Some Unanswered Questions from the Lunar Rocks

In the previous post I hinted that some of what we found from our study of moon rocks raises issues of self-consistency when viewed in terms of the standard paradigm. To summarize the relevant points of that paradigm, the argument goes that the dust in the accretion disk that was left behind after the star formed accreted into Mars-sized bodies that we shall call embryos, and these moved around in highly elliptical orbits and eventually collided to form planets. While these were all mixed up – simulations suggest what made Earth included bodies from outside Mars’ current orbit, and closer to the star than Mercury’s current orbit. These collisions were extraordinarily violent, and the Earth formed from a cloud of silicate vapours that condensed to a ball of boiling silicates at a little under 3000 degrees C. Metallic iron boils at 2862 degrees C, so it was effectively refluxing, and under these conditions it would extract elements such as tungsten and gold that dissolve in iron and take them with it to the core. About sixty million years after Earth formed, one remaining embryo struck Earth, a huge amount of silicates were sent into space, and the Moon condensed from this. The core of this embryo was supposedly iron, and it migrated into the Earth to join our core, leaving the Moon a ball of silicate vapour that had originated from Earth and condensed from something like 10,000 degrees C. You may now see a minor problem for Earth: if this iron took out all the gold, tungsten, etc, how come we can find it? One possibility is the metals formed chemical compounds. That is unlikely because at those temperatures elements that form only moderate-strength chemical bonds would not survive, and since gold is remarkably unreactive, that explanation won’t work. Another problem is that the Moon has very little water and no nitrogen. This easily explained through their being lost to space from the silicate vapours, but where did the Earth get its volatiles? And if the Moon did condense from such high temperatures, the last silicate to condense would be fayalite, but that was not included in the Apollo rocks, or if it were, nothing was made of that. This alone is not necessarily indicative, though, because fayalite is denser than the other olivines, and if there were liquid silicates for long enough it would presumably sink.

The standard paradigm invokes what is called “the late veneer”; after everything was over, Earth got bombarded with carbonaceous asteroids, which contain water, nitrogen, and some of these otherwise awkward metals. It is now that we enter one of the less endearing aspects of modern science: everything tends to be compartmentalised, and the little sub-disciplines all adhere to the paradigm and add small findings that support their view, even if they do not do so particularly well, and there is a reluctance to look at the overall picture. The net result is that while many of the findings can be made to seemingly provide answers to their isolated problems, there is an overall problem with self-consistency. Further, clues that the fundamental proposition might be wrong are carefully shelved.

The first problem was noted at the beginning of the century: the isotope ratios of metals like osmium from such chondrites are different from our osmium. There are various hand-waving argument to the extent that it could just manage if it were mixed with enough of our mantle, but leaving whether the maths are right aside, nobody seems to have noticed the only reason we are postulating this late veneer is that originally the iron stripped all the osmium from the mantle. You cannot dilute A with B if B is not there. There are a number of other reasons, one of which is the nitrogen of such chondrites has more 15N than our nitrogen. Another is to get the amounts of material here we need a huge amount of carbonaceous asteroids, but they have to come through the ordinary asteroids without perturbing them. That takes some believing.

But there is worse. All the rocks found by the Apollo program have none of the required materials and none of the asteroidal isotope signatures. The argument seems to be, they “bounced off” the Moon. But the Moon also has some fairly ferocious craters, so why did the impactors that caused them not bounce off? Let’s suppose they did bounce off, but they did not bounce off the Earth (because the only reason we argue for this is that we need them, so it is said, to account for our supply of certain metals). Now the isotope ratios of the oxygen atoms on the Moon have a value, and that value is constant over rocks that come from deep within the Moon, thanks to volcanism, and for the rocks from the highlands, so that is a lunar value. How can that be the same as Earth’s if Earth subsequently got heavily bombarded with asteroids that we know have different values? My answer, in my ebook “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis” is simple: there were no embryo impacts in forming Earth therefore the iron vapours did not extract out the heavy elements, and there were no significant number asteroid impacts. Almost everything came here when Earth accreted, and while there have been impacts, they made a trivial contribution to Earth’s supply of matter.

Advertisements

Where are the Planets that Might Host Life?

In the previous posts I showed why RNA was necessary for primitive life to reproduce, but the question then is, what sort of planets will have the necessary materials? For the rocky planets, once they reached a certain size they would attract gas gravitationally, but this would be lost after the accretion disk was removed by the extreme UV put out by the new star. Therefore all atmosphere and surface water would be emitted volcanically. (Again, for the purposes of discussion, volcanic emission includes all geothermal emissions, e.g. from fumaroles.) Gas could be adsorbed on dust as it was accreted, but if it were, because heats of adsorption of the gases other than water are very similar, the amount of nitrogen would roughly equal the amount of neon. It doesn’t. (Neon is approximately at the same level as nitrogen in interstellar gas.)

