Molecular Oxygen in a Comet

There is a pressure, these days, on scientists to be productive. That is fair enough – you don’t want them slacking off in a corner, but a problem arises when this leads to the publication of papers: there are so many of them that nobody can keep up with even a small fraction of them. Worse, many of them do not seem to say much. Up to a point, this has an odd benefit: if you leave a lot unclear, all your associates can publish away and cite you, which has this effect of making you seem more important because funders like to count citations. In short, with obvious exceptions, the less you advance the science, the more important you seem at second level funding. I am going to pick, maybe unfairly, on one paper from Nature Astronomy (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-022-01614-1) as an illustration.

One of the most unexpected findings in the coma of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko was “a large amount” of molecular oxygen. Something to breathe! Potential space pilots should not get excited; “a large amount” is only large with respect to what they expected, which was none. At the time, this was a surprise to astronomers because molecular oxygen is rather reactive and it is difficult to see why it would be present. Now there is a “breakthrough”: it has been concluded there is not that much oxygen in the comet at all, but this oxygen came from a separate small reservoir. The “clue” came from the molecular oxygen being associated with molecular water when emitted from a warm site. As it got cooler, any oxygen was associated with carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide. Now, you may well wonder what sort of clue that is? My question is, given there is oxygen there, what would you expect? The comet is half water, so when the surface gets warm, it sublimes. When cooler, only gases at that lower temperature get emitted. What is the puzzle?

However, the authors of the paper came to a different conclusion. They decided that there had to be a deep reservoir of oxygen within the comet, and a second reservoir close to the surface that is made of porous frozen water. According to them, oxygen in the core works its way to the surface and gets trapped in the second reservoir. Note that this is an additional proposition to the obvious one that oxygen was trapped in ice near the surface. We knew there was gas trapped in ice that was released with heat, so why postulate multiple reservoirs, other than to get a paper published?

So, where did this oxygen come from? There are two possibilities. The first is it was accreted with the gas from the disk when the comet formed. This is somewhat difficult to accept. Ordinary chemistry suggests that if oxygen molecules were present in the interstellar dust cloud it should react with hydrogen and form water. Maybe that conclusion is somehow wrong, but we can find out. We can estimate the probability by observing the numerous dust clouds from which stars accrete. As far as I am aware, nobody has ever found rich amounts of molecular oxygen in them. The usual practice when you are proposing something unusual is you find some sort of supporting evidence. Seemingly, not this time.

The second possibility is that we know how molecular oxygen could be formed at the surface. High energy photons and solar wind smash water molecules in ice to form hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals. The hydrogen escapes to space but the hydroxyl radicals unite to form hydrogen peroxide or other peroxides or superoxides, which can work their way into the ice. There are a number of other solids that catalyse the degradation of peroxides and superoxides back to oxygen, which would be trapped in the ice, but released when the ice sublimed. So, from the chemist’s point of view there is a fairly ordinary explanation why oxygen might be formed and gather near the surface. From my point of view, Occam’s Razor should apply: you use the simplest explanation unless there is good evidence. I do not see any evidence about the interior of the comet.

Does it matter? From my point of view when someone with some sort of authority/standing says something like this, there is the danger that the next paper will say “X established that . . “  and it becomes almost a gospel. This is especially so when the assertion cannot be easily challenged with evidence as you cannot get inside that comet. Which gives the perverse realization that you need strong evidence to challenge an assertion, but maybe no evidence at all to assert it in the first place. Weird?

Don’t Look Up

No, I am not going to discuss the film, the merits of which you can decide for yourself. However, it might be worth considering some of the things it says about the way we consider and treat science. What the film is supposed to say is that those in society with the power to do something about a crisis wilfully avoid taking action. Consider the excuses for doing nothing.

The film presents a wipe-out event that we will be struck by a comet. The probability of this happening is assessed at 99.8%. So it is not 100%? What we have to recognize that scientific measurements have errors in them. Statistically we make lots of measurements and use a statistical analysis, and while someone in the movie says “Scientists never like to say 100%” that is wrong too. Scientists do not like or dislike; they report the mathematics, and a statistical spread cannot give a 100% because that denies the initial spread. Further, that 0.2% is not physically meaningful either because the errors due to instruments are not randomly probable, but nobody is going to waste time working out the error function for every piece of equipment. Statistical analysis takes care of that. To gain perspective, consider a bag of 1000 50 calibre bullets. You are assured two are blank. One is placed into a gun. What amount of money do you need, if you survive, to put your head in front of the barrel when it is fired?

A second problem for scientists is that long-term realities will be ignored by the public. This more relevant to something like climate change. What are you prepared to do to avoid a major problem fifty years down the track? For many, not a lot, so they ignore the problem on the grounds that it can be dealt with “later”. Related to this are the economic considerations. One response is we cannot afford to do something. When we hear that we seldom see what the costs are of not doing said something. Again, the response might be, but you do not absolutely know that will solve the problem. No, we do not, but that is because we do not think there will be one simple solution for a problem like climate change.

