When did H2O develop during the last 13.5 b y?

[baywax]

There are quite a few models of how things developed during the first .0000000001 of a second after the big bang and so on. And I was wondering if there is a timeline for when water started to congeal out of this mass of expanding energy of the BB.

Knowing this could lead to a better understanding of how long life has been developing, as well, in the universe. Its a sort of bio-archaeological approach to establishing a timeline and probability for the length of time that life has been evolving in the universe.

What are the methods of determining the age of the development of something like water?

 

[mgb_phys]

TAnd I was wondering if there is a timeline for when water started to congeal out of this mass of expanding energy of the BB.

You mean when the first oxygen atom happened to hit the first hydrogen molecule?

Knowing this could lead to a better understanding of how long life has been developing,

I don't think it would. If you put a lot of atoms together in a high enough density cloud in space you will get lots of different bonds forming. It doesn't really mean anything.
As to when it first formed in a planet's atmosphere, probably when all the stronger reducing agents had been used up and there was a chance for oxygen and hydrogen to get together.

 

[baywax]

You mean when the first oxygen atom happened to hit the first hydrogen molecule?

Yeah, kind of like that

I don't think it would. If you put a lot of atoms together in a high enough density cloud in space you will get lots of different bonds forming. It doesn't really mean anything.
As to when it first formed in a planet's atmosphere, probably when all the stronger reducing agents had been used up and there was a chance for oxygen and hydrogen to get together.

Does water need the environment of a planet to form?

 

[mgb_phys]

Does water need the environment of a planet to form?

No, but does one in a billion water molecules in a molecular cloud of H, OH and O3 really signify anything?

 

[baywax]

No, but does one in a billion water molecules in a molecular cloud of H, OH and O3 really signify anything?

Probably not... but its a start!

Is there any way to know when it started?

 

[gtring]

As I understand it:
t=0.1 seconds - primordial nucleosynthesis of ionized H
t=300,000 years - universe cools to 3000K and allows electron capture; H atoms formed
t=100 million years to 300 million years - universe cools to 30K; a Population III star allows the triple-alpha process and (CNO process) to create the first ionized O, O atoms, and O2 molecules

Assuming that the first Pop III star formed at t=100 million years, and it took 3 million years for the first supernova ever, then H and O would have been in close proximity to each other at t=103 million years.

You are assuming water-centric life. Hasn't Copernicus taught us that we are not special? *grin* For more information on water and planets and life, I recommend Astrobiology: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach by Lunine.


Cheers,
--Jake

 

[baywax]

As I understand it:
t=0.1 seconds - primordial nucleosynthesis of ionized H
t=300,000 years - universe cools to 3000K and allows electron capture; H atoms formed
t=100 million years to 300 million years - universe cools to 30K; a Population III star allows the triple-alpha process and (CNO process) to create the first ionized O, O atoms, and O2 molecules

Assuming that the first Pop III star formed at t=100 million years, and it took 3 million years for the first supernova ever, then H and O would have been in close proximity to each other at t=103 million years.

You are assuming water-centric life. Hasn't Copernicus taught us that we are not special? *grin* For more information on water and planets and life, I recommend Astrobiology: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach by Lunine.


Cheers,
--Jake

Very nice! Thank you.

I'll have to get the book.

 

[Chronos]

We can start with the observed abundance of H2O in our own soolar system. Comets are largely composed of water, so it is clear a very large amount of it formed in the very early solar system. How that happened is not entirely clear, but there is little dispute that it did. We still have much to learn about the mechanics of stellar formation. Save for our own sun, stars are at great distances, hence quantifying elemental and molecular abundances in their general vicinity is difficult. We do know that hydrogen and oxygen are abundant in the universe, and combine without great difficulty.

 

[baywax]

We can start with the observed abundance of H2O in our own soolar system. Comets are largely composed of water, so it is clear a very large amount of it formed in the very early solar system. How that happened is not entirely clear, but there is little dispute that it did. We still have much to learn about the mechanics of stellar formation. Save for our own sun, stars are at great distances, hence quantifying elemental and molecular abundances in their general vicinity is difficult. We do know that hydrogen and oxygen are abundant in the universe, and combine without great difficulty.