The standard explanation is that since the volatiles could not have been accreted, they were delivered by something else. The candidates: comets and carbonaceous asteroids. Comets are eliminated because their water contains more deuterium than Earth’s water, and if they were the source, there would be twenty thousand times more argon. Oops. Asteroids can also be eliminated. At the beginning of this century it was shown that various isotope ratios of these bodies meant they could not be a significant source. In desperation, it was argued they could, just, if they got subducted through plate tectonics and hence were mixed in the interior. The problem here is that neither the Moon nor Mars have subduction, and there is no sign of these objects there. Also, we find that the planets have different atmospheres. Thus compared to Earth, Venus has 50% more carbon dioxide (if you count what is buried as limestone on Earth), four times more nitrogen, and essentially no water, while Mars has far less volatiles, possibly the same ratio of carbon dioxide and water but it has far too little nitrogen. How do you get the different ratios if they all came from the same source? It is reasonably obvious that no single agent can deliver such a mix, but since it is not obvious what else could have led to this result, people stick with asteroids.

There is a reasonably obvious alternative, and I have discussed the giants, and why there can be no life under-ice on Europa https://wordpress.com/post/ianmillerblog.wordpress.com/855) and reinforced by requirement to join ribose to phosphate. The only mechanism produced so far involves the purine absorbing a photon, and the ribose transmitting the effect. Only furanose sugars work, and ribose is the only sugar with significant furanose form in aqueous solution. There is not sufficient light under the ice. There are other problems for Europa. Ribose is a rather difficult sugar to make, and the only mechanism that could reasonably occur naturally is in the presence of soluble silicic acid. This requires high-temperature water, and really only occurs around fumaroles or other geothermal sites. (The terrace formations are the silica once it comes out of solution on cooling.)

So, where will we find suitable planets? Assuming the model is correct, we definitely need the dust in the accretion disk to get hot enough to form carbides, nitrides, and silicates capable of binding water. Each of those form at about 1500 degrees C, and iron melts at a bit over this temperature, but it can be lower with impurities, thus grey cast is listed as possible at 1127 degrees C. More interesting, and more complicated, are the silicates. The calcium aluminosilicates have a variety of phases that should separate from other silicate phases. They are brittle and can be easily converted to dust in collisions, but their main feature is they absorb water from the gas stream and form cements. If aggregation starts with a rich calcium aluminosilicate and there is plenty of it, it will phase separate out and by cementing other rocks and thus form a planet with plenty of water and granitic material that floats to the surface. Under this scene, Earth is optimal. The problem then is to get this system in the habitable zone, and unfortunately, while both the temperatures of the accretion disk and the habitable zone depend on the mass of the star, they appear to depend on different functions. The net result is the more common red dwarfs have their initial high-temperature zone too close to the star, and the most likely place to look for life are the G- and heavy K-type stars. The function for the accretion disk temperature depends on the rate of stellar accretion, which is unknown for mature stars but is known to vary significantly for stars of the same mass, thus LkCa 15b is three times further away than Jupiter from an equivalent mass star. Further, the star must get rid of its accretion disk very early or the planets get too big. So while the type of star can be identified, the probability of life is still low.

How about Mars? Mars would have been marginal. The current supply of nitrogen, including what would be lost to space, is so low life could not emerge, but equally there may be a lot of nitrogen in the solid state buried under the surface. We do not know if we can make silicic acid from basalt under geochemical conditions and while there are no granitic/felsic continents there, there are extrusions of plagioclase, which might do. My guess is the intermittent periods of fluid flow would have been too short anyway, but it is possible there are chemical fossils there of what the path towards life actually looked like. For me, they would be of more interest than life itself.

To summarise what I have proposed:

  • Planets have compositions dependent on where they form
  • In turn, this depends on the temperatures reached in the accretion disk
  • Chemicals required for reproduction formed at greater than 1200 degrees C in the accretion disk, and possibly greater than 1400 degrees C
  • Nucleic acids can only form, as far as we know, through light
  • Accordingly, we need planets with reduced nitrogen, geothermal processing, and probably felsic/granitic continents that end in the habitable zone.
  • The most probable place is around near-earth-sized planets around a G or heavy K type star
  • Of those stars, only a modest proportion will have planets small enough

Thus life-bearing planets around single stars are likely to be well-separated. Double stars remain unknown quantities regarding planets. This series has given only a very slight look at the issues. For more details, my ebook Planetary Formation and Biogenesis(http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007T0QE6I) has far more details.

Why Life Must Start with RNA and not Something Else.

