[Feel free to read all my articles on the anti-censorship long content platform yakihonne.com.
](https://yakihonne.com/users/nprofile1qqsy63zy8ynu8cch4cec4vrmu44w0xzw4y3zf8hyjc8uld4l0mfytzcpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6vp39eukz6mfdphkumn99e3k7mgpremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6vpj9ejx7unpveskxar0wfujummjvuq3gamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7v5mp5x)

Here in our own backyard, matter is common, while antimatter is rare. In fact, except for high-energy reactions that produce equal amounts of matter and antimatter — things like electron-positron pairs, for example — there’s absolutely no antimatter found anywhere that we look. All of the planets, stars, gas, dust, and more within our Milky Way is made of matter and not antimatter. All of the galaxies we look out at beyond our own are made of matter and not antimatter. Galaxy clusters and the large-scale cosmic web point to everything being made out of matter and not antimatter. Somehow, all of the normal stuff, the stuff of the Standard Model, is all “matter” in our Universe, with practically no antimatter at all.

Most of the time, we ask the big question of baryogenesis: how did the Universe come to be made of matter and not antimatter? But before we even get there, are we truly, absolutely certain that the Universe is made of matter, and that there isn’t some large collection of antimatter out there? That’s what Tim Thompson wants to know, asking:

> “how do we know that it’s predominantly one over the other? Can we tell, from a distance, if a system is matter or antimatter? For example, for a galaxy millions of light years away, which we only observe via photons emitted, what is it that tells us its matter vs antimatter?”

It’s a great question. And thankfully, astronomy and astrophysics holds the answer.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*NgY2M3yiHDkBQkTH)
The production of matter/antimatter pairs (left) from pure energy is a completely reversible reaction (right), with matter/antimatter annihilating back to pure energy. And yet, the fact that we see that everything in our Universe is consistent with being made of matter, and not antimatter, teaches us that perhaps something must have occurred, early on, to create a matter/antimatter asymmetry. (Credit: Dmitri Pogosyan/University of Alberta)

Whenever matter and antimatter meet in the Universe, they annihilate, and matter-antimatter annihilation produces a very specific signal. When a particle of matter collides with its antimatter counterpart, it typically results in the production of two photons (in the center-of-momentum frame of reference of the collision) with equal energies and opposite momenta. An electron annihilating with a positron, for instance, produces two photons of precisely 511,000 electron-Volts of energy apiece: the energy equivalent of the mass of the particles that annihilated, via Einstein’s E = mc².

We can see these annihilation signals throughout space wherever they occur, enabling us to identify where matter and antimatter meet. If there were:

- planets,
- stars,
- galaxies,
- clusters of galaxies,
- or even intergalactic regions of space,

where some were matter and some were antimatter, we’d see evidence of those high-energy photons from annihilation at the interface. The fact that we do see those photons, but so rarely and only in specific locations (mostly consistent with emissions from pulsars and active black holes), allows us to place tremendous constraints on what fraction of the Universe, on a variety of scales, can be made of antimatter.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*XDE4PMn7Ql2moKLA)
NASA’s Fermi Satellite has constructed the highest resolution, high-energy map of the Universe ever created. Without space-based observatories such as this one, we could never learn all that we have about the Universe, nor could we even accurately measure the gamma-ray sky. The evidence for large quantities of clustered antimatter is nonexistent. (Credit: NASA/DOE/Fermi LAT Collaboration)

Within a galaxy, you have to recognize that stars aren’t just isolated objects, but rather have extended structures around them: planets and moons, zodiacal dust in a plane, a Kuiper-like belt and a scattered disk, and an Oort-like cloud around them, spanning around a light-year in any direction. A few times in every million years — and remember, we’re already living in a Universe that’s 13.8 billion years old (or, to make things clearer, 13,800 million years old) — another star/star system will pass within one light-year or less of any given star. That means, over a star’s lifetime, it should experience thousands of interactions with another star/star system within our galaxy.

If there were any antimatter stars, complete with antimatter planets, antimatter moons, and antimatter bodies in their disk and the surrounding cloud, there would be a tremendous release of energy whenever the antimatter from that system interacted with the matter from the remaining stars in our galaxy. The fact that we don’t routinely see high-energy emissions, such as gamma-ray bursts, coming from within our galaxy tells us very strongly that there are no antimatter stars within our galaxy. The fact that we don’t see it in nearby galaxy severely constrains the amount of antimatter that could be present within them.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*b1m24yETUqoh2mLG)
In the main image, our galaxy’s antimatter jets are illustrated, blowing ‘Fermi bubbles’ in the halo of gas surrounding our galaxy. In the small, inset image, actual Fermi data shows the gamma-ray emissions resulting from this process. These “bubbles” arise from the energy produced by electron-positron annihilation: an example of matter and antimatter interacting and being converted into pure energy via E = mc². We are certain that no antimatter signature in our galaxy arises from either antimatter stars or large clumps of antimatter. (Credit: David A. Aguilar (main); NASA/GSFC/Fermi (inset))

We can scale this problem up to larger cosmic scales as well. Within galaxy groups and galaxy clusters, there are plenty of observations of galaxies moving through these clusters, some of which move through them at breakneck speed. We find plenty of evidence for stars and gas within the intracluster medium (the space between the galaxies within the cluster), and this gas interacts with the galaxies that move through that space. We see the effects of gas stripping, tidal disruption, and star formation in and around these galaxies. But, at the same time, there’s no evidence of matter-antimatter annihilation.

In other words, when we look at a galaxy group or a galaxy cluster, if any of the galaxies within them were made of antimatter, we would see the effects of matter-antimatter annihilation where these antimatter galaxies interact with the remainder of the group or cluster. The fact that we’ve observed thousands upon thousands of galaxy groups and clusters in the Universe, and never once have encountered a signal that would be consistent with this type of matter-antimatter annihilation, severely constrains how much antimatter could be out there.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*BeLGnMBvXjJ8NJRy)
Located within the Norma cluster of galaxies, ESO 137–001 speeds through the intracluster medium, where interactions between the matter in the space between galaxies and the rapidly-moving galaxy itself cause ram pressure-stripping, leading to a new population of tidal streams and intergalactic stars. Sustained interactions such as this can eventually remove all of the gas from within a galaxy, but also teach us that the galaxy, the cluster, and the gas within it is all made of matter, not antimatter. (Credit: NASA, ESA, CXC)

And on the largest cosmic scales of all, we can look at three different sets of systems.

- We can look at groups of galaxies that are colliding and merging with one another.
- We can look at separate galaxy clusters that are undergoing the process of colliding.
- And we can even look at the large-scale cosmic web, where enormous structures — collections of galaxies — can gather in filaments exceeding a billion light-years in length.

In all of these systems, we find evidence for all the complex physics we expect to see if everything in the system is made of the same type of matter: either 100% matter or 100% antimatter.

We see gas heating up and emitting X-rays where collisions occur. We see the evidence of this material separating from dark matter, as the “normal” stuff experiences drag, heating, and the formation of new stars, but the dark matter simply passing right through itself and the normal stuff unimpeded. We see the emitted light rotating in its polarization (Faraday rotation), consistent with the presence of magnetic fields on galactic scales. And, again, we see an absolute lack of matter-antimatter annihilation, teaching us that there are no “matter” regions and “antimatter” regions coming into contact with one another.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*k0wkqKvJ4Jk1xrqn)
The colliding galaxy cluster “El Gordo,” the largest one known in the observable Universe, showing the same evidence of dark matter and normal matter as other colliding clusters. There is practically no room for antimatter in this or at the interface of any known galaxies or galaxy clusters, severely constraining its possible presence in our Universe. (Credit: NASA, ESA, J. Jee (Univ. of California, Davis), J. Hughes (Rutgers Univ.), F. Menanteau (Rutgers Univ. & Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign), C. Sifon (Leiden Obs.), R. Mandelbum (Carnegie Mellon Univ.), L. Barrientos (Univ. Catolica de Chile), and K. Ng (Univ. of California, Davis))

It’s also possible that if our Universe was born with a network of topological defects, including:

- 1-dimensional defects, such as cosmic strings,
- 2-dimensional defects, such as domain walls,
- or 3-dimensional defects, such as cosmic textures,

we could have a discontinuity: where matter dominates on one side of the defect and antimatter dominates on the other side of the defect.