So its not like a big surprise to find water out there... including on Mars? Comets fascinate me in that they are mostly made of ice. I wonder if some or all of the comets we see orbiting our solar system were formed when Mar's was impacted enough to have it lose half its crust. Perhaps more than just crustal material was ejected and perhaps its oceans were also sent reeling, only to become comets.

 

[mgb_phys]

Perhaps more than just crustal material was ejected and perhaps its oceans were also sent reeling, only to become comets.

Unlikely from orbital mechanics, getting ejecta from planets out into a kuiper belt comet orbit is tricky.
The opposite is certainly possible, that a lot of water on the early Earth arrived from comet impacts. Although the present time ocean water seems not to have been from comets - based on estimates of deuterium abundance.

 

[mheslep]

Yeah, kind of like that
Does water need the environment of a planet to form?

No, but does one in a billion water molecules ...

Liquid water does; needs the pressure of an atmosphere.

 

[Sundance]

Hello

Water is formed from H and O. These elements are formed in the solar envelopes of stars.

 

[baywax]

Liquid water does; needs the pressure of an atmosphere.

Assuming the liquid form of water needs the pressure of an atmosphere of a planet to form... can I ask when planets started forming during the timeline-model after the BB?

 

[mheslep]

Assuming the liquid form of water needs the pressure of an atmosphere of a planet to form... can I ask when planets started forming during the timeline-model after the BB?

Gas giant planets could form any time after that first star - from the gas remnants around the star - though I'm not sure a pure hydrogen planet would have been possible (?). Planets with heavier elements have to weight for some super novas followed by the process of star formation again in the remnants. Not sure how H20 is relevant to the question.

 

[baywax]

Gas giant planets could form any time after that first star - from the gas remnants around the star - though I'm not sure a pure hydrogen planet would have been possible (?). Planets with heavier elements have to weight for some super novas followed by the process of star formation again in the remnants. Not sure how H20 is relevant to the question.

The thread is titled "when did H2O first develop during the last 13.5 billion years?

Where does it say liquid water requires an atmosphere to be formed? And does the atmosphere have to be on a planet...

If indeed water requires the atmosphere of a planet to form, then I can continue formulating the amount of time water-based Life has had to develop in the universe.

Is there a timeline for when the first planets began to develop?

Thank you... I'm not at all well versed in astrophysics but "gtring" was able to lay out a good short synopsis of the development of elements etc... and I think I'm getting far more efficient results asking my question here than if I was to use goggle. Thanks again!

 

[mheslep]

I meant your premise, not the OP:

Assuming the liquid form of water needs the pressure of an atmosphere of a planet to form... can I ask when planets started forming during the timeline-model after the BB?

...Where does it say liquid water requires an atmosphere to be formed? And does the atmosphere have to be on a planet...

The boiling point of water, or any liquid, is dependent on the pressure surrounding the liquid. That is, the molecules of a liquid are constantly trying to escape the liquid. They escaping molecules form a vapor pressure above the liquid and they in turn form an equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere for a given temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point
No atmosphere, no water in liquid form. It boils away immediately.

If indeed water requires the atmosphere of a planet to form, then I can continue formulating the amount of time water-based Life has had to develop in the universe.

Is there a timeline for when the first planets began to develop?

For more details than the before's and after's I gave, I don't know. Up thread I thought there was something to start from.

 

[gtring]

Yeah. I think I'm pretty cool too, baywax.

So the question is now: When did the first atmospheric planets form? The first atmospheric planets could have formed around the first Population III stars, so that would be t=100 to 300 million years. We haven't found those Pop III stars yet, so this is theoretical speculation.

In performing research, you need to make assumptions. Once again, you may be assuming that life needs water, and that water needs to be liquid, and that the liquid water needs to be on an atmospheric planet. I like to think a little bigger than that, personally. But that's the stuff for another thread.

Cheers,
--Jake

 

[baywax]

I meant your premise, not the OP:
The boiling point of water, or any liquid, is dependent on the pressure surrounding the liquid. That is, the molecules of a liquid are constantly trying to escape the liquid. They escaping molecules form a vapor pressure above the liquid and they in turn form an equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere for a given temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point
No atmosphere, no water in liquid form. It boils away immediately.