In the previous post, I argued that reproduction had to start with RNA, but that leaves the obvious question, why not something else? The use of purines and pyrimidines to transfer energy arises simply because the purines and pyrimidines are the easiest to form, given the earliest atmosphere almost certainly was rich in ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, cyanocetylene, and urea would soon be formed. Some may argue with the “easily formed”, however leaving a sample of ammonium cyanide and urea to its own devices will get nucleobases. Cytosine is a little more difficult, but with available cyanoacetylene, it is reasonably likely. The important point is that if you accept my mechanism for how rocky planets form, these chemicals are going to be prolific. I shall justify that later. The important thing about these chemicals is that they lead to the formation of multiple hydrogen bonds only with their partners. As explained in the last post, there is no alternative to hydrogen bonds for transferring information, and these are the only chemicals that can provide accuracy under abiogenic conditions.

The polymer linking agent is phosphate, so why phosphate? Phosphoric acid has three hydrogen atoms that are available for substitution, i.e.it can form three functions. Two are to form esters and as I noted previously, the third is to provide solubility. The solubility is important because if there was not anionic repulsion, the strands would bundle together and reproduction would not work. The strands would also not provide catalysis, which occurs because a strand can fold around a cation like magnesium and form the shapes that seem to be needed. The good news is that unlike in enzymes, it can rearrange the magnesium and thus get different effects. Of course, enzymes are hugely more effective, but an enzyme generally only does one thing.

The polymer forms esters by phosphate bonding to a sugar. Think of the reaction as

P – OH  + HO – C    ->  P – O – C  + H2O       (1)

where P is the phosphorus of a phosphate or phosphoric acid, and C is the carbon atom of a sugar. Note that this reaction is reversible, but at room temperature the bonds are quite stable. These ester bonds are very strong, which is important because you do not want your carefully prepared polymer to randomly fall to bits. On the other hand, it must be able to be disrupted or substituted and not be essentially fixed, as would happen if proteins were used for information transfer. The reason is, life is evolving by random trials, and it is important that since many of these trials will be unproductive, there has to be a way to recover an many of the valuable chemicals as possible for further trials, and also to unclutter the system so that something that conveys advantages does not get lost in the morass of failures or otherwise useless stuff. Only phosphate offers these properties. In principle, you might argue for arsenate, but its bonds are weaker, thus less reliable, and worse, arsenic reacts with hydrogen sulphide (common around fumaroles which as we shall see are necessary sites) to form insoluble sulphides. These are the very pretty yellow layers in geothermal areas. No other element will do.

There are a variety of other sugars that if used to link nucleobases to phosphate will form duplexes, so the question then is, why weren’t they used? The ability to catalyse its own scission is the first of two reasons why ribose is so important. Once the strands get long enough to fold around themselves, catalysis starts, and one of the possible catalytic reactions is the promotion of the remaining OH group on the ribose to help water send the reaction (1) into reverse, which would break a link in the polymer chain. Deoxyribose does not have such a free hydroxyl and hence does not have this option, which is why DNA ended up being the information transfer chemical once a life form that had something worth keeping had emerged. What this means is that RNA has the opportunity to mutate, which is a big help in getting evolution going, and when it is broken, the bits remain available for further tries in some rearranged form.

The question then is, how do you form the phosphate ester? You mix phosphate and the sugar in solution and – oops, nothing happens. Reaction (1) is so slow at ambient temperature that you could sit there indefinitely, however, if you heat it, it does proceed. However, the rate of a reaction like this depends on the product of the concentrations on each side, with such a product on the right-hand side determining the rate of the reaction going from right to left. If you look at (1), it probably occurs to you that in aqueous solution, the concentration of water is far greater than the concentration of sugar. You will see people say that life could start around black smokers, but when you check, at the temperatures they require for the forward reaction to go it requires the concentration of water to be less than about 2%. Good luck getting that at the bottom of the ocean. You may protest that nevertheless there is life there, devouring emerging nutrients. True, although the ocean acts as a cooling bath, and the life forms have evolved protective systems. There are no such things when life is getting started. Life has moved to be close to black smokers but it did not start there.

What we need is a more precise way of delivering the required energy to the reaction site. So far, one and only one method has been found to make such initial linkages, and that is photochemical. If adenine is irradiated with light in the presence of ribose and phosphate, you get AMP, and even ATP. We now see why only ribose was chosen. AMP, and for that matter, RNA, link the nucleobases and phosphate through the ribofuranose form. Such sugars can exist in two forms: a furanose (a five-membered ring involving an oxygen atom linked to C1 of the sugar) and a pyranose form (the six-membered equivalent.). Now the first important point about a sugar is it cannot transmit electronic effects arising from the nucleobase absorbing a photon. However, it can transmit mechanical vibrational energy, and this is where the furanose becomes important. While the pyranose form is always rigid, the furanose form is flexible. The reason ribofuranose can form the links, in my opinion, is it can transmit and focus the mechanical energy to the free C-5 which will vibrate vigorously like the end of a whip and form the phosphate ester. Ribose is important because it is the only sugar with a reasonable amount of furanose form in aqueous solution. It is also worth noting that in the original experiments, no phosphate ester was formed from the pyranose form. As the furanose is used, the equilibrium ensures pyranose maintains the furanose/pyranose ratio.

