The Fermi Paradox: Where are the Aliens?

This question, as much as anything, illustrates why people have trouble thinking through problems when they cannot put their own self-importance to one side. Let us look at this problem not from our point of view.

The Fermi paradox is a statement that since there are so many stars, most of which probably have planets, and a reasonable number of them have life, more than half of those are likely to have been around longer than us and so should be more technically advanced, but we have seen no clue as to their presence. Why not? That question begs the obvious counter: why should we? First, while the number of planets is huge, most of them are in other galaxies, and of those in the Milky Way, stars are very well-separated. The nearest, Alpha Centauri, is a three star system: two rather close stars (A G-type star like our sun and a K1 star) and a more distant red dwarf, and these are 4.37 light years away. The two have distances that vary between 35.6 AU to 11.2 AU, i.e. on closest approach they come a little further apart than Saturn and the sun.  That close approach means that planets corresponding to our giants could not exist in stable orbits, and astronomers are fairly confident there are no giants closer to the star. Proxima Centauri has one planet in the habitable zone, but for those familiar with my ebook “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis” will know that in my opinion, the prospect for life originating there, or around most Red Dwarfs, is extremely low. So, could there be Earth-like planets around the two larger stars? Maybe, but our technology cannot find them. As it happens, if there were aliens there, they could not detect Earth with technology at our level either.  Since most stars are immensely further away, rocky planets are difficult to discover. We have found exoplanets, but they are generally giants, planets around M stars, or planets that inadvertently have their orbital planes aligned so we can see eclipses.

This is relevant, because if we are seeking a signal from another civilization, as Seti seeks, then either the signal is deliberate or accidental. An example of accidental is the electromagnetic radiation we send into space through radio and TV signals. According to “An average large transmitter transmits about 8kW per multiplex.” That will give “acceptable signal strength” over, say, 50 km. The signal strength attenuates according to the square of the distance, so while the signals will get to Alpha Centauri, they will be extremely weak, and because of bandwidth issues, broadcasts from well separated transmitters will interfere with each other. Weak signals can be amplified, but aliens at Alpha Centauri would get extremely faint noise that might be assignable to technology. 

Suppose you want to send a deliberate signal? Now, you want to boost the power, and the easiest way to get over the inverse square attenuation is to focus the signal. Now, however, you need to know exactly where the intended recipient will be. You might do this for one of your space ships, in which case you would send a slightly broader signal on a very high power level at an agreed frequency but as a short burst. To accidentally detect this, because you have a huge range of frequencies to monitor, you have to accidentally be on that frequency at the time of the burst. There is some chance of Seti detecting such a signal if the space ship was heading to Earth, but then why listen for such a signal, as opposed to waiting for the ship.

The next possible deliberate signal would be aimed at us. To do that, they would need to know we had potential, but let us suppose they did. Suppose it takes something like 4.5 billion years to get technological life, and at that nice round number, they peppered Earth with signals. Oops! We are still in the Cretaceous. Such a move would require a huge power output so as to flood whatever we were using, a guess as to what frequencies we would find of interest, and big costs. Why would they do that, when it may take hundreds or thousands of years for a response? It makes little sense for any “person” to go to all that trouble and know they could never know whether it worked or not. We take the cheap option of listening with telescopes, but if everyone is listening, nobody is sending.

How do they choose a planet? My “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis” concludes you need a rocky planet with major felsic deposits, which is most probable around the G type star (but still much less than 50% of them). So you would need some composition data, and in principle you can get that from spectroscopy (but with much better technology than we have). What could you possibly see? Oxygen is obvious, except it gives poor signals. In the infrared spectra, you might detect ozone, and that would be definitive. You often see statements that methane should be detectable. Yes, but Titan has methane and no life. Very low levels of carbon dioxide is a strong indication, as it suggests large amounts of water to fix it, and plate tectonics to renew it. Obviously, signals from chlorophyll would be proof, but they are not exactly strong. So if they are at anything but the very closest stars they would not know whether we are here, so why waste that expense. The Government accountants would never fund such a project with such a low probability of getting a return on investment. Finally, suppose you decided a planet might have technology, why would you send a signal? As Hawking remarked, an alien species might decide this would be a good planet to eradicate all life and transform it suitable for the aliens to settle. You say that is unlikely, but with all those planets, it only needs one such race. So simple game theory suggests “Don’t do it!” If we assume they are more intelligent than us, they won’t transmit because there is no benefit for those transmitting.