For more details than the before's and after's I gave, I don't know. Up thread I thought there was something to start from.

My premise is that with liquid water present somewhere, for the first time, in the universe, water based life would not be far... ahead

That's very enlightening though... about H20 remaining liquid only if an atmosphere is present. Very cool. I'll have to look into the first formation of planets in one of those models of the expanding universe! Thank you mheslep.

 

[mheslep]

My premise is that with liquid water present somewhere, for the first time, in the universe, water based life would not be far... ahead

Well I believe that's the premise for the intense search for water (ice) in our solar system. I don't know how soon life might follow water, but as I understand it liquid water is an absolute necessity for life as we know it.

 

[Nabeshin]

Well I believe that's the premise for the intense search for water (ice) in our solar system. I don't know how soon life might follow water, but as I understand it liquid water is an absolute necessity for life as we know it.

Seems on the case of Earth at least that life arose extremely quickly after the conditions settled down. (on the order of tens of millions of years or something?)

 

[Orion1]

Universe's first liquid water...

When did H2O develop during the last 13.5 b y

zircons from Western Australia demonstrate that continents and water existed 4.3 billion to 4.4 billion years ago, which suggests "life could have had the opportunity to start 400 million years earlier than previously documented. Oceans, atmosphere and continents were in place by 4.3 billion years ago," - Mojzsis

Universe age:
t_u = 13.85 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

Population I third generation age of the sun:
t_{\odot} = 4.57 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

Water is a naturally produced gas by Population I third generation star formation.

Water exists naturally in solid and gas form.

Terra age:
t_E = 4.54 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

Water exists naturally in solid and gas form.

Time required for water bearing third generation planet to form:
t_p = t_{\odot} - t_E = (4.57 - 4.54) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_p = 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Oldest Zircon age:
t_z = 4.4 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

Time required for first liquid water to form on Terra:
t_w = t_E - t_z = (4.54 - 4.4) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.14 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_w = 0.14 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Universe's/Terra's first RNA/DNA based lifeforms age:
t_l = 3.7 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Time required for Universe's/Terra's liquid water to generate RNA/DNA based lifeforms:
t_{g} = t_z - t_l = (4.4 - 3.7) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}} = 0.7 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

\boxed{t_g = 0.7 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}}

Universe/Terra's number of possible liquid water RNA/DNA based lifeform regenerations:
N_g = \frac{t_z}{t_g} = \frac{4.4}{0.7} = 6.286

\boxed{N_g = 6.286}

Time required for first liquid water to form in Universe:
t_w = t_u - t_z = (13.85 - 4.4) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 9.95 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_w = 9.95 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

[/Color]
Reference:
http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_print.cfm?ID=76"

 

[baywax]

Universe age:
t_u = 13.85 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

Population I third generation age of the sun:
t_{\odot} = 4.57 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

Water is a naturally produced gas by Population I third generation star formation.

Water exists naturally in solid and gas form.

Terra age:
t_E = 4.54 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

Water exists naturally in solid and gas form.

Time required for water bearing third generation planet to form:
t_p = t_{\odot} - t_E = (4.57 - 4.54) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_p = 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Oldest Zircon age:
t_z = 4.4 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

Time required for first liquid water to form on Terra:
t_w = t_E - t_z = (4.54 - 4.4) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.14 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_w = 0.14 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Universe's/Terra's first RNA/DNA based lifeforms age:
t_l = 3.7 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Time required for Universe's/Terra's liquid water to generate RNA/DNA based lifeforms:
t_{g} = t_z - t_l = (4.4 - 3.7) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}} = 0.7 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

\boxed{t_g = 0.7 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}}

Universe/Terra's number of possible liquid water RNA/DNA based lifeform regenerations:
N_g = \frac{t_z}{t_g} = \frac{4.4}{0.7} = 6.286

\boxed{N_g = 6.286}

Time required for first liquid water to form in Universe:
t_w = t_u - t_z = (13.85 - 4.4) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 9.95 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_w = 9.95 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

[/Color]
Reference:
http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_print.cfm?ID=76"

This is an extraordinary amount of work on your part Orion1... thank you for that. My kid is astounded at the equations! He's constantly trying to get me to ask questions on PF to help him with his homework.