That leaves open the question, how are the polymers formed? It appears that provided you can get the mers embedded in a lipid micelle or vesicle (the most primitive form of the cell wall), leaving these in the sun on a hot rock to dry them out leads to polymers of about 80 units in an hour. This is the first reason why life probably started around geothermal vents on land. Plenty of hot rocks around, with water splashes to replenish the supply of mers, and sunlight to form them. The second reason will be in the following post.

The title statement can now be answered. Life must start with RNA because it is the only agent that can lead to biological reproduction without external assistance. I started the last post indicating I would show what sort of planets might harbour life. The series is nearly there, but some might like to try the last step for themselves.

What do we need for life?

One question that intrigues man people is, is there life in the Universe besides what we see? Logic would say, almost certainly yes. The reason is we know there is a non-zero probability that it can form elswhere because it did here. That probability may be small but there is an enormous number of stars in the Universe (something in excess of 10^22 that we can see) that the conditions that led to life here must be reproduced a very large number of times. Of course, while there are such a large number of stars, by far the most are at such an extraordinarily large distance from us that they are essentially irrelevant. For the bulk of them, it took the light more than ten billion years to get here. But if we were to look for life nearby, where would we look? To answer that, we need to ask ourselves, what conditions are needed to get life started? The issue is NOT where can life exist, but rather where can it form. We know life can be found now on Earth in a wide range of environments, but that does not mean it can form there. It can migrate from somewhere else, gradually evolving systems needed to stabilize it to the new environment. The most obvious example is life emerging from the water to live on land. Nobody suggests life did not start in water because you need a solution to move nutrients around.

The first question to ask is, what are the most difficult things to achieve for life to get started? I think the four hardest things to get started are reproduction, energy transport, solubilization, and catalysis. Catalysis is required to make the chemical reactions that are desirable to go faster, and thus get more of the available resources going in the desired direction. (In this, when I use the word “desired” I mean to get on a right track to where life can get going and then support that choice during subsequent evolution. I do not mean to imply some sort of planning or directing.) Solubilization is required because many of the chemicals with functions that will be needed are not soluble in water, and hence they would simply settle out as a layer of brown gunk, which, as an aside, is what happens in many experiments designed to simulate the origin of life. What needs to happen is that something joins on at a place that does not spoil the function and then conveys solubility. Energy transport is a critical problem: if you do not have something that stores energy, functionality is restricted to microdistances from energy inputs.

Each of these critical functions, as well as reproduction, as I shall show below, depend on forming phosphate esters. Thus energy transport is mediated by adenosine tripolyphosphate (ATP), solubilisation of many of the most primitive cofactors that do not contain a lot of nitrogen or hydroxyl groups is aided by an attached adenosine monophosphate (AMP), initial catalysts came from ribozymes, RNA would be the initial source of reproduction, and both ribozymes and RNA (the latter is effectively just far longer strands of the former) are both constructed of AMP or the equivalent with different nucleobases. The commonality is the ribose and phosphate ester.

Catalysis is an interesting problem. Currently, enzymes are used, but life could not have started that way. The reason lies in the complexity of enzymes. The enzyme that will digest other protein, and hence make chemicals available from failed attempts at guessing the structure of a useful enzyme, has a precise sequence of three hundred and fifteen amino acids. There are twenty different common amino acids used (and in abiogenic situations, a lot more available) and these occur in D- and L- configurations, except for glycine, which means the probability of getting this enzyme is two in 39^315. That number is incredibly improbable. It makes selecting a specific proton in the entire Universe trivial in comparison. Worse, that catalyses ONE reaction only. That is not how initial catalysis happened.

Now, look at the problem of reproduction. Once a polymer is formed that can generate some of whatever requirements life needs, if it cannot copy itself, then it is a one-off wonder, and eventually it will degrade and be lost without a trace. Reproduction involves the need to transfer information, which in this case is some sort of a pattern. The problem here is the transfer must be accurate, but not too accurate initially, and we need different entities. By that I mean, if you just reproduced the same entity, such as in polyethene, you have two units of information: what it is and how long it is, but that second one is rather useless because life has no way of measuring the length without having a very large set of reference molecules. What life here chose appears to have been RNA, at least to start with. RNA has two purines and two pyrimidines, and it pairs them in a double helix. When reproduction occurs, one strand is the negative of the other, but if the negative pairs, we now have two strands that are equivalent to each original strand. (you retain the original.) There are four variations possible from the canonical units at any given position, and once you have many millions of units, a lot of information can be coded.