The Sociodynamics of Science

The title is a bit of an exaggeration as to the importance of this post, nevertheless since I was at what was probably my last scientific conference (NZ Institute of Chemistry, at Christchurch) I could not resist looking around at behaviour as well as the science. I also gave two presentations. Speaking to an audience gives the speaker an opportunity to order the presentation so as to give the most force to the surprising parts of it, not that many took advantage of this. Overall, very few, if any (apart from yours truly) seemed to want to provide their audience with something that might be uncomfortable for their preconceived notions.

First, the general part provided great support for Thomas Kuhn’s analysis. I found most of the invited speakers and keynote speakers to illustrate an interesting aspect: why are they speaking? Very few actually wished to educate or convince anyone of anything in particular, and personally, I found the few that did to be by far the most interesting. Most of the presentations from academics could be summarised as, “I have a huge number of research students and here is what they have done.” What then followed was a very large amount of results, but there was seldom an interesting unifying principle. Chemistry tends to be susceptible to this, as a very common student research program is to try to make a variety of related compounds. This may well have been very useful, but if we do not see why this approach was taken, it tends to feel like filling up some compendium of compounds, or, as Rutherford put it rather acidly, “stamp collecting”. These types of talks are characterised by the speaker trying to get in as many compounds as they can, so they keep talking and use up the allocated question time. I suspect that one of the purposes of these presentations is to say, “Look at what we have done. This has given our graduate students a good number of scientific publications, so if you are thinking of being a grad student, why not come here?” I can readily understand that line of thinking, but its relevance for older scientists is questionable. There were a few presentations where the output would be of more general interest, though. I found the odd presentation that showed how to do something new, where it could have quite wide applications, to be of particular interest.

Now to the personal. My first presentation was a summary of my biogenesis approach. It may have had too much information across too wide a field, but the interesting point was that it generated a discussion at the end relating to my concept of how homochirality was generated. My argument is that reproduction depends on it because the geometry prevents the formation of a second strand if the first strand is not either entirely left-handed or right-handed in its pitch. So the issue then was, it was pure chance that D-ribose containing helices predominated, in part because the chance of getting a long-enough homochiral strand is very remote, and when one arises, then it takes up all the resources and predominates. The legitimate question then is, why doesn’t the other handed helix eventually arise? It may be slower to do so, but it is not necessarily impossible. My partial answer to that is the mer units are also used to bind to some other important units for life to give them solubility, and the wrong sort gets used up and does not build up concentration. Maybe that is so, but there is no evidence.

It was my second presentation that would be controversial, and it was interesting to watch the expressions. Part of the problem for me was it was the last such presentation (there were some closing speakers after me, and after morning tea) and there is something about conferences at the end – everyone is busy thinking about how to get to the airport, etc, so they tend to lose concentration. My first slide put up three propositions: the wave functions everyone uses for atomic orbitals are wrong; because of that, the calculation of the chemical bond requires the use of a hitherto unrecognised quantum effect (which is a very specific expression involving only universally recognised quantum numbers) and finally, the commonly held belief that relativistic effects on the inner electrons make a major effect on the valence electron of the heaviest elements is wrong. 

