Showing posts with label origin of life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label origin of life. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

A Galactic Biosphere?

My Brother/Sister, the Alien

In Confessions of an Alien Hunter: A Scientist's Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (a full review is forthcoming), Dr. Shostak, in his brief mention of panspermia as one possible way life originated on Earth, brings up an interesting point about panspermia:
Panspermia's importance would change if life could survive in rocks that travel not just between adjacent planets but between the stars. If interstellar infection is possible, just a few points of genesis - or even one - might conceivably seed the entire galaxy. So life's beginnings could be highly improbable, but life's distribution could be widespread. In essence, the "biosphere" would extend over light-years. (88)
Thus, if life originating on its own is rare, we can see a scenario where that life eventually spreads throughout the galaxy. We would all be members of the same galactic biosphere - brother and sister creatures in one galactic family

Another way life can spread from one genesis is seeding by an early alien sentient race. This is a notion used by some Hollywood writers. In many science fiction shows we often see humanoid aliens. One reason is that especially for early Hollywood, humanoid aliens were easier on the special effects budget, thus sometimes writers and producers explained the similarity among humans and aliens by using the idea of early race spreading their DNA throughout the galaxy. For instance, in a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode (Season 6 episode "The Chase"), we discover there was an ancient race that seeded the galaxy (leaving clues in each "offspring's" DNA), thus explaining why so many alien races looked so similar. Why would sentient aliens purposefully seed the galaxy? It may be difficult to understand their motivations for sowing their seed amongst the stars, but some possibilities are:
  1. as a means to continue their species / terraforming, 
  2. by accident, 
  3. as scientific experiments, 
  4. as the result of a religious decree (one purpose for life is to spread life, to join in on creation, e.g.) or 
  5. a combination of the above.
The Grand Diversity of Life

But even if the residents of the Milky Way are related,  life, as we have seen on Earth, comes in a stunning array of diversity. From the deep sea, to deep mines, to hot springs, to tropical forests, to arid deserts, to perpetual frozen ice caps we find life in a myriad of forms. If we look into Earth's past via the fossil record, we find even more strange life forms. Extend this into space, onto other planets, and even if there is a common biosphere bound, the variety of expressions life can take will be mind boggling.

Or, My Half-Brother/Half-Sister, the Alien 

In addition, even if life originating on its own is a rare occurrence, in a galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars (estimates run between 200 - 400 billion) and with even more planets (possibly a couple of trillion), there is the possibility that life has originated independently in at least a few places. There could be several galactic families. One wonders if primitive, slow metabolic germs from different origins land on the same planet, would there be a possibility that they could intermix, creating a hybrid life form.
    Life in the (Extremely) Slow Lane

    But back to the rare origin idea. Dr. Shostak is skeptical of this idea as this would involve million year rides on blasted (from a meteor impact), life-infected, rocks through the harsh vacuum of space. However, as I discussed in an earlier post, Panspermia, Long-Lived Bacteria, and Interstellar Distances, scientists have found microbes with very slow metabolisms that are over a hundred thousand years old living deep (as in miles deep - never seeing the light or fresh air of day) in rocks, and others that have survived lying dormant for a half a million years deep in permafrost. Some studies indicate some bacteria can live suspended in sediments, amber, and halite for millions of years.

    So maybe there is a galactic biosphere. Aliens that come to realize this may develop philosophies and  theologies that accepts all life on all planets around all stars in the galaxy as extended family.

    One way to answer this question is to find life on another planet - even "just" microbial life. If we find that life originated more than once in the same solar system, it is a strong indicator that life originating on its own is not all that rare. It does not mean that panspermia is not an ancillary method, but that the galactic biosphere has gotten more complex and is, in fact, a large collection of individual (though not necessarily isolated) biospheres.


    References:

    Shostak, Seth. Confessions of An Alien Hunter. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic, 2009.

    Image credit: 1. "DNA" by Lynette Cook. 2. "Dark Matter" by Ryan Bliss, DigitalBlaphemy

    Tuesday, October 20, 2009

    If We Are Alone

    It's Full of Planets!

