Observing how waves travel through planetary bodies is one of the most useful methods for looking into the interior of these objects. On a fundamental level, it's an advanced version of knocking against a large metal silo to determine if it's empty or full.
However, detailed findings can be tricky sometimes. In this case, the geologist calculated beforehand what the frequency absorption fingerprint of "rock containing water" would be, and then he found a matching signature in the measurements he took.
Indeed there are several things that could have gone wrong: the signature of the substance might be different than previously assumed, or the seismic measurements themselves could be faulty.
Over time we'll get more measurement opportunities and we'll refine our models as more scientists will work on this. There might be more evidence from other sources available if we know how to look for it, too. So the confidence level in this finding will be modified in the future.
Right now it's just an intriguing but singular result that deserves further study.
Right now it's just an intriguing but singular result that deserves further study.
See, I guess that is my issue here: The article talks like we KNOW this for sure, not like "preliminary results suggest..." when no one has sampled anything that deep to verify it etc.
Observing how waves travel through planetary bodies is one of the most useful methods for looking into the interior of these objects. On a fundamental level, it's an advanced version of knocking against a large metal silo to determine if it's empty or full.
However, detailed findings can be tricky sometimes. In this case, the geologist calculated beforehand what the frequency absorption fingerprint of "rock containing water" would be, and then he found a matching signature in the measurements he took.
Indeed there are several things that could have gone wrong: the signature of the substance might be different than previously assumed, or the seismic measurements themselves could be faulty.
Over time we'll get more measurement opportunities and we'll refine our models as more scientists will work on this. There might be more evidence from other sources available if we know how to look for it, too. So the confidence level in this finding will be modified in the future.
Right now it's just an intriguing but singular result that deserves further study.