Bear Reports Sighting in Goldilocks Zone

[Metryq]

Are you suggesting that neutron stars, black holes and icy comets should not be considered as essentially fact? Cause I kinda thought they were.

Those ideas won't die easily. Many widely accepted notions in astronomy and physics were merely "suggested" by someone, or put forth as mathematical models, then accepted because they sounded good. (But mathematical models are not evidence.) For example, Eddington suggested that the Sun is a fusion furnace driven by gravity. Observations are making this position increasingly untenable. Icy comets are a by-product of the accretion model, and several comet probes have proven the idea wrong.

If I were to recommend only one book that counters mainstream ideas, it would be Donald Scott's THE ELECTRIC SKY. I've mentioned several others in these forums, but I'm sure anyone interested can find them on their own. The following is a short excerpt from Scott's book:

The extraordinary thing about pulsars is the almost unbelievably high frequency of their flashes of electromagnetic radiation (both light and radio frequency emissions). When they were first discovered, it was thought that they rotated rapidly – like lighthouses. But when the implied rate of rotation for some pulsars was announced to be about once every second, despite their having masses exceeding that of the Sun, this lighthouse explanation became untenable. It was proposed that only such a super-dense material as ‘neutronium’ could make up a star that could stand those rotation speeds – so they must exist. A neutron star was spinning at the required rate.

Neutron stars are impossible. One of the well-known basic rules of nuclear chemistry is the so-called ‘band of stability.’ This is the observation that, if we add neutrons to the nucleus of any atom, we need to add an almost proportional number of protons (and their accompanying electrons) to maintain a stable nucleus. In fact, it seems that, when we consider all the known elements (even the heavy man-made elements as well), there is a requirement that, in order to hold a group of neutrons together in a nucleus, an almost equal number of proton-electron pairs are required. The stable nuclei of the lighter elements contain approximately equal numbers of neutrons and protons – a neutron/proton ratio of 1. The heavier nuclei contain a few more neutrons than protons, but the limit seems to be about 1.5 neutrons per proton. Nuclei that differ significantly from this ratio spontaneously undergo radioactive decay transformations that tend to bring their compositions closer to this ratio. Groups of neutrons are not stable by themselves.

We know from laboratory experiments that any lone neutron decays into a proton, an electron and a neutrino in less than 14 minutes; atom-like collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously. There is no such thing as neutronium. Therefore there can be no such entity as a neutron star. It is a fiction that flies in the face of all we know about elements and their atomic nuclei.

And yes, there are alternative theories that do not strain credibility.

A similar volume by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbot suggests a scenario that throws the "Goldilocks zone" right out the window—to say nothing of upending the H-R diagram. And there's lots of empirical evidence to back it up.

As for the change in attitude towards the possibility of life, let's just say that antiquated ideas requiring incredibly long odds (or an act of god) have not fared well in the light of recent observations.

 

[nubins]

Isn't the goldilocks zone just for "higher" life - IE mammals and the like? I think it's widely accepted that the best candidates for finding life in our solar system are moons around Jupiter and Saturn and possibly under the incredibly thick ice sheets of Neptune (I think). Essentially, anywhere there is a source of heat and water.

 

[Dave]

It is the zone 'just right' for any "Life as we know it, Jim". Think: story of 'The Three Bears' and their porridge. But yes that is all based on having a temperature where water is a liquid solvent, proteins are not denatured, and all the other reactions that can take place at those temperatures do (something we take completely for granted because we know nothing else.) My point isn't Earth-centric, it is that for Chemical and Physical reasons the Earth is unique in these respects.

There are plenty of anaerobic bacteria (and other organisms) that do not require oxygen for growth, some that are even harmed by it. Free Oxygen has only been around since there were Blue-Green Algae and is not a prerequisite for life. There are even bacteria that do not require oxygen at any point during their life, and many that exist by oxidizing organic compounds, or even oxidizing molecular hydrogen while reducing sulphate to hydrogen sulphide.