Unfortunately for these scenarios, they’ve all been ruled out with extraordinary confidence due to the large-scale clustering data in the Universe, as well as by detailed analyses of the cosmic microwave background. There are a number of theoretical mechanisms that one could propose to create separated regions in space, where one region contains matter and one contains antimatter, but all of them have at least one of the following two things in common:

1. They create a discontinuity in the clustering data of the Universe, one that would have appeared in galaxy surveys.
2. They create an interface between the matter and antimatter regions, which would lead to lines, sheets, or broader regions where matter and antimatter would annihilate.

The fact that these features are observationally absent means we can strongly conclude that our Universe, for all intents and purposes, is 100% matter, and only a negligible amount of antimatter.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*bXjEJ3Ss4khbaoNf)
Through the examination of colliding galaxy clusters, we can constrain the presence of antimatter from the emissions at the interfaces between them. In all cases, there is less than 1-part-in-100,000 antimatter in these galaxies, consistent with its creation from supermassive black holes and other high-energy sources. There is no evidence for cosmically abundant antimatter. (Credit: G. Steigman, JCAP, 2008)

But let’s say you wanted a wholly independent line of evidence to look at to determine the matter abundance in the Universe. Would such a thing, independent of stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the gamma-ray sky to points to, actually exist?

Indeed it would: we have the abundance of the light elements, formed during the early stages (the first few minutes) of the hot Big Bang, that were created during the earliest stages of nucleosynthesis.

Since the energy of each light wave is defined by its wavelength, and the Universe expands over time, the wavelength of each photon gets stretched as time marches forward. If we extrapolate backwards instead, however, we find that the wavelength of each photon was shorter — more compressed — in the past, meaning that the farther back we look in time, the hotter the Universe was back in those early stages. At some point, the Universe was so hot that neutral atoms were an impossibility to form, as there were not enough photons of sufficient energy to prevent electrons from stably binding to the atomic nuclei that were present. But if we like, we can go back even farther than that.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*uhqATDTwrDvb7FeN)
At early times (left), photons scatter off of electrons and are high-enough in energy to knock any atoms back into an ionized state. Once the Universe cools enough, and is devoid of such high-energy photons (right), they cannot interact with the neutral atoms, and instead simply free-stream, since they have the wrong wavelength to excite these atoms to a higher energy level. These neutral atoms will collectively block any visible light that attempts to pass through them until they are fully reionized once again: a process that won’t happen for hundreds of millions of years. (Credit: E. Siegel/Beyond the Galaxy)

We can go all the way back to an epoch where the Universe was so hot that even atomic nuclei couldn’t bind together. Every time they would attempt to do so, a photon would blast the individual protons and neutrons apart, preventing them from building up to heavier elements. Only when the Universe has cooled below a certain critical threshold — which occurs about 3 to 4 minutes after the start of the hot Big Bang — can we then start forming atomic nuclei that are heavier than a single, simple proton.

Once that moment arrives, we can build up the lightest elements in the Universe according to the rules of nuclear physics. Remarkably, the ratio of the light elements and their isotopes that we get out, including:

- hydrogen (a single proton),
- deuterium (a proton plus a neutron),
- helium-3 (two protons plus a neutron),
- helium-4 (two protons and two neutrons), and
- lithium-7 (four protons and three neutrons),

depends on only one parameter: the ratio of photons to the total number of protons and neutrons combined. When we take observations, both from the most pristine clouds of gas we can find and also from the imprint in the cosmic microwave background, we get the same answer: there’s about 1 proton or neutron for every 1.6 billion photons in the Universe. Even in the very early stages of the hot Big Bang, there was more matter than antimatter.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*qfVg1pp4OJ600YYr)
The lightest elements in the Universe were created in the early stages of the hot Big Bang, where raw protons and neutrons fused together to form isotopes of hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium. The beryllium was all unstable, leaving the Universe with only the first three elements prior to the formation of stars. The observed ratios of the elements allows us to quantify the degree of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the Universe by comparing the baryon density to the photon number density. (Credit: E. Siegel/Beyond the Galaxy (L); NASA/WMAP Science Team (R))

On the one hand, this is a good thing. If there were equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the Universe, almost all of it would have annihilated away. At present, there would be less than one particle of either matter or antimatter per cubic kilometer in the Universe remaining.

As it stands, however, the Universe is much denser than that by about a factor of a billion, and practically all of what remains is matter, not antimatter. But the only way we know of to convert energy into mass or to convert mass into energy always has the same result: the number of matter particles minus the number of antimatter particles is always a constant.

Somehow, there has to be something else going on with the particles in the Universe — beyond what the Standard Model predicts — to create the Universe as we observe it to be today. If we approach the problem scientifically, that means extrapolating back to the earliest state of the hot Big Bang, where particles and antiparticles of all types could easily be created at the highest energies, and to see what it would take for the Universe to create a matter-antimatter asymmetry where there was none initially.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*5kv1BDQayXXJYwJO)
Quarks and electrons come in slightly greater numbers than antiquarks and positrons. In a completely symmetric Universe, matter and antimatter annihilate away leaving trace and equal amounts of both. But in our Universe, matter dominates, indicating an early, fundamental asymmetry. (Credit: E. Siegel/Beyond the Galaxy)

This is why we care so strongly about the problem of baryogenesis, or how there came to be more matter than antimatter in the Universe. Yes, there are some general things we can say about how to create one from an initially symmetric state, as was shown by Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov, back in 1967. All you need to do is meet the following three criteria, known as the Sakharov conditions:

1. The Universe must be out of thermal equilibrium.
2. The Universe must contain examples of both C-symmetry and CP-symmetry violation.
3. And the Universe must admit interactions that violate the conservation of baryon number.

While we don’t know the exact mechanism behind how the Universe came to have more matter than antimatter, we know that it was a necessary step in permitting our Universe, and the objects and creatures in it, to exist as they do. Numerous experiments from around the world are constantly probing matter and antimatter at subatomic scales, searching for any hints of baryon-number violation and for additional C-symmetry and CP-symmetry violating interactions.

However, a Universe that doesn’t have more matter than antimatter in it is thoroughly ruled out by observations. We might not have found the “tree of life” that allowed for our very existence, but thanks to the physics we know so far, we can be confident we’re at least looking in the right forest.

By：Ethan Siegel
Link：https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-is-our-universe-truly-matter-dominated-99fabca63e5c

Ask Ethan: Is our Universe truly matter-dominated?

The laws of physics don’t prefer matter over antimatter. So how can we be certain that distant stars & galaxies aren’t made of antimatter?


[Feel free to read all my articles on the anti-censorship long content platform yakihonne.com.
](https://yakihonne.com/users/nprofile1qqsy63zy8ynu8cch4cec4vrmu44w0xzw4y3zf8hyjc8uld4l0mfytzcpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6vp39eukz6mfdphkumn99e3k7mgpremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6vpj9ejx7unpveskxar0wfujummjvuq3gamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7v5mp5x)

I’m sorry, everyone, but we need to talk about Hycean worlds and dimethyl sulfide. If you’ve been following the news, you might have heard that there’s a planet out there that is:

- 120 light-years from Earth (this part is true),
- that’s in what astronomers call the “habitable zone” of its star (which is technically, but not practically, true),
- that’s larger and more massive than Earth (which many still, erroneously, call a super-Earth),
- that’s covered in a liquid water ocean (which is not a claim that’s supported by the data),
- and that contains dimethyl sulfide in its atmosphere (which may or may not be true), a compound that is only made by biological processes here on Earth.

This planet, K2–18b, was indeed observed by the JWST, and did have a fantastic spectrum taken of its atmosphere, revealing many fascinating details about it.

However, there is no evidence that K2–18b is a Hycean world at all; no water was detected at all. There’s only dubious evidence for dimethyl sulfide, and even if it does exist in the atmosphere, assigning a biological cause to it is an incredibly dubious proposition. Yet if you’ve read headlines from around the internet, it isn’t just the usual suspects like the New York Post or the Daily Mail with outrageous, alien life-driven headlines, but normally reliable places like National Geographic, the BBC, and right here on Big Think.

But I’m betting that you don’t want hype and exaggeration; you want the scientific truth. Let’s take a look at what’s really going on with exoplanet K2–18b.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*V3ea3QzejGQYImY4)
The most common “sized” world in the galaxy is a super-Earth, between 2 and 10 Earth masses, such as Kepler 452b, illustrated at right. But the illustration of this world as “Earth-like” in any way may be mistaken, as it’s more likely to either have a large, volatile gas envelope, making it a mini-Neptune, or to be a hot, stripped planetary core: like a scaled-up version of Mercury. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/T. Pyle)

## Not like Earth at all

We’re well aware that when it comes to planets that are about the physical size of Earth, there are numerous possibilities for what that world could be like.

