Showing posts with label universal biologies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label universal biologies. Show all posts

Sunday, April 20, 2014

(Mostly) Water Worlds

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

Landmass Size

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

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

Landmass Separations

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

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

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

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

Dinosaurs Kingdoms and Mammal Kingdoms?   

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

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

Exploration

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

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

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

Contact

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

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Very Elliptical Orbits and Possible Life


As Spock Would Say?

From time to time I read about how planets in very elliptical orbits, orbits which take the planet in and out of the star's habitable zone, will probably not harbor life. Just too extreme. Of course if such a planet can support life, it would be, as that saying by Mr. Spock goes "it's life, Jim, but not as we know it." (Yes, I know that the line was not spoken by Spock in the series, but only in The Firms' song "Star Trekkin.'") But wait a minute. In pondering the report mentioned in the Creatures Frozen for 32,000 Years Still Alive post below maybe we should revisit those assumptions.

Or Not

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. If Earth creatures can reanimate after being frozen for tens of thousands of years, if other Earth creatures can last for hundreds of thousands of years, or even millions, then 1) life can be possible in very elliptical orbits and 2) it still could be life as we know it. We have many example of extreme life on Earth, living under conditions scientists not long ago said were not able to support life: from deep in antarctic ice, to miles below the surface of the Earth, to boiling hot springs, to volcanic vents on the sunless depths of the ocean floor, to acidic mine drainage, to the stratosphere -- life is everywhere on this planet, and in many, many forms.

Kol-Ut-Shan, as Spock Would More Likely Say

So, is it truly implausible that life can evolve on planets that orbit in and out of the habitable zone? Evolution may possibly take longer, but the most common star, the red dwarf, develop very slowly, lasting up to hundreds of billions of years. Plenty of time for life to evolve and in its own fashion thrive. Most of the time we put a limit on where life can exist on the Earth, we later find we are wrong.

Maybe we should embrace the Star Trek Vulcan philosophy of IDIC: Infinite Diversity from Infinite Combinations (Kol-Ut-Shan according to an episode of ST: Voyager). Though if life has universal laws (like physics and chemistry, on which biology depends), I am not sure about the Infinite part. Natural laws do have some limits, boundaries, ranges. But  even so, the range of diversity that can arise is still vast. Maybe it should have been ADAC: Astronomical Diversity from Astronomical Combinations. Or IDAC: Incredible Diversity from Astronomical Combinations. Of course, it is a trivial difference to be concerned over.
 
What matters is that there is an incredible array of life on this planet. Especially if we not only consider all the varied environments life can be found now on Earth, but all the varieties of life that have existed in all the varied Earth environments (some radically different) in the past as well. An incredible, astronomical diversity. 


Reference:

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>

Helmuth, Laura. "Top Ten Places Where Life Shouldn't Exist... But Does." Science & Nature. Smithsonian Magazine. 13 October 2009. Web. 5 September 2012. <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Top-Ten-Places-Where-Life-Shouldnt-Exist-But-Does.html#ixzz25e81Ip2i

"IDIC" Memory Alpha, The Star Trek Wiki. n.d. Web. 5 September 2012. <http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/IDIC>

"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>

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Life in the Infrared

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

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

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

Reference:

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

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

    Thursday, December 3, 2009

    Genosia - Hive Races

    I was watching Star Wars: Clone Wars episode 2.7, "Legacy of Terror," and, as usual, am skeptical about insectile sentient beings ("insectoids"). As discussed in my past insectoids post, the anatomical structure of insects precludes them from obtaining great size. Although, there are instances were they could obtain larger size: a humid, oxygen rich atmosphere, or water environment. A dry environment like Genosia is not a likely habitat. However, universal biology will allow for a great range of diversity - insectile creatures on other planets may have some similarities to Earth insects, but they may well have differences, especially if they were able to evolve to high level (i.e., technological using) sentience.

    But my main query from watching the episode is one of the several topics I keep returning to: hive cultures. The Genosians have a queen, who spawns the entire civilization, much as an ant queen spawns all the members of her colony. This raises some questions.

    Would one queen for an entire planetary civilization even make sense? Many separate colonies ensures the species as a whole survives because a) if an accident or disease strikes down one queen, only her colony dies, the others survive and b) one queen, even if constantly laying eggs, can not hope to produce as many offspring as multiple queens. But as a species evolves to higher order sentience, it is possible that they can eventually go against biological logic: and one queen becomes dominant - eradicating all others. Sentient beings do not always have to make "natural" sense (as we humans have shown repeatedly).

    Why always a queen? Even the Borg eventually has a "queen." Why can not a species have a male king who is the only one that spreads his genetic material. Much like a queen sits around constantly (24/7) producing eggs, a king could be doing not much more than just fertilizing female eggs.

    If a queen, or a king, is primarily involved in replenishing the species, would they really have that much control over their subjects? Lower species control via instinct and chemical signals. Higher species may be able to fight instincts - an underground, at first, resistance to the monarchy. A non-queen individual could have a mutation that reduces the queen's influence on them. For a lower species, that probably not pose much of a threat to the queen, but for a higher level sentient species, it may prove to be a major threat.

