Moderate heat and tectonic activity allow the detection of life on planets outside the solar system, but the assistance of gravitational energy is also required
In order to support life, a planet needs to orbit its sun in a place where the heat from the star falling on its surface is at the exact temperature to support liquid water. Right?
More on planets outside the solar system
More on the search for life in space
Not necessarily. A new study suggests that in order to harbor life, such a planet must also have plate tectonics, and these cause a reduction in the invention range of such a planet from its sun.
Rory Burns, an astronomer at the University of Washington, is the lead researcher on a paper to be published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters that uses new calculations from computer models that have been defined as the "tidal-assisted life zone".
In addition to flowing water, the scientists believe that plate tectonics is required to absorb the excess carbon from the atmosphere and lock it in rocks, to prevent the over-acceleration of atmospheric warming as a result of the greenhouse effect. The process of plate tectonics or the movement of the plates that make up the Earth's surface is driven by the radioactive decay of the planet's core, but the gravitational force of the parent star may cause tidal waves in the planet, which creates additional energy that moves the plates.
"Only if there is plate tectonics can we get long-term climatic stability, which we believe is essential for life," said Barnes.
The tectonic forces cannot be too strong or life will die out soon after it is formed. said. The planet must be at such a distance from the star's gravitational field that plate tectonics would not create extreme volcanic activity that would rebuild the planet's surface in too short a time to allow life to develop.
"Above all, the effect of this research is to reduce the number of habitable environments in the universe, or at least as we understand there should be habitable environments." Barnes says. "The best place to look for life is where the old definition and the new definition overlap.
The new calculations also have implications for planets that were previously thought to be too small to support life. An example of this is Mars, which in the past had plate tectonic activity, but this activity decreased as the internal heat of the planet waned.
However, the smaller the planets are to their sun, the stronger the gravitational pull, and the tidal waves cause the planet to release more energy. If Mars were to move closer to the Sun, the Sun's tidal waves could restart plate tectonics, releasing gases from the core and thickening the atmosphere. If Mars contains liquid water, at this point it could have begun to develop life as we know it.
Some Jupiter moons may also weigh in as potentially life-supporting. However, in one of them, Io, there is such a massive volcanic activity as a result of Jupiter's tidal forces, that this causes his nomination to be removed. Tectonic activity completely renews the surface of Io in less than a million years. "If this happened on Earth, it would be hard to imagine how life could have developed." Banners said.
A star similar to Earth, but 8 times more massive, is called Gleis 581d. This planet was discovered in 2007 and it lies about 20 light years away from us in the direction of the Libra constellation. At first it appeared to be too far from its sun Gliese 581 to contain water, but recent observations have determined that the orbit is within the realm of life for liquid water. However, the planet is outside the habitable zone, if you take into account the gravitational waves, which the researchers believe greatly limits the possibility of life there.
"Our model predicts that gravitational waves may contribute perhaps a quarter of the heat required to make the planet habitable, so a lot of decaying heat from radioactive isotopes would be required to make up the difference," Jackson said.
And Barnes added: "The bottom line is that tidal forces are an important factor that we're going to consider when we're looking for life-bearing planets."
For the news in Universe Today
40 תגובות
Moshe:
What a crap!
In a scientific theological debate there is always one side that is right and the other is an idiot. Once people of faith claimed that the universe was created with a big bang "And let there be light" they called it. The scientists claimed on the other hand that the universe is primordial. People of faith once said that God is constantly holding his world lest it collapse. The scientists claimed that there was an equilibrium. Today most scientists accept both former religious assumptions. Today this energy is called "dark energy" there is a "weak force", a "strong force" and no one tries to say where that dark energy comes from.
Lesbadramish Yehuda
A "living" star 1,000 light years away? I am buying now. It's not that far. It's right here around the corner. A thousand here and a thousand there.. We're already a neighborhood. True, maybe not all of them are intelligent, but they live.... you know.
Dear Friends.
I watch and guess that the search for earth-like life
In extrasolar planets it will be done in four main stages as follows:
1] phase of identifying Earth-like planets-
Viewing means will be perfected and the 1st generation separation ability (resolution) will be perfected so that we can identify in observations, Earth-like planets around stars that today only see giant (Jupiter-like) planets around them.