- It could be just like Earth: with a thin atmosphere, liquid water on its surface, but also continents and land masses alongside them.
- It could be like Earth, but wetter: with a thin atmosphere and a surface that’s fully covered in water, with no continents or land masses except beneath the watery depths.
- It could be dry and/or hot: with a thin atmosphere (or even no atmosphere), practically no water at all, and a surface that’s solid and rocky, like Mars or Mercury.
- It could be frozen and cold: where beneath whatever atmosphere it has (if any), there’s an icy, water-containing surface, with potentially a liquid, subsurface watery ocean beneath it.
- Or it could have developed its own thickened atmosphere, potentially with clouds, due to volcanic gases and other chemically produced compounds. Much like Venus, these worlds are unlikely to have surface temperatures conducive to watery oceans.

You might ask, then, when it comes to exoplanet K2–18b, which is at about the same relative distance from its parent star as Earth is from the Sun in terms of temperature, which one of these possibilities best describes it?

The answer, surprisingly, is none of them. None of these possibilities describe K2–18b, because it’s massive, puffy, and more Neptune-like than Earth-like.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:828/0*OS70zINf8QadqOlN)
When starlight passes through a transiting exoplanet’s atmosphere, signatures are imprinted. Depending on the wavelength and intensity of both emission and absorption features, the presence or absence of various atomic and molecular species within an exoplanet’s atmosphere can be revealed through the technique of transit spectroscopy. JWST cannot get spectra for Earth-sized planets around Sun-like stars, but Habitable Worlds Observatory finally will. (Credit: ESA/David Sing/PLAnetary Transits and Oscillations of stars (PLATO) mission)

Think about these facts for a moment.

K2–18b is about 2.6 times the radius of Earth and 8.6 times the mass of Earth. This means its density is less than half of Earth’s density, implying that it has a large envelope of volatile gases surrounding it.

The maximum mass/size a planet can have and still have a rocky surface beneath a relatively thin atmosphere is about twice the mass of Earth and about 1.3 times the radius of Earth; K2–18b exceeds both of those values by a large amount.

And for large, massive planets that are more like Neptune/Uranus than Earth/Mars/Venus, their stronger gravitational pull makes it easy for them to hold onto the lightest gases of all: hydrogen and helium, whereas for a small, low-mass planet like our own, our gravity is insufficient to prevent solar radiation from boiling those atoms/molecules away.

A recent study has shown that any planet that’s more than about 1.75 times the radius of Earth must be Neptune-like, not Earth-like, and that same study showed that if a hydrogen/helium atmosphere reaches even half-a-percent of the planet’s overall mass, the surface pressure will be tens of thousands of times as great as it is on Earth’s surface, while the temperature will reach into the thousands of degrees. K2–18b, therefore, cannot be an ocean-covered, Earth-analogue world.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*AXzbRLUI2UdwDVIe)
The CHEOPS mission discovered three planets around the star Nu2 Lupi. The innermost planet is rocky and contains only a thin atmosphere, while the second and third planets discovered have large, volatile-rich envelopes. Although some are still calling them super-Earths, it’s very clear that not only are they not rocky, but most of the planets we call super-Earths are not like Earth at all in any meaningful way. This extends to all exoplanets with a radius above 1.7 Earth radii, with many of smaller sizes still having hydrogen and helium envelopes. (Credit: ESA/CHEOPS collaboration)

## What did our telescopes actually find in K2–18b’s atmosphere?

Believe it or not, this new JWST data isn’t the first time we’ve looked at this exoplanet’s atmosphere, and also isn’t the first time we dubiously claimed to find something interesting for the possibility of life.

Back in 2019, the Hubble Space Telescope took spectroscopic observations of K2–18b, an observation partly motivated by the fact that at its distance from its parent star, this exoplanet receives about the same amount of power-per-square-meter from its star as Earth does. Those observations claimed to detect:

- a thick hydrogen-rich atmosphere,
- with detected clouds,
- and also with a possible detection of water vapor.

The hydrogen is definite; it tells us this is not an Earth-like or super-Earth world, but a Neptune-like planet with a thick gas envelope around it. The clouds are a possible interpretation of the data, but the evidence is not a slam dunk. Even if there are clouds, they’re not necessarily made of water; almost any gas that can condense can make clouds. And the reason the water vapor was only tagged as a “possible detection” is because the Hubble Space Telescope can only see a little bit into the infrared, and where it took its spectrum of K2–18b, the potential signatures of water vapor and methane (a very different gas) could not be distinguished.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/format:webp/0*BLo5UozGAjHnvVJ1.jpg)
This plot shows the spectrum, from 0.8–5.0 microns, of exoplanet K2–18b as taken with JWST. The signal is shown with data points with error bars; the interpretation of the signal by the discovering group is shown alongside it. (Credit: N. Madhusudhan et al., ApJL accepted, 2023)

But JWST, with its spectroscopic capabilities, was capable of going much farther into the infrared. As K2–18b passes in front of its parent star relative to our line-of-sight, some of that starlight gets “filtered” through the planet’s atmosphere, allowing us to measure its transmission spectrum and seeing what molecules are leaving their “fingerprint” behind. When it viewed K2–18b during such a transit event, taking its spectrum with both the NIRISS and the NIRSpec instruments, it measured the spectrum over a range spanning from 0.8 to 5.0 microns, which is much larger than Hubble’s range of 1.1–1.7 microns.

The results, shown above, definitively show that what was tagged as a “possible water signature” by Hubble was in fact methane, and that it’s methane and carbon dioxide that are most likely present in the atmosphere of this world.

You’ll also note, if you look at the above image, there’s another set of letters indicating a molecule: DMS. This represents dimethyl sulfide, and although the authors claim a detection of this molecule, it’s only a small “wiggle” feature in the spectrum that would indicate its presence. Owing to the large error bars/uncertainties on even this incredible JWST data, we cannot unambiguously claim the presence of this gas.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*E4OmD2Povowsm5ZS)
What do planets outside our solar system, or exoplanets, look like? A variety of possibilities are shown in this illustration. Scientists discovered the first exoplanets in the 1990s. As of 2023, the tally stands at just over 5,000 confirmed exoplanets. None are known to be inhabited, but a few raise tantalizing possibilities: largely among the Earth-sized planets, not the super-Earth-sized ones. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech)

## Hycean world?

While a water-covered Earth-sized world would be an incredibly interesting place to look for life, and in particular to look for the biosignatures associated with the processes that occur in ocean waters, it’s an enormous stretch to apply those same criteria to a gas giant world like K2–18b.

Why?

Because there was no water detected on K2–18b.

That’s right, I’ll say it again: these new results from JWST reverse the earlier claim, from Hubble data, that suspected there was water/water vapor present in the atmosphere of K2–18b. We now know that signature was actually the imprint of methane, which was mistaken for water in the earlier study.

That doesn’t mean that there’s no water on K2–18b, but it does mean that where we could have possibly detected water using our current technologies — in the upper atmosphere of this gas giant planet — we now know that there is no water there. There could perhaps still be water in a lower layer of the atmosphere, or deep down below the volatile gases closer to the actual surface (however far down it may be), but this is definitively not a Hycean, ocean-covered world as many have claimed.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*IAC5n9x5Vk0vxEJi)
When an exoplanet passes in front of its parent star, a portion of that starlight will filter through the exoplanet’s atmosphere, allowing us to break up that light into its constituent wavelengths and to characterize the atomic and molecular composition of the atmosphere. If the planet is inhabited, we may reveal unique biosignatures, but if the planet has a thick, gas-rich envelope of volatiles around it, the prospects for habitability will be very low. Nearly all so-called “super-Earth” worlds that have had their transit spectrum measured have revealed these characteristic volatile envelopes, suggesting that they’re mini-Neptunes instead of super-Earths. K2–18b is no different. (Credit: NASA Ames/JPL-Caltech)

But on the other hand, maybe it really is a Hycean world, just not an Earth-like one.

Let’s imagine that the hydrogen in the atmosphere of this exoplanet is actually a very thin layer, and that beneath it there’s an enormous amount of water. In fact, let’s imagine that there’s more water on this world than there is on any world in the Solar System, including Jupiter’s and Saturn’s water-rich moons. If you do that, a 2020 study showed that a very water-rich interior beneath a thin hydrogen atmosphere can lead to the production of carbon dioxide and methane in the upper atmosphere. Those predictions, it turns out, are consistent with what JWST saw.

