/sci/ - Science & Math

Silicon maybe, but carbon is objectively the best due to its bonding ability and strength - silicon bonds tend to be weaker on average. I mean, carbon's versatility is why organic chemistry exists.
For this reason I'd take a gander and say you won't find much silicon-based life (if any) beyond single-celled organisms.

>>9972682
>Chemically, is non-carbon based life possible?
I'm not a chemist, but wouldn't any element in carbon's group be a good candidate for life?

>>9972739
My guess would be that although the best bets for life would be in carbon's group, that doesn't mean those other elements are good candidates. Electrons in your outer shell, electromagnetism, atomic radius are all important things, and as far as I'm aware groups are only arranged by outer shell.

>>9972735
What about building macro-structures exclusively from trivalent elements? They would be less efficient than carbon structures of course.

>>9972682
All atoms have a chance at achieving sentience if the gravity and energy is right.

Now go fourth my faithful animu!
Onwards towards another existential crisis!

>>9972747
Fuck off fag, don't ruin my threda.

Short answer: We can't say for sure carbon life is the only one
Long answer: no

>>9972749
Nu.

>:3

Silicon analogues to hydrocarbons are very unstable due to weakness of H-Si bonds. I can't see that happening in an oxidizing atmosphere like ours at the very least.

>>9972682
the element of surprise

>>9973067
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LqF3jbiSI5A

匚卂尺乃乇几 乃卂丂乇ᗪ ㄥ丨千乇千ㄖ尺爪

>>9972832
What about Li-Si bonds?

>>9972739
>wouldn't any element in carbon's group be a good candidate for life?
No offence, but that's why you're not a chemist

The chemistry of lead for example has very little to do with the chemistry of carbon

>>9973067
>>9974290
>LEGO
Onions detected.

>>9974477
Just as bad. That's basically a silyl anion.

>>9972739
What's wrong with capibaras?