Do you like Earth's solid surface and life-inclined climate? Thank your lucky (massive) star

Do you like Earth's solid surface and life-inclined climate? Thank your lucky (massive) star
Planetary systems born in dense and massive star-forming regions inherit substantial amounts of Aluminium-26, which dries out their building blocks before accretion (left). Planets formed in low-mass star-forming regions accrete many water-rich bodies and emerge as ocean worlds (right). Credit: Thibaut Roger

Earth's solid surface and moderate climate may be due, in part, to a massive star in the birth environment of the Sun, according to new computer simulations of planet formation.

Without the star's radioactive elements injected into the , our home planet could be a hostile ocean world covered in global ice sheets.

"The results of our simulations suggest that there are two qualitatively different types of planetary systems," said Tim Lichtenberg of the National Centre of Competence in Research PlanetS in Switzerland. "There are those similar to our solar system, whose planets have little water, and those in which primarily ocean worlds are created because no massive star was around when their host system formed."

Lichtenberg and colleagues, including University of Michigan astronomer Michael Meyer, were initially intrigued by the role the potential presence of a massive star played on the formation of a planet.

Meyer said the simulations help solve some questions, while raising others.

"It is great to know that can help make a wet system drier and to have an explanation as to why planets within the same system would share similar properties," Meyer said.

"But radioactive heating may not be enough. How can we explain our Earth, which is very dry, indeed, compared to planets formed in our models? Perhaps having Jupiter where it is was also important in keeping most icy bodies out of the inner solar system."

Researchers say while water covers more than two-thirds of the surface of Earth, in astronomical terms, the inner terrestrial planets of our solar system are very dry—fortunately, because too much of a good thing can do more harm than good.

All planets have a core, mantle (inside layer) and crust. If the water content of a rocky planet is significantly greater than on Earth, the mantle is covered by a deep, global ocean and an impenetrable layer of ice on the ocean floor. This prevents geochemical processes, such as the carbon cycle on Earth, that stabilize the climate and create surface conditions conducive to life as we know it.

The researchers developed computer models to simulate the formation of planets from their , the so-called planetesimals—rocky-icy bodies of probably dozens of kilometers in size. During the birth of a planetary system, the planetesimals form in a disk of dust and gas around the young star and grow into planetary embryos.

Radioactive heat engine

As these planetesimals are heated from the inside, part of the initial water ice content evaporates and escapes to space before it can be delivered to the planet itself.

This internal heating may have happened shortly after the birth of our solar system 4.6 billion years ago, as primeval traces in meteorites suggest, and may still be ongoing in numerous places.

Right when the proto-Sun formed, a supernova occurred in the cosmic neighborhood. Radioactive elements, including aluminium-26, were fused in this dying massive star and got injected into our young solar system, either from its excessive stellar winds or via the supernova ejecta after the explosion.

The researchers say the quantitative predictions from this work will help near-future space telescopes, dedicated to the hunt for extrasolar , to track potential traces and differences in planetary compositions, and refine the predicted implications of the Al-26 dehydration mechanism.

They are eagerly awaiting the launch of upcoming space missions with which Earth-sized exoplanets outside our solar system will be observable. These will bring humanity ever-closer to understanding whether our home planet is one of a kind, or if there are "an infinity of worlds of the same kind as our own."

Their study appears in Nature Astronomy. Other researchers include those from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, University of Bayreuth and University of Bern.


Explore further

From dust to pebbles to planets – insight into the birth of a solar system

More information: A water budget dichotomy of rocky protoplanets from 26Al-heating, Nature Astronomy (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-018-0688-5 , https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0688-5
Journal information: Nature Astronomy

Citation: Do you like Earth's solid surface and life-inclined climate? Thank your lucky (massive) star (2019, February 11) retrieved 22 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-02-earth-solid-surface-life-inclined-climate.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
370 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 11, 2019
Another nail in the coffin of fabulist speculations about the possibility that Life is common in this Galaxy.

A large number of possible events had to occur in correct sequence of contributions to enable the basic functions of Life.

Failure was always an option.
Out of about a dozen rocky worlds in this System, how many are proven, to date, to be Living Worlds?

My hypothesis remains that we are just way too soon in the earliest stages of the evolution of the Universe, for Living Worlds to yet be common.

Using a conservative list of known criteria:
By sheer numbers, how many galaxies consist mainly of Pop II & III stars? Too primitive to have produced LWs.