Another response is to rely on technological changes. For an approaching comet, there are probably no other choices. You either construct some space vehicle that will push the comet off course or it strikes you. To make that work, a major investment in development work would be required, since we do not have such a vehicle now. As it happens, for this scenario NASA is doing work, and around the end of September a space vehicle weighing 550 kg will slam into an asteroid called Dimorphos. This is part of a double asteroid system, and we will be able to follow the effect of the impact in fine detail because it will alter the orbital characteristics of Dimorphos as paired with Didymos, the larger companion. The problem with something like climate change is that while technology might fix it, we are not doing the research and development needed to make it work.

Society seems to work against science, simply because people do not trust it. Over 5 million have died with Covid 19, yet we have many very active antivaxxers trying to persuade others not to be vaccinated. The interesting question is why? It is one thing to refuse to be vaccinated yourself, but why impose these views on others?  In their effort το persuade others they spread completely stupid stories. Recall the story that Bill Gates was inserting nano-trackers into the vaccine so he could know what everyone was doing? There are also stories with an element of truth but with no comprehension of relevance. Like our 98.8% above, they focus on the 0.2%. There is a tiny segment of the populations that respond adversely to certain vaccines. The medical profession knows this, and can look out for them and treat them properly if such an event occurs. These stories totally ignore what would happen to these far more sensitive people if the virus struck them. Finally, there is a tendency for navel-gazing. Consider our experiment on Dimorphos. There is a view, “What right have we to change the solar system?” If we took this view to the limit, we would still be hunter-gatherers and our biggest problem would be that lion in the shrubbery planning on eating us. Dimorphos is a lump of rock. It does not have feelings. It is not planning its future. The allied question, do your sensitivities about the Universe and the pristine nature of rocks in it give you the right to prevent the killing of billions of innocent people who do not share your view?

Did a Galactic-Scale Collision Lead to Us?

Why do we have a planet that we can walk around on, and generally mess up? As most of us know, the atoms we use, apart from hydrogen, will have originated in a nova or supernova, and some of the planet possibly even from collisions of neutron stars. These powerful events send clouds of dust into gas clouds, but then what? We call it dust, but the particle size is mainly like smoke. Telescopes like the Hubble space telescope have photographed huge clouds of gas and dust in space. These can be quite large, thus the Orion molecular cloud complex is hundreds of light years across. These giant clouds can sit there and do very little, or then start forming stars. The question then is, what starts it? The hydrogen and helium, which are by far the predominant components, with hydrogen masses about ten thousand times as much as anything else except helium, are always colliding with each other, and with dust molecules, but they always bounce back because there is no way to lose their kinetic energy. The gas has been around for 13.6 billion years, so why does it collapse suddenly?

To make things slightly more complicated, the cloud does not collapse on itself. Rather, sections collapse to form stars. The section that formed our solar system would probably have been a few thousand astronomical units across (an astronomical unit, AU, is the distance between Earth and the Sun), and this is a trivial fraction of such giant clouds. So what happens is sections collapse, leaving the cloud with “holes”, a little like a Swiss cheese.

For us, about 4.6 billion years ago such a piece of a gigantic gas cloud started to collapse upon itself, which eventually led to the formation of the solar system, and us. Perhaps we should thank whatever caused that collapse. A common explanation is that a nearby supernova sent a shockwave through the gas, and that may well be correct for a specific situation, but there is another source of disruption: galactic collisions. We have observed these elsewhere, and invariably such collisions lead to a good generation of stars. Major galaxies do not collide that often because they are so far away from each other. As an example, in about five billion years, Andromeda will collide with the Milky Way. That may well initiate a lot of formation of new stars as long as there is plenty of gas and dust clouds left.

However, there are some galactic collisions that are a bit more frequent. There is something called the Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy which is approximately a tenth the diameter of the Milky Way. It comprises four main globular clusters and is spiralling around our galaxy on a polar orbit about 50,000 light years from the galactic core and passes through the plane of the Milky Way periodically. It apparently did this about five to six billion years ago, then about two billion years ago, and one billion years ago. Coupled with that, a team of astronomers have argued that star formation in the Milky Way peaked at around 5.7, 1.9 and 1 billion years ago. The argument appears to be that such star formation arose about the same time that the dwarf galaxy passed through the Milky Way. In this context, some of our nearest stars fit ths hypothesis. Thus Tau Ceti, EZ Aquarii,  and Alpha Centauri A and B are about 5.8 billion years old, Procyon is about 1.7 billion years old, while Epsilon Eridani is about 900 million years old.

