Slashdot Mirror


Carbon From Outer Space Older Than Our Sun

Roland Piquepaille writes "While looking at interplanetary dust particles (IDPs) found in the Earth's stratosphere, researchers from the Washington University in St. Louis have found carbon older than the Solar System. They identified the organic material by its carbon isotopic composition, different from the one of carbon found on Earth. "Our findings are proof that there is presolar organic material coming into the Solar System yet today," said Christine Floss, the leading scientist. "This material has been preserved for more than 4.5 billion years, which is the age of the Solar System. It's amazing that it has survived for so long." This overview contains more details and references. It also contains pictures including the one of a sample's isotopic structure at a sub-micrometer scale."

20 of 40 comments (clear)

  1. About time by shadowbearer · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Our findings are proof that there is presolar organic material coming into the Solar System yet today

    I would have been shocked if this hadn't been found eventually - but it's nice to have positive proof.

    Seems to me that this evidence gives a small boost to the Panspermia theory.

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    1. Re:About time by xilmaril · · Score: 5, Informative
      and for those not familier with the subject (ie most people)

      Svante Arrhenius theorized that bacterial spores propelled through space by light pressure were the seeds of life on Earth. British astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe rekindled interest in panspermia. They also proposed that comets, which are largely made of water-ice, carry bacterial life across galaxies and protect it from radiation damage along the way. Not necessarily a view I subscribe to, but an interesting one nevertheless.

      by Theorellior, of Everything2.com
    2. Re:About time by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Interesting


      That's an interesting question; but the civilizations would have to be incredibly long-lived, thousands or tens of thousands times longer lived than if they used radio waves.

      I think that one possible answer, and the likely one, to Fermi's Paradox is that civilizations evolve technologically past using radio waves for communication very, very rapidly, in centuries or less. They find some way to communicate using *insert future tech here* that EM level civs haven't discovered yet.

      I doubt we'd be of any interest to very high-tech civs other than for some of their scientists studying primitive cultures. Roddenberrys' Prime Directive actually makes some sense if you think of it along those lines.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    3. Re:About time by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      wrt to E2

      I agree that it's possible, but whether it's actually happened or not, in our particular case, is open to argument. Here's the two arguements I see right now as being the most important.

      For: The timescales involved would allow for plenty of chances for life to propogate, survive the conditions/impacts, etc, and re-establish itself. Somewhat supported by the ubiquity of organic molecules in pre-stellar clouds.

      Against: Assumes that life started elsewhere first. Presumes bacterial spore survival over potentially tens/hundreds millions of years++ and conditions, plus environmental compatibility of said bacteria with early terrestrial conditions (see end of comments also).

      I tend to lean toward it being possible, perhaps even probable, that life here was "seeded" from elsewhere; but of course there's no real evidence either way.

      It's still a very fascinating theory, and I suspect it'll be argued for many centuries. If one really looks hard at the timescales involved (age of universe, mixing of star systems materials in those time periods, etc) then it makes a lot of sense...but no hard evidence yet, sigh.

      Now if we could find some evidence that the Archeon age lifeforms are related to what we find in distant chemical signatures....holy !! :) But really, considering the conditions they survived under, it'd be a lot more likely they were descended from panspermic transport than modern life.

      Cheers, xilmaril
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  2. isotopic ratios by gumbi+west · · Score: 5, Informative
    here is the isotopic ratio here on earth.
    • 98.90 % C-12
    • 1.10 % C-13
    1. Re:isotopic ratios by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, I have a hard time understanding how they could use the ratio of 12 to 13 to date the carbon to 4.5 billion years if both isotopes are stable. Radiocarbon dating of the type we use to analyze fossil remains is based on the decay of C 14, which according to link above has a half life of about 6000 years. That makes it good for archaeology, since human history doesn't go back more than a couple orders of magnitude further, but I don't think you could extrapolate back billions of years that way. You'd end up with an imperceptibly small amount. Too bad the article doesn't specify what particular isotopes they're looking at...

  3. Ancient Carbon Origin by no+longer+myself · · Score: 5, Funny
    A Long Time Ago In A Galaxy Far, Far, Away...

    Jabba the Hut had Lando freeze a bunch of people including Han Solo in Carbonite. He hung Han on the wall where he was later rescued. The rest got launched into space and were used for target practice. This was probably their remains.

    Ah, come on... It's late, it's Friday, and it's supposed to be funny! :-)

  4. May not mean anything by Hungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It may not be anything but a statistical anomoly. How we date and locate things has always fascinated me. I.e. this is older because it is underneath this other thing. This volcanic rock is this old because there is this much of a potasium isotope present. We have been acurately recording radiometrics for how long now? 20-30 years? (I know we have been recording them longer but not to the accuracy we can today) So think about the statistics: We look at the decay across 30 years and immediately say it must have a half life of 1.251 billion years? excuse me but thats a pretty small sample rate for my tastes. THis example uses K-AR but that just because I found google hits faster than for carbon isotopes .. sme basic priciple applies though not on as large a scale.

    --
    Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    1. Re:May not mean anything by addaon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are, I suppose, technically correct. It may be nothing but a statistical anomaly. Have you actually, uh, studied statistics? It's pretty easy to figure out the probability of that. It is equally probably that what we observe as gravity is merely a coincidence of random motion, and that the whole solar system go back to it's expected behavior and dissipate into a fine myst tomorrow.

