Showing posts with label conditions for life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conditions for life. Show all posts

Sunday, April 20, 2014

(Mostly) Water Worlds

Imagine a super Earth that is mostly covered in water. Landmasses are few and scattered. What would be the consequences for the development of an advanced civilization?

Landmass Size

For development of an advanced civilization on a super water world, I think it would have to be a water world where the landmasses are not miniscule. Tiny scattered islands would not give much evolutionary chances, or pressures, for life to leave the ocean (there would be but one ocean on a water world). What benefit would there be? There would not be enough territory for land creatures to have a go at it. There may be creatures that learn to live in the shallows, and there would probably be more shallow areas than areas above the ocean surface; and those creatures may venture at times on the land. Maybe some would evolve to use the land to lay eggs - protection from egg eaters. Some plant life that survive on the surface of the ocean could also end up being OK on the tiny islands - being small land masses, on a very large water world would mean waves, storms, rain, as well as a humid atmosphere (we suspect super Earths would have thick atmospheres, and may be steamy or humid). This atmosphere would potentially offer more protection from ultra violet radiation than our atmosphere, making it easier for surface water plants to survive periods on the land masses.

But for larger land masses - large enough to support evolution of land creatures - that is a different tale. Large land masses allow room for life to evolve permanent settlers, for a complex enough, and large enough, ecosystem to allow for permanent land adaptation. Once life evolves species to permanent adapt to land, they can then spread to smaller, relatively nearby, landmasses.

Landmass Separations

On a super Earth, even large land masses, close to Earth continents in size, would be separated by vast stretches of water - a vastness that would make our oceans seem like large lakes by comparison.

On Earth, landmasses separated for long periods show us divergent evolutionary paths. Each continent on a super Earth water world would have little biological communication with each other, at least for creatures that become fully established as land creatures. Semi-aquatic could eventually find their way to other landmasses, but those that evolve to be on land - each landmass would be a separate evolutionary laboratory.
An Aside

I have to stop for a moment here. While the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, it still has its holes, and thus it needs refining. But I also think that the Grand Designer of the universe has created the marvelous, awe inspiring, supremely elegant and beautiful natural laws that brought the universe to life. It's a sonnet, controlled by some regulations and restrictions, but allowing for so much expression within. For me, evolution is not anti-spiritual, but is evidence of a grand design, a remarkable design, that allows for such an incredible range of life in this universe. Many, many different songs of life, a Universe Symphony. And so, as science uncovers more truths of the universe, we will learn more of this Grand Design, and discover more of the beauty, the genius, the elegance of the Universe. This outlook informs my speculations. See "Introduction" for more on this blog's focus.
Evolutionary Laboratories

While the landmass lifeforms will have evolved from the same one ocean, the greatly separated major landmasses would allow for different evolutionary paths. Convergent evolution, where organisms not closely related (not monophyletic) independently evolve similar traits, would come into play, of course: lifeforms evolving similar adaptations because the occupy similar niches such as climbing trees, hunting at night, and eating burrowing insectoids. They would be on the same planet, within that planet's gravity well, magnetic field, and living through the planet's seasons as it orbits its star. But there will be variations in how each landmass' lifeforms specifically adapt. Natural disasters may affect one landmass while another is barely even touched by it - for instance, a supervolcano exploding on one landmass, but as the planet is a super Earth, and the landmasses greatly separated, the devastating effects of a supervolcano on this super Earth would not have the same global impact as a supervolcano explosion on Earth would. A meteor strike on a super water world would have less of a global impact, for the same size meteor, as that strike would on the Earth. A tsunami from an ocean strike would have much further to go, on a world with higher gravity, dissipating more of the tsunami's energy by the time it strikes a landmass than it would on the Earth. Not that there still would not be global effects from major disasters, it is just that with vast distances between at least some of the landmasses the effects for some areas of the planet would be much reduced. This would allow for very different end results. 

Dinosaurs Kingdoms and Mammal Kingdoms?   

If the Earth was a super water world, where it had, say, the same overall landmasses but with much, much greater distances between some of them due to the vastness of the global ocean, one result is that one continent would still have dinosaurs evolving, while another continent would have the dinosaurs wiped out, and the mammals evolving. Would this result in a sentient warm-blooded dinosaur race (probably feathered) on one continent, and sentient warm-blooded furry mammal race on another continent - intelligent descendants of the dinosaurs ruling one continent while intelligent humans ruling another? If the dinosaurs were not wiped out, could they have continued evolving, surviving the changing Earth to become sentient? Birds are the descendants of dinosaurs. Some birds, like crows, have brains twice the size needed for control of their bodies - they are much smarter than the other birds. Some even make tools (Caledonia crows can take a twig, strip it, and then work it until it has a hook at one end so that it can use it to hook insects burrowed in holes). If the dinosaurs were not wiped out by natural disaster(s) (some think more than one disaster ended their reign), could some have evolved to human level intelligence? 

What a world that would be. One day, an explorer from the dinosaur kingdom coming across the human kingdom, or vice versa.

Exploration

Which leads to my next speculation for this long post. For a world where continents are separated by distances many times what our continents are separated by, what would that mean for exploration? A sentient being is probably a curious one, and with a need to do some exploring, expanding territory. 

But as we see from our past, a large ocean is perilous to traverse. Many of our ancestors still did - we are finding that they traveled more, and farther, than we first thought. But it was perilous, and many resisted. For a continent that had only a few islands nearby and then nothing else, many early ships would leave to either never return or to return with no sightings of land. This would hold true for centuries as their sailing technology would not be enough to cover the incredible distances needed to get to another continent. The pressure to develop this technology would not be great - there is just no evidence for them, no tales of far off countries - just the known boundaries of their continent, the small islands off the coast, and that is it. The known world. The center of the world, and of the universe, as known to them. 

This separation, this loneliness, would allow the separated sentient beings on the separated continents to progress on their own, focusing on their known world, their center of the world. Until one day at least one progresses to the point where they can begin to think of exploring the universe. As knowledge increases, as they being to realize their world is a giant sphere, they may again wonder if some continent lies far, far away, just like we use to wonder if sentient life existed on Mars, or the Moon. Scientific exploration leads to technology that finally enables them to send a probe around the planet, or a long range probe to cross the seas (though a planet orbiting probe is the much more efficient means), and they spot it - another continent. 