    Over 400 exoplanets discovered so far. Finding more expolantes is almost becoming normal - and its not just "hot Jupiters" that are being found. Increasingly, as our techniques and equipment improve and more telescopes are brought online to join the hunt, smaller terrestrial planets are being found. Everywhere we look, it seems, we find planets. It is looking like the universe is full of planets.

    Think abut that. Full of planets. Maybe in 2001: A Space Odyssey astronaut David Bowman should've exclaimed "The thing's hollow—it goes on forever—and—oh my God—it's full of planets!"

    Apply the Drake Equation, and it's looking like the universe is also full of life, including intelligent life.

    However...

    This does not automatically mean we are not alone. If the universe is infinite, and life arose in one spot of it, it does seem incredibly unlikely we would be the only ones. Even if the universe is not infinite - it still contains at least 100 billion galaxies, each with many stars (our own contains an estimated 100 billion stars), many of which may contain planets. The number of possible planets is astounding. However, while it may seem rather implausible, just because the universe may be populated with planets is not a Q.E.D. proof that we are not alone, despite, as Jodi Foster's character in the movie Contact propositions, that "if we are the only ones, it would be an awful waste of space, wouldn't it?"

    If We Are Alone

    What would that mean, if we were alone? That we are given, or by chance have, all this space in which to  explore, expand, and evolve in? If we are given all of the immense space filled with stars and planets, but no other life - what is the purpose of that gift? What are our responsibilities? Should we go forth, multiply and replenish not only the Earth but the universe? Or should we leave other planets alone and not contaminate them with Earth probes and the Earth microbes that may be on them?

    And does it even have to have a meaning? The universe does not know it is immense, or teeming with planets. A star does not know that it exists. It does not feel itself traveling through space, circled by planets. Gravity acts upon it without it knowing that anything at all is happening. A planet does not know that it is barren, or that it has life on it. It is barren, or life-filled, only to us (if any of this has an echo of familiarity to it, it may be because you've read Nobel Prize winning Polish poet Wislawa Szymborska's thought provoking poem "View with a Grain of Sand"). Meaning is arbitrary, maybe illusory.

    What is Meant

    But even if that meaning is arbitrary, and only has meaning to us - that may be enough. It may be up to us to give beauty to the universe, to create meaning, even if it is only for our benefit, our pleasure, our peace of mind.

    I have no answers. I would be stunned if there were no other life forms outside the Earth. But, I also realize that true absolutes rarely exist, and to say it is impossible is wrong. It may be astronomically (if you'll excuse the pun) improbable, but not impossible.

    What do you think?


    Image Credits: 1. Warner Bros. 2. Chris Butler.

    Saturday, August 29, 2009

    Life from Clay

    The Two Faces of RNA

    Scientists at Howard Hughes Medical Institute are closing in on how life arose from inorganic material. RNA was first thought to be essentially a way of storing the genetic information need to build proteins. But Tom Cech and Sidney Altman discovered in  the 1980s that RNA can catalyze cellular chemical reactions. This led some scientist to speculate that RNA may have come before DNA. RNA may be one of the "missing-links" in the evolution of DNA from simple chemicals.

    Life from Clay

    Dr. Jack W. Szostak  and his team looked at montmorillonite, a clay mixture that existed in the early Earth, and discovered that it helped
    1. the formation of vesicles (a small fluid filled sac) formed from fatty acids,
    2. the formation of RNA, and
    3. RNA to move into the vesicles (the RNA stuck to the clay and "rode" it into the vesicles.
    The result is a cell-like structure.

    So, the creation myths that involve life being formed from clay may be on to something after all.

    Universal Biology

    The above chemical processes ended up creating a cell-like structure. Life is a natural result of certain chemical processes that build on each other. A watery terrestrial planet in a habitable zone will have weathering of rocks, forming clay.  If the laws of chemistry are the same throughout the universe (or even in just our galactic region), then life will arise on more than just our planet.