As you might expect, this was greeted initially with yawns and disinterest: this was going to be wrong. At least that seemed to be written over their faces. I then diverted to explain my guidance wave interpretation, which is essentially the de Broglie pilot wave concept, but with two additions: an application of Euler’s complex number theory that everyone seems to have missed, and secondly, I argued that if the wave really causes diffraction in the two-slit-type experiment, it has to travel at the same speed as the particle. These two points lead to serious simplifications in the calculation of properties of chemical bonds. The next step was to put up a lot of evidence for the different wave functions, with about 70 data points spanning a selection of atoms, of which about twenty supported the absence of any significant relativistic effect. (This does not say relativity is wrong, but merely that its effects on valence electrons are too small to be noticed at this level of analysis.) What this was effectively saying was that most of the current calculations only give agreement with observation when liberal use is made of assignable constants, which conveniently can be adjusted so you get the “right” answer.So, question time. One question surprised me: Does my new approach do anything new? I argued that the fact everyone is using the wrong wave functions, there is a quantum effect that nobody has recognised, and everyone is wrong with those relativistic effects could be considered new. Yes, but have you got a prediction? This was someone difficult to satisfy. Well, if you have access to a good physics lab, I suggested, here is where you can show that, assuming my theory is correct, make an adjustment to the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment (and I outlined the simple change) then you will reach the opposite conclusion. If you don’t agree with me, then you should do the experiment to prove I am wrong. The stunned expressions were worth the cost of going to the conference. Not that anyone will do the experiment. That would show interest in finding the truth, and in fairness, it is more a job for a physicist.

Space News

There were two pieces of news relating to space recently. Thirty years ago we knew there were stars. Now we know there are exoplanets and over 4,000 of them have been found. Many of these are much larger than Jupiter, but that may be because the bigger they are, the easier it is to find them. There are a number of planets very close to small stars for the same reason. Around one giant planet there are claims for an exomoon, that is a satellite of a giant planet, and since the moon is about the size of Neptune, i.e.the Moon is a small giant in its own right, it too might have its satellite: an exomoonmoon. However, one piece of news is going to the other extreme: we are to be visited by an exocomet. Comet Borisov will pass by within 2 A.U. of Earth in December. It is travelling well over the escape velocity of the sun, so if you miss it in December, you miss it. This is of some interest to me because in my ebook “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis” I outlined the major means I believe were involved in the formation of our solar system, but also listed some that did not leave clear evidence in our system. One was exo-seeding, where something come in from space. As this comet will be the second “visitor” we have recorded recently, perhaps they are more common than I suspected.

What will we see? So far it is not clear because it is still too far away but it appears to be developing a coma. 2 A.U. is still not particularly close (twice the distance from the sun), so it may be difficult to see anyway, at least without a telescope. Since it is its first visit, we have no real idea how active it will be. It may be that comets become better for viewing after they have had a couple of closer encounters because from our space probes to comets in recent times it appears that most of the gas and dust that forms the tail comes from below the surface, through the equivalent of fumaroles. This comet may not have had time to form these. On the other hand, there may be a lot of relatively active material quite loosely bound to the surface. We shall have to wait and see.

The second piece of news was the discovery of water vapour in the atmosphere of K2-18b, a super-Earth that is orbiting an M3 class red dwarf that is a little under half the size of our sun. The planet is about eight times the mass of earth, and has about 2.7 times the radius. There is much speculation about whether this could mean life. If it has, with the additional gravity, it is unlikely that, if it did develop technology, it would be that interested in space exploration. So far, we know there is probably another planet in the system, but that is a star-burner. K2-18b orbits its star in 33 days, so birthdays would come round frequently, and it would receive about five per cent more solar radiation than Earth does, although coming from a red dwarf, there will be a higher fraction of infra-red light and less visible.

The determination of the water could be made because first, the star is reasonably bright so good signals can be received, second, the planet transits across the star, and third, the planet is not shrouded with clouds. What has to happen is that as the planet transits, electromagnetic radiation from the star is absorbed by any molecule at the frequency determined by the bond stretching or bending energies. The size of the planet compared with its mass is suggestive of a large atmosphere, has probably retained some of the hydrogen and helium of the accretion disk. This conclusion does have risks because if it were primarily a water or ice world (water under sufficient pressure forms ice stable at quite high temperatures) then it would be expected to have an even greater size for the mass.

