Are period 5 elements common in most stars?

In summary, the author is looking for evidence that Molybdenum is important for the development of life. He has seen references that seem to support this claim, but he is also skeptical of these claims. He worries that if every star has high amounts of Molybdenum, this would be futile. He also suggests that if Mo is not abundant on a planet, other elements may be more important for the development of life. He does not provide any references to support these claims.
  • #1
Guilherme Franco
10
1
My question might seem simple, however I couldn't find data on this.

Let me explain my situation: I'm involved in a project about the formulation of new criteria to avaliate exoplanetary systems for search of extraterrestrial intelligence.

The key question is mostly around the element Molybdenum. I've seen various books talking about this element's importance for intelligent life, however, I've never seen any of them actually state wether if only some stars have enough Molybdenum or if most stars have it.

Before I go into learning how to work with and fit spectral data from catalogs to detect Molibdenum in stars (I know it's possible because I've found articles of people who used data from such catalogs to detect this particular element), I must check one thing:

Do almost every star (in our galaxy) contain big amounts of period 5 elements (like amounts equal or greater than the ones in our Sun)?

Because this would seriously make all effort futile. Once the idea is to select candidates for the search program, then this criteria should be able to either exclude a great amount of stars or include a small amount. If every star I looked at had considerable amounts of Mo, then this would be futile.

Specially because intelligent life need relatively little Mo to work (the Sun for example is only 0,0000009% Mo and Earths crust is 0.0001% Mo, all of them by mass), and I think that any stars where Mo lines were clearly present would make valid candidates according to this one criteria.

Will there be many stars with Mo amounts much lower than the one found in our Sun?

Thanks!
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Before you embark on this, I think you should examine the evidence that Molybdenum is important for life. The only references I've seen look like creationist nonsense. Do you have any peer-reviewed references that show the importance of Mo in the development of life?
 
  • #3
Guilherme Franco said:
Do almost every star (in our galaxy) contain big amounts of period 5 elements (like amounts equal or greater than the ones in our Sun)?
UniverseAbundance 5 x 10-7
SolarAbundance. 9 x 10-7

Some metallic asteroids have high concentrations of rare elements. The composition of a surface may reflect the composition of meteor impacts.

Population 1 stars have more metals than population 2. Population 3 stars have extreme shortages of everything larger than helium.

Some stars have weird compositions. Przybylski's star for example.

Molybdenum is produced by the s-process in stars.

Guilherme Franco said:
...
Let me explain my situation: I'm involved in a project about the formulation of new criteria to avaliate exoplanetary systems for search of extraterrestrial intelligence.

The key question is mostly around the element Molybdenum. I've seen various books talking about this element's importance for intelligent life, however, I've never seen any of them actually state wether if only some stars have enough Molybdenum or if most stars have it.

...

The population 2 stars are much less likely to have a rocky planet. Stars closer to the galactic core also have more metals than other population 1 stars. Increased frequency of super novas, collisions, and orbital instability have been proposed as harmful to animal life.

Molybdenum is used by eukaryotes (on earth). The lack molybdenum could be a filter. If we limit our "search for life" to "identical to Earth life" then we will only find similar life forms. Evolution of intelligent life might require some hardships. If life is too easy what will drive the evolution of intelligence?

I doubt that Mo enrichment above Earth's abundance would accelerate formation of intelligent life. Some pacific island have shortages of trace elements. Jared Diamond's book "collapse" included lack of trace element dust as a reason some remote island civilizations failed. Island civilizations closer to Asia's dust plume had a much higher survival rate. On an exoplanet other factors may be much larger than the abundance of Molybdenum in the crust. Plate tectonics, volcanic activity, and ocean depths will effect the availability of elements to a surface population. Also life on a planet evolves to match the environment. A molybdenum poor planet will find a different source of nitrogen or use less of it. Polynesian explorers and their plants evolved to live in a environment with excess trace elements.