    Reference:

     "HHMI Scientist Bio: Jack W. Szostak, Ph.D." HHMI Investigators. Scientists and Research. Howard Hughes Medical Institute. n.d. Web. 29 Aug. 2009. <http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/szostak_bio.html>

    Thursday, July 30, 2009

    Panspermia, Long-Lived Bacteria, and Interstellar Distances


    "Dark Matter" © DigitalBlasphemy.com
    I was checking out astrobiology groups on Facebook and came across a discussion on astrogensis at the "Astrobiology - Life in the Universe" Facebook group. An entry by one poster made the statement "With regards to panspermia, distances are simply too vast for living organisms to be transferred from beyond the solar system." Let's take a closer look at this problem.

    The Problem

    The problem stated is one of vast distances - the time for even a fast traveling extraterrestrial asteroid from even the closest star system would take an exorbitant period of time. If the average speed of an asteroid in the main belt is around 47,000 mph, and the distance to Alpha Centauri is 4.4 light-years or 25,848,247,139.8 miles (Proxima Centauri is sometimes closer, but let's go with the main star), then it would take that asteroid about 101,304 years to reach Earth.

    Hardiness of Bacteria

    Recently, bacteria have been found buried deep in solid rock - bacteria with very slow metabolic states and are probably thousands of years old. Penn State scientists discovered in Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland) dormant ultra-small bacteria (Chryseobacterium greenlandensis) trapped 2 miles deep in 120,000 year old ice core samples. The scientists were able to bring them back and found it needed few nutrients to live. The scientists figure their small size helped them so survive trapped so long in the ice. Some studies indicate some bacteria can live suspended in sediments, amber, and halite for millions of years. In 2007 a group of scientists published a paper provided evidence for bacteria surviving in some frozen permafrost samples up to a half a million years. We have seen from other posts the ability for some bacteria and viruses to survive the vacuum of space. In a previous post I reported that even the small, multicellular Water Bear can survive periods in space - including normally deadly doses of ionizing radiation (Water Bears in Space!).


    Illustration © European Space Organization
    Spacefaring Bacteria?

    With Alpha Centauri 101,304 years away (by asteroid) and bacteria that can lie dormant for at least 120,000 years (and especially those that can lie dormant for 1/2 million years), it seems that some unicellular life could theoretically make the trip. The red dwarf planetary system Gliese 581 (with one planet that is warm and terrestrial) is 20.5 light-years away, or around 471,984.5 years away at main belt asteroid velocities. Still within the range of some unicellular creatures. We have seen in earlier posts that there are scenarios where red dwarf systems can be hospitable to life.

    Sol's Close Encounters

    There is something else to consider as well. Our solar system is not a fixed point in the galaxy. Some researchers feel that the Sun had some close encounters with other solar systems during its 4.6 billion years of existence. The distance that a bacteria hosting extraterrestrial asteroid could have been even smaller than 4.4 light years. Some scientists feel that the Sun may have had a close encounter with another star 4 billion years ago - a very close encounter: the other star may have come as close as 14 to 19 billion miles (Neptune is 4.7 billion miles away from the Sun). That is close enough for major gravitational permutations of each solar system - including the possible exchange of an outer planet. That's right - our solar system could have, in its outermost reaches, a planet from another system left behind from this close encounter.

    Let us say the other system already had life established on it. The close encounter with our Sun could cause asteroids to be jostled and sent colliding into the system's life-bearing planet, throwing up chunks of the planet into space. One of those chunks could have been captured by our solar system and eventually made it to Earth (just like some Martian "chunks" have made it to Earth, the result of some asteroid impact on the surface of Mars ejecting Martian rocks into space). Or the other system could already have asteroids with dormant unicellular life on them left over from collisions it had within itself before encountering the Sun, and one or more of those asteroids captured by our solar system.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, with regards to panspermia, some stellar distances are not too vast for living organisms to be transverse and end up on Earth. Does not mean it has actually happened - the chances are still probably rather small. But the distances are not too vast, at least for stellar distances of 21 light-years or less.