The signal was not strong, in part, from what I can make out, it was recorded in the overtone region of the water stretching frequency, which is of low intensity. Accordingly, it was not possible to look for other gases, but the hope is, when the James Webb telescope becomes available and we can look for signals in the primary thermal infrared spectrum, this planet will be a good candidate.So, what does this mean for the possibilities of life? At this stage, it is too early to tell. The mechanism for forming life as outlined in my ebook, “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis” suggests that the chances of forming life do not depend on planetary size, as long as there is sufficient size to maintain conditions suitable for life, such as an adequate atmospheric pressure, liquid water, and the right components, and it is expected that there will be an upper size, but we do not know what that will be, except again, water must be liquid at temperatures similar to ours. That would eliminate giants. However, more precise limits are more a matter of guess-work. The composition of the planet may be more important. It must be able to support fumaroles and I suspect it should have pre-separated felsic material so that it can rapidly form continents, with silica-rich water emitted, i.e.the type of water that forms silica terraces. That is because the silica acts as a template to make ribose. Ribose is important for biogenesis because something has to link the nucleobases to the phosphate chain. The nucleobases are required because they alone are the materials that form with the chemicals likely to be around, and they alone form multiple hydrogen bonds that can form selectively and add as a template for copying, which is necessary for retaining useful information. Phosphate is important because it alone has three functional sites – two to form a polymer, and one to convey solubility. Only the furanose form of the sugar seems to manage the linkage, at least under conditions likely to have been around at the time and ribose is the only sugar with significant amounts of the furanose form. I believe the absence of ribose means the absence of reproduction, which means the absence of life. But whether these necessary components are there is more difficult to answer.

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 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( 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, 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.

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: ), 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.

Rocky Planet Formation

In the previous posts I have argued that the evidence strongly supports the concept that the sun eliminated its accretion disk within about 1 My after the star formed. During this 1 My, the disk would be very much cooler than while the sun was accreting, and the temperatures were probably not much different from those now at any given distance from the star in the rocky planet zone. Gas was still falling into the star, but at least ten thousand times slower. We also know (see previous posts) that small solid objects such as CAIs and iron bearing meteorites are much older than the planets and asteroids. If the heavier isotope distributions of xenon and krypton are caused by the hydrodynamic loss to space, which is the most obvious reason, then Earth had to have formed before the disk cleanout, which means Earth was more or less formed within about 1 My after the formation of the sun.

The basic problem for forming rocky planets is how does the rocky material stick together? If you are on the beach, you may note that sand does not turn into a solid mass. A further problem is the collisions of large objects involve huge energies. Glancing collisions lead to significant erosion of both objects, and even direct hits lead to local pulverization and intense heat, together with a shock wave going through the bodies. When the shock wave returns, the pulverized material is sent into space. Basically craters are formed, and a crater is a hole. Adding holes does not build up mass. Finally, if the two are large enough and about equal sized, they each tend to shatter as a consequence of the shock waves. This is why I believe the Monarchic growth makes more sense, where what collides with the major body is much smaller. Once the forming object is big enough, it accretes all small objects it collides with, due to gravity, but the problem is, how do small bodies stick together?

The mechanism I developed goes like this. While the star is accreting, we get very high temperatures and anything over 1000 degrees will lead to silicates softening and becoming sticky. This generates pebbles, stones and boulders that get increasingly big as we get closer to the star, because more of the silicates get more like liquids. At 1550 degrees C, iron melts, and the iron liquids coalesce. That is where the iron meteorites come from. By about 1750 – 1800 degrees silicates get quite soft, and it may be that Mercury formed by a whole lot of “liquids” forming a sticky mass. Behind that would be a distribution of ever decreasingly sized silicate masses, with iron cores where temperatures got over 1550. This would be the origin of the cores for Earth, Venus and Mercury. Mars has no significant iron core because the iron there was still in the very small particulate size.

The standard theory says the cores separated out with heavier liquids sinking, but what most people do not realize is that the core of the Earth does not comprise liquid silicates, at least not the mobile sort. You have no doubt heard that heat rises by convection at hot spots, but it is not a sort of kettle down there. The rate of movement has been estimated at 1 mm per year, which would mean the silicates would rise 1000 km every billion years. We are still well short of one complete turnover. Further an experiment where two different silicates were heated to 2000 degrees C under pressure of 26 Gpa showed that the silicates would only diffuse contents a few meters over the life of the Earth. They may be “liquid” but the perovskite silicates are so viscous nothing moves far in them. So how did the core form so quickly? In my opinion, the reason is the iron has already separated from the silicates, and the collision of a whole lot of small spherical objects do not pack well; there will be channels, and molten iron that already exists in larger masses will flow down them. Less-viscous aluminosilicates will flow up and form the continents.

