Posted on 08/19/2018 12:03:41 AM PDT by LibWhacker
Scientists have shown that water is likely to be a major component of those exoplanets (planets orbiting other stars) which are between two to four times the size of Earth. It will have implications for the search of life in our Galaxy. The work is presented at the Goldschmidt Conference in Boston.
The 1992 discovery of exoplanets orbiting other stars has sparked interest in understanding the composition of these planets to determine, among other goals, whether they are suitable for the development of life. Now a new evaluation of data from the exoplanet-hunting Kepler Space Telescope and the Gaia mission indicates that many of the known planets may contain as much as 50% water. This is much more than the Earth's 0.02% (by weight) water content.
"It was a huge surprise to realize that there must be so many water-worlds", said lead researcher Dr. Li Zeng (Harvard University),
Scientists have found that many of the 4000 confirmed or candidate exoplanets discovered so far fall into two size categories: those with the planetary radius averaging around 1.5 that of the Earth, and those averaging around 2.5 times the radius of the Earth.
Now a group of International scientists, after analyzing the exoplanets with mass measurements and recent radius measurements from the Gaia satellite, have developed a model of their internal structure.
"We have looked at how mass relates to radius, and developed a model which might explain the relationship", said Li Zeng. The model indicates that those exoplanets which have a radius of around x1.5 Earth radius tend to be rocky planets (of typically x5 the mass of the Earth), while those with a radius of x2.5 Earth radius (with a mass around x10 that of the Earth) are probably water worlds".
"This is water, but not as commonly found here on Earth", said Li Zeng. "Their surface temperature is expected to be in the 200 to 500 degree Celsius range. Their surface may be shrouded in a water-vapor-dominated atmosphere, with a liquid water layer underneath. Moving deeper, one would expect to find this water transforms into high-pressure ices before we reaching the solid rocky core. The beauty of the model is that it explains just how composition relates to the known facts about these planets".
Li Zeng continued, "Our data indicate that about 35% of all known exoplanets which are bigger than Earth should be water-rich. These water worlds likely formed in similar ways to the giant planet cores (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) which we find in our own solar system. The newly-launched TESS mission will find many more of them, with the help of ground-based spectroscopic follow-up. The next generation space telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope, will hopefully characterize the atmosphere of some of them. This is an exciting time for those interested in these remote worlds".
Professor Sara Seager, Professor of Planetary Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and deputy science director of the recently-launched TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite) mission, which will search for exoplanets, said:
"It's amazing to think that the enigmatic intermediate-size exoplanets could be water worlds with vast amounts of water. Hopefully atmosphere observations in the future—of thick steam atmospheres—-can support or refute the new findings".
Well, this explains why we don’t see aliens. They’re all intelligent squid or, at best, dolphins. Neither of which will build any advanced electronics that would broadcast signals off a planet. Nor become space faring.
Wait a sec- we have H, H2 (some H3 probably) and O, O2, O3, and H2O floating around in our atmosphere, why is it not all combined into H2O)? Surely our atmosphere is not saturated with H2O ( meaning 100% relative humidity) and the rest is just excess components.
Oh, that’s right, it requires a catalyst ( a reason) to combine.
Will random H and O in space ( isn’t it a vacuum- meaning pretty much empty of gaseous matter) combine spontaneously? I doubt it.
Is gaseous matter like H and O and N etc not found primarily(perhaps exclusively) in atmospheres surrounding gravitationally massive bodies?
If there is no catalyst (energy) to initiate the H+H+O reaction and w/o H and O in proper ratios, won’t it just hang out and be happy independent atoms/molecules?
Somethings got to “cause” any and all actions/reactions, no?
No, there doesn't, because it isn't fusion, it's bonding. Chemical bonding in nature occurs from the energy the atoms carry within themselves. No batteries required.
Excerpt from this article.
Water is crucial for life, but how do you make water? Cooking up some H2O takes more than mixing hydrogen and oxygen. It requires the special conditions found deep within frigid molecular clouds, where dust shields against destructive ultraviolet light and aids chemical reactions. NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope will peer into these cosmic reservoirs to gain new insights into the origin and evolution of water and other key building blocks for habitable planets.Manly Warrior: About space being pretty much empty of gaseous matter... No! It's full of HUGE clouds of gas and dust (sometimes called stellar nurseries) that measure tens of light years across. Look up at the Milky Way some night and you'll see dark splotches blocking out much of the light from the more distant stars in the galaxy. Those splotches are clouds of gas and dust, and all the stars in the galaxy were born in them.A molecular cloud is an interstellar cloud of dust, gas, and a variety of molecules ranging from molecular hydrogen (H2) to complex, carbon-containing organics. Molecular clouds hold most of the water in the universe, and serve as nurseries for newborn stars and their planets.