    However, let us say for argument sake that the instinct is just too deeply embedded into their makeup, and so they keep their loyalty to the queen even into their technological age. Would such an alien race be bent on making all subject to their queen? Would our shocking level of independence from each other be too much of a philosophical threat? If a queen can not stop reproducing, and the population overruns the planet (especially if "minor" queens are allowed to have colonies of their own, all ultimately loyal to the dominant "alpha" queen), they would be pressured to go out into space and find new places to colonize. It would make sense that they would find safe places such as places that are not populated by a species that would fight back and endanger a queen, or which have microbial life forms which could threaten the queen's health (though there is the scenario that if a queen dies, their species may have a mechanism for one of the subjects to take her place).

    And, I wonder, what kind of theologies would a hive-minded sentient culture develop?


    Image credit: Animation Factory

    Sunday, November 1, 2009

    The Visitors...

    The Visitors arrive...


    Yet another alien invasion show. Not that that's a bad thing (the show that is - alien invasion would be a bad thing). I am looking forward to the re-imagining of the 80's series. However, it got me to thinking again about the possible motivations for an alien species to invade the Earth, and the many difficulties involved with invading an already populated planet.

    1. Atmosphere: a sentient species will be evolved to their specific environment. Slight changes can prove to be very toxic. An alien invading Earth would need to be able to breathe our particular blend of gasses. That would be a rare alien. Ah, but what about spacesuits or masks? True, those would help, but then why take over a planet that you can not breathe unassisted on? I would think it be easier to terraform a barren, or nearly so, planet than to "terraform" one with an already fully developed ecosystem. Though as mentioned in previous posts, postbiologic / robotic sentience creatures probably can withstand a very wide range of atmospheres.

    2. Nutrition/Dietetics: a sentient species coming to Earth to use us as food would run the risk of finding us to be indigestible or even poisonous. Even if their genetics/physiology are somehow close to ours (that DNA is somehow a normal result of biochemical processes leading to life in the universe), there are many example on Earth where food that is nutritious to one creature, is not nutritious to another (and may even be poisonous). Of course, if the aliens find Earth life to be eatable, it stands to reason that Earth life would, in turn, find the aliens eatable as well, from mammalian predators to invertebrate parasites.

      But it is more likely that our physiological makeup will be too different to be of any use dietetic use. The To Serve Man recipe book would not be a top seller for aliens. Although if Earth animals were heavily processed, the aliens possibly could get some food value from them - but a lot of work for little return. Why not find a suitable barren planet, terraform it, and raise food more suitable to their physiology? If the aliens are postbiologic, which many think aliens would probably be (a next natural step in evolution for sentient species), they probably do not need biological food anymore anyway.

    3. Disease/Immunity: I have read conflicting opinions on this matter. One opinion is that humans and disease have evolved side by side - it's a continual arms race as our immune systems evolve to better protect, and diseases evolve to defeat our systems. An alien system would be, well, alien. Diseases have evolved to attack other Earth creatures and are finely tuned to Earth creatures and thus would not be able to attack an alien creature. Others are of the opinion that an alien would be wide open to attack, since their defense systems have never seen Earth diseases and thus have no finely tuned defenses or mechanisms to block or fight them.

      In addition to diseases, there are all manner of venomous arachnids, insects, snakes, toads and poisonous plants that an alien would have to contend with. Many would not care if the creature they are in contact with is from the Earth or not. How many of us have put a straw or stick into an ant hill and see the ants swarm and viciously attack the stick? Would the alien bodies be able to tolerate foreign venom or poison?

      However, with advanced nanotechnology (or technology advanced beyond it), aliens may very well have postbiologic systems to help them deal with diseases, venomous creatures, and poisonous plants - such matters may be of no real threat or concern to them.

    4. Other environmental factors: we have evolved in a particular gravity well, in a particular magnetic field, with certain ranges of light and other radiation hitting our planet's surface, and a certain range of temperatures. Any invading alien would need to have come from a planet similar to ours if they have any plans for long term domination. Unless, of course, they are postbiotic creatures.

    5. Water: many alien invasion scenarios have aliens coming for our water. Yet we are discovering that water is rather common in the cosmos. There is water on the moon, Venus, Mars, many of the moons of our gas giants, in comets and meteors. Why mess with a populated planet when water is probably much closer to home?

    6. Overpopulation: some alien scenarios have aliens invading because their home planet is overpopulated. I guess their entire solar system would have to be too, for them to move out into the stars to expand. If they were postbiologic and still felt the need to increase their population, they could easily colonize barren systems first or large space stations (Dyson spheres?).

    7. Salvation I: several scenarios have dying aliens coming to Earth in order to do medical experiments to either create some vaccine or gene therapy that can restore the alien's health, or to create alien-human hybrids so that the aliens can continue to live on, albeit in a rather different form. Besides the difficulties of two species evolving on two planets being compatible enough to be of any use to the other medically, again it would seem logical that an interstellar space faring race would be able to evolve into postbiological forms and thus not need to invade another planet to save their species. Though Studying other biologies can help uncover any universal biology laws and principles and thus help a species understand itself better.

      But let us say, for the sake of argument, that they cannot or are unwilling to go the postbiologic route and need to leave their star system (going nova?) and colonize another system (ours) and thus need to create hybrids to survive in our very alien environment (this scenario also assumes they cannot or do not have time to terraform another unpopulated world). A hybrid would feel and be different than the aliens - it would be a new species, experiencing the universe differently, and thus evolving away from the invading alien's culture and identity. How is that helping anything? They might as well just impart their knowledge to another race and consider the torch passed and not bother with the whole hybrid thing.

    8. Salvation II: ala The Day the Earth Stood Still, aliens may invade to save us from ourselves, baring any alien version of a Prime Directive, or to prevent us from being a danger to our space neighbors (not all of our space neighbors may be advanced enough to be safe from dangerous space faring races).