    References:


    Coghlan, Andy. "'Resurrection Bug' Revived after 120,000 Years." Life.
    New Scientist. 15 June 2009. Web. 30 July 2009. <http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17305-resurrection-bug-revived-after-120000-years.html>

    "Did Our Sun Capture Alien Worlds? Close Encounter May Explain Some Objects Beyond Neptune." Science News. ScienceDaily. 9 Dec. 2004. Web. 30 July 2009. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041208235835.htm>

    Jordan, Heather. "Astrogenesis Discussion Board." Astrobiology - Life in the Universe. Facebook. 26 Mar. 2008. Web. 30 July 2009. <http://www.facebook.com/s.php?init=srp&sf=r&k=200000010&n=-1&q=life%20in%20the%20universe#/topic.php?uid=19809898338&topic=8155>

    Johnson, Sarah S., Martin B. Hebsgaardt, Torben R. Christensen, et. al. "Ancient Bacteria Show Evidence of DNA Repair." PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 25 July 2007. Web. 30 July 2009. <http://www.pnas.org/content/104/36/14401.full>

    "Novel bacterial species found trapped in Greenland's ice."
    Penn State Live. Penn State University. 3 June 2008. Web. 30 July 2009. <http://live.psu.edu/story/31052>

    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>

    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>.

    Sunday, September 14, 2008

    Water Bears in Space!


    © USDA
    No, not a new Muppet Show skit. Water bears (tardigrades) are intriguing aquatic microscopic (0.5 mm or 0.02 inches) multicellular animals. They have a head and six limbs with claw-like structures. Their liquid habitat range is quite large - they've been found within ice, in oceans down to almost 4 miles beneath the surface, in mountain ponds, and in droplets of water in moss and lichens. They can survive long (7 years) periods of total dehydration, acid attacks, and extreme temperatures and pressures. Recently Dr. Ingemar Joensson of Kristianstad University of Sweden, sent up 3,000 water bears into space for 12 days and discovered that water bears are able to survive the vacuum and cosmic radiation of space.

    OK, most did not survive the intense ultraviolet radiation they encountered above the Earth's atmosphere. But some did. These little "bears" are tough! It's no wonder that some people think water bears are extraterrestrials.

    But it does make one pause - could life spread out from a planet and evolve surviving in space? I've mentioned transpermia before - the idea that microbes or the organic precursors of life can spread from one planet to another, usually through meteoric impacts. Now it is feasible that multicellular life forms could traverse space.

    Ah, but meteors are intensely hot when the streak through the atmosphere, are they not? Yes, but only on the surface. Many times the core is still cold. A dehydrated microscopic multicellular creature resting in the core could conceivably survive the trip. Could a meteor strike on the Earth send up a shower of water bear laden rocks into space, to eventually land on Mars? An interesting thought. Wouldn't it be crazy if when we do discover life on Mars, it turns out to look a lot like a water bear?

    So here's to the water bear, possible intrepid space explorer!

    (And maybe we ought to be just a bit careful when bringing back rock samples from other planets, moons, and even asteroids...).

    References:

    Mach, Sabine and Martin. "Tardigrades (Tardigrada): images, video clips, text and monthly magazine." Tardigrades. Sept. 2008. Web. 14 Sept. 2008. <http://www.tardigrades.com/>

    "Transpermia." Transpermia - microbes hitch a ride between planets. The Planetary Society Australian Volunteers. 26 Aug. 2008. Web. 14 Sept. 2008. <http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/swaprock.html>.

    "Unique animal species can survive in space." SpaceRef. 10 Sept. 2008. Web. 14 Sept. 2008. <http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=26387>.

    Wednesday, August 27, 2008

    Biological Singularity?

    If there is a "Technological Singularity" where computers "evolve" in complexity and capability that one day they become self-aware, is there a "Biological Singularity" where organic compounds evolved in complexity and capability that one day they became self-aware, became Life?

