Could Anything Survive in the Habitable Zone Without a Host Star?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yosty22
  • Start date Start date
Yosty22
Messages
182
Reaction score
4
I understand the concept of the habitable zone or ''Goldilocks Zone," but can't anything technically be in the habitable zone? Even if the planet in question is far away from its host star, couldn't a greenhouse effect create an atmosphere and/or warm enough temperatures (but not too warm) to contain liquid water? Would this mean that anything could be in the habitable zone as long as it has another way to generate heat of its own if it is too far to gain sufficient heat from its host star?
 
Space news on Phys.org
The goldilocks zone is dependant on the output of its star, it only describes a region where liquid water is possible and temperature is suitable. Their are other ways to have liquid water outside or inside the goldilocks zone that could support life or for that matter other life supporting elements such as ammonia etc. One example is the possibility of Europia supporting life in its underground oceans. That moon lies outside the habitable zone.
 
Oh, thank you. With that in mind, what defines the habitable zone? Is there a way to calculate how large the habitable zone is for a certain star? Is energy output the only factor in calculating the habitable zone of a star?
 
Astronomers use apparent magnitude, luminosity and stellar flux along with the inverse square law to calculate habitable zones for stars. The "center" of the HZ is defined as the distance that an exoplanet would have to be from its parent star in order to receive the right amount of energy from the star to maintain liquid water. For example, a star with 25% of the luminosity of the Sun will have a CHZ centered at about 0.50 AU, while a star with twice the Sun's luminosity will have a CHZ centered at about 1.4 AU.

here is a couple of articles that covers some of the calculations involved

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/H/habzone.html

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/lecture14.pdf

http://www.planetarybiology.com/calculating_habitable_zone.htm


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.6674v2.pdf

the last paper is fairly intense but it shows more modern methodology. The graphs are also handy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mordy, that article http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.6674v2.pdf is interesting! Thanks for calling our attention to it. I'm going to add it to the informal A&C bibliography in the Astro forum. It's a handy place to keep links of stuff one might want to refer to, if you think they might be of general interest and helpful to other members.
The thing I like is that it considers various cases of the mass of the planet and its atmosphere, so the various ways the greenhouse effect changes the inner and outer limits of the Zone are presented in a detailed informative way.
 
No problem I often save gems such as that article, saving it on the site would be a good idea.

I've seen a lot of various short hand ways to use my callsign but that's the first time I've seen Mordy used lol
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top