When did H2O develop during the last 13.5 b y?

[baywax]

Basin Groups era:
Oldest known rock (4030 Ma)
The first Lifeforms and self-replicating RNA molecules may have evolved (4000 Ma)
Napier Orogeny in Antarctica, 4000 ± 200 Ma.

Cryptic era:
Oldest known mineral (Zircon, 4406±8 Ma)
Formation of Moon (4533 Ma), probably from giant impact
Formation of Earth (4567.17 to 4570 Ma)

Universe age:
$$t_u = 13.85 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

Oldest star age in Galaxy: (HE 1523-0901, Milky Way)
$$t_0 = 13.2 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

Galaxy age: (Milky Way)
$$t_G = 6.5 \; \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

HE 1523-0901 is a red giant star located in the Milky Way galaxy approximately 7500 light years away. It is thought to be a second generation Population II star.

If second generation and third generation stars can form together, then the minimum time required for a third generation star to form in the Universe:
$$t_3 = (t_u - t_0) = (13.85 - 13.2) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.65 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_3 = 0.65 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Universe's/Terra's first RNA based lifeforms age:
$$t_l = 4.0 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Minimum time required for third generation star's liquid water to generate RNA based lifeforms:
$$t_{g} = t_z - t_l = (4.4 - 4.0) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}} = 0.4 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

$$\boxed{t_g = 0.4 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}}$$

Minimum time required for liquid water to form in Universe:
$$t_w = t_3 + t_p + t_{wp} = (0.65 + 0.03 + 0.14) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.82 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_w = 0.82 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form in Universe:
$$t_{RNA} = t_w + t_g = t_3 + t_p + t_{wp} + t_g = (t_u - t_0) + (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)$$

$$t_{RNA} = (0.65 + 0.03 + 0.14 + 0.4) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 1.22 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_{RNA} = 1.22 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to evolve into prokaryote DNA:
$$\boxed{t_{DNA} = 0.5 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Minimum time required for prokaryote DNA to form in Universe:
$$t_{min} = t_{RNA} + t_{DNA} = (1.22 + 0.5) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 1.72 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_{min} = 1.72 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Current maximum amount of evolutionary time in Universe for RNA life:
$$t_e = t_u - t_{RNA} = (13.85 - 1.22) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}} = 12.63 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

$$\boxed{t_e = 12.63 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}}$$

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptic_era"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basin_Groups"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote#Evolution_of_prokaryotes"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Age"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE_1523-0901"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale#Table_of_geologic_time"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2058830&postcount=21"

Thank you Orion1. Great info!

 

[baywax]

They formed in abundance with second generation stars. The moderately heavy elements (up to and including iron) form as a result of fusion, which occurs only in the core of a star (and only largish stars can produce iron). These moderately heavy elements build up (very slowly) over the lifespan of the star. The heat generated by fusion keeps a star from collapsing in on itself gravitationally. Normal fusion stops at iron. A large star runs out of fuel when its core becomes chock full of iron. The star collapses in on itself. If it is heavy enough this collapse will trigger a massive explosion, a supernova, in which elements heavier than iron are created very quickly and in which the star's lifetime production of elements is finally spewed out. Your wife's wedding ring was born in the death throes of some dying large star. New stars (and planets) form from the remnants of these exploded stars.

Now we know where beer can pull tabs come from

So it wasn't until second generation suns grew large enough and heavy enough to implode and explode that we could see a large variety of elements being made available to the "cosmos". According to Orion1 the maximum amount of time available for this to take place was 12.63 billion years. Were second generation suns and super novas taking place this early in the formation of the universe?

 

[Orion1]

HE 1523-0901 star's nuclear fuel...

Were second generation suns and super novas taking place this early in the formation of the universe?

HE 1523-0901 is a red giant star located in the Milky Way galaxy approximately 7500 light years away. It is thought to be a second generation Population II star, or metal-poor, star ([Fe/H]=-2.95). The star's age is 13.2 billion years, older than the Milky Way galaxy at 6.5 Billion years. It is the oldest object yet discovered in the galaxy.

The minimum time required for a second and third generation star to form in the Universe:
$$t_3 = (t_u - t_0) = (13.85 - 13.2) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.65 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_3 = 0.65 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

The first generation star, named Baywax, formed from a nebula to become a Type 0 Hypergiant and is the star that the second generation HE 1523-0901 star's nuclear fuel originated from, as shown by the second generation metallicity ([Fe/H]=-2.95) and Relative Flux spectrum, and could only have a lifetime of less than 650 Million years, which means the first generation star burned extremely hot and rapid fusion rate and went Type II supernova over 13.2 Billion years ago.

Reference:
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/he1523a.jpg"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE_1523-0901"
http://astronomyonline.org/aoblog/images/HE1523-0901.jpg"
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/he1523s2.jpg"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergiant"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova"

 

[baywax]

HE 1523-0901 is a red giant star located in the Milky Way galaxy approximately 7500 light years away. It is thought to be a second generation Population II star, or metal-poor, star ([Fe/H]=-2.95). The star's age is 13.2 billion years, older than the Milky Way galaxy at 6.5 Billion years. It is the oldest object yet discovered in the galaxy.

