Ice Water Worlds

I am getting caught up with my Astronomy magazine reading and was reading the article "Saturn's small wonders" in the March 2018 issue in which Francis Reddy discusses how "the Saturn system is also home to some of our solar system's most intriguing moons."

For example, Atlas and Pan both have equatorial ridges formed from the accretion of ring material, making them appear, as Reddy describes,  like ravioli. In an ice moon in a ring system of a gas giant, an ice moon large enough to have oceans under the ice, this accretion could form an equatorial mountain range which, because of gravity, would press down on the equatorial ice (though the spinning moon would counteract some of that) forming an ice ceiling mountain range.

Another thought involves air pockets under the ice. Moons orbiting large planets tend to be "massaged" by gravitational forces, especially if the orbits of the moons are not perfectly circular. This keeps adding energy to the moons, heating their core, creating dynamic worlds: undersea volcanism. This helps mix chemicals, increasing the chances of life forming (indeed, undersea vents on Earth are teeming with life and many feel that life may have gotten its start around such vents) as well as producing air bubbles.

So imagine sentient life evolving in such an ice-covered water world. The sky is a thick barrier of ice that has upside down ice mountains and valleys with air. For such life, this would be normal. A mostly dark world, lit up by the occasional volcano (most would be volcanic vents issuing gas but no bright lava), and, quite possibly, life forms that are bioluminescent; a mostly dark world that has a seabed with mountains and an ice roof with ice mountains. The whole universe is contained between the two. At the top of the universe are scattered air pockets and the sky cracks, with water flowing up to who knows where until the crack closes or freezes shut.

The sentient creature wonders: "What is beyond the ice roof? Where does that water go? Is there another water universe beyond that ice roof--a shared ice roof with another universe? But then why does the water only flow into that other universe and no water flows in? What comes in, comes in via the seabed vents...is there an ice base under the seabed? So are the worlds nested within each other?" Does their Jules Verne create a story of a journey to the center of their world only to break through and find another ice world?

Image: "Small Wonders." Cassini. NASA. 28 June 2017. "This montage of views from NASA's Cassini spacecraft shows three of Saturn's small ring moons: Atlas, Daphnis and Pan at the same scale for ease of comparison."

Planets With Four Suns May Be Not So Rare After All

While numerous two- and three-star systems containing planets have been discovered (with planet-harboring binary-star systems possibly outnumbering planet-harboring single star systems), four-star systems with planets were at first thought to be if not impossible, highly unlikely. How can a planet maintain an orbit? 

30 Ari a Double Double

However, we now know of two planet-harboring quadruple-star systems. First was Kepler-64b, found in 2012. The latest is a system called 30 Ari which lies 136 light-years away in the constellation Aries. The star system was first thought to be a triple-star system but a fourth star was discovered, making 30 Ari a double double-star system, with each binary orbiting a point in space between the two systems (the center of gravity for the entire quadruple-star system).

A diagram of the newfound system show the two pairs of stars in orbit together, while a planet circles one of them. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

The Planet (30 Ari B b) 

The one planet found to date is a giant planet 10 times the mass of Jupiter and orbits the main star in 30 Ari  B every 335 days; it lies about 0.995 AU from the main star. The second star orbits at about 22 AUs away (for comparison, The Earth is 1 AU from the Sun, Uranus is around 20 AUs away, and Neptune is about 30AUs away). 

The planet orbiting the main star in 30 Ari B might lie just within the habitable zone. While the planet itself is probably not habitable due to its mass (it is most likely a gas giant), this does not rule out a habitable moon.

A Complicated Sky

A sentient being on such a hypothetical moon would see sometime in the daytime sky (when the gas giant is not occluding or blocking the main star) one small sun and two bright stars. With a large telescope, it would see that one of the bright stars was a binary system (30 Ari A binary system).

Some days, depending upon the tilt of the gas giant and thus the orbital plane of the moon with regards to the orbital plane of the stars, as well as possibly depending upon latitude if on a large moon, the sentient being would see just one (the main) star in the sky, or the main star with one of the two bright stars. One of those stars would show retrograde motion on a "yearly" basis.

Why celestial objects orbiting farther out display retrograde motion.
Credit: Prof. Pogge, Ohio State University.

Night, or when the gas giant is blocking the main 30 Ari B star, the sentient being would sometimes see those two bright stars (they would be the brightest nighttime stars), or just one of them, and sometimes none. If the moon is on the sun-facing side of the gas giant, the nighttime side of the moon would face the gas giant which would probably block any stars of any kind from being seen.

In fact, with a gas giant 10 times the mass of Jupiter, it is possible the moon beings would not see the night sky for part of their year. When their moon-planet is between the main star and the gas giant, night is just the gas giant. When the orbit begins to take the moon to the other side of the gas giant, then a starry night begins to be seen, with the day being replaced by a starry night (and the nights always the gas giant filling the sky, or filling most of it). This does depend upon how far away the moon is orbiting from the gas giant. Further away and then they may be able to see the night sky framing the gas giant, though most of the sky would still be the gas giant.

What a complicated sky! What complicated early religions would arise from such complexity? A mighty light in the sky that has two smaller, wandering lights that has a complicated dance.

If the newfound star is on the same orbital plane as the main 30 Ari B and main 30 Ari A stars, then sometimes the lesser lights (but still brighter than any other star) would seem to merge together, only to separate again, on a repetitive basis. If not, then they would approach and pass each other, with the newfound star being the fastest moving.

The 30 Ari A system would be like a zodiac indicator, for when the beings are able to see the night sky, since the 30 Ari A system is always opposite of the 30 Ari B system (circling a point in space in between the two systems). But since the 30 Ari A system is moving (both systems dancing around that shared point), that pointer would slowly move over the centuries, where, for example, the first day of spring used to be when 30 Ari A was in constellation D, it has slowly moved to where it is now in constellation E.

I would think that sentient beings would be pattern seekers on some level--visual ones would try to make some sense of the dots in the night sky, whether they would have a close equivalent to our concept of a zodiac is another matter. The stars will align at certain times of the year, times that are important for a primitive people to survive (best time to hunt, when to prepare for lean season, etc), as well as any religious meaning that gets attributed to stars and the movement/dance of those stars.

What kind of Stonehenge would arise in such a complex system? Though the aliens would be able to handle it--we had to figure out when eclipses would occur and that is no easy matter. 

Even More Complexity

Just as the two binaries orbit a shared center of gravity, the stars within each binary revolve around a shared center of gravity (or barycenter). The more alike in mass the two stars in a binary system are, the more the center of gravity will be outside of each star, in between. Two equally massive stars would orbit around a point essentially halfway between the two stars. A big imbalance in masses, however, could put the center of gravity inside the largest star. In our solar system the barycenter moves about as the planets have different masses, revolve at different rates, and are at different distances--sometimes the barycenter is inside the Sun, sometimes outside the Sun.