Contact

And now the final speculations for this long post What myriad of ways that could play out? A civilization more advanced but for some reason didn't launch an orbiting probe (their culture focused more inward for whatever reasons - political,  theological, or distracted by a more harsh environment and needing to spend more energies there). Or a civilization less advanced. People similar in body form, but still different enough: humanoid but with tails, or humanoid but much smaller. Or more aggressive. Or not humanoid at all. The first contact hidden by the government of the country that sent the probe because of the differences - delaying actual contact. Or used by the government to rally their dissafected people against a perceived enemy?  Or this other land thought of as being heaven, or hell, or .... So very many different ways that first contact could play out.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Creatures Frozen for 32,000 Years Still Alive

Creatures frozen for 32,000 years still alive - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com
"The existence of microorganisms in these harsh environments suggests — but does not promise -- that we might one day discover similar life forms in the glaciers or permafrost of Mars or in the ice crust and oceans of Jupiter’s moon Europa," said Richard Hoover, an astrobiologist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.....Hoover said the creatures he has found might be able to survive in their suspended state for millions of years. The discovery opens up a whole new possibility that a future mission to Mars might be able to retrieve any life that's there."
Reference:

Britt, Robert Roy. "Creatures Frozen for 32,00 Years Still Alive." Science. msnbc.com. 24 Feb. 2005 Web. 6 Jan. 2012. .

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Life in the Infrared

In1996 scientists were surprised to find a version of chlorophyll, chlorophyll d, in a cyanobacterium (blue-green algae or blue-green bacteria) that can photosynthesize light at 710nm, just in the infrared region. How it can get enough energy to photosynthesize is a mystery right now. It is possible that it acts more like chlorophyll a, passing on the captured energy to other chlorophyll molecules which then do the actual photosynthesis.

Recently, Dr Min Chen, from the University of Sydney, discovered in cyanobacterium living inside stromatolites another chlorophyll molecule which can absorb infrared light - this time deeper into the infrared range at 720 nm. This molecule, chlorophyll f, raises the same question as with chlorophyll d: how does it get enough energy from infrared light to photosynthesize oxygen? Or does it act as a helper, passing on the energy to other chlorophyll?

While this discovery has implications for biotechnology and bioenergy, it also has implications for life on other planets. As Dr. Chen remarks:
the fact that we have discovered a cyanobacterium that exploits a tiny modification in its chlorophyll molecule to photosynthesise in light that we cannot see, opens our mind to the seemingly limitless ways that organisms adapt to survive in their environment.
This helps expands the environmental range where we can look for life. For instance, it helps increase the possibility of life arising around class M stars (see Color of Life for more information). Yet more evidence that Dr. Ian Malcolm's (Jurassic Park) adage is correct: life will find a way.

Reference:

Chen, Min, et. al. "A Red-Shifted Chlorophyll." Science Magazine. 19 August 2010. Web. 21 August 2010. <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1191127>

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Europa's Liquid Ocean May Be Oxygen Rich

New research suggests that there is plenty of oxygen available in the subsurface ocean of Europa to support oxygen-based metabolic processes for life similar to that on Earth. In fact, there may be enough oxygen to support complex, animal-like organisms with greater oxygen demands than microorganisms.

Europa's ice cyclically renews - the top crust is only 50 million years old, replenished by water from below coming through  fissures. This cycle brings into the under-ice ocean surface oxygen produced by energetic charged particles. The rate is faster than oxygen build up in Earth's oceans - thus Europa's ocean may be able to support more complex creatures than was once thought. And, importantly, this buildup had a delay; oxygen is actually toxic to pre-biotic chemistry. Life, as we know it, needs the early pre-biotic chemical process to happen without the damaging effects of oxygen.

We need to send probes to Europa. If we find life there, it will be strong indication that 1) life can form outside of the Godilock's Zone, or the Habitable Zone and 2) life can form on icy moons orbiting gas giants. Since icy moons orbiting gas giants may be more common than small terrestrial planets orbiting in the HZ of its parent star, it means that we should not ignore gas giants when looking for extrasolar life.

Reference:

"Jupiter's Moon Europa Has Enough Oxygen for Life." PhysOrg.com. PhysOrg.com. 16 October 2009. Web. 16 October 2009. <http://www.physorg.com/news174918239.html>


Image Credit: NASA/JPL

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Comet Contains Building Block for Life


Recently NASA scientists discovered glycine, a fundamental building block for life, in samples of Comet Wild 2 collected by the Stardust spacecraft:

"Glycine is an amino acid used by living organisms to make proteins, and this is the first time an amino acid has been found in a comet," said Jamie Elsila of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "Our discovery supports the theory that some of life's ingredients formed in space and were delivered to Earth long ago by meteorite and comet impacts."
This find adds to the growing body of evidence that the building blocks for life are common in the universe.

Reference

"Life's Building Block Discovered in a Comet." News. Astronomy. 18 Aug. 2009. Web. 2 Sept. 2009. <http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=8562>

Image credit: NASA

Thursday, July 16, 2009

"Telepathic" DNA

Sensing Nucleotides

As reported today at Daily Galaxy, scientists reported in the ACS’ Journal of Physical Chemistry B that DNA seems to have almost "telepathic" abilities to recognize other DNA strands that are similar to it - even when there is no physical contact and no proteins to act as messengers. Similar DNA strands seem to recognize each other and gather together. There is no known chemical explanation for it. DNA strands need to recognize similar strands as part of the replication and repair processes.

Universal Biology

The reason I find this of great interest is that it adds further support that life is a natural result of the physical (and thus chemical) laws of the universe. Amino acids, which DNA are composed of, are very common in the universe - from meteors to gas clouds. If they have some innate ability to gather together, this, I feel, helps increase the chances of life arising on more than just this planet. It makes the arising of life on Earth billions of years ago, and the evolution of that life, a little less dependent upon mere luck.


Reference:

Sato, Rebecca. "Does DNA Have 'Telepathic' Powers? - Experts Say "Yes." The Daily Galaxy. 16 July 2009. Web. 16 July 2009. <http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/07/does-dna-have-telepathic-properties-research-says-yes.html>

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Orange Dwarf Stars and Life - Common?


Illustration © European Space Organization
Our Dwarf Sun

Did you know that our own sun is in fact a dwarf star? It is a G type, or yellow dwarf. Next come the smaller K types, or orange dwarfs, followed by even smaller M types, or red dwarfs. While we know life has - at least once - arisen in a yellow dwarf system, could life arise on orange or red dwarf system? While the answer may be yest to both, some think that orange dwarfs may actually make the best place to find life.

Types of Dwarf Stars

  • Yellow dwarfs (which are actually white to yellow in color), have surface temperatures of 5,000 - 6,000 K. The average size is a little larger than our sun (110% the size of the sun).
  • Orange dwarfs (orange to red in color), have surface temperatures of 3,500 - 5,000 K. Their average size is about 90% that of the sun and are 40 % as luminous as the sun
  • Red dwarfs (red in color), have surface temperatures below 3,500 K. The average size is about 40% that of the sun and are 4% as luminous as the sun. Red dwarfs are by far the most common star, accounting for over 75% of all the stars in our galaxy.