However, if we look at other local stars, we find Earth, Lacaille 9352 and Proxima Centauri are about 4.5 billion years old, Epsilon Indi is about 1.3 years old, Alpha Ophiuchi A is about 750 million years old, Sirius is about 230 million years old, and Wolf 359 is between 100 – 300 million years old. Of course, a galaxy passing through another galaxy will consume a lot of time, so it is not clear what to make of this. There is always a temptation to correlate and assume causation, and that is unsound. On the other hand, the more massive Milky Way may have stripped some gas from the smaller galaxy, and a wave of gas and dust on a different orbit could have long term effects.

In case you think the stars in a galaxy are on well-behaved orbits around the centre, that is wrong. Because the galaxy formed from the collision and absorption of smaller galaxies the motion is actually quite chaotic, but because stars are so far apart by and large they ignore each other. Thus Kapteyn’s Star orbits the galactic centre and is quite close to our Sun, except it is going in the opposite direction. We “meet again” on the other side of the galaxy in about 120 million years. So to summarize, we still don’t know what caused this solar system to form but we should be thankful that we got what we did. Our system happens to be just about right for our life to form, but as you will see, when it comes out, from the second edition of my ebook “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis” there are a lot of things that could have gone wrong. Let’s not help more things to go wrong.

What Happens Inside Ice Giants?

Uranus and Neptune are a bit weird, although in fairness that may be because we don’t really know much about them. Our information is restricted to what we can see in telescopes (not a lot) and the Voyager fly-bys, which, of course, also devoted a lot of attention to the Moons, since a lot of effort was devoted to images. The planets are rather large featureless balls of gas and cloud and you can only do so much on a “zoom-past”. One of the odd things is the magnetic fields. On Earth, the magnetic field axis corresponds with the axis of rotation, more or less, but not so much there. Earth’s magnetic field is believed to be due to a molten iron core, but that could not occur there. That probably needs explaining. The iron in the dust that is accreted to form planets is a fine powder; the particles are in the micron size. The Earth’s core arises because the iron formed lumps, melted, and flowed to the core because it is denser. In my ebook “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis” I argue that the iron actually formed lumps in the accretion disk. While the star was accreting, the region around where Earth is reached something like 1600 degrees C, above the melting point of iron, so it formed globs. We see the residues of that in the iron-cored meteorites that sometimes fall to Earth. However, Mars does not appear to have an iron core. Within that model, the explanation is simple. While on Earth the large lumps of iron flowed towards the centre, on Mars, since the disk temperature falls off with distance from the star, at 1.5 AU the large lumps did not form. As a consequence, the fine iron particles could not move through the highly viscous silicates, and instead reacted with water and oxidised, or, if you prefer, rusted.

If the lumps that formed for Earth could not form at Mars because it was too far away from the star, the situation was worse for Uranus. As with Mars, the iron would be accreted as a fine dust and as the ice giants started to warm up from gravitational collapse, the iron, once it got to about 500 degrees Centigrade, would rapidly react with the water and oxidise to form iron oxides and hydrogen. Why did that not happen in the accretion disk? Maybe it did, and maybe at Mars it was always accreted as iron oxides, but by the time it got to where Earth is, there would be at least ten thousand times more hydrogen than iron, and hot hydrogen reduces iron oxide to iron. Anyway, Uranus and Neptune will not have an iron core, so what could generate the magnetic fields? Basically, you need moving electric charge. The planets are moving (rotating) so where does the charge come from?

The answer recently proposed is superionic ice. You will think that ice melts at 0 degrees Centigrade, and yes, it does, but only at atmospheric pressure. Increase the pressure and it melts at a lower temperature, which is how you make snowballs. But ice is weird. You may think ice is ice, but that is not exactly correct. There appear to be about twenty ices possible from water, although there are controversial aspects because high pressure work is very difficult and while you get information, it is not always clear about what it refers to. You may think that irrespective of that, ice will be liquid at the centre of these planets because it will be too hot for a solid. Maybe.

In a recent publication (Nature Physics, 17, 1233-1238 November 2021) authors studied ice in a diamond anvil cell at pressures up to 150 GPa (which is about 1.5 million times greater than our atmospheric pressure) and about 6,500 degrees K (near enough to Centigrade at this temperature). They interpret their observations as there being superionic ice there. The use of “about” is because there will be uncertainty due to the laser heating, and the relatively short times up there. (Recall diamond will also melt.)

A superionic ice is proposed wherein because of the pressure, the hydrogen nuclei can move about the lattice of oxygen atoms, and they are the cause of the electrical conduction. These conditions are what are expected deep in the interior but not at the centre of these two planets. There will presumably be zones where there is an equilibrium between the ice and liquid, and convection of the liquid coupled with the rotation will generate the movement of charge necessary to make the magnetism. At least, that is one theory. It may or may not be correct.

Your Water Came from Where?