Solar System Barycenter Orbit Around Sun, from Wikimedia Commons. Credit Carl Smith, Rubik-Wuerfel.

Depending upon how heavy the newfound star turns out to be relative to the main star, the barycenter could be midpoint. Then the newfound star would never go behind 30 Ari B. The newfound star would sometimes be in the daytime sky and sometimes in the nighttime sky, but it would never be seen to merge with the main star. 30 Ari A still would--and depending upon orbital planes, could still look like it merges with the newfound star.

All Hail the Sky Giant

Retrogrades are hard to explain if you believe your planet is non-spinning. Would seeing a large gas giant spinning above you help a race to think of their planet, the gas-giant's moon, as spinning as well? With ancient humans, the Moon pretty much always kept the same face toward the Earth (we can see a wee bit more as the Moon's orbit is not perfectly circular). A gas giant, even if the giant's moon was tidally locked, would appear to be spinning. Even if the gas giant was tidally locked, there would be at least some cloud bands that would circle the globe and spin. However, maybe those cloud bands would be looked at as just clouds and no proof of a spinning planet.

On the other hand, the sentient beings would probably quickly realize they are orbiting that gas giant. The moon would not be the center of the universe--the gas giant would be. They may try to at first explain the night sky as everything circling the gas giant.

A gas giant that is always looking down on them, a huge presence every night. The main star is not as constant, disappearing behind the gas giant for part of each year. The two bright wandering stars also disappear behind (or into) the gas giant at different times of the year. A sense of pattern helps to put a mind at ease--chaos is dangerous, especially to early societies that are always on the edge of death due to climate patterns (from too little rain to too much rain to devastating storms or floods or fires during times of droughts, etc). And the one constant--the only constant (even if it face changes a bit with the cloud bands)--the gas giant, the sky giant.

Would the gas giant then be the home of the gods? Heaven? Hell? Birth place of the universe? A god itself?

The Great Eye(s)

And if that gas giant had one or more giant storms, like Jupiter, a big eye or eyes peering down? The ever watching eye...if tidal lock and always see the eye. If not, then the eye moves--watching the heavens, scanning creation, turning its eye upon the inhabitants of the moon on a regular basis.

When the eye appears, is that the time to supplicate to the great sky god? When its eye is most directed to the moon?

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

Pathways Towards Habitable Planets

Conference

I knew it had to happen - a conference centered on the search for habitable planets. Pathways Towards Habitable Planets is being held at Barcelona, Spain, 14-18 September. Short notice, I know - I have signed up for their distribution list so that next year I will be able to give a decent heads up.

From their Web site:

The aim of this conference is to help integrate the prospective efforts in Europe and in the US, build a community around this theme, and bring together several pathways towards that final goal.

Conference Offerings

It should prove to be a very interesting conference. Looking over their program, there does not appear to be one talk I would pass up. Though if I could only attend two presentations:

1. first, I would have to say Dr. David Kipping's presentation, "The Detectability of Habitable Exomoons," is not to be missed. As I have mentioned before, I strongly believe that we should not only look for life on habitable planets, but on large moons as well. Planet moons like Star Wars' Endor may not be just in the realm of science fiction (and will likely prove to be more interesting and exciting than what has been so far imagined).
2. Second, I would have to attend J. Scheider's "'Are We Alone?' in different cultures" presentation. Dr. Scheider - I believe you have a book concept there: an exploration of how different culture's answer that enduring question: "are we alone?

Why It Matters

This is exiting stuff. One long running theme for the human race has been exploration: climbing a mountain to peer over the horizon, sailing across forbidding seas in small, fragile craft, spreading out across the globe until no continent was left. We are meant to explore. It is our nature.

There are still areas on the Earth that remain largely unknown. We have the depths of the oceans where many mysterious life forms swim in the dark, waiting to be seen for the first time by wonder-filled eyes of undersea explorers. But as incredible as the diversity of life is on our mother Earth, much of which is yet to be discovered and studied, out across the vast space-ocean lie islands of life to be discovered that will expand even more our understanding of the diversity of life. And we will find yet again that T.S. Eliot was right, as he wrote in his poem "Little Gidding":

And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

Conference Blogger (Tweeter)?

But alas, I have classes to teach, and the conference falls at the beginning of the Fall quarter - it would be difficult to miss the first week of classes. Someone needs to blog from that conference. If anyone attending the Pathways Towards Habitable Planets conference is planing on blogging (or tweeting) about their conference experience, please let me know, I will be more than happy to link to your blog.

Reference:

Pathways Towards Habitable Planets. n.d. Web. 8 Sept. 2009. <http://www.pathways2009.net/>

The Future for Some Habitable Moons

© Lynette Cook

Exchanging Rings?

I was watching BBC's 1999 miniseries The Planets (shown on the Science channel) recently; they were showing several episodes in a row.

In one episode they discussed how Saturn's rings will, eventually, vanish. But that the moon of another outer planet, Neptune, would break up from tidal forces as it slowly spirals in toward the planet, creating another planet with rings rivaling that of Saturn's lost rings. We would swap one ringed planet for another.

Yes, Neptune already has a ring system, but it is very dark - being comprised mostly of rocky debris while Saturn's bright rings are comprised mostly of ice. Neptune's moons are composed of rock and ice - a break up of, say Triton (one of three moons in the solar system with an atmosphere), would create a ring of ice around the planet, giving it a shimmering, shining ring system.

Spiraling Moons

This got me to thinking about the habitable moon discussions. Tidal forces are what help heat the moons (if Europa has liquid water under its icy surface, for instance, it will be the result of tidal forces). The very tidal forces that would allow for the possibility of life, which would allow for a moon to be habitable, may also signal its early demise - if the moon is slowly spiraling in.

So, for some habitable moons, their lifespans may be shorter than those of habitable planets. Which has a bearing on the rise of high order sentient life. High order sentient life probably needs a very long time to arise. Imagine being an alien race finally creating technology and exploring their solar system, only to find that their world will die long before their sun will.

Of course the flip side of the coin is shown by our moon. The Moon is slowly spiraling away from the Earth (at 3.8 centimeters, or about 2.5 inches, per year). However, while in 500 million years or so there won't be any full eclipses anymore, we won't lose the moon. Eventually the Moon and the Earth will become gravitationally locked together. At some point the Earth and Moon will become locked - the same side of the Earth will always face the same side of the moon. When that happens the Moon will quit spiraling away from us.