    9. Salvation III: alien missionaries come to convert us.
    I am sure there is more that I have not thought of.

    Alien Missions

    Overall, it seems that for the most part postbiologic creatures would have very little drive to invade another planet. At least for physical reasons. But they may have psychological or theological reasons. For instance they find the postbiologic evolutionary step incredibly repugnant or blasphemous. They may fear for their safety or for the safety of other less develop extraterrestrial species and decide to keep us restrained or contained until we, in their minds, have matured enough. Maybe they have long forgotten their own early sentience past and look upon our aggression with psychological or theological horror. They may look upon us as heathens and feel the need to forcibly spread their theology upon us. Now those are scary thoughts indeed.

    Image credit: ABC

    Thursday, October 22, 2009

    The basic life chemistry detected in another planet

    The basic life chemistry detected in another planet: the hot gas planet, HD 209458b, orbiting a sun-like star 154 light years away in the constellation Pegasus.

    Peering far beyond our solar system, NASA researchers have detected the basic chemistry for life in a second hot gas planet, advancing astronomers toward the goal of being able to characterize planets where life could exist. The planet is not habitable but it has the same chemistry that, if found around a rocky planet in the future, could indicate the presence of life.

    "It's the second planet outside our solar system in which water, methane and carbon dioxide have been found, which are potentially important for biological processes in habitable planets," said researcher Mark Swain of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "Detecting organic compounds in two exoplanets now raises the possibility that it will become commonplace to find planets with molecules that may be tied to life."
    Yet more evidence of how widespread the building blocks of life are in the universe. The creation of life takes more than a source of building blocks, but those blocks are still fundamentally essential.

    Read more at <http://www.physorg.com/news175274383.html>.

    For more information about HD 209458 b, visit its entry in the Planetary Society's Catalog of Exoplanets at <http://www.planetary.org/exoplanets/list.php?exo=HD+209458+b>.

    Reference:

    Murrill, Mary Beth. "Astronomers do it Again: Find Organic Molecules Around Gas Planet (w/ Video)." PhysOrg.com. PhysOrg.com. 20 October 2009. Web. 22 October 2009. <http://www.physorg.com/news175274383.html>.


    Image credit: NASA.

    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>

    Wednesday, August 19, 2009

    The Future of Human Evolution.

    I came across a Web site today which will be of some interest to those interested in speculating about alien life: The Future Human Evolution Website at <http://www.humansfuture.org/>. Yes, it is about human life and not alien life, but speculating about the future of human evolution and speculating about alien life, especially alien sentient life, overlap. If there is a Universal Biology, then examining the evolution of human life, and the future of our evolution (both natural and artificially guided) will inform our discussion and speculations on the evolution of alien sentient life.

    Technology Singularity - Or, We Are Borg

    The overlap is particularly salient when it comes to speculations regarding the technology singularity - when technology advances to the point that it becomes sentient. This advancement also allows sentient races who feel they have reached the limits of what biology can do for them to integrate themselves (partially or, eventually, fully) with advanced technology/machines. This is also referred to as "postbiologic." Some scientists feel this technology singularity may arrive for the human race as early as 2040, though most feel that it is more likely to be much later, the year 3000 or so.

    For More Information

    For more information about universal biology, visit my initial post on the topic, Universal Biologies?

    For more information about postbiologic evolution or the technology singularity, visit my post Robot Aliens, The Tecnological Singularity, and Where did I leave my Borg party body?

    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>

    Sunday, June 7, 2009

    Parallel Universe - are some aliens ourselves?

    What-what-what?!

    Dr. Max Tegmark, Cosmologist from the University of Penn., discusses in his essay "Parallel Universes" the possibility of four levels of parallel universes. Levels 2 - 4 involve different universes, but a level 1 parallel universe exists within our own. As Kyle Broflovski's mom would say, "What-what-what!?!"

    At first thought, Mrs. Broflovski's reaction would be warranted. But think a minute about the wacky nature of infinity. If our universe is infinite, and the laws of physics remain the same, then in an infinite universe there has to be other conditions that create other Earths - with another you living on it.

    Level 1 Parallel Universes

    Dr. Tegmark states that these parallel universes are regions that are beyond our cosmic horizon - that is, regions beyond the limit of our ability to see or detect (approximately 40 billion light years. We can see 14 billion light years away, but because of expansion, by the time the light reaches us, the object we see is now 40 billion light years away). This region of space is the Hubble volume or horizon volume. Since we cannot see beyond this volume, it can be considered a "universe." The other regions are other "universes," some being parallel to ours. All the regions are contained by one multiverse.

    For Dr. Tegmark, these parallel universes will, at some point, diverge from ours. In many ways, this is similar to the quantum parallel universe (level 3 parallel universe) where different possibilities - story lines, if you will - exist. For him, then, there is still essentially a uniqueness to each level 1 parallel universe. But in a truly infinite universe, is that necessarily the case? Can there be Earths parallel to ours in every way? In an infinite universe, even an incredibly complex chain of random choices and events will be duplicated. And, in an infinite universe, the most incredible rarities can still happen an infinite number of times (infinity can be the ultimate head trip - or headache!).