Why ribonucleic acid? The requirement is to be able to transfer information reliably, but not too accurately (I shall explain why not in a later post.) To do that, the polymer strands have to bind, and this occurs through what we call hydrogen bonds, which each give a binding energy of about 13 kJ/mol. These are chosen because they are weak enough to be ruptured, but strong enough you can get preferences. Thus adenine binds with uracil through two hydrogen bonds, which generates a little over 26 kJ/mol. (For comparison, a carbon-carbon bond is about 360 kJ/mol.) To get the 26 kJ/mol. the two hydrogen bonds have to be formed, and that can only happen of the entities have the right groups in the correct rigid configuration. When guanine bonds with cytosine, three such hydrogen bonds are formed, and the attraction is just under 40 kJ/mol. Guanine can also bind with uracil generating 26 kJ/mol., so information transfer is not necessarily totally accurate.

This binding through hydrogen bonds is critical. The bonding is strong enough to give a significant preference for each mer, but once the polymer gets long enough, the total energy (the sum of the energy of the individual pairs) holding the strands together gets to be those energies above multiplied by the number of pairs. If you have a million pairs, the strength of diamond becomes trivial, yet to reproduce, the strands must be separated. Hydrogen bonds can be separated because as the strands start to separate, water also hydrogen bonds and thus makes up for the linking energy. However, that alone is insufficient because the strand itself would be insoluble in water, and if so, the two strands linked together would remain insoluble (for those who know what this means, entropy strongly favours keeping the strands together). To achieve this, we need something that joins the mers into a chain, adds solubility, forms stable chemical bonds in general but is equally capable of being broken so that if the information creates something that is useless, we can recycle the chemicals. Only phosphate fills these requirements, but phosphate does not bind nucleobases together. Something intermediate is required, and that something is ribose.

In the next posts on this topic, I shall show you where this leads in seeing where life might be.

Rocky Planets and their Atmospheres

The previous post outlined how I consider the rocky planets formed. The most important point was that Earth formed a little inside the zone where calcium aluminosilicates could melt and phase separate while the star was accreting, as when the disk cooled down this would create a dust that, when reacted with the water vapour in the disk, would act as a cement. The concept is that this would bind basaltic rocks together, especially if the dust was formed in the collision between the rocks. The collisions were, by and large, gentle at first, driven by the gas sweeping smaller material closer to bigger material. Within this proposed mechanism, because the planet grows by collisions with objects at low relative velocities, the planet starts with a rather porous structure. It gradually heats up due to gravitational potential energy being converted to heat as more material lands, and eventually, if it gets to 1550 degrees, iron melts and runs down the pores towards the centre, while aluminosilicates, with densities about 0.4 – 1.2 g/cm3less than basalt, move upwards. The water is driven from the cements and also rises through the porous rock to eventually form the sea. The aluminosilicates form the granitic/felsic continents upon which we live.

Earth had the best setting of aluminosilicates because after the accretion disk cooled, it was at a temperature where these absorbed water best. Venus is smaller because it was harder to get started, as the cement was sufficiently warm that water had trouble reacting, but once it got going the density of basaltic and iron-bearing rocks was greater. This predicts Venus will have small granitic/felsic cratons on its surface; we have yet to find them. Mercury probably formed simply by accreting silicates and iron during the stellar accretion stage. Mars did not have a good supply of separated aluminium oxides, so it is very short of granite/felsic rock, although the surface of Syrtis Major appears to have a thin sheet of plagioclase. Because the iron did not melt at Mars, its outer rock would have contained a lot of iron dust or iron oxide. Reaction with water would have oxidised it subsequently. Most Martian rocks have roughly the same levels of calcium as Earth, about half the aluminium content, and about half as much again of iron oxide, which as an aside, may be why Mars does not have plate tectonics: because of the iron levels it cannot make eclogite which is necessary for pull subduction.

However, there is also a lot of chemistry going on in the stage 1 accretion disk in addition to what I have used to make the planets. In the vapour phase, carbon is mainly in the form of carbon monoxide in the rocky planet zone, but this can react catalytically with hydrogen to make methanol and hydrocarbons. These will have a very short lifetime and would be what chemists call reactive intermediates, but they would condense on silicates to make carbonaceous material, and they will react with oxides and metal vapour to make carbides. At the temperatures of at least the inner rocky planet zone, nitrogen reacts with oxides to make nitrides, and with carbides to make cyanamides, and some other materials.

Returning to the planet while it is heating up, the water coming off the cement should be quite reactive. If it meets iron dust it will oxidise it. If it meets a carbide there will be options, although the metal will invariably become an oxide. If the carbide was of the structure of calcium carbide it will make acetylene. If it oxidises anything, it will make hydrogen and the oxide. For many carbides it may make methane and metal oxide, or carbon monoxide, and invariably some hydrogen. Carbon monoxide can be oxidised by water to carbon dioxide, making more hydrogen, but carbon monoxide and hydrogen make synthesis gas, and a considerable variety of chemicals can be made, most of which are obvious contenders to help make life. Nitrides react with water largely to make ammonia, but ammonia is also reactive, and hydrogen cyanide and cyanoacetylene should be made. In the very early stages of biogenesis, hydrogen cyanide is an essential material, even though now it is poisonous.