    In a previous post, Amoebic Intelligence, it was reported that amoebas were showing rudimentary intelligence, sentience. How far down does this go? Are viruses alive? Do they have rudimentary intelligence, or are they purely organic compounds following blindly, without sentience, without intelligence, the rules of chemical reactions? A crystal grows, and is, to an extent, self organizing. But not alive. So some argue a virus is not alive either. But it does raise the question, at what point does organic chemistry become complicated enough that sentience, even the most rudimentary level, arises?

    Why is this question important? The answer may show that intelligence is a logical outcome of life, and thus, intelligence may be common among alien life (whether high level sentient intelligence is common is another matter).

    Reference:

    Schewe, Phillip F. and Jason S. Bardi. "Amoebas Anticipate Climate Change." The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News. Number 852. 3 Jan. 2008 . Web. 3 Jan. 2008. <www.aip.org/pnu>.


    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>.

    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>

    Tuesday, December 11, 2007

    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>

    Sunday, November 25, 2007

    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>

    Tiny DNA Molecules Show Liquid Crystal Phases, Pointing Up New Scenario For First Life On Earth

    ScienceDaily (2007-11-23) -- Scientists have discovered some unexpected forms of liquid crystals of ultrashort DNA molecules immersed in water, providing a new scenario for a key step in the emergence of life on Earth.

    <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071122151148.htm>
    A key missing step in the process has been discovered - it is felt that the formation of full DNA molecules by random chemistry is essentially impossible, and thus scientists have been searching for more primitive and simpler molecules that would self organize. These, then, could lead to DNA.

    This discovery of liquid crystal form of self organizing ultrashort DNA is an amazing discovery. Small repeating patterns combine to build larger repeating patterns which combine to build even larger and more complex patterns. Evolution works fairly quickly with simple organizations, and slows for more complex organizations, as we've seen in a previous post (Sentient Evolution ).

    This helps support New York University chemist Robert Shapiro's earlier statement that life began from cyclical reactions involving small molecules: "these reactions would produce compounds that would feed back into the cycle, creating an ever-growing reaction network" (Schirber, Par. 13). The cyclic reactions from the small molecules would eventually create more complex molecules that would be more efficient, replacing the smaller molecules: "the system would learn to make slightly larger molecules" (Schirber, Par. 15). This is the "metabolism first" hypothesis of how life began (the other main thought is that RNA came first).

    However life started, there is evidence it started 3.7 billion years ago, and fossilized bacteria found as old as 3.5 billion years. There is evidence that some form of photosynthesis began nearly at the beginning, if not at the beginning. This may indicate yet again that photosynthesis may be one of the more common energy sources for life, especially early life - may even be a common, almost universal, part of the rise of life; thus, the most common life form in the universe may well be simple plants. When the writer of Genesis says God created plant life first, and far before animal life, that writer was right - He didn't dally with the plants.

    References:

    Genesis 1:10-20.

    Schirber, Michael. "How Life Began: New Research Suggests Simple Approach." Animals.
    Live Science. 9 June 2006. <http://www.livescience.com/animals/060609_life_origin.html>

    University of Colorado at Boulder. "Tiny DNA Molecules Show Liquid Crystal Phases, Pointing Up New Scenario For First Life On Earth."
    ScienceDaily. 23 November 2007. 25 November 2007 <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071122151148.htm>.

    Friday, November 23, 2007

    Blackbody Radiation Exercises

    No, not talking about a cosmic Jack Lalane (OK, too old of a reference). At my first alma mater, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, the physics department has a java applet online that demonstrates why hot stars look blue and cool ones look red using Planck's Law, Wien Law, and Steffan-Boltzmann Law. It calculates the blue-visual and ultraviolet-blue color index, as well as showing where the normalized intensity lies in the ultraviolet - visible - infrared spectrum. This site is found at: <http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/java/wien/wien.html>.