Protoplanetary disk surrounding a young star In this animation we fly into a protoplanetary disk surrounding a young star. Within the disk, tiny dust grains accumulate layers of ice over thousands of years. These cosmic snowflakes are swept up by forming planets, delivering key ingredients for life. Credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt
Within these clouds, on the surfaces of tiny dust grains, hydrogen atoms link with oxygen to form water. Carbon joins with hydrogen to make methane. Nitrogen bonds with hydrogen to create ammonia. All of these molecules stick to the surface of dust specks, accumulating icy layers over millions of years. The result is a vast collection of “snowflakes” that are swept up by infant planets, delivering materials needed for life as we know it. "If we can understand the chemical complexity of these ices in the molecular cloud, and how they evolve during the formation of a star and its planets, then we can assess whether the building blocks of life should exist in every star system," said Melissa McClure of the Universiteit van Amsterdam, the principal investigator on a research project to investigate cosmic ices.
Thanks fieldmarshaldj.
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
| Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar · | ||
That excerpt sounds all nice and “science”- but it is theory and not exactly proven, even if commonly accepted. As far as the “clouds” I see in the expanse of the heavens- I would think that thousands upon millions of heavenly bodies appear cloud like from distance- and from observing nearer heavenly bodies like planets and stars, my science is as valid as the “animation” that followed the excerpt of yours. I can testify that I see objects in the heavens with my small reflector or naked eyes, and that it is repeatable and testable on any given cloudless night. As far as the theories of planet factories and icy snowflakes and millions of years, all of that is “facts not in evidence” yer’ honor. Sorry, fitting tidbits of anecdotal information to a narrative does not make facts. While not a flat earth type, I am indeed a your universe guy who questions most everything the mainstream pumps out. Although the astronomy shows have really cool graphics, they are indeed, just entertainment for the most part. Golly, everything they purport is based on more belief than any other religion.
Anyways,
|
This is along my line of thinking, water is probably very common in the universe.
Thanks to everyone who helped wash away my misconceptions about the genesis of water.
And thanks for reminding me that “fusion” is absolutely the wrong word (and concept) when applied to molecules.
I read through every link that each of you provided.
I am still struggling with one part of the explanation.
If I understand correctly, H and O become H2O while they are still both super chilled, micron sized solids.
That is a very difficult concept to understand, especially since there does not appear to be any external heat or pressure involved in the transition.
Every chemical reaction in nature (i.e., where chemical bonds are formed or broken) is either what is called an endothermic reaction, or an exothermic reaction. The words tell you which way the heat flows during the reaction: Endo - heat is flowing into the reacting substances... Exo - heat is flowing out of the reacting substances. Another way of saying it is that heat is given off during an exothermic reaction and absorbed during an endothermic reaction.
The formation of water is an exothermic reaction.
Breaking chemical bonds takes more energy than forming them. So during the formation of water, we wouldn't expect any external heat to be needed. All the energy you need is already stored internally, as a sort of potential energy. In fact, any energy flowing into the reacting elements during formation would only act to disrupt the formation of new bonds, not assist in making them, because you need to get the excess energy out and get the reacting substances to settle down, or you'll never get them to bond.
Now, there is a little thing called the "energy of activation," which is a little preliminary shot of energy the reactants may initially need to get the reaction going, but it is a minor amount of energy compared to the total energy bonding substances need to fully bond. I imagine our happy H2 and O pair could get the activation energy to kick start things at their wedding from any number of sources in deep space, what with all the different kinds of radiation and subatomic particles zipping around out there at every conceivable velocity.
I saw something the other day that said that the total internal energy of a collection of bonding substances is always greater before bonding occurs than after (You wanted to know where the energy comes from?... It comes from within). And that makes sense in light of the above: the system, or collection of substances, must cool down, settle down, and give off some of that heat (exothermic!) in order for the bonding to take place. You don't want a lot of excess heat coming in and shaking everything up. Otherwise, the bonds will never form.
Another thing you alluded to was how different ices can be stuck onto the surface of a dust particle (particles whose average size is about the size of smoke particles wafting up from a cigarette... Hey, what do we expect when something the size of a star explodes in just about biggest explosion imaginable, blasting its outer layers to smithereens, literally to dust?) yet can still form water. While cemented to the surface of the particle! I do not think scientists have fully answered all those kinds of questions yet, which are still an active area of research.
Here's something that's kind of fun to do: Ask Google for examples of common, everyday endothermic and exothermic reactions. The lists that come up during that search never fail to surprise and sometimes confuse the heck out of me!
I apologize if I've messed up this explanation in any way, or added to your confusion in any way. But if I have, let me know and I'll definitely ask the mods to remove the comment. The last thing I want to do is add to the clouds of gaseous crap out there in interstellar space that seem to have enveloped the earth and somehow gotten onto the internet. Cheers!
I confused molecular “endo” and “exo” with nuclear “fusion” and “fission” in my first Comment.
I actually understand the difference, but, 50 years after my last chemistry class, I often lack the fluency to clearly express it.
Two of the links I read stated that H and O combine into water inside the proto-planetary clouds that give birth to new solar systems.
Until those clouds start to heavily condense into stars and planets, I presume their temperature is close to absolute zero, and their diffuse mass creates almost no pressure.
I have no problem understanding how liquid and gaseous elements react with other liquid and gaseous elements.
But I still struggle to understand how ultra-cold micron-sized specks of solid hydrogen and solid oxygen combine into H2O in the absence of external energy.
Maybe they crash into each other, and kinetic energy starts the bonding process?
Bottom Line - I have no doubt there are excellent explanations on the Web. When I have time to find one, I will send you the link.
Thanks again for your extra effort.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
