Earliest time possible for life?

I have yet to read a reliable article describing the earliest possible time for the existence of life.

The initial universe consisted almost exclusively of hydrogen & helium. Life cannot exist without heavier elements.

Heavier elements are created in the interior of stars. When a star goes Nova, the heavier elements are sent outward seeding interstellar clouds of particles.

The first stars were created by gravitational collapse of clouds consisting almost entirely of hydrogen & helium. Life could not develop in a solar system formed with one of those first stars.

When those first stars went nova, some heavier elements would be sent into interstellar space. The next stars created by gravitational collapse would probably not have enough heavy elements to support life.

I am not sure how many cycles of gravitational collapse & nova dispersion of heavy elements are required for the formation of a solar system capable of supporting life.

It is possible that the first solar system with enough heavy elements was not in the habitable zone of a galaxy.

Does any one here know of a article on this subject?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Three of Europe's cosmologists believe that the key to understanding the origin of life lies in identifying the time onset and the conditions which prevailed in our universe when life was first fashioned. Based on recent cosmological measurements complex life appeared on Earth 9.6 Gyrs (9.6 billion years) after the Big Bang.

However, these life forms may have been derived from earlier life forms, perhaps proto-life which emerged within a few billions years after the Big Bang according to research by Nicola Poccia, Alessandro Ricci, Antonio Bianconi all physicists with Sapienza University of Rome. The team theorizes that life could have emerged in different regions in the cosmos in the time range between 1.5- 9.6 Gyrs, the time range that marked the onset of dark energy domination in the universe, coupled with rapid star formation and supernovas.


These events raise the possibility that the increase of dark energy, coupled with the stellar synthesis of the elements necessary for life, could be related to the emergence of life in the universe.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour..._aWYCA&usg=AFQjCNGeF6HXE-5HQRhyE-SGFJhljrXPdA

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here they go step by step.-->http://astrobiology.ucla.edu/pages/res3a.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

After extensive observation: about 06:30.
Intelligent life? 09:30.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't know the answer to the question, but this reminds me:

Why do all the UFO watchers assume alien life is 'out there' and 'far more advanced' than humans?

For all we know, we could be the oldest and most advanced civilization in the entire Galaxy, if not the Universe. Just a thought.

 

The links provided by Tashja & CosmicTraveler do not provide any analysis.

Tashja's link provides only a summary of the chapters in a book on the subject.

Cosmictravelers's link provides what seems to be mostly speculation, expecially the part about life on Earth possibly having been derived from previously existing life elsewhere.

Saying it might have developed between 1.5 & 9.6 billions years after the Big Bang is a guess that almost anyone with a bit of pertinent knowledge could make. It is almost equivalent to saying that it might have first occurred at any time prior to its occurring here on Earth: Give a Big Whoopee for that estimate!

 

But that is what a theory is about. While you might not like that cosmologists can't pinpoint an exact day and time for you they do at least give a theory as to when it might have started. They just do not have enough information about the universe as yet to be more exact but will be able to get a more precise date with more data that is gathered from all areas of cosmologists all over the world. If they would have stated a certain day for you then you would have said well how can they prove that? They can't win either way without more data and hat takes time and money . How much have contributed lately?

 

So you do not think that these cosmologists have a theory based upon all of the known data they have studied and investigated? If not then how much more evidence will they need to find before their investigation becomes a theory?

 

CosmicTraveler:The following is a bit of a Strawman (see bolded text).

While you might not like that cosmologists can't pinpoint an exact day and time for you they do at least give a theory as to when it might have started. They just do not have enough information about the universe as yet to be more exact but will be able to get a more precise date with more data that is gathered from all areas of cosmologists all over the world.​

Did you really think I was asking for an exact day? With some research & via questions to a few college professors, I think I could come up with a better estimate than 1.5- 9.6 Gyrs.

I suspect that there are some articles with better estimates backed up by cogent analyses, but have been unable to find any.

The link you provided is mere speculation with no supporting details based on the time required for cycles of gravitational collapse & subsequent dispersal of heavy elements by nova events. There is no estimate of the number of cycles required to produce a solar system with enough heavy elements to support life. No estimate of when such a solar system might come into existence in the habitable zone of a galaxy, rather than closer to the center of the galaxy.

 

It's called normal distribution.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Most datapoints will lie somewhere in the middle.

That means in all probability Earth's civilization as a technology capable civilization will also lie somewhere in the middle.

point 1. It means that probably there are civilizations out there that are more and less advanced than ours.

Point 2.Our technology level doesn't allow us to make contact with other civilizations, ergo, only more advanced civilizations will be able to contact us.

 

Perhaps so, but I provided you with the only one I found that gives an answer to your question. While many are studying this question there's not enough data as yet for them to perhaps give any date yet.

 

Mr MacGillivray: Before you apply the notion of a normal curve, you need to have reason to believe that there is a lot of data.

If you have a sample of several hundred people, it is reasonable to develop a normal curve showing the variation in height. If you are shown one example of an unknown creature, you cannot develop a normal curve.

Even given height measurements of several hundred people, the normal curve might be misleading if those measured are all members of a tall person club or attendees at a convention of circus midgets.

There are some cogent arguments supporting the belief that intelligent life might be very rare, in which case conclusions based on normal curve logic are not reliable.

BTW: A normal curve is derived from only one of a large number of probability distributions, many of which are not symmetric about the mean.

 

Generation III stars in the early universe consisted of hydrogen and helium and could not have produced life. Generation II stars were metal poor and probably could not. Thus, it is probable that the universe had to wait for generation I stars, with an abundance of heavier elements before the first life. That would be 6 to 8 billion years ago.

 

I'm certain you're not alone.

And you know this how? Because you were there? :shrug:

 

Pythagorean Order: Modern astrophysicistss & cosmologists provide very strong support for the belief that the early universe consisted almost entirely of hydrogen & helium.

While I am ancient compared to many who post here, I was not present during the era of the early universe.

Since the pertinent mainstream scientists hold the above view, those who disagree must provide similarly strong support for some opposing point of view or resign themselves to being called crackpots.

I do not want to be called a crackpot & do not want to try to find strong support for an opposing point of view.

Ergo: I accept the mainstream science POV on this issue.

 

What strong support do they have for their speculations?

Heaven forbid.

 

Skeptical: Your estimate seems reasonable, but I wish I could find a good analysis of the problem with some numbers.

My guess would put your 6 to 8 billion years ago back a billion or so, but I would not bet much money on the cursory analysis I used to arrive at my estimate.

 

ARRGGG that bugs me. We should be Generation III and Generation I should be the first stars...WTF are they gonna do for the next generation. People never think ahead a billion years lol