One interesting question when considering why Earth has life is from where did we get our water? This is important because essentially it is the difference between Earth and Venus. Both are rocky planets of about the same size. They each have similar amounts of carbon dioxide, with Venus having about 50% more than Earth, and four times the amount of nitrogen, but Venus is extremely short of water. If we are interested in knowing about whether there is life on other planets elsewhere in the cosmos, we need to know about this water issue. The reason Venus is hell and Earth is not is not that Venus is closer to the Sun (although that would make Venus warmer than Earth) but rather it has no water. What happened on Earth is that the water dissolved the CO2 to make carbonic acid, which in turn weathered rocks to make the huge deposits of lime, dolomite, etc that we have on the planet, and to make the bicarbonates in the sea.

One of the more interesting scientific papers has just appeared in Nature Astronomy (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-021-01487-w) although the reason I find it interesting may not meet with the approval of the authors. What the authors did was to examine a grain of the dust retrieved from the asteroid Itokawa by the Japanese Space agency and “found it had water on its surface”. Note it had not evaporated after millions of years in a vacuum. The water is produced, so they say, by space weathering. What happens is that the sun sends out bursts of solar wind which contains high velocity protons. Space dust is made of silicates, which involve silica bound to four oxygen atoms in a tetrahedron, and each oxygen atom is bound to something else. Suppose, for sake of argument, the something else is a magnesium atom. A high energy hydrogen nucleus (a proton) strikes it and makes SiOH and, say Mg+, with the Mg ion and the silicon atom remaining bound to whatever else they were bound to. It is fairly standard chemistry that 2SiOH → SiOSi plus H2O, so we have made water. Maybe, because the difference between SiOH on a microscopic sample of dust and dust plus water is rather small, except, of course, Si-OH is chemically bound to and is part of the rock, and rock does not evaporate. However, the alleged “clincher”: the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen on this dust grain was the same as Earth’s water.

Earth’s water has about 5 times more deuterium than solar hydrogen, Venus about a hundred times. The enhancement arises because if anything is to break the bond in H-O-D, the hydrogen is slightly more probable to go because the deuterium has a slightly stronger bond to the oxygen. Also, being slightly heavier, H-O-D is slightly less likely to get to the top of the atmosphere.

So, a light bulb moment: Earth’s water came from space dust. They calculate that this would produce twenty litres of water for every cubic meter of rock. This dust is wet! If that dust rained down on Earth it would deliver a lot of water. The authors suggest about half the water here came that way, while the rest came from carbonaceous chondrites, which have the same D/H ratio.

So, notice anything? There are two problems when forming a theory. First, the theory should account for everything of relevance. In practice this might be a little much, but there should be no obvious problems. Second, the theory should have no obvious inconsistencies. First, let us look at the “everything”. If the dust rained down on the Earth, why did not the same amount rain down on Venus? There is a slight weakness in this argument because if it did, maybe the water was largely destroyed by the sunlight. If that happened a high D/H ratio would result, and that is found on Venus. However, if you accept that, why did Earth’s water not also have its D/H ratio increased? The simplest explanation would be that it did, but not to extent of Venus because Earth had more water to dilute it. Why did the dust not rain down on the Moon? If the answer is the dust had been blown away by the time the Moon was formed, that makes sense, except now we are asking the water to be delivered at the time of accretion, and the evidence on Mars was that water was not there until about 500 million years later. If it arrived before the disk dust was lost, then the strongest supply of water would come closest to the star, and by the time we got to Earth, it would be screened by inner dust. Venus would be the wettest and it isn’t.

Now the inconsistencies. The strongest flux of solar wind at this distance would be what bombards the Moon, and while the dust was only here for a few million years, the Moon has been there for 4.5 billion years. Plenty of time to get wet. Except it has not. The surface of the dust on the Moon shows this reaction, and there are signs of water on the Moon, especially in the more polar regions, and the average Moon rock has got some water. But the problem is these solar winds only hit the surface. Thus the top layer or so of atoms might react, but nothing inside that layer. We can see those SiOH bonds with infrared spectroscopy, but the Moon, while it has some such molecules, it cannot be described as wet. My view is this is another one of those publications where people have got carried away, more intent on getting a paper that gets cited for their CV than actually stopping and thinking about a problem.

Interstellar Travel Opportunities.

As you may have heard, stars move. The only reason we cannot see this is because they are so far away, and it takes so long to make a difference. Currently, the closest star to us is Proxima Centauri, which is part of the Alpha Centauri grouping. It is 4.2 light years away, and if you think that is attractive for an interstellar voyage, just wait a bit. In 28,700 years it will be a whole light year closer. That is a clear saving in travelling time, especially if you do not travel close to light speed.

However, there have been closer encounters. Sholz’s star, which is a binary; a squib of a red dwarf plus a brown dwarf, came within 0.82 light years 78,000 years ago. Our stone age ancestors would probably have been unaware of it, because it is so dim that even when that close it was still a hundred times too dim to be seen by the naked eye. There is one possible exception to that: occasionally red dwarfs periodically emit extremely bright flares, so maybe they would see a star appear from nowhere, then gradually disappear. Such an event might go down in their stories, particularly if something dramatic happened. There is one further possible downside for our ancestors: although it is unclear whether such a squib of a star was big enough, it might have exerted a gravitational effect on the Oort cloud, thus generating a flux of comets coming inwards. That might have been the dramatic event.