The next part unfortunately involves some physical chemistry, and there is no way around it. I am going to argue that the silicates that formed the boulders separated into phases. An example is oil and water. Molecules tend to have an energy of association, that is all the water molecules have an energy that tends to hold them all together as a liquid as opposed to a gas, and that tends to keep phases separate because one such energy between like molecules is invariably stronger than the energy between different ones. There is also something called entropy, which favours things being mixed. Now the heat of association of polymers is proportional to the number of mers, while the entropy is (to a first approximation) proportional to the number of molecules. Accordingly, the longer the polymers, the less likely they are to blend, and the more likely to phase separate. That is one of the reasons that recycling plastics is such a problem: you cannot blend them because if the polymers are long, they tend to separate in processing, and your objects have “faults” running through them.

The reason this is important, from my point of view, is that at about 1300 degrees C, calcium silicate tends to phase separate from the rest, and about 1500 degrees C, a number of calcium aluminosilicates start to phase separate. These are good hydraulic cements, and my argument is that after cool down, collisions between boulders makes dust, and the cements are particularly brittle. Then if significant boulders come together gently, e.g. as in the postulated “rubble piles”, the cement dust works it way through them, and water vapour from the disk will set the cement. This works up to about 500 degrees C, but there are catches. Once it gets significantly over 300 degrees C, less water is absorbed, and the harder it is to set it. Calcium silicate only absorbs one molecule of water, but some aluminosilicates can absorb up to twenty molecules per mer. This lets us see why the rocky planets look like they do. Mars is smaller because only the calcium silicate cement can form at that distance, and because iron never melted it does not have an iron core. It has less water because calcium silicate can only set one molecule of water per cement molecule, and it does not have easily separable aluminosilicates so it has very little felsic material. Earth is near the optimum position. It is where the iron core material starts, and because it is further from the sun than the inner planets, there is more iron to sweep up. The separated aluminosilicates rise to the surface and form the felsic continents we walk on, and provided more water when setting the cement. Venus formed where it was a little hot, so it was a slow starter, but once going, it will have had bigger boulders to grow with. It has plenty of iron core, but less felsic material, and it started with less water than Earth. This is conditional on the Earth largely forming before the disk gases were ejected. If we accept that, we have a platform for why Earth has life, but of course that is for later.

Origin of the Rocky Planet Water, Carbon and Nitrogen

The most basic requirement for life to start is a supply of the necessary chemicals, mainly water, reduced carbon and reduced nitrogen on a planet suitable for life. The word reduced means the elements are at least partly bound with hydrogen. Methane and ammonia are reduced, but so are hydrocarbons, and aminoacids are at least partly reduced. The standard theory of planetary formation has it (wrongly, in my opinion) that none of these are found on a rocky planet and have to come from either comets, or carbonaceous asteroids. So, why am I certain this is wrong? There are four requirements that must be met. The first is, the material delivered must be the same as the proposed source; the second is they must come in the same proportions, the third is the delivery method must leave the solar system as it is now, and the fourth is that other things that should have happened must have.

As it happens, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen are not the same through the solar system. Each exists in more than one isotope (different isotopes have different numbers of neutrons), and the mix of isotopes in an element varies in radial distance from the star. Thus comets from beyond Neptune have far too much deuterium compared with hydrogen. There are mechanisms by which you can enhance the D/H ratio, such as UV radiation breaking bonds involving hydrogen, and hydrogen escaping to space. The chemical bonds to deuterium tend to be several kJ/mol. stronger than bonds to hydrogen. The chemical bond strength is actually the same, but the lighter hydrogen has more zero point energy so it more easily breaks and gets lost to space. So while you can increase the deuterium to hydrogen ratio, there is no known way to decrease it by natural causes. The comets around Jupiter also have more deuterium than our water, so they cannot be the source. The chondrites have the same D/H ratio as our water, which has encouraged people to believe that is where our water came from, but the nitrogen in the chondrites has too much 15N, so it cannot be the source of our nitrogen. Further, the isotope ratios of certain heavy elements such as osmium do not match those on Earth. Interestingly, it has been argued that if the material was subducted and mixed in the mantle, it would be just possible. Given that the mantle mixes very poorly and the main sources of osmium now come from very ancient plutonic extrusions, I have doubts on that.

