Hope fades for Earth-like planets

Cypress

Well-known member
New study darkens hope for Earth-like planets

Most planets can't host plant life.


A new study examines if exoplanets get enough stellar radiation to support photosynthesis. Many planets within the habitable zones of stars do not receive enough energy to support plant life. Earth-like planets are probably very rare.

Since 1961, astrobiologists and others interested in finding extraterrestrial life have used the Drake equation to speculate on the possible number of technologically advanced alien civilizations in the Milky Way. By multiplying factors like the number of new stars in the galaxy per year, how many planets those stars have, the number of planets suited to life, and how long intelligent civilizations emit radio waves, one can get an estimate of how many other intelligent species are out there right now.

The problem is that the equation is almost entirely speculative because many of the factors have unknown values. But every once in a while, new information helps to narrow down the range of reasonable values to plug in.

Bad news for E.T. enthusiasts: a new study published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society offers a further narrowing of those values. By examining the conditions needed for photosynthesis, the authors propose that biospheres suitable for life might be rarer than we thought.

Let there be (a little more) light: The study’s authors looked at what conditions are needed for the biochemical process that makes most life on Earth possible, oxygenic photosynthesis. By combining carbon dioxide with water and light, species capable of oxygenic photosynthesis produce sugar and oxygen. The latter is released as a waste product.

The authors, like many before them, conjecture that photosynthesis is common throughout the galaxy on account of how much stellar radiation there is to collect, the (comparative) simplicity of the process, and the abundance of the other input elements.

As it turns out, good real estate is hard to come by in the Milky Way.

Stars that burn at half the heat of the sun do not provide enough energy for a rich biosphere to ever arise. Red dwarf stars, which are small, numerous, and burn at about a third of the sun’s temperature, were even worse. They couldn’t provide the energy needed for much photosynthesis at all.




Full article
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/exoplanet-photosynthesis/
 
Hello Cypress,

New study darkens hope for Earth-like planets

Most planets can't host plant life.


A new study examines if exoplanets get enough stellar radiation to support photosynthesis. Many planets within the habitable zones of stars do not receive enough energy to support plant life. Earth-like planets are probably very rare.

Since 1961, astrobiologists and others interested in finding extraterrestrial life have used the Drake equation to speculate on the possible number of technologically advanced alien civilizations in the Milky Way. By multiplying factors like the number of new stars in the galaxy per year, how many planets those stars have, the number of planets suited to life, and how long intelligent civilizations emit radio waves, one can get an estimate of how many other intelligent species are out there right now.

The problem is that the equation is almost entirely speculative because many of the factors have unknown values. But every once in a while, new information helps to narrow down the range of reasonable values to plug in.

Bad news for E.T. enthusiasts: a new study published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society offers a further narrowing of those values. By examining the conditions needed for photosynthesis, the authors propose that biospheres suitable for life might be rarer than we thought.

Let there be (a little more) light: The study’s authors looked at what conditions are needed for the biochemical process that makes most life on Earth possible, oxygenic photosynthesis. By combining carbon dioxide with water and light, species capable of oxygenic photosynthesis produce sugar and oxygen. The latter is released as a waste product.

The authors, like many before them, conjecture that photosynthesis is common throughout the galaxy on account of how much stellar radiation there is to collect, the (comparative) simplicity of the process, and the abundance of the other input elements.

As it turns out, good real estate is hard to come by in the Milky Way.

Stars that burn at half the heat of the sun do not provide enough energy for a rich biosphere to ever arise. Red dwarf stars, which are small, numerous, and burn at about a third of the sun’s temperature, were even worse. They couldn’t provide the energy needed for much photosynthesis at all.




Full article
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/exoplanet-photosynthesis/

Well then we better take better care of the planet we've got.
 
It's life, captain. But not as we know it.

I don't really get the idea that things have to mirror what how life adapted here. There might be processes like photosynthesis that we can't imagine.
 
It's life, captain. But not as we know it.

I don't really get the idea that things have to mirror what how life adapted here. There might be processes like photosynthesis that we can't imagine.

Life depends on energy.

The most abundant and reliable source of energy in the cosmos is solar radiation.

It would seem surprising that biological evolution and life anywhere would not harness it.


I think Earth is a great laboratory for the types of life that could potentially evolve. 4.5 billion years is plenty of time for evolution to tinker with different evolutionary pathways, metabolisms, and biochemistry - and the Earth has seen a huge range of geochemical, thermal, and environmental conditions to host life.

But all that's ever happened one Earth is carbon based life and DNA based genetics.
 