    I found it interesting that as a star gets hotter, its normalized intensity peak lies increasingly in the UV (ultraviolet) range of the spectrum. As stars get cooler, the peak moves toward the infrared, but doesn't get into the infrared except for very cool stars.

    This would mean that for hot stars, UV would be the more important wavelength to use, while for cool stars, infrared could have some importance. Our eyes are centered around the normalized peak for the sun, with it's 5,780 K surface temperature, which makes logical sense. For beings on a planet around a blue star, their eyes could be centered in the UV band. They may not even have much use at all for the "visible" part of the spectrum ("visible" to us).

    For plants, I wonder if this would mean they would be white, since they'd be using the UV photons for photosynthesis instead of our visible light range they'd reflect back all of the visible (to us) light - thus they would appear white. However, it seems unlikely that UV light photons could conceivably be used for photosynthesis. UV light is very energetic, and thus, for the most part, very damaging to life: UV inhibits photosynthesis in present day Earth plants and it can cause destruction to DNA as well as many proteins and lipids. The shorter the wavelength, the more energetic and the more damaging. However, it is thought that UV was an important source of energy in the creation of life and some viruses, bacterium, and fungal spores are rather highly resistant to UV radiation. However, often times creatures that are highly resistant to UV radiation are resistant because they have developed a mechanism for repairing the damage done by the UV radiation, and not because they can just ignore it.

    Thus, there are limits to what carbon-based plant life can tolerate with regards to UV radiation. And for a planet around a particularly hot blue star, life would definitely have to find a way to deal with the UV radiation (here's a thought: if UV is thought to be important to the origin of life, would that mean that life is more likely to originate around blue stars than for other stars?). There are two articles, "Limits of photosynthesis in extrasolar planetary systems for earth-like planets," by S. Frank et al. and "Ultraviolet radiation constraints around the circumstellar habitable zones," by Andrea P. Buccino, et al. which I hope to get my hands on soon. Part of the Habitable Zone equation may not only include the zone where water can be in a liquid state, but also where UV radiation isn't extreme.

    Anyway, there are some creatures on Earth that, while using the visible spectrum, also use part of the UV spectrum for vision. Various insects, for instance, can see into the UV spectrum - and some flowers have patterns on their petals that can only be seen in UV light to help attract the insects (to aid in pollination).

    What would this mean for alien life? That they may be blind to most, if not all, of our "visible" spectrum, and we to theirs. This is not to say they would be blind, rather they would just find an inside room lit with light bulbs to be rather dim if not completely dark: most fluorescent lamps are designed to give off minimal amount of UV radiation - much less than what could be found out of doors (the mercury vapor in a fluorescent lamp does give off UV radiation, but it then collides with the phosphorus coating on the inside of the bulb, and thus is "converted" into visible light). Some lamps, like LEDs, do not give off any UV radiation. LEDs would be invisible to a being who sees only in the UV range.

    This isn't an either/or proposition, of course. Some beings could have eyes sensitive to a large range, with part of their visible spectrum in the UV and part in our visible spectrum. They would be essentially color-blind in that they would see some colors, but not all (for instance, can only see blue and green). Many animals on Earth have limited color range, seeing mainly black and white. Even some humans only see in black and white: more than 5% of the natives of the island Ingelap, in Micronesia, have the rare condition of Monochromasy - total color blindness (Oliver Sacks wrote a book about them, titled The Island of the Colorblind).

    Not sure how this would affect the alien's culture or theology, though they would see the night sky differently than we do, seeing patterns that we do not see, which could affect their theology to some degree. It would definitely affect their visual art - painting, drawing, and video. They would work on UV cameras first, and create UV TVs - rather different technology than what we came up with (I wonder how a UV TV would work?). The biggest affect, I believe, would be in the contact between us and them.

    Of course, some Sci-Fi movies do have aliens that can only see in infrared or UV, though usually just in infrared, as it makes for more exciting drama to have an alien that can see our body heat - making us stand out like glaring targets, while the alien is concealed to our vision. That would indeed play on our visceral fears, if we knew that our new alien friends can readily see in infrared.

