Is Earthly life premature?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by paddoboy, Aug 1, 2016.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Is Earthly life premature from a cosmic perspective?
    August 1, 2016

    The universe is 13.8 billion years old, while our planet formed just 4.5 billion years ago. Some scientists think this time gap means that life on other planets could be billions of years older than ours. However, new theoretical work suggests that present-day life is actually premature from a cosmic perspective.

    "If you ask, 'When is life most likely to emerge?' you might naively say, 'Now,'" says lead author Avi Loeb of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "But we find that the chance of life grows much higher in the distant future."

    Life as we know it first became possible about 30 million years after the Big Bang, when the first stars seeded the cosmos with the necessary elements like carbon and oxygen. Life will end 10 trillion years from now when the last stars fade away and die. Loeb and his colleagues considered the relative likelihood of life between those two boundaries.



    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-08-earthly-life-premature-cosmic-perspective.html#jCp
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.08448v2.pdf

    Relative Likelihood for Life as a Function of Cosmic Time


    Abstract.

    Is life most likely to emerge at the present cosmic time near a star like the Sun? We address this question by calculating the relative formation probability per unit time of habitable Earth-like planets within a fixed comoving volume of the Universe, dP(t)/dt, starting from the first stars and continuing to the distant cosmic future. We conservatively restrict our attention to the context of “life as we know it” and the standard cosmological model, ΛCDM. We find that unless habitability around low mass stars is suppressed, life is most likely to exist near ∼ 0.1M stars ten trillion years from now. Spectroscopic searches for biosignatures in the atmospheres of transiting Earth-mass planets around low mass stars will determine whether present-day life is indeed premature or typical from a cosmic perspective.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,065
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,065
    This is why science becomes a laughing stock. We don't know much about the earth and now we are saying life on earth is premature .
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Science is only a laughing stock, in the mind of cranks and religious zealots who cannot see past their proverbial nose...or are blinded by mythical nonsensical fables.
    I sincerely doubt that you are aware of what the article and paper are about.
     
    spidergoat likes this.
  9. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    I am fairly certain, timojin, that "science" never, in all actuality, "becomes a laughing stock".
    So, Post #1 : "Life will end 10 trillion years from now..."
    Then, Post#2 : "We find that unless habitability around low mass stars is suppressed, life is most likely to exist near ∼ 0.1M stars ten trillion years from now..."
    Meh...

    Not at all sure though, timojin, that much veracity should be cast on any results produced by the single known example of Life realistically attempting to figure the chances of any Life, or a time-line for "life as we know it"..."most likely to emerge "...

    At any rate, timojin, we should "sincerely doubt" the veracity of anyone that constantly introduces "cranks", "religious zealots" and "mythical nonsensical fables" into supposed discussions about Real Science.
     
  10. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,065
    1. What is real science to you ? Predicting the future , or how the universe started ? Why don't we learn what we are and what we have and what keeps us going . You use probability for your argument , the same way probability can be used for opposite argument . So if some one does not agree with such flying article he have to be a zealot , crank and so on. I worked for long time in chemistry , we produce analyse what we deal with , same in biology or in engineering. our data and information is tangible Astrophysics or high energy physics is not as tangible . Example what did we get from CERN you proved Higgs particle , so what can you do with it ? All the pattern of water on Mars , now the new latest information ," the water flowing pattern are not necessary due to water. I agree it is better for the government to spend money on sophisticated ideas, at same time it brings some tangential benefit for day to day life, instead building weapons for us to kill each other ,
     
  11. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    LOL, who's a laughing stock now?
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  12. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,065
    Can you get a Gm of Higgs particle so we can analyse its chemical property, can you laugh on that. Now there are 4 more particles what are they, what life span they have . And this is what the public have to believe.
     
  13. Max Chau Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    Science has become a religion-like animal. I have had many encounters with science major friends and acquaintances who blindly believed they were "right" because they represented the "Science". But historical speaking, science for the most part is the result of repeatedly denials of the previous science. Today's "right/correct" becomes tomorrow's laughing stock. Isn't that true?