Habitable Zones

As you can tell, as the size decreases, the temperature decreases as well as the luminosity. The width of the Habitable Zone (HZ), thus, decreases as well and moves closer to the star (see illustration below) . But HZs still exist. And red dwarfs are extremely long lived - up to 10 trillion years - giving life plenty of time to arise. However, there are other considerations that need to be factored in. First, some tectonic activity is needed to help control the amount of C02 as well as for mixing chemicals - life needs to arise on a chemically dynamic planet. However too much tectonic activity can wipe life out. Planets orbiting in a red dwarf's HZ may experience extreme tidal forces. Another problem with red dwarfs is that being so close to the star there can be problems with radiation bursts from the star - red dwarfs tend to be rather cranky stars that frequently flare up, releasing dangerous bursts of radiation. Since the average HZ for a red dwarf is only 0.1 to 0.2 AU away, the HZ for a red dwarf may actually not be very hospitable. By the way, the HZ for yellow dwarfs, like our sun, is 0.8 AU to 2 AUs.

The average HZ for orange dwarfs is 0.3 to 1 AU away. Its HZ is wider, allowing for planets to be further from the star and thus experience less tidal forces. Also, their flare activity is only slightly more than yellow dwarfs. Another consideration is that orange dwarfs are longer lived than our sun - they have almost twice the life span: almost 20 billion years compare to the 10 billion or so years for our sun. Their light and heat output is much more stable than the sun, fluctuating less over its life and thus making more of its long lifespan useful to life. Orange dwarfs may just give life more chance to originate and thrive than yellow dwarfs like our sun. While not as common as red dwarfs (the most common star type), orange dwarfs are 3 - 4 times more common than yellow dwarfs. We definitely should not overlook orange dwarfs when searching for extraterrestrial life.

Illustration of HZs for Dwarf Stars: dM = Red Dwarfs (M class stars), dK = Orange Dwarfs (K class stars), and dG = Yellow Dwarfs (G class stars).Red Dwarf Support

Red dwarfs do have their supporters: the "Living with a Red Dwarf" Program, established at Villanova University by E. F. Guinan and S. G. Engle. Guinan and Engle, in their presentation at the 8th Pacific Rim Conference on Stellar Astrophysics in 2008, bring up an interesting consideration: the dangerous flares "are strongly dependent on rotation, and thus age, and diminish as the stars lose angular momentum and spin-down over time via magnetic braking" (Guinan 1). What this means is that the intensity and frequency of a red dwarfs solar flares may diminish over time. Since red dwarfs are extremely long lived, that does crack open just a bit further the door of opportunity for life to find a way to arise and thrive.

Phase Locked

One interesting result of a planet orbiting in an orange or red dwarf's HZ is that it will most likely be phased locked because of the tidal forces; like Mercury is to our Sun, or the Moon is to the Earth, the planet's rotational period and orbital period will be the same, resulting in the same side of the planet always facing the star. This can create a small zone along the terminator line (where, on a phase locked planet, day and night perpetually meet) where life may be able to better survive the radiation bursts.

Related Post

For an interesting related post, see the Color of Life post which tackles the question of what color would plants be on planets circling different types of stars.

References:

Guinan, E. F. and S. G. Engle. "'Living with a Red Dwarf' Program." Summary Paper.
Living with a Red Dwarf. Villanova University. n.d. Web. 18 June 2009. <http://www.astronomy.villanova.edu/lward/prcsa2008_LWARD_new.pdf>

Shiga, David. "Orange stars are just right for life." Space.
New Scientist. 06 May 2009. Web. 18 June 2009. <http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17084-orange-stars-are-just-right-for-life.html>.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Another Reason Water is Important for Life


© Image courtesy NASA/MSFC
Ocean Powered Magnetism

A new theory says that salty ocean currents may be an overlooked source for the Earth's magnetic field. A magnetic field is important to protect the planet's surface from damaging ultraviolet rays. But it also protects the atmosphere from the eroding effects of the energized particles of the solar wind - though it is imperfect protection - the magnetosphere is responsible for causing some leakage by funneling some of the energy into the upper atmosphere and heating it up.

This still does not rule out life developing on desert planets, especially planets with higher gravity and thus thicker atmospheres. I wonder if a large habitable moon circling a gas giant could benefit from the giant's magnetic field?

However, if it turns out that our oceans contribute to our planet's protective magnetic shield in no small manner, then it adds impetus for us to search for planets with large bodies of water.

Tidal Mixing and the Rise of Life

Water, as mentioned in earlier posts, may also be critical when combined with tectonic activity (whether from internal forces or from external tidal forces generated from orbiting a large gas giant) to the rise of life. For example, as mentioned in an earlier post (Life Outside the "Zone"), some scientists feel that the Moon was essential to the origin of life on the Earth due to the tidal mixing which helped to mix, mainly from erosion caused by the tides, chemicals from the soil with the oceans, creating the chemical soup from which life arose.


References:

"The Earth's magnetic field remains a charged mystery."
Institute of Physics News. 14 June 2009. Web. 16 June 2009. <http://www.iop.org/News/news_35352.html>.

Ryskin, Gregory. "Secular variation of the Earth's magnetic field: induced by the ocean flow?" New J. Phys. Vol. 11. 2009. (23pp) <http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1367-2630/11/6/063015>.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Size Does Matter for Life? Did it Matter for the Dinosaurs?

Vishnu or Shiva?

Several articles this year discuss the role that gas giants (like Jupiter and Saturn) play in the rise and evolution of life on Earth, and how this may apply to other solar systems.

On one hand, gas giants clear out a lot of solar system debris early in a solar system's history, sweeping up many asteroids. This is, of course, because of the massive gravitational pull a gas giant has. In this manner, Jupiter and Saturn, but especially Jupiter, act as body guards for the Earth. George Musser, in his article, "Jovian Protector" in the September 2008 issue of Scientific American, reports that two researchers, Jonathan Horner and Barrie Jones of the Open University in England, suggest that if Jupiter was 80% smaller the Earth would've had 400% more asteroid strikes. Making it much more difficult for intelligent life to have evolved, since intelligence evolves slowly as discussed in my 25 November 2007 post, "Sentient Life:"
It seems the more complex the sentient mind, the slower it evolves. Apparently this is because the genes in the complex mind code for proteins that have complex interaction with other molecules in the body: "change a gene too much and it will be unable to continue its existing functions" (Barone, Par. 2). Thus, the more a brain evolves, the slower its evolution becomes. Though some postulate that the recent information revolution, with its explosion of information and rapid technological change may add extra evolutionary pressure on our brains.
However, on the other hand gas giants also fling asteroids into the inner portion of their solar system. Horner and Jones state that a much smaller Jupiter (even smaller than 80%) would have flung fewer asteroids toward the inner solar system.