The minimum time required for a second and third generation star to form in the Universe:
$$t_3 = (t_u - t_0) = (13.85 - 13.2) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.65 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_3 = 0.65 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

The first generation star, named Baywax, formed from a nebula to become a Type 0 Hypergiant and is the star that the second generation HE 1523-0901 star's nuclear fuel originated from, as shown by the second generation metallicity ([Fe/H]=-2.95) and Relative Flux spectrum, and could only have a lifetime of less than 650 Million years, which means the first generation star burned extremely hot and rapid fusion rate and went Type II supernova over 13.2 Billion years ago.

Reference:
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/he1523a.jpg"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE_1523-0901"
http://astronomyonline.org/aoblog/images/HE1523-0901.jpg"
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/he1523s2.jpg"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergiant"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova"

Thanks again Orion1... it looks like there has been 3 periods of 4 some odd billion years where life has had the opportunity to arise to the evolutionary equivalent of where we are today on earth. A planet that did not experience near "biocide" because of a bolide incident or two could well have developed something like us sooner.

 

[baywax]

In addition to asking when H2O first developed after the BB (by which I meant liquid water... and didn't mention it) I was going to ask "where"... but it appears that, with the universe lacking a centre, there is no real reference point with which to ascertain a position for the first development of liquid water.

 

[Orion1]

Ancient water vapor was discovered...

The water vapor was discovered in the quasar MG J0414+0534 at redshift 2.64, which corresponds to a light travel time of 11.1 billion years, a time when the Universe was only a fifth of the age it is today.

The water emission was seen in the form of a maser, that is, beamed radiation similar to a laser, but at microwaves wavelengths. The signal corresponds to a luminosity of 10,000 times the luminosity of the Sun. Such astrophysical masers are known to originate in regions of hot and dense dust and gas.

Glycine - CH2NH2COOH - is the simplest of all the 20 amino acids and exists as molecules in the hot cores of three giant molecular clouds, Sagittarius-B2, Orion-KL and W51 which are regions of active star formation.

Water vapor has been discovered near a quasar 11.1 Billion light years away.

Age of water vapor:
$$t_a = 11.1 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

The minimum time required for water vapor to form in Universe:
$$t_{wv} = (t_u - t_a) = (13.85 - 11.1) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 2.75 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_{wv} = 2.75 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Reference:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218122244.htm"
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/io9/2008/12/distantwater.jpg"
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18059"

 

[baywax]

Glycine - CH2NH2COOH - is the simplest of all the 20 amino acids and exists as molecules in the hot cores of three giant molecular clouds, Sagittarius-B2, Orion-KL and W51 which are regions of active star formation.

Water vapor has been discovered near a quasar 11.1 Billion light years away.

Age of water vapor:
$$t_a = 11.1 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

The minimum time required for water vapor to form in Universe:
$$t_{wv} = (t_u - t_a) = (13.85 - 11.1) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 2.75 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_{wv} = 2.75 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Reference:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218122244.htm"
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/io9/2008/12/distantwater.jpg"
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18059"

As Carl Sagan would say "billions and billions"!

Thank you Orion1, again! The question you've now brought up for me is was the red dwarf in the Milky Way here before the formation of the galaxy? Just trying to clarify the model. I also wonder if you need galactic gravity to form a habitable 3rd generation solar system.

 

[Orion1]

Oldest star age in galaxy...

was the red dwarf in the Milky Way here before the formation of the galaxy?

It is not a red dwarf, it is a red giant and it is older than the Milky Way galaxy.

Oldest star age in Galaxy: (HE 1523-0901, Milky Way)
$$t_0 = 13.2 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

Galaxy age: (Milky Way)
$$t_G = 6.5 \; \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

$$\Delta t = (t_0 - t_G) = (13.2 - 6.5) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 6.7 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{\Delta t = 6.7 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

This red giant formed some 6.7 Billion years before the Milky Way galaxy formation.

I also wonder if you need galactic gravity to form a habitable 3rd generation solar system?

Negative, only the gravitation inside a nebula and a density wave is required.

 

[baywax]

It is not a red dwarf, it is a red giant and it is older than the Milky Way galaxy.



Negative, only the gravitation inside a nebula is required.

Red giant. Sorry, my mistake.

So we do have 3 spans of time (4.6 billion or so years each) to add to the probablility of water based, intelligent life evolving in and on a suitable planet/environment. Some may never have come to fruition and some may have surpassed our own version of civilization, given the chance, plus, less bolide bombardments and a stable sun.

This has been absolutely great getting all this help, thank you!

 

[Orion1]

Late Heavy Bombardment...

Atmosphere and oceans:
A massive quantity of water would have been in the material which formed the Earth. Water molecules would have escaped Earth's gravity more easily when it was less massive during its formation. Hydrogen and helium are expected to continually leak from the atmosphere, but the lack of denser noble gases in the modern atmosphere suggests that something disastrous happened to the early atmosphere.