    In my opinion, our science development is at its infant stage. We don't know much about anything, including gravity and earth compositions. We have real problems sending our men to beyond our cosmic backyard - the moon. We cannot create a living cell in lab. We don't know how to cure cancer, or even allergy. To name a few.

    So to me, those people holds science like a bible is laughing stock indeed.
     
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  14. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    ...always maintain Objectivity...
    ...adhering to, and only proffering ones own abhorrent Subjectivity is in no way Real Science...and should never be allowed to be a part of any Discussion of any Real Science...
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2016
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    No, actually quite factual in every respect, particularly for this forum.
    Check out the "supposed" questions from timojin and his usual intention of not accepting any answer that disturbs his preconceived beliefs...check out the number of "so called" attempts at scientific discussion by an elite few that eventually are shown for what they are and finally moved to the fringes....
    We have the religious forum for mythical fables, and to troll the sciences with "questions" with no intent on accepting reputable answers from anyone, is just the excuse these frauds need to slip in their god of the gaps.

    Not at all, if you know anything about science.
    Science is a discipline in progress, as we gain the technology [through scientific advancement] to see further, to experiment with greater accuracy, to keep creating models that better approach any true reality.
    Scientific theories are always open for modification and/or even total rejection...And in some cases theories such as GR are even further advanced and solidified, and yet at the same time, the real scientists know that it is not the final all encompassing outcome.
    One scientific theory is certain though, and that bugs some people...The theory of Evolution.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    We may not yet be able to cure cancer, but they are working on it.question though, if you suddenly start falling ill, are you going to ignore all the medicinal cures and advice because you don't believe science knows anything?
    Sure we cannot create a living cell just yet, but again, something that is being worked on.
    Your other example is actually nonsense. We are quite capable of sending probes anywhere in fact, and even as in the case of the Voyager II, to have that probe rendezvous with no less then four planetary bodies. We can and do have probe/s everywhere in our solar system....We manipulate and use our model of gravity to do all these things.
    The problem with sending humans anywhere is the human biological entity itself, and our lack of ability to stand up to the rigors of space.
    Science has a long way to go, certainly, but just as certainly, we have also come a long way since we climbed down out of the trees.
    Yet its the scientists in the first place that tell us we have a long way to go.
    The thing is my friend, there ain't anyone here, you, me, or anyone else, who doesn't depend on science and the continued advancement made by science, every day of his or her life.
    Science isn't held up like a bible...science isn't the laughing stock, it's the zealots of one form or another, that like to come to science forums, and spread their nonsense that are so obviously the laughing stock. And most by the way, would be or are banned elsewhere.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2016
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    From the discussion section in the arXiv at post 2, "The question is then, why do we find ourselves orbiting a star like the Sun now rather than a lower mass star in the future?"
    We also find ourselves seeing the apparent diameters of the Sun and the Moon to be approximately the same...the reason why we see eclipses. Sun is 400 times larger in diameter then the Moon, and at the same time 400 times further away.
    Many many other coincidences, that see us at this stage of our evolution, and the evolution of the universe.
    In the far distant future, taking into account that the Earth and us can remain unaffected by cosmological catastrophes, the only things visible in the sky will be the stars in our own galaxy, as all others move beyond the observable universe.
    Perhaps if we had no Moon, life would be different to what we are familiar with now, or possible even not have arisen.
    If the universe's fundamental constants were not as they are, we would not be here.......
    So many ifs and buts, and so many scenarios that show that us being here at this time is simply an accident of fate...The "Anthropic Principle" no less.
     
  17. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    ...like I said, Max Chau, always maintain Objectivity...
    As an example : I read nothing in your Post about any "probes", yet, it appears that one of those 'science bible zealots' referred to one of your examples as "actually nonsense".
    Then went on to 'proselytize' by proclaiming the abilities of their "zealously bible thumping science" being "quite capable of sending probes anywhere"...
    Then "actually" agreeing with your example : "We have real problems sending our men to beyond our cosmic backyard - the moon."
    So, yes, like I said, Max Chau, always maintain Objectivity...
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    From the OP.....
    "If you ask, 'When is life most likely to emerge?' you might naively say, 'Now,'" says lead author Avi Loeb of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "But we find that the chance of life grows much higher in the distant future."

