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.


How do Rocky Planets Form?

A question in my last post raised the question of how do rocky planets form, and why is Venus so different from Earth? This will take two posts; the first covers how the planets form and why, and the second how they evolve immediately after formation and get their atmospheres.

First, a quick picture of accretion. At first, the gas cloud collapses and falls into the star, and in this stage the star the size of the sun accretes something like 2.5 x 10^20 kg per second. Call that stage 1. When the star has gobbled up most of the material, such accretion slows down, and in what I shall call stage 2 it accretes gas at least four orders of magnitude slower. The gas heats due to loss of potential energy as it falls into the star, although it also radiates heat from the dust that gets hot. (Hydrogen and helium do not radiate in the infrared easily.) In stage 1, the gas reached something like 1600 degrees C at 1 A.U. (the distance from Earth to the sun). In stage 2, because far less gas was falling in, the disk had temperatures roughly what bodies have now. Even in stage 2, standard theory has it that boulder-sized objects will fall into the star within about a hundred years due to friction with the gas.

So how did planets form? The standard explanation is that after the star had finished accreting, the dust very rapidly accreted to planetesimals (bodies about 500 km across) and these collided to form oligarchs, and in turn these collided to form planets. I have many objections to this. The reasons include the fact there is no mechanism to form the planetesimals that we assume to begin with. The calculations originally required one hundred million years (100 My) to form Earth, but we know that it had to be essentially formed well before that because the collision that formed the Moon occurred at about 50 My after formation started. Calculations solved the Moon-forming problem by saying it only took 30 My, but without clues why this time changed. Worse, there are reasons to believe Earth had to form within about 1 My of stage 2 because it has xenon and krypton that had to come from the accretion disk. Finally, in the asteroid belt there is evidence of some previous collisions between asteroids. What happens is they make families of much smaller objects. In short, the asteroids shatter into many pieces upon such collisions. There is no reason to believe that similar collisions much earlier would be any different.

The oldest objects in the solar system are either calcium aluminium inclusions or iron meteorites. Their ages can be determined by various isotope decays and both had to be formed in very hot regions. The CAIs are found in chondrites originating from the asteroid belt, but they needed much greater heat to form than was there in stage 2. Similarly, iron meteorites had to form at a temperature sufficient to melt iron. So, how did they get that hot and not fall into the sun? The only time the accretion disk got sufficiently hot at a reasonable distance from the sun was when the star was accreting in stage 1. In my opinion, this shows the calculations were wrong, presumably because they missed something. Worse, to have enough material to make the giants, about a third of the stellar mass has to be in the disk, but observation of other disks in stage 2 shows there is simply not enough mass to make the giants.

The basic argument I make is that whatever was formed in the late stages of stellar accretion stayed more or less where it was. One of the puzzles of the solar system is that most of the mass is in the star, but most of the angular momentum resides in the planets, and since angular momentum has to be conserved and since most of that was with the gas initially, my argument is any growing solids took angular momentum from the gas, which sends then mass further from the star, and it had to be taken before the star stopped accreting. (I suggest a mechanism in my ebook.)

Now to how the rocky planets formed. During primary stellar accretion, temperatures reached about 1300 degrees C where Mars would form and 1550 degrees C a little beyond where Earth would grow. This gives a possible mechanism for accretion of dust. At about 800 degrees C silicates start to get sticky, so dust can accrete into small stones there, and larger ones closer to the star. There are a number of different silicates, all of which have long polymers, but some, especially aluminosilicates are a little more mobile than others. At about 1300 degrees C, calcium silicate starts to phase separate out, and about 1500 degrees C various aluminosilicates phase separate. This happens because the longer the polymer, the more immiscible it is in another polymer melt (a consequence of the first two laws of thermodynamics, and which makes plastics recycling so difficult.) If this were the only mechanism for forming rocky planets, the size of the finished planet would diminish significantly with distance from the star. Earth, Venus and Mercury are in the wrong order. Mercury may have accreted this way, but further out, stones or boulders would be the biggest objects.