Part of the young planet is theorized to have been disrupted by the impact which created the Moon, which should have caused melting of one or two large areas. Present composition does not match complete melting and it is hard to completely melt and mix huge rock masses. However, a fair fraction of material should have been vaporized by this impact, creating a rock vapor atmosphere around the young planet. The rock vapor would have condensed within two thousand years, leaving behind hot volatiles which probably resulted in a heavy carbon dioxide atmosphere with hydrogen and water vapor. Liquid water oceans existed despite the surface temperature of 230°C because of the atmospheric_pressure of the heavy CO2 atmosphere. As cooling continued, subduction and dissolving in ocean water removed most CO2 from the atmosphere but levels oscillated wildly as new surface and mantle cycles appeared.

Study of zircons has found that liquid water must have existed as long ago as 4400 Ma, very soon after the formation of the Earth. This requires the presence of an atmosphere.

In fact, recent studies of zircons (in the fall of 2008) found in Australian Hadean rock hold minerals that point to the existence of plate tectonics as early as 4 billion years ago. If this holds true, the previous beliefs about the Hadean period are far from correct. That is, rather than a hot, molten surface and atmosphere full of carbon dioxide, the Earth's surface would be very much like it is today. The action of plate tectonics traps vast amounts of carbon dioxide, thereby eliminating the greenhouse effects and leading to a much cooler surface temperature and the formation of solid rock, and possibly even life.

The Hadean, then, was the period of time between the formation of these early rocks in space, and the eventual solidification of the Earth's crust, some 700 Myr later. This time would include the accretion of the planets from the disk and its slow cooling into a solid as the gravitational potential energy of this collapse was released. Later calculations showed that the rate of collapse and cooling was dependent on the size of the body, and applying this to an Earth-sized mass suggested this should have happened quite quickly, as quickly as 100 Myr.

The main piece of evidence for a lunar cataclysm comes from the radiometric ages of impact melt rocks that were collected during the Apollo missions. The majority of these impact melts are believed to have formed during the collision of asteroids or comets tens of kilometers across, forming impact craters hundreds of kilometers in diameter. The Apollo 15, 16, and 17 landing sites were chosen as a result of their proximity to the Imbrium, Nectaris, and Serenitatis basins.

Prior to the introduction of the Late Heavy Bombardment theory, it was generally assumed that the Earth had remained molten until about 3800 mya. This date could be found in all of the oldest known rocks from around the world, and appeared to represent a strong "cutoff point" beyond which older rocks could not be found. These dates remained fairly constant even across various dating methods, including the system considered the most accurate and least affected by environment, uranium-lead dating of zircons. As no older rocks could be found, it was generally assumed that the Earth had remained molten until this point in time, which defined the boundary between the earlier Hadean and later Archean epochs.

Older rocks could be found, however, in the form of asteroids that fall to Earth and can be found in Antarctica when the glaciers carry them to the edges of the continental plate. Like the rocks on Earth, asteroids also show a strong cutoff point, at about 4600 mya, which is assumed to be the time when the first solids formed in the protoplanetary disk around the then-young Sun.

Of particular interest, Manfred Schidlowski argued in 1979 that the carbon isotopic ratios of some sedimentary rocks found in Greenland were a relic of organic matter. There was much debate over the precise dating of the rocks, with Schidlowski suggesting they were about 3800 Myr old, and others suggesting a more "modest" 3600 Myr. In either case it was a very short time for abiogenesis to have taken place, and if Schidlowski was correct, arguably too short a time. The Late Heavy Bombardment and the "re-melting" of the crust that it suggests provides a timeline under which this would be possible; life either formed immediately after the Late Heavy Bombardment, or more likely survived it, having arisen earlier during the Hadean. Recent studies suggest that the rocks Schidlowski found are indeed from the older end of the possible age range at about 3850 Myr, suggesting the latter possibility is the most likely answer.

Some geologists believe they have found 4.28 billion year old rock in Quebec, Canada.

...traces of carbon trapped in small pieces of diamond and graphite within zircons dating to 4250 Myr. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 was unusually high, normally a sign of "processing" by life.

They estimate that the development of a 100 kilobase genome of a DNA/protein primitive heterotroph into a 7000 gene filamentous cyanobacterium would have required only 7 million years.

...collision of asteroids or comets tens of kilometers across, forming impact craters hundreds of kilometers in diameter.

Liquid water oceans existed despite the surface temperature of 230°C because of the atmospheric_pressure of the heavy CO2 atmosphere.

life either formed immediately after the Late Heavy Bombardment, or more likely survived it, having arisen earlier during the Hadean. ...the latter possibility is the most likely answer.

Apparently all planetary star systems experience a period of late heavy asteroid and comet inner planetary bombardment as a result of proto-planetary disk formation.

Manfred Schidlowski's 'organic matter' is fossilized 3.85 billion year old self-replicating RNA life.

Self-Replicating RNA life was formed earlier in the Hadean-Basin Groups era within the liquid water oceans and heavy CO2 atmosphere and high atmospheric_pressure and 230°C surface temperature and spectated and survived the Hadean-Lower Imbrian era Late Heavy Bombardment.

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale#Table_of_geologic_time"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment"

 

[baywax]

Apparently all planetary star systems experience a period of late heavy asteroid and comet inner planetary bombardment as a result of proto-planetary disk formation.