Why? It has to do with the fact that the Earth has large oceans. Right now the Earth rotates faster than the Moon revolves around it. The tidal bulge created by the Moon's gravitational pull moves ahead and actually forces the Moon to speed up a tiny bit. This causes its orbit to get larger. When the Earth and Moon are locked, the tidal bulge won't move faster than the Moon. High tide will be permanent in some areas, and low tide permanent in others.

"Thetis Moon" © DigitalBlasphemy.com

I still believe that we may find more habitable moons than habitable planets. But that some moons may spiral into toward their planet billions of years before their system's sun(s) die, will be one reason why it may be harder for high order sentient life to arise on some moons.

References

Cain, Fraser. "Ep. 17: Where Does the Moon Come From?" Astronomy Cast. 1 Jan. 2007. Web. 24 Aug. 2009. <http://www.astronomycast.com/solar-system/episode-17-where-does-the-moon-come-from/>

Mihos, Chris. "Neptune's Moons." Journey Through the Galaxy. Astronomy Dept. Case Western Reserve University. 13 Sept. 2006. Web. 24 Aug. 2009. <http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/neptune_moons.html>

Scharringhausen, Britt. "Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered?" Curious About Astronomy: Ask an Astronomer. Cornell University. 21 nov. 2002. Web. 24 Aug. 2009. <http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124>

Life Outside the "Zone."

As I've stated in earlier posts, I support the idea that extrasolar life may be readily found outside the traditional "Habitable Zone" or the "Goldilocks" zone around a star - the band of space around a star that is neither too cold nor too warm for liquid water to exist. This is too simplistic. Liquid water can be found outside this zone - mainly on moons circling large planets. The tidal forces of the planet on the moon can cause the moon to heat up through internal friction. This is especially true if the moon is in an elongated orbit.

How does this work? 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.

Recent research by Brian Jackson, Rory Barnes, and Richard Greenberg of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory extends this idea to planets (this research will be published in an upcoming issue of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society). Most extrasolar planets found to date circle their stars in elongated orbits. Like a moon circling a large planet, these planets circling a large star in elongated orbits will experience tidal stress, which will cause internal heating and possibly tectonic activity. This internal heating may be enough to warm the planet to where liquid water can exist even when the planet's orbit takes it outside of its star's traditionally defined Habitable Zone.

However, because the tidal heating scales with the size of the planet, for "super-Earths," terrestrial planets 2 to 10 times the size of the Earth, the tidal heating would be too great to make the planet habitable - the planet may become too hot, with many large active volcanoes.

But for Earth-sized or smaller terrestrial planets that would otherwise be too small or too cold to support life, this type of tidal heating may help them become habitable by not only warming them up so that liquid water can exist but also by causing tectonic activity which may help life to arise. 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. The tidal forces of a star on planet in an elongated orbit may have the same result. In addition, tectonic activity helps regulate carbon dioxide.

Therefore, I believe that the famous Drake Equation may be a bit too conservative. The number of planets (or moons!) that potentially can support life may be higher than first thought.

Reference:

"Tides have major impact on planet habitability." Astronomy. Kalmbach Publishing Co. 14 Oct. 2008. Web. 31 Oct. 2008. Provided by the Div. for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society. <http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=7505>.

Habitable Moons - Are They Common?

"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.

Introduction to The Drake Equation

The Drake Equation

I really shouldn't go on without at least an introductory mention of the famous (and controversial) Drake Equation created by Dr. Frank Drake in 1960.

Dr. Drake's equation is a tool for estimating the number of intelligent advanced civilizations presently in the Milky Way galaxy that we would theoretically be able to communicate with.

The Drake Equation is

N=(R)(fp)(ne)(fl)(fi)(fc)(L)

where N is the number of civilizations we can communicate with at this time in the galaxy, and where:

• R = average star formation rate (10/yr)
  
• fp = percent of those with planetary systems (50%)
  
• ne = average number of planets that can potentially support life per star with planetary systems(2)
  
• fl = percent of the above planets where life actually begins - life started on Earth very quickly, water and the complex organic building blocks for life are common in the universe (100%)
  
• fi = percent of habited planets where intelligent life evolves (1%)
  
• fc = percent of intelligent life that develop communication technology capable of transmitting into space(1%)
  
• L = lifetime of all such civilizations on a particular planet - civilizations may collapse and rise again, or nearly wipe themselves out and the survivors rebuild (10,000 years)

The values in the parentheses are Dr. Drake's estimations. Using Dr. Drake's original values we arrive at N=10. As new data rolls with increasing frequency, these values tend to change. For more discussion see below. 

Assumptions

• Liquid water is required for life, 
• type M stars are too cool, 
• type O and B stars are too short lived, 
• life will develop if given a chance, 
• developing intelligence gives a survival edge, 
• and technologically advanced civilizations do not consistently prematurely destroy themselves because of their technological advances (global atomic war, for instance).

R, fi, and ne Discussion

As mentioned above, as new data rolls with increasing frequency, these values tend to change. Presently, the value for R is thought to be 6 per year. And, as mentioned a few times before in other postings in this blog, we are increasingly discovering certain intelligent traits first thought to be reserved just for humans cropping up in other animals: birds that make and keep tools, ferrets purposefully lying, and dogs mapping language to mention just a few. This indicate that the first estimation for fi (a mere 1%) may be too low.

If, however, sentient, intelligent life is so rare that we are the only one in the galaxy, or even the universe, then the vale for fi may be infinitesimally small. But, if we are the average result of habitable planetary system, and if life is found to have once existed on Mars, and to exist on Europa, then the value for fi becomes 33% (and ne becomes 3). That life formed quickly on Earth, a wet rock orbiting an average star in a nondescript part of the galaxy, then maybe, just maybe, it can form in extrasolar systems as well.

Calculate N for Yourself

See the Drake Equation Calculator on the right. Type in your own values for the variables in the Drake Equation to calculate N.

Habitable Zones and Habitable "Hot Spots"

Personally, I believe the habitable zone estimates are a bit conservative. For instance, Jupiter's moon Europa, despite being outside of our solar system's Habitable Zone, may have liquid water beneath its icy surface, and many scientists feel that Europa could support life. Thus, Habitable Zones could actually be larger, or a system could have Habitable "Hot Spots" (which includes not only planets, but large moons as well) in addition to its Habitable Zone . Maybe even an occasional type M stars could have habitable planet (see Color of Life for some discussion about life in a M class star system).

In addition, the equation does not take into account life that is spread to other planets by advanced civilizations (whether unintentionally from exploration or purposefully from terraforming). And finally, life is constantly surprising us with its great diversity here on Earth - our definition of what is life may need to be expanded.

Additional Drake Equation Posts.