That star was too small to do anything to disrupt our solar system, but it is possible that much closer encounters in other solar systems could cause all sorts of chaos, including stealing a planet, or having one stolen. They could certainly disrupt a solar system, and it is possible that some of the so-called star-burning giants were formed in the expected places and were dislodged inwards by such a star. That happens when the dislodged entity has a very elliptical orbit that takes it closer to the star where tidal effects with the star circularise it. That did not happen in our solar system. Of course, it does not take a passing star to do that; if the planets get too big and too close their gravity can do it.

It is possible that a modestly close encounter with a star did have an effect on the outer Kuiper Belt, where objects like Eris seem to be obvious Kuiper Belt Objects, but they are rather far out and have very elliptical orbits. It would be expected that would arise from one or more significant gravitational interactions.

The question then is, if a star passed closely should people take advantage and colonise the new system? Alternatively, would life forms there have the same idea if they were technically advanced? Since if you had the technology to do this, presumably you would also have the technology to know what was there. It is not as if you do not get warning. For example, if you are around in 1.4 million years, Gliese 710 will pass within 10,000 AU of the sun, well within the so-called Oort Cloud. Gliese 710 is about 60% the mass of the sun, which means its gravity could really stir up the comets in the Oort cloud, and our star will do exactly the same for the corresponding cloud of comets in their system. In a really close encounter it is not within the bounds of possibility that planetary bodies could be exchanged. If they were, the exchange would almost certainly lead to a very elliptical orbit, and probably at a great distance. You may have heard of the possibility of a “Planet 9” that is at a considerable distance but with an elliptical orbit has caused highly elliptical orbits in some trans Neptunian objects. Either the planet, if it exists at all, or the elliptical nature of the orbits of bodies like Sedna, could well have arisen from a previous close stellar encounter.

As far as I know, we have not detected planets around this star. That does not mean there are not any because if we do not lie on the equatorial plane of that star we would not see much from eclipsing observations (and remember Kepler only looks at a very small section of the sky, and Gliese 710 is not in the original area examined) and at that distance, any astronomer with our technology there would not see us. Which raises the question, if there were planets there, would we want to swap systems? If you accept the mechanism of how planets form in my ebook “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis”, and if the rates of accretion, after adjusting for stellar mass for both were the same, then any rocky planet in the habitable zone is likely to be the Mars equivalent. It would be much warmer and it may well be much bigger than our Mars, but it would not have plate tectonics because its composition would not permit eclogite to form, which is necessary for pull subduction. With that knowledge, would you go?

Unexpected Astronomical Discoveries.

This week, three unexpected astronomical discoveries. The first relates to white dwarfs. A star like our sun is argued to eventually run out of hydrogen, at which point its core collapses somewhat and it starts to burn helium, which it converts to carbon and oxygen, and gives off a lot more energy. This is a much more energetic process than burning hydrogen to helium, so although the core contracts, the star itself expands and becomes a red giant. When it runs out of that, it has two choices. If it is big enough, the core contracts further and it burns carbon and oxygen, rather rapidly, and we get a supernova. If it does not have enough mass, it tends to shed its outer matter and the rest collapses to a white dwarf, which glows mainly due to residual heat. It is extremely dense, and if it had the mass of the sun, it would have a volume roughly that of Earth.

Because it does not run fusion reactions, it cannot generate heat, so it will gradually cool, getting dimmer and dimmer, until eventually it becomes a black dwarf. It gets old and it dies. Or at least that was the theory up until very recently. Notice anything wrong with what I have written above?

The key is “runs out”. The problem is that all these fusion reactions occur in the core, but what is going on outside. It takes light formed in the core about 100,000 years to get to the surface. Strictly speaking, that is calculated because nobody has gone to the core of a star to measure it, but the point is made. It takes that long because it keeps running into atoms on the way out, getting absorbed and re-emitted. But if light runs into that many obstacles getting out, why do you think all the hydrogen would work its way to the core? Hydrogen is light, and it would prefer to stay right where it is. So even when a star goes supernova, there is still hydrogen in it. Similarly, when a red giant sheds outer matter and collapses, it does not necessarily shed all its hydrogen.

The relevance? The Hubble space telescope has made another discovery, namely that it has found white dwarfs burning hydrogen on their surfaces. A slightly different version of “forever young”. They need not run out at all because interstellar space, and even intergalactic space, still has vast masses of hydrogen that, while thinly dispersed, can still be gravitationally acquired. The surface of the dwarf, having such mass and so little size, will have an intense gravity to make up for the lack of exterior pressure. It would be interesting to know if they could determine the mechanism of the fusion. I would suspect it mainly involves the CNO cycle. What happens here is that protons (hydrogen nuclei) in sequence enter a nucleus that starts out as ordinary carbon 12 to make the element with one additional proton, which then decays to produce a gamma photon, and sometimes a positron and a neutrino until it gets to nitrogen 15 (having been in oxygen 15) after which if it absorbs a proton it spits out helium 4 and returns to carbon 12. The gamma spectrum (if it is there) should give us a clue.