Manfred Schidlowski's 'organic matter' is fossilized 3.8 billion year old self-replicating RNA life.

Self-Replicating RNA life was formed earlier in the Hadean-Basin Groups era and spectated and survived the Hadean-Lower Imbrian era Late Heavy Bombardment.

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale#Table_of_geologic_time"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment"

All these discoveries point to life as being a natural step in the evolution of minerals. It sounds like it didn't take much coaxing for life to form. Abiogenesis occurred so soon after or perhaps survived through total planetary mayhem.
The only alternative is that panspermia took place in the form of interloping, inter-solar system spores, viruses or bacteria that flourished in the heat of the early years of earth, not to mention an early source of liquid H20.

Why did it take 4.6 billion years to produce us? The challenges were many. What were the set-backs to the development of life on earth? Did the challenges help to forge a better outcome (like humans) or was that result simply delayed?

 

[Sundance]

Hello

The solar system formed from a star that went supernova leaving behind a compact core that evolved a solar envelope, the remaining debries remained in chaos for millions of years, it was the survival of the stable that acted as a gravity sink and grew into the planets and dwarf planets that we see today.

5 Billion years ago the Earth started to cool, still to hot for wate to condense.

4.5 Billion years ago water stated to condense and form running water, creating sedimentary rocks, that gives us an estimate of stable running water.

4 Billion years the oceans formed and for a billion years no life.

It took a billion years in water for the simple virus to form, its ability to duplicate gave rise to life on Earth it formed the bases and evolution of the modern cell of all life.


This all happened in a dust particle called Earth.

The question is how old was the Star that went Supernova. Its phase could be about 12 Billion years old.

The other question is how long did it take for the Milky way to form a spiral and in between that merging with other galaxies and having 40 odd dwarf galaxies rotating around it.


The other question is how long did it take the milky way group to form part of a large local group of galaxies.

The questions keep on going and going to the "N" degree.

Is it possible for all this to form in just 13.7 Billion years.

OOPs I forgot to mention the odd 100 billion galaxies that we can observe in 13.2 Gyrs deep field images that are expected to form in just 500 million years. Compared to life such as the virus took one billion years to evolve.

Am I missing something?

 

[Orion1]

Monocellular DNA to multicellular DNA...

The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea until about 610 million years ago when multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans in the Ediacaran period. The evolution of multicellularity occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacteria.

Evolutionary age of multicellular DNA:
$$t_a = 0.61 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA lifeform to evolve into multicellular DNA lifeform in Universe:
$$t_{mc} = t_l - t_a = (4.0 - 0.61) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 3.39 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_{mc} = 3.39 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Minimum time required for multicellular DNA lifeform to form in Universe:
$$t_{mcu} = t_{RNA} + t_{mc} = (1.22 + 3.39) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 4.61 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_{mcu} = 4.61 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

The history of life in the early Universe was that of the self-replicating RNA, prokaryotes, unicellular eukaryotes and archaea.

Current maximum amount of evolutionary time in Universe for multicellular DNA life:
$$t_e = t_u - t_{mcu} = (13.85 - 4.61) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 9.24 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_e = 9.24 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolution_of_life"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacara_biota"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2060373&postcount=33"

 

[Sundance]

Hello Orion

Your dates taken from Wikipedia in my opinion are in error.

One in particular the first life


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolution_of_life

Despite the uncertainty on how life began, it is generally accepted that prokaryotes inhabited the Earth from approximately 3–4 billion years ago.[170][171] No obvious changes in morphology or cellular organization occurred in these organisms over the next few billion years.[172

One billion years is a lot of time.

The question as to the origin is a main issue. Did life come from out there or can life start from just a mixture of chemicals.

 

[Orion1]

Greetings, Sundance

Sundance, I noticed that your forum rebuttal challenged as error, at least three published scientific papers as reference:

(170)
Cavalier-Smith T (2006). "Cell evolution and Earth history: stasis and revolution" (PDF). Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 361 (1470): 969–1006. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1842. PMID 16754610.

(171)
Schopf J (2006). "Fossil evidence of Archaean life". Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 361 (1470): 869–85. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1834. PMID 16754604.

(172)
*Altermann W, Kazmierczak J (2003). "Archean microfossils: a reappraisal of early life on Earth". Res Microbiol 154 (9): 611–17. doi:10.1016/j.resmic.2003.08.006. PMID 14596897.
Schopf J (1994). "Disparate rates, differing fates: tempo and mode of evolution changed from the Precambrian to the Phanerozoic". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S a 91 (15): 6735–42. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.15.6735. PMID 8041691.

Did life come from out there or can life start from just a mixture of chemicals?

Sundance, this depends on a particular theory, such as Abiogenesis or Panspermia. Did you actually read these scientific papers before challenging them?

Reference:
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/0164755512w92302/fulltext.pdf"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia"

 

[mheslep]

Greetings, Sundance

Sundance, I noticed that your forum rebuttal challenged as error, at least three published scientific papers as reference:





Sundance, this depends on a particular theory, such as Abiogenesis or Panspermia. Did you actually read these scientific papers before challenging them?