Another factor to consider is that despite Jupiter's great size, it is still small compared to the sun and to the diameter of its orbit. If it is a shield, it is a moving shield - most of the time it is not between us and an incoming asteroid (likewise, most of the time it will not be deflecting asteroids toward us).

Jupiter, Ice Ages, and the Dinosaurs

What is left unanswered is which wins out? Did Jupiter clear out more asteroids than it flung in toward us, or did it fling more toward us than it cleared out? If Jupiter was smaller, would Earth have actually been more protected, and, as the author of the Scientific American article wonders, would, then, the dinosaurs still be alive?


Some scientists feel that a change in global climate unrelated to the meteor strike was already working to kill off the dinosaurs - the meteor strike just greatly sped up the process. Would the dinosaurs have survived the climate changes? That is, would the dinosaurs, if they were not finished off by the meteor, had a chance to survive the ice ages?

Fewer meteor collisions could have given them just enough time that some could evolved enough to adapt to changing weather conditions.

Changing weather is not an overnight catastrophe like a large meteor. Especially if the dinosaur species that began to develop higher sentience was a smaller creature - the ice ages killed off many of the incredibly large mammals due largely to the fact that large animals need a lot more food to survive than smaller ones. With food becoming scarce, animals that need to constantly eat, or eat large volumes of food, found it increasing harder to survive. A smaller dinosaur, especially an omnivorous one (which can get food from a wider range of sources than a strict carnivore or herbivore), would have a chance to survive. This is one of the reasons why humans survived the last ice ages when many other species did not - in addition to their evolving intelligence, they were smaller, and not strict carnivores.

Also, the death of large predators would also make life easier for the smaller evolving omnivore; after the weather improves the smaller creature can now be much more free to multiply and command the land. Because of the ice ages prehistoric humans no longer had to contend with saber tooth tigers, giant cave bears, and other huge, powerful predators.

And so, in this scenario of fewer meteor strikes, the dinosaurs may very well have developed an intelligent, sentient mind before the mammals (and, thus, before humans) having such a head start (no pun intended - well, not consciously).

Does Orbital Distance Matter?

However, as mentioned earlier, gas giants like Jupiter also sweep up many asteroids - asteroids that otherwise may have struck the Earth. Would having two or three Jupiter sized - or larger - gas giants in the outer solar system protect the Earth more? Or if Jupiter was larger would it have cleared away even more meteors, or would it have flung even more of them toward the Earth?

If Jupiter was in Mercury's orbit, would it fling less meteors toward the Earth and would that counter the fact that it is not able to sweep away as many meteors? Though it could end up sweeping away more of the meteors and comets that have elliptical orbits that bring them close to the Sun - as they come close to the Sun they would run the risk of being diverted in toward the Sun by Jupiter or being drawn into Jupiter itself.

If Jupiter was much further out, say in the orbit of Neptune, would it be too far away to sweep away meteors as well as be less likely to fling one toward the Earth? In a configuration where more meteors strike the inner terrestrial planet, could it having a very large moon help counter this increase? Are there even better solar system configurations, then, than ours for life to form and evolve in? If there are many configurations which can allow for life to form and evolve in, does this mean that life is not rare in the Universe?

These are questions that the exoplanetary science will help answer.


Notes:

Comets are made of ice, rock, and organic compounds. They can be as large as several miles in diameter.

Asteroids are generally made of rock with some containing metal (usually nickel and iron). They can be as small as boulders or the size of mountains (hundreds of miles in diameter).



References:

Barone, Jennifer. "Not So Fast, Einstein." Data. Discover. October 2007. 12. Print.

"Frequently Asked Questions." Near Earth Object Program. NASA/JPL. 23 Aug. 2008. Web. 23 Aug. 2008. <http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/faq/>

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Hypervelocity Stars (updated)


© Ruth Bazinet/Harvard-Smithsonian
Center for Astrophysics
Hypervelocity stars are stars that are moving, on average, around 7x than the average for, well, your average star. OK, in other words the average velocity for most stars is around 223,694 mph, which seems plenty fast but your average hypervelocity star moves at 1,615,068 mph (1.6 million mph)!

What causes these stars to become dragsters? A binary star system tangling with a black hole. If the conditions are right, one of the binary will be captured by the black hole, while the other star gets flung away at great velocity.

Not many of these hypervelocity stars have been found so far. One recent discovery, HE 0437-5439, has not been ejected from the Milky Way, but from the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), a small neighbor galaxy. This star is strong indirect proof of a black hole somewhere in the LMC.

What would that mean for any life on a habitable planet around such a star? They would see constellations change about 7 times faster than we do and they would experience a slight relativistic time dilation (1.5 minutes per year).

But most importantly, they would either pass by other stars several times more often than our own Sun, or be flung out into intergalactic space - far from any other star. The latter would be lonely civilizations indeed, unless they could somehow develop faster than light speeds, as it may take a few billion years for sentient life to arise on such a planet; after a few billion years they would be thousands of light years out into intergalactic space by the time they developed a technological civilization. They would be even further out if they had the unfortunate luck of being ejected from the galaxy, or the LMC, in the opposite direction of the galaxy's trajectory (the Local Group of galaxies, of which the Milky Way and the LMC are members of, is moving at 1.34 million miles per hour in the direction of the constellation Hydra) 1.

There is an additional effect of being flung out into intergalactic space: being so far from other stars would mean the chances of being effected by a nearby supernova would be nearly zero. As mentioned in a previous post, for the Earth, a supernova 30 light years or closer would be quite devastating for life - for other planets, the distance could be greater, depending upon how thick their protective atmospheres are (to show you how protective our atmosphere is, for astronauts outside the Earth's atmosphere, a supernova 3,000 light years away could be deadly). Some scientist conjecture that maybe a supernova was involved in past extinction events on Earth.

In addition, the solar system would not be affected by galactic disturbances (compression waves, for instance). Thus, the system might be more "boring" than our own, and thus allow sentient life to form more rapidly. HE 0437-5439 is a young star, only 35 million years old, so if there are any planets around it (and it is a big if), and if one of those planets is habitable and in the habitable zone, most likely hasn't arisen yet. But if it does, and it evolves into a sentient race, it will be a very isolated race.

Would they feel themselves blessed by being alone in the universe? Will it appear, to them, that the entire universe revolves around them - even the galaxies? Though if their parent galaxy is racing away from them, what would the make of it? Would they instead feel abandoned? Any thing they create would be lost when their star dies - there would be no one else to ever come along to explore their world. Would this affect how they lived? And if so, how?

