When did H2O develop during the last 13.5 b y?


by baywax
Tags: develop
baywax
baywax is offline
#37
Feb4-09, 12:21 AM
PF Gold
baywax's Avatar
P: 2,215
Quote Quote by D H View Post
They formed in abundance with second generation stars. The moderately heavy elements (up to and including iron) form as a result of fusion, which occurs only in the core of a star (and only largish stars can produce iron). These moderately heavy elements build up (very slowly) over the lifespan of the star. The heat generated by fusion keeps a star from collapsing in on itself gravitationally. Normal fusion stops at iron. A large star runs out of fuel when its core becomes chock full of iron. The star collapses in on itself. If it is heavy enough this collapse will trigger a massive explosion, a supernova, in which elements heavier than iron are created very quickly and in which the star's lifetime production of elements is finally spewed out. Your wife's wedding ring was born in the death throes of some dying large star. New stars (and planets) form from the remnants of these exploded stars.
Now we know where beer can pull tabs come from

So it wasn't until second generation suns grew large enough and heavy enough to implode and explode that we could see a large variety of elements being made available to the "cosmos". According to Orion1 the maximum amount of time available for this to take place was 12.63 billion years. Were second generation suns and super novas taking place this early in the formation of the universe?
Orion1
Orion1 is offline
#38
Feb4-09, 12:43 AM
Orion1's Avatar
P: 991

Were second generation suns and super novas taking place this early in the formation of the universe?
HE 1523-0901 is a red giant star located in the Milky Way galaxy approximately 7500 light years away. It is thought to be a second generation Population II star, or metal-poor, star ([Fe/H]=-2.95). The star's age is 13.2 billion years, older than the Milky Way galaxy at 6.5 Billion years. It is the oldest object yet discovered in the galaxy.

The minimum time required for a second and third generation star to form in the Universe:
[tex]t_3 = (t_u - t_0) = (13.85 - 13.2) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.65 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{t_3 = 0.65 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

The first generation star, named Baywax, formed from a nebula to become a Type 0 Hypergiant and is the star that the second generation HE 1523-0901 star's nuclear fuel originated from, as shown by the second generation metallicity ([Fe/H]=-2.95) and Relative Flux spectrum, and could only have a lifetime of less than 650 Million years, which means the first generation star burned extremely hot and rapid fusion rate and went Type II supernova over 13.2 Billion years ago.

Reference:
star: HE_1523-0901 - CGI
star: HE_1523-0901 - Wikipedia
star: HE_1523-0901 - astronomyonline.org
star: HE_1523-0901 - Relative Flux spectrum
Hypergiant - Wikipedia
Supernova - Wikipedia
baywax
baywax is offline
#39
Feb4-09, 11:03 AM
PF Gold
baywax's Avatar
P: 2,215
Quote Quote by Orion1 View Post



HE 1523-0901 is a red giant star located in the Milky Way galaxy approximately 7500 light years away. It is thought to be a second generation Population II star, or metal-poor, star ([Fe/H]=-2.95). The star's age is 13.2 billion years, older than the Milky Way galaxy at 6.5 Billion years. It is the oldest object yet discovered in the galaxy.

The minimum time required for a second and third generation star to form in the Universe:
[tex]t_3 = (t_u - t_0) = (13.85 - 13.2) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.65 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{t_3 = 0.65 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

The first generation star, named Baywax, formed from a nebula to become a Type 0 Hypergiant and is the star that the second generation HE 1523-0901 star's nuclear fuel originated from, as shown by the second generation metallicity ([Fe/H]=-2.95) and Relative Flux spectrum, and could only have a lifetime of less than 650 Million years, which means the first generation star burned extremely hot and rapid fusion rate and went Type II supernova over 13.2 Billion years ago.

Reference:
star: HE_1523-0901 - CGI
star: HE_1523-0901 - Wikipedia
star: HE_1523-0901 - astronomyonline.org
star: HE_1523-0901 - Relative Flux spectrum
Hypergiant - Wikipedia
Supernova - Wikipedia
Thanks again Orion1... it looks like there has been 3 periods of 4 some odd billion years where life has had the opportunity to arise to the evolutionary equivalent of where we are today on earth. A planet that did not experience near "biocide" because of a bolide incident or two could well have developed something like us sooner.
baywax
baywax is offline
#40
Feb4-09, 11:12 AM
PF Gold
baywax's Avatar
P: 2,215
In addition to asking when H2O first developed after the BB (by which I meant liquid water... and didn't mention it) I was going to ask "where"... but it appears that, with the universe lacking a centre, there is no real reference point with which to ascertain a position for the first development of liquid water.
Orion1
Orion1 is offline
#41
Feb4-09, 10:33 PM
Orion1's Avatar
P: 991

The water vapor was discovered in the quasar MG J0414+0534 at redshift 2.64, which corresponds to a light travel time of 11.1 billion years, a time when the Universe was only a fifth of the age it is today.