2] Phase of identifying signs of life from Earth-like planets-
Viewing means will be perfected and the 2nd generation separation ability will be perfected, so that we can identify in observations, emission lines of radiation of living matter such as: emission of green color and emission lines of proteins.
3] Phase of identifying signs of intelligent life from planets where signs of life have been discovered - on planets where the existence of living matter will be detected, a follow-up will be carried out to find "intelligent radiation", such as coded radiation, radiation of radio and television waves, etc. that can be translated into something that has the legality of language, image, etc. .
4]. Identification of spacecraft emitting AM radiation. which were sent from the planets where intelligent life was previously detected. It is possible that these spaceships were sent in our direction and are making their way to us. The comer and receiver should be valued with all the respect and value they deserve.
Chen T:
I answered there
https://www.hayadan.org.il/andromeda-planet-1606099/#comment-226461
Yehuda:
I have no opinion on the matter, but in any case - I did not claim that life is not common.
I reacted - as you saw - only to considerations that seemed wrong to me.
Michael, my father and Yehuda peace be upon you 🙂
I wrote this response to the article "Astronomers observed a planet in the Andromeda galaxy" and in light of the comments here, I think it is more appropriate for this discussion, so please, ignore it there (and my father, if it can be deleted so as not to create duplicate comments, then I thank you in advance).
I would appreciate your opinion regarding my theory:
If we assume for a moment that Earth is a young planet relative to other planets in our galaxy and in general (as I think I read in some article here) then our technological progress here could be a million or several million years behind other intelligent life in our galaxy or another galaxy.
At an initial stage, an intelligent race that set out to explore other stars in its environment, must have already developed the ability to fly fast and cheap enough to be able to import raw materials - at a reasonable price - to the mother planet and also build colonies on stars
Relatives who allow it.
In the second stage, in order to maintain effective communication between the stars, technology is required that allows the transfer of information faster than the speed of light. Such a breakthrough would be the basis for moving matter at a speed beyond the speed of light and then for interstellar flight at this speed or higher.
When there are such options, the ability to explore the stars of your galaxy using high-quality telescopes in the middle of space (like relays that allow interplanetary communication) is easy and cheap, so it doesn't have to be very difficult to locate life on Earth.
My opinion is that after locating life here, locating the raw materials that exist on our planet, those neighbors came to the conclusion that there is no economic potential in trade relations with Earth, not to mention the possibility of losses due to military opposition to any unusual visit.
What is your opinion?
To Michael
Even if you decide that everything is as it is here, you have received many possibilities for the development of life!
Almost everywhere, from the depths of the oceans to the hottest deserts to the Antarctic plains, life exists and is even vibrant, so what could be different on other planets? Is it hotter there, colder? Less oxygen? What could be the change that would prevent them from forming?
I believe that life is really, really, common in the vastness of the galaxy and every galaxy.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Nicholas and Dan:
There is no scientist (literally no one!) who does not know what you said.
And yet - because it is impossible to test the entire universe and because we don't even know how to begin to recognize completely different life and also because the only example of conditions in which we clearly know that life can develop - we prefer to test stars whose conditions are not too far from those we know here.
This of course does not prevent any of you from looking elsewhere.
If we only saw white swans, it still does not mean that all swans are white.
Such an article and they don't check for spelling errors...
"Noslim" XD.
And the subject:
Why does everything always have to be the way it is here?
There can be no other way, we are not the center of the universe, we did not create everything.
So why but why! Everything should be the way it is here?! There are countless stars in the universe enough to give each path, the possibility to develop by itself and give different results.
If you give a monkey a typewriter and enough time he will eventually print a paragraph from a Shakespeare play.
No. Ben-Ner
Small calculation
Let's see what the distance is between us and another planet in whose system there is life.
Our sun is about thirty thousand light years from the center of the galaxy. In this region the galaxy is about 2000 light years thick. The volume of a ring this thick and with a width of from 15000 to 45000 light years in the galaxy is about 12 times 10 to the power of 12 cubic light years, so in all, and if according to you there are about 30000 life-bearing stars, then, in every cube inflated about four hundred million cubic light-years, on average, only one bearing star will be found Haim! And it shows that the distance between one life-bearing star and another, even your calculations predict, is at least a few hundred light years.
Moreover, if we are talking about intelligent beings that exist today, then the distance will increase to at least thousands of light years.
So the chance that we will become aware of these creatures is slim.