    What other problems or difficulties can you think of?

    Reference:

    "Blackbody Radiation Exercises." Physics Dept., University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 23 November 2007. <http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/java/wien/wien.html>.

    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>.

    Monday, November 12, 2007

    Repeating Patterns - Universal Biologies

    We see patterns in the universe, repeated patterns, that arise from the balance of physical forces, or physical forces working to achieve balance or to regain balance. Why not for biological forces as well - if physical forces control biological forces. The universe finds a way. Stars exist everywhere. They vary in particulars, like species vary in particulars, because of differences in the factors: the formula is the same, but change the values of the factors/variables in the formula and you get different answers - all within a range, because the range of the variables themselves are controlled or influenced by other formulas. The universe is a tapestry of physical laws, of formulas, all interacting together, all striving to find a balance, or steady state. The balance it finds is not a cold, static balance, but one of a repeating pattern (or a mixture of repeating patterns). The universe is hot, energetic. At least for now.

    In a sense, stars reproduce in a repeating pattern - when a star dies, it sheds gas and elements into interstellar space, and some of that gas will eventually join other interstellar gas and condense to form another star; the same forces that formed the first star will form the next star: gravity causes the particles to collect together (accretion), forming a larger and larger body, the increasing pressure in the growing body creates heat which tends to push the elements outward, but the gravity counters this, and the star finds an illuminating balance. Patterns exist in this universe, reproducible, repeating patterns. Biology exists in such a universe. Biology is acted upon, lives within, is influence by the physical laws of the universe. And so, maybe, just maybe, biology is a reproducible, repeating pattern.

    Maybe physics and mathematics is what describes the particulars, the elements, of the sonnet, and biology is the text, the words, the poetry within the sonnet.

    Thursday, November 1, 2007

    Universal Biologies - Order from Chaos

    If there are universal laws and constants to biology, what would they be? This morning I have time for a few thoughts (a syllogism actually):
    1. Order from chaos. In other words - a repeating pattern, albeit a pattern that evolves over time. It is said that if you observe a chaotic system long enough, a repeating pattern will eventually emerge. This may be one clue to the origin of life. And if so, the possibility that it only happened once in this very large and rather old universe seems rather infinitesimal. Life, to exist and continue to exist and to evolve, has to be a repeating pattern arising out of the "chaos" of natural principles, laws, and constants.
    2. I place the word "chaos" in quotes because it is not an unlimited chaos. Think of a Shakespearean sonnet. It has a certain set of rules. These are the Shakespearean sonnet natural principles, laws, and constants: A Shakespearean sonnet is made up of three quatrains and a couplet (and can be expressed as a formula: 4+4+4+2. Math is everywhere folks!). It has a rhyme scheme ABAB, CDCD, EFEF, and GG. It has a rhythm as well, a repeating iambic pentameter. It normally shows a scene or tells a little story or vignette, and often ends, in the couplet, with a twist or irony. However, within those constraints, one can still have a wide range of possibilities - you can write it in any language, and describe any scene, or tell any kind of story, even a nonsensical one.
    3. Thus, universal biology will have its mathematical formula and algorithms, its principles, laws, and constants and still be able to describe a bewildering array of varieties of life. As the rules of the Shakespearean sonnet arose from the complex interactions of the nature of the human mind, so may the rules of universal biology be said to arise from the complex nature of interactions of the natural laws (chemical, physical, i.e.) that make up this universe.
    Disclaimer: as with all analogies, you can only take this analogy so far. But it is fun and thought provoking.

    What will the parameters for the Universal Life Sonnet? Biology is informed by chemical and physical laws and constants. As it is inevitable that galaxies, stars, and planetary systems arise from the original primordial chaos of the universe, so is it inevitable that life will form on planets that allow, at least, for liquid water.