Of course, if faster than light travel is somehow possible, by some "trick" (like worm holes), maybe they would be more pressured to discover it than would other, galactic, civilizations; and solve their isolation that way.

Another example of counsel given by Hamlet: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167). Speculating on on possible extrasolar (alien) biological, psychological, societal, technological, and theological realities stretches the dreams of any of our philosophies here on Earth!

Notes:

1. A light year is the distance light travels in mph: 186,000 miles/second * 60 seconds/minute * 60 minutes/hour = 669,600,000 mph.

The distance light travels in a year: 186,000 miles/second * 60 seconds/minute * 60 minutes/hour * 24 hours/day * 365 days/year = 5,865,696,000,000 miles/year.

A hypervelocity star traveling at 1,615,000 mph would be traveling at 0.04145 light years per year: 1,615,000 mph/669,600,000 mph = 0.0024119 or 0.24119 % the speed of light.

Thus, the hypervelocity star would cover 0.24119% of
5,865,696,000,000 miles/year; it would take the star 414.611 years to cover a light year.

For a hypervelocity star leaving a galaxy, in 4 billion years it could be (depending upon relative velocity of it with its parent galaxy) 9,647,597.386 light years away from its parent galaxy! If sentient life takes as long to develop on a planet around such a star as it did on Earth (4.5 billion years), it would be 10,853,547.06 light years away.



References:

Kraan-Korteweg, Renée C. & Ofer Lahav. "Galaxies Behind The Milky Way."
Scientific America. October 1998.

Przybilla, N. et al. "LMC origin of the hyper-velocity star HE 0437-5439. Beyond the supermassive black hole paradigm." Astrophysical Journal Letters. Submitted on 29 Jan 2008. 17 Feb 2008. <http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.4456>.


"What is a Light Year?"
How Stuff Works. 17 February 2008. < http://www.howstuffworks.com/question94.htm>.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Are Earth sized planets not the best size for life?


© David A. Aguilar (Harvard-Smithsonian CfA)
An interesting study claims that if Earth was any smaller than it is now, it may not have been conducive for the formation of life - larger terrestrial planets are better. If so, then that may mean that maybe alien sentient life will arise, on average, on larger planets than Earth, up to 10 times as large.

Of course, what we need to know is what is more common, habitable terrestrial planets that are around the size of the Earth, or ones that are larger. At present we are finding large planets because our detection methods are not sensitive enough -yet- to discover smaller ones. But that is rapidly changing. But even Earth sized and larger sized terrestrial planets are both just as common, the fact that life may be more likely to arise and/or survive on the larger ones than the smaller ones may still indicate that alien life will tend to come more from the larger terrestrial planets.

The main reason why larger terrestrial planets would be more conducive for creating life is that they would be more geographically active:
Plate tectonics are crucial to a planet's habitability because they enable complex chemistry and recycle substances like carbon dioxide, which acts as a thermostat and keeps Earth balmy.
A larger planet is more likely to have the complex chemistry necessary for life to begin and would have a more active recycling of substances like carbon dioxide, among others, which helps to keep the climate more stable (overall). In addition, a larger planet would have, probably, a thicker atmosphere, which would offer more protection from meteor impacts. If a larger active terrestrial planet also has a stronger magnetic field, then it would have increased protection from cosmic radiation. Such a planet would be a safer, for a longer period, environment for life to begin, evolve, and thrive on.

The next question, to be addressed later (I have papers to grade at the moment), is how would a larger planet affect the development of alien sentient beings?

Reference:

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "Earth: A Borderline Planet For Life?."
ScienceDaily. 14 January 2008. 11 February 2008. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080112151809.htm>.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Habitable Moons - Are They Common?

image credit: digitalblasphemy.com
"Thetis Moon" © DigitalBlasphemy.com
Earlier posts discussed the possibility of habitable moons, including how they may increase the habitable zone of a solar system, which would then affect the Drake Equation, giving it a larger number for N (the number of civilizations we can communicate with at this time in the galaxy).

Recent work by Caleb Scharf, Columbia University's Director of Astrobiology, points to the possibility that habitable moons may not be rare - they may even be as common as habitable planets.

Take a look at our own solar system as an example. Our solar system has several moons that, if orbited the sun instead of a planet, would be large enough to be considered planets themselves. Several of them have atmospheres, and at least one, Europa, is almost certain to have liquid water - though recent articles, which will be discussed in later posts, suggest that life can exist in ice, and that, thus, liquid water may not be necessary for life to exist (though it may be necessary for sentient life to evolve).

If our system is not unusual, then it should be common for extrasolar systems to have many moons as well, some of them large enough to have atmospheres and to retain water. As we've seen in previous posts, water is found to be rather common in planetary discs and systems (1).

However, a heat source is needed. And to the rescue comes tidal forces: tidal forces caused by the moon's parent planet which will create internal heat for the moon. This is due to the fact that gravity decreases with distance and the gravitational pull on the near side of the moon is greater than the gravitational pull on the far side. For a moon in a circular orbit, the moon will adjust its shape to adapt to this gravitational differential, and no tidal heating will occur. But for a moon in an eccentric orbit, the gravitational differential will change rhythmically, and the moon will be kneaded like a lump of bread dough (OK, a bit of an exaggeration). This will heat a moon even if it is outside of the solar system's main habitable zone. This increases the areas in a solar system where life can form.

So when we are looking for extrasolar life, we need to look at large moons as well as planets. Right now our technology allows us to detect only large gas giants. However, rapid advances will (possibly as early as this year) allow the ability to detect terrestrial planets. The ability to detect water planets is on the horizon as well. I can not say if the ability to detect habitable moons will exist in the near future, but I would not rule it out.

Notes:

1. Many chemicals are found in space, including interstellar gas clouds of sugar and of beer!


References:

Browne, Malcom W. "Alcohol-Laden Cloud Holds the Story of a Star." New York Times. 30 May 1995. 5 February 2008. <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7D81531F933A05756C0A963958260>.

Scharf, Caleb A. “The potential for tidally heated icy and temperate moons around exoplanets.” Astrophysical Journal. 648 (2006) 1196-1205.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Methuselah - Addendum

The Methuselah - 13 Billion Yr Old Planet (Garden of Eden?) post has been updated, thanks to a reader's feedback who correctly pointed out that I mislabeled M4 as an open cluster. I also addressed the issue of the low metallic nature of early globular clusters more clearly - early stellar nurseries should not be capable of producing planets, yet here we have at least one that was formed 13 billion years ago. The probability of life forming on that planet is rather low (at least life as we know it) as it is most likely a gaseous planet, but not zero. And it does raise the possibility (this blog is about speculation, after all) that other ancient planets exist - including a smaller terrestrial planet orbiting in the same system as Methuselah which current methods do not allow us to detect. And that raises the possibility, even if a slim one, that life did arise far earlier in the universe than first thought.