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    2. Re:May not mean anything by Hungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes it is possible but not equally probable that we could all simultaneously cease to exist . Yes, I have studied statistics to answer your question. And to counter your argument about gravity it is much more like someone saying gravity is 9.8mss cecause everywhere we have looked this was teh case. Now teh universe as a whole? I think we can observe that not only does gravity act in predicatble ways but we can manipulate it with ease ( add mass increase density etc) On the other hand I am talking about observing a dynamic substance over an infantesimal period of its existance. In fact I do not know of anything except for things like the platinum Kilogram standard and its ilk that have been studied for any duration. And to be honest I have my doubt about even that. Supposedly the kilogram is becoming less massive due to various factors, but those factors are well within the limits of measurement. More importantly than my knowledge of statistics would have been little things like my appointment to City College London to study Physics and Materials Sciences 14 years ago. What were you doing then?

      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    3. Re:May not mean anything by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe, maybe not.

      Assume that they have 6*10^20 atoms of the stuff. If the half life is a billion years, then they can 'sample' >10^10 decays. That's not a small sample.

      YAW.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    4. Re:May not mean anything by addaon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The fact that I don't agree with you, then, probably means I'm misunderstanding you. Your original example was that our estimate of half lives may be invalid because of small sample size, yes? However, we've looked at samples on the order of 10^25 atoms, at least... probably 10^30 for uranium and carbon. These are not small samples. The other possibility is that our estimate is exactly correct, but that half life is dependent upon some external factor, which has not changed during our time of study but changes frequently elsewhere. This is, as far as I can tell, entirely unsupported by any evidence at all, nor is there any suggested mechanism for how it migth occur; therefore, it is actually less possible than the idea of gravity changing rapidly with distance, for at least proposals have been made that suggest that, although they are far from widely supported.

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
  5. Vacuum cleaner? by zeux · · Score: 3, Funny

    looking at interplanetary dust particles (IDPs) found in the Earth's stratosphere

    How do you do that? You catch them with a giant Swiffer mop?

  6. Not really that impressive by k4_pacific · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's amazing that it has survived for so long


    Not really, some of you may recall that the law of conservation matter sez that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. So it had to survive. If it hadn't then this would be amazing because it would cast strong evidence against the law of conservatin of matter. I'm mean, really now, what else would it do besides float around in space forever?

    desrever si gis!

    --
    Unknown host pong.
  7. The Cosmic Recycling Center by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 3, Informative
    They are called stars: fusion, E=mc^2, supernovae. Behold the power of the atom.

    Oh, and those theoretical apparitions called black holes -- the great Insinkerators in the sky.

    --
    the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
  8. Well. by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seeing that carbon generation is a long way down the chain from the present hydrogen -> helium main cycle our star is in, it is logical to conclude that all carbon here on earth must at one point have come from some extra-solar source.

    So this is news because?

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
    1. Re:Well. by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Solar System formed out of a single gas and dust cloud resulting from one or more supernovas. This cloud had a characteristic isotopic composition. The carbon these researchers have found has a different composition and so must have originated in a different dust cloud.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  9. Surprise... by Hello+this+is+Linus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It would really be surprising if our sun was older than the carbon from outer space.

    --
    Hello, this is Linus Torvalds, and I pronounce Linux as Linux!
  10. Re:May not mean anything(Epistemology of HalfLife) by G4from128k · · Score: 2, Informative

    It may not be anything but a statistical anomoly. How we date and locate things has always fascinated me. .... We look at the decay across 30 years and immediately say it must have a half life of 1.251 billion years? excuse me but thats a pretty small sample rate for my tastes.

    I see your point and agree that using science to know the past is very tricky. In the case of measuring half-lives, the methods are statistically accurate because of the huge sample size in atoms. If you start with 6 x 10^23 atoms and time how long it takes a billion of them to decay, you get a very accurate estimate of the decay rate. That the experiment only watches the atoms for a billioth of a half-life is less important that the fact that it counts the activity of such a large sample size of atoms.

    But the problem you are alluding to is deeper than that. Although we can be statistically confident that the half-life of K40 is 1.251 billion years currently, that measurement gives us no proof that it has always been 1.251 billion years. For that we need accurate measurements of half-life at two widely separated times (and as you say, we've only been doing that for a few decades).

    IANAP, so perhaps some astrophysicist here can enlighten us on how we know that the laws of physics dont change. Based on the invariance of spectral lines, I suspect that we can be confident that the eletromagnetic force has been constant over time (even here I wonder if its possible to change the laws of physics to mimic a redshift). But how do we know that the weak force and strong force have remained constant over the life span of the universe? For example, is there a way to accurately measure the half-life of elements spawned by billion light-year distant supernovae?

    Finally, it may be that changes in half-life over galatic timescales are irrelevant and long as all half-lives change by the same factor. A consistent shift in half-lives would mess up the numerical dates, but not disturb the order. Thus, we may know that the carbon is older than our solar system, but be off in our numerical estimate of the age of the solar system.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  11. Cosmic age of Uranium by amightywind · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here is a fun experiment even you slashdot simpletons can do. Uranium isotopes decay at different rates. Today U235/U238 = 1/127. Assuming all of the U on earth was formed at the same time, in the same supernova U235/U238 = 1. If you carry through the calculation for time elapsed you get 6 billion years. Pretty neat. That doesn't make the carbon results seem that extraordinary.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good