A computer simulation raises the possibility of such a process known as lithopanspermia and according to the researchers, the rocks could also have come from other solar systems
Tiny creatures trapped in rocks transported from another planet and then crashing to Earth could have brought life to our planet. This is shown by studies that presented computer simulations that indicate the feasibility of such a process at the European Planetary Science Congress held in early September.
The researchers reported that our solar system and the planetary "neighborhood" of neighboring stars began spewing rocks in the form of asteroids or meteors at least 100 million years before the sun emerged from the cluster in which it was formed. Moreover, a study of rocks on Earth showed that life forms could have formed as early as the formation of the solar system and were tough enough to survive interstellar travel and eventually hit Earth.
The researchers from Princeton University - Edward Bellabruno and Amiya Moro-Martin, say that under certain conditions "there is a high probability that life arrived on Earth - or spread from Earth to other planets - during the early days of the Solar System, when Earth and its neighbors in nearby systems (which were then closer than today) were close enough to each other to exchange a lot of solid matter.”
The researchers based their conclusion on computer simulations of the star cluster where our sun was formed as well as on a theory known as "weak transfer" in which solid objects can gradually leave the orbit of one object and move to orbit another object. The simulation increases the chances that a process known as lithopanspermia could have taken place, the researchers say.
Litho-panspermia is the theory according to which the basic life forms are dispersed in the universe through fragments of planets in the form of meteorites that are pushed out in powerful events such as volcanic eruptions and collisions between objects, for example asteroids and planets. According to the theory, eventually the gravity of another solar system will capture the migrating objects, which could lead to the transfer of live cargo, the researchers say.
The prevailing explanation so far among researchers regarding lithopanspermia is that the rocks fly very fast and are at a high temperature that does not allow life to survive inside them. Referring to this, Bellabruno said "Our work holds the opposite of the previous studies. She says that lithopanspermia may be possible and that this is the first paper to demonstrate this. If the mechanism is correct, it has implications for the study of life in the universe as a whole," said Bellabruno.
"Research into the likelihood of a life-bearing rock landing on a terrestrial planet is work worth doing because of the large amounts of material coming from one planetary system, captured by a second solar system, and landing on a terrestrial planet," says Morrow-Martin. "Our study does not prove that lithopanspermia actually occurred, but it does indicate that it is an open possibility." concluded
For the announcement of the researchers on the Princeton University website
/
29 תגובות
Miracles!!
I'm trying to say that they showed us a new, wonderful way to think about the beginning of life. I'm trying to say that it's not just "distracting the question".
Nor did the discovery of the Big Bang show us how (or whether) the universe began.
You mentioned philosophy, but you call a philosophical argument "hassle".
And you still don't understand what you mean ……
Nissim, please accept a copy-paste of your words: "You [Yuval] say that this does not solve the basic question of how life began. Of course not. The article here is completely technical.”
Here, for me, the discussion is over. But you don't settle for that, but continue to grind ground things. Don't you regret your precious time?
So what are you talking about? What bothers you about the article?
Miracles, there is no problem understanding the obvious, but in addition, I also understood that you are a troublemaker (!)
The things you say are acceptable, but they do not relate to the issues I am talking about.
I understand that you understand me?????
Miracles!
Yuval - you are simply, in my opinion, wrong.
As I tried to make clear earlier - the form of research is completely different.
In the past - we tried to explain how life was created on Earth, and we had to meet the constraints of Earth's history. For example, the lack of free oxygen 3.5 billion years ago (which is when life began).
Now - it is possible to look for a theory without these constraints, and think whether the conditions for the new theory were met as it is in the galaxy.
You say it doesn't solve the fundamental question of how life began. Of course not. The article here is completely technical. And the article suggests (or maybe it's just me suggesting... I'm not entirely clear) - a different paradigm for the search for the source of life.
I want to explain to you an important philosophical point: science cannot, apparently, know how life began (I will soon explain the "probably"). What he can do is find options to start life. For example - a series of physical and chemical processes that can produce life. A good example is the Miller-Urey experiment. You are right that the article does not provide a new possibility for creating life - but it certainly provides tools for finding new possibilities.
And now - why "probably". There is no (scientific) doubt that there is a series of processes that created life. First - life is here and therefore there was such a process. Second - we know about many possible processes that explain the formation of life in an almost perfect way (read, for example, Manfred Egan's articles).
But why "probably" and not "certainly"? If we discover several possible processes (and not just one) - we will not be able to know what was the particular process that happened in our past.
