel abiogenesis events aren't likely to be able to out-compete.

[@TerribleTF2]

There's a problem with this assumption, though the actual acceptance of its conclusion is pretty low. cf. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_biosphere tl;dr: any microbes not using DNA/RNA (or those using a different encoding of DNA/RNA) would be difficult to detect with modern assays. Considering ~1% of microbes are culturable to begin with, there's plenty of possibility that they're around and we aren't looking hard enough for them.

[@Alienami]

@@TerribleTF2 We never look hard enough for anything, *unless we're biased towards it...* am I rite? We humans, love our confirmation bias, and our hubris.

[@greenanubis]

@@TerribleTF2 How much is "plenty" of possibility? Also, what makes or breaks panspermia is plentyness of its possibility.

[@smob0]

Why do the lifeforms need to survive the journey? If you just spewed the "guts" of a bunch of lifeforms over a sterile world with the proper conditions, I'd imagine abiogenesis could be kickstarted a lot easier. You wouldn't have to start life completely from scratch, you'd have bits of dna, rna and/or protiens around, and if some of them can self replicate in those conditions, you might end up with a planet covered in the stuff.

[@garethdean6382]

What will kill a lifeform will also tend to quickly turn its 'guts' into very simple molecules. Anything exposed to space for long is quickly reduced to very basic ingredients indeed, so any protection is welcome.

[@tensevo]

The problem you have is still, how did those lifeforms arise? We still need to explain how life came out of a dead Universe.

[@smob0]

@@tensevo We do need to figure out how life arises in the first place, but if life can spread around the universe once formed, the conditions for abiogensis could be very rare and still have life being pretty common. It could even be that condiontions for abiogensis don't exist anymore, or where much more common in the earlier universe, and panspermia is what seeds life around e.g. maybe abiogenesis happens when the average temperature of the universe is rougly body temperature.

[@tensevo]

@@smob0 The existence of life essentially runs counter to the theory of entropy. The two need to be reconciled. We are not even close to reconciling this. Entropy states that things become more disordered and simple over time, things die and erode, whilst life, once originated (??), evolves, mutates and becomes more complex and sentient. You are starting from the axiom that life just exists. I am saying that is a huge assumption. We simply do not accept that a dead planet can come alive. But then that may well be what happens. We just don't know. I am not disputing that life could also be out there somewhere.

[@calebunga7271]

Misspelled biosphere at 1:22

[@jamiewomack]

All those smart people and no proofreader?

[@ChrisGX75]

Seriously.

[@Willam_J]

Jeez, people. It’s just one simple mistake. I have another channel, where I present and discuss the technical aspects, and the operation of, drones. In one video, I said “lens”, when I meant to say “filter”. It was obvious, as to what I meant, because the video was about filters, but that didn’t stop the comment section filling up with people, pointing out that one mistake. It was an unscripted, ‘quicky’ video, which was made for one specific person, who was having trouble re-installing his camera filter. It also became one of my most popular videos, because it turned out that a lot of people had the same problem. Unfortunately, that one little mistake seemed to be more important, than the information which I provided. It was only the large amount of positive comments, which made me leave it up. It helped a lot of people, and that’s what counts. I’ll say here, what I said to the people who made rude comments on my video: “If you can make a better video than this one, do it yourself.” :-)

[@jmanj3917]

"Squashing the feelings and killing the buzz since 2015." Lolol

[@vedantkathe7711]

Great work Matt!Also love your accent❤️

[@josephelston4101]

Came for the physics, stayed for the brow game... am I right?!

[@SunriseFireberry]

Maybe life in the universe began on Earth.

[@aidenvrenna9943]

"Where is everybody?" -Fermi I hope life in the universe did begin on Earth. Otherwise, the "Great Filter" is still ahead of us.

[@reedfrombigisland]

Aiden Vrenna But what if for example, simple life is everywhere but multicellular life is almost nonexistent? Then the “great filter” could be behind us with life still seeding the galaxy. Just a thought.