Reference:

Schilling, Govert and Alan. M. MacRobert. "The Chance of Finding Aliens." SETI: Searching for Life. Sky and Telescope Magazine. 15 January 2008. <http://www.skyandtelescope.com/resources/seti/3304541.html>


Image credit: © Lynette Cook

Christmas on Omicron Persei 8

During this time of year, my thoughts turn philosophically, sentimentally deeper toward several things: family, the past, spirituality and, of course, life on other planets.

For family, this time of year means additional sentimental thoughts partly because, for the Northern hemisphere, the weather is growing colder, and the nights darker and longer, and so our hearts instinctively look to shorten the distances between loved ones to increase warmth, security, and hope.

For the past, at this time of year, with the New Year approaching, it is a time that we begin to realize that another year has gone, and we begin to look back and take stock of what has happened - sometimes with happiness, sometimes with new knowledge realized, sometimes with anger, sometimes with regret, and sometimes with sadness. If used right, it is a time of extra growth.

For spirituality, this season has strong, and many times somewhat similar, religious meanings for many of the world's theologies. This is in large part because, again for the Northern hemisphere, the Winter solstice brings not only the longest night of the year, but the knowledge that the days will now begin to lengthen again - the Sun returns, and with it renewed warmth and energy filled life. It is the promise of Spring. It is the promise of rebirth, renewal, and resurrection that we rejoice in and are thankful for. It is the promise of death conquered. And connected with looking back to the year that was, and looking close to loved ones, it is a time of year to be thankful yet again for the blessings that loved ones, that love, brings (though for those struggling with a bad year, with abandonment, it can be a very dark time of year indeed).

Of course, too often all of this is ruined by crass commercialism, by the pressures and stresses of false and shallow meanings that have been attached to the season. But that is a topic for other blogs.

For life on other planets, I wonder how they would treat a solstice on their planet? To be high level sentient does one have to be a pattern seeker, to look for the meaning and/or reasons for the patterns? If so, then such sentient beings would see the pattern of solstice and equinox as even our distant ancestors did (from even before Stonehenge) and work to apply a meaning or reason to the pattern (for to find meaning or reason is to find purpose and to be able to make predictions, and maybe even gain some control over - or at least the illusion/delusion of some control).

This, of course, depends on many factors which would affect the severity, or the placidness, of annual weather patterns. Is the planet in a very circular orbit, or a somewhat elliptical one? Is the planet close to its star, and thus with a very short year? Is the planet actually a large habitable moon circling a gas giant? Is there a virtually non-existent tilt to its axis or it is a large tilt? And what of these combined?

If, for instance, the planet is in a very circular orbit, at a close orbit (a red dwarf, for instance, would have a habitable zone much closer to it than a normal G-type star like our own Sun), and with virtually no tilt to its axis, such a planet may have very little differences between its seasons - and seasons that come and go quickly (smaller orbit means, usually, a shorter year). If a longest night is very quickly followed by a longest day (weeks later, i.e.), would there be as much imperative to celebrate the return of the sun's dominance in the sky?

For a planet-moon circling a gas giant, the sun could disappear for days at a time before returning to a "regular" schedule.

Or if the planet-moon is phase locked with its parent gas giant planet, then for the time it is behind the planet there would be, for the far side of the planet-moon there would be constant darkness until the planet-moon came out from behind the gas giant; but then the sun would rise and stay in the sky as it slowly arcs to the opposite horizon as the planet-moon orbits in front of the gas giant. On such a world, a short winter may cover the entire globe while in the shadow of the gas giant, and summer cover the entire globe while in front of the gas giant with extremely short springs and fall at the point the planet-moon is over the terminator line of the gas giant (the line where day and night on the gas giant meet, where one begins and the other ends). Maybe the world's sentient race would view their world as more of a unity than we view our own as on Earth the Northern and Southern hemispheres experience direct opposite seasons at the same time, while on this hypothetical world, both hemispheres experience the same season at the same time.

Anyway, back to the long day and long night, a primitive sentient mind may see that as a mighty heroic epic struggle between day and night. Though if a non-aggressive sentient species, say a slow moving herbivore species on a cool planet, maybe the day and night would represent a sort of "wheel of fortune" - first good luck (sun, warmth, plants taking full advantage) and then bad luck (days long darkness, worsening cold, plants folding up waiting for the sun)?

Additionally, there would be no solstice like we have - there would be no gradual shortening of the night - just one long night, and then one long day, each individual night as long as the night before, separated by an equally long day. Essentially, they would be in eternal equinox. Spring would be morning, summer would be the day, fall would be the evening, and winter would be the night - if you wanted to give them seasons. It may be more accurate to say such a world would have no real seasons at all, only the kind of "seasons" any day-night cycle would have.

If, instead, the planet-moon did have a noticeable tilt to its axis, and a non-circular orbit around its parent gas giant planet, which itself had a non-circular orbit around the central sun, or if the parent planet had a noticeable tilt to its axis with the planet-moon orbiting directly over the parent planet's equator, then the planet-moon, while still retaining non-changing lengths to its day and nights, would gain true seasons. The sun would arc over the sky differently through out the parent planet's year - while the planet-moon's year is the time it takes to orbit around the gas giant, the gas giant has its own year as it orbits its sun.

On such a world, a season would not be different parts of the planet-moon's year, but would be seen year to year. A number of years would be Spring, while another number of years would be Summer, and so forth, repeating itself. What a different kind of zodiac such a world would have! In some ways, it would be similar to a Chinese zodiac calendar (the year of the horse, the year of the dog, etc), except each zodiac would cover a span of years. Their zodiac could contain a zodiac within a zodiac within a zodiac.

Solstice on such a world may not represent so much the return of day, since it is possible that the day and nights would not change in length from year to year, but could represent the point where Winter is half over and thus the return of Spring begins. And maybe, just maybe, the celebration would be a whole year (for the planet-moon).

Of course, this is supposing that all higher level sentient beings feel, in an emotive sense, for in some ways spirituality, and especially sentimentality, depends upon emotion more (at least at times) than reason. Is emotion necessary to higher level of sentience? It seems on Earth, at least, the higher the level of sentience, the more emotion the creature seems to have.

But this is a topic for a future blog.

Comments? Feel free to comment on any post in this blog. Please feel free to disagree with me (just do so respectfully please - even if you think I sin in any or all of my opinions, please recall, if you are Christian, Jesus' attitude toward the adulteress: while he was against what she did, he did not condemn her, and turned away those who would stone her).

Happy Holidays to you and yours (and even to Lrrr, Ruler of Omicron Persei 8, and his wife Nd-Nd. And what the heck, to Robot Santa too!*).

* If Lrrr, Nd-Nd, and Robot Santa mean nothing to you, you need to run, not walk, to the TV and catch an episode of Futurama.

Once In A Blue Moon: Earth's Moon Even More Rare?