This explains a little more of what we see in terms of the per centage composition. Mars, as noted above, has extremely little felsic/granitic material, and has a much higher proportion of iron oxide. It has less carbon dioxide than expected, even after allowing for some having escaped to space, and that is because since Mars was cooler, the high temperature carbide formation was slower. It has less water because the calcium silicates absorb less, although there is an issue here of how much is buried under the surface. The nitrogen is a puzzle. Mars has extremely little nitrogen, and the question is, why not. One possibility is that the temperatures were too low for significant nitride production. The other possibility, which I proposed in my novel Red Gold, is that at least some nitrogen was there and was emitted as ammonia. If so, it solves another puzzle: Mars has clear signs of ancient river flows, but all evidence is it was too cold for ice to melt. However, ammonia dissolves in ice and melts it down to minus eighty degrees Centigrade. So, in my opinion, the river flows were ammonia/water solutions. The carbon would have been emitted as methane, but that oxidises to carbon dioxide in the presence of water vapour and UV light.  Ammonia reacts with carbon dioxide first to form ammonium carbonate (which will also lower the melting point of ice) then urea. If I am right, there will be buried deposits of urea, or whatever it converts to after billions of years, in selected places on Mars.

The experts argue that methane and ammonia would only survive for a few years due to the UV radiation. However, smog would tend to protect them, and Titan still has methane. Liquid water also tends to protect ammonia. There are two samples from early Earth. One is of the atmosphere encased in rock at Isua, Greenland. It contains methane (as well as some hydrogen). The other is from Barberton (South Africa) which contains samples of seawater trapped in rock. The concentration of ammonia in seawater at 3.2 Gy BP was such that about 10% of the planet’s nitrogen currently in the atmosphere was in the sea in the form of ammonia.

We finally get to the initial question: why is Venus so different? The answer is simple. It will have had a lower per centage of cement and a high per centage of basalt simply because it formed at a hotter place. Accordingly, it would have much less water than Earth. However, it would have had more carbides and nitrides, and that valuable water got used up making the atmosphere, and in oxidising sulphur to sulphates. Accordingly, I expect Venus to have relatively small deposits of granite on the surface.

There is also the question of the deuterium to hydrogen ratio, which is at least a hundred times higher than solar. If the above mechanism is right, all the oxygen in the oxides, and all the nitrogen in the atmosphere, came from water reacting. My answer is that just about all the water was used up making the atmosphere, sulphates, and whatever. The initial reaction is of the sort:

R – X  + H2O  ->  R –OH + H – X

In this, one hydrogen atom has to transfer from the water to the X (where it will later be dislodged and lost to space). If there is a choice, the atom that is most weakly bonded will move, and deuterium is bonded quite more strongly than hydrogen. The electronic binding is the same, but there are zero point vibrations, and hydrogen, being lighter uses more of this as vibrational energy. In general chemistry, the chemical isotope effect, as it is called, can make the hydrogen between four and twenty-five times more likely to move, depending on the activation energy. Venus did not need to lose the supply of water equivalent to Earth’s oceans to get its high deuterium content; the chemical isotope effect is far more effective.

Further details can be found in my ebook “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis”http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007T0QE6I.

Volatiles on Rocky Planets

If we accept the mechanism I posted before is how the rocky planets formed, we still do not have the chemicals for life. So far, all we have is water and rocks with some planets having an iron core. The mechanism means that until the planet gets gravitationally big enough to attract gas it only accretes solids, together with the water that bonded to the silicates. There re two issues: how the carbon and nitrogen arrived, and if these arrived as solids, which is the only available mechanism, what happened next?

In the outer parts of the solar system the carbon occurs as carbon monoxide, methanol, some carbon dioxide, and “carbon”, which essentially many forms but looks like tar, is partially graphite, and there are even mini diamonds. There are also polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and even alkanes, and some other miscellaneous organic chemicals. Nitrogen occurs as nitrogen gas, ammonia, and some cyanide. As this comes closer to the star, and in the region of the carbonaceous chondrites, it starts getting hot enough for some of this to condense and react on the silicates, which is why these have the aminoacids, etc. However, as you get closer to the star, it gets too hot and seemingly the inner asteroids are mainly just silicates. At this point, the carbon is largely converted to carbon monoxide, and the nitrogenous compounds to nitrogen. However, on some metal oxides or metals, carbon forms carbides, nitrogen nitrides, and some other materials, such as cyanamides are also formed. These are solids, and accordingly these too will be accreted with the dust and be incorporated within the planet.