In other words, it’s not entirely implausible that maybe, just maybe, this is a mini-Neptune version of a water-rich Hycean world, and maybe there really is some sort of extremely exotic form of life that exists on a world like this. After all, the JWST spectrum shows a (weak) indication of dimethyl sulfide, which we know here on Earth is produced biologically. Could that truly be what’s happening here?

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/format:webp/0*mRJSmP2wmS_y1qiW.jpg)
Spectra of K2–18 b, obtained with Webb’s NIRISS (Near-Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph) and NIRSpec (Near-Infrared Spectrograph), display an abundance of methane and carbon dioxide in the exoplanet’s atmosphere, as well as a possible detection of a molecule called dimethyl sulfide (DMS). However, the significance of the data could potentially indicate many other outcomes besides the one pushed by the study’s authors. (Credit: NASA, CSA, ESA, R. Crawford (STScI), J. Olmsted (STScI); Science: N. Madhusudhan (Cambridge University))

## About that dimethyl sulfide

Here on Earth, dimethyl sulfide is produced by living organisms. It’s what we call a “terrestrial biosignature,” meaning that when we see it here, on our planet, it’s indicative that some form of life is producing it. Most of Earth’s dimethyl sulfide is produced by phytoplankton and bacteria, and it represents the dominant form of organic sulfur found in Earth’s oceans. It’s reasonable, therefore, to think that if we find a signature of the same molecule, this dimethyl sulfide, on another planet, then perhaps that planet is a good candidate for life.

But did we find dimethyl sulfide on exoplanet K2–18b?

The evidence is, sadly, lacking. When we want to claim a “detection” in astronomy, there are certain confidence thresholds we need to consider. We measure these in terms of statistical significance, where, assuming that the only errors are statisical:

- a 1-sigma signal will turn out to be a fluke 32% of the time,
- a 2-sigma signal is a fluke 5% of the time,
- a 3-sigma signal is a fluke 0.3% of the time,
- a 4-sigma signal is a fluke 0.01% of the time,
- and a 5-sigma signal is a fluke only 0.00006% of the time.

5-sigma is what we consider the “gold standard” for discovery in astrophysics and particle physics, as many signals of 3-sigma or less often turn out to “regress to the mean” with increased/improved data, and turn out not to be bona fide detections after all.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/format:webp/0*0HmnVjZGCPX6dCRM.jpg)
If you want to quantify how strong your result is, you measure it in terms of “sigma,” or the statistical significance. A result that’s 1-sigma significant is only 68% confident; in physics and astrophysics, 5-sigma is the gold standard to announce a discovery. (Credit: Ted Hessing/Six Sigma study guide)

And this is where we run into big, big problems with the interpretation of the JWST spectra.

- Did we detect methane? Absolutely; that signature actually crosses the 5-sigma threshold, and we can be extremely confident that it is indeed present in the atmosphere of K2–18b.
- Did we detect carbon dioxide? Probably; we have crossed the 3-sigma threshold there, which leads us to believe that, probably more likely than not, there really is carbon dioxide in K2–18b’s atmosphere.
- And did we detect dimethyl sulfide? It’s far too early to say. The detection significance is only at about 1-sigma, which means we can’t rule it out, but also that the evidence supporting its existence is extremely flimsy.

If you were only 1-sigma confident in your ability to cross the street without getting run over, you would absolutely not choose to cross that street. Similarly, if you’re only 1-sigma confident in your scientific result, you should demand that you obtain more and superior data before you claim a detection. It’s also worth noting — and this very much matters to anyone familiar with the field — that all of the claims of dimethyl sulfide and K2–18b as a Hycean world can all be traced back to a single person: Cambridge scientist Nikku Madhusudhan. The NASA release, the Cambridge release, and his past and current work represent the full suite of all primary sources discussing the scenario of a thin hydrogen atmosphere with a water-rich surface beneath it, where dimethyl sulfide is produced on K2–18b, in all of the scientific literature.

It doesn’t mean that the claim is wrong, but it does mean that this claim is being pushed by one and only one person/group, in a situation where independent confirmation is absolutely required.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*dFM0FXku9H8ncRyf)
Our notion of a habitable zone is defined by the propensity of an Earth-sized planet with an Earth-like atmosphere at that particular distance from its parent star to have the capacity for liquid water, without a cover of ice, on its surface. Although this describes the conditions that Earth possesses, it is unknown whether this is a requirement, or even a preference, of life. None are known to be inhabited, but a few raise tantalizing possibilities: largely among the Earth-sized planets, not the super-Earth-sized ones with large, volatile gaseous envelopes around them. (Credit: Chester Harman; NASA/JPL, PHL at UPR Arecibo)

## Recap of the evidence: where it ends and where speculation begins

So, where are we as respects exoplanet K2–18b? We know that it has methane in its atmosphere. We strongly suspect it has carbon dioxide in its atmosphere. We see suggestive but not convincing evidence of dimethyl sulfide, and we also note that if JWST has indeed detected dimethyl sulfide and if it’s of biological origin, there must be an enormous amount of phytoplankton/bacteria-like creatures producing it on this world: far greater than any sort of production that occurs in Earth’s oceans. However, we also see no evidence that K2–18b has water; we see no evidence for water there at all. And, most importantly, there is no detection of any biosignature on this world.

It still might be, of course. Maybe the model of K2–18b with a thin hydrogen atmosphere, a thick water ocean beneath it, and rampant biological activity producing dimethyl sulfide will turn out to be correct. But at this point, that’s a series of speculations all built atop one another, as the data is also very consistent with none of those things being true.

It’s a huge problem that, in the search for extraterrestrial life, so many of us — astronomy and astrobiology professionals included, not just journalists — are quick to jump to conclusions without sufficiently strong evidence. Answering the question of “are we alone” in the Universe is finally within our scientific reach. We must be careful, above all else, to ensure that we’re getting it right.

By：Ethan Siegel
Link：https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/k2-18b-an-inhabited-ocean-world-dont-bet-on-it-755b9553817f

K2–18b: an inhabited ocean world? Don’t bet on it

Some fascinating observations of K2–18b have come along with horrendous, speculative communications. There’s no evidence for oceans or life.


[Feel free to read all my articles on the anti-censorship long content platform yakihonne.com.
](https://yakihonne.com/users/nprofile1qqsy63zy8ynu8cch4cec4vrmu44w0xzw4y3zf8hyjc8uld4l0mfytzcpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6vp39eukz6mfdphkumn99e3k7mgpremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6vpj9ejx7unpveskxar0wfujummjvuq3gamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7v5mp5x)

Humanity has exhausted almost all its chances to stop a lethal global self-inflicted catastrophe. This isn’t hyperbole, as this was the main message from the IEA’s latest report. In fact, this latest report has taken a far more direct, pragmatic and damning turn compared to the IEA’s past publications, marking a significant shift in the influential organisation’s attitude. It has given big polluters and heel-dragging developed countries nowhere to hide, ensuring upcoming milestone climate summits like Cop28 aren’t greenwashed to uselessness. As such, it may have just saved the world.

The IEA does net-zero roadmap reports and updates them every few years. These look at the state of climate change and our progress towards reducing our impact on the planet, then gives advice to the international community through regular reports on what we must do to advance our progress to ensure we limit climate change to acceptable levels.

** Quick interruption, if you want more from me, or interact with me, go follow me on Bluesky**

Their last report update was in 2021. This landmark report was the first to state that fossil fuel expansion needed to stop immediately in order to limit global warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius. Moreover, it advised that new unscaled and currently expensive technologies, such as carbon capture, hydrogen and bioenergy, were needed to make around half of the emissions’ reduction between now and 2050. In the years since, this report has significantly influenced international and national climate action and legislation. It has spurred massive investments into carbon capture and other unproven technologies, whilst helping to tighten international efforts to limit oil expansion.

But, the updated 2023 report has changed tack quite dramatically. Now, it sees only 35% of emissions cuts coming from unproven technologies like carbon capture, hydrogen and biofuels. Instead, it is placing a much larger emphasis on already existing renewable energy, efficiency measures and decarbonisation of industries. While this might sound like a slight change, it leaves big polluters and oil-dependent nations no room to greenwash their way through net-zero and could dramatically change the course of climate action over the foreseeable future. Let me explain.