Reference:
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/0164755512w92302/fulltext.pdf"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia"

Orion - Sundance only challenged your Wikipedia references, and Wikipedia given as a reference is not the equivalent of a reference to original work published in a respected journal, even in the Wiki article happens to reference original work in the footnotes. Wiki may be fine for a quick link to explanatory or introductory material, but given Wiki is known to be sometimes wildly wrong, especially on controversial subjects, I suggest citing the backup directly if you want firm ground.

 

[Sundance]

Hello Mheslep

My last reading showed life fossils 3 Gys

From your ref it seems that fossils show life at 3.5 Gys. That means they must have evolved millions of years earlier or been planted from out there.

It would be quite interesting to find a fossil path.

Wishful thinking

 

[mheslep]

Hello Mheslep

My last reading showed life fossils 3 Gys

From your ref it seems that fossils show life at 3.5 Gys. That means they must have evolved millions of years earlier or been planted from out there.

It would be quite interesting to find a fossil path.

Wishful thinking

You mean Orion?

 

[Sundance]

Hello


Sometimes the word ooops comes to play.

 

[Orion1]

...self-replicating RNA to form on Mars...



Time required for water bearing third generation planet to form:
$$t_p = t_{\odot} - t_E = (4.57 - 4.54) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_p = 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Minimum time required for inner planetary mass formation:
$$t_{pf} = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) t_p = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E)$$

$$\boxed{t_{pf} = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E)}$$

Minimum time required for Venus planetary mass formation:
$$t_{pf} = \left( \frac{4.868}{5.9736} \right) 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 2.445 \cdot 10^7 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_{pf} = 2.445 \cdot 10^7 \; \text{y}}$$

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form on Venus:
$$t_{RNA} = t_{pf} + t_{wp} + t_g = (0.02445 + 0.14 + 0.4) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.564 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_{RNA} = 0.564 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.

...earth-like oceans that the young Venus is believed to have possessed have totally evaporated...

Minimum time required for Mars planetary mass formation:
$$t_{pf} = \left( \frac{6.4185 \cdot 10^{23} \; \text{kg}}{5.9736 \cdot 10^{24} \; \text{kg}} \right) 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 3.223 \cdot 10^6 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_{pf} = 3.223 \cdot 10^6 \; \text{y}}$$

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form on Mars:
$$t_{RNA} = t_{pf} + t_{wp} + t_g = (0.003223 + 0.14 + 0.4) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.543 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_{RNA} = 0.543 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Noachian epoch (named after Noachis Terra): Formation of the oldest extant surfaces of Mars, 3.8 billion years ago to 3.5 billion years ago. Noachian age surfaces are scarred by many large impact craters. The Tharsis bulge volcanic upland is thought to have formed during this period, with extensive flooding by liquid water late in the epoch.

Evidence suggests that the planet was once significantly more habitable than it is today...

Tests conducted by the Phoenix Mars Lander have shown that the soil has a very alkaline pH and it contains magnesium, sodium, potassium and chloride. The soil nutrients may be able to support life, but life would still have to be shielded from the intense ultraviolet light.

At the Johnson space center lab organic compounds have been found in the meteorite ALH84001, which is supposed to have come from Mars. They concluded that these were deposited by primitive life forms extant on Mars before the meteorite was blasted into space by a meteor strike and sent on a 15 million-year voyage to Earth. Also, small quantities of methane and formaldehyde recently detected by Mars orbiters are both claimed to be hints for life, as these chemical compounds would quickly break down in the Martian atmosphere.

This rock is theorized to be one of the oldest pieces of the solar system, proposed to have crystallized from molten rock 4.5 billion years ago. Based on hypotheses surrounding attempts to identify where extraterrestrial rocks come from, it is supposed to have originated on Mars and is related to other martian meteorites. The theory holds that it was shocked and broken by one or more meteorite impacts on the surface of Mars some 3.9 to 4.0 billion years ago, but remained on the planet. It was later blasted off from the surface in a separate impact about 15 million years ago and, following some interplanetary travel, impacted Earth roughly 13,000 years ago.

Taunton reported the morphology of nanofossils in ALH84001 to be very similar to terrestrial samples without knowing that she was describing a Martian meteorite.

$$t_{RNA} = t_{pf} + t_{wp} + t_g = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)$$

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form on inner planet:
$$\boxed{t_{RNA} = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)}$$

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALH84001"

 

[Sundance]

Hello

It nice to have these calculations.

Its great to compare.

What ever happened to Venus in all these calaculations.