As the interior of the planet gets hotter, the water gets released from the silicates and they lose their amorphous structure and become rocks. The water reacts with these chemicals and to a first approximation initially produces carbon monoxide, methane and ammonia. Carbon monoxide reacts with water on certain metals and silicates to make hydrocarbons, formaldehyde, which in turn condenses to other aldehydes (on the path to making sugars) ammonia (on the path to make aminoacids) and so on. The chemistry is fairly involved, but basically given the initial mix, temperature and pressure, both in ready supply below the Earth’s surface, what we need for life emerges and will make its way to the surface. Assuming this mechanism is correct, then provided everything is present in an adequate mix, then life should evolve. That leaves open the question, how broad is the “right mix” zone?

Before considering that, it is obvious this mechanism relies on the temperature being correct on at least two times during the planetary evolution. Initially it has to get hot enough to make the cements, and the nitrides and carbides. Superficially, that applies to all rocky planets, but maybe not for the nitrides. The problem here is Mars has very little nitrogen, so either it has gone somewhere, or it was never there. If Mars had ammonia, since it dissolves in ice down to minus 80 degrees C, ammonia on Mars would solve the problem of how could water flow there when it is so cold. However, if that is the case, the nitrogen has to be in some solid form buried below the surface. In my opinion, it was carried there as urea dissolved in water, which is why I would love to see some deep digging there.

The second requirement is that later the temperature has to be cool enough that water can set the cements. The problem with Venus is argued that it was hotter and it only just managed to absorb some water, but not enough. One counter to that is that the hydrogen on Venus has an extremely high deuterium content. The usual explanation for this is that if water gets to the top of the atmosphere, it may be hit with UV which may knock off a hydrogen atom, which is lost to space, and solar wind may take the whole molecule, however water with deuterium is less likely to get there because the heavier molecules are enhanced in the lower atmosphere, or the oceans. If this were true, for Venus to have the deuterium levels it must have started with a huge amount of water, and the mechanism above would be wrong. An embarrassing problem is where is the oxygen from that massive amount of water.

However, the proposed mechanism also predicts a very large deuterium enhancement. The carbon and nitrogen in the atmosphere and in living things has to be liberated from rocks by reaction with water, and what happens is as the water transfers hydrogen to either carbon or nitrogen it also leaves a hydroxyl attached to any metal. Two hydroxyls liberate water and leave an oxide. At this point we recall that chemical bond to deuterium is stronger than that to hydrogen, the reason being that although in theory the two are identical from the electromagnetic interactions, quantum mechanics requires there to be a zero point energy, and somewhat oversimplifying, the amount of such energy is inversely proportional to the square root of the mass of the light atom. Since deuterium is twice the mass of hydrogen, the zero point energy is less, and being less, its bond is stronger. That means there is a preference for the hydrogen to be the one that transfers, and the deuterium eventually turns up in the water. This preferential retaining of deuterium is called the chemical isotope effect. The resultant gases, methane and ammonia as examples, break down with UV radiation and make molecular nitrogen and carbon dioxide, with the hydrogen going to space. The net result of this is the rocky planet’s hydrogen gradually becomes richer in deuterium.

The effects of the two mechanisms are different. For Venus, the first one requires huge oceans; the second one little more than enough water to liberate the gases. If we look at the rocky planets, Earth should have a modest deuterium enhancement with both mechanisms because we know it has retained a very large amount of water. Mars is more tricky, because it started with less water under the proposed accretion of water mechanism, and it has less gravity and we know that all gases there, including carbon dioxide and nitrogen have enhanced heavier isotopes. That its deuterium is enhanced is simply expected from the other enhancements. Venus has about half as much CO2 again as Earth, and three times the amount of nitrogen, little water, and a very high deuterium enhancement. In my mechanism, Venus never had much water in the first place because it was too hot. Most of what it had was used up forming the atmosphere, and then providing the oxygen for the CO2. There was never much on the surface. To start with Venus was only a bit warmer than Earth, but as the CO2 began to build, whereas on Earth much of this would be dissolved in the ocean, where it would react with calcium silicate and also begin weathering the rocks that were more susceptible to weathering, such as dunite and peridotite. (I have discussed this previously: https://wordpress.com/post/ianmillerblog.wordpress.com/833 ), on Venus there were no oceans, and liquid water is needed to form these carbonates.

So, where will life be found? The answer is around any star where rocky planets formed with the two favourable temperature profiles, and ended up in the habitable zone. If more details as found in my ebook “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis” are correct, then this is most likely to occur around a G type star, like our sun, or a heavy K type star. The star also has to be one of the few that ejects it accretion disk remains early. Accordingly life should be fairly well spaced out, which may be why we have yet to run into other life forms.

From Whence Star-burning Planets?

This series started out with the objective of showing how life could have started, and some may be wondering why I have spent so much time talking about the cold giant planets. The answer is simple. To find the answer to a scientific problem we seldom go directly to it. The reason is that when you go directly to what you are trying to explain you will get an explanation, however for any given observation there will be many possible explanations. The real explanation will also explain every connected phenomenon, whereas the false explanations will only explain some. The ones that are seemingly not directed at the specific question you are trying to answer will nevertheless put constraints on what the eventual answer must include. I am trying to make things easier in the understanding department by considering a number of associated things. So, one more post before getting on to rocky planets.