However, any anaerobic "life as we know it" would still require liquid water and organic cell membranes and a method of coding information for replication. For those, you just have to have a temperature that is precisely and exactly the same as that we have on Earth. You therefore have to have a planet that is exactly in the position that the Earth is to the Sun.

I think it is Titan where ice sheets and a heat source give most hope but as I said before it is all wishful thinking. The possibility rises if bacteria were seeded there - the Panspermia idea. If life did not evolve uniquely on Earth but was seeded from elsewhere, then I think any planet within the Goldilocks Zone of another star is a contender for life.

Or, there may be Karn Maeshalanadae's idea of "life, but not as we know it." That is Science Fiction.

 

[nubins]

It's not unreasonable to think there could be life in the oceans of the moons fuelled by hydrothermal vents - all the building blocks are there - hydrocarbons, heat, water. Life lives in the hydrothermal vents on Earth that is very different to other organisms that live elsewhere here, so why not? You wouldnt get much more than bacteria and tiny organisms from that kind of existence, but it's still life. Volcanism is rife, so you don't need a star to provide the energy needed.

 

[Dave]

No, it isn't unreasonable at all if it were seeded from space by interstellar viruses. It is quite likely that we could take some of those hydrothermal vent bacteria from Earth and transplant them there and they would happily survive. However, I do think it far less likely that they could have independently developed there out of a protein soup. On the other hand, no one can even say for certain that is what happened on Earth. Primitive cells have now been made artifically, and mitochrondria and other organelles are simply small cells within a cell, so I think the evidence is building that the "incredibly long odds (or an act of god)" Metryq mentioned are not required.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Metryk wrote: "Many widely accepted notions in astronomy and physics were merely "suggested" by someone, or put forth as mathematical models, then accepted because they sounded good. (But mathematical models are not evidence.)"

I am both shocked and fascinated by this comment. For two reasons.

First, that so many astronomers and physicists with impeccable reputations have spoken about black holes, neutron stars, etc. as if they were as real as the keyboard I am typing on (we're going to ignore the entire is real, Real debate for the moment). To find out that there is no physical proof for these things stuns me.

The second thing that fascinates me abut M's comment is that it mirrors my own thoughts on theoretical physics, such as string theory, dark matter, etc. It has been a real issue for me that scientists are putting forth solutions which are becoming more or less accepted dogma based totally on the fact that the math says they have to be there.

On some science boards I have tried to suggest that mathematical models are not proof of anything. We cannot explain why the universe is expanding ever faster and faster. Ergo this stuff which we cannot in any way detect must exist. We'll call it Dark Matter and say it makes up 75% of the universe. Problem solved. My thoughts are, Really? Seriously???

What if the math is wrong. What if the person who wrote the computational model goofed. What about garbage in, garbage out? Mostly I have been told I have to learn the math to understand. Which to me is a circular argument!

 

[Vertigo]

In fairness they don't say 'problem solved.' Most of the physicists hate dark energy and dark matter precisely because they cannot be explained. Science has always had kludge fixes in place to make things fit the observations. This is a normal process. Eventually, as our knowledge and our experimental ability improves, we attempt to replace those unknowns with something more concrete. That's not always possible; physics is littered with 'constants' whose value cannot be explained, they just are. For example why is Plank's constant the value it is? And yet if it was even slightly different the universe we know could not exist.

So, Neutron stars, and black holes are simply the best fit explanations for what we can currently observe. We cannot prove their existence until we can travel to them and take a closer look. Then we can learn more. But we can make pretty accurate assumptions about their likely nature.

On the life front. I get a bit annoyed by the argument that we are basing our assumptions about life on just one example. That's complete tosh we have numerous examples of different environments in our solar system: from Earth to Mars, Venus, gas giants, gas giant moons, comets and asteroids. So far we have found only one place where life exists or ever has existed. And that's right here on Earth. Maybe we will yet find evidence of life, past or present, somewhere else in the Solar system but so far all we have is carbon based life requiring liquid water right here on Earth. And to base our assumptions about life elsewhere on anything other than those known facts would be pure speculation.

