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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yosty22
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the concept of the habitable zone (HZ) and whether life could exist in this zone without a host star, emphasizing that other heat sources, like greenhouse effects, could potentially allow for liquid water. It clarifies that the HZ is defined by the energy output of a star, which determines the distance required for a planet to maintain suitable temperatures for liquid water. The calculation of the HZ involves factors such as apparent magnitude, luminosity, and stellar flux, with specific examples provided for stars of varying luminosity. Additionally, the conversation highlights the potential for life in environments outside the traditional HZ, such as the underground oceans of Europa. Overall, the thread underscores the complexity of defining habitable zones and the various factors influencing them.
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...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top