What is the estimated numbers for galaxies with large populations of Pop I metal-rich stars that are older than 4+ billion years?

In our own Milky Way Galaxy:
What percentage are single, stable, moderately-sized stars in a reasonably safe region of this galaxy? Of 4+billion years old?

- cont'd -:

Feb 11, 2019
- cont'd -:

Well. we know that this planet was capable of supporting life. Though Humanity is in a frenzy of efforts to correct that error of judgement by Gaia!

We may be too damn stupid to make the difficult choices & implement the hard work to ensure Humanity's survival. However, we are smart enough to invent the means to kill all other life.

When we go? We're taking everybody with us! Right down to the slime mold.

After all, Intelligence is a special gift for creatures with manipulative appendages.& we intend yo display our quality of moral character by deliberately destroying the only biosphere within our reach.

Huh? I'd never considered it that way before. I guess it is a good thing then, that we are so isolated?

Some people claim we can habilitate non-living worlds to being Human habitable?
So, over billions of years? Why didn't those worlds blossom naturally, on their own initiative?

Feb 11, 2019
@RW, remember stars tend to form within large clouds, then disperse. Also, generations overlap. Higher-mass stars 'burn through' their fuel at an extravagant rate, their deaths shocking the cloud and supplementing its mix...

True, the Fermi Paradox is unsettling on multiple levels. Where are They ?
Program stuck in committee ? Wiped out by PHA after an un-connected funding squabble stymied their 'sky-watch' program??
YMMV...
Brrrr...

Feb 11, 2019
We may be too damn stupid to make the difficult choices
We don't have permission. Doesn't matter how smart we are.

Feb 11, 2019
The odds against a planet having so many perfect conditions over a long enough time for intelligent life to arise and survive despite catastrophic asteroid strikes, snow ball Earth, super-volcanoes, floods, tsunamis, and on and on, are so high that I would rather believe Trurl and Klapaucius may have had a hand in things.

Feb 12, 2019
True, the Fermi Paradox is unsettling on multiple levels. Where are They ?

The answer seems fairly obvious to me. All over the place.

Information transmission:
If you are technologically advanced to travel the stars you don't blare your signals in a 720° arc but pinpoint to where you want them to go (or use close-to-c-speed information pods which would make transmission only marginally slower but a lot more secure and easier to reach a "moving target").
Thus no one is beaming at Earth (why would they?)

Why they aren't on Earth:
Once you can live in space for any length of time there's absolutely no point to go planet-side ever again. In fact there is ample reason to _stay away_ from planets and solar systems in general once you reach virtual immortality.
Think about it: If the only thing that can kill you is on the order of a sun going nova you start staying away from suns.
(Apart from that: we have nothing they could possibly need or be of interest to them)

Feb 12, 2019
Due to lack of observations this is a model in waiting. Also, M stars tend to cook their planets so it adds to difficulties of most promising habitability (of star type having most stars and habitable zone planets).

So of course one can expect the daft "Rare Earth" speculations troll a simple astrobiological work:

fabulist speculations about the possibility that Life is common


This makes it obvious that you have not studied astrobiology, where it is not only mundane hypothesis but now the consensus due to the many systems observed and the little time to life on Earth.

So why do you take upon yourself to rudely comment on a question you know little about? Go study the subject instead, you may find it interesting!

- tbctd -

Feb 12, 2019
Break for serious astrobiology:

The "Fermi Paradox" is a misnomer, Fermi noted that we don't know - still don't know - interstellar travel is possible. EM searches has covered much less than 1 % of possibilities. No paradox, nothing to learn as of yet.

***

Back to the trolls:

The odds against a planet having so many perfect conditions over a long enough time for intelligent life to arise and survive


That makes a little more sense since we expect language capable intelligence to be rare based on the same math: many species on Earth, appeared once in 4 Gyrs. But the survive part is contradicted by the very same robustness of life shown.

And of course "Rare Earth" was invented by magic believers, which also trolls here:

We don't have permission.

[magic entities?] may have had a hand


Rejected by observation. There are no 'gods' that hands out 'permissions' or even have "a hand"; Planck 3d data release observes a 100 % mechanistic universe.

Feb 12, 2019
The "Fermi Paradox" is a misnomer

It also has some very basic flaws. It posits colonization as a motivation - which makes absolutely no sense to me because it posits that a species stays completely unaltered for all eternity of its existence (even after it has achieved the ability to meddle with its own stock). The flaw is sort of understandable because in Fermi's time something like that was pretty much unthinkable. Today it's basically been done already.