Big polluters and oil-dependent countries used the IEA’s 2021 report to avoid decarbonisation. They prioritised carbon capture as a way for them to reach net-zero. You can see this with companies like Chevron and countries like Saudi Arabia, which plan to invest in carbon capture and continue oil extraction and sales well past 2050. However, as my previous article “Can Carbon Capture Save The Oil Industry?” stated, this is both economically and practically impossible as reliable and verifiable carbon capture is expensive and is proving incredibly challenging to scale. This is why the IEA has found that the history of carbon capture “has largely been one of unmet expectations.” They have even found that the carbon capture sites in action today aren’t being used to reach net-zero, and are instead used for greenwashing and allowing oil companies to promote more expansion. As such, the 2023 IEA report has massively scaled back their carbon capture capacity advice from 980 Mt of CO2 by 2050 to just under 400 Mt of CO2. That is a reduction of 40%!

The carbon capture that the IEA still recommends isn’t for offsetting emissions that can be easily reduced through other technologies like renewables. Instead, they are expressly there to help industries that can’t fully decarbonise, such as some heavy industries, to reach net-zero.

Since 2021, renewables and electrification have seen record-breaking growth, and the costs of these technologies have plummeted even further than we thought they would. As such, the IEA is now emphasising these technologies as, by far, the main route to net-zero. This is because they are proven, cost-effective and are already efficiently scaling and replacing older carbon-emitting technologies. They also found that while renewable and electrification growth is at a record high, it is far from the levels needed to reach net-zero by 2050 and limit climate change to 1.5 degrees.

These two significant points close a major loophole in the 2021 report, leaving oil companies and oil-dependent nations no wriggle room to continue their planet-destroying ways. It firmly points the finger at the world’s biggest polluters, giving them no choice but to reduce their emissions and wean themselves off fossil fuels rather than engaging in high-tech greenwashing.

Why is this important?

Well, we are rapidly approaching COP28. This climate summit is poised to be one of the most influential ever. This is because climate change has started to bite over the past few years, and many countries are now painfully aware of the dangers they face. Moreover, this is one of the last chances we have to create an international agreement to phase out fossil fuels before it’s too late. If such an agreement doesn’t happen at Cop28, then massive amounts of future emissions will be locked in with new coal, oil and gas infrastructure expansion, leading to us blowing well past our climate targets.

What’s more worrying is who is heading up this historic summit. Not only is it being hosted in Dubai, a country which intends to use carbon capture to continue its oil production for decades to come, but it is being headed by Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, who is also chief executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, which also plans on continued oil extraction past 2050 with the aid of carbon capture. So, there is already a gargantuan precedent for oil sympathy and extensive greenwashing at the summit.

This massive clash of interests means that an international fossil phase-out agreement will be incredibly difficult. But, thanks to the IEA’s updated report, countries in favour of such an act now have the ammunition they need to get such legislation past these oil giants.

This report also had a glimmer of hope. They found that the pathway to limiting climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius, which would mitigate the vast majority of the damage of climate change, is still open, thanks to the immense progress we have made with clean energy over the past few years. This progress has been so dramatic that the IEA is now predicting that fossil fuel demand will peak before 2030! However, this hope did come with a caveat. You see, developing countries need to reach net-zero early, by 2045 at the latest, to limit climate change to 1.5 degrees. This demonstrates just how slow climate action has been compared to where it needed to be, and will turbocharge the talks at Cop28.

So, that’s how the IEA’s latest report could save the world. By recognising the damage of greenwashing and the brilliant boom of renewables, they have been able to come up with a far more watertight and pragmatic road map to saving the planet and ourselves from climate doom. All we can now do is hope that this strengthens calls to action at Cop28 and leads to the massive and cohesive international efforts to banish fossil fuels that are needed despite the clash of interests at the summit.

By：Will Lockett
Link：https://medium.com/predict/the-ieas-latest-report-may-have-just-saved-the-world-4a1e12b321f1

The IEA’s Latest Report May Have Just Saved The World

There is nowhere left to hide — but there is also hope.


[Feel free to read all my articles on the anti-censorship long content platform yakihonne.com.
](https://yakihonne.com/users/nprofile1qqsy63zy8ynu8cch4cec4vrmu44w0xzw4y3zf8hyjc8uld4l0mfytzcpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6vp39eukz6mfdphkumn99e3k7mgpremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6vpj9ejx7unpveskxar0wfujummjvuq3gamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7v5mp5x)

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*UjjYLR8YsmUBf3U2)
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Ladies and gentlemen, climate change is a bit like that family gathering you dread every year — it’s coming whether you like it or not. But fear not! We have a secret weapon up our sleeves, and it’s not your uncle’s awkward jokes. It’s Artificial Intelligence (AI), here to save the day with a side of humor.

So, can AI really save climate change? Well, it’s time to dig into the nitty-gritty and find out while sharing a chuckle or two along the way. Buckle up, because we’re about to embark on a rollercoaster ride of AI-powered climate antics.

## The Bright Side: How AI is Giving Climate Change a Run for its Money

### 1. Weather Predictions: AI vs. Meteorologists’ Crystal Balls
Let’s be honest, traditional weather predictions are as reliable as that fortune teller with the eight-ball. But enter AI, armed with endless data and complex algorithms. It’s like upgrading from a magic eight-ball to a GPS system for the weather! Say goodbye to picnics ruined by unexpected rain — AI’s got your back.

### 2. Renewable Energy: AI, the Green Energy Guru

AI isn’t just good at solving puzzles; it’s also a pro at optimizing renewable energy production. Imagine AI as your personal energy coach, helping you harvest solar and wind power more efficiently. It’s like having a fitness trainer for the planet!

### 3. Smart Grids: Keeping the Energy Flow Smoothly

Picture this: your energy grid is as smart as your phone. Thanks to AI, smart grids can balance energy supply and demand in real time. It’s like having a personal chef who ensures your dinner portions are always perfect — no waste, just the right amount. AI, the portion-control expert!

### 4. Energy Efficiency: AI-Powered Savings

AI doesn’t just optimize energy production; it can also help you slash your electricity bill. Smart thermostats, lights, and appliances adjust themselves based on your usage patterns. It’s like having a home that knows when you’re hot or cold and adjusts the temperature accordingly. AI, the ultimate comfort buddy!

### 5. Climate Modeling: Cracking the Climate Code

Understanding climate change can be more perplexing than trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube blindfolded. AI simplifies it by crunching vast datasets and creating predictive models. It’s like having a tutor who breaks down complex problems into manageable chunks. Thanks, AI, for making climate science less mind-boggling!

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*0_w3YYDpp26CtSSq)
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

## The Not-So-Sunny Side: AI’s Limitations in the Climate Quest

### 1. Garbage In, Garbage Out: When AI Plays the Blame Game
AI is only as good as the data it’s given. If we feed it biased or incomplete information, it will regurgitate biased or incomplete results. So, if we’re not careful, AI might end up perpetuating the same environmental injustices it’s meant to fix. Oops, AI, did you skip the ethics class?

### 2. Energy Appetite: AI’s Never-Ending Hunger

AI isn’t exactly a minimalist when it comes to energy consumption. Training complex AI models demands a ton of computing power, which, you guessed it, requires more energy. It’s like having a personal trainer who snacks on donuts between workouts. AI, you’re not the greenest of machines, are you?

### 3. Job Displacement: The Robo-Revolt

AI might automate jobs in industries like transportation and manufacturing. While this can be great for efficiency, it can also leave workers unemployed. It’s like having a robot colleague who takes your coffee breaks but still expects you to do all the work. AI, you’re the office slacker!

### 4. Unintended Consequences: When AI Gets Ahead of Itself

AI can make decisions faster than a squirrel can snatch your picnic sandwich. But these lightning-speed choices might not always have the best outcomes. It’s like having a decision-making buddy who jumps to conclusions faster than a kangaroo on caffeine. Slow down, AI!

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*QEEksVT6EasxoMUs)
Photo by Antoine GIRET on Unsplash

## The Future: AI’s Heroic Feats for Climate Change

### 1. climate-Resilient Agriculture: AI’s Green Thumb
AI-powered agriculture can help farmers optimize crop yields, reduce water usage, and adapt to changing climate conditions. It’s like having a green-thumbed robot tending to your backyard garden. Garden parties, anyone?