The second is the discovery of a new Atira asteroid, which orbits the sun every 115 days and has a semi-major axis of 0.46 A.U. The only known object in the solar system with a smaller semimajor axis is Mercury, which orbits the sun in 89 days. Another peculiarity of its orbit is that it can only be seen when it is away from the line of the sun, and as it happens, these times are very difficult to see it from the Northern Hemisphere. It would be interesting to know its composition. Standard theory has it that all the asteroids we see have been dislodged from the asteroid belt, because the planets would have cleaned out any such bodies that were there from the time of the accretion disk. And, of course, we can show that many asteroids were so dislodged, but many does not mean all. The question then is, how reliable is that proposed cleanout? I suspect, not very. The idea is that numerous collisions would give the asteroids an eccentricity that would lead them to eventually collide with a planet, so the fact they are there means they have to be resupplied, and the asteroid belt is the only source. However, I see no reason why some could not have avoided this fate. In my ebook “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis” I argue that the two possibilities would have clear compositional differences, hence my interest. Of course, getting compositional information is easier said than done.

The third “discovery” is awkward. Two posts ago I wrote how the question of the nature of dark energy might not be a question because it may not exist. Well, no sooner had I posted, than someone came up with a claim for a second type of dark energy. The problem is, if the standard model is correct, the Universe should be expanding 5 – 10% faster than it appears to be doing. (Now, some would say that indicates the standard model is not quite right, but that is apparently not an option when we can add in a new type of “dark energy”.) This only applied for the first 300 million years or so, and if true, the Universe has suddenly got younger. While it is usually thought to be 13.8 billion years old, this model has it at 12.4 billion years old. So while the model has “invented” a new dark energy, it has also lost 1.4 billion years in age. I tend to be suspicious of this, especially when even the proposers are not confident of their findings. I shall try to keep you posted.

The Universe is Shrinking

Dark energy is one of the mysteries of modern science. It is supposed to amount to about 68% of the Universe, yet we have no idea what it is. Its discovery led to Nobel prizes, yet it is now considered possible that it does not even exist. To add or subtract 68% of the Universe seems a little excessive.

One of the early papers (Astrophys. J., 517, pp565-586) supported the concept. What they did was to assume type 1A supernovae always gave out the same light so by measuring the intensity of that light and comparing it with the red shift of the light, which indicates how fast it is going away, they could assess whether the rate of expansion of the universe was even over time. The standard theory at the time was that it was, and it was expanding at a rate given by the Hubble constant (named after Edwin Hubble, who first proposed this). What they did was to examine 42 type 1a supernovae with red shifts between 0.18 and 0.83, and compared their results on a graph with what they expected from the line drawn using the Hubble constant, which is what you expect with zero acceleration, i.e. uniform expansion. Their results at a distance were uniformly above the line, and while there were significant error bars, because instruments were being operated at their extremes, the result looked unambiguous. The far distant ones were going away faster than expected from the nearer ones, and that could only arise if the rate of expansion were accelerating.

For me, there was one fly in the ointment, so to speak. The value of the Hubble constant they used was 63 km/s/Mpc. The modern value is more like 68 or 72; there are two values, and they depend on how you measure them, but both are somewhat larger than this. Now it follows that if you have the speed wrong when you predict how far it travelled, it follows that the further away it is, the bigger the error, which means you think it has speeded up.

Over the last few years there have been questions as to exactly how accurate this determination of acceleration really is. There has been a question (arXiv:1912.04903) that the luminosity of these has evolved as the Universe ages, which has the effect that measuring the distance this way leads to overestimation of the distance. Different work (Milne et al. 2015.  Astrophys. J. 803: 20) showed that there are at least two classes of 1A supernovae, blue and red, and they have different ejecta velocities, and if the usual techniques are used the light intensity of the red ones will be underestimated, which makes them seem further away than they are.

My personal view is there could be a further problem. The type 1A occurs when a large star comes close to another star and begins stripping it of its mass until it gets big enough to ignite the supernova. That is why they are believed to have the same brightness: they ignite their explosion at the same mass so there are the same conditions, so there should be the same brightness. However, this is not necessarily the case because the outer layer, which generates the light we see, comes from the non-exploding star, and will absorb and re-emit energy from the explosion. Hydrogen and helium are poor radiators, but they will absorb energy. Nevertheless, the brightest light might be expected to come from the heavier elements, and the amount of them increases as the Universe ages and atoms are recycled. That too might lead to the appearance that the more distant ones are further away than expected, which in turn suggests the Universe is accelerating its expansion when it isn’t.