Saturday, January 5, 2008

Methuselah - 13 Billion Yr Old Planet (Garden of Eden?)

In 2003, astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope discovered something amazing deep in the M4 globular cluster 7,200 light years away - something that shouldn't be: a planet, 2.5 times the size of Jupiter, orbiting 23 AUs from a pulsar (a rotating, pulsating neutron star), PSR B1620-26. The primary star, the pulsar, has a companion white dwarf orbiting approx 1 AU out.

According to current theories, planets could not form in the early universe (1) - for one thing, early stellar nurseries shouldn't have enough heavy elements to create stars with planets. But somehow at least one planet was formed in the young universe - while the universe is 14 to 15 billion years old, this planet, dubbed Methuselah, is nearly 13 billion years old.

Imagine that - a planet almost as old as the universe itself. Could a civilization have arisen there? Or died out and rose again (that old of a planet, life would have time to restart several times)? And in the final years, moved out into the stars?

I can't help but think of old races often called "The Ancients" or similar such nomenclature in science fiction tales - very old races that seed the rest of the galaxy before ascending or mysteriously moving on to other galaxies, leaving this one behind.

And if life first began in this universe on such an old planet (or, more likely, a smaller sister planet), could that then be the real Garden of Eden, from which Adam and Eve where exiled from?

Of course, orbiting a pulsar is dangerous for life for two reasons: 1) a pulsar is a result of a supernova which tends to destroy worlds (strip away the atmospheres at the very least) and 2) pulsars give off extremely intense beams of radiation along the lines of its magnetic axis - if any planet is in the path of the beam of the rapidly spinning star, the radiation would be too intense for life to survive or form (2).

As we have seen in a previous post, Planets, planets everywhere, planets can reform around a pulsar - from the rocky debris of the original planets, blasted from the supernova explosion.

Scientists, however, do not feel that Methuselah is a "reconstituted" planet. One theory is that the planet (and maybe others too small to be detected by present means) was captured from a sideswipe with another younger system later on - a system that existed for 10 billion years before wandering too deep into the core of the globular cluster, where distances between star systems can sometimes be less than 1 light year.

Recall from an earlier post, An Aside - Are There Alien Worlds in Our Own Solar System?, there is some evidence that our own solar system has "adopted" objects from an alien solar system passing by in the distant past - possibly when it was still in an open globular cluster (scientists theorize that our sun was first formed in an open cluster).

In fact, the scientists feel that the white dwarf companion was also "adopted" by the primary neutron star. They theorize that the pulsar did have a dwarf companion at first, but when a yellow star system came too close, the gravitational tug-of-war kicked out the dwarf and the yellow star took its place, along with at least one of its planets. The new system then moved out from the core of the globular cluster - reducing any chances for further collisions.

In this new binary system, some of the mass from the yellow star got sucked into the pulsar, speeding up its rotation, giving it the incredible spin rate of 100 revolutions every second. After some millions of years, the yellow star became a red giant and then a white dwarf.

So it is quite possible that the Methuselah, and any other world(s) circling PSR B1620-26, were "adopted," right along with their sun. If so, could one of them developed life before being captured by the pulsar/dwarf system? Early planetary systems would most likely be made up of gaseous planets - there shouldn't be enough heavy elements for terrestrial planets to form. But then we didn't think any planets as old as Methuselah should exist either. Maybe, just maybe, a small terrestrial planet does exist along with Methuselah. And even if not, life is not necessarily restricted to terrestrial planets - life could begin and thrive on non-terrestrial planets (albeit, such life would not be life as we know it).

One problem such life would face is that being captured by the pulsar would prove to be quite the dramatic change. If they are lucky, the radiation beam from the pulsar would point far above the ecliptic, thus avoiding being bathed in intense radiation every 1/100th of a second; but even then, the difference in light (and heat) would be devastating as it is rather certain the planets' new orbits around the binary pair would be different than when they were just circling around their single parent star. But as we see on Earth, life, once formed, is tenacious and will find a way to survive, even during the occasional mass extinctions.

For intelligent life, depending upon their level of technological advancement, they could migrate to a sister world circling the new binary system, one that was now more hospitable than their home world. Otherwise, they would be forced to adapt to their new, darker, colder world. Or, if they were highly advanced at the time the collision was imminent, and finding themselves in a crowded neighborhood, could explore nearby systems and move to one that was safer -though it is doubtful any planetary system in the core of cluster would be safer, especially any system that was lingering in the core, and thus increased chances of itself colliding with another star system. No, more likely they would have to figure out how best to ride out the collision.

At first scientists thought planetary systems couldn't survive long in a cluster, especially a globular cluster - but increasing evidence is showing that sometimes this is not the case. Although, lingering too long in a cluster is still thought not the best environment for life; for one thing, a globular cluster has many stars in relatively close proximity - a supernova from a nearby star can have devastating effects for life on the planets of neighboring star systems and being in a globular cluster, chances for being near a supernova are rather high. For the Earth, a supernova 30 light years or closer would be quite devastating for life - for other planets, the distance could be greater, depending upon how thick their protective atmospheres are (to show you how protective our atmosphere is, for astronauts outside the Earth's atmosphere, a supernova 3,000 light years away could be deadly).

But, it is not impossible. That extrasolar system could have been one of the earliest gardens of life in the universe. 12.7 billion years ago the planetary system was formed. Our own system is "merely" 4.5 billion years. It is thought that the first 10 billion years Methuselah led a "normal" life around a normal sun like star. And if it was, was that life able to evolve to a space faring species? Are there descendants scattered about the Milky Way (or at least in that region of the Milky Way)?

Notes:

1. Early stars were poor in heavy elements, and thus could not form planets, but when they died, they produced heavy elements which then became part of new nebulae within which new stars were born - and with heavy elements now in the mix, allowing planets to finally be formed as well.

2. While pulsars are formed from massive stars, white dwarfs are formed from the average main sequence star - most stars in the galaxy will end their lives as white dwarves.


References:

Britt, Robert Roy. "Primeval Planet: Oldest Known World Conjures Prospect of Ancient Life." Science. SPACE.com. 10 July 2003. 6 January 2008. <http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/oldest_planet_030710-1.html>

"Extrasolar Visions - 'Methuselah' PSR B1620-26 c." Extrasolar Planet Guide. 5 January 2008. <http://www.extrasolar.net/planettour.asp?PlanetID=30>

"Messier Object 4." The Messier Catalog. SEDS. 21 August 2007. 6 January 2008. <http://www.seds.org/Messier/M/m004.html>

Mukai, Koji and Eric Christian. "Destruction of the Earth by a Nearby Supernova." Ask an Astrophysicist. Imagine the Universe! 1 December 2005. 5 January 2008. <http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980521a.html>


"Oldest Planet Challenges Existing Theories."
This Week in Science. 11 July 2003. 5 January 2008. <http://www.twis.org/2003_07_11_science_news.html>

Richmond, Michael. "Will a Nearby Supernova Endanger Life on Earth?" 8 April 2005. 5 January 2008. <http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/snrisks.txt>

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Alien Safari!