The water emission was seen in the form of a maser, that is, beamed radiation similar to a laser, but at microwaves wavelengths. The signal corresponds to a luminosity of 10,000 times the luminosity of the Sun. Such astrophysical masers are known to originate in regions of hot and dense dust and gas.
Glycine - CH2NH2COOH - is the simplest of all the 20 amino acids and exists as molecules in the hot cores of three giant molecular clouds, Sagittarius-B2, Orion-KL and W51 which are regions of active star formation.

Water vapor has been discovered near a quasar 11.1 Billion light years away.

Age of water vapor:
[tex]t_a = 11.1 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]

The minimum time required for water vapor to form in Universe:
[tex]t_{wv} = (t_u - t_a) = (13.85 - 11.1) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 2.75 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{t_{wv} = 2.75 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

Reference:
sciencedaily - water vapor discovered near quasar 11.1 Billion light years away
image: distant water vapor spectrum
Physics World - Amino acid detected in space
baywax
baywax is offline
#42
Feb5-09, 11:32 AM
PF Gold
baywax's Avatar
P: 2,215
Quote Quote by Orion1 View Post



Glycine - CH2NH2COOH - is the simplest of all the 20 amino acids and exists as molecules in the hot cores of three giant molecular clouds, Sagittarius-B2, Orion-KL and W51 which are regions of active star formation.

Water vapor has been discovered near a quasar 11.1 Billion light years away.

Age of water vapor:
[tex]t_a = 11.1 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]

The minimum time required for water vapor to form in Universe:
[tex]t_{wv} = (t_u - t_a) = (13.85 - 11.1) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 2.75 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{t_{wv} = 2.75 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

Reference:
sciencedaily - water vapor discovered near quasar 11.1 Billion light years away
image: distant water vapor spectrum
Physics World - Amino acid detected in space
As Carl Sagan would say "billions and billions"!

Thank you Orion1, again! The question you've now brought up for me is was the red dwarf in the Milky Way here before the formation of the galaxy? Just trying to clarify the model. I also wonder if you need galactic gravity to form a habitable 3rd generation solar system.
Orion1
Orion1 is offline
#43
Feb5-09, 10:06 PM
Orion1's Avatar
P: 991

was the red dwarf in the Milky Way here before the formation of the galaxy?
It is not a red dwarf, it is a red giant and it is older than the Milky Way galaxy.

Oldest star age in Galaxy: (HE 1523-0901, Milky Way)
[tex]t_0 = 13.2 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]

Galaxy age: (Milky Way)
[tex]t_G = 6.5 \; \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

[tex]\Delta t = (t_0 - t_G) = (13.2 - 6.5) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 6.7 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{\Delta t = 6.7 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

This red giant formed some 6.7 Billion years before the Milky Way galaxy formation.
I also wonder if you need galactic gravity to form a habitable 3rd generation solar system?
Negative, only the gravitation inside a nebula and a density wave is required.
baywax
baywax is offline
#44
Feb5-09, 10:18 PM
PF Gold
baywax's Avatar
P: 2,215
Quote Quote by Orion1 View Post


It is not a red dwarf, it is a red giant and it is older than the Milky Way galaxy.



Negative, only the gravitation inside a nebula is required.
Red giant. Sorry, my mistake.

So we do have 3 spans of time (4.6 billion or so years each) to add to the probablility of water based, intelligent life evolving in and on a suitable planet/environment. Some may never have come to fruition and some may have surpassed our own version of civilization, given the chance, plus, less bolide bombardments and a stable sun.

This has been absolutely great getting all this help, thank you!
Orion1
Orion1 is offline
#45
Feb5-09, 11:13 PM
Orion1's Avatar
P: 991

Quote Quote by Wikipedia
Atmosphere and oceans:
A massive quantity of water would have been in the material which formed the Earth. Water molecules would have escaped Earth's gravity more easily when it was less massive during its formation. Hydrogen and helium are expected to continually leak from the atmosphere, but the lack of denser noble gases in the modern atmosphere suggests that something disastrous happened to the early atmosphere.