Now, to throw the spanner further into the works, Subir Sarkar has added his voice. He is unusual in that he is both an experimentalist and a theoretician, and he has noted that the 1A supernovae, while taken to be “standard candles”, do not all emit the same amount of light, and according to Sarkar, they vary by up to a factor of ten. Further, previously the fundamental data was not available, but in 1915 it became public. He did a statistical analysis and found that the data supported a cosmic acceleration but only with a statistical significance of three standard deviations, which, according to him, “is not worth getting out of bed for”.

There is a further problem. Apparently the Milky Way is heading off in some direction at 600 km/s, and this rather peculiar flow extends out to about a billion light years, and unfortunately most of the supernovae studied so far are in this region. This drops the statistical significance for cosmic expansion to two standard deviations. He then accuses the previous supporters of this cosmic expansion as confirmation bias: the initial workers chose an unfortunate direction to examine, but the subsequent ones “looked under the same lamppost”.

So, a little under 70% of what some claim is out there might not be. That is ugly. Worse, about 27% is supposed to be dark matter, and suppose that did not exist either, and the only reason we think it is there is because our understanding of gravity is wrong on a large scale? The Universe now shrinks to about 5% of what it was. That must be something of a record for the size of a loss.

Asteroid (16) Psyche – Again! Or Riches Evaporate, Again

Thanks to my latest novel “Spoliation”, I have had to take an interest in asteroid mining. I discussed this in a previous post (https://ianmillerblog.wordpress.com/2020/10/28/asteroid-mining/) in which I mentioned the asteroid (16) Psyche. As I wrote, there were statements saying the asteroid had almost unlimited mineral resources. Initially, it was estimated to have a density (g/cc) of about 7, which would make it more or less solid iron. It should be noted this might well be a consequence of extreme confirmation bias. The standard theory has it that certain asteroids differentiated and had iron cores, then collided and the rock was shattered off, leaving the iron cores. Iron meteorites are allegedly the result of collisions between such cores. If so, it has been estimated there have to be about 75 iron cores floating around out there, and since Psyche had a density so close to that of iron (about 7.87) it must be essentially solid iron. As I wrote in that post, “other papers have published values as low as 1.4 g/cm cubed, and the average value is about 3.5 g/cm cubed”. The latest value is 3.78 + 0.34.

These varied numbers show how difficult it is to make these observations. Density is mass per volume. We determine the volume by considering the size and we can measure the “diameter”, but the target is a very long way away, it is small, so it is difficult to get an accurate “diameter”. The next point is it is not a true sphere, so there are extra “bits” of volume with hills, or “bits missing” with craters. Further, the volume depends on a diameter cubed, so if you make a ten percent error in the “diameter” you have a 30% error overall. The mass has to be estimated from its gravitational effects on something else. That means you have to measure the distance to the asteroid, the distance to the other asteroid, and determine the difference from expected as they pass each other. This difference may be quite tiny. Astronomers are working at the very limit of their equipment.

A quick pause for some silicate chemistry. Apart from granitic/felsic rocks, which are aluminosilicates, most silicates come in two classes of general formula: A – olivines X2SiO4 or B – pyroxenes XSiO3, where X is some mix of divalent metals, usually mainly magnesium or iron (hence their name, mafic, the iron being ferrous). However, calcium is often present. Basically, these elements are the most common metals in the output of a supernova, with magnesium being the most. For olivines, if X is only magnesium, the density for A (forsterite) is 3.27 and for B (enstatite) 3.2. If X is only iron, the density for A (fayalite) is 4.39 and for B (ferrosilite) 4.00. Now we come to further confirmation bias: to maintain the iron content of Psyche, the density is compared to enstatite chondrites, and the difference made up with iron. Another way to maintain the concept of “free iron” is the proposition that the asteroid is made of “porous metal”. How do you make that? A porous rock, like pumice, is made by a volcano spitting out magma with water dissolved in it, and as the pressure drops the water turns to steam. However, you do not get any volatile to dissolve in molten iron.

Another reason to support the iron concept was that the reflectance spectrum was “essentially featureless”. The required features come from specific vibrations, and a metal does not have any. Neither does a rough surface that scatters light. The radar albedo (how bright it is with reflected light) is 0.34, which implies a surface density of 3.5, which is argued to indicate either metal with 50% porosity, or solid silicates (rock). It also means no core is predicted. The “featureless spectrum” was claimed to have an absorption at 3 μm, indicating hydroxyl, which indicates silicate. There is also a signal corresponding to an orthopyroxene. The emissivity indicates a metal content greater than 20% at the surface, but if this were metal, there should be a polarised emission, and that is completely absent. At this point, we should look more closely at what “metal” means. In many cases, while it is used to convey what we would consider as a metal, the actual use includes chemical compounds with a  metallic element. The iron levels may be as iron sulphide, the oxide, or, as what I believe the answer is, the silicate. I think we are looking at the iron content of average rock. Fortune does not await us there.

