Implications of life being found or not found on Europa

[Buzz Bloom]

Consider that the Earth has lots of iron ore, coal, and other minerals but it never gets assembled into steel on it's own, even though the combination is simple. But life requires billions of little amino acids to be carefully assembled in the right order.

Hi Ken:

I am OK with the concept that energy is sufficient to create complexity of out simplicity, given a very common context. The concept is called emergent phenomena. I found the book Genesis by Robert M. Hazen (2005) to be an excellent presentation of this concept in a very entertaining book. He describes four factors of the phenomenon (pgs 17-21).
1. The concentration of agents.
2. The interconnectivity of agents.
3. Energy Flow through the system.
4. Cycling of energy flow.

I have also been reading discussions of the plausible role of a large moon, like the Earth's moon, as a necessary ingredient for emergence of life in the form of the first cell.

The following are some previous posts about this concept.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ot-found-on-europa.865903/reply?quote=5440460
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/novel-idea-on-the-origin-of-life.851106/reply?quote=5369545​

Regards,
Buzz

 

[1oldman2]

Hi again, a little more here.
http://www.space.com/32995-jupiter-moon-europa-energy-life.html

 

[rootone]

If all the expected ingredients for life are there in a subsurface ocean that does make investigating the ocean potentially highly rewarding.
However is the ice crust thought to be something like tens of km,?
So not easy to get through it to the liquid water, but I suppose a very strong laser might work if the crust is just water ice.

As for the presence of other Moons contributing to kick starting of life through periodicity or something, well Jupiter has plenty of them.

 

[1oldman2]

However is the ice crust thought to be something like tens of km,?

The jury is still out on that one.
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2011/3266.html
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/56545-estimating-europas-ice-crust-thickness/
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/europa/thickice/
http://www.unisci.com/stories/20014/1109013.htm

If all the expected ingredients for life are there in a subsurface ocean that certainly makes investigating the ocean potentially highly rewarding.

It seems almost criminal not to check out the possibility.

 

[rootone]

Thanks for the interesting links.
You never know, there could be a highly evolved lifeform in there trying to figure out if Europa infinite or not

 

[1oldman2]

Thanks for the interesting links.
You never know, there could be a highly evolved lifeform in there trying to figure out if Europa infinite or not

This one is certainly relevant.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068547/pdf

 

[Dr Wu]

I'm with newjerseyrunner here. I'm prepared to go even further: given what we don't know about the possibilities of life existing elsewhere in the universe, life could even exist - even thrive - in that hellhole we call Venus. On the other hand, in the absence of ever discovering extraterrestrial life, it could be that we, our future selves, may never find out for sure whether Earth is truly unique as a life-bearing planet. This uncertainty could hang over us as long as we exist as a species; a depressing thought, but one that has to be considered.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

it could be that we, our future selves, may never find out for sure whether Earth is truly unique as a life-bearing planet. This uncertainty could hang over us as long as we exist as a species; a depressing thought, but one that has to be considered.

Hi @Dr Wu:

I am curious about how you would assess with respect to "a depressing thought" the role of a level of confidence in terms of an estimated probability, or range of probabilities, that the Earth is unique with respect to hosting life. Such an estimate would be based on accumulated future evidence combined with improvements in theoretical understanding about the possible processes that lead to life emerging from non-life. How depressing a thought would it be, for example, if humans never achieve an estimate of 100% certainty, but merely an estimate of say 99%? Also, would it make a difference if the estimate was restricted to a particular kind of life, say for example water and carbon based, rather than open to include any kind of theoretically possible life, such as "theoretically" that which might exist on Venus?

Regards,
Buzz

 

[1oldman2]

http://www.space.com/26905-jupiter-moon-europa-alien-life.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/091116-jupiter-moon-life-europa-fish_2.html
http://science.jpl.nasa.gov/projects/Europa%20Mission/
http://science.jpl.nasa.gov/people/Pappalardo/
http://www.space.com/15498-europa-sdcmp.html
http://www.space.com/29732-jupiter-moon-europa-ocean-submarine.html

 

[Dr Wu]

Hi Buzz,

Yes, while I'm entirely open to the possibility of life existing on Enceladas, Europa and Ganymede - and indeed hope very much that this turns out to be true - I also have to accept the possibility that all three moons may turn out to harbour no life whatsoever. How would I feel about this? Deeply disappointed certainly, though not to the point of strain. If, on the other hand, it becomes apparent over time that the universe at large is indeed bereft of life, other than here on Earth, then, yes, that for me at least is a depressing thought. Can we ever be sure that such an assessment is truly valid, however? Not while we're dealing with incomplete information. . . which is always liable to be the case, as in other aspects of scientific enquiry. And there is always, but always, the unexpected to consider - re. Hume's 'Black Swan' theory. Personally, I belong to the universe-is-teeming-with-life camp (and not necessarily carbon-based life either). Somehow it seems almost inconceivable that we earthlings are alone in the wider (or even nearer?) Cosmos. Nevertheless, I still have to accept that the inconceivable remains a possibility, no matter how improbable or implausible it may appear to us pattern-loving monkeys. Now what would really be depressing is the realisation - should it ever come to pass - that we Homo sapiens are the sole intelligent life-forms 'currently' existing in the universe. ACC finds the prospect 'terrifying'. I find it depressing. Again we might never know for certain whether this solitude of ours is a verifiable scientific fact. And yet we just might one day. . . and by means that we cannot even begin to imagine. In the meantime, bring on the microbes. . .

 

[1oldman2]

Greetings and happy memorial day,
I wonder what effect or consequence the intense radiation found in the Europa environment would have on the development of life there. I haven't noticed that factored into the odds.