Part of the young planet is theorized to have been disrupted by the impact which created the Moon, which should have caused melting of one or two large areas. Present composition does not match complete melting and it is hard to completely melt and mix huge rock masses. However, a fair fraction of material should have been vaporized by this impact, creating a rock vapor atmosphere around the young planet. The rock vapor would have condensed within two thousand years, leaving behind hot volatiles which probably resulted in a heavy carbon dioxide atmosphere with hydrogen and water vapor. Liquid water oceans existed despite the surface temperature of 230C because of the atmospheric_pressure of the heavy CO2 atmosphere. As cooling continued, subduction and dissolving in ocean water removed most CO2 from the atmosphere but levels oscillated wildly as new surface and mantle cycles appeared.

Study of zircons has found that liquid water must have existed as long ago as 4400 Ma, very soon after the formation of the Earth. This requires the presence of an atmosphere.

In fact, recent studies of zircons (in the fall of 2008) found in Australian Hadean rock hold minerals that point to the existence of plate tectonics as early as 4 billion years ago. If this holds true, the previous beliefs about the Hadean period are far from correct. That is, rather than a hot, molten surface and atmosphere full of carbon dioxide, the earth's surface would be very much like it is today. The action of plate tectonics traps vast amounts of carbon dioxide, thereby eliminating the greenhouse effects and leading to a much cooler surface temperature and the formation of solid rock, and possibly even life.

The Hadean, then, was the period of time between the formation of these early rocks in space, and the eventual solidification of the Earth's crust, some 700 Myr later. This time would include the accretion of the planets from the disk and its slow cooling into a solid as the gravitational potential energy of this collapse was released. Later calculations showed that the rate of collapse and cooling was dependent on the size of the body, and applying this to an Earth-sized mass suggested this should have happened quite quickly, as quickly as 100 Myr.

The main piece of evidence for a lunar cataclysm comes from the radiometric ages of impact melt rocks that were collected during the Apollo missions. The majority of these impact melts are believed to have formed during the collision of asteroids or comets tens of kilometers across, forming impact craters hundreds of kilometers in diameter. The Apollo 15, 16, and 17 landing sites were chosen as a result of their proximity to the Imbrium, Nectaris, and Serenitatis basins.

Prior to the introduction of the Late Heavy Bombardment theory, it was generally assumed that the Earth had remained molten until about 3800 mya. This date could be found in all of the oldest known rocks from around the world, and appeared to represent a strong "cutoff point" beyond which older rocks could not be found. These dates remained fairly constant even across various dating methods, including the system considered the most accurate and least affected by environment, uranium-lead dating of zircons. As no older rocks could be found, it was generally assumed that the Earth had remained molten until this point in time, which defined the boundary between the earlier Hadean and later Archean epochs.

Older rocks could be found, however, in the form of asteroids that fall to Earth and can be found in Antarctica when the glaciers carry them to the edges of the continental plate. Like the rocks on Earth, asteroids also show a strong cutoff point, at about 4600 mya, which is assumed to be the time when the first solids formed in the protoplanetary disk around the then-young Sun.

Of particular interest, Manfred Schidlowski argued in 1979 that the carbon isotopic ratios of some sedimentary rocks found in Greenland were a relic of organic matter. There was much debate over the precise dating of the rocks, with Schidlowski suggesting they were about 3800 Myr old, and others suggesting a more "modest" 3600 Myr. In either case it was a very short time for abiogenesis to have taken place, and if Schidlowski was correct, arguably too short a time. The Late Heavy Bombardment and the "re-melting" of the crust that it suggests provides a timeline under which this would be possible; life either formed immediately after the Late Heavy Bombardment, or more likely survived it, having arisen earlier during the Hadean. Recent studies suggest that the rocks Schidlowski found are indeed from the older end of the possible age range at about 3850 Myr, suggesting the latter possibility is the most likely answer.

Some geologists believe they have found 4.28 billion year old rock in Quebec, Canada.
Quote Quote by Wikipedia
...traces of carbon trapped in small pieces of diamond and graphite within zircons dating to 4250 Myr. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 was unusually high, normally a sign of "processing" by life.