In short, the evidence is somewhat contradictory, in part because we are using spectroscopy at the limits of its usefulness. NASA intends to send a mission to evaluate the asteroid and we should wait for that data.

But what about iron cored asteroids? We know there are metallic iron meteorites so where did they come from? In my ebook “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis”, I note that the iron meteorites, from isotope dating, are amongst the oldest objects in the solar system, so I argue they were made before the planets, and there were a large number of them, most of which ended up in planetary cores. The meteorites we see, if that is correct, never got accreted, and finally struck a major body for the first time.

Could Aliens Know We Are Here?

While an alien could not see us without coming here, why pick here as opposed to all the other stars? We see exoplanets and speculate on whether they could hold life, but how many exoplanets could see our planet, if they held life with technology like ours or a little better? When I wrote the first edition of my ebook “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis” I listed a few techniques to find planets. Then, the most had been found through detecting the wobble of stars through the frequency changes of their line spectra to which a Doppler shift was added. The wobble is caused by the gravity of the planets. Earth would be very difficult to see that way because it is too small. This works best with very large planets very close to stars.

While there are several methods for discovering planets that work occasionally, one is particularly productive, and that is to measure the light intensity coming from the star. If a planet crosses our line of sight, the light dims. Maybe not a lot, but it dims. If you have seen an eclipse of the sun you will get the idea, but if you have seen a transit of Venus or of Mercury you will know the effect is not strong. This is very geometry specific because you have to be able to draw a straight line between your eye, the planet and part of the star and the further the planet is from the star, the smaller the necessary angle. To give an idea of the problem, our planetary system was created more or less on the equatorial plane of the accretion disk that formed the sun, so we should at least see transits of our inner planets, right? Well, not exactly because the various orbits do not lie on one plane. My phrase “more or less” indicates the problem – we have to be exactly edge-on to the plane unless the planet is really close to the star, when geometry lends a hand because the star is so big that something small crossing in front can be seen from wider angles.

Nevertheless, the Kepler telescope has seen many such exoplanets. Interestingly, the Kepler telescope, besides finding a number of stars with multiple planets close to the star has also found a number of stars with only one planet at a good distance from the star. That does not mean there are no other planets; it may mean nothing more than that one is accidentally the only one whose orbital plane lies on our line of sight. The others may, like Venus, be on slightly different planes. When I wrote that ebook, it was obvious that suitable stars were not that common, and since we were looking at stars one at a time over an extended period, not many planets would be discovered. The Kepler telescope changed that because when it came into operation, it could view hundreds of thousands of stars simultaneously.

All of which raises the interesting question, how many aliens, if they had good astronomical techniques, could see us by this method, assuming they looked at our sun? Should we try to remain hidden or not? Can we, if we so desired?

In a recent paper from Nature (594, pp505 – 507 2021) it appears that 1,715 stars within 100 parsecs of the sun (i.e. our “nearest neighbours”) would have been in a position to spot us over the last 5,000 years, while an additional 319 stars will have the opportunity over the next 5,000 years. Stars might look as if they are fixed in position, but actually they are speedily moving, and not all in the same direction. 

Among this set of stars are seven known to have exoplanets, including Ross 128, which could have seen us in the past but no longer, and Teegarden’s star and Trappist-1, which will start to have the opportunity in 29 years and 1642 years respectively. Most of these are Red Dwarfs, and if you accept my analysis in my ebook, then they will not have technological life. The reason is the planets with composition suitable to generate biogenesis will be too close to the star so will be far too hot, and yet probably receive insufficient higher frequency light to drive anything like photosynthesis.

Currently, an Earth transit could be seen from 1402 stars, and this includes 128 G-type stars, like our sun. There are 73 K stars, which may also be suitable to house life. There are also 63 F-type stars. These stars are larger than the sun, from 1.07 to 1.4 times the size, and are much hotter than the sun. Accordingly, they turn out more UV, which might be problematical for life, although the smaller ones may be suitable and the Earth-equivalent planet will be a lot further from the star. However, they are also shorter-lived, so the bigger ones may not have had time. About 2/3 of these stars are in a more restricted transit zone, and could, from geometry, observe an Earth transit for ten hours. So there are a number of stars from which we cannot hide. Ten hours would give a dedicated astronomer with the correct equipment plenty of time to work out we have oxygen and an ozone layer, and that means life must be here.

Another option is to record our radio waves. We have been sending them out for about 100 years, and about 75 of our 1402 stars identified above are within that distance that could give visual confirmation via observing a transit. We cannot hide. However, that does not mean any of those stars could do anything about it. Even if planets around them have life, that does not mean it is technological, and even if it were, that does not mean they can travel through interstellar space. After all, we cannot. Nevertheless, it is an interesting matter to speculate about.