Need a scientist?

[alchemist]

Dear Elizabeth, It's not quite your field, but what the hey...
Imagine a planet where the incredibly advanced locals have decided "That's it, we're not bothering anymore." They decide to reduce everything living on the planet to very basic organic molecules, so basic it won't organise itself into life of its own accord. They have a very basic level of consciousness (that's the fiction part, no need to think about how that works) and may occasionally decide to get the molecules complex again and restart life.
What would that soil contain? So far, I'm looking at a sandy desert with lots of metallic molecules, and very basic organic molecules. I appreciate this is an impossible question, but even an answer that names some appropriate molecules would do.

PS. I'm a doctor and psychiatrist. Available to answer questions that might relate to stories.

 

[Anne Lyle]

It's a long time since I did my BSc in Zoology and wrote a final-year essay on the topic of life on Mars, but I'm thinking short-chain hydrocarbons, benzene rings, that sort of thing? Maybe some sugars? DNA contains an awful lot of ribose (a sugar with 5 carbon atoms), after all.

Throw in some amino acids and you've got a soup that could just about turn back into life if it had enough water. The water is important because it has a lot of properties that facilitate interaction between larger molecules.

FWIW, I work at an institute where a lot of people like Elizabeth do cool science - but these days I'm a web developer and my science is a bit rusty. I know far too much about Elizabethan England, and quite a lot about linguistics (though I no longer speak any language apart from English with any semblance of fluency).

 

[Liz Bent]

Dear Elizabeth, It's not quite your field, but what the hey...
Imagine a planet where the incredibly advanced locals have decided "That's it, we're not bothering anymore." They decide to reduce everything living on the planet to very basic organic molecules, so basic it won't organise itself into life of its own accord. They have a very basic level of consciousness (that's the fiction part, no need to think about how that works) and may occasionally decide to get the molecules complex again and restart life.
What would that soil contain? So far, I'm looking at a sandy desert with lots of metallic molecules, and very basic organic molecules. I appreciate this is an impossible question, but even an answer that names some appropriate molecules would do.

PS. I'm a doctor and psychiatrist. Available to answer questions that might relate to stories.

I LOVE this question. There's a lot of debate over how the first cells formed spontaneously out of an "organic soup" of molecules that may have existed on prehistoric Earth, and one theory has it that clays (which can adsorb these molecules in arrays on their surface) were important. So you might want to make sure you have clays on the surface of the earth, and since it's fiction you can make up some special kind of clay that can reassemble molecules into arrangements that will produce long polymers.

Carbon is important. Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) are constructed of a phosphate-sugar (ribose, as has been pointed out) backbone with purine or pyrimidine moieties attached. So you want those molecules. Proteins are composed of amino acids, so you will want those. You also need phospholipids for the construction of cell membranes (or micelles, which are like small artificial cell envelopes that could work for a preliminary ancestor cell). And there should be lots of available water.

This article, about artificial cells, might also be useful: Article here

And I have noted your expertise as a psychiatrist! I may have questions for you at a later point, based on an idea for a novel I'm working on.

 

[Liz Bent]

Also, "abiogenesis" in Wikipedia has some useful info.

This is of course assuming you are talking about carbon-based life like life on Earth. There are theories that you could have other forms of life, based on silicon, for example. If you look up "astrobiology" you might be able to find some info. There is even a scholarly journal titled 'Astrobiology' that might help.

Journal here

 

[alchemist]

Thank you very much, Anne and Elizabeth,
Your replies have been very helpful. Really, I was planning on having the molecules a step below amino acids and phospholipids (granted, that's a billion year step). I had been thinking of benzene and other short chain hydrocarbons, but ones with sulphur, nitrogen etc attached. My soil needs to be pretty hostile to crops, but have the elements needed for terraforming.
I've only looked at the wikipedia link so far, and that was excellent. The term abiogenesis looks like it is going to get into some dialogue. The emphasis you both placed on water has given me some more plot points I can incorporate too.
And I'm going to have some linguistics questions too in future. Just as soon as I can figure out what they are.

 

[Fritillary]

I know this is the wrong field for you, but I desperately need a scientist right now.

A major plot device in the project I'm working on is a device that controls volcanic activity remotely. I need it to have the capability to switch between "chill out and don't explode" and "blow the hell up right now" with the push of a button, although switching from blow up to not would probably take a little while to go into effect of course. It needs to be a physical thing or series of things that can fit into a large backpack.