Yet more evidence suggests that a moon like ours is rare. Oh, moons are found aplenty around planets, but they tend to be rather small in comparison to the planet they orbit, and most of them are captured. Our Moon, however, was not captured, and is very large in comparison to the Earth. The ratio of the difference in size is so small that some astronomers propose calling the Earth-Moon system a double planet system.

Around 4.5 billion years ago, a large Mars-sized planet collided with the Earth in such away that part of the Earth's mantle was thrown into space. The Mars-sized impactor was absorbed by the Earth, it's iron core joining the Earth's. It also increased the Earth's spin. Most of the section of mantle that was thrown into space coalesced quickly into the Moon (may have taken as little as a year). The rest of the debris that was "kicked up" by the collision, and which did not coalesced, continued to circle the sun for millions of years before gravity and solar radiation cleaned it up.

Again, why is this important information, and included in this blog?

Well, as reported before in this blog (Astronomers Say Moons Like Ours Are Uncommon - How Important is That?), 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. This is especially true for the young Earth when the Moon was closer and had a much more dramatic effect on the tides. Only 1/3 of the today's tidal effects is attributed to the Sun, the rest to our Moon.

In the original report, it was stated that maybe only 5 to 10% of planets would a moon like Earth's. However, a new report by Nadya Gorlova of the University of Florida in the November 2007 issue of The Astrophysical Journal, states that the percentage may even be smaller: 1 in 400. As reported by Physics News:

Using the cryogenically-cooled infrared orbiting Spitzer Space Telescope, Gorlova and her colleagues surveyed the 30-million-year old star cluster NGC 2547. They selected this cluster because of its age. The planetary building process usually ends by approximately 50 million years, making the odds of a giant impact unlikely to occur outside this window. The other advantage of NGC 2547 is that it is old enough for the material left out from the original cloud of

which solar systems formed to dissipate (this takes about 3-10 million years). By focusing on radiation at a wavelength of about 8 microns, they could detect the heat they would expect from dust at a distance of about one astronomical unit (1 AU) from a solar-type star. The NGC 2547 cluster was previously surveyed spectroscopically, so they could cross-check to make sure that the emission they detected was not due to gas (which would be evident by spectral emission lines). Out of about 400 stars in the NGC 2547 cluster, they found only one that showed evidence of dust from a massive impact.

What needs to be kept in mind are 1) this is just one sampling. There may be other factors at play here that, for instance, may have sped up the cleaning of debris after the collision, or otherwise minimized the debris; 2) statistically, an average is not found everywhere - that is, if 1 out of 10 planets, on average, form a Moon like Earth's, you would find some regions where the percentage was higher, and some regions where it was lower; 3) even without the Moon, enough mixing may still occur for life to begin (albeit maybe would've taken longer); and 4) there may be other situations such as a habitable moon orbiting a gas giant - where the tidal effects from the gas giant would be strong enough to mix chemicals on the young terrestrial moon.

Reference:

PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE. The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News. Number 849 December 5, 2007 by Phillip F. Schewe and Jason S. Bardi <www.aip.org/pnu>

Astronomers Say Moons Like Ours Are Uncommon - How Important is That?

The Uncommon Moon?

ScienceDaily (2007-11-22) -- The next time you take a moonlit stroll, or admire a full, bright-white moon looming in the night sky, you might count yourself lucky. New observations suggest that moons like Earth's -- that formed out of tremendous collisions -- are uncommon in the universe, arising at most in only five to ten percent of planetary systems.

<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071121184530.htm>

A Large 5 Percent

Though 5 to 10 percent of billions of planets is still a large number of planets with large moons (the size of the Moon is so large in comparison with the Earth, it leads some to speak of the Earth and the Moon as a Earth-Moon system, or a double planet).

However, this is an important issue when discussing, speculating, on alternative extrasolar biological, psychological, theological and societal realities that could exist.


Protector Moon


Firstly, how important is a large moon to the rise of, and sustainability of, life on a planet? Some say the moon, by its size, helps protect the Earth from large meteor bombardment. That is debatable. One could actually argue that the Earth protects the Moon more than the Moon protects the Earth since the Earth is larger than the Moon, and hence a bigger target and a larger "attractant" due to its larger gravity. Also, one could also argue that the Moon also increases the chances of meteors coming close, by adding its gravitational pull (think of the Earth and Moon as one system: add up the gravitational attraction it would have on passing meteors). Additionally, while the Moon is large, it is separated by 250,000 miles. The further away you hold a large shield from you, the less of a shield it becomes. When a meteor heads towards the Earth, the Moon would have to be pretty much in the direct path. Remember, the gravity pull of the Earth is several times larger than the Moon's - in a tug a war between the Earth and the Moon over a meteor, I would lay bets on the Earth "winning."

So while the Moon may give the Earth some protection, it may not give us as much as we think. But, it may have been enough. Let us say that without the Moon's protection, we would've experienced only one additional large meteor impact over the history of the planet to date. That one additional impact would easily change the course of sentient development on Earth - most likely delaying it by millions of years. And quite possibly changing the final face of the sentient creature that did eventually evolve.




Stabilizer Moon


Secondly, the size of the Moon does help keep the Earth from being too wobbly on its axis. This helps keep the seasons from being overly dramatic, which would make it more difficult for complex life to arise (though, I would argue, not impossible, but probably would prolong its rise, and thus delay the rise of sentient life).



Tidal Moon


Thirdly, the Moon affects the tides on Earth. A smaller moon would have a much smaller effect, and without a moon, there would be an even small effect (the Sun would have an effect, but only 1/3 of the effect the Moon presently has). The tides have profound effects on the Earth - mainly from erosion which helps mix chemicals, especially for the young Earth (when the Moon was closer and had a much more dramatic effect on the tides).

By the way, did you know that this tidal affect is also responsible for pushing the Moon slowly away from us? The Earth is rotating faster (essentially 29 times faster) than the Moon orbits around it. This causes the high tide to move ahead of the Moon. Recall that a high tide is a bulge in the oceans of the Earth facing the Moon (and directly opposite of it). This bulge has mass, and thus gravity; this added gravity tugs on the Moon - but since it is slightly ahead of the Moon (due to the Earth rotating faster than the Moon orbits) - this tiny gravitational tug pulls on the Moon, accelerating it. The result of this constant tug is that the Moon is slowly accelerating, and thus spiraling away from the Earth. As time passes, the Moon will get further and further away (though as it gets further away, the Moon will have lesser effect on the tides, which will thus mean that the resulting acceleration would decrease - but not to zero, the Moon will continue to spiral away). So for those that remark at how miraculous it is that the Moon is the same apparent size in the sky as the Sun need to recall that it hasn't always been that way, nor will it stay that way (plus the Moon isn't exactly the same apparent size as the Sun - but it is very close to it).