    Most scientists feel that life needs three things: organic chemicals (carbon based), water, and an energy source. That's it. That's all you need. As we are discovering, organic chemicals and energy sources are rather common in the universe. You don't need life to create organic chemicals (so this isn't a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" sort of paradox). But you do need organic chemicals to create life (at least life that we are familiar with). Energy sources can be the radiation from a star (like sunlight from the sun) or volcanism (including hydrothermal vents) to name but a couple. Thus, what we need to look for is a source of water. As detection improves with more advanced telescopes, we are increasingly finding extrasolar water, from water being detected in planetary atmospheres, to water "raining down" upon a young planetary disk (NGC 1333-IRAS 4B).

    Think about our own solar system - how prevalent is water? Water exists in varying amounts on Mars, Venus, Jupiter (trace amounts), Saturn (also trace amounts), Uranus, Neptune, the Moon, the moons of Jupiter (most notably Europa) and Saturn (Enceladus, Titan), asteroids, comets, and Pluto. Water is theorized to exist even on Mercury! Seems water isn't that uncommon.

    In other words, then, given enough time, life is bound to happen all across the universe.

    Ah, but wait. There is a disclaimer, a caveat - life needs a couple of other things: a boring home - the more "boring" the better. A planet around a very dynamic, unstable star (with huge variables in light output) or a planet in a rather elliptical orbit, will experience dramatic extremes which would be disastrous to life, at least to higher forms of life. I suppose, however, that given enough time, as the lawyer in the movie Jurassic Park was found of say, "life will find a way." We are finding extremophiles on Earth that can survive conditions we once thought impossible for life to handle. There are even microbial lifeforms that can survive the rigors of space! Right now extremophiles are restricted to limited areas on the planet, while other lifeforms have found more efficient, more abundant, energy/food sources and have dominated the planet, but on a planet where things are reversed, the extremophile-type creatures may find themselves the dominant life form, and may possibly slowly evolve. I would predict that they would take a much longer time to evolve high level sentience than on a more "boring" planet, but I do not see it being impossible.

    Another caveat - no solar system is completely boring. All stars vary in output, and all stars age and change. Gama ray bursts many light years away can wreak havoc on an unsuspecting system, destroying all or most life on any unlucky planet in the path of the beam (there is some conjecture this may have happened once to the Earth in the distant past). Meteors and comets abound, and occasionally collide with planets. If a supernova is near enough, it too can wreak devastation on a near-by system. The planets and moons themselves have dynamic events going on within them as well - earthquakes, volcanism, and atmospheric changes (changes in oxygen or methane content, i.e.) to name a few. While microbial life tends to survive major events, higher life forms tend to be more susceptible to being wiped out by them.

    So it may be that while given enough time, life is bound to happen, high level sentient life may take even longer time, and be less common; there are more restrictions for the Universal Sentient Life Sonnet - it is a much harder sonnet to write. But it is a very big universe. At present scientists estimate there are over 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Each with billions of stars. However, the point of our speculations is not that the universe is teeming with sentient life, but that it does exist, even if it may be too far for us to ever have any real meaningful contact with (we may only be able to detect that a technologically advanced civilization exists, and "communicate" via 20, 100, or 1,000 year round trip communiques). Let us, then, speculate on alternative extrasolar biological, psychological, theological and societal realities that could exist.

    References:

    Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. "Nano-assembly Mimics Origin Of Life? Molecules Organize Themselves Into Patterns." ScienceDaily 1 November 2007. 1 November 2007. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071030105309.htm>.

    Minkel, JR. "Water Found on Distant Planet." Scientific American. 11 July 2007. 1 November 2007. <http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=B66E323B-E7F2-99DF-36D284B02192381C>.

    Tinetti, G., et al. "Water vapour in the atmosphere of a transiting extrasolar planet." Nature. 12 July 2007. Excerpts at "Water, water everywhere - on an extrasolar planet. " ESA Portal. 11 July 2007. 1 November 2007. <http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMBDZI2O3F_index_0.html>.

    "Water Vapor Seen 'Raining Down' on Young Star System." Spitzer - NASA. 29 August 2007. 1 November 2007. <http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer-20070829.html>.