In conclusion - your claim "only diverts to another place" misses the philosophical significance of the very discovery 🙂
Miracles, you and I are probably not broadcasting on the same wave. I am very interested in a certain, "philosophical" question, which interests you less, and you are mainly interested in a physical-chemical-biological question. My claim is that placing the "responsibility" for the creation of life on another planet does not solve the basic question but only diverts it to another place. Parable What is it similar to? They say "there is an intelligent creator for the world", but then we have to face another question and that is "who is the creator who created the intelligent creator".
Yuval is not accurate.
There is no need to repeat the experiment. His results are still valid.
The very idea is not new! It was invented about 2400 years ago, and in the last century it was talked about a lot (for example, Fred Hoyle - inventor of the term "Big Bang"). What is new, according to the article here, and also according to evidence from NASA, is that the possibility of organic material arriving from space is higher than previously thought.
And again, I probably didn't explain well: instead of looking at the preconditions on Earth and trying to build a process for creating life in this situation - today there is a possibility for a very different paradigm! The investigation can be divided into two. First - it is possible to develop a theory for the beginning of life that does not depend on the history of the Earth, and then - to see if it is possible that these conditions (obligated by the theory we invented) could have existed on some planet in the past.
It's worth remembering that all the iron, for example, found on Earth - originates from distant stars.
Please share to your heart's content. I am indeed interested in how a certain component got from one point to another, but this does not answer the question of how life was created in the first place, but only requires us to redo the famous experiment according to the conditions that prevailed elsewhere.
Yuval - allow me to share.
Let's suppose we discover that an essential component for the formation of life (as we know it) can only form in an atmosphere containing free oxygen. To mention - in the ancient atmosphere there was no free oxygen (in the famous Miller-Urey experiment it was assumed that there was in ancient times - water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen).
Now, let's assume that there is another planet that has free oxygen (in the case I prepared in advance - for example HD 209458b).
Are you not interested in knowing whether the same essential component came from somewhere else?
To say that life was created in another world is like bringing stories from Genesis. It only deflects the question but does not solve it
Ernst - what are you talking about??? Are you trying to say that life is not natural kind? And what does this have to do with the topic of the article?
Life is a human concept, it is a definition from an ancient concept of life, I recommend reading an article I chose at random
To help those who still adhere to the same parameters with the same human definitions, casual in my opinion.
Occam's razor is just a heuristic - as long as you have no reason to believe in a more complex explanation, then you should go for the simple one.
Beyond that - the theory fits the evidence - and it is a mistake to ignore every little piece of evidence!! Read Hadas' reference - certainly thought-provoking.
In my opinion - the new explanation does not complicate anything. If this is the reality, then you have to go with it.
Occam's razor, the least complicated explanation, which requires fewer assumptions is the most plausible. Instead of explaining life on Earth, they added an incredible complexity to this theory that you don't need. Now we have to explain how life began, where, and how it got here.
Myrtle - indeed a fascinating site!!
There are signs and maybe even evidence: go to this website
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorites.html#.UEwzJRkIo_o.twitter
Sheika - what do you base this on? It's nice that you write two contradictory sentences. From your second sentence - unknown technology - I understand that life does not form naturally, meaning that the probability of natural formation of life is negligible.
In the third sentence you say exactly the opposite…..
And regarding the last sentence - you say that the statistics are enough - but what are these statistics? You draw conclusions without any basis.
So much unnecessary research.
Life as a work of art
Life was created by a cause in the ancient universe by a technology unknown to us
And the statistics are enough to understand that they are very common in the universe
Ernst - there are many definitions of life. But, they are not casual, and in none of them will a stone be considered a life. For example - culture is a fairly basic condition……..
We when we defined what life is and decided that it started at a certain point on the timeline
Maybe we were wrong, and that's why we didn't find facts or clear findings for those theories.
Maybe everything is alive only in different situations in different relationships and structures.
Why does it make sense for life to come from there?
Why is life more likely to form on flying rocks than on a planet with water and an atmosphere?
And if anything, then let's ask where did life come to the stars and where did the flying stones come from? Did they also get there from other stones? Sounds like a recursive argument without a stopping condition...
In short - what is this sin?
The probability of the formation of the first RNA molecule is very low, perhaps too low for it to happen in 1.5 billion years (the time when the star is cold and does not go up in flames). If you extend the time space to nearby solar systems and 7 billion years, the probability naturally increased. Therefore panspermia is probable but not certain.
If they find for sure, the life of spores on another planet in this system is good enough proof in my opinion, like spores inside a meteorite that hit the Earth.
They may be right and it is even a possibility, but where is the evidence? A lot of things can happen, which just don't happen.