© NASA, JPL
Alien Safari, from NASA's JPL can help you "Discover some of the most extreme organisms on our planet, and find out what they are telling astrobiologists about the search for life beyond Earth" (Alien Safari, par. 1).

The Safari includes the weird methane-ice worms found deep 80 miles off the coast of Louisiana. Life finds a way yet again! Though, to be fair, this doesn't necessarily mean that life can originate everywhere, just that life, once established, is tenacious and difficult to get rid of (you can, unfortunately, eliminate individual species easily, but getting rid of life entirely is extremely difficult). So it may bode well for terraformers more than for those searching for alien life. However, I still bet on life being rather common in solar systems.

Alien Safari destinations:
  • Living Without Sunlight
  • Highest Radiation Dose
  • Most Acidic
  • Farthest Underground
  • Strangest Habitat
  • Hottest
Reference:

"Alien Safari." Planet Quest. Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 16 December 2007. <http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/AlienSafari_launch_page.html>

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Planets, planets everywhere

Watching the "Alien Planets" episode of the History Channel's Universe program, we learn an interesting discovery: planets around a pulsar (for example PSR B1257+12). That should be impossible - a pulsar is what is formed after a massive supernova explosion, an explosion so powerful that any planets should be destroyed. However, three small rocky planets were found. What they now hypothesize is that these are planets that formed from the debris of the destroyed orignial planets. If this is so, then this is more proof that planets can form even under extreme conditions; gravity wants to clump debris together, it is a natural consequence of matter and gravity. Thus, planets are probably very, very common.

By the way, life on a planet around a pulsar is very unlikely - there is far too much radiation flooding the system, especially if the planet happens to be in the way of the emission beams from the pulsar's magnetic poles.

Reference:

Pennsylvania State University. "Scientists announce smallest extra-solar planet yet discovered." 10 February 2005. 29 November 2007. <http://live.psu.edu/story/10180>

Wolszczan, A. (1994). "Confirmation of Earth Mass Planets Orbiting the Millisecond Pulsar PSR B1257+12". Science 264 (5158): 538 – 542.

Friday, November 23, 2007

Alien Life on Earth? - And Universal Biologies

In a recent edition of Discover, an article, "Aliens Among Us," asks the question "do we share our planet with alternative forms of life?" (62). Mathematical models indicate that there is a 95% chance that life originated two or more times on the Earth. There is no reason, from natural laws, that life didn't have more than one origin. DNA based life dominated, but that doesn't mean that niches are filled with RNA based life (DNA based life uses RNA, and evolved from RNA based life). At present, most of our methods for detecting life do not look for RNA, they look for DNA instead.

In early Earth history, the Earth would've been bombarded by large planetoids, comets and meteors - some of which may have wiped out early life. Life would've begun again. Why? Why can chemical reactions be predicted if the type and quantity of the chemicals involved are known as well as the environment (temperature, pressure, etc)? Why can large (and thus Newtonian) physical systems be predicted given known values (mass, density, magnetic fields, etc)? Because laws are universal. Given certain range of conditions, life will rise.

Life has great variety on Earth "but at the molecular level they are staggeringly uniform" (62). This doesn't mean that alien life will share the same uniformity as Earth life. But it will probably have its own uniformity. And it does mean that when looking for life, we need to broaden the tool set we use for looking for life. But it also means that here on Earth we need to study all the forms of life that exist here to help us gain an idea of the universal biology laws.

You see, forces all work to find an equilibrium. A star burns because gravity compresses it down, igniting a nuclear furnace. The radiation pressure from that furnace pushes back against the forces of gravity. While they balance, the star burns in an overall steady state. Depending upon mass, the star lives a long life, or a short life, and ends in a supernova or a blackhole (OK, this is a bit oversimplified). This happens over and over again throughout the universe because the forces are everywhere - gravity, light, and electromagnetism, for instance, are common and they react each according to their natures; and because their natures are not random natures, they do not interact randomly: gravity doesn't randomly become light and then magnetism, for instance, and it doesn't randomly change the way it interacts with the universe.

True, constants may actually change over time (there are debates about just how constant constants are), but overall forces have a nature to them, a pattern to them. And patterns interacting with patterns, and you get great variety of results, but it isn't chaos. Same with biology. There will be universal biological laws. And given the right range of conditions, and life will arise again and again in the universe, just like stars die and stars are born, they didn't come into existence only once, to die as a one time occurrence. Galaxies weren't created only once. There is an overall evolution to the universe (change may be the only true constant), but it is a slow evolution, and right now life exists, and we are learning more and more just how tenacious life is. It survives terrible calamities, terrible upsets - particular life forms may not survive, but life itself tenaciously persists.

Reference:

Zimmer, Carl. "Aliens Among Us." Discover. July 2007. 62 - 65. Can also be found at <http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/aliens-among-us>.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Color of Life


Image credit: Caltech/Doug Cummings
Scientists, including biometerologist Nancy Kiang of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, have been speculating to the color of alien life in response to the type of star, or even atmosphere, of their planet.

Plant like life would probably be fairly common since starlight is a very useful, and fairly constant source of energy for life to take advantage of. On the Earth, for instance, phytoplankton (microbial plants) are extremely abundant and "provide the basis for most of the marine food chain, half the oxygen in our atmosphere and ultimately much of the life on Earth" ("Breakthrough").

Studying plants on Earth, the scientists discovered something: at first plants seem rather inefficient because they reflect light at its highest energy output - green light. The sun light energy that hits the surface of our planet actually peaks in the green band. However, photosynthesis uses particles (photons) of the light rather than just the energy. The photons peak in the red range. This is because red light penetrates through the atmosphere easier than blue light which gets scattered mainly by atmospheric ozone (which is why the sky looks blue, and the sun appears to be red when it is setting - the light from the setting sun has to travel through more atmosphere than the noon time sun, and the only light that makes it through with the least scattering is red).

But even though blue light is scattered somewhat by our atmosphere, enough still reaches the ground that plants can find it useful; while photosynthesis relies on photons, more energetic photons tend to be more efficient - blue photons are far more energetic than red photons. Though there is a limit as to how much energy a plant can take in. For most Earth plants, concentrating on the peak in the red  range is enough.