### 2. Carbon Capture: The Vacuum Cleaner for the Sky

AI can help us develop advanced carbon capture technologies to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. It’s like having a vacuum cleaner for the sky. Goodbye, carbon dust bunnies!

### 3. Environmental Monitoring: The Guardian Angel in the Sky

AI can monitor and analyze environmental data from satellites, drones, and sensors, helping us detect and respond to environmental disasters more efficiently. It’s like having a high-tech guardian angel watching over the planet. Thanks, AI, for saving us from nature’s tantrums!

### 4. Green Transportation: AI on the Road

AI-driven electric and autonomous vehicles can reduce emissions and make transportation more efficient. It’s like having a chauffeur who never gets lost and never gets road rage. AI, you’re the ultimate road trip buddy!

### 5. Consumer Sustainability: Shopping with a Conscience

AI can provide consumers with real-time information about the environmental impact of their purchases, helping them make eco-friendly choices. It’s like having a shopping assistant who nudges you away from the plastic aisle. AI, you’re the eco-conscious shopper’s best friend!

Photo by Matt Palmer on Unsplash

## Conclusion: Can AI Be the Hero We Need?

So, can AI save climate change? The answer isn’t a simple yes or no. AI has the potential to be a superhero in the fight against climate change, but it’s not without its quirks and challenges. It’s like having a quirky sidekick with a knack for solving puzzles but a tendency to eat all the snacks.

As we embrace AI’s power to predict, optimize, and innovate, let’s not forget that the real superheroes in this story are us — humans. AI can be a valuable tool in our mission to combat climate change, but it’s up to us to wield it responsibly, ethically, and with a sense of humor. After all, a good laugh is essential when you’re tackling something as monumental as climate change. So, let’s save the planet, one joke at a time, with the help of our trusty AI sidekick!

And remember folks, when it comes to saving the world, it’s not just about AI; it’s about “AI” (Astonishing Individuals) working together. Let’s do this!

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*_SrAjD8sQ4R7KbXw)
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

By：AIFeed
Link：https://medium.com/@hoofdmanpieter/can-ai-save-climate-change-b21cf32b3d52

Can AI 🤖 save Earth from climate change? Explore the AI vs. climate battle for answers and a laugh! 🌍🌤


[Feel free to read all my articles on the anti-censorship long content platform yakihonne.com.
](https://yakihonne.com/users/nprofile1qqsy63zy8ynu8cch4cec4vrmu44w0xzw4y3zf8hyjc8uld4l0mfytzcpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6vp39eukz6mfdphkumn99e3k7mgpremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6vpj9ejx7unpveskxar0wfujummjvuq3gamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7v5mp5x)

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*AvWVKW7a-Ad0_1Xl)
Photo by NASA on Unsplash

Our cosmic journey begins with the mysterious cosmic bubble, a concept that has ignited the imaginations of astronomers, cosmologists, and starry-eyed dreamers for generations. This celestial puzzle serves as a gateway to the deepest cosmic mysteries, inviting us to embark on a cosmic adventure that transcends the boundaries of human understanding. In this article, we will dive into the cosmic bubble, unraveling its profound importance, and immerse ourselves in the awe-inspiring mysteries it both reveals and conceals.

Imagine standing at the precipice of the cosmic bubble, gazing out into the cosmic abyss. It’s as if you’re on the edge of a frontier, peering into the unknown vastness of the universe. The bubble acts as a cosmic veil, teasing us with the tantalizing questions it poses about the nature of what lies beyond.

In the cosmic ballet within NGC 3324, a mesmerizing spectacle unfolds. Picture a landscape of towering "mountains" and serene "valleys," illuminated by the shimmering glow of distant stars. This enchanting vista, unveiled through the revolutionary lens of NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, transcends the boundaries of our observable universe, granting us an extraordinary glimpse into the hidden realms of celestial birth.

These natural wonders, affectionately known as the "Cosmic Cliffs," paint an otherworldly canvas. Webb's exquisite imagery evokes the feeling of gazing upon craggy peaks under the soft radiance of moonlight. But this cosmic masterpiece tells a deeper tale. In reality, it captures the majestic fringes of a colossal gaseous chasm nestled within NGC 3324.

These towering "peaks," reaching an astonishing height of roughly 7 light-years, constitute the boundary of this celestial chasm. What's fascinating is that this vast expanse owes its formation to the tireless interplay of ultraviolet radiance and the tumultuous stellar winds, both emanating from the blazing, youthful giants at the heart of this cosmic sanctuary, just beyond the frame of our view.

The cosmic artisan at work here is the relentless bombardment of blistering ultraviolet rays from these stellar luminaries. Over cosmic eons, they have meticulously carved away at the nebula's colossal wall, shaping it ever so gradually. Yet, in defiance of this celestial sculpting, sturdy pillars of cosmic matter rise steadfastly above the luminous gas wall. What might appear as ephemeral "steam" ascending from these celestial "mountains" is, in reality, a ballet of hot, ionized gas and dancing dust particles, choreographed in response to the unending cosmic symphony.

What lends this revelation its true brilliance is Webb’s unique ability to unearth the universe’s concealed treasures. This celestial ballet features burgeoning stellar nurseries and individual stars that have remained hidden from the prying eyes of traditional visible-light observations.

It is Webb’s remarkable sensitivity to the nuances of infrared light that allows it to penetrate the cosmic veil of dust and unveil these elusive celestial denizens. In this captivating image, protostellar jets burst forth from some of these youthful stars, resembling cosmic fountains of creation. Meanwhile, amidst the dark, dusty embrace of the nebula, the youngest stellar entities reveal themselves as crimson dots, signifying the inception of the majestic cosmic narrative that is star formation. Capturing these elusive celestial events has long been a challenge, yet Webb’s exceptional capabilities empower it to chronicle these cosmic sagas with unparalleled precision.

The revelations bestowed upon us by the James Webb Space Telescope, as it casts its gaze upon NGC 3324, hold the promise of illuminating the process of star formation. This process unfolds across the vast embroidery of cosmic time, set in motion by the relentless expansion of the eroding cavity. As the incandescent, ionized rim advances into the nebula, it pushes steadily against the billowing clouds of gas and cosmic dust. Should this luminous rim encounter any perturbed matter, the escalating pressure will birth new celestial entities as the material collapses under its potent embrace. Thus, NGC 3324 becomes an integral part of the timeless cosmic saga—a story of creation, evolution, and the eternal dance of celestial bodies.

At the heart of this cosmic intrigue lies a fundamental truth—the finite nature of light itself. While light is the speedster of the cosmos, it is not limitless in its velocity. Given the universe’s estimated age of approximately 13.8 billion years, there exist regions so distant that their emitted light has not yet had the chance to traverse the expanse and reach our eyes. It’s as if these far-flung cosmic realms are whispers in the void, awaiting their turn to be heard.

This phenomenon gives birth to the concept of the observable universe taking on the shape of in a time far before our own. It’s an awe-inspiring realization—our perception of the universe is constrained by the finite speed of light. We are, in essence, gazing at a snapshot of the universe frozen in time, its vastness extending far beyond the limits of our observational reach.

But here’s where the cosmic narrative takes a captivating spin—the universe is in a constant state of expansion. Picture the cosmic bubble as a colossal, ever-inflating balloon. Galaxies, those cosmic metropolises of stars and matter, are like distant landmarks on the balloon’s surface. As the universe expands, it stretches the very fabric of space itself, causing galaxies to recede from us, like ships sailing into an infinite cosmic sea.

This celestial dance, where galaxies move apart due to the universe’s expansion, gives rise to a mesmerizing cosmic phenomenon known as the cosmological redshift. It’s akin to a celestial orchestra tuning its instruments to play in harmony with the cosmic rhythms. Light, our messenger, participates in this symphony, shifting its spectrum toward the red end. It’s as if the universe itself is exhaling in cosmic majesty, and we are here to witness its breathtaking performance.

Now, as you stand on the edge of this cosmic bubble, take a moment to absorb the sheer magnitude of this revelation. The cosmic bubble is not just a boundary; it’s a cosmic gateway, an invitation to explore the beginning of the universe’s mysteries that lie beyond. It beckons us to contemplate the vastness of existence and our place within it.

This concept unfurls profound questions. Does the universe extend infinitely beyond the cosmic bubble, a boundless expanse that transcends human comprehension? Alternatively, could it be that the universe is bounded, hidden thresholds that challenge our understanding of the cosmic fabric?