Once primary stellar accretion ends, temperatures were similar to what they are now. Stones collide, but with temperatures like now, they initially only make dust. There is no means of binding silicates through heat. However, if stones can come together, dust can fill the spaces. The key to rocky planet formation is that calcium silicate and calcium aluminosilicates could absorb water vapour from the disk gases, and when they do that, they act as cements that bind the stones together to form a concrete. The zone where the aluminosilicates start to get formed is particularly promising for absorbing water and setting cement, and because iron starts to form bodies here, lumps of iron are also accreted. This is why Earth has an iron core and plenty of water. Mars has less water because calcium silicate absorbs much less water, and its iron is mainly accreted as fine dust.

Finally, Mars is smaller because the solids density is less, and the disk is cleared before it has time to fully grow. The evidence for the short-lived disk is from the relatively small size of Jupiter compared with corresponding planets around similar sized stars that our sun cleared out the accretion disk sooner than most. This is why we have rocky planets, and not planets like the Neptune-sized planets in the so-called habitable zone around a number of stars. Venus is smaller than Earth because it was harder to get going, through the difficulty of water setting the cement, which is partly why it has very little water on its surface. However, once started it grows faster since the density of basaltic rocks is greater. Mercury is probably smaller still because it formed a slightly different way, through excessively mobile silicates in the first stage of the accretion disk, and by later being bombed by very large rocky bodies that were more likely to erode it. That is somewhat similar to the standard explanation of why Mercury is small but has a large iron core. The planets grow very quickly, and soon gravity binds all dust and small stones, then as it grows, gravity attracts objects that have grown further away, which perforce are large, but still significantly smaller than the main body in the zone.

Next post: how these rocky planets started to evolve to where they are now.

Science that does not make sense

Occasionally in science we see reports that do not make sense. The first to be mentioned here relates to Oumuamua, the “interstellar asteroid” mentioned in my previous post. In a paper (arXiv:1901.08704v3 [astro-ph.EP] 30 Jan 2019) Sekanina suggests the object was the debris of a dwarf interstellar comet that disintegrated before perihelion. One fact that Sekanina thought to be important was that no intrinsically faint long-period comet with a perihelion distance less than about 0.25 AU, which means it comes as close or closer than about two-thirds the distance from the sun as Mercury, have ever been observed after perihelion. The reason is that if the comet gets that close to the star, the heat just disintegrates it. Sekanina proposed that such an interstellar comet entered our system and disintegrated, leaving “a monstrous fluffy dust aggregate released in the recent explosive event, ‘Oumuamua should be of strongly irregular shape, tumbling, not outgassing, and subjected to effects of solar radiation pressure, consistent with observation.” Convinced? My problem: just because comets cannot survive close encounters with the sun does not mean a rock emerging from near the sun started as a comet. This is an unfortunately common logic problem. A statement of the form “if A, then B” simply means what it says. It does NOT mean, there is B therefor there must have been A.

At this point it is of interest to consider what comets are comprised of. The usual explanation is they are formed by ices and dust accreting. The comets are formed in the very outer solar system (e.g.the Oort cloud) by the ices sticking together. The ices include gases such as nitrogen and carbon monoxide, which are easily lost once they get hot. Here, “hot” is still very cold. When the gases volatalise, they tend to blow off a lot of dust, and that dust is what we see as the tail, which is directed away from the star due to radiation pressure and solar wind. The problem with Sekanina’s interpretation is, the ice holds everything together. The paper conceded this when it said it was a monstrous fluffy aggregate, but for me as the ice vaporizes, it will push the dust apart. Further, even going around a star, it will still happen progressively. The dust should spread out, as a comet tail. It did not for Oumuamua.

The second report was from Bonomo, in Nature Astronomy(doi.org/10.1038/s41550-018-0648-9). They claimed the Kepler 107 system provided evidence of giant collisions, as described in my previous post, and the sort of thing that might make an Oumuamua. What the paper claims is there are two planets with radii about fifty per cent bigger than Earth, and the outer planet is twice as dense (relative density ~ 12.6 g/cm^3) than the inner one (relative density ~ 5.3 g/cm^3). The authors argue that this provides evidence for a giant collision that would have stripped off much of the silicates from the outer planet, thus leaving more of an iron core. In this context, that is what some people think is the reason for Mercury having a density almost approaching that of Earth so the authors are simply tagging on to a common theme.