    Enterprise orbiting parallel Earth
    Star Trek (TOS) episode "Miri."
    © Paramount Pictures

    As mentioned above, each "universe" is a Hubble volume. Conservatively, the nearest copy of our Earth is 10^(10^29) meters away. However, Dr. Tegmark admits that the nearest copy could be much closer (for the mathematics involved, see his section I of his essay). Infinity may predict that on very rare occasions similar (or even exact) Earths would be within contact range of each other.

    Differences Between Level 1 and Level 3

    One difference between level 1 and level 3 parallel universes is that when there is a possibility of an action or event happening in different ways, in the level 1 parallel universe the different results happen in different regions of the same multiverse, but in a level 3 parallel universe a brand new multiverse is created for each possible outcome. Another difference is that in the level 1 parallel universe, the different result does not have to happen at the same time. In some regions, there are Earths just like ours but millions of years older. In other regions, a solar system is just forming - one that will create another Earth.

    Hello Me, This Is Me

    Some aliens can be different copies or versions of us. Maybe one day we will receive a signal, and we will think it was our own somehow bounced back, but no, it will be from another Earth.

    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 166–167).

    Reference:

    Tegmark, Max. "Parallel Universes." Science and Ultimate Reality: Quantum Theory, Cosmology, and Complexity. J.D. Barrow, P.C.W. Davies, & C.L. Harper eds. Cambridge University Press, 2004. 459 - 491. Also posted at <http://www.wintersteel.com/files/ShanaArticles/multiverse.pdf>.

    Monday, September 22, 2008

    Alien Music

    Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast,
    To soften rocks, or bend a knotted oak.
    -- William Congreve

    Music has been with man since the beginning. Babies react to music in the womb, and are born with musical preferences. Music affects the mind and the body. Music can affect our moods, concentration, and memory. Think of how indispensable music is in setting up tension and suspense in movies. It seems that music is an inherent, integral part of us.

    Why?

    It seems that there is no one music center in the brain - our ability to react and appreciate music involves interaction with both spheres of our brains. It is another way of seeing the world. Think how with our eyes we detect patterns in what we see. We see patterns in the stars and faces in mountain cliffs (or in Martian hills). There is a mathematical side to nature, and it shows up visually, and audibly. Maybe our inherent love of music is connected to our inherent love of art - from doodling (progressive jazz), to pop art (pop music), to classical art (classical music). We use art to communicate with - sometimes literally, other times much more abstractly. Many alphabets or syllabaries started off as pictures. We use music to communicate with as well.

    So, does this mean that aliens would have musical abilities as well? Is this a probable result of developing advanced sentience?

    Or is it possible that aliens could have no musical abilities? Sure, I suppose there could be alien races that are rather deaf, but what about aliens that have good hearing? If musicality is inherently connected to emotions, it could be argued that aliens that are fairly emotionless (Vulcans?) would have little to do with music. Though Vulcans played lutes. Incongruent? Maybe not. Recognizing patterns is the activity of sentience. Playing around with patterns is one way we investigate our universe and make sense of it. Playing music is playing with patterns of sound. It is audible art.

    The question becomes, then, can a sentient race notice and experiments with patterns, and yet have no real emotional connection to musical patterns? Could there be alien races that look at musical patterns purely as interesting mathematical formulas, patterns - looking at the interaction of periodic sound waves as means of conveying information or as tools (echo location, investigating structures via sound waves, using sound to destroy things, etc.) with no real emotional connection other than the pleasure of investigation, of learning, of exploring?

    Maybe the real question is can a sentient race be sentient and not have emotions? If natural laws naturally gave rise to universe, and if there is a universal biology (that is, biology naturally arises from physical and natural laws given the right conditions), and sentience the natural result of evolution (if given enough time), then are emotions a universally natural result of sentience (or naturally occurs hand-in-hand with it)?

    Reference:

    Cromie, William J. "Music on the Brain." Harvard University Gazette. 22 Mar. 2001. Web. 22 Sept. 2008. <http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/03.22/04-music.html>.

    Saturday, August 16, 2008

    Insectoids?


    Them! © 1954 Warner Bros. Pictures.
    While I am a fan of B science fiction films ("open your mind to the possibility that they are not bad movies, just misunderstood" - Mr. Lobo, Cinema Insomnia), those with giant insects tend to be science fantasy at best. Insects are not designed to be big. All this talk about how an ant can lift 10 times its weight is fine as long as the ant remains tiny. But enlarge it to the size in the movie Them, and they wouldn't be able to walk.

    Many of the reasons why insects are small were discussed in my February 13 post: Life on large planets (Are Earth sized planets not the best size for life? II). I mainly discussed the surface to volume ratio problem that insects have - as surface area doubles, volume triples. Smaller creatures have a greater surface area to volume ratio, which means that small creatures have greater water and heat loss compared to large creatures (This is why children can dehydrate and become hypothermic much easier than adults). This is why insects have exoskeletons - the outer shell helps insulate and "waterproof" them. But this shell also slows down their growth - all growth has to occur within the shell before the shell is shed and, as quickly as possible, replaced

    However, there is another reason for their small size which I didn't cover in the post mentioned above: their respiratory mechanism. Without going into great detail, because of their exoskeleton, and their need for all their organs to help restrict water loss, their respiratory system is separate from their circulatory system - all air that enters their respiratory system must be able to diffuse to every cell in the body; thus insects have a network of air tubes. They also tend to have air sacs which can contain an extra supply of air so that in dry environments they can close their spiracles (openings in their exoskeleton through which air passes) to help reduce water loss. Such a respiratory system works well for small creatures, but not for large ones - it would be difficult for air to diffuse to every cell in a large creature, unless it was riddled with air tubes, and even then, it would be difficult to ventilate the tubes so that air would flow through them.