Furthermore, the cosmic bubble leads us to ponder the existence of a multiverse—an ensemble of parallel universes, each with its unique set of cosmic rules. Are these alternate realities separated by membranes, coexisting alongside our own universe in a cosmic harmony? These questions, like distant galaxies, remain just beyond our grasp, concealed by the cosmic bubble’s enigmatic edge.

The James Webb Space Telescope, with its remarkable capabilities, is positioned to challenge the very limits of our understanding. The JWST’s mission is not merely to observe the known universe but to peel back the cosmic veil, revealing the mysteries that await beyond our cosmic bubble.

The JWST is more than a marvel of technology; it is a cosmic sentinel guiding humanity's voyage through the cosmos. Nestled at Lagrange point 2 (L2), nearly one million miles from Earth, it affords us an unobstructed view of the cosmic panorama. The JWST stands as a testament to human ingenuity and embodies the spirit of cosmic exploration that resides within us all.

Together, we are poised to march on in this journey inspired by the timeless pursuit of truth. Our future expeditions will not only stretch the boundaries of human knowledge but also expand our comprehension of the universe’s vast limits. The cosmic bubble, once a mysterious veil, is now the gateway to uncharted realms that beckon us with the promise of profound revelations. Our narrative as mankind stands on the brink of a transformation, and we find ourselves at the threshold of a new era in cosmic exploration. The new era may be defined by peering beyond the cosmic bubble and venturing into the boundless expanse of the cosmos, where the mysteries of the universe await.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*smMOSkzHuV4gr7SQ)
Photo by Arnaud Mariat on Unsplash

By：Tristan Mueller
Link：https://medium.com/@sininfin308/the-cosmic-bubble-unveiled-exploring-the-boundaries-of-the-known-universe-e6df5afe50fc

The James Webb Telescope and the Cosmic Bubble: Unveiling the Universe’s Secrets

The James Webb telescope has given us a glimpse of a time before our universe existed


[Feel free to read all my articles on the anti-censorship long content platform yakihonne.com.
](https://yakihonne.com/users/nprofile1qqsy63zy8ynu8cch4cec4vrmu44w0xzw4y3zf8hyjc8uld4l0mfytzcpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6vp39eukz6mfdphkumn99e3k7mgpremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6vpj9ejx7unpveskxar0wfujummjvuq3gamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7v5mp5x)

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*SdWvk0ykB9DHdHT0)
## Understanding Carbon Credit Trading
At the heart of our fight against climate change lies the concept of carbon credits. But what exactly is this trading mechanism? The carbon market, where the buying and selling of carbon credits occur, serves as a platform for companies to meet emissions targets. These credits are mainly categorized as compliance and voluntary credits. While compliance credits help companies adhere to regulatory standards, voluntary credits allow companies to ambitiously reduce emissions beyond legal requirements. The dynamic price of these credits is influenced by factors like supply-demand equilibrium, government regulations, and renewable energy costs.

## Quick Insights into Carbon Budgeting
- It’s a collective challenge necessitating international cooperation.

- Swift and significant emission reductions are imperative to combat grave climate change effects.

- Various strategies for carbon budgeting exist, each with its pros and cons.

- Both triumphs and setbacks are part and parcel of emission reduction endeavours.

- Carbon budgeting forms just one segment of the overarching climate change solution.

## Challenges & Roadblocks
Indeed, the path of carbon budgeting is riddled with obstacles. Establishing precise and equitable carbon emission targets is a challenge in itself, given the disparate developmental stages of countries. Accurate monitoring, risk of fraudulent activities, affordability of carbon credits, and the politically charged nature of carbon budgeting further complicate matters.

## Seizing the Opportunities
Despite its challenges, carbon budgeting paves the way for numerous possibilities:

1. Innovation Boost: It stimulates creativity and investment in low-carbon technologies.

2. Economic Impetus: Potential for job creation and economic growth.

3. Enhanced Public Health: Reduced fossil fuel emissions can lead to cleaner air.

4. Sustainable Development: It provides an avenue for eco-friendly growth and poverty alleviation.

5. Strengthened International Cooperation: By bringing nations together on climate action.

Both individuals and businesses have pivotal roles to play. From making sustainable everyday choices to pushing for renewable energy adoption, everyone can contribute. Businesses, in particular, can further reduce their carbon footprint through energy-efficient measures and supporting green supply chains.

## Dynamic Nature of Carbon Budgeting
One defining characteristic of carbon budgeting is its fluidity. It’s a constant balancing act — as we cut down emissions, we must readjust our targets in line with evolving climate science. The cumulative nature of carbon budgeting, accounting for past emissions still present in the atmosphere, is another vital consideration.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/0*erflfhsTUGuXRWLk)
## Futurescape: What Lies Ahead?
There are various potential trajectories for carbon budgeting. The best-case scenario envisions robust policies, leading to a successful transition to a low-carbon economy. The worst-case? Inadequate measures result in escalated climate adversities, albeit with carbon budgeting as a tool for adaptation.

## Pros & Cons: Weighing It All
While carbon budgeting boasts numerous benefits, like its scientific foundation, adaptability, and promotion of innovation, it’s not without its drawbacks. Challenges arise from the intricate nature of carbon accounting, the daunting task of establishing an exact budget, and potential policy misuse.

## Wrapping Up
Carbon budgeting stands as a powerful tool in our climate action arsenal. Its potential impact is vast — from preventing catastrophic climate scenarios to driving economic growth. However, its effective implementation remains crucial to ensure its success. As we tread this path, let’s remember the stakes and work collectively towards a sustainable future.

By：Eco Chatter
Link：https://medium.com/@ecochatters/the-intricacies-of-carbon-credit-and-budgeting-259f493761c2

The Intricacies of Carbon Credit and Budgeting


[Feel free to read all my articles on the anti-censorship long content platform yakihonne.com.
](https://yakihonne.com/users/nprofile1qqsy63zy8ynu8cch4cec4vrmu44w0xzw4y3zf8hyjc8uld4l0mfytzcpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6vp39eukz6mfdphkumn99e3k7mgpremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6vpj9ejx7unpveskxar0wfujummjvuq3gamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7v5mp5x)

In a society that doesn’t think twice when it comes to throwing something away, even if it is still in good condition, the mountains of trash should be a surprise to no one. However, this system can only go on for so long as the consequences of excessive waste production are already here and will only continue to get worse without great change. Zero waste is a system designed to inspire that great change by replacing throwaway culture with the three R’s: reduce, reuse, and recycle.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:720/format:webp/1*Vc_MLeCuvSRnzfzDTQwQzQ@2x.jpeg)
The three R’s are ordered accordingly. Zero waste aims to reduce waste by first reducing consumption. Simply put, if you buy less of a product, you’ll have less waste to discard. The next step is to continually use the products you do purchase. Then, when the product has no further use, recycle it into something new. To make sense of this, let’s use the example of clothing. If you want to buy jeans, think about how many you realistically need. Do you really need thirty pairs of jeans or just three? Once you buy the necessary numbers of jeans, rewear them (Although this part may seem like common sense, the rise of fast fashion has led to an increased number of clothing articles being tossed after only one or two wears). Once the jeans can no longer be repaired, the denim can be used to make everything from quilts to coasters.

On a larger scale, a circular economy would make zero waste a reality once again. Instead of following the linear model of taking resources from the environment, making a product, and throwing waste in landfills, a circular economy is designed to turn waste into new products. A popular example of a business joining the circular economy is Adidas’ Made To Be Remade collection (not a sponsor). The premise of the Made To Be Remade collection is that the products purchased can be returned after the customer wears them for an extended period of time. Once returned, the product’s material will be recycled and used to make new products which are once again sold. Although Adidas is a massive company, examples of the circular economy are few and far between as the Circular Gap Reporting Initiative found that, as of 2023, only 7.2% of the globular economy is circular.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:720/format:webp/1*uyedcQIZyYovgdO5OwXtdA@2x.jpeg)
At its core, zero waste allows us to use less and still get more. By lowering consumption, less waste is produced. Recycling that waste, whether it be composting food or turning old jeans into coasters, limits the need to extract raw materials while setting the wheels of the circular economy in motion.