 

[baywax]

Time required for water bearing third generation planet to form:
$$t_p = t_{\odot} - t_E = (4.57 - 4.54) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_p = 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Minimum time required for inner planetary mass formation:
$$t_{pf} = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) t_p = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E)$$

$$\boxed{t_{pf} = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E)}$$

Minimum time required for Venus planetary mass formation:
$$t_{pf} = \left( \frac{4.868}{5.9736} \right) 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 2.445 \cdot 10^7 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_{pf} = 2.445 \cdot 10^7 \; \text{y}}$$

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form on Venus:
$$t_{RNA} = t_{pf} + t_{wp} + t_g = (0.02445 + 0.14 + 0.4) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.564 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_{RNA} = 0.564 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$


Minimum time required for Mars planetary mass formation:
$$t_{pf} = \left( \frac{6.4185 \cdot 10^{23} \; \text{kg}}{5.9736 \cdot 10^{24} \; \text{kg}} \right) 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 3.223 \cdot 10^6 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_{pf} = 3.223 \cdot 10^6 \; \text{y}}$$

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form on Mars:
$$t_{RNA} = t_{pf} + t_{wp} + t_g = (0.003223 + 0.14 + 0.4) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.543 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_{RNA} = 0.543 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$



$$t_{RNA} = t_{pf} + t_{wp} + t_g = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)$$

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form on inner planet:
$$\boxed{t_{RNA} = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)}$$

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALH84001"

Dating these events is based on the number of impact craters and what else? How accurate are the dating methods?

 

[Orion1]

Universal and geologic time...


Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form on inner planet:
$$\boxed{t_{RNA} = \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)}$$

The inner planetary masses $$m_p, m_E$$ have a maximum uncertainty of $$\pm 0.01$$ %.

The Solar age $$t_{\odot}$$ was determind from General Relativity and the main-sequence stellar evolution Standard Solar Model Equation of State and has a maximum uncertainty of $$\pm 2.4$$ %.

The remaining ages, Earth, Zircon, RNA lifeform $$t_E, t_z, t_l$$ were derived from Uranium-Lead radiometric dating methods and has a maximum uncertainty of $$\pm 1.0$$ %.

The maximum uncertainty of $$t_{RNA}$$ based on this equation and the maximum uncertainty of the input parameters is $$\pm 12$$ %.

Reference:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0204331"
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080707134402.htm"
http://www.ga.gov.au/ausgeonews/ausgeonews200603/shrimp.jsp"

 

[Sundance]

Hello Orion

Thank you for the link

The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0204331

It is slightly out of date, but worth reading.

From this link the writers have some very interesting papers

Bonanno A
http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Bonanno_A/0/1/0/all/0/1

Schlatl H
http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Schlattl_H/0/1/0/all/0/1

Paterno L
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Paterno+L/0/1/0/all/0/1

So I'm off to see the wizard and read a bit.

Thanks again

 

[HallsofIvy]

Hello Orion

Your dates taken from Wikipedia in my opinion are in error.

One in particular the first life


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolution_of_life


One billion years is a lot of time.

The question as to the origin is a main issue. Did life come from out there or can life start from just a mixture of chemicals.

I don't see that as being an important question. If life can't "start from just a mixture of chemicals", how would it start "out there". Panspermia doesn't answer any questions, it just moves the question off earth!

 

[baywax]

I don't see that as being an important question. If life can't "start from just a mixture of chemicals", how would it start "out there". Panspermia doesn't answer any questions, it just moves the question off earth!

Wherever life began in the universe, in my opinion, it began as a natural step in the evolution of the elements spurred on by the various laws of nature. Whether panspermia has populated the universe with life... or abiogenesis has taken place at every opportunity in the most opportune environments... is my question.

 

[Count Iblis]

Some scientists have proposed that complex molecules may have evolved inside comets and then delivered to Earth via glancing impacts or just via the comets shedding dust that than make it to Earth.

The very cold conditions inside comets make them ideal places to cook up complex molecules. In a test tube, the chemical reactions will produce the most stable compounds. You cannot make complex moleculs of which the intermedary products would be very unstable.

Inside a comet a molecule can react with another molecule in its immediate vicinity, without being bothered by other molecules that are further away. This allows the formation of large molecules which will in general be very unstable at room temperatures. But some of these unstable molecules may then combine to form more stable molecules.

If the comet is kicked out of the Oort cloud and ends up in an elliptical orbit bringing it close to the Sun for short periods, then during the brief warm periods inside the comets, the unstable complex molecules will be destroyed, the more stable molecules may be able to survive. What may also happen is that different unstable molecules that are unstable on a time scale of a few hours may combine to form a molecule that is stable on a time scale of months. These more stable molecules will then be able to survive the brief warm period

Then, the comet moves away from the Sun, and reactions will be limited to close neighbors again. Cosmic rays may cause muations at greater disctances from the Sun. Molecules can then form unstable combinations with impunity again until the next warm period arrives.

 

[Orion1]

On 28 September 1969, near the town of Murchison, Victoria in Australia, a bright fireball was observed to separate into three fragments before disappearing. A cloud of smoke and, 30 seconds later, a tremor was observed. Many specimens were found over an area larger than 13 km², with individual masses up to 7 kg; one, weighing 680 g, broke through a roof and fell in hay. The total collected mass exceeds 100 kg.

The meteorite belongs to the CM group of carbonaceous chondrites. Murchison is petrologic type 2, which means that it experienced extensive alteration by water-rich fluids on its parent body. before falling to Earth. CM chondrites, together with the CI group, are rich in carbon and are among the most chemically primitive meteorites in our collections. Like other CM chondrites, Murchison contains abundant CAIs. Over 100 amino acids (the basic components of biological life) have been identified in the meteorite. A 2008 study showed that the Murchison meteorite contains nucleobases. Measured carbon isotope ratios indicate a non-terrestrial origin for these compounds.