    Ah, but insects were large - no, huge! - in prehistoric eras. One large monster bug, which lived around 286 to 360 million years ago, was the giant dragonfly (Meganeura monyi) which had a 27 inch wingspan! As reported in this month's Science Illustrated magazine, "Scientists think an oxygen-rich atmosphere helped boost their size" (p. 29). What probably helped too is that the Earth was particularly hot and humid at that time - heat loss and water loss being less of a problem.


    Thus, for a sentient alien race to be insectile, like the insectoid Xindi from Star Trek: Enterprise, or the large insects threatening the Earth in Starship Troopers, it looks like they need to evolve on a small (low gravity) planet that has a hot, humid, and very oxygen rich atmosphere.

    And maybe it wouldn't hurt if the planet was largely a water planet as insects are evolved from crustaceans and being in water helps with buoyancy (thus can grow larger) and no need to worry about water loss (though may need to worry about salt content - creatures adapted to fresh water tend not to survive in salt water and vice versa). The large, dry, rocky bug home world in Starship Troopers just isn't a hospitable planet for large sentient insectile creatures.

    Of course, insectile creatures on other planets are not destined to be exactly like Earth insects or crustacea. Universal biology will allow for a great range of diversity - insectile creatures on other planets may have some similarities to Earth insects, but they will have differences, especially if they were able to evolve to high level (i.e., technological using) sentience.

    Yet more can be said on this subject, but 'tis way past my bedtime.

    Reference:

    "How did insects evolve?" Ask Us.
    Science Illustrated. Sept/Oct. 2008: 29. Print.

    Myer, Dr. John R. "Insect Physiology: Respiratory System." General Entomology - ENT 425. North Carolina State University. 1 Nov. 2006. Web. 16 Aug. 2008. <http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/respire.html>.

    Monday, August 11, 2008

    Blog in Space III: The Beatles' "Across the Universe"

    "Nothing's going to change my world..."

    Beatles in Space

    At 7 pm on 4 February 2008, NASA beamed the Beatles' song "Across the Universe" toward Polaris (the North Star) 431 light years away via NASA's Deep Space Network. This was done to celebrate several anniversaries that occurred in the first week of February 2008:
    • 5oth anniversary of the founding of NASA
    • 50th anniversary of the founding of the Beatles
    • 50th anniversary of the launch of the first U.S. satellite, Explorer I
    • 45th anniversary of the founding of the Deep Space Network
    • 40th anniversary of the production of the first version of the Beatles "Across the Universe" by George Martin.
    For NASA to pick "Across the Universe" to beam makes sense, from the shared anniversaries, to the title of the song itself. However, for NASA to beam the song in the first place may not make as much sense.

    A Moot Question?

    As mentioned in an earlier post, on one hand the question whether we should or should not send a message into space for aliens to detect may be a moot point as we've been leaking radio and TV signals into space for over 60 years now. And the amount of signals we're leaking out into space has increased. However, weakly leaking out man-made radiation isn't the same as purposely beaming out a strong focused signal into deep space.

    The chance that there is, or will be by the time the signal reaches it, a technologically advanced sentient alien race who are not only able to detect the signal and understand that it is artificially produced, but who also just happen to be listening with their electronic ears pointed toward our region of space at the right moment to pick up our one "Across the Universe" transmission is rather minute.

    Possibly decreasing the chances even further is the nature of Polaris. It is a Cepheid variable star in a triple-star system. A Cepheid variable is a star 5 - 20 times the mass of the Sun that regularly cycles between expanding and contracting in size. This may impact the stability of the habitable zone for the star system.

    Finally, the chance of an alien space probe (not necessarily from Polaris) happening across our transmission beam, or for another sentient race around a star beyond Polaris detecting the beam is also rather minute (even astronomically minute).

    The Problem of Blasting Music toward Your Neighbors 

    So what's the problem with introducing the Beatles to the Polarians, and whoever else may hear it after them?

    We do not know the nature of the Polarians, or of any alien that may intercept our message. We do not know how they will react to it. Too often on Earth, when a technologically advanced civilization meets (or "discovers") a less advanced civilization, it usually ends up disastrously for the less advanced one. This does not mean that the aliens would behave the same way, but it does point to the distinct possibility that they could. If we can, others can - I seriously doubt that there is a universal natural law that only one arrogantly aggressive sentient race can exist in a galaxy.

    The aliens may be xenophobic because they were invaded once themselves by an alien race, and their leader(s) decide that it is better to do preemptive strikes. Or maybe their world leader is a megalomaniac who isn't satisfied with ruling just one planet. Is it impossible for someone to want to try to rule the galaxy, even if that is a deluded desire? Or the aliens may have a religious reason to attack, one that we can not fathom. The aliens may misinterpret our message as one of aggression or of grave insult to their faith, leader, or way of life.

    Or they may want to come and "help us" - parent us. They may feel it is their inherent right to do so. Some imperialistic nations in Earth's history had that philosophy - they conquered other nations to help them. They may see us as uneducated, lost heathens who need to be shown the light, and they know, from experience with other planets or their own history, that heathens won't listen unless you use "tough love" on them.

    Technological advances do not always come with the appropriate advances in culture or society. A technologically advanced alien race does not have to be morally advanced as well (though one sentient species morality may not be the same as another's).

