Odds against Earth-like planets

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2701977.stm ^ | January 28, 2003 | Dr David Whitehouse

[glorgau]

but getting them into an orbit - out of the infinite number of places they could go is astounding

I agree. It might take a couple of billion years. <:-p

[JeanLM]

In our solar system we have two planets that to an observer light years away might contain life as we know it, Earth and Mars. If our rather ordinary star and solar system has two, I think that with billions of star systems out there, there have to be thousands of planets with temperate stable orbits around stars with the right characteristics for life as we define it. Of course there may be other forms that could exist even in Jovian environments. Maybe the star systems themselves are a life form?

[Doctor Stochastic]

The Earth's orbit does oscilate between a circle and an ellipse (OK, a lesser and greater elongated ellpise) about every 105,000 years.

[Pres Raygun]

Yes, the Trekkies don't like to even think about it, but most of the stars in the Milky Way can be eliminated from consideration as advanced life bearing systems, because they happen to be in either the core or one of the arms of the galaxy, where the frequency of super novae or interactions with other stars, would extinguish any life. Even if a star resides between a pair of arms it has to be a certain distance from the center of the galaxy or it will eventually drift into one or the other arms. This leave only a small percentage of the stars in the Milky Way that could potentially evolve advanced life forms.

[RightWhale]

there are MANY planets out there that will support life

Billions. They have to be rocky planets, otherwise it is unimportant whether they have a main sequence sun or any sun at all. But if you are seeking lifeforms of our level, complex animal/plant lifeforms, pickings are slim to none. Odds are there isn't another earthlike planet in this galaxy, nor in the visible universe out to 14 billion lightyears.

[rightwingreligiousfanatic]

[Burkeman1]

Do you think programs like SETI are a waste of time and resources?

[RightWhale]

Do you think programs like SETI are a waste of time and resources?

No, not at all. Putting resources into basic research is a necessity, even though no specific results are expected: we learn more about our world and we improve our tools. Who knows how the new knowledge and better tools will be used? The applications can't be known in advance of the advances.

[gjbevil]

If you want more information on this topic, read anything by Dr. Hugh Ross. A Christian with a background in astrophysics. Basically, the odds of all known required conditions for life to exist coming together at random render the chance of life existing elsewhere in the universe virtually at zero. That doesn't eliminate the possibilty of God creating life elswhere.

[HighWheeler]

This article fails to point out all the other requirements to allow a water-based form of life to develop on a planet.

1) The host star must be absolutely stable for a billion years or so, stable to within a couple of % of nominal, with no excursions.

2) The planet must orbit in the narrow corridor of energy transfer from the star so that the water averages as a liquid.

3) The planet's orbit must be at a sufficient distance so that the solar wind does not blow away the gaseous atmosphere.

4) The planet must have sufficient gravity to keep the atmosphere from drifting off into space.

5) The planet must have water in the first place.

6) The planet must not have a highly eccentric orbit that at anytime would put it outside the corridor (i.e. the more circular the better).

7) The planet must be realtively stable during the same time that the host star is stable.

8) The atmosphere must be balanced in both composition and density to the gravity of the planet so that water can exist in liquid form.

There are a few more, but the idea is that we live on a precarious edge on this planet. We are balanced in every way possible. However, their are no known factors on this planet that could affect that balance. Anything that upsets that balance will come from space, in the form of an asteroid or the Sun having a violent convulsion.

The Sun is expected to swallow up this planet in about 5 billion years as it enters the Red Giant phase of life. It will subsequently convulse, and spew the major portion of its mass into space.

[steve-b]

Er, #2 and #3 on your list are essentially counting the same requirement twice (if it's far enough out to prevent the water from boiling off, it's far enough out to prevent the entire atmosphere from being blown off).

[Junior]

I wonder what ol' Ted would say about this ...

[Junior]

Planets weren't put into orbit, they formed there from the disk of debris surrounding the nascent star. The disk is already spinning nearly circular, hence the planetary orbits would be nearly circular.

[HighWheeler]

These are two different requirments that depend on the ratio of energy transfer rate to solar wind bulk density and velocity. There are many combinations that would not work, and each must be satified independently.

[RightWhale]

Are #2 and #6 almost the same criterion?

Also, would tides--such as provided by a large secondary [moon]--be necessary for complex forms of life to arise?

[BushCountry]

Most people are to narrow-minded when it comes to the conditions that life can be sustained. Below are a couple of examples of the harsh conditions it can survive and maybe develope over millions or billions of years.

D. radiodurans can endure 1.5 million rads of radiation, a dose 3000 times higher than would kill organisms from microbes to humans.

Superthermophilic microorganisms inhabit pressurized environments beneath deep-sea hydrothermal vents. These super-organisms not only exist, but thrive at temperatures up to and possibly beyond 150o Centigrade (more than 300o Fahrenheit), setting a new limit at which life can exist.

They're the archaea, an ancient branch of microbial life on Earth discovered by scientists in 1977. Unlike the better known bacteria and eukaryotes (plants and animals), many of the archaea can thrive in extreme environments like volcanic vents and acidic hot springs. They can live without sunlight or organic carbon as food, and instead survive on sulfur, hydrogen, and other materials that normal organisms can't metabolize.

Other bacteria live attached to the siliceous walls of the spring basins, where they are difficult to see, but they can be made visible by a simple trick. If microscope slides are immersed in the boiling water, they serve as surfaces for bacterial colonization.

50-100 organisms survived launch, space vacuum, 3 years of radiation exposure, deep-freeze at an average temperature of only 20 degrees above absolute zero, and no nutrient, water or energy source. (The United States landed 5 Surveyors on the Moon; Surveyor 3 was the only one of the Surveyors visited by any of the six Apollo landings. No other life forms were found in soil samples retrieved by the Apollo missions or by two Soviet unmanned sampling missions, although amino acids - not necessarily of biological origin - were found in soil retrieved by the Apollo astronauts.)

In conclusion, I truely believe life will be found everywhere we look for it.

[HighWheeler]

They are close but the difference would be the passage of time. If the planet went outside the corridor for a short duration each orbit, and the corridor for that planet was relatively wide, a small amount of water could be lost on each excursion, but if the quantity of water was large enough, and it could sustain a billion orbits, there could be an opportunity to have life evolve. So the more circular the better the opportuity.

These are also minimum requirements.

Water has a realtively narrow range of temperature between vapor and solid compared to almost any other substance, So the corridor is going to be pretty narrow for most planets.

[Magnum44]

I think it is a miracle in itself that planets sustain (nearly) circular orbits- do you have any cluse how little it would take to knock them out of the precise balance of mass/speed that puts it into orbit? (circular OR otherwise)

Considering the mass of even a small planet, LOTS of energy would be required. We couldn't do it with our own Earth if we tried.

[Magnum44]

What the article doesn't state though is that planetary systems without Jupiter like outer planets cannot support advanced life either, because the large Jupiter like gas giants are required to keep catastrophic meteors from impacting any life bearing planets in the habital zone.

Huh? What space science book did you get this from? I disagree with your statement, though as shoemaker-levy showed us, an outer planet can capture an occasional comet/asteroid.

[general_re]

I wonder what ol' Ted would say about this ...

Wait....