When did H2O develop during the last 13.5 b y?

by baywax
Tags: develop
PF Gold
P: 2,215
 Quote by D H 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?
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:
$$t_3 = (t_u - t_0) = (13.85 - 13.2) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.65 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_3 = 0.65 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

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
PF Gold
P: 2,215
 Quote by Orion1 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: $$t_3 = (t_u - t_0) = (13.85 - 13.2) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.65 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$ $$\boxed{t_3 = 0.65 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$ 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.
 PF Gold 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.
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:
$$t_a = 11.1 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

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

$$\boxed{t_{wv} = 2.75 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

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
PF Gold
P: 2,215
 Quote by Orion1 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: $$t_a = 11.1 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$ The minimum time required for water vapor to form in Universe: $$t_{wv} = (t_u - t_a) = (13.85 - 11.1) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 2.75 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$ $$\boxed{t_{wv} = 2.75 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$ 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.
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)
$$t_0 = 13.2 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

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

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

$$\boxed{\Delta t = 6.7 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

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.
PF Gold
P: 2,215
 Quote by Orion1 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!
P: 991

 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 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 230°C 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 230°C surface temperature and spectated and survived the Hadean-Lower Imbrian era Late Heavy Bombardment.

Reference:
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
Geologic time scale - Wikipedia
Late Heavy Bombardment - Wikipedia
PF Gold
P: 2,215
 Quote by Orion1 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?
 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?
P: 991

 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:
$$t_a = 0.61 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

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

$$\boxed{t_{mc} = 3.39 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

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

$$\boxed{t_{mcu} = 4.61 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

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:
$$t_e = t_u - t_{mcu} = (13.85 - 4.61) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 9.24 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}$$

$$\boxed{t_e = 9.24 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}$$

Reference:
Evolution - Wikipedia
Ediacara biota - Wikipedia
Cryptic era - Orion1 - #33
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 3–4 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.
P: 991

Greetings, Sundance

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

 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): 969–1006. 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): 869–85. 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): 611–17. 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): 6735–42. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.15.6735. PMID 8041691.
 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
PF Gold
P: 2,989
 Quote by Orion1 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.
 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
PF Gold
P: 2,989
 Quote by Sundance 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?
 P: 104 Hello Sometimes the word ooops comes to play.

 Related Discussions Current Events 22 Engineering, Comp Sci, & Technology Homework 2 Current Events 17 Mechanical Engineering 0 Calculus 7