If we look at the proportions, if comets delivered the water or carbon, we should have five times more nitrogen, and twenty thousand times more argon. Comets from the Jupiter zone get around this excess by having no significant nitrogen or argon, and insufficient carbon. For chondrites, there should be four times as much carbon and nitrogen to account for the hydrogen and chlorine on Earth. If these volatiles did come from chondrites, Earth has to be struck by at least 10^23 kg of material (that is, ten followed by 23 zeros). Now, if we accept that these chondrites don’t have some steering system, based on area the Moon should have been struck by about 7×10^21 kg, which is approximately 9.5% of the Moon’s mass. The Moon does not subduct such material, and the moon rocks we have found have exactly the same isotope ratios as Earth. That mass of material is just not there. Further, the lunar anorthosite is magmatic in origin and hence primordial for the Moon, and would retain its original isotope ratios, which should give a set of isotopes that so not involve the late veneer, if it occurred at all.

The third problem is that we are asked to believe that there was a narrow zone in the asteroid belt that showered a deluge of asteroids onto the rocky planets, but for no good reason they did not accrete into anything there, and while this was going on, they did not disturb the asteroids that remain, nor did they disturb or collide with asteroids closer to the star, which now is most of them. The hypothesis requires a huge amount of asteroids formed in a narrow region for no good reason. Some argue the gravitational effect of Jupiter dislodged them, but the orbits of such asteroids ARE stable. Gravitational acceleration is independent of the body’s mass, and the remaining asteroids are quite untroubled. (The Equivalence Principle – all bodies fall at the same rate, other than when air resistance applies.)

Associated with this problem is there is a number of elements like tungsten that dissolve in liquid iron. The justification for this huge barrage of asteroids (called the late veneer) is that when Earth differentiated, the iron would have dissolved these elements and taken them to the core. However, they, and iron, are here, so it is argued something must have brought them later. But wait. For the isotope ratios this asteroid material has to be subducted; for them to be on the continents, they must not be subducted. We need to be self-consistent.

Finally, what should have happened? If all the volatiles came from these carbonaceous chondrites, the various planets should have the same ratio of volatiles, should they not? However, the water/carbon ratio of Earth appears to be more than 2 orders of magnitude greater than that originally on Venus, while the original water/carbon ratio of Mars is unclear, as neither are fully accounted for. The N/C ratio of Earth and Venus is 1% and 3.5% respectively. The N/C ratio of Mars is two orders of magnitude lower than 1-2%. Thus if the atmospheres came from carbonaceous chondrites:

Only the Earth is struck by large wet planetesimals,

Venus is struck by asteroidal bodies or chondrites that are rich in C and especially rich in N and are approximately 3 orders of magnitude drier than the large wet planetesimals,

Either Earth is struck by a low proportion of relatively dry asteroidal bodies or chondrites that are rich in C and especially rich in N and by the large wet planetesimals having moderate levels of C and essentially no N, or the very large wet planetesimals have moderate amounts of carbon and lower amounts of nitrogen as the dry asteroidal bodies or chondrites, and Earth is not struck by the bodies that struck Venus,

Mars is struck only infrequently by a third type of asteroidal body or chondrite that is relatively wet but is very nitrogen deficient, and this does not strike the other bodies in significant amounts,

The Moon is struck by nothing,

See why I find this hard to swallow? Of course, these elements had to come from somewhere, so where? That is for a later post. In the meantime, see why I think science has at times lost hold of its methodology? It is almost as if people are too afraid to go against the establishment.