Another result of the above is that the energy for the acceleration of the Moon comes at a cost to the Earth: it's angular momentum decreases. The result for this is a lengthening day. Some calculate that billions of years ago the Earth spun much faster, and without any moon, a full day today would be around 8 hours instead of 24. This faster spinning Earth could also have much stronger winds as well. Life would look a bit different on a planet that had stronger winds, a shorter day, and smaller (but more frequent) tides.

Moon Cult(ure)

Not having a moon would definitely have affects on the culture and theology of a sentient race. Think of how strongly our Moon plays into many of our primitive theologies and myths. But another consideration is how the dark skies would affect the alien race as well: darker skies would mean more attention paid to the stars, but I think an even stronger effect is that having a large moon so close to us may have encouraged us as a species to think about exploring space sooner than we would've otherwise. Without a moon, there is nothing close enough to explore - for thousands of years, the planets were just thought of as wandering stars. The only other physical body was the moon. Without the Moon, it would be quite some time before we would realize there are other physical bodies besides the Earth. Without a moon, there would not be that stepping stone that we enjoy - going to the Moon is far easier than going to Mars. It gives us a chance to learn, experiment, and gain experience before heading off to more arduous and more difficult explorations.

Habitable Moons

One way a habitable planet may have some of the benefits of a large moon without having a moon orbiting it, is for the planet to be a large moon itself, and circling a gas giant. While that gas giant would surely attract more than its share of meteors, the orbiting moons are so very small compared to the parent planet, that most would probably miss the moons. Not all, of course, but no planet or moon is totally safe from meteors.

Let's say a planet about the size of the Earth was circling a planet the size of Jupiter. There would definitely be tides! And as we see with our own system, giant planets are like a solar system themselves: ringed by many captured moons. A habitable "moon" circling such a gas giant would have many near by physical neighbors to visit, explore, and colonize (or base stations on). Such a civilization may be more even encouraged to explore space than our own.

Gas Giant Theology

And what a god the gas giant would probably play in their primitive theologies! Would they look up in the sky filled, at times, completely by the gas giant, and think "is that heaven" or "is that hell?"

A Downside

Actually, that may be a downside - orbiting such a large planet would mean periods where the sun would be blocked by the gas giant, and day and night would both be dark (with part of that darkness without even any nighttime stars). Though the times the moon was in front of the gas giant (between the planet and the sun), the night would be ruled by the reflected sunlight off of the planet's cloud tops. Life has adapted to life above the arctic and antarctic circles here on Earth, with their months long days and months long nights, so life could easily adapt to orbiting a gas giant - though the orbiting moons may well have such fast orbiting periods (for one thing, as big as Jupiter is, it is still much smaller than the sun) that these periods of full light and full darkness would be short - Io orbits Jupiter in under two days, while Europa orbits in under 4 days. Leda and Himalia have the longest orbiting periods for a Jovian moon: just over 238 days for Leda and 250 for Himalia. Nights (where the sun is totally blocked by Jupiter) on those moons are probably around one or two months long (haven't worked out the exact numbers; the distance from Jupiter is a factor - a theoretical moon with an orbit of 250 days at 600,000 Km from Jupiter would have a longer day long nights than another moon with the same orbit, but at 11,480,000 Km away. The shadow of a planet is not a cylinder, but a cone, it gets more narrow the further out it goes).

The Phase Lock Waltz

Another thing to consider is if the orbiting moon is in phase lock with the planet - the rotation period the same as its orbital period, thus ensuring one side always facing the planet it is orbiting. Our Moon is like this - we only see one side of the Moon from Earth. Those living on the far side of the orbiting moon would never see the gas giant (well, if they stayed near the equator. If they moved some distance north or south of the equator, they would begin to see the top, or bottom, of the gas giant over the horizon). They would have a long day, followed by a long night. Those on the near side would always face the gas giant. Most of their daylight would be the reflected light off the gas giant, though as the moon orbited the planet, those living on the near side would get short glimpses of the sun - it wouldn't rise high in the sky, however. And then they would experience a starless night (though for the same reason they would get a short glimpse of the sun before or after night, they would get a short glimpse of a star filled night sky after or before night).

Phase Lock Theologies

It would be interesting to entertain what kind of mythologies would arise on the near side and on the far side of such a world. For the near side, a massive god before them, and a bright god that flirtatiously appears once during the short year, and a star filled sky half a year later. For the far side, the bright god of the day, but this looming god just over the horizon, peaking over. And then there's the many small moons whizzing by, some below, some above the world - what to make of them? Also, would such a world figure out sooner than we did that the universe doesn't orbit around the habited world?

More Downsides

Another downside to orbiting a gas giant could be the intense radiation belt surrounding the giant planet. Io, a moon of Jupiter, orbits closer to the Jupiter's cloud tops than the Moon orbits the Earth. Jupiter has massive radiation belts, and Io cuts through them, causing Io not only to be bathed in high levels of dangerous radiation, but creating huge currents of electricity that flow along Io's own magnetic field (bathing the moon in auroral glow).

Another downside is that such a "moon" would have greater tides. The closer it circles the gas giant, the greater the tidal forces. It is thought that the tidal energies experienced by the moons orbiting Jupiter and Saturn are keeping the cores of the moons heated. There is direct evidence of geological activity at work on many of the moons. For instance, it is thought that tidal forces are what are causing the volcanic activity on Io, and is one of the mechanisms thought to create liquid oceans under the frozen surface of Europa (also a moon of Jupiter).

References:

Comins, Neil F. "What if the Moon Didn't Exist?" The Universe in the Classroom. Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Winter 1996. 25 November 2007. <http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/33/33.html>

"Solar System." Jet Propulsion Lab. 25 November 2007. <http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/solar_system/>

University Of Arizona. "Astronomers Say Moons Like Ours Are Uncommon." ScienceDaily. 22 November 2007. 25 November 2007 <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071121184530.htm>

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>.

Planets thrive around binary star systems

Using the Spitzer space telescope, astronomers have observed that binary (or twin) star systems are just as likely to have planets around them as single star systems (like our own). In fact, some evidence points to planetary systems being more common around tight binary pairs than around single stars (with a possible ratio of 3:1).

A tight binary is where each star circles the other closely, say within 3 A.U.s or closer. A planet in the habitable zone of that system would see double sunsets like what the fictional Luke Skywalker saw on his home planet of Tatooine. The stars could be double gods, twin gods, to a developing sentient culture; though the comments about the trinary system come into play here as well: sentient beings on desert planets may hold water to be a higher deity, or at least the good deity, and sentient beings on water planets may, depending upon environmental conditions, hold underwater volcanoes or volcanic vents to be a higher deity, with the sky an alien, otherworldly place (maybe the afterlife - or hell).