[@spacejunk2186]

Maybe the universe began on earth.

[@bensutcliffe1975]

It came from his noodley appendage

[@Evtrex13]

got em

[@aidenvrenna9943]

R'amen

[@kyjo72682]

the pansperm? yuck!

[@aesericho3651]

All hail!

[@BothHands1]

LordWhorfinX2 whoah there...

[@UniversalSparkler]

Love watching these videos to go to sleep to, your voice is so calming and relaxing it sends me into a peaceful sleep.

[@truthpopup]

I believe the origin of life is a biochemical process that occurs everywhere in the universe where conditions are favorable.

[@ET3Roberts]

Steve Brown James Tour is a biochemist that speaks about that early life process, should check him out!

[@mattf.2142]

I didn't know Tyrion Lannister had a KZbin channel.

[@ToastedFanArt]

Maybe Earth has seeded other planets 🤔

[@AnEvolvingApe]

Which planets?

[@HenriZwols]

It has probably seeded Mars. There's no way those NASA Landers are 100% microbe free.

[@danvallentyne9587]

Hmm, I wonder how many planets are in range of a 4 billion year old rock from earth. That would provide a list of candidates for planets seeded by earth.

[@TheReferrer72]

actually this is more likely than not. we will be getting many more which now seem impossible theories popping because of ESA Gias mission which has mapped the trajectories of million of stars in our galaxy. The earth will be getting a star that will come within the ort cloud in 1.2 million years, how many times has that happened in the past?

[@ToastedFanArt]

@@TheReferrer72 I'm not too well informed on these matters but I'll take your word for it you sound like you know what you're talking about.

[@i.v.blankenship]

Doesn’t DNA/RNA have a chemical half-life? If so, how would bacteria remain viable for millions of years when the chemical bonds of its genetic code are continually broken?

[@grandsome1]

That's only if DNA isn't self-corrected by biological processes; the microbes would travel in colonies and cannibalise each other over time for material. There's still half the original material after half life, and the other half might still be viable. If panspermia works, of course.

[@noahhounshel104]

​@@grandsome1 Theoretically yes, especially over those long times DNA and other microbial machinery will decay. But this *could* be offset by even stupidly slow reproductive cycles within a rock bound for another galaxy. One thing that *wasn't* discussed that I would have liked to see is the idea of bacteria living happily off of the energy produced via the half life of decaying isotopes. Its a difficult balance to reach, but I think its possible to maintain a temperature high enough within the rock for certain metabolic functions to continue within an asteroid. Its still stupidly cold, but maybe survivable for extremophiles.

[@bensutcliffe1975]

@@noahhounshel104 the extremophile then crash lands on a planet 100's of degrees hotter than its used to and dies instantly.

[@kyjo72682]

I think the breakdown is mainly due to radiation.. If it's travelling somewhere deep inside a frozen rock I think it would be safe. Natural cryogenics! :)

[@noahhounshel104]

@@kyjo72682 in the long term you would be correct, but we're talking about hundreds of millions of years without any sort of energy. Most chemicals decay over time and even stuff like DNA will break down naturally over these kinds of timescales. Being protected by an asteroid will help protect from radiation but likely won't help with protecting from decay.

[@fus-ro-dah]

Love the channel. But why don't you guys upload in quality that is better than 1080p?

[@wareshubham]

bearing all those que to hear last one to have a good laugh to mitigate seriousness gathered through fully technical video.... LOVE COMIC ANSWERS>>>

[@vtron9832]

I support the primordial soup

[@Hank254]

Who doesn't love soup?!?!?

[@altrocks]

I prefer the primordial stew. It's a little thicker and has better seasoning.

[@spazmaticaa7989]

@@Hank254 me. Except Italian wedding soup. That's it

[@logicplague]

Everyone knows the Milky Way was seeded with life by the Precursors.

[@theoldone3295]

Do they now?

[@john-or9cf]

Lockout. I thought it was the Cylon creators, Zeus, Apollo, Athena, et al

[@stiimuli]

Why bother entertaining such questions when you can just imagine an invisible wizard poofing life into existence fully formed?