    Yes, there is also the chance that the aliens that happen to hear our transmission will respect our sovereignty in all aspects of our world. They may be merely knowledge seekers, explorers, curious to learn more about us, and nothing more.

    Or the aliens may even be rather indifferent to us, like the aliens in Dan Abnett's short story "Point of Contact" (found in The Solaris Book of New Science Fiction, Volume Two, edited by George Mann).

    We just do not know. Is it worth the risk to announce ourselves?

    Ah, but, you may say, at 431 light years away are we not safe?

    Vast Distances, Like Fences, Good Neighbors Make?

    It would be if the speed of light is the fastest any one can travel, and the aliens are short lived as we are and are adversed to multi-generational space journeys. Recent research over the last 15 years shows that "warp drives" may be possible one day after all. A more technologically advanced civilization than ours may have figured out warp drives.

    Such an advance in spaceflight technology could make moot another related barrier - long interstellar distances can, with sub light spaceships, take many generations to traverse. This, of course, assumes that an alien race has short life spans like ours. With great medical advances, and their own different biology that may allow longer life spans to begin with, it is not inconceivable that an alien race could live long enough to make the trip to Earth and back in one generation or less. Of course they would have to be able to deal with being cooped up in the small (compared to the open air or water of their home planet) spaceship, as well as be able to produce enough sustenance and breathable atmosphere. But again, faster than light travel would take care of most of those problems.

    Another barrier to traveling interstellar distances is the danger of cosmic radiation. It is difficult to shield from it. Our atmosphere is thick enough (60 miles) to protect us, but out in space, travelers just have the skin of their spacecraft. Though researchers are looking into creating magnetic bubbles around spacecraft to protect the humans within it from cosmic radiation. So that is probably not a problem for a more technologically advanced space faring civilization.

    They, Robot

    However, even if an alien race is too far away to send some of their own out to travel to Earth, they could send robots in their place. Sending robots solves many problems - no need to grow food, maintain a breathable atmosphere, or worry about the trip taking generations. Robots would also be able to explore a greater variety of planets as they would be able to tolerate a far wider range of physical environments as well as be essentially immune to any alien virus or bacteria. They could even be more resistant to attack from many biological creatures. This is one reason why some ufologists believe that the aliens known as "Grays" are actually advanced robots.

    The robots would need to have sufficiently sophisticated AI (Artificial Intelligence) though, so that they can operate mostly on their own due to a 862 year round trip for any communications - unless the aliens are able to develop something akin to subspace communications like in Star Trek (would such robots be sentient?). Of course, if their mission is simple, like "observe from a distance, take notes and report" or "destroy all humans," there wouldn't be a great need for two way communication. Just sending reports updating on their progress (either to the home planet, or to a second wave of robots coming after them so that they can adjust their game plan if need be before arriving at Earth).

    "Nothing's going to change my world..."

    Outro

    The irony of it is, the song could change our entire world by its being beamed into space by a radio telescope. Yes, I know that what John Lennon means is that when you achieve a pristine state of consciousness, you are in a mental and spiritual state where you are free of worldly distractions: "Nothing's going to change my world..." However, if, and it is a big if, the song does get the attention of aliens, most of us will find our worlds changing as most of us haven't reached the mental and spiritual state sung about in the song.

    What do you think about this?



    Some additional information about the Polaris star system


    © NASA
    Like most triple star systems, the Polaris system contains a close binary with a more distant star circling the binary.

    In the Polaris system, the central binary pair is made up of Polaris A, the giant Cepheid (somewhere between 4.3 to 5.4 times the mass of the Sun), and Polaris Ab, a dwarf star (1.4 solar mass).

    Polaris A is the brightest Cepheid as seen from Earth. Polaris Ab circles Polaris A in a highly eccentric orbit, with the distance between it and Polaris A varying from 27 AU to 6.7 AU, taking over 29 years to orbit Polaris A (about the time it takes Saturn to orbit the Sun).

    Comparing those distances to our solar system, Pluto's closest approach to the Sun is 29.7 AU, and Jupiter's furthest distance from the Sun is 5.5 AU. By the way, recall that while Pluto is further away than Neptune, on average, it has a much more eccentric orbit than Neptune and thus actually can be closer to the Sun than Neptune.

    The third companion, Polaris B, is a main sequence Sun-like star (1.1 to 1.25 solar masses) which orbits some 2400 AUs from the center binary pair, or 60.8 times the distance from our Sun to Pluto (at its furthest point in its orbit). It takes Polaris B 29,000 years to orbit Polaris A.



    References:

    "About the Deep Space Network." Deep Space Network Home Page. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 20 Mar. 2008. Web. 11 Aug. 2008. <http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn/>.

    Borland, John. "Physicists Do the Math on Warp Drive Science."
    Wired Science. Wired News. 14 Dec. 2007. Web. 11 Aug. 2008. <http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/physicists-do-t.html>.

    "Cepheid Variables - Introduction."
    Imagine The Universe! NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Web. 11 Aug. 2008. <http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/mysteries_l1/cepheid.html>.

    Kaler, Jim. "Polaris." Stars. University of Illinois. Web. 11 Aug. 2008. <http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/polaris.html>.

    Knight, Will. "Repelling cosmic rays with magnetic bubbles." New Scientist.com news service. 19 Nov. 2004. Web. 11 Aug. 2008. <http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6694>.

    "NASA Beams Beatles' 'Across the Universe' Into Space." NASA. 5 Feb. 2008. Web. 11 Aug. 2008. <http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/across_universe.html>.