In other news the current guess of the age of the universe is double the last guess.

The experts dont know much of anything.
 
Life depends on energy.

The most abundant and reliable source of energy in the cosmos is solar radiation.

It would seem surprising that biological evolution and life anywhere would not harness it.


I think Earth is a great laboratory for the types of life that could potentially evolve. 4.5 billion years is plenty of time for evolution to tinker with different evolutionary pathways, metabolisms, and biochemistry - and the Earth has seen a huge range of geochemical, thermal, and environmental conditions to host life.

But all that's ever happened one Earth is carbon based life and DNA based genetics.

I agree in part. Photosynthesis is kind of low-hanging fruit to the development of life.

But I'm also of the school of thought endorsed by Goldblum's character in "Jurassic Park." Life finds a way.
 
I agree in part. Photosynthesis is kind of low-hanging fruit to the development of life.

But I'm also of the school of thought endorsed by Goldblum's character in "Jurassic Park." Life finds a way.

Earth demostrated that once life gets a toe hold, it is resistant to a knock out blow.

How life actually gets jump started is still a mystery.

The laws of physics and chemistry are universal. It stands to reason so are the laws of biology, probably. If there is a silicon based life whose metabolism is based on mercury, it might be very surprising to find it. The conservative scientific assumption is that carbon, liquid water, and organic chemicals are going to be the fuel stocks of biology.
 
If the universe is infinite,
even a very infrequent manifestation of Earth-like planets
and the appropriate stars to support them
would still themselves be pretty infinite.

It's of no help to us. We can't get there.

I've heard suggestions, perhaps even from you, that the universe is NOT necessarily infinite.
I can't argue the point, but I can't understand it either.

Things that are finite have boundaries.
Boundaries have to have something on either side of them, including the outside.
As the term "universe" implies everything, it would include what's outside of the boundaries as well.
At least that's how I can envision it.
 
If the universe is infinite,
even a very infrequent manifestation of Earth-like planets
and the appropriate stars to support them
would still themselves be pretty infinite.

It's of no help to us. We can't get there.

I've heard suggestions, perhaps even from you, that the universe is NOT necessarily infinite.
I can't argue the point, but I can't understand it either.

Things that are finite have boundaries.
Boundaries have to have something on either side of them, including the outside.
As the term "universe" implies everything, it would include what's outside of the boundaries as well.
At least that's how I can envision it.

It's possible to have finite space, but without boundaries

Our souped-up chimpanzee brains just aren't evolved enough to visualize it, anymore than you could expect a dog to visualize the Pythagorean theorem.

But it can be described mathmaticaly by the field equations of general relativity.

It all depends on the density of the universe. At certain densities spacetime has positive curvature. That means space is finite - you could travel in any direction and trillions of years later end back at the spot you started at, without ever seeing any boundaries.
 
Life depends on energy.

The most abundant and reliable source of energy in the cosmos is solar radiation.

It would seem surprising that biological evolution and life anywhere would not harness it.


I think Earth is a great laboratory for the types of life that could potentially evolve. 4.5 billion years is plenty of time for evolution to tinker with different evolutionary pathways, metabolisms, and biochemistry - and the Earth has seen a huge range of geochemical, thermal, and environmental conditions to host life.

But all that's ever happened one Earth is carbon based life and DNA based genetics.

There are organisms that live in the ocean depths that don't depend on solar-provided energy. Rather they use thermal vents and chemical reactions to create it. This could be possible elsewhere in the solar system, and beyond, right?
 
There are organisms that live in the ocean depths that don't depend on solar-provided energy. Rather they use thermal vents and chemical reactions to create it. This could be possible elsewhere in the solar system, and beyond, right?

That's true, a small percentage of life on Earth has a trophic framework based on chemosynthesis rather than photosynthesis.

If we find life on Europa or Enceladus, that's the kind of life we'll probably find there, since solar radiation would never penetrate the ice sheets.

Still, since solar radiation by far the most abundant and reliable source of energy, it might be surprising to find any Earth like planets where the biology hasn't figured out how to harness solar radiation. Especially any trophic system which has sentient, multicellular life
 
100 years ago, we thought that the deep oceans--which at that point we'd never explored--were essentially dark dead zones without life in them. We now know better. We've found lifeforms that exist in all sorts of horribly harsh environments that we didn't think could exist. What we don't know would fill volumes of encyclopedias.

Yet, this tread offers up nothing but a McNamara fallacy, where the unknows are disregarded in favor of only what we think we know.
 
Back
Top