Measured purine and pyrimidine compounds are indigenous components of the Murchison meteorite. Carbon isotope ratios for uracil and xanthine of 44.5% and +37.7%, respectively, indicate a non-terrestrial origin for these compounds. These new results demonstrate that organic compounds, which are components of the genetic code, were already present in the early solar system and may have played a key role in life's origin.

More recent dating sets its age at nearly 4.95 billion years; nearly 500 million years older than the age of the Earth.

The Murchison meteorite contains 12% water.

Glycine - CH2NH2COOH - is the simplest of all the 20 amino acids and exists as molecules in the hot cores of three giant molecular clouds, Sagittarius-B2, Orion-KL and W51 which are regions of active star formation.

Water vapor has been discovered near a quasar 11.1 Billion light years away.

Terra experienced a period of heavy bombardment during the Hadean-Cryptic and Hadean-Lower Imbrian era, a high fraction of these meteors were probably carbonaceous chondrite based comets.

Murchison meteorite age:
$$t_M = 4.95 \; 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

Population I third generation Sol age:
$$t_{\odot} = 4.57 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

Terra age:
$$t_E = 4.54 \; 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

Maximum time between carbonaceous chondrite core comet formation and Terra formation:
$$\Delta t = t_M - t_E = (4.95 - 4.54) \; 10^9 \text{y} = 0.41 \; 10^9 \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{\Delta t = 0.41 \; 10^9 \text{y}}$$

The timescale suggests that carbonaceous chondrite core comets formed from a nebula rapidly prior to stellar formation into a proto-planetary disk prior to inner planetary formation, and chemically formulated Terra's primitive ocean via heavy bombardment with over 100 amino acids and at least four nucleobases which eventually resulted in self-replicating RNA.

Reference:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2063021&postcount=41"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite"

 

[baywax]

The timescale suggests that carbonaceous chondrite core comets formed from a nebula rapidly prior to stellar formation into a proto-planetary disk prior to inner planetary formation, and chemically formulated Terra's primitive ocean via heavy bombardment with over 100 amino acids and at least four nucleobases which eventually resulted in self-replicating RNA.

What is the probablility that these conditions existed or exist throughout the universe? We keep using Terra as an example but, is there a way to calculate how many times these conditions have taken place, resulting in self-replicating RNA and more?

So far my question has been answered by Orion1... although water vapor is not liquid water, it is H20. And the answer to "When did H2O (first) develop during the last 13.5 b y" seems to be something in the neighbourhood of 11.1 billion years ago near a quasar.

I assume that detecting that water vapor means we are detecting water vapor as it formed, 11.1 billion years ago because we are observing spectral data that has travelled, to us, for a period of 11.1 billion light years.

 

[baywax]

Glycine - CH2NH2COOH - is the simplest of all the 20 amino acids and exists as molecules in the hot cores of three giant molecular clouds, Sagittarius-B2, Orion-KL and W51 which are regions of active star formation."

Is this an indication that this particular amino acid is abundant throughout the universe?

Measured purine and pyrimidine compounds are indigenous components of the Murchison meteorite. Carbon isotope ratios for uracil and xanthine of 44.5% and +37.7%, respectively, indicate a non-terrestrial origin for these compounds. These new results demonstrate that organic compounds, which are components of the genetic code, were already present in the early solar system and may have played a key role in life's origin.

Is a phenomenon like the Murchison meteorite a common occurrence in the universe?...


(Quotes from Orion1's posts...)

 

[Orion1]

Glycine is probably a nebular product from third generation stellar formation throughout the entire Universe.

Asteroid and comet carbonaceous chondrite cores form from a nebula into a proto-planetary disk prior to third generation stellar formation and the nebular matter that carbonaceous chondrites form from probably occurs abundantly throughout the entire third generation nebular Universe.

 

[baywax]

Glycine is probably a nebular product from third generation stellar formation throughout the entire Universe.

Asteroid and comet carbonaceous chondrite cores form from a nebula into a proto-planetary disk prior to third generation stellar formation and the nebular matter that carbonaceous chondrites form from probably occurs abundantly throughout the entire third generation nebular Universe.

Thank you Orion1... cool as usual...

It looks as though life has had the opportunity to form in the universe since around 10 billion years ago. Of course its had the opportunity to be exterminated for the same amount of time. This is one thing people forget. Life, even intelligent life, has probably been established then wiped out repeatedly during this vast expanse of time. And here we are!

 

[Orion1]

Minumum/Maximum mass limit for habitable zone...