Science Communication and the 2018 Australasian Astrobiology Meeting

Earlier this week I presented a talk at the 2018 Australasian Astrobiology Meeting, with the objective of showing where life might be found elsewhere in the Universe, and as a consequence I shall do a number of posts here to expand on what I thought about this meeting. One presentation that made me think about how to start this series actually came near the end, and the topic included why do scientists write blogs like this for the general public? I thought about this a little, and I think at least part of the answer, at least for me, is to show how science works, and how scientists think. The fact of the matter is that there are a number of topics where the gap between what scientists think and what the general public think is very large. An obvious one is climate change; the presenter came up with a figure that something like 50% of the general public don’t think that carbon dioxide is responsible for climate change while I think the figures she showed were that 98% of scientists are convinced it does. So why is there a difference, and what should be done about it?

In my opinion, there are two major ways to go wrong. The first is to simply take someone else’s word. In these days, you can find someone who will say anything. The problem then is that while it is all very well to say look at the evidence, most of the time the evidence is inaccessible, and even if you overcome that, the average person cannot make head or tail of it. Accordingly, you have to trust someone to interpret it for you. The second way to go wrong is to get swamped with information. The data can be confusing, but the key is to find critical data. This means that when making a decision as to what causes what, you put aside facts that can mean a lot of different things, and concentrate on those that have, at best, one explanation. Now the average person cannot recognize that, but they can recognize whether the “expert” recognizes it. As an example of a critical fact, back to climate change. The fact that I regard as critical is that there was a long-term series of measurements that showed the world’s oceans were receiving a net power input of 0.6 watt per square meter. That may not sound like much, but multiply it over the earth’s ocean area, and it is a rather awful lot of heat.

Another difficulty is that for any given piece of information, either there may be several interpretations for what caused it, or there may be issues assigning significance. As a specific example from the conference, try to answer the question, “Are we alone”? The answer from Seth Shostak, from SETI, is, so far, yes, at least to the extent we have no evidence to the contrary, but of course if you were looking for radio transmissions, Earth would have failed to show signs until about a hundred years ago. There were a number of other reasons given, but one of the points Seth made was a civilization at a modest distance would have to devote a few hundred MW power to send us a signal. Why would they do that? This reminds me of what I wrote in one of my SF novels. The exercise is a waste of time because everyone is listening; listening is cheap but nobody is sending, and simple economics kills the scheme.

As Seth showed, there are an awful lot of reasons why SETI is not finding anything, and that proves nothing. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but merely evidence that you haven’t hit the magic button yet. Which gets me back to scientific arguments. You will hear people say science cannot prove anything. That is rubbish. The second law of thermodynamics proves conclusively that if you put your dinner on the table it won’t spontaneously drop a couple of degrees in temperature as it shoots upwards and smears itself over the ceiling.

As an example of the problems involved with conveying such information, consider what it takes to get a proof? Basically, a theory starts with a statement. There are several forms of this, but the one I prefer is you say, “If theory A is correct, and I do a set of experiments B, under conditions C, and if B and C are very large sets, then theory A will predict a set of results R. You do the experiments and collect a large set of observations O. Now, if there is no element of O that is not an element of R, then your theory is plausible. If the sets are large enough, they are very plausible, but you still have to be careful you have an adequate range of conditions. Thus Newtonian mechanics are correct within a useful range of conditions, but expand that enough and you need either relativity or quantum mechanics. You can, however, prove a theory if you replace “if” in the above with “if and only if”.

Of course, that could be said more simply. You could say a theory is plausible if every time you use it, what you see complies with your theory’s predictions, and you can prove a theory if you can show there is no alternative, although that is usually very difficult. So why do scientists not write in the simpler form? The answer is precision. The example I used above is general so it can be reduced to a simpler form, but sometimes the statements only apply under very special circumstances, and now the qualifiers can make for very turgid prose. The takeaway message now is, while a scientist likes to write in a way that is more precise, if you want to have notice taken, you have to be somewhat less formal. What do you think? Is that right?

Back to the conference, in the case of SETI. Seth will not be proven wrong, ever, because the hypothesis that there are civilizations out there but they are not broadcasting to us in a way we can detect cannot be faulted. So for the next few weeks I shall look more at what I gathered from this conference.