I doubt I could have ever concocted or googled such a detailed model describing the probability of liquid water developing in the early universe.

Your calculation basically gives water based life twice the amount of time to develop compared to the amount of time its had on earth. Given the amount of material... suns and planets... in the universe... there must be a model that would predict where and how many times it has begun over the last 9.95 billion years. And, judging from the number of variables concerning environmental changes we could possibly calculate how many times life has started and failed as well.

 

[mgb_phys]

Orion - what's the current theory on the the Earth remelting?
When I was at school the Earth remelted after around 500Myr because of heat from radioactive elements - this wiped out the original rocks and any evidence of earlier life.
Did it not melt, was the melt earlier or only partial?

 

[mheslep]

t_w = 9.95 \cdot 10^9 \text{y} ? That seems late. This means the first universe liquid water could be no earlier than first Terra water? I would think rather that first universe water is the time for the first appropriate star + time for first planet + time for liquid water to form on the planet (Terra like). So using Orion's figures:
t_{\odot} = 4.57 \cdot 10^9 \text{y}
t_p = 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \text{y}
t_w_p = 0.14 \cdot 10^9 \text{y}
we get
t_w = t_{\odot} + t_p + t_w_p = 4.74 \cdot 10^9 \text{y} after the Big Bang.

 

[D H]

Universe age:
t_u = 13.85 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/Color]

What's this Color=Blue garbage? You trying to give me a headache? Just because you can color your text doesn't mean you should.

Water is a naturally produced gas by Population I third generation star formation.

Water is of course hydrogen dioxide. Hydrogen formed in the Big Bang. Oxygen formed in Population III stars. The formation of water does not require a third generation star. Moreover, the Sun is not the first third generation star in the galaxy, let alone the universe.

 

[baywax]

t_w = 9.95 \cdot 10^9 \text{y} ? That seems late.

Isn't that 9.95 billion years ago? Earth's terra forming only started 4.5 billion years ago. As far back as we have geological evidence of what the Earth was like, there was liquid water present.

The 4.4-billion-year-old mineral sample suggests that early Earth was not a roiling ocean of magma, but instead was cool enough for water, continents, and conditions that could have supported life. The age of the sample may also undermine accepted current views on how and when the moon was formed. The research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and is published in this week's issue of the journal Nature.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010111073459.htm

 

[baywax]

Water is of course hydrogen dioxide.

Hydrogen dioxide! That sounds deadly.. even if it is water!

Hydrogen formed in the Big Bang. Oxygen formed in Population III stars. The formation of water does not require a third generation star. Moreover, the Sun is not the first third generation star in the galaxy, let alone the universe.

What does this tell us?

 

[mgb_phys]

Hydrogen dioxide! That sounds deadly.. even if it is water!

Erm it isn't - water is Di-Hydrogen Monoxide.
And it is deadly - http://www.dhmo.org/

 

[D H]

Erm it isn't - water is Di-Hydrogen Monoxide.

Oops. I am dyslexic.

What I was trying to say is that water had the opportunity to appear somewhere in the universe much sooner that 4.4 billion years ago.

 

[baywax]

Oops. I am dyslexic.

What I was trying to say is that water had the opportunity to appear somewhere in the universe much sooner that 4.4 billion years ago.

Right on! This is what I'm getting at. This isn't to say its evidence to support ET or anything of the sort... although 4.6 billion years is certainly long enough to come up with intergalactic methods of travel. But it is evidence enough to suggest that life has had time to evolve to the point it has here on earth... elsewhere. (edit: barring environmental calamity)

 

[D H]

Water is not the only essential for life. Earth-based life, at least, depend on a lot of trace elements that did not form (in any abundance) until third generation stars. Moreover, http://www.saao.ac.za/assa/features/cosmology-articles/stars-evolution.html at least implies that oxygen did not come into abundance until the third generation of stars. (I'll see if I can dig up a better reference.) If that is the case, then 5-10 billion years ago is a good starting point for life as we know it anywhere in the universe.