So based on the experience of our own multitude of evironments right here, the most likely place to find life (complex life at least) is somewhere similiar to Earth. I don't say reject any other possibilities but, based on our current knowledge, that is the most likely.

I also argue parallel evolution is likely. On Earth similar ecological niches are filled with very similarly equipped life. Evolution, spread over tens of million years, is pretty good at producing the best fit for any particular environment and there is nothing to suggest it would find radically different solutions elsewhere. Differences yes, of course, for example on a planet with a much higher oxygen density insect analogies would be able to grow much larger. Whether they would develop intelligence is another argument, but my point is that I see no reason why the same tens of millions of years of evolution in a similar environment (see above) would not produce similar parralell paths.

 

[Metryq]

For example why is Plank's constant the value it is? And yet if it was even slightly different the universe we know could not exist.

This is the "act of God" argument, or the Anthropic Principle—circular reasoning. Planck's constant, the beginnings of quantum theory, glosses over the "ultraviolet catastrophe" in blackbody radiation, rather than addressing it. It was the first step back towards Platonism. This disconnect from reality grew steadily worse throughout the 20th century and is why so little progress has been made.

So, Neutron stars, and black holes are simply the best fit explanations for what we can currently observe.

Hardly. These things are ad hoc explanations, or mathematical phantoms. And both are internally inconsistent. Neutron stars and black holes are two popular explanations for certain phenomena, but they are not the best explanations.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Or, there may be Karn Maeshalanadae's idea of "life, but not as we know it." That is Science Fiction.

Why do I get the feeling that Dave just patted me on the head, gave me a cookie, and told me to go play elsewhere?

 

[Dave]

Sorry Karn, all I meant was that other life may well exist, but we cannot look for something if we don't know what it is. You wouldn't walk into an enormous library and say 'I'd like to read a book, but I don't know which one.'

This hunt for planets in the Goldilock's zone may have it's basis in false assumptions, ad hoc explanations, or mathematical phantoms, but at least we do already know that life exists under these similar conditions on Earth.

There are other different searches for life that take an alternative angle - SETI - which seeks evidence of life in the universe by looking for some signature of its technology.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Sorry Karn, all I meant was that other life may well exist, but we cannot look for something if we don't know what it is. You wouldn't walk into an enormous library and say 'I'd like to read a book, but I don't know which one.'

I think that's part of my weird mind, because that is exactly what I would do... I always seem to look towards what's possible and never say die, and my brain works better with what's outside reality.

 

[Vertigo]

This is the "act of God" argument, or the Anthropic Principle—circular reasoning. Planck's constant, the beginnings of quantum theory, glosses over the "ultraviolet catastrophe" in blackbody radiation, rather than addressing it. It was the first step back towards Platonism. This disconnect from reality grew steadily worse throughout the 20th century and is why so little progress has been made.



Hardly. These things are ad hoc explanations, or mathematical phantoms. And both are internally inconsistent. Neutron stars and black holes are two popular explanations for certain phenomena, but they are not the best explanations.

Sorry, Metryq, I would have to disagree on both of your points there.

First to say that so little progress has been made in the 20th Century is simply not right. We have made enormous strides forward throughout the 20th Century by applying just those principles you argue against. And strangely enough they have pretty much all worked in application. For example the time dilation caused by relative velocities is an essential component in achieving accurate satellite navigation (which in reverse provides accurate proof of that time dilation) or another: all solid state electronics have been developed directly on the back of quatum theory.

On your second point I would have to dispute your comment on these things being popular but not the best explanations. I am not a physicist but I do know that by far the majority of physicists agree about things like neturon stars and black holes (not unsurprisingly things like dark energy and dark matter get considerably less approval). So if that's what you mean by popular then fair enough. But to say they are not the best explanation is to say that you know better than the majority of physicists, and I feel that is a little presumptuous.