It would be hard to set a minimum crust abundance of trace elements needed for intelligent life. How much nitrogen would an ediacaran need fixed in order evolve and feed a brain? Excessive growth of protein could have boosted the evolution of tribolites and helped to cause the extinction of ediacarans. Which steps accelerated the timeline toward evolving intelligence and which were set backs? We do not actually know that chordates evolve intelligence faster than ediacarans.

It would be fascinating to look at life on a planet that was like Earth but missing something. It would be a valuable piece of data. We can not currently determine if intelligence evolves within 4+ billion years of life in 1 out of a thousand planets or 1 out of millions/billions. A close look at any alien ecosystem would add a lot of information.
 
  • Like
Likes OmCheeto
  • #4
phyzguy said:
Before you embark on this, I think you should examine the evidence that Molybdenum is important for life. The only references I've seen look like creationist nonsense. Do you have any peer-reviewed references that show the importance of Mo in the development of life?
You must have used different keywords in your search. I found the following:

Molybdenum cofactor (Moco) is a metal-containing prosthetic group common to nearly all molybdoenzymes and is ubiquitous to all kingdoms of life.

Guilherme Franco said:
My question might seem simple, however I couldn't find data on this.

I'm guessing your question is the title of this thread; "Are period 5 elements common in most stars?"

After an hour of googling, I came across an interesting web site: http://www.nataliehinkel.com/hypatia-catalog.html
The Catalog
The full database can be accessed at www.hypatiacatalog.com.

I study the element abundances in the solar neighborhood, or within 150pc of the Sun. I have put together the largest collection of stellar abundances, called the Hypatia Catalog, for 53 elements within +4,300 main sequence (FGK-type) stars as compiled from literature. Hypatia provides a wealth of chemical abundances and kinematic information which has implications for the evolution of our nearby galaxy, the formation of planetary systems, and astrobiology.
Natalie appears to have put together a tool which might answer your question(s).

I say "appears" and "might", as I'm not an astrophysicist, and don't understand negative ratios.

2017.10.10.i.do.not.understand.png
 
  • Like
Likes stefan r
  • #5
OmCheeto said:
The full database can be accessed at www.hypatiacatalog.com.

:woot:

OmCheeto said:
You must have used different keywords in your search. I found the following:

Molybdenum cofactor (Moco) is a metal-containing prosthetic group common to nearly all molybdoenzymes and is ubiquitous to all kingdoms of life.

I suspect molybdenum could be bypassed. Nitrogen fixing can be done by vanadium nitrogenase. Evolution solves many problems. Life can get stuck on one solution to a chemistry problem. For example all fish have vertical tails and all sea mammals have horizontal flukes. Both caudal fins and flukes get the propulsion job done. I do not know how evolving animals would replace Moco but it is hard to believe it is a major obstacle.
 
  • Like
Likes OmCheeto

FAQ: Are period 5 elements common in most stars?

Are period 5 elements common in most stars?

Yes, period 5 elements are commonly found in most stars. These elements include vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, and copper.

Why are period 5 elements important in stars?

Period 5 elements are important in stars because they are essential for the formation of heavier elements through nuclear fusion. They also play a role in the color and spectral characteristics of stars.

How do we know that period 5 elements are present in stars?

Scientists use spectroscopy to analyze the light emitted by stars. This technique allows us to identify the elements present in a star's atmosphere, including period 5 elements.

Are period 5 elements evenly distributed in stars?

No, period 5 elements are not evenly distributed in stars. The distribution of these elements depends on the star's age, size, and chemical composition. Some stars may have higher concentrations of period 5 elements than others.

Can we find period 5 elements on Earth?

Yes, period 5 elements can be found on Earth. In fact, many of these elements, such as iron and nickel, are essential for life and are abundant in the Earth's crust. However, the amounts and distribution of these elements on Earth may differ from those found in stars.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
776
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
490
Replies
26
Views
6K
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
18
Views
9K
Back
Top