 

[baywax]

Water is not the only essential for life. Earth-based life, at least, depend on a lot of trace elements that did not form (in any abundance) until third generation stars. Moreover, http://www.saao.ac.za/assa/features/cosmology-articles/stars-evolution.html at least implies that oxygen did not come into abundance until the third generation of stars. (I'll see if I can dig up a better reference.) If that is the case, then 5-10 billion years ago is a good starting point for life as we know it anywhere in the universe.

Of course I'm forgetting the other elements involved in the abiogenesis of life. Thank you for that D H.

Carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, phosphorus (for DNA-RNA) Iron (as found in Haemoglobin) cobalt (as in Vit. B12). Escherichia Coli depend on 17 elements (mainly H, O and C). And humans need 26 elements some of which are Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Sn, W and Pb.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=XJc...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result

So all of these elements formed (in abundance) with third generation stars?

 

[Orion1]

Cryptic era...

It is extremely difficult to define the age at which the Milky Way formed, but the age of the oldest star in the Galaxy yet discovered, HE 1523-0901, is estimated to be about 13.2 billion years, nearly as old as the Universe itself.

By including the estimated age of the stars in the globular cluster (13.4 ± 0.8 billion years), they estimated the age of the oldest stars in the Milky Way at 13.6 ± 0.8 billion years. Based upon this emerging science, the Galactic thin disk is estimated to have been formed between 6.5 and 10.1 billion years ago.

The Cryptic era is an informal term that refers to the earliest geologic evolution of the Earth and Moon. It is the oldest era of the (informal) Hadean eon, and it is commonly accepted to have begun close to 4567.17 million years ago when the Earth and Moon formed. No samples exist to date the transition between the Cryptic era and the following Basin Groups era for the Moon (see also Pre-Nectarian), though sometimes it is stated that this era ended 4150 million years ago for one or both of these bodies. Neither this time period, nor any other Hadean subdivision, has been officially recognized by the International Commission on Stratigraphy.

This time is cryptic because very little geological evidence has survived from this time. Most geological landforms and rocks were probably destroyed in the early bombardment phase, or by the continued effects of plate tectonics. The Earth accreted, its interior differentiated and its molten surface solidified during the Cryptic era. The proposed collision (Giant impact theory) that led to formation of the Moon occurred also at this time. The oldest known minerals are from the Cryptic era.

Basin Groups era:
Oldest known rock (4030 Ma)
The first Lifeforms and self-replicating RNA molecules may have evolved (4000 Ma)
Napier Orogeny in Antarctica, 4000 ± 200 Ma.

Cryptic era:
Oldest known mineral (Zircon, 4406±8 Ma)
Formation of Moon (4533 Ma), probably from giant impact
Formation of Earth (4567.17 to 4570 Ma)

Universe age:
t_u = 13.85 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

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}}

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.

If second generation and third generation stars can form together, then the minimum time required for a 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}}

Universe's/Terra's first RNA based lifeforms age:
t_l = 4.0 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Minimum time required for third generation star's liquid water to generate RNA based lifeforms:
t_{g} = t_z - t_l = (4.4 - 4.0) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}} = 0.4 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

\boxed{t_g = 0.4 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}}

Minimum time required for liquid water to form in Universe:
t_w = t_3 + t_p + t_{wp} = (0.65 + 0.03 + 0.14) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.82 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_w = 0.82 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form in Universe:
t_{RNA} = t_w + t_g = t_3 + t_p + t_{wp} + t_g = (t_u - t_0) + (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)

t_{RNA} = (0.65 + 0.03 + 0.14 + 0.4) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 1.22 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_{RNA} = 1.22 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to evolve into prokaryote DNA:
\boxed{t_{DNA} = 0.5 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Minimum time required for prokaryote DNA to form in Universe:
t_{min} = t_{RNA} + t_{DNA} = (1.22 + 0.5) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 1.72 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_{min} = 1.72 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Current maximum amount of evolutionary time in Universe for RNA life:
t_e = t_u - t_{RNA} = (13.85 - 1.22) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}} = 12.63 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

\boxed{t_e = 12.63 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}}
[/Color]
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptic_era"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basin_Groups"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote#Evolution_of_prokaryotes"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Age"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE_1523-0901"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale#Table_of_geologic_time"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2058830&postcount=21"

 

[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.