Wide binary systems would have sunsets similar to our own on Earth - the second star would be so far away as to barely interact with the main star and the planets circling it. Sunsets there would have one large sun setting, with the second sun appearing as a bright star. The bright star may hold a place in developing primitive theologies, but, baring other factors (large nearby galaxy visible in the night sky, orbiting a large gas giant that may block the night sky half the time, or if the habitable moon is in phase lock with the gas giant, the sentient beings nocturnal, to name a few), the main star would be the center point.

I suppose it is a small possibility that in some systems the far off twin could have planets about it. What an interesting system that could be if life arose on planets circling each star - each unaware of the other until technological developments allowed one, or both, to spot the other. It would still be quite the feat for each planet to physically visit each other, not until space travel more advanced than what we have now is developed; but at first tentative long range observations, then electronic communication and space probes could establish some kind of communication between the two. What kind of theologies would exist there?

And what would happen for two planetary civilizations to be that "close" to each other to come in contact with each other versus two planetary civilizations from totally different solar systems, separated by much more distance (and thus slower communication, and less likelihood of physical contact). Probably easier to keep such a thing secret from the public, but in a wide binary system, the other civilization would be easier to detect and communicate with, thus making it harder to keep the existence of another civilization secret - not without going through extreme measures like banning all public ownership of telescopes, both optic and radio, and, if they have a planet of sovereign nations, or similar social structures, that would add another layer of difficulty in keeping the other extraplanetary civilization secret.

Reference:

"Alien Sunset." Spitzer - NASA. 29 March 2006. 22 November 2007. <http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/multimedia/doublesunset.html>.

"NASA Telescope Finds Planets Thrive Around Stellar Twins." Spitzer - NASA. 29 March 2006. 22 November 2007. <http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer-20070329.html>.

Image:

From Digital Blasphemy <http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/>.

Sunset in a triple star system (Quicktime Mov)

This video hails from Caltech, the link is <mr.caltech.edu/media/trinary_sunset-low.mov>. I tried to find more information on this (if it was created for a real trinary, or triple, star system discovered), but to no avail. It is intriguing though - think of how many of Earth's cultures held the Sun as a center point to their theologies. It makes logical sense that for most primitive sentient cultures the sun, or suns, that their planet orbits would hold theological importance. Especially for systems where they experienced winters and summers due to the tilt of their planet and the accompanying change in light from their sun(s), or if in a more marked elliptical orbit than mother Earth, and the accompanying change in light from their sun(s).

If their planet was stable, in an extremely circular orbit and no noticeable tilt to their planet's axis, maybe other factors may step forward as central.

For instance, on a planet that was 100% covered by water (and there is some evidence such planets may not be all that rare), which was just barely within the extreme limit of the HZ, underwater volcanoes and volcanic vents, with their life giving warmth, may take center stage - the cool and distant light in the world beyond the water's edge a different deity (though since it is bright, and those that would swim to the surface would note its warmth, though cool compared to the vents, maybe it would still have some large role in their theology - the distant rising and falling volcanic god of the afterlife...).

Or for a planet where water was scarce (Dune anyone?), water may become the central deity of Good, and the sun the deity of evil. That is until they become a technological society - but even then, the gods may linger as analogies in new religions.

Or for sentient creatures that were nocturnal - the sun would have quite a different meaning to them than to us. They may even fear the light.

And so, what of a society on a moon circling a large gas giant which itself circles a trinary star system? Would the gas giant become the primary god, and the three light gods secondary? Or would they all share equal footing? Though a few other things to keep in mind is that for a habitable moon that is in phase lock with its parent gas giant, the night side would always face the gas giant, and the day side always face the star. What manner of mythologies could be told from such a stage?

Patterns, Seekers, & Religion

We'll get back to the humor, pattern seeking, and sentience in a post or two, but I wanted to touch more about the idea sentient, pattern seeking beings, and spirituality that was only momentarily mentioned.

First, a revisit, rewording, of the musings to the question Why would sentient beings be pattern seekers?

Whether they seek the pattern as individuals, or as some hive mind, seeking patterns is a way to 1) determine, learn, and predict cycles of good and bad weather, feast and famine, good and bad mating opportunities, best and worst hunting or gathering techniques, and other things related to survival of the individual and the species and 2) especially for higher level sentience - to find, learn, and predict "abstract" cycles.

The first is easy - to some degree most any creature with some sentience to it will have some ability to learn patterns. My fish know that when the aquarium light goes on in the morning, it won't be long until I will be feeding them. I visited a Japanese garden in the Bay Area in California when I was a teen and I remember that a Buddhist monk came out and rank a bell - he was clear across the garden (and it was a big garden) but the fish near me all suddenly turned and swam furiously away - toward the bell. This is similar to Pavlov's famous experiment with dogs. To train a creature, it has to learn to recognize and memorize a pattern - a ringing sound means food is a very simple pattern, but an important one for those fish.

Higher level beings gain the ability to recognize, memorize, learn, and predict more complex, and more abstract, patterns. They look outward from themselves, and outward even from the group. They see patterns in the stars, in the galaxies, in the Universe. They detect complex patterns that may take generations to repeat, and pass down that knowledge to others of their kind.

This pattern seeking has a bit of a drawback though. As we've all probably experience or heard about at some time or another in our lives: we see patterns in clouds ("doesn't that one look like a horse?"), patterns in the stars ("doesn't that pattern of stars look like a horse?"), and patterns in nebula's ("doesn't that interstellar nebula look like a horse head?"). We also see patterns in potato chips (chips that look like Elvis, Abraham Lincoln, the state of Nebraska, or the Virgin Mary), in cliffs ("The Old Man of the Mountain"), and even a rabbit, or a Victorian Lady reading a book in the moon. Those who can play with the brain's way processing and recognizing patterns are those that can create optical illusions.

And sometimes we misinterpret patterns - we have causality logic errors; just because one thing happens before another repeatedly doesn't mean that the first is responsible for the second, maybe the both have a shared cause. For instance, the ancient Egyptians noticed that the flood season for the Nile always happened after the "Dog Star" Sirius would make its first appearance for the year. Since Sirius' first appearance always shortly preceded the floods, Sirius was the logical cause since no other could be discovered. However, what the ancient Egyptians didn't realize was that the seasons were caused by Earth having a tilted axis and its travel around the sun, and this also caused the appearance of the night sky to cycle throughout the year as well. Sirius rise and the rise of the Nile's water levels were the result of one shared cause.