Also Fermi's paradox and the Drake equation are closely linked. But an equation that includes a variable of unknown magnitude and which cannot even be guessed at is less than useless (and the Drake equation has no less than 5 of those).

Feb 12, 2019
So...when your delusion is complex and math based it's OK for you refer to others as trolls, interesting.
"This makes it obvious that you have not studied astrobiology"...
Sorry to break it to you, but neither have you unless you have said biological samples from other worlds in your fridge.
"we don't know - still don't know - interstellar travel is possible. "
Well then...how the hell did you study astrobiology?
"And of course "Rare Earth" was invented by magic believers,"
Or just those sane enough to recognize we haven't found a single planet even remotely close to having what earth does. Is there a better word than "rare" to describe something we can only find one of?
"Rejected by observation."
Like most math based mainstream theories....

Feb 12, 2019
"This makes it obvious that you have not studied astrobiology"...

Sorry to break it to you, but neither have you unless you have said biological samples from other worlds in your fridge.


What?

Or just those sane enough to recognize we haven't found a single planet even remotely close to having what earth does. Is there a better word than "rare" to describe something we can only find one of?


What?

"Rejected by observation."

Like most math based mainstream theories....


What?

Feb 12, 2019
Hey Kittykat....what?

By your dumbfounded quereys I can only assume you believe studying astrobiology doesn't require a life form, we have found many planets identical to earth and have finally observed all the invisible things math made....or, could you just not hear what I typed and need me speak up?

Feb 12, 2019
Another nail in the coffin of fabulist speculations about the possibility that Life is common in this Galaxy.
It is nothing of the sort. There still would be SO many Earth-like planets in the galaxy with all the right conditions that, and only assuming life usually first forms almost as soon as conditions are just right for life to first form, it would be a miracle if there was NO other life in the galaxy other than ours!
So, whether life is common in our galaxy all comes down to that one unanswered question: DOES life usually first forms almost as soon as conditions are just right for life to first form? If yes, life is common in our galaxy. If no, its probably extremely rare and Earth-life is just a fluke.

Feb 12, 2019
I will accept the term "Rare Earth". While kicking myself for not thinking of it first!
"Rare Earth" is relevant to the astronomical observations.
& for the complete lack of any evidence to the contrary in any of the Sciences, including Astrobiology.

a_p & torbjorn you have both posted reasonable comments in the past. & you both have provided reputable links to research papers. I do respect your opinions but I do not agree with your conclusions on this specific subject.
If you have access to any peer-reviewed confirmation of Non-EarthLife?
Please share the link.

Because the Space Medicine reports I have read are uniformly grim, depressing results.

I am not interested in M-class stars.
Is there a census of Sol-type G dwarf stars in our region of Space? That are no less than 3 or 4 billion years old.

I would accept a range of +/- 50% Sol Mass that are presumed to be either singles or at least not orbiting in close proximity to stable multi-star system?

Feb 12, 2019
By your dumbfounded quereys I can only assume you believe studying astrobiology doesn't require a life form, we have found many planets identical to earth and have finally observed all the invisible things math made....or, could you just not hear what I typed and need me speak up?


I'm dumbfounded by your spelling of queries, as well as your mental gymnastics. Nobody defines astrobiology in such a way that it requires an alien life form in someone's fridge.

How do you go from
we haven't found a single planet even remotely close to having what earth does
to
have found many planets identical to earth


or
Like most math based mainstream theories
to
observed all the invisible things math made


It's like you're actively trying to discredit yourself.

Feb 12, 2019
So..you do not know how to read a question containing multiple "queries" at once...interesting. Try reading again before you ask what is a profoundly dumbass question. Three times.

It's like you are actively trying to display stupidity...

Hey wills...thud.

Feb 12, 2019
So..you do not know how to read a question containing multiple "queries"


Why are you quoting queries like you don't trust that's how it's actually spelled? Thud... lol

Feb 12, 2019
"Why are you quoting queries like you don't trust that's how it's actually spelled?"

I put it in quotes to accentuate that I spelled it correctly as, since you appear to have made it the crux of whatever point you are trying to make, you at least managed to get something across. Why do you pretend to be literate when you can't read English and understand it?