    Two factors that have so far prevented any ET contact, are time and distance.
    And by the time that life elsewhere appears, we most likely will have gone extinct.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Here's another paper somewhat focused on "Panspermia"

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.05614v2.pdf

    ABSTRACT:
    A fundamental astrobiological question is whether life can be transported between extrasolar systems. We propose a new strategy to answer this question based on the principle that life which arose via spreading will exhibit more clustering than life which arose spontaneously. We develop simple statistical models of panspermia to illustrate observable consequences of these excess correlations. Future searches for biosignatures in the atmospheres of exoplanets could test these predictions: a smoking gun signature of panspermia would be the detection of large regions in the Milky Way where life saturates its environment interspersed with voids where life is very uncommon. In a favorable scenario, detection of as few as ∼ 25 biologically active exoplanets could yield a 5σ detection of panspermia. Detectability of position-space correlations is possible unless the timescale for life to become observable once seeded is longer than the timescale for stars to redistribute in the Milky Way.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Some interesting speculatory remarks from that previous paper..........

    In our simple formalism, life spreads from host to host in a way that resembles the outbreak of an epidemic. A key point is that the correlations that quickly arise imply that the transition from an uninhabited galaxy to an inhabited galaxy can occur much faster in the panspermia regime than in the Poisson case. Panspermia implies a phase transition, whereas a Poisson process will only lead to a gradual build up of life. Said differently, the start time for life for different stellar systems exhibits a very small scatter in the panspermia case. A consequence of the panspermia scenario is that the severity of the Fermi paradox may be reduced somewhat. If life started everywhere at the same time, we expect fewer advanced civilizations at the present time than if life could have started much earlier on other stellar systems. It should be noted, however, that this statement is predicated on the somewhat controversial assumption that there is an evolutionary bias towards increasing complexity (Adami et al. 2000). A second consequence of panspermia is that the Drake equation (Shklovsky & Sagan 1966) becomes a lower bound on the number of civilizations, since the multiplicative form of the equation is based on the assumption that life arises independently everywhere. This assumption may be strongly violated in the regime where panspermia is highly efficient.
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,624
    Like Milania repeating Michele Obama's words, I think you are repeating the words of skeptics from the early half of the 20th century.

    "Can you get a gram of these "split atoms" so we can analyse their chemical properties, can you laugh on that. Now there are 4 more split atoms what are they, what life span they have . And this is what the public have to believe."

    Flash forward to a world powered by the splitting of atoms.
     
  22. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,065
    I am not sure of if you know what particles are produced , and what energy is necessary to produce different particles and what is the life of splitted particle : when you post " Flash forward to a world powered by the splitting of atoms"
     
  23. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    How far "forward" must you "Flash", DaveC426913, to this alleged "world powered by the splitting of atoms"?
    Although it is true that "Splitting Atoms"/Fission can produce power, ala Nuclear Power Plants.
    At this point in time it is not "Splitting Atoms"/Fission, but, as it has been for over 4 Billion years, our world, and all life on it, is primarily "Powered" by Fusion.
    Nuclear Fusion, as you must know, DaveC426913, is the "Joining" of atoms.
    The Sun is what powers our world.
    If you were able to peer into the core of our Sun, you would see Hydrogen atoms being "Fused"/joined together to produce Helium atoms and in the process producing/releasing huge amounts of Energy.
    If you honestly want to "Flash Forward", DaveC426913, Real Science is currently on the hunt to produce Fusion Reactors that may be able to someday safely and cleanly solve our worlds Power demands forever.

    So...just possibly, DaveC426913, and more accurately, Flash Forward to a world still powered by the Fusing of Atoms.
     

Share This Page