I know that's an awful lot of restrictions, but any suggestions you (or anyone else here) have on the actual mechanism of controlling a volcano would be greatly appreciated.

 

[chrispenycate]

It's relatively easy to 'light up' a volcano; not just any old volcano, of course, but one of the 'still active but not enthusiastic' ones. Chemical explosives (but rather more than would fit in a backpack) would do it; a miniature nuke would be fine.

But bleeding off the excess energy in a controlled manner, that's another problem. You certainly can't use water cooling; some of the most spectacular explosive eruptions were probably caused by steam pressure from water seepage.

Perhaps that's the trick. A heat exchanger floating in the magma, with water being pumped in and steam coming out through a turbine and heating the suburbs of the nearest city. At the same time generating energy, pulling it out of the volcano system, and solidifying a good, thick plug.

Block either the water intake or the steam outlet, and the exchanger melts, forcing bubbles of superheated water and steam under the crust. surface, no longer cooled, shatters, releasing lava pressure all at once. Whoopee, firework night; thousands of tons of molten rock learning to fly.

It's rather bigger than you requested, sure; but that's an awful lot of energy you're expecting me to play with.

I considered multiple sonic drills concentrating energy on small regions of the surface, making seep holes in computer mapped places, so lava eases through and solidifies, making a thick, homogenous homogenous plate while releasing the energy little by little.

You could use lasers, of course, but I'm a sound engineer. Then, to cause the eruption you just drill one big hole in the wrong place. Not as fifth of Novembery, more partly directed streams of melt anything you can't vaporise, and add some toxic gasses to taste. And we're still talking about several gigawatt hours of energy; nothing I would want to carry in a backpack.

Actually, robots would be a better choice than going yourself, due to the somewhat hazardous nature of the operation; how big a backpack can a robot carry (or you could make your sonic drilling rig semi-sapient) 'Cause I don't think I can make a portable model volcano taming system.

Sorry.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

And we're still talking about several gigawatt hours of energy; nothing I would want to carry in a backpack.

"1.21 gigawatts? 1.21 gigawatts? Great Scott!"

 

[J-WO]

Ok, here's one that's been doing me noodle-

If time is attached to matter and energy etc, does that mean time will end after the heat death of the universe, ie- when all matter and energy has 'burnt' out? Or will there be a big, empty blackness with the (metaphorical) clock still ticking?

 

[chrispenycate]

Although I also use the term "heat death of the universe", I suspect it's something that is approached asymptotically, never actually achieved, even when the protons are decaying and there is no remaining matter as such. This for two reasons; there is actually still as much energy in the universe as at the instant of the big bang; it is merely that, with the increased volume, it is rather impressively more diluted. And the expansion continues, reducing the density still further.

And quantum effects practically guarantee that localised concentrations of this energy will occur. Oh, nothing like enough to nurture something as spendthrift as life; peaks might just possibly achieve levels comparable with the dark regions between galaxies, without all that flux of light. Enough, though that duration still has a meaning, and the clock ticks ever on, even if the hands have fallen off and there is no possibility of an observer to read them anyway.

 

[Fritillary]

Ok, here's one that's been doing me noodle-

If time is attached to matter and energy etc, does that mean time will end after the heat death of the universe, ie- when all matter and energy has 'burnt' out? Or will there be a big, empty blackness with the (metaphorical) clock still ticking?

Oh! I can help with this one!

Matter and energy are interchangeable, but time is associated with spacial dimensions instead of matter/energy. Essentially, time and space are the directions in which matter and energy can move.

 

[chrispenycate]

Oh! I can help with this one!

Matter and energy are interchangeable, but time is associated with spacial dimensions instead of matter/energy. Essentially, time and space are the directions in which matter and energy can move.

But the word "move" only has any relevance if the temporal dimension exists, so it is not interchangeable with any of the spacial ones. Furthermore, time can be defined in terms of entropy, not only interval, unlike the other dimensions which (at least the three we can detect) show symmetry.

Prevailing theory says that the big bang created the space-time continuum; that there was no "before" the big bang, any more than there was a lot of empty space to expand universe into. The big bang created dimensions as much as it did Matter/energy (or whatever the primordial flux that was going to become mass/energy was). So it would be reasonable to expect that, if the energy were being lost from the system, as the last photon escaped the three of four spacial dimensions and the temporal one would snuff out as being indetectable; there can be no space if there are not two objects for it to be between, nor time if there is nothing to change.