[@NcedoWabantu]

Checks out

[@lucofparis4819]

"Hockety pockety wockety wock! You dummy rocky now Adam & Evy!" Yep, totally sounds legit.

[@MarianaTrench6699]

In dimension J529 that is exactly how it went down.

[@nostalgicgod1801]

I know when we lean towards science to stray for the more facts presented but religions and their writings are 25% history and 75% prophetic. The way we have coincidences and chances of things happening in science such as our existence I wouldn’t be surprised at being the work of God as a greater FORCE beyond everything we will never fully understand i Believe

[@AbeDillon]

Panspermia is *not* "Turtles all the way down" and it's *not* a violation of Occam's razor. If everyone thought life must have originated in Lake Titicaca on a Tuesday afternoon and someone speculated that, in fact; it's possible that life originated anywhere on the Earth and it could have happened at any time within a 300-million-year span, you wouldn't say that's a violation of Occam's razor or "Turtles all the way down". In fact being needlessly specific and excluding possibilities for no reason is a violation of Occam's razor. The theory for the formation of life is abiogenesis with or without panspermia. All panspermia says is that the time and location of said abiogenesis is possibly quite broad.

[@ryguy7383]

One of the biggest problems with panspermia is that, while some versions of the hypothesis are possible, the main contingent of proponents of it is postulating a completely untenable version. So anytime that you talk about the scientifically valid ideas here, you also have to mention these cranks. There is a very good review of their most recent paper by Steven Novella in his blog here (theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/alien-cephalopods-and-panspermia/). Their main argument is essentially that octopuses and tardigrades are really weird, therefore panspermia.

[@farad8633]

You've forgotten my my favorite version of this hypothesis -Accidental Panspermia, where aliens visiting the early solar system flushed something out the back of their spaceship that evolved into us!

[@epsilonjay4123]

You have biosphere misspelled as "bioshere" in about the first 2 minutes of the video.

[@dafff08]

what if we are a genetic experiment like we do it in labs. and the meteor that made the dinosaurs go extinct was just a reset button

[@whoneverknow9588]

We ain't nothing baby but an Alien Chimp. Genetic hi-brid species Presents a complex thesis Bio-chem mystery trace Outer space Earthly race

[@tomluce2994]

This is such an exemplary review of the Panspermia hypothesis - thank you guys so much

[@tetraedri_1834]

I'm late for the party, but I was expecting you to discuss the hypothesis that non-biological formation of some (organic) molecules necessary for life require microgravity or other enviroinments not found on Earth. Hence, those molecules originate from space and were injected to Earth by asteroids or have been here since pre-solar-system-era, while the life itself have started here on Earth. Out of all "life from space" -hypotheses I find this most appealing, as it eliminates the first issue you mentioned (ejection to space), and doesn't assume that life has formed in some other planet in the first place. Although this is quite different in spirit than what you were discussing in the video...

[@insertnamehere001]

To escape the solar system, it could happen that the rock uses other planet's gravity to 'slingshot' itself further out, thus requiring less initial speed.

[@unvergebeneid]

I am skeptical about panspermia more from a biological perspective. There is every indication that early life on Earth was actually primitive. Why else did it take the majority of evolution on Earth to develop complex life? There might of course be the possibility that primitive life is more suited to surviving space travel but I haven't heard anything that supports this.

[@geriibra1645]

You are completly right. This theory has many holes.

[@samuelmatheson9655]

Simple "primitive" life is the only thing that can survive the journey

[@unvergebeneid]

@@samuelmatheson9655 I still haven't heard anything to support this, despite you repeating the premise ;)

[@HardKore5250]

What is wrong with panspermia?

[@tensevo]

The problem with the Theory of Evolution is that it is predicated upon survival. If we evolved out of the Earth, then that runs counter to the idea of survival, since why does something that is dead, need to come alive, in order to "survive". It makes little sense in the grand scheme of things.