    Nave, Carl R. "Solar System Data." HyperPhysics. Georgia State University. 2006. Web. 11 Aug. 2008. <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/soldata2.html>.

    Tytell, David. "Probing Polaris."
    News from Sky and Telescope. Sky and Telescope. 10 Jan. 2006. Web. 11 Aug. 2008. <http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3311001.html>.

    "Warp Drive, When?" NASA. 17 Mar. 2006. Web 11 Aug. 2008. <http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warp.html>.

    Wednesday, February 13, 2008

    Life on large planets (Are Earth sized planets not the best size for life? II)


    © David A. Aguilar (Harvard-Smithsonian CfA)
    What would a larger planet mean for the evolution of its life forms? One of the first considerations would be the effect of the heavier gravitational field have. And that effect? Size. No matter what skeletal structure is used, weight (gravity) affects how big a creature can become.

    Let's examine insects first. One reason insects are so small (OK, if you have a fear or phobia for a particular insect, it doesn't look all that small!) is that their exoskeleton structure is not effective for supporting great weight (crayfish also have exoskeletal structure, but they live in water, which helps support added weight).

    So then why do insects have exoskeletons? It may have something to do with surface to volume ratios. As surface area doubles, volume triples. Smaller creatures have a greater surface area to volume ratio, but as creatures increase in size, the ratio quickly decreases. What this means for small creatures is that they have greater water loss, as well as heat loss. This is why children can dehydrate and become hypothermic much easier than adults (of course this works in "reverse" as well: larger, heavier people overheat easier than thinner people).

    An insect's exoskeletal structure helps insulate and "waterproof"it; this is how it overcomes the surface to volume ratio problem. However the exoskeleton helps reinforce upper size limitations on insects - to grow in size, an insect must molt or shed its exoskeleton in order to secrete a new one. Since the insect needs the exoskeleton for structure, and any growth must occur within it - thus it can not be very large when it sheds the exoskeleton. Of course, if the insect undergoes metamorphosis - the transformation of a larvae into a mature adult - major changes can occur.

    Even for vertebrate creatures, there are limits to what biology can support in terms of the musculature needed to hold up great body weight. There is also a need to be able to rid the body of heat, since the surface to volume ratio decreases dramatically as creatures attain very large sizes - it is difficult to radiate out inner heat rapidly. This is why various dinosaurs grew large plates on their backs: they essentially operated as radiator fins. Of course, creatures living in water can more easily obtain larger sizes since the water aids in supporting the weight (buoyancy).

    In addition, a large terrestrial planet may also affect the development of avian creatures. I think, though, this question is more difficult to answer. A heavier gravitational field would be harder to work against, requiring more muscles, more energy. The lighter the creature, the less weight it has to try to get airborne. Since we've seen how volume triples when area doubles, we can quickly see that if you double the size of an avian creature, it will triple in mass. However, birds have evolved ways around this. Having larger wingspans help develop more lift, but also having air spaces in their bones helps reduce their mass. This however weakens their bones to a degree, and since muscles need to be connected to the skeleton (kinesiology - mechanics, physics, of biological movement), weaker bones mean a lower limit to muscle strength. A lower limit to muscle strength means a lower limit to the weight that can be lifted into flight.

    However, a thicker atmosphere might make up for some of that heavier gravitational pull by making it easier to acquire lift. Also, creatures that glide more than they actually fly, may be able to attain larger size since what they need is a large wingspan to float on the air or to catch updrafts with. Such creatures may tend to climb up large trees or cliffs and leap off to glide, reducing the need to power themselves into flight. Once launched, it would require less energy to stay aloft. They may have large thin membranes for wings since such structures would be very lightweight. It may even be feasible that some could develop bladders where they produce and store helium like the swim bladders in a fish, which are gas or air filled bladders which controls the fish's buoyancy (and for some even helps them hear) .

    So a sentient alien from a very large planet may tend to be small in size, especially if they come from a warm planet with heavy gravity. I would doubt they would be insectile creatures, as insectile creatures on a very heavy planet (especially a warm and/or dry one) would have a harder time with large sizes than those on Earth. Not to say such sentient alien creatures as the insectile Xendi creatures from Star Trek: Enterprise are impossible, just that they are highly unlikely (maybe a very humid Earth sized planet could somehow produce one). Thus, I think heavy planets would tend to favor vertebrates of some sort, whether terrestrial or aquatic.

    Hmm, maybe one reason why many UFO accounts have aliens as being small, just a few feet in height, is that they come from terrestrial planets that are several times larger than the Earth, and thus with much greater gravity.

    Wednesday, February 6, 2008

    Anthropocentric Religion

    In discussing speculations on alien religion, one thing needs to be kept in mind: while looking to our own planet for some insight is a good place to start (after all, here are examples of what can exist), we need to beware of the temptation to slide into anthropocentricity.