Of course everything would be different if we were talking about creatures that are not only according to the shape of the earth because then the amount will increase and as they say - the sky is the limit.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
A. Ben-Ner:
I assume that it is clear to you that the principle of continuity is familiar to me and I continue to hold my reservations.
As I mentioned - Pluto, Mercury and the Sun itself are closer to us than planets of a suitable size orbiting other Suns at a suitable distance and yet these planets seem to me to be much better candidates for discovering life.
Distance in XNUMXD space is not everything.
The space in which life must be searched for includes additional and more important dimensions such as the distance from the relevant sun, the dimensions of the planet, its chemical composition, the age of the solar system in which it is found, the existence of a magnetic field, the existence of tectonics, and more.
When you take this multidimensional space the search looks completely different.
Laurie Cole
I admit that the probability assessment contained in my first response is arbitrary.
At the same time note that Sabdarmish Yehuda increased the chance 100 times because he counted 100 times more stars in the galaxy than I counted.
This allows us to reduce the estimate of the chance of finding life, from one in one (=thousandth) to one in a million, as you suggest, and still get an estimate of the existence of life in the galaxy at about 30,000 (thirty thousand) planets!!! (30,000=300,000×100:1000).
Still a very significant amount that motivates the search for signs of life in the galaxy.
To Michael R. (formerly Michael)
In short, I will try to strengthen the idea of "phenomena that come in groups" that I brought up in my previous response (#15). The idea is based on the general physical principle that physical functions are usually continuous (except for the small, quantum scales).
The conditions for the formation of life is a complex and numerous set of physical-chemical-climatic-geological functions...etc.
which in certain values enable the existence of an earth-like life.
The principle of the continuity of physical functions makes one think that in the immediate environment there is a high probability of the existence of similar conditions, and therefore also a good chance of finding similar phenomena. This does not contradict the possibility that such similar conditions may also exist in very distant places, however, it is clear that the search in very distant places is expensive, difficult and has low chances of success.
Yehuda Sabdarmish
If you know there are a hundred billion stars in the galaxy, then this number increases the chance of finding life, in my opinion, which is good. At the same time, I assumed that the existence of life is not possible too close and too far from the center of the galaxy, but only in a certain strip, which I assumed includes at most about 30% of all the stars in the galaxy.
A. Dear Ben-Ner,
You forgot to add an estimated value of the error to your estimate.
In my humble opinion, your estimate is so rough that I estimate the error to be about 1,000,000 🙂
In any case, a one in a thousand chance of sustaining life is a huge chance on any scale, and in any system of units.
to T.G.,
I understand that you know the planner well, so I wanted to ask you for his phone number or any other way to contact him. I've been wanting to chat with him about a number of topics for some time now...
I would be very grateful if you could do so.
Everything related to a person's faith, each person will live by his faith. People are willing to pay with their lives just to keep the faith they hold in it.
Science is essentially based on researchers and studies and constant changes in beliefs (theories). This therefore requires flexibility both on a theoretical level and sometimes on a person's religious level.
The interest of man as the center of the universe as a belief and theory has blossomed long ago. The planner (at the theoretical level) did not put us in the center, at most I would say at the theoretical level and for debate of course, that we are his little colony.
This is similar to the belief that the earth is flat and that when we reach the edge we will fall.
The sun revolves around the earth and the earth is at the center of the system.
As the amount of knowledge increases, the earth and man within it move away from the center, if there is one at all.
Agnus:
His words are stupid in every possible way so it doesn't really matter what he meant.
The truth is also that he did not intend to give any information but only to brainwash people.
Guys, I don't think T.J. meant the center of the universe in the geographical sense. That doesn't mean I agree with what he said.
The more people investigate and move forward, the more speechless they remain in the face of people's ability to continue to hold opinions that were proven wrong hundreds of years ago and lost their grip
T.G
Our star is the center of the universe???
Where are you writing to us from? from the 12th century ??
The more people investigate and develop, the more we stand speechless and helpless in the face of the fact that this entire complex that we see was designed by a planner.
"Someone" had to put the sun at exactly this distance for us to live here:
Now the only question is - why?
And you won't find that in space - but only on our planet which is the center of the universe - because that's what the planner determined.
In a little while they will reach that too.
Matan Torah was only here.
No. Ben Ner
First of all, I really liked your idea!