[@hotelmag-a-lardo]

It is always aliens or god trying to fill in the gaps.

[@jasonkinzie8835]

I think scientific progress has a good chance of filling in these gaps one way or another.

[@jsveterans6949]

People aren't very creative, are they... Alien god of the gaps...

[@tensevo]

Aliens is just a word ppl use when they are afraid to use the word God. It explains stuff without explaining anything. The problem science has is basically unable to explain the stuff that we really want to know, like how did we get here? why are we here? etc. etc. Science treats the existence of matter and life as an axioms - it is pure observation and curve fitting the data.

[@jsveterans6949]

@@tensevo Just let go man.... You're really close to being a actual un-impacted-by-a-millennia-of-fear-washing person. Santa to god to aliens are just remnants of our plain-evolved minds that got us this far... Science has answers it just doesn't pretend to have answers to things that are not conclusive... But, it will as we get better. What percent of humanity have we been scientifically minded? Or gone into space? It's no wonder why we suck at using these "new" tools with our technology. As for "pure observation and curve fitting the data" well, yea! With a few steps before and after...

[@tensevo]

@@jsveterans6949 Speaking as a physicist of 20 years, the measurement problem gives me nightmares. The lack of precision. The lack of a datum in the void of quantized space. The lack of unification. I worry now that "Science" is just another word, like God or Aliens, that lets people feel secure. Science is a method, not a f**king religion.

[@magilviamax8346]

We need to apply Occam here. The probability of life to be generated on earth or any other planet is roughtly the same but panspermia add to that 3 highly unlikely events, putting it out of the question.

[@kichigan1]

PBS has enough funds to make all this narrative into an awesome images-filled production.

[@varunteja7538]

Can u make more videos on space time curvature because I still have many doubts like what happens if really intense gravitational wave passes by us so that we are stretched to a meter vertically and then horizontally. Would our body be ripped apart or would we still be fine.

[@allehman8660]

you're brilliant bro.. I watch so many of your videos.. awesome!

[@allehman8660]

Wish you had a Q&A id love to ask you some targeted questions to get a more clear view of some missing pieces

[@Octopossible]

panspermia doesnt have to propose that the creation of life is so rare that it happened only once, it could also be saying that life is such an inevitability and so common that it is floating around in interstellar space all over the place.

[@davidtheiss7108]

Kudos for slowing things down. Much much better.

[@Pyroguy92]

Hey Matt and PBS Spacetime team, awesome video as always!! Sorry to change subjects, but was wondering if you plan to do a future episode on Dr. Jamie Farnes' recent paper on negative mass N-body simulations that seem to provide a framework for a new theory on dark matter. Thanks!

[@Zsokorad]

Panspermia has always annoyed me. My reaction is always "Ok, so what? How did THAT life start?" "Panspermia." "Ok, how did THAT life start?" "Panspermia." "We're wasting time here."

[@jackoagain]

Hey, I have a problem, can someone explain to me if it's crazy to consider the possibility of using quantum entanglement to gain data from inside a black hole?

[@puppypi9668]

Okay :) Quantum entanglement can carry _quantum effects_ but not actual "information" in the classical sense. (Same is true for those photons that "go faster than the speed of light") Think of it as having two (entangled) coins you can flip and _know_ that when the other person flips theirs, it'll land the opposite side up. (Or the same side-depending on how you entangled them). And each coin-pair is only good for one flip. And it doesn't convey _when_ either one is/was flipped, just that whenever both people have gotten around to it, it'll turn out that way. Hence it's useful for (creating!) and sending passwords in quantum cryptography, but can't actually transmit (classical) information. Also, causality and classical information are essentially synonymous! You have an intention-a "cause"-and engage in an action (fiber optic internet pulses, morse code, smoke signals XD) to achieve an effect (eg, altering the person's mind at the other end-which is what communication really is, if you think about it creepily XD). And vice versa! Any cause and effect can be thought of as a transfer of information (because looking at one particle/object after an event will tell you information about the other one even if it's long gone). So all information transfer is really the same as cause-and-effect! :D Hence why a show about Spacetime talks about information so much XD And why information is so relevant to the maximally-warped regions of spacetime and causality we call blackholes! :D So you probably could entangle particles and send one into a black hole, and use that for what entanglement is useful for in normal space..but then again someone falling into a black hole probably wouldn't have much need for ultra-secure encryption (unless a hacker was falling next to them XD ) Was that helpful? :)