## References:

https://www.circularity-gap.world/2023

https://www.epa.gov/circulareconomy/what-circular-economy

https://www.adidas.com/us/made_to_be_remade

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666916121000013

By：Wolfe Rygaard
Link：https://medium.com/@Wrygaard/what-if-trash-didnt-exist-2ffa052ba693


[Feel free to read all my articles on the anti-censorship long content platform yakihonne.com.
](https://yakihonne.com/users/nprofile1qqsy63zy8ynu8cch4cec4vrmu44w0xzw4y3zf8hyjc8uld4l0mfytzcpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6vp39eukz6mfdphkumn99e3k7mgpremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6vpj9ejx7unpveskxar0wfujummjvuq3gamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7v5mp5x)

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/format:webp/1*WqwLk5A4TmRnNcc1bugMIQ.jpeg)
Science Photo Library

In the boundless fabric of the cosmos, the enigma of our universe’s birth has been an enduring source of fascination and wonder throughout history. It’s a question that transcends time and place. The universe’s birth has captivating the hearts and minds of philosophers, scientists, and dreamers alike. Yet, the cosmic saga takes an astonishing turn when we introduce the enigmatic character of dark matter into the narrative. This shadowy presence challenges our understanding of the void, sparking an intriguing question: Did the universe truly emerge from absolute nothingness, or was there a mysterious ingredient hidden within the cosmic cradle?

So, let's embark on an extraordinary journey, one that transcends the ordinary boundaries of space and time. Our quest begins with a fundamental query that has perplexed and inspired humanity for centuries: Did our universe come into existence from the depths of nothingness? The concept of creation ex nihilo, a universe emerging from the absolute void, has been the subject of profound contemplation for ages. But it wasn't until the advent of modern science that we could probe this question with empirical rigor.

Deep within the Big Bang theory lies a celestial mystery that defies the very fabric of time itself: the primordial singularity. This cosmic conundrum, existing eons ago, transcended the ordinary bounds of space and matter with its boundless density and unfathomable heat, ushering forth the birth of our universe 13.8 billion years ago. Yet, as we venture deeper into this cosmic trip, we uncover a lesser-known yet profoundly captivating revelation—a connection with the elusive entity known as dark matter.

Picture, if you will, a moment suspended in the abyss of eternity, where the essence of existence condensed into an infinitesimal speck. This was the primordial singularity, the cosmic crucible from which our universe emerged. Its incomprehensible density and searing heat defy the laws of physics, setting the stage for our narrative amidst the unimaginable.

However, what lends an even more mesmerizing allure to this cosmic genesis is its interplay with dark matter. Dark matter, a mystical substance cloaked in enigma, eludes the grasp of conventional light; it neither emits, absorbs, nor engages with the photons that traverse the cosmos. It stands as a shadowy puzzle, an unseen architect of our universe, with its role in this cosmic chronicle remaining both perplexing and pivotal.

Visualize the early universe, a canvas of boundless potential, emerging from the depths of the singularity's embrace. As the universe unfurled, it did so in concert with dark matter, an entity seemingly exempt from the ordinary constraints of matter and energy. Cosmic inflation, the epochal expansion occurring within fractions of a second after the singularity's birth, might owe a debt to the influence of dark matter. Some theories propose that dark matter's presence played a crucial role in driving this rapid expansion, laying the foundation for the colossal cosmic structures we now behold.

Now, let us embark on a journey into the depths of the quantum realm, where particles and fields engage in a mystical ballet of creation and annihilation. Quantum fluctuations, the arcane phenomena that animate this realm, offer tantalizing clues about the origins of dark matter. Within this primordial chaos, particles can spontaneously materialize, emerging from the void of apparent nothingness. Could it be that dark matter particles, too, emerged from this quantum symphony, their birth concealed beneath the same enigmatic veil that shrouds the singularity itself?

This journey leads us to a profound inquiry: what truly constitutes nothingness? In our quest to unravel the cosmic origin story, we grapple with the very essence of "nothing." In the realm of physics, even a vacuum devoid of tangible matter resonates with latent energy and is interwoven with intricate quantum fields. The dichotomy between this physical void and the philosophical concept of absolute nothingness underscores the profound enigma enveloping the birth of our universe.

And what role does dark matter play in this philosophical dance of existence? Did it emerge from an actual void, or is it an intrinsic component of the quantum fabric underlying our reality? The intricate interplay between dark matter, the singularity, and the quantum realm presents us with a cosmic puzzle that challenges our fundamental comprehension of the universe's inception.

Beyond the boundaries of science, this cosmic connection between the singularity and dark matter extends into the realms of philosophy and metaphysics. It compels us to contemplate not only the nature of existence but also the limits of our understanding. The existence of dark matter, its influence on shaping the universe, and its intertwined destiny with the singularity beckon us to unravel the profound mysteries of our cosmic journey.

As we traverse the cosmic landscapes of the Big Bang theory, we unearth a narrative that transcends the confines of empirical knowledge. The primordial singularity, a crucible of infinite density and temperature, stands as the linchpin of our cosmic saga. Yet, it is the enigmatic presence of dark matter, an entity draped in shadows, that adds layers of fascination to this epic tale. Together, they propel us into uncharted realms of existence, challenging our perceptions and inviting us to unravel the enigma that is our universe’s birth from the depths of cosmic void.

The idea of the universe emerging from a singularity seems to imply a creation ex nihilo scenario, the concept of creation from pure nothingness. However, when we look deeper into the cosmic recipe, we may see influential dark matter. Dark matter, an elusive and invisible substance, exerts a profound influence on the universe’s structure and evolution. It is believed to constitute a substantial portion of the total matter in the universe, far outweighing anything else—the stuff of stars, planets, and galaxies—that we are familiar with.

The tantalizing aspect of dark matter is its aloofness to electromagnetic forces, rendering it completely invisible to our scientific instruments. It interacts solely through gravity, binding galaxies together and providing the gravitational scaffolding for the construction of cosmic structures. Dark matter’s presence is the key to understanding the universe’s large-scale structure as we see it today.

The possibility that dark matter is an inherent component of the cosmos, present even at the moment of the Big Bang, may redefine many of our preconceived notions. If this idea holds true, then the singularity, from which our universe sprung forth, may not have been a realm of pure nothingness but a reservoir teeming with dark matter and latent energy, a cauldron of potential. This concept defies our conventional understanding of creation ex nihilo, challenging us to reconsider the very essence of the universe.

To get to the bottom of this cosmic puzzle, we must explore the nature of dark matter. While its existence is strongly supported by astrophysical evidence, its true identity remains an unsolved puzzle. Scientists have proposed various candidates for dark matter particles, ranging from the elusive weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) to the enigmatic axions, yet none have been conclusively detected. The quest to unveil the nature of dark matter particles continues to be a central focus of astrophysical research, a thrilling odyssey into the uncharted territories of the cosmos.

One of the most captivating aspects of dark matter is its role in the cosmic web—a sprawling, intricate structure comprising galaxy clusters, filaments, and voids that spans the universe. Dark matter’s gravitational sway is the invisible hand that sculpts this cosmic architecture, orchestrating the formation of galaxies and galaxy clusters along its vast cosmic threads. Without dark matter, the celestial spectacle we witness in the night sky would be incomplete, the universe bereft of its majestic cosmic embroidery.

As we contemplate the implications of dark matter’s presence in the early universe, we find ourselves confronted with profound questions about the nature of reality itself. If dark matter indeed resided at the birth of the universe, then our cosmos may have emerged from a source teeming with potential, challenging us to rethink the very concept of nothingness and existence. This pushes the boundaries of human knowledge and understanding, beckoning us to embark on an exhilarating cosmic voyage.

In the grand narrative of the cosmos, the question of our universe’s origin remains a mesmerizing thread. The interplay between the notion of creation ex nihilo and the role of dark matter adds layers of complexity to this cosmic narrative. It reminds us that the universe is not merely a tale of beginnings and endings, but an expansive, intricate epic where the lines between something and nothing blur into a tantalizing cosmic mystery.

As we gaze upon the night sky and contemplate the stars, let us remember that we are not mere spectators but explorers of the cosmic frontier. We are the seekers of truth, the dreamers who dare to unravel the secrets of the universe. In an ever-expanding cosmos, where dark matter shrouds its secrets, the question of our cosmic beginnings beckons us to journey beyond the stars. We venture into the cosmic unknown, and to embrace the profound mysteries that await us in the heart of the cosmos.

![image](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/format:webp/1*-flzXCMfbTVFXU4ts6fDrQ.jpeg)
Getty Images/iStockphoto

By：Tristan Mueller
Link：https://medium.com/@sininfin308/was-the-universe-truly-formed-from-nothing-140029a53dd0

Was the Universe Truly Born from Absolute Nothingness?

A new component to the equation may shed light on how it all started