 

[rootone]

How much of the intense radiation around Jupiter can penetrate through Europa's ice crust though?
I think probably it's not much.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Hi Dr Wu:

I think I failed to make my question clear. Maybe it will help if I explain my orientation.
1. I believe it is always impossible to ever be certain about any negative.
2. Any phenomenon that may be considered to be plausibly possible is likely (e.g., probability > 50%) to exist somewhere in our infinite universe. However, if life not found to exist in our galaxy, other than on Earth, it is extremely unlikely (probability < 0.01%) it will ever be found elsewhere in the universe. I think that to make such a finding will require assessing the atmospheric components of a planet in another galaxy, and finding free oxygen gas, O₂. My guess is that will not ever be a practical possibility, even for Andromeda.
3. At the present time, I find that any possibility of life not based on carbon and water is only at most a plausible speculation. Therefore, in the absence of what might be sought for as a high likelihood indicator of success, it is not currently possible to scientifically to make any kind of probability estimate about this possibility.

So, If we ignore the possibility of certainty regarding a negative finding, suppose we assume no positive finding, and that science eventually learns a lot about the details of requirements for carbon and water based life to evolve from non-life. Then if we also assume for the purpose of this question that science makes an estimate that the likelihood of finding life based on carbon and water existing in the galaxy elsewhere than on Earth is, say < 1%.

How would that 1% estimate make you feel? At what level of probability estimate, higher or lower, would your feelings be different?

Regards,
Buzz

 

[1oldman2]

How much of the intense radiation around Jupiter can penetrate through Europa's ice crust though?
I think probably it's not much.

I'm sure that will be studied in detail when a probe arrives to penetrate the ice, until then we can extrapolate at best. The "deck" that is Europa has a lot of wild cards in it.

 

[mfb]

It doesn't matter whether the radiation can penetrate the first 1 or 10 meters, it is completely irrelevant after 100 meters, and the layer is at least several kilometers thick.

 

[1oldman2]

it is completely irrelevant after 100 meters

Thanks for the info, that would make a big difference.

 

[1oldman2]

http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/new_website/workshops/life/life.html
http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/study/life/presentations/Hud.pdf
The pdf is interesting and relative to certain post on this thread.

 

[1oldman2]

Seems more common than we thought.
http://www.space.com/33193-organic-molecule-planet-forming-disk.html
http://www.space.com/33167-twisty-chiral-molecule-first-found-interstellar-space.html

 

[Buzz Bloom]

http://www.space.com/33167-twisty-chiral-molecule-first-found-interstellar-space.html

Hi @1oldman2:

I found the articles you cited quite interesting. I found one statement in the article whose link I quoted above which "technically" contradicts something I have recent read in:

Genesis by Robert M. Hazen, p. 181.​

Quote from link (highlighting is mine):

Though the molecules are made of the same components, it's impossible to flip one around to make it exactly match the other.​

Quote from Genesis:

Glenn's research exploited the fact that although almost all of life's amino acids are left handed, as soon as an organism dies , a slow, inexorable process called racemization -- the random flipping of molecules from L to D and vice versa -- begins. Eventually, after a few tens of thousands of years an organism's amino acids will have completely randomized to a 50:50 mixture.​

Regards,
Buzz

 

[1oldman2]

Hi Buzz,
I'm not familiar with "Genesis" however I'm searching for a copy and if I'm $14.00 in the clear when the bills are paid this month I'll likely get the pdf version, looks like a very interesting read. I'm always a little suspicious of reading "breakthrough announcements" in everyday publications and it seems the one I posted was based on http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6292/1449 . Guess I'll have to wait and see what becomes of the contradiction. If you find anymore on this particular subject please let me know.
Thanks,

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Hi @1oldman2:

I first became interested in the origin of life when I read

English translation: Oparin, A. I. The Origin of Life. New York: Dover (1952)​

as a teenager. Since then I have read several other books on this topic, but Genesis by Hazen (2005) has become my new favorite. It is mostly a very well written autobiographical description of many laboratory experiments he and others conducted to confirm ideas about various mechanisms involved in the origin of life.

Hope you are able to get a copy. Have you investigated library resources? The copy I read was from my local town library.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[1oldman2]

Have you investigated library resources? The copy I read was from my local town library.

great suggestion, I tend to under use the local library.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Quote from link (highlighting is mine):

Though the molecules are made of the same components, it's impossible to flip one around to make it exactly match the other.​

Quote from Genesis:

Glenn's research exploited the fact that although almost all of life's amino acids are left handed, as soon as an organism dies , a slow, inexorable process called racemization -- the random flipping of molecules from L to D and vice versa -- begins. Eventually, after a few tens of thousands of years an organism's amino acids will have completely randomized to a 50:50 mixture.​

​

These statements are both accurate and the confusion comes from the different uses of the word "flip."

The statement from the link is essentially the definition of chiratlity: molecules that cannot be superposed on their mirror images through simply rotating the molecule (i.e. "flipping the molecule around").

The Genesis quote is referring to a set of chemical reactions that can "flip" or randomize the stereochemistry of chiral molecules (often by first converting them to an achiral intermediate. An example of such a reaction is one involving the an SN1 mechanism. Because racemization involves more than just simply rotating the molecule, molecules that can undergo racemization are still considered chiral.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

The statement from the link is essentially the definition of chiratlity: molecules that cannot be superposed on their mirror images through simply rotating the molecule (i.e. "flipping the molecule around").

Hi: @Ygggdrasil:

Thank you very much for correcting my misunderstanding.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[1oldman2]

Regarding the last few posts, Thanks for the info, this site is great at clearing up misunderstandings.