By the way, while the sun puts out more light energy in the green band, it looks yellow to us on the surface because, as mentioned above, some of the blue is being scattered by the atmosphere. From space, the sun looks white, but that is because of how our eyes work - when flooded by the entire spectrum, especially from a bright source, our eyes will perceive the source to be white, even if it is not fully white.


Image credit: NASA/Caltech/T. Pyle (SSC)
Using this information about photosynthesis, Nancy Kiang and her fellow scientists speculated what color life would prefer in alien environments. F-type stars, for instance, are hot blue stars that give off more blue photons than photons of other colors, and definitely far more than the sun. On a planet circling such a star, any plant like organisms that finds the chemistry of photosynthesis to be as useful as do Earth plants (*), then such plant like organisms may want to concentrate on absorbing blue particles. They would probably reflect red and orange, since those wavelengths are of little use (not efficient to use them).

Around cooler, and dimmer, red M-type stars, the light may be so little that plant life will need all the particles they can get, and thus they would reflect little to no light back (black plants - a goth planet!). Even if the plant life used chlorophyll that absorbed mostly in the infrared range (scientists have discovered two types of chlorophyll on Earth that absorb in the infrared range), such plants may want to absorb as much heat as possible. Or for a planet or habitable moon circling a gas giant far from the central sun, with a thick atmosphere (reflecting even more of the blue wavelength that our atmosphere), plants on such a planet may need to use all available light as well. (Note: Apparently solitary - not binary - red dwarf M-type stars are the most common in our galaxy).

What would this mean for sentient cultures? Just that each section of their spectrum could easily have rather different cultural significances or cultural or theological metaphors. Think of what yellow means to us: warmth, light, day, energy - it is a positive color. Red is connected to blood, and often means life, and from spilled blood, sacrifice or death. Blue is a color of coolness, water, and sky. And of course green is for food, sustenance, fertility, serenity, and life.

Around different stars, these colors could easily take on other meanings. Around a hot blue star, blue may not be a color of coolness. The sky may very well be blue, with a brighter blue spot for the sun - which could be interesting. Think about what if our sky was yellow? Our yellow sun would be this bright part of the yellow sky, a bright spot that moved. Maybe we wouldn't be able to tell exactly the boundaries of the sun and so not, at first, recognize it as a self contained body circling the Earth, but instead just a brightness that moves across the sky. So too, possibly, for some planets circling a blue star.

On a planet with black plants, black could come to represent, to the primitive sentient mind, life. And if black was food, sustenance, fertility, and thus life - then what of the black night sky?

And what of a planet that had both blue water and blue plants? The color blue could take on such a huge significance. Maybe even some of the animal life would have blue pigmentation (to blend in with the vegetation, for instance). However, Ms. Kiang feels that totally blue is the least likely color for plants, since blue light has very high energy photons.

Speaking of red stars, class M stars tend to flare more than sun, and more strongly. This can cause problems for life as the flare floods the planets with strong radiation. However, life is tenacious, "life always finds a way," and not only are there small life forms on Earth that can survive in outer space, but water is a good shield - life forms 9 to 10 meters below the surface would be protected from the flares while still getting enough life giving photons.

* Because of the universality of the laws of physics and chemistry, it is conceivable that there are universal laws of biology, which are based on physics and chemistry. Not all biologies may discover photosynthesis, as there are many chemical and physical variables within those universal laws, variables that may vary enough that some biologies may not "discover" or even need photosynthesis, or may find alternative versions of photosynthesis that are not needed or were not "discovered" by the biology of our planet. However, chlorophyll is a remarkable molecule; it is a very useful source of energy production for life and so seems highly likely to be popular among life in the universe (though again, that does not rule out exceptions).



References [updated]:
Chen, Min, et. al. "A Red-Shifted Chlorophyll." Science Magazine. 19 August 2010. Web. 21 August 2010. <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1191127>

Berman, Bob. "Sky Lights." Discover Magazine. 23 Feb. 2007. Web. 22 Nov. 2007. <http://discovermagazine.com/2003/jun/featsky>.

"Breakthrough Method System for Understanding Ocean Plant Life." Earth Observation News. 1 Mar. 2005. Web. 22 Nov. 2007. <http://news.eoportal.org/research/050301_unicalifornia.html>.

"Extraterrestrial Landscaping." Discover. July 2007. 15. Print.


Kiang, Nancy. "La Couleur des Plantes Extraterrestres." Astrobiologie. Pour la Science. June 2009. Web. 30 July 2009. [Article is in French].

Lada, Charles J. "Stellar Multiplicity and the IMF: Most Stars Are Single." The Astrophysical Journal Letters. 640, L63-L66. Print. Also found at <http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~clada/pubs_html/binaries.html> (as of 22 November 2007) and reprinted in part at <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060206233911.htm> (as of 22 November 2007).


Meadows, Vikki. "Colors of Alien Plants." Astrobiology Magazine. 1 Oct. 2007. Web. 22 Nov. 2007. <http://www.astrobio.net/news/article2477.html>.

Habitable Zones

Barrie Jones, Emeritus Professor of Astronomy at The Open University in the UK, has devised a preliminary algorithm for determining the habitable zone (HZ) around a star. The HZ would vary depending upon the size of the system's star. More work needs to be done, for instance if the question needs to be raised that if
there giant planets too close to the habitable zone, so that an Earth-sized planet would be thrown out into interstellar space by the gravity of the giants?
Also, what would be the parameters of an HZ around a binary or trinary star systems? Right now, there is not enough data, nor enough computer modeling done, to answer those kinds of questions.



Reference:

"Modeling Other Earths."
Astrobiology Magazine. 1 February 2007. 22 November 2007. <http://www.astrobio.net/news/article2225.html>.

Astronomers Map Out Planetary Danger Zone

Astronomers are beginning to refine areas in space where planets can form and survive and where they cannot. An important note in the article is that
"Stars move around all the time, so if one wanders into the danger zone and stays for too long, it will probably never be able to form planets," said Zoltan Balog of the University of Arizona, Tucson, lead author of the new report, appearing May 20 in the Astrophysical Journal ("Astronomers," Par. 3).
So, for a planet around a star in a nebula, small planets may be boiled away before they could finish forming. On planets that did form despite being in the nebula (not all areas of the nebula would be detrimental to planetary formation), life may have a bit of a struggle to hold on - and not only to hold on, but to be able to develop into sentient beings. If their star wanders into a "hot zone" in the nebula (too close to a super hot O type star), it will be blasted by dangerous solar winds and radiation that could, if it stayed too long, strip a planet of its atmosphere, or worst.

Some scientists think our sun was born in such an environment, but was able to keep its planets and move out into calmer regions of space.

Reference:

"Astronomers Map Out Planetary Danger Zone." Spitzer - NASA. 18 March 2006. 22 November 2007. <http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer-20070418.html>.