    I came across today an old entry on the Speculist entitled "Alien Religion." His article brought up some good food for thought, and I will definitely try to track down a copy of Intelligent Life in the Universe? Catholic Belief and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life, by the Jesuit Astronomer Brother Guy Consolmagno. However, there is a passage that I must respectfully disagree with:
    From reading their history, we will discover that they count certain religious leaders among the most influential members of their species and contributors to their civilization. Religion itself will have had a long and spotty history: nurturing the loftiest of ideals in one place and time and sanctioning atrocities in another. One day a tool of oppression plied by tyrants and scoundrels, the next day a tool of liberation used to smash the oppressors' chains. Here the friend of learning, there it's enemy.
    In other words, meeting aliens will teach us exactly nothing about religion or about ourselves; nothing, that is, that we shouldn't already know.
    He claims that "mono-cultural alien races" don't exist. It is true that humans are not mono-cultural. However, while mono-cultures may be rare in the universe, I doubt they are impossible. For instance, an alien sentient race that operates in a hive social structure will probably be essentially mono-culture. There may be some slight difference due to geographical variations on their planet, but overall, what the would essentially have is a mono-culture. Just because we do not see something existing on our planet does not mean that it can not exist on other worlds - "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167).

    Take, for another example, a long lived race who has, over the long millennia, somehow managed to have only one religion left standing - yes, it would probably be an extraordinary long process, but once it has been achieved, and all children brought up in it, and in a world that knows of no other religion (all references to past ones long erased), it would essentially be a mono-culture. It may not last as one, but for a while it would be a mono-culture. And yes, some may outwardly act as if they believed, while inwardly be agnostic or even atheistic, that happens quite a bit on our own planet, but essentially, in practical purposes, they would be a mono-culture.

    We must keep in mind that while there probably is a universal biology, it will still allow for a great diversity of biologies and there may be creatures out there that have no inherent need for religion (as blasphemous as that may sound to our own ears). They may not understand our need for it - and it does seem we have a need for it.

    Think about our own little silly superstitions - those actions taken before a game, or before watching your favorite team, or before going on stage, or before going on a date, and so forth. While these actions are not the religious rituals of an organized religion, they are still religious acts - rituals to appease "something" so that we will be blessed in some way. Even some atheists will admit to missing the rituals of church. We humans, generally speaking, love ritual. And this love for ritual is connected, to a degree, to our need for religion.

    Is this love for ritual, or is this greater need for religion an inescapable result of developing abstract thought, of developing high order sentience, of being pattern seekers? Is it the inevitable result of sentient beings being able to detect, to see, and to create abstract patterns? Is it the ineluctable result of sentient beings being able to ponder abstract questions?

    If the answer is yes, then all sentient aliens will have, at least at some point in their histories, an inherent desire and need for religion.

    If the answer is no, then there will be sentient aliens who will not understand the need for religion.

    However, even this is too simple. If the answer is yes to the above question, it is still anthropocentric to assume that their religious history will reflect the "long and spotty" religious history of Earthlings (a short history compared to some aliens). Aliens will be part of the grand biological diversity in the universe. And they will be at the mercy (at least at first) of the randomness that is inherent in the evolutionary process. They will also have originated on planets with a wide range of diverse environmental conditions. And so, they may have different emotional characteristics and needs (which will definitely affect how they interpret and apply religion), including a possible lack (at least by our standards) of emotions. That doesn't necessarily mean they will all be Spock like in logic, just that they may seem emotionally limited.

    I said "at least at first" above as it is not inconceivable that some, or many, alien races could at some point take over control of their own evolutionary process. Depending upon a number of social, political, and biological factors, if an alien race who is at this point technologically is being ruled by a dictator, it is possible that some dictators in that position would take advantage of the technology to create a people who will be controlled by the few ruling elite - and thus essentially a mono-culture. Yes, so far no dictator on Earth has been able to take over the entire planet, but that does not automatically mean it is impossible here or on other worlds. As we have so far thankfully seen on Earth, dictators do have a hard time keeping their power - thus it would seem logical that if a dictator had access to biological technology that could alter his people to make them easier to control, that he would be very tempted to use it.

    It is also a form of anthropocentric thinking to judge an alien's history by our short history - theirs may be millions of years longer, even a billion years longer. Much can happen in that time i the way of physical, mental, emotional, and cultural evolution. Their religious history may only be spotty in the beginning (the first few dozen millennia, for example), and settle down as the aliens evolve. At some point their cultures could become unified. Just because it hasn't happened in our short history does not automatically mean it can not happen in an alien race's history, especially one with a much longer history and thus more chances for it to finally develop a mono-culture (not saying that a mono-culture is necessarily a good thing, mind you).

    Finally, technological advances on our own planet have begun to make the planet a truly smaller place. There is much talk about the Earth being "Flat" (connected) of late (see the book The World is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman), where global communication and business can occur almost instantaneously - we are becoming increasingly connected at an accelerating rate, and, in some ways, more and more like a hive, or, for the more pessimistic, like the Borg.

    Ah, the Borg - there is a model to be considered. Is it impossible for a sentient race to go down that path, whether intentionally (good or bad intentions) or by accident or by force? Such a society would very well be a mono-culture.

    I will close by revisiting Mr. Bowermaster's words above: "In other words, meeting aliens will teach us exactly nothing about religion or about ourselves; nothing, that is, that we shouldn't already know." I disagree. Going to other planets. like Venus and Mars, to study their weather patterns, for instance, teaches us about our own weather. It is not so much the similarities that teach us, but the differences. And the more another system is like our own, the more any differences will help us learn how our system works. Weather is a complex system. I think this applies to complex theological systems as well. If there are many similarities with alien religions, with all having long and spotty records, there will still be differences, and those differences can be very telling, very instructive. Sometimes it is the smallest of variances that can give great results.

    I think that the probability is high that meeting aliens will teach us something about ourselves, including religion.

    Reference:

    Bowermaster, Phil. "Alien Religion." The Speculist. 2 December 2005. 6 February 2008. <http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/000530.html>