Isn't it a conclusion from the cosmological principle which says that what is true here is also true at a distance?, after all, what is true here is certainly true by us!, and this is exactly what you said:- everything comes in groups!.
It is true that there is no proof for this, but there is no proof for the cosmological principle either!
Both things are just interesting curiosities.
And besides, it is also common to say that trouble comes in groups, so why wouldn't your idea be correct?
Apart from that there are two "small" mistakes in your response:- in our galaxy there are at least 100 billion stars and its diameter is one hundred thousand light years.
All the best
Sabdarmish Yehuda
A. Ben-Ner:
In my opinion, the randomness of this consideration is not justified.
Mountains come in groups because of similar geological phenomena that occur along the mountain ranges (such as the meeting of tectonic plates).
Stars are in clusters because of the gravitational force that pulls them together.
You also find other types of groupings on the timeline (like a worldwide economic collapse, or a flu epidemic).
Generally - all groupings have an explanation in the form of a phenomenon that causes an event that is similar in the places or times in which it occurs.
Both poles of the earth have similar phenomena (such as glaciers, nights or days lasting more than 24 hours, etc.) - not because they are close but because they share the causes of these phenomena.
The search for the *relevant* common factors is what defines the areas to look for and that is what the scientists do.
That's why they defined, for example, the so-called "belt of life" as that area where the combination of the size of the sun and the distance of the planet from it allow liquid water.
Although in astronomical terms the planet Mercury and Pluto are very close to us, they do not seem to be ideal candidates for the search for life.
On the other hand - stars of a reasonable size that are at an appropriate distance from the sun and have some other relevant properties are more "closer" to us in everything that involves the existence of life.
You have my friend.
I will offer an optimistic thought regarding the possibility of finding earth-like life, precisely in our immediate surroundings.
This line of thought is taken from Prof. Ranan Bar-Kana's lecture, yesterday at the Astronomical Club at Tel Aviv University (although it was discussed there in the context of a different astronomical issue).
Well, my optimism is based on the idea that, any natural phenomena appears in groups. For example: mountain peaks appear in areas of mountain ranges. It is unlikely to find a lonely high mountain peak, in the heart of a valley.
Likewise in astronomy, the stars appear in groups (galaxies), it is unlikely to find a single star in space in an empty environment without galaxies and stars
And the galaxies also appear in clusters. The same also applies to the reality of life, colonies of living populations are located next to each other, in an environment that allows life to exist. It is unlikely that we will find a single colony of a certain type of life, in a place where no other life colonies are established.
Well according to this logic, we too, the solar system and the planets of which we are a part, it is reasonable to assume that, in our immediate environment, there are additional solar systems + planets in which earth-like life-supporting conditions exist.
The question is, of course, what is a close environment? It is clear that the closest environment is our galaxy, and more precisely, the stars in the galaxy at a distance similar to ours from the center of the galaxy, something like 40-15 light years from the center of the galaxy. It can be estimated that this strip contains, in a rough estimate, about 300 million stars (out of about a billion stars in the entire galaxy which is about 50,000 light-years in diameter). It's not that little. Even if we assume (an arbitrary but "logical" assumption) that the chance of having "Earth-like life-supporting conditions" (sub-Hidaa) is only one per mille (thousandth) out of all these stars, then, (based on this assumption) In our galaxy, there are about 300,000 planets on which Earth-like life exists, at one level or another of development.
Therefore: a]. It (seems) quite a lot.
B]. We are (apparently) not alone.
Yehuda:
Already from what I wrote you could see that I think about justice.
It is true that justice emits more than it absorbs but....it absorbs a lot.
Therefore it cools much less than it would without the sun.
The same goes for the Earth.
The truth is that I never did the calculation of how long such a star can hold heat - I just wanted to point out the fact that it is much less than when it does not revolve around the sun.
to Michael and others
Think about justice. Jupiter emits more heat into space than it receives from the Sun.
He must be projecting it for billions of years. Beneath the layer of its atmosphere it may be warm and cozy, though perhaps a little stressed. But it doesn't bother the "creatures of justice" just like it doesn't bother the leviathans that dive to a depth of a kilometer plus in our small world.
And to that man who claims that pressure cannot sustain life, I would send him to see the life bustling near the chimneys in the depths of the ocean at a pressure of hundreds of atmospheres. Much more than the 90 atmospheres of Venus.
