When did H2O develop during the last 13.5 b y?

  • Thread starter baywax
  • Start date
In summary, there are multiple models and theories for the development of the universe and the formation of water, with no definitive timeline. While understanding the formation of water could potentially lead to a better understanding of the development of life, it is difficult to determine the precise moment when water began to form. Water does not necessarily require a planet's environment to form, but it is believed that a significant amount of water in our own solar system was formed in the very early stages of our solar system's formation. Comets, which are largely composed of water, are believed to be formed from ejected material from planets, although this is not confirmed. Further research and study is needed to fully understand the mechanics of stellar formation and the role of water in the formation of
  • #1
baywax
Gold Member
2,176
1
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?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
baywax said:
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.
 
  • #3
mgb_phys said:
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?
 
  • #4
baywax said:
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?
 
  • #5
mgb_phys said:
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?
 
  • #6
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
 
  • #7
gtring said:
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.
 
  • #8
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.
 
  • #9
Chronos said:
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.
 
  • #10
baywax said:
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.
 
  • #11
baywax said:
Yeah, kind of like that
Does water need the environment of a planet to form?

mgb_phys said:
No, but does one in a billion water molecules ...
Liquid water does; needs the pressure of an atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Hello

Water is formed from H and O. These elements are formed in the solar envelopes of stars.
 
  • #13
mheslep said:
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?
 
  • #14
baywax said:
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.
 
  • #15
mheslep said:
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!
 
  • #16
I meant your premise, not the OP:
baywax said:
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?

baywax said:
...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.
 
  • #17
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
 
  • #18
mheslep said:
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:rolleyes:

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.
 
  • #19
baywax said:
My premise is that with liquid water present somewhere, for the first time, in the universe, water based life would not be far... ahead:rolleyes:
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.
 
  • #20
mheslep said:
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?)
 
  • #21
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:
[tex]t_u = 13.85 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]

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

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

Water exists naturally in solid and gas form.

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

Water exists naturally in solid and gas form.

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

[tex]\boxed{t_p = 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

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

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

[tex]\boxed{t_w = 0.14 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

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

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

[tex]\boxed{t_g = 0.7 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}}[/tex]

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

[tex]\boxed{N_g = 6.286}[/tex]

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

[tex]\boxed{t_w = 9.95 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]


Reference:
http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_print.cfm?ID=76"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22


Orion1 said:





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

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

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

Water exists naturally in solid and gas form.

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

Water exists naturally in solid and gas form.

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

[tex]\boxed{t_p = 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

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

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

[tex]\boxed{t_w = 0.14 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

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

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

[tex]\boxed{t_g = 0.7 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}}[/tex]

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

[tex]\boxed{N_g = 6.286}[/tex]

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

[tex]\boxed{t_w = 9.95 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]


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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
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?
 
  • #24
[tex]t_w = 9.95 \cdot 10^9 \text{y}[/tex] ? 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:
[tex]t_{\odot} = 4.57 \cdot 10^9 \text{y}[/tex]
[tex]t_p = 0.03 \cdot 10^9 \text{y}[/tex]
[tex]t_w_p = 0.14 \cdot 10^9 \text{y}[/tex]
we get
[tex]t_w = t_{\odot} + t_p + t_w_p = 4.74 \cdot 10^9 \text{y}[/tex] after the Big Bang.
 
Last edited:
  • #25


Orion1 said:
Universe age:
[tex]t_u = 13.85 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]
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.
 
  • #26
mheslep said:
[tex]t_w = 9.95 \cdot 10^9 \text{y}[/tex] ? 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
 
  • #27


D H said:
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?
 
  • #28


baywax said:
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/
 
  • #29


mgb_phys said:
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.
 
  • #30


D H said:
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)
 
  • #31
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
D H said:
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Cryptic era...


Wikipedia said:
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.

Wikipedia said:
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.

Wikipedia said:
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:
[tex]t_u = 13.85 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]

Oldest star age in Galaxy: (HE 1523-0901, Milky Way)
[tex]t_0 = 13.2 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]

Galaxy age: (Milky Way)
[tex]t_G = 6.5 \; \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

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:
[tex]t_3 = (t_u - t_0) = (13.85 - 13.2) \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y} = 0.65 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{t_3 = 0.65 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

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

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

[tex]\boxed{t_g = 0.4 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}}[/tex]

Minimum time required for liquid water to form in Universe:
[tex]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}[/tex]

[tex]\boxed{t_w = 0.82 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

Minimum time required for self-replicating RNA to form in Universe:
[tex]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)[/tex]

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

[tex]\boxed{t_{RNA} = 1.22 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

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

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

[tex]\boxed{t_{min} = 1.72 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}[/tex]

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

[tex]\boxed{t_e = 12.63 \cdot 10^9 \; \text{y}}}[/tex]

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"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
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.
 
  • #35
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.
 

Similar threads

  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
25
Views
684
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
26
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top