 

[Sundance]

Hello

The logic above is based of a theory of the BBT.

The age of the stars and galaxies is based on the evolutuionary phase and does not account for regeneration and so on.

 

[baywax]

Basin Groups era:
Oldest known rock (4030 Ma)
The first Lifeforms and self-replicating RNA molecules may have evolved (4000 Ma)
Napier Orogeny in Antarctica, 4000 ± 200 Ma.

Cryptic era:
Oldest known mineral (Zircon, 4406±8 Ma)
Formation of Moon (4533 Ma), probably from giant impact
Formation of Earth (4567.17 to 4570 Ma)

Universe age:
t_u = 13.85 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

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}}

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.

If second generation and third generation stars can form together, then the minimum time required for a 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}}

Universe's/Terra's first RNA based lifeforms age:
t_l = 4.0 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Minimum time required for third generation star's liquid water to generate RNA based lifeforms:
t_{g} = t_z - t_l = (4.4 - 4.0) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}} = 0.4 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

\boxed{t_g = 0.4 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}}

Minimum time required for liquid water to form in Universe:
t_w = t_3 + t_p + t_{wp} = (0.65 + 0.03 + 0.14) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.82 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_w = 0.82 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form in Universe:
t_{RNA} = t_w + t_g = t_3 + t_p + t_{wp} + t_g = (t_u - t_0) + (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)

t_{RNA} = (0.65 + 0.03 + 0.14 + 0.4) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 1.22 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_{RNA} = 1.22 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to evolve into prokaryote DNA:
\boxed{t_{DNA} = 0.5 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Minimum time required for prokaryote DNA to form in Universe:
t_{min} = t_{RNA} + t_{DNA} = (1.22 + 0.5) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 1.72 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}

\boxed{t_{min} = 1.72 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

Current maximum amount of evolutionary time in Universe for RNA life:
t_e = t_u - t_{RNA} = (13.85 - 1.22) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}} = 12.63 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}

\boxed{t_e = 12.63 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}}
[/Color]
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptic_era"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basin_Groups"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote#Evolution_of_prokaryotes"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Age"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE_1523-0901"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale#Table_of_geologic_time"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2058830&postcount=21"

Thank you Orion1. Great info!

 

[baywax]

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]

HE 1523-0901 star's nuclear fuel...

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.
[/Color]
Reference:
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/he1523a.jpg"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE_1523-0901"
http://astronomyonline.org/aoblog/images/HE1523-0901.jpg"
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/he1523s2.jpg"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergiant"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova"

 

[baywax]

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.
[/Color]
Reference:
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/he1523a.jpg"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE_1523-0901"
http://astronomyonline.org/aoblog/images/HE1523-0901.jpg"
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/he1523s2.jpg"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergiant"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova"

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]

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]

Ancient water vapor was discovered...

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}}
[/Color]
Reference:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218122244.htm"
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/io9/2008/12/distantwater.jpg"
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18059"

 

[baywax]

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}}
[/Color]
Reference:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218122244.htm"
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/io9/2008/12/distantwater.jpg"
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18059"

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]

Oldest star age in galaxy...

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.
[/Color]

 

[baywax]

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.
[/Color]

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]

Late Heavy Bombardment...

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 230°C 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.

...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.

...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.
[/Color]
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale#Table_of_geologic_time"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment"

 

[baywax]

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.
[/Color]
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale#Table_of_geologic_time"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment"

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]

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]

Monocellular DNA to multicellular DNA...

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}}
[/Color]
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolution_of_life"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacara_biota"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2060373&postcount=33"

 

[Sundance]

Hello Orion

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

One in particular the first life


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolution_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 a lot 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]

Greetings, Sundance

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

(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.

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?
[/Color]
Reference:
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/0164755512w92302/fulltext.pdf"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia"