Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nearby Supernova Causes Mass Extinction?

Posted by michael on from the theoretically-speaking dept.

hcg50a writes "AP has a story on Yahoo about a theory that a blast of gamma rays from a distant supernova destroyed the earth's ozone layer, allowing normally shielded intense UV radiation from the sun to kill life on earth. The second-largest extinction in the Earth's history, the killing of two-thirds of all species, may have been caused by ultraviolet radiation from the sun after gamma rays destroyed the Earth's ozone layer. Astronomers are proposing that a supernova exploded within 10,000 light years of the Earth, destroying the chemistry of the atmosphere and allowing the sun's ultraviolet rays to cook fragile, unprotected life forms."

10 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. Mars? by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Could this also have affected life on Mars, but it never recovered?

    (Rhetorical question - we can't really know)

    1. Re:Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      One theory proposes that Mars lost its atmosphere after losing its magnetic field. Without the protective bubble of the field, the solar wind can slowly erode the atmosphere.

  2. Wow. by NegativeK · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not sure if other hard-sci-fi authors have addressed this, but Stephen Baxter's Manifold Space used a theory like this to address the Fermi Paradox: if we assume that physical laws are constant throughout the universe, why hasn't there been contact with other species? His answer? A sort of galactic reset.. When conditions are just right, two neutron stars (or other heavy bodies) will enter a decaying orbit, and release gravitational energy in the form of gamma rays (I believe.) In short, resetting the biological clock of our galaxy. Different from destroying the ozone layer, but this article makes it seem a little less far fetched, doesn't it?

    --
    This statement is false.
    1. Re:Wow. by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It appears that there are several factors for creating a 'potential life zone' in the galaxy.

      Given our sample of one known case, we assume you need a Sun-like star, with an Earth-like planet in an Earth-like orbit, probably with an Earth-like moon. You also need outer gas giants to reduce the inbound crap that would otherwise beat the hell out of us. That's just the local stuff.

      You also need to have a solar system that won't pass through a dangerous region of space while life is trying to evolve... that means no 'stellar nurseries' nearby, or anything likely to go 'boom' in a big way.

      In other words, even if there are very large numbers of potentially Earth-like planets, with conditions nearly exactly like the ones we're familiar with, they might indeed be sterilized frequently enough to prevent life from ever getting anywhere - and maybe even one sterilization could render a rock permanently hostile to life.

      Still, mankind knows relatively little about the galaxy and the probabilities of the many factors we suspect are related to the chance of life getting started, never mind developing life with a penchant for coming to visit us and mutilate our cows and cornfields while rectally probing drunken hicks.

    2. Re:Wow. by hcg50a · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Good point.

      The biggest problem with the Drake Equation is that it it way too simplistic. In our galaxy, there is definitely a habitable zone which the solar system is in. If it were much closer to the center of the galaxy, there would be too many events like energetic supernovae that would kill all life on the earth. If it were much farther away from the center, there would not be enough heavy elements to form earth-like planets.

      Life is fragile and cannot tolerate too many nearby energetic events.

      Life similar to Earth's probably exists elsewhere in our galaxy, but may not be very common.

      --
      HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
      11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
  3. No Real Evidence yet... by Slick_Snake · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "We think there is very good circumstantial evidence for a gamma ray burst."

    The article clearly states that they have no real evidence to speak of. The only thing they do have is the ice age that occured at the time of the extintion. They admit that no traces of a supernova near earth can be found, and blame it on the rotation of the Milky way.

    Melott said there is no known evidence of such a nearby supernova, but that in 440 million years the Milky Way would have rotated almost twice and traces of the explosion could have been moved during that time.

    I will give them that it is a possibility, but until they have some more convencing evidence I'm not ready to jump aboard.

    1. Re:No Real Evidence yet... by dexter+riley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed, the article didn't describe hard evidence that the Earth was the target of a gamma ray burst 440 million years ago. Does anyone know where you would look for such evidence? Would there be a detectable chemical signature in soil sediments from this period? Or is this something you would need to look at moon rocks or cometary ices to find some evidence of the gamma rays?

  4. Evolution? by dnahelix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Could it also be a factor in Evolution?
    Increased exposure to radiation causing a period of increased mutations in the surviving species?

    --
    Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
    They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
    I Hate \.
  5. the next big one primed & feisty by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    and here's the ticking time bomb within 10,000 lightyears that's going to finish us off. It may in fact already have supernovaed, and the gamma ray clam-bake coming at lightspeed! Oh, and recently revised estimates indicate no more than 20,000 years to the big pop. This will mess up your hard disk.

  6. Re:Protection from the other side of the Earth. by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I used to work at Fermilab, and the graphs I've seen of gamma ray bursts attributed to supernovae cover a period of tens or hundreds of seconds, with a several second huge peak, something like this

    As someone else has already pointed out, this moves at lightspeed, so there's no warning. You do realize there's not enough jets/planes to even hold 0.00001 of humanity, and the real problem would be trying to outrun our own daytime as the earth is baked by our own sun. You think people will wait nicely in line for a plane on a first-come first-serve basis? Hah, imagine your local airport looking like the most violent moments of the worst civil war. Cheers!