" Thud... lol"

Thud indeed...except since you aren't on ignore it's more of a ratatatat...

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Feb 12, 2019
Speaking of literacy, have you figured out the relationship between pressure and temperature yet?

SMH at the idiots who are confused when a conversation has nothing to do with pressure at all because it is about temperature...


:)

Feb 12, 2019
"Speaking of literacy, have you figured out the relationship between pressure and temperature yet?"

LOL...cause and effect isn't a function of literacy genius...but since you are batting 1000 already why break the streak?

Kinda how you seem to feel life forms aren't required to study biology...LMAO

Feb 12, 2019
Your misunderstanding of their relatipnship is a function of scientific and mathematic illiteracy.

Kinda like how you don't seem to understand the definition of astrobiology.

Capiche?

Feb 12, 2019

"Your misunderstanding of their relatipnship is a function of scientific and mathematic illiteracy."

Indulging your attempt to cover your mental shortcomings in the above conversation...Perhaps you could clarify what I don't understand about the "relatipnship" (LMAO) from whatever it was that I said in a completely different section...

"Kinda like how you don't seem to understand the definition of astrobiology."

"The study of astrobiology" as Larsson said above isn't actually STUDY...because there is nothing to study, because we have no biological alien samples to study. Astrobiology in reality, doesn't exist for this reason.

I know it sounds cool and all, like it could almost be a real field...but at very best it is the study of a bunch of theories about alien life potentials, not actual alien life. The word "biology" doesn't belong....look up the definition (and try to understand what you are reading).

Or is Roswell true and Larsson works there?

Capiche?


Feb 12, 2019
Perhaps you could clarify what I don't understand about the "relatipnship" (LMAO) from whatever it was that I said in a completely different section...


It was already addressed when you said pressure has nothing to do with temperature: PV=nRT

I know it sounds cool and all, like it could almost be a real field...but at very best it is the study of a bunch of theories about alien life potentials, not actual alien life. The word "biology" doesn't belong....look up the definition (and try to understand what you are reading).


https://www.nasa....obiology

Nobody really cares whether you think it's a legitimate field of study.

Back to the ignore list you go :)

Feb 12, 2019
"It was already addressed when you said pressure has nothing to do with temperature:"

LMAO...we were discussing the Corona moron....explain the relationship between pressure and the temperature of matter in the corona. That's why my sarcastic comment at the end was a friendly reminder about temperature increasing with pressure, and increasing with decreasing pressure...so, yes please, put me on your ignore list. This was like conversing with a child...with dementia...and significant frontal lobe deterioration.

"Nobody really cares whether you think it's a legitimate field of study. "

LMAO....a legitimate field of study with nothing to study, fits into mainstream astrophysics perfectly as it joins what appears to be an ever growing list of things that can't be studied...that they study.


Feb 12, 2019
"NASA's current astrobiology program addresses three fundamental questions: How does life begin and evolve? Is there life beyond Earth and, if so, how can we detect it? What is the future of life on Earth and in the universe?"

LMAO...no answers to number 1 yet, no answer to number 2 yet, and number 3 can never be answered...awesome.

So they chose 2 words and combined them, then redefined it so that the new word has no relative meaning to the key root word: Biology - the study of living organisms, divided into many specialized fields that cover their morphology, physiology, anatomy, behavior, origin, and distribution. And only a tertiary connection to the second root word: Astro - relating to the stars, celestial objects, or outer space.

I guess by putting "astro" in front of "biology" the need to study living organisms is no longer required, hence allowing the study of theory to become validated. everyone needs a job I guess...


Feb 14, 2019
Doesn't anyone question the science used for the study and whomever wrote the review. What's this necessity for a massive star being nearby when the Earth was formed to get the radioactive elements to warm the Earth. What was necessary for the formation was the material left after a supernova which produced those radioactive isotopes.
Where does the idea that the floor of the oceans would be covered with an unpenetrable layer of ice. Not possible unless all the water from surface to floor had frozen. it is not possible for water to freeze from the bottom upward due to the lower density for temperature of water below about 4 degrees Celsius where water expands becoming less dense near the floor of the ocean.

Feb 16, 2019
the flatirepillock once more climbing to the top of a tree. Those prehensile appendages, including the tail, sure come in handy!

To wave his magical thunderstick at the sky. Screeching out his rage. That once again the uncaring Universe refuses to obey his ignorant rants. (cant?)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more