There are alternative theories but currently the majority of them are considered by most physicists to have more holes in them than the existing accepted ones. And that, of course, is the essence of the scientific method. No theory has so far proved perfect across the entire spectrum, they never have in the past and possibly they never will. However we take the theoriesnthat best fit and then try to further refine them.

Bear in mind also that they are now pretty certain they have found the higgs bosun and that confirms many more aspects of the current theories.

 

[chrispenycate]

The 'nuclear chemistry' argument against neutronium is spurious. There are no nuclei, no electron shells, and so it's stability does not come into question (indeed, if not in a totally ridiculous gravitational field, it can't exist, so neutrons will decay into hadron pairs and presumably degenerate to normal matter). None of which is a proof that neutron stars exist, of course, and a false hypothesis can lead to a true conclusion, but it does suggest the author doesn't know what he's talking about or, worse, does know but writes for people who don't.

But more evidence about the existence or otherwise of neutron stars will come trickling in over time, even if we can't get there to observe them.

Black holes are more complicated. They are not observable, since (as long as the teary of relativity holds) no information can escape an event horizon. So the maximum possible is to observe their effect on surrounding matter, and attempt to analyse the conditions that brought said effects into being; hardly a satisfactory means of research.

Extraterrestrial life? We need a few examples to compare, and I see no signs of them coming to join us yet. Nor any great hope of us visiting them, for a while (nor even recognising them if they don't conform to our expectations of how life should behave).

If panspermia is an option, yes, liquid water and carbon are the first suspects. If a self-sustaining, multiplying chemical reaction has a good chance of turning up in any system in a few billion years, then carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are still strong contenders; hydrogen is the commonest element in the universe, and both oxygen and carbon are on the principal fusion chain that seems to be operating in the sun, and most likely other stars (can't observe that any too closely, either; mathematical models compared with spectrum lines is about the best we can manage until someone builds a star), so they're both likely to be available in quantity. Iron, at the bottom of the energy curve, pity we can't do anything with helium, I could probably look up the concentration charts for the Earth…
But a different planet, they'll be different. So, if manganese were commoner, would our pro-life incorporate that for it's blood, lithium instead of sodium as salt, what temperature range would these work over. Back when Analog was still Astounding Isaac Asimov wrote one of his science pieces on 'life not as we know it', which I kept for many years until it fell apart, comparing silicon with carbon or boron, chlorine and sulphur with oxgen, and so forth. No conclusions can be drawn except that, here on Earth, life has used whatever it has found as resources, and one can safely predict that life elsewhere…

Well, no, one can't safely predict anything.

 

[Metryq]

The 'nuclear chemistry' argument against neutronium is spurious.

So we're supposed to accept on faith that neutronium and "a totally ridiculous gravitational field" exist just to save the phenomenon of pulsars as rotating "lighthouses" in space? I mentioned a book by Donald Scott; have you read it or anything about the theories he describes before brushing it all aside in favor of the orthodox explanation? Seriously, what is the compelling evidence for neutron stars and black holes—rapid radio pulses or x-rays? Surely nothing else could be responsible...

mathematical models compared with spectrum lines is about the best we can manage until someone builds a star

Funny you should mention that. At least these guys have a theory that is testable.

 

[Galacticdefender]

I think that's part of my weird mind, because that is exactly what I would do... I always seem to look towards what's possible and never say die, and my brain works better with what's outside reality.

Actually, convergent evolution could mean that life on other worlds similar to Earth might bear at least some resemblance. It is not entirely far fetched that life elsewhere could resemble life on Earth. For example, DNA is a good way of "storing information" and may be used in the same way for life on other planets. Though RNA could feasibly be a component of simpler life forms as it likely was early in Earth's history.

This isn't to say that life in stranger forms doesn't exist. I would think that the type of life would vary considerably from world to world, though on Earthlike planets, I think life would be more similar to what we are used to than many people might expect.