They estimate that the development of a 100 kilobase genome of a DNA/protein primitive heterotroph into a 7000 gene filamentous cyanobacterium would have required only 7 million years.
Quote Quote by Wikipedia
...collision of asteroids or comets tens of kilometers across, forming impact craters hundreds of kilometers in diameter.

Liquid water oceans existed despite the surface temperature of 230C because of the atmospheric_pressure of the heavy CO2 atmosphere.
life either formed immediately after the Late Heavy Bombardment, or more likely survived it, having arisen earlier during the Hadean. ...the latter possibility is the most likely answer.
Apparently all planetary star systems experience a period of late heavy asteroid and comet inner planetary bombardment as a result of proto-planetary disk formation.

Manfred Schidlowski's 'organic matter' is fossilized 3.85 billion year old self-replicating RNA life.

Self-Replicating RNA life was formed earlier in the Hadean-Basin Groups era within the liquid water oceans and heavy CO2 atmosphere and high atmospheric_pressure and 230C surface temperature and spectated and survived the Hadean-Lower Imbrian era Late Heavy Bombardment.

Reference:
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
Geologic time scale - Wikipedia
Hadean - Wikipedia
Late Heavy Bombardment - Wikipedia
baywax
baywax is offline
#46
Feb6-09, 01:04 AM
PF Gold
baywax's Avatar
P: 2,215
Quote Quote by Orion1 View Post






Apparently all planetary star systems experience a period of late heavy asteroid and comet inner planetary bombardment as a result of proto-planetary disk formation.

Manfred Schidlowski's 'organic matter' is fossilized 3.8 billion year old self-replicating RNA life.

Self-Replicating RNA life was formed earlier in the Hadean-Basin Groups era and spectated and survived the Hadean-Lower Imbrian era Late Heavy Bombardment.

Reference:
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
Geologic time scale - Wikipedia
Hadean - Wikipedia
Late Heavy Bombardment - Wikipedia
All these discoveries point to life as being a natural step in the evolution of minerals. It sounds like it didn't take much coaxing for life to form. Abiogenesis occurred so soon after or perhaps survived through total planetary mayhem.
The only alternative is that panspermia took place in the form of interloping, inter-solar system spores, viruses or bacteria that flourished in the heat of the early years of earth, not to mention an early source of liquid H20.

Why did it take 4.6 billion years to produce us? The challenges were many. What were the set-backs to the development of life on earth? Did the challenges help to forge a better outcome (like humans) or was that result simply delayed?
Sundance
Sundance is offline
#47
Feb6-09, 01:52 AM
P: 104
Hello

The solar system formed from a star that went supernova leaving behind a compact core that evolved a solar envelope, the remaining debries remained in chaos for millions of years, it was the survival of the stable that acted as a gravity sink and grew into the planets and dwarf planets that we see today.

5 Billion years ago the Earth started to cool, still to hot for wate to condense.

4.5 Billion years ago water stated to condense and form running water, creating sedimentary rocks, that gives us an estimate of stable running water.

4 Billion years the oceans formed and for a billion years no life.

It took a billion years in water for the simple virus to form, its ability to duplicate gave rise to life on Earth it formed the bases and evolution of the modern cell of all life.


This all happened in a dust particle called Earth.

The question is how old was the Star that went Supernova. Its phase could be about 12 Billion years old.

The other question is how long did it take for the Milky way to form a spiral and in between that merging with other galaxies and having 40 odd dwarf galaxies rotating around it.


The other question is how long did it take the milky way group to form part of a large local group of galaxies.

The questions keep on going and going to the "N" degree.

Is it possible for all this to form in just 13.7 Billion years.

OOPs I forgot to mention the odd 100 billion galaxies that we can observe in 13.2 Gyrs deep field images that are expected to form in just 500 million years. Compared to life such as the virus took one billion years to evolve.

Am I missing something?
Orion1
Orion1 is offline
#48
Feb6-09, 03:31 AM
Orion1's Avatar
P: 991

Quote Quote by Wikipedia
The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea until about 610 million years ago when multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans in the Ediacaran period. The evolution of multicellularity occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacteria.
Evolutionary age of multicellular DNA:
[tex]t_a = 0.61 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA lifeform to evolve into multicellular DNA lifeform in Universe:
[tex]t_{mc} = t_l - t_a = (4.0 - 0.61) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 3.39 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{t_{mc} = 3.39 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

Minimum time required for multicellular DNA lifeform to form in Universe:
[tex]t_{mcu} = t_{RNA} + t_{mc} = (1.22 + 3.39) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 4.61 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{t_{mcu} = 4.61 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

The history of life in the early Universe was that of the self-replicating RNA, prokaryotes, unicellular eukaryotes and archaea.