And sometimes we oversimplify, or apply a particular logic further than it should go. As I was writing the above paragraph, I realize that many English students struggle with "its" and "it's" - this is because the usual pattern for a possessive (for a word not ending in "s") is to use an apostrophe and then an "s" at the end of the word. Logically, one would think this applies to pronouns as well, but it doesn't. Pronouns have their own logic. They do not use " 's " to create possessives (I - mine, you - yours, she - her, him - his, we - our, they - their, and it - its). Keeping those two patterns straight is a bit of a pain.

OK, great, so what's this to do with spirituality?

The ultimate pattern, the ultimate abstract pattern, is, I believe, that which answers the ultimate abstract questions - why are we here? what is our purpose (beyond the biological purpose of eating, surviving, and reproducing)? Are there higher patterns than the physical? This is the area of ethics, morality, philosophy, and theology - an area I believe most other creatures on this planet do not concern themselves with. It can be argued, that some creatures do have a sense of sorts of a wrong and right - "bad dog" and "good dog" sort of thing; but I think it could be also argued that such awareness is limited (not that having an even limited concept of good and bad isn't still amazing). Last year there were studies that showed that dogs could actually map language - something that was thought only humans could do, and that some birds could actually make and use a tool. Abstract thinking folks, and the kind that requires abstract processing of patterns.

A few side anecdotal stories:

• My mom had a Manx cat, Mr. Stubbs. I once came around a corner and saw him walking along the mantle - he did not yet see me - and knock over some glass knick-knack. It crashed to the floor and he immediately dived to the floor ran a short distance, curled up like he was asleep but then jerked his head up as if awakened by the crash. To me any animal that can lie, has at least some awareness of the abstract, and has some awareness of good and bad, even if limited. And it seems to me a hint that maybe animals have souls.
• We had several dogs over the years, and what amazed me about them is that when you got home and found one of them cowering under the table, you knew that it knew that it had done something wrong, and knew it was going to be in trouble when we got home (seems cats lie more readily than dogs, maybe all dogs do go to heaven after all!).
• One day we can home to find a most interesting sight: the bird cage was knocked over, and our German Shepherd was standing over Mr. Stubbs who was standing over JoyBoy our small, and obnoxious, parrot. They were all frozen - the bird in fear of the cat, the cat in fear of the dog who was going to attack if the cat was going to attack the bird (that dog just loved birds, if she could read, Snoopy would be her hero).

However, while some creatures do show various higher levels of sentience, of abstract thinking, I'm not sure they worship god(s) - oh, sure, the joke goes that cats think they are gods because we take care of them (and the Egyptians did worship them as gods) and dogs think we are gods because we take care of them, but there is no evidence yet of any creature on this planet other than humans that feels an inherent need to worship, and especially in an organized (itself a pattern) way.

Most creatures don't have a need to figure out higher patterns. For instance, the patterns of the seasons -many don't live long enough for that to be of great concern (some don't even live a year, some less than a month, and the adult species of some insects live only a day). But humans live long enough, and have evolved to become hunters and gatherers and farmers. And to be successful farmers, one needs to have a long term understanding of nature. Not only of rain cycles, but the more complex cycles that involve crop rotation, among others.

This need to understand the world around us may be the cause for our need to understand the universe. To make sense of it. Or maybe this need to predict and understand long term cycles created a side-effect - like the process for an incandescent bulb to create light has a side effect of giving off heat - the process of processing more complex, and more abstract, patterns has a side effect of creating a wonder about the meaning for the patterns.

The meaning for the patterns - or, maybe, the pattern behind the pattern. The fish who respond to the bell don't look for the meaning behind the pattern, just that the meaning OF the pattern is food is being delivered. Not why it is delivered when the bell rings, or what is the nature of the bell ring sound, or its cause - what is behind the bell ring? How is the bell ringing created?

But humans - and, I believe by extension, most, if not all, sentient life - look for the meaning for the patterns. It is a higher level of pattern searching. I don't know if an even higher one exists (maybe it does). But this looking for the pattern behind the pattern is what leads to theological questioning.

And so, would it be the natural, logical, common pattern result of the pattern of higher sentience? That is, will most, if not all, alien intelligent sentient beings eventually have theological/philosophical thoughts?

If they do have those thoughts, how would they be similar, and how would they be different, from ours? Some, like the Mormons, feel this question is already answered - all planets have met Christ (it is only on our planet that he was crucified - we, apparently, are the worst brats in the universal family). Others, well, that answer is up in the air (and some Earth religions do not believe any other intelligent race exists in this large universe filled with hundreds of millions of galaxies).

So, how aliens' theologies differ (or echo) ours? It may depend upon how strong their emotions are compared to ours (or if they even have anything equivalent to our emotions). It may depend upon their celestial environment: beings on a planet circling a twin star may develop a whole different line of mythological reasoning than those on a planet circling one star, beings on a planet in a galaxy that is colliding with another galaxy, or in a galaxy very close to two galaxies colliding (such that it is visible to the naked eye) may very well develop a whole different line of mythological reasoning, or beings on a habitable moon circling a gas giant - well, the list goes on.

Though could those different starts have similar endings? Could most arrive to the same conclusion, given enough time? And how would civilizations advanced enough to discover and communicate with other alien civilizations be theologically affected? Would that allow for some ultimate Universal Religion?

I do think there is one thing common with all religions on this planet. Patterns - patterns looking for meaning and purpose and thus patterns looking for order. Order -that is the positive and negative of it.

The positive is that such patterns of understanding and of ultimate order gives us peace, and calm, and strength to endure. It is what defines what is good - for good seems to be that which is order or gives order (that which creates patterns from chaos), and evil is that which is chaos, which destroys. The Ultimate Pattern will show that what may appear to be chaos, is not, for this Ultimate Pattern will explain all, show all, expose all the patterns in the universe, and gives them purpose.

But of course there are false patterns, patterns which seem on the surface to be order, to be constructive, but in the long term are momentary patterns, and thus still chaos, still destructive.
Some use the Great Order, the Ultimate Pattern of religion to impose selfish and shortsighted "order" on others. It is used to control and suppress, and in doing so, to destroy. It is a pattern that can be sustained for it is not a real pattern, or at least not a real Universal Pattern (but merely a local pattern, based just on one person, or one elite group).

Anyway, it seems that maybe most religions will be that which looks to determine, describe, learn, and predict the Ultimate Pattern - the one that explains all other patterns, that gives all other patterns purpose and/or reason, and that exposes the true chaoses.

At least, that will be, for now, the definition I will use when discussing alien theological possibilities. There may be other definitions, but I think for now this is the most useful as a starting point.

Reference:

"The Timeline of...The Old Man and the Mountain." New Hampshire Division of Parks and Recreation. 18 Nov 2007. http://www.franconianotchstatepark.com/oldmantimeline.html