My point was that the energy was not getting lost, but getting thinned down, one long radio photon per cubic kilometre, or whatever, and homogenised over the entire volume the vastly expanded cosmos now fills. Thus time, although irrelevant, still maintains a presence.

 

[Fritillary]

right but you failed to address the basic misunderstanding of whether matter could be turned into time in the first place.

 

[alchemist]

I wasn't sure whether to put this into the world-building thread, but it follows form my previous query on this one. It's about climactic changes when "re-booting" a planet. Imagine a boring desert planet with temperatures ranging from about 0C to 40C from pole to equator. It has an ocean, but it's dull. No storms, rain, winds or pretty much anything. A far-advanced alien race wants to resurrect dormant life,and get a normal ecosphere back up and going. This would require a lot of energy to be spent, large enough to affect the whole planet. It's a relatively Earth-like planet in terms of geography, gravity etc.
What climactic changes would we see? Large fluctuations in temp? Storms? An overactive hydrological cycle?
Apologies for any vagueness here, but some thoughts would be useful.

 

[chrispenycate]

Why is there no rain? With an ocean, and temperatures in that range I would expect continuous evaporation from the water surface, unless it were covered with a thick layer of something; grease, say, like the attempts to prevent mosquitoe larvae in lakes. The lack of the water cycle would – um – damp down other weather phenomena, like winds; no hurricanes or tornadoes. And when you did start creating clouds again, yes, the rebalance could be expected to give some spectacular storms.

But you might not need to use that much energy, if you're nor in too much of a hurry. I imagine starting the evaporation cycle (what is the surface film, anyway? A plastic skin developed from one of the breakdown chemicals from the former inhabitants?) will cause a positive feedback reaction, with the gale-force winds freeing ever more surface, and throwing water into the air or onto the land (or the top surface of the film) where more can be converted to water vapour and clouds…

 

[alchemist]

Thanks chris. My aliens have put the planet into sleep mode, hence no evaporation. Admittedly, that has been bothering me. It's all up for revision, though,and your solution for preventing evaporation may come in handy.
A related issue was whether I wanted polar ice caps. I figured that if there was no precipitation, it might be hard to maintain them, even if the temperature was well below 0C.

 

[J-WO]

Thank you Chris and Fritillary for having a crack and my question.

I don't find this great heat death thing to be a particularly happy way for the universe to end, but I suppose I'll just have to go along with it.

 

[Starlights]

thats so cool now i know who i can direct my questions at!

 

[Droflet]

Hello Elizabeth,
I appreciate that this is not exactly in your field but if you could give your educated opinion, which will no doubt be far more informed than mine, I would appreciate any input. So, here's the thing. In my next book I have a solar system with only one very large planet and one primary. All of the other planets have been smashed to rubble. Now, the way I've written it, because there is only one planet, that is a couple of AU's from the primary, all of the rubble from the smashed planets has been attracted to the planet. This has caused the planet to be totally surrounded by an enormous asteroid field.
So, is this theoretically possible? Thanks for your time.

 

[vector7]

Ok, here's one that's been doing me noodle-

If time is attached to matter and energy etc, does that mean time will end after the heat death of the universe, ie- when all matter and energy has 'burnt' out? Or will there be a big, empty blackness with the (metaphorical) clock still ticking?

What you are trying to explain is a theory which states that the universe will continue to grow and die out in future time. So, you might know of Hubble or may not. What he put forth was that the distant galaxies were accelerating with velocities that were higher apparent velocities than previously thought. So, it points to the fact that those galaxies were the first matter to come out of the so called "Big Bang".

What you have arrived at is one of the postulates on how the world would end if given its share of monstrous time. So, we go forward in time. The farthest galaxies and our own galaxy will separated by longer distances. The light we get from stars will slowly become dimmer and darkness will at some point of time engulf our skies.

Then comes the matter of "matter" getting depleted. The sun which powers everything that has life will at some point die. Every star is built on foundations of nuclear fusion and/or fission. At some point of time, the amount of fusion-able material will deplete as they will continue to form larger and heavier elements. When this happen, the energy produced by the sun will decrease. Overtime, the star will become burnt-out. Check out White Dwarf in Google.

So, you are essentially right. Matter will burn out. As far as time is concerned, it is a fourth dimension. A reference dimension. Nothing is linked to it. So, time will continue to tick, which has been explained by Chris (however, in a technical and kind of a confusing way).

If you need more information regarding the space-time continuum, try reading Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. It really makes you understand these concepts. If not, wikipedia will be sufficient for you.

Hope this clears things up for you.

Regards and Best of luck,
V7.