Current maximum amount of evolutionary time in Universe for multicellular DNA life:
[tex]t_e = t_u - t_{mcu} = (13.85 - 4.61) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 9.24 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{t_e = 9.24 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

Reference:
Evolution - Wikipedia
Ediacara biota - Wikipedia
Cryptic era - Orion1 - #33
Sundance
Sundance is offline
#49
Feb6-09, 08:02 PM
P: 104
Hello Orion

Your dates taken from Wikipedia in my opinion are in error.

One in particular the first life


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...lution_of_life
Despite the uncertainty on how life began, it is generally accepted that prokaryotes inhabited the Earth from approximately 34 billion years ago.[170][171] No obvious changes in morphology or cellular organization occurred in these organisms over the next few billion years.[172
One billion years is alot of time.

The question as to the origin is a main issue. Did life come from out there or can life start from just a mixture of chemicals.
Orion1
Orion1 is offline
#50
Feb7-09, 01:13 AM
Orion1's Avatar
P: 991


Greetings, Sundance

Sundance, I noticed that your forum rebuttal challenged as error, at least three published scientific papers as reference:

Quote Quote by Wikipedia
(170)
Cavalier-Smith T (2006). "Cell evolution and Earth history: stasis and revolution" (PDF). Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 361 (1470): 9691006. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1842. PMID 16754610.

(171)
Schopf J (2006). "Fossil evidence of Archaean life". Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 361 (1470): 86985. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1834. PMID 16754604.

(172)
*Altermann W, Kazmierczak J (2003). "Archean microfossils: a reappraisal of early life on Earth". Res Microbiol 154 (9): 61117. doi:10.1016/j.resmic.2003.08.006. PMID 14596897.
Schopf J (1994). "Disparate rates, differing fates: tempo and mode of evolution changed from the Precambrian to the Phanerozoic". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S a 91 (15): 673542. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.15.6735. PMID 8041691.
Quote Quote by Sundance
Did life come from out there or can life start from just a mixture of chemicals?
Sundance, this depends on a particular theory, such as Abiogenesis or Panspermia. Did you actually read these scientific papers before challenging them?

Reference:
Cell evolution and Earth history: stasis and revolution
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
Panspermia - Wikipedia
mheslep
mheslep is online now
#51
Feb7-09, 04:29 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by Orion1 View Post


Greetings, Sundance

Sundance, I noticed that your forum rebuttal challenged as error, at least three published scientific papers as reference:





Sundance, this depends on a particular theory, such as Abiogenesis or Panspermia. Did you actually read these scientific papers before challenging them?

Reference:
Cell evolution and Earth history: stasis and revolution
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
Panspermia - Wikipedia
Orion - Sundance only challenged your Wikipedia references, and Wikipedia given as a reference is not the equivalent of a reference to original work published in a respected journal, even in the Wiki article happens to reference original work in the footnotes. Wiki may be fine for a quick link to explanatory or introductory material, but given Wiki is known to be sometimes wildly wrong, especially on controversial subjects, I suggest citing the backup directly if you want firm ground.
Sundance
Sundance is offline
#52
Feb7-09, 05:25 PM
P: 104
Hello Mheslep

My last reading showed life fossils 3 Gys

From your ref it seems that fossils show life at 3.5 Gys. That means they must have evolved millions of years earlier or been planted from out there.

It would be quite interesting to find a fossil path.

Wishful thinking
mheslep
mheslep is online now
#53
Feb7-09, 05:54 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by Sundance View Post
Hello Mheslep

My last reading showed life fossils 3 Gys

From your ref it seems that fossils show life at 3.5 Gys. That means they must have evolved millions of years earlier or been planted from out there.

It would be quite interesting to find a fossil path.

Wishful thinking
You mean Orion?
Sundance
Sundance is offline
#54
Feb8-09, 12:26 AM
P: 104
Hello


Sometimes the word ooops comes to play.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Egypt Develop Nuclear Power Current Events 22
Develop a Variable volatage divider.... Engineering, Comp Sci, & Technology Homework 2
Should Venezuela develop nuclear weapons? Current Events 17
Japan, France to Jointly Develop New Jet Mechanical Engineering 0
Develop the argument: Calculus 7