And let's also not forget the lava that has been burning in the earth for 4.5 billion years when only a tiny layer managed to solidify in the globe of our earth - about one percent of its diameter.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Before presenting a theory that you don't need the sun for the formation of life "as we know it" as they said here, you need to understand exactly what is meant. Sun gives energy, although the star also emits energy itself, and if we consider a star with an especially thick atmosphere then the heat will be released slowly, but on the other hand the pressure due to the atmosphere will be enormous (like on Venus) and everything we know (like the Russian probes that went there) will be crushed immediately, And there won't be much chance for life. It is possible to produce heat from the star with a relatively thin atmosphere if the star is made of a radioactive material that will emit constant radiation, for example a planet made of uranium. Of course, you have to do some math what mass the star will need to reach the required radiation level, and hope that it is not too big for it to become the sun.
Much more than plate tectonics and water is needed
http://www.haayal.co.il/story_764
5 has great courage, this is the necessary way to reach knowledge.
to think out of the box.
anonymous:
This is true but a non-solar star also cools faster from the inside.
In general - as I said - there is a chance, but it is extremely low - what's more, even if there is life on such a planet, it will be almost impossible to discover it.
Even in the Earth there is life that does not depend on the sun such as living near thermal chimneys on the ocean floor (central oceanic ridges) or bacteria living in caves and receiving energy from sulfur recycling
All the claims of existence of life only based on flowing water and imitation of life on earth are simply not serious.
The only thing living systems need is a means of encoding information about their order.
Life on Earth uses carbon polymers for this, there are also other options, such as liquid crystals or silicon polymers.
Evidence and clues Long polymers of carbon have also been found in the atmospheres of gas giants or their moons.
All the claims of various scientists in this direction are simply limited thinking ability or an attempt to collect contributions from all kinds of SETI people. Not that it's bad per se, but it limits thinking.
Yehuda:
The general idea of questioning any assumption is correct, but the assumption of the absence of the sun is not such a good example.
In order for any processes to take place on a planet, energy is needed and this energy must come from some source.
This energy will also be lost - eventually as radiation.
In order for life to exist without a sun on an isolated planet, it is necessary for the planet itself to provide the energy.
In order for a star to have enough energy for a long period of time - it probably has to be very large, but if it is too large, it becomes a... sun.
In any case - a star that is constantly cooling does not constitute a permanent environment.
What is true is that certain layers can be found in such a star that, although over time they move in or out - they form a stable environment until the end of the process that moves them (such as the sinking of a certain gas towards the center due to the cooling and due to it being heavier than another gas - which creates a stable environment at the border between both gases).
In light of all the above - it is not completely impossible for life to form on an isolated planet, but it is very unlikely.
To 4.
"Afraid and afraid of the unknown":??
It is possible that it is a fear of the inner vision - of the 'mirror' of the self.
Even in order to see into the depths of infinite eternity, as shadows of the historical past, dark ghosts (dark mass:) a lot of courage is needed for an Aries-similar to an inner 'sun' that serves to illuminate their darkness.
In any case - to 3, my friend, those who do not bless the face of the holy spirit of the 'sun today in our worlds' other worlds (if there are) will also be dormant and silent for them, that is: dark and scary, not on us.
So it's better, in life now..to see in the eye sockets, and be thankful for everything.
That's how the human being is, looking for what is familiar to him.
Afraid and afraid of the unknown.
What's funny is that it's not even certain that we need the sun to sustain a life-creating environment.
How about for example a planet with a very thick gaseous atmosphere. The internal temperature of the planet will be constant and will not be related to the sun of the planet. Perhaps this is precisely the maximum reality of the formation of life, that is, stable environmental conditions.
Don't forget that other creatures may see our planet as a place unsuitable for life.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Agree with a point. Very speculative. Even if there is truth in the words, the key point is "life as we know it". Who said that all life is similar to us? Of course, somewhere there are conditions similar to ours and there must be something similar to us (there is nothing unique on Earth). But this does not mean that the existing configuration is the only one. Who knows how many life forms were created and disappeared because they did not fit the environment? Maybe even ones with completely different biology than we've ever thought about.
Ami Bachar,
BAGECO pants
Uppsala, Sweden
When you don't know exactly what you're looking for, you can say anything