So why do I think this does not make sense? Basically because the relative density of iron is 7.87 g/cm^3. Even if this planet is pure iron, it could not have a density significantly greater than 7.8. (There is an increase in density due to compressibility under gravity, but iron is not particularly compressible so any gain will be small.) Even solid lead would not do. Silicates and gold would be OK, so maybe we should start a rumour? Raise money for an interstellar expedition to get rich quick (at least from the raised money!) However, from the point of view of the composition of dust that forms planets, that is impossible so maybe investors will see through this scam. Maybe.

So what do I think has happened? In two words, experimental error. The mass has to be determined by the orbital interactions with something else. What the Kepler mehod does is determine the orbital characteristics by measuring the periodic times, i.e.the times between various occultations. The size is measured from the width of the occultation signal and the slope of the signal at the beginning and the end. All of these have possible errors, and they include the size of the star and the assumed position re the equator of the star, so the question now is, how big are these errors? I am starting to suspect, very big.

This is of interest to me since I wrote an ebook, “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis”. In this, I surveyed all the knowedge I could find up to the time of writing, and argued the standard theory was wrong. Why? It took several chapters to nail this, but the essence is that standard theory starts with a distribution of planetesimals and lets gravitational interactions lead to their joining up into planets. The basic problems I see with this are that collisions will lead to fragmentation, and the throwing into deep space, or the star, bits of planet. The second problem is nobody has any idea how such planetesimals form. I start by considering chemical interactions, and when I do that, after noting that what happens will depend on the temperatures around where it happens (what happens in chemistry is often highly temperature dependent) you get very selective zoes that differ from each other quite significantly. Our planets are in such zones (if you assume Jupiter formed at the “snow zone”) and have the required properties. Since I wrote that, I have been following the papers on the topic and nothing has been found that contradicts it, except, arguably things like the Kepler 107 “extremely dense planet”. I argue it is impossible, and therefore the results are in error.

Should anyone be interested in this ebook, see http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007T0QE6I

Oumuamua (1I) and Vega

Oumuamua is a small asteroidal object somewhere between 100 – 1000 meters long and is considerably longer than it is broad. Basically, it looks like a slab of rock, and is currently passing through the solar system on its way to wherever. It is our first observation of an interstellar object hence the bracketed formal name: 1 for first, I for interstellar. How do we know it came from interstellar space? Its orbit has been mapped, and its eccentricity determined. The eccentricity of a circular orbit is zero; an eccentricity greater than zero but less than one means the object is in an elliptical orbit, and the larger the eccentricity, the bigger the difference between closest and furthest approach to the sun. Oumuamua was found to have an eccentricity of 1.1995, which means, being greater than 1, it is on a hyperbolic orbit. It started somewhere where the sun’s gravity is irrelevant, and it will continue on and permanently leave the sun’s gravitational field. We shall never see it again, so the observation of it could qualify it for entry in “The Journal of Irreproducible Results”.

Its velocity in interstellar space (i.e.without the sun’s gravitational effects) was 26.3 km/s. We have no means of knowing where it came from, although if is trajectory is extrapolated backwards, it came from the direction of Vega. Of course it did not come from Vega, because when it passed through the space that Vega now occupies, Vega was somewhere else. Given there is no sign of ice on Oumuamua, which would form something like a cometary tail, it presumably came from the rocky zone closer to its system’s star, and this presumably has given rise to the web speculation that Oumuamua was some sort of alien space ship. Sorry, but no, it is not, and it does not need motors to enter interstellar space.

The way a body like Oumuamua could be thrown into interstellar space goes like this. There has to be a collision between two rocky bodies that are big enough to form fragments of the required size and the collision has to be violent enough to give the fragment a good velocity. That will also make a lot of dust. The fragments would be assumed to then go into elliptical orbits, but if there are both rocky planets and giants, the body could be ejected in the same way the Voyager space craft have left our solar system, namely through gravity assists. If the object is on the right trajectory it could get a gravity assist from an earth-like rocky planet, then another one from a giant that could give it enough impetus to leave the system. This presumably happened a long time ago, so we have no idea where the object came from.