Universe age:
$$t_u = 13.85 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

Oldest star age in Galaxy: (HE 1523-0901, Milky Way)
$$t_0 = 13.2 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

Sol main sequence lifetime:
$$t_{L} = 11 \cdot 10^{9} \; \text{y}$$

Population I third generation Sol age:
$$t_{\odot} = 4.57 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

Terra age:
$$t_E = 4.54 \; 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

Oldest Zircon age:
$$t_z = 4.4 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

Terra's first RNA based lifeforms age:
$$t_l = 4.0 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Main sequence stellar lifetime:
$$\tau_{ms} = t_{L} \left( \frac{m_{\odot}}{m_s} \right)^{2.5}$$

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form in Universe:
$$t_{RNA} = t_3 + t_{pf} + t_{wp} + t_g = (t_u - t_0) + \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)$$

$$t_{RNA} = 1.22 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} \; \; \; (m_p = m_E)$$

Main sequence stellar lifetime equivalent to or greater than RNA minimum time:
$$\boxed{\tau_{ms} \geq t_{RNA}}$$

$$t_{L} \left( \frac{m_{\odot}}{m_s} \right)^{2.5} \geq (t_u - t_0) + \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)$$

Maximum main sequence stellar mass limit for habitable zone:
$$\boxed{m_s \leq m_{\odot} \left( \frac{(t_u - t_0) + \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)}{t_L} \right)^{-0.4}}$$

This relationship applies to main sequence stars in the range 0.1–50 solar masses.

$$m_s \leq m_{\odot} \left( \frac{t_{RNA}}{t_L}} \right)^{-0.4} \leq m_{\odot} \left( \frac{1.22}{11} \right)^{-0.4} \leq 2.41 \cdot m_{\odot} \; \; \; (m_p = m_E)$$

Stellar main sequence mass spectrum for habitable zone in Universe:
$$\boxed{0.1 \cdot m_{\odot} \leq m_s \leq 2.41 \cdot m_{\odot}}$$

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence#Lifetime"

 

[baywax]

Hi Orion,

Looks like someone's been using your equations... to come up with this prediction..

AAAS: 'One hundred billion trillion' planets where alien life could flourish
There could be one hundred billion trillion Earth-like planets in space, making it "inevitable" that extraterrestrial life exists, according to a leading astronomer.

Life on Earth used to be thought of as a freak accident that only happened once.
But scientists are now coming to the conclusion that the universe is teeming with living organisms.
The change in thinking has come about because of the new belief there are an abundant number of habitable planets like Earth.
Alan Boss, of the Carnegie Institution in Washington DC, said there could be as many Earths as there are stars in the universe - one hundred billion trillion.
Because of this, he believes it is "inevitable" that life must have flourished elsewhere over the billions of years the universe has existed.
"If you have a habitable world and let it evolve for a few billion years then inevitably some sort of life will form on it," said Dr Boss.
"It is sort of running an experiment in your refrigerator - turn it off and something will grow in there.
"It would be impossible to stop life growing on these habitable planets."
He believes his views will be proved by NASA's Kepler outer space-based telescope, which takes off in the next three weeks with a mission to track down Earth-like habitable planets.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/space/4629672/AAAS-One-hundred-billion-trillion-planets-where-alien-life-could-flourish.html

In fact, I'd say the bugger's been in here ripping off most of what we (you) figured out!

 

[Orion1]

stellar mass limit for habitable zone...



Oldest star age in Milky Way galaxy mass: (HE 1523-0901)
$$m_0 = 0.8 \cdot m_{\odot}$$

Third generation stellar formation time with respect to mass.
$$\boxed{t_3 = \left( \frac{m_3}{m_0} \right)(t_u - t_0)}$$

Third generation stellar mass equivalent to solar mass:
$$\boxed{m_3 = m_{\odot}}$$

Integration by substitution:
$$t_f = \left( \frac{m_{\odot}}{0.8 \cdot m_{\odot}} \right)(t_u - t_0) = 1.25 (0.65) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.8125 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

Third generation stellar formation time for Sol:
$$\boxed{t_f = 0.8125 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Third generation stellar formation time:
$$\boxed{t_3 = \left( \frac{m_3}{m_{\odot}} \right) t_f}$$

What universal effects would you expect the stellar mass and planet mass to have on planetary liquid water formation time and proto-RNA formation time?

Given the exact same solar type system with a more massive star could energetically catalyze liquid water formation and self-replication processes faster and a smaller planet heats and cools faster than a larger planet to produce liquid water, therefore my solution with respect to mass becomes...

Planetary liquid water formation time and proto-RNA formation time with respect to mass:
$$\boxed{t_{wp} + t_g = \left( \frac{m_{\odot}}{m_3} \right) \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) [(t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)]}$$

Maximum main sequence stellar mass limit for habitable zone:
$$\boxed{m_s \leq m_{\odot} \left( \frac{\left( \frac{m_3}{m_{\odot}} \right) t_f + \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) (t_{\odot} - t_E) + \left( \frac{m_{\odot}}{m_3} \right) \left( \frac{m_p}{m_E} \right) [(t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)]}{t_L} \right)^{-0.4}}$$

$$m_s \leq m_{\odot} \left( \frac{t_{RNA}}{t_L}} \right)^{-0.4} \leq m_{\odot} \left( \frac{1.3825}{11} \right)^{-0.4} \leq 2.2924 \cdot m_{\odot} \; \; \; (m_3 = m_{\odot}) \; \; \; (m_p = m_E)$$

$$\boxed{0.1 \cdot m_{\odot} \leq m_s \leq 2.2924 \cdot m_{\odot}}$$