In the previous two posts, I have outlined how I believe planets form, and why the outer parts of our solar system look like they do. An immediate objection might be, most other systems do not look like ours. Why not? One reason is I have outlined so far how the giants form, but these giants are a considerable distance from the star. We actually have rather little information about planets in other systems at these distances. However, some systems have giants very close to the star, with orbits (years) that take days and we do not. How can that be?

It becomes immediately obvious that planets cannot accrete from solids colliding that close to the star because the accretion disk get to over 10,000 degrees C that close, and there are no solids at those temperatures. The possibilities are that either there is some mechanism that so far has not been considered, which raises the question, why did it not operate here, or that the giants started somewhere else and moved there. Neither are very attractive, but the fact these star-burning giants only occur near a few stars suggests that there is no special mechanism. Physical laws are supposedly general, and it is hard to see why these rare exceptions occur. Further, we can see how they might move.

There is one immediate observation that suggests our solar system is expected to be different from many others and that is, if we look again at LkCa 15b, that planet is three times further from the star than Jupiter is from our star, which means the gas and dust there would have more than three times less concentrated, and collisions between dust over nine times rarer, yet it is five times bigger. That star is only 2 – 3 My old, and is about the same size as our star. So the question is, why did Jupiter stop growing so much earlier when it is in a more favourable spot through having denser gas? The obvious answer is Jupiter ran out of gas to accrete much sooner, and it would do that through the loss of the accretion disk. Stars blow away their accretion disks some time between 1 and 30 My after the star essentially finishes accreting. The inevitable conclusion is that our star blew out its disk of gases in the earliest part of the range, hence all the planets in our system will be, on average, somewhat smaller than their counterparts around most other stars of comparable size. Planets around small stars may also be small simply because the system ran out of material.

Given that giants keep growing as long as gas keeps being supplied, we might expect many bigger planets throughout the Universe. There is one system, around the star HR 8799 which has four giants arrayed in a similar pattern to ours, albeit the distances are proportionately scaled up and the four planets are between five and nine times bigger than Jupiter. The main reason we know about them is because they are further from the star and so much larger, hence we an see them. It is also because we do not observe then from reflected light. They are very young planets, and are yellow-white hot from gravitational accretion energy. Thus we can see how planets can get very big: they just have to keep growing, and there are planets that are up to 18 times bigger than Jupiter. If they were bigger, we would probably call them brown dwarfs, i.e. failed stars.

There are some planets that have highly elliptical orbits, so how did that situation arise? As planets grow, they get gravitationally stronger, and if they keep growing, eventually they start tugging on other planets. If they can keep this up, the orbits get more and more elliptical until eventually they start orbiting very close to each other. They do not need to collide, but if they are big enough and come close enough they exchange energy, in which case one gets thrown outwards, possibly completely out of its solar system, and one gets thrown inwards, usually with a highly elliptical orbit. There are a number of systems where planets have elliptical orbits, and it may be that most do, and if they do, they will exchange energy gravitationally with anything else they come close to. This may lead to a sort of gravitational billiards, where the system gets progressively smaller, and of course rocky planets, being smaller are more likely to get thrown out of the system, or to the outer regions, or into the star.

Planets being thrown into the star may seem excessive, nevertheless in the last week it was announced that a relatively new star, RW Aur A, over the preceding year had a 30 fold increase in the amount of iron in its spectrum. The spectrum of a star comes from whatever is on its surface, so the assumption is that something containing a lot of iron, which would be something the size of a reasonably sized asteroid at least, fell into the star. That means something else knocked it out of its orbit, and usually that means the something else was big.

If the orbit is sufficiently elliptical to bring it very close to the star one of two things happen. The first is it has its orbit circularized close to the star by tidal interactions, and you get one of the so-called star-burners, where they can orbit their star in days, and their temperatures are hideously hot. Since their orbit is prograde, they continue to orbit, and now tidal interactions with the star will actually slowly push the planet further from the star, in the same way our moon is getting further from us. The alternative is that the orbit can flip, and become retrograde. The same thing happens as with the prograde planets, except that now tidal interactions lead to the planet slowly falling into the star.

The relevance of all this is to the question, how common is life in the Universe? If we want a rocky planet in a circular orbit in the habitable zone, then we can eliminate all systems with giants on highly elliptical orbits, or in systems with star burners. However, there is a further possibility that is not advantageous to life. Suppose there are rocky planets formed but the star has yet to elimiinate its accretion disk. The rocky planet will also keep growing and in principle could also become a giant. This could be the reason why some systems have Neptune-sized planets or “superEarths” in the habitable zone. They probably do not have life, so now we have to limit the number of possible star systems to those that eliminate their accretion disk very early. That probably elimimates about 90% of them. Life on a planet like ours might be rarer than some like to think.