Notwithstanding that, Oumuamua brought Vega to my attention, and it is, at least for me, an interesting star. That, of course, is because I have published a theory of planetary formation that is at odds with the generally accepted one. Vega has about twice the mass of the sun, and because it is bigger, it burns faster, and will have a life of about a billion years. It is roughly half-way through that, so it won’t have had time for planets to evolve intelligent life. The concentration of elements heavier than helium in Vega is about a third that of the sun. Vega also has an abnormally fast rate of rotation, so much so that it is about 88% of what would be required to start the star breaking up. This is significant because one of the oddities of our solar system is that the bulk of the angular momentum resides in the planets, while by far the bulk of the mass lies in the star. The implication might be that the lower level of heavier elements meant that Vega did not form cores fast enough and hence it does not have the giant planets of sufficient size to have taken up sufficient angular momentum. The situation could be like an ice skater who spins very fast, but slows the rotation by extending her arms. If the arms are very short, the spin cannot be slowed as much.

The infra-red emissions from Vega are consistent with a dust disk from about 70 – 100 A.U. out to 330 A.U. from the star (an A.U. is the distance from the sun to the Earth). This is assumed to have arisen from recent collisions of objects comparable to those in the Kuiper Belt here. There is apparently another dusty zone at 8 A.U., which would have to have originated from collisions between rocky objects. So far there is no evidence of planets around Vega, but equally there is no evidence there are none. We view Vega almost aligned with its axis of rotation, so most of the usual techniques for finding planets will not work. The transiting technique of the Kepler program requires us to be aligned with the ecliptic (which should be aligned with the equator) and the Doppler technique has similar limitations, although it has more tolerance for deviation. The Doppler technique detects the gravitational wobble of the star and if you could detect such a wobble directly, you could see it from along the polar axis. Unfortunately, we can’t, at least not yet, and worse, detecting such wobbles works best with very large planets around small stars. Here, if you follow my theory and accept the low metallicity, we expect small planets around a very large star. Direct observation has so far only worked for the first few million years of the star, where giant planets are radiating yellow to white light from their surface temperature that is so hot because of the gravitational accretion energy. These cool down reasonably quickly.

What grabbed my attention about Vega was the 8 A.U. dust zone. That can only be generated by a number of collisions because such dust zones have to be replenished. That is because solar radiation slows dust down, and it gradually falls into the star. So to have a good number of frequent collisions, you need a very large number of objects that could collide, which effectively requires a belt of boulders. So why have they not collided and formed a planet, when the standard theory of planetary formation says planets are formed by the collision of boulders to form planetesimals, and these collide to form embryos, which collide to form planets. In my ebook, “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis” I provide an answer, which is basically that to form rocky planets, the collisions have to happen in the accretion disk, and they happen very fast, and they happen because water vapour in the disk helps set cement. Once the accretion disk is removed, further accretion is impossible, other than from objects colliding with a big enough object for gravity to hold all the debris. Accordingly, collisions of boulder-sized objects or asteroids will make dust, and that would create a dust belt that would not last all that long. The equivalent of the Kuiper Belt around Vega appears to be between 3 – 6 times further out. In my theory, if the planet accreted in the same as the sun, it would be approximately 8 times further out. However, lower dust content may make it harder to radiate energy, hence accretion may be slower. If this second belt scales accordingly, it could correspond to our asteroid belt.  We know occasional collisions did occur in our asteroid belt because we see families of smaller fragments whose trajectories extrapolate back to a singe event. So maybe dust belts are tolerably common for short periods in the life of a star. It would not be a great coincidence we see one around Vega; there are a huge number of stars, we see a very large number of accretion disks, so dust belts should turn up sooner or later.

Finally, why does the star spin faster? Again, in my theory, the planets accrete from the solid and take their angular momentum, but then they also take angular momentum from the disk gas through a mechanism similar to the classical Magnus force. Vega has less dust to make planets, hence less angular momentum is taken that way, and because the planets should be smaller there is less gravity to take angular momentum from the gas, and more gas anyway. So the star retains a higher fraction of its angular momentum. All of this does not prove that my theory is right, but it is comforting that it at least has some sort of plausible support. If interested further, check out http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007T0QE6I.

Volatiles on Rocky Planets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

From Whence Star-burning Planets?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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