[@Khwartz]

Really Like the Lightness of your presentation, and Humour. It's makes imho Much More Attractive :) 🖒

[@blazedgamingkr1438]

The tardigrade lol, the first time I learned of that little critter was on an episode of 'The Cat in the Hat knows a lot about that'. Good episode for those of you that have young kids. I watch it with my 7 year old and we both learn new stuff all the time from it.

[@silverharloe]

Of course, most modern life on Earth would find Earth of 4.4 BY ago nigh uninhabitable. However, we've found extra-planetary formation of amino acids, and it's possible that in the early solar system, comets were even more hospitable than the early Earth for amino acid formation, so we may have picked up some essential components of abiogenesis from elsewhere in the solar system.

[@TerraCellUk]

Does the total speed an individual travels through space, affect our perception of time? How fast are we as individuals moving, in relation to the singularity at the big bang? And how has that speed slowed/affected our experience of the passage of time.

[@JRPapollo]

I wonder if abiogenesis can be sped up by fragments surviving the trip. Maybe the organism is to some degree destroyed, but bits of genetic material survives. This would give those slow processes a head start.

[@kapilsharmaWorld_uncensored]

Dear PBS team, please give a medal to the person who created the intro tune.

[@istvansipos9940]

"aliens aside" - No, do NOT kill the most fun part! Aliens NOT aside is the correct approach. Always. and about pan spermia: whatever we may find and prove, it can only postpone the question about the origin of life. the real question is not the "where from?" but the "how?", imho

[@guillaumemaurice3503]

Thank you for sharing this video that was very interesting. Great topic.

[@donaldsmith3926]

"Diseases from Space" by Fred Hoyle, the 'steady state' guy, talks about microbes from space and the evidence for them. 'Directed panspermia' was the theory favored by Francis Crick, while admitting that he had no scientific evidence for that idea.

[@jmcorry]

17:39 lol!!! Seriously though, you guys do an amazing job... love your channel!

[@OctavianDunare]

Great episode, but there is one thing that, in my opinion, makes panspermia practically impossible. DNA is not a stable molecule by any stretch of the imagination. Assuming that any space traveller goes into a perfect hibernation process, DNA starts to unglue in about 521 years, breaking into smaller and smaller fragments. This discovery is what transformed Jurassic Park into a quaint little SF story instead of a scientific possibility. Assuming a hardy space traveller would survive being ejected into space, the possibility of it surviving any sort of interstellar journey, even discounting radiation, would be too close to zero to count.

[@rubiks6]

Clear thinking. It's rare. Thank you.

[@Raptilicus]

I like the new store, but over $60 for shipping to Germany is ridiculously expensive. Is there any chance you can lower that?

[@Josiah_Harder]

The lengths of hopeful speculation people will go to in order to avoid creation is incredible

[@david_melech]

It's a fascinating concept! But still it doesn't answer the big question, 'How does biology occur from chemisty?' Would love to hear your thoughts on that!

[@SaintBenard]

'Some of that debris wouldn't have contained life.' There, I fixed your mistake. Love love love love love

[@thisisadiman]

Hey PBS. I think there is one typo @1:23. It should be 'biosphere' instead of 'bioshere'.

[@reviscerator]

When it comes to escaping the gravitational pull of a solar system, you can reduce the initial ejection velocity at the cost of adding one or more gravitational slingshots from other planets in the solar system (which of course would effect the overall likelihood of an escape happening).

[@timmykenny717]

5:06 spraying what sir? That hand motion lol