Thermosynthesis implications for exobiology

  • Thread starter Thread starter LURCH
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Life was discovered at ocean floor thermal vents, challenging previous beliefs that such depths could not support life due to the absence of photosynthesis. Instead, these ecosystems rely on chemosynthesis, where energy is derived from chemicals emitted by the vents. This raises questions about the potential for organisms to utilize electromagnetic (EM) radiation, particularly in thermal wavelengths, to sustain life functions, a concept referred to as thermosynthesis. The discussion highlights the excitement surrounding the implications of this discovery for exobiology, suggesting that life could exist in environments dominated by different forms of EM radiation, such as radio waves. However, there are concerns regarding the longevity and energy output of stars that primarily emit radio waves, which may limit their ability to support complex ecosystems.
LURCH
Science Advisor
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
119
Sometime ago, life was discovered on the ocean floor, where no life was supposed to exist. No life was supposed to exist there because photosynthesis was considered impossible at those depths. However, ecosystems built around thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean are not based on photosynthesis, but rather chemosynthesis. Life energy is extracted from chemicals spewed out by the vents.

As soon as this discovery was made, I began to wonder why chemicals were used as the foundation of life in these ecosystems. My reasoning was that "EM is EM", and the thermal vents are, well, thermal. So, if life on the surface receives it energy for living from electromagnetic radiation into wavelengths that are most abundantly available in an environment (the visible wavelength, mostly), why don't organisms around thermal vents take in electromagnetic energy in the thermal wavelengths to power their life functions (thermosynthesis)?

It has now been discovered that http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astrobio_extreme_030505.html

I consider this a very exciting development. It seems to open up a whole new realm of possibilities. Though they have not yet been discovered, it seems almost certain that an organism feeding directly off any form of EM radiation should be at the base of a food chain and must, almost certainly, have predators that feed on it.

This could also has serious implications for exobiology. A star that emits most of its radiation into radio wave frequency could support metallic plants that function like radio antennas, etc.

Comments, anyone?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biology news on Phys.org
Wow... that really is incredible... How much energy is available from photons of such energy anyways? However, I have a suspicion that radio-emitting stars (a) do not last long enough and (b) do not give out enough energy to base an ecosystem on. But, what do I know...?:smile:
 
https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/body-dysmorphia/ Most people have some mild apprehension about their body, such as one thinks their nose is too big, hair too straight or curvy. At the extreme, cases such as this, are difficult to completely understand. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/other/why-would-someone-want-to-amputate-healthy-limbs/ar-AA1MrQK7?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=68ce4014b1fe4953b0b4bd22ef471ab9&ei=78 they feel like they're an amputee in the body of a regular person "For...
Thread 'Did they discover another descendant of homo erectus?'
The study provides critical new insights into the African Humid Period, a time between 14,500 and 5,000 years ago when the Sahara desert was a green savanna, rich in water bodies that facilitated human habitation and the spread of pastoralism. Later aridification turned this region into the world's largest desert. Due to the extreme aridity of the region today, DNA preservation is poor, making this pioneering ancient DNA study all the more significant. Genomic analyses reveal that the...
Whenever these opiods are mentioned they usually mention that e.g. fentanyl is "50 times stronger than heroin" and "100 times stronger than morphine". Now it's nitazene which the public is told is everything from "much stronger than heroin" and "200 times stronger than fentany"! Do these numbers make sense at all? How do they arrive at them? Kill thousands of mice? En passant: nitazene have already been found in both Oxycontin pills and in street "heroin" here, so Naloxone is more...
Back
Top