Slashdot Mirror


'Mirage Earth' Exoplanets May Have Burned Away Chances For Life

vinces99 writes: Planets orbiting close to low-mass stars — easily the most common stars in the universe — are prime targets in the search for extraterrestrial life. But new research led by an astronomy graduate student at the University of Washington indicates some such planets may have long since lost their chance at hosting life because of intense heat during their formative years. Low-mass stars, also called M dwarfs, are smaller than the sun, and also much less luminous, so their habitable zone tends to be fairly close in. The habitable zone is that swath of space that is just right to allow liquid water on an orbiting planet's surface, thus giving life a chance. [Researchers found] through computer simulations that some planets close to low-mass stars likely had their water and atmospheres burned away when they were still forming because they were exposed to high temperatures from their parent stars.

62 comments

  1. and then another asteroid hit it by gearloos · · Score: 0

    And left something behind... and another... Just because it was once hot doesn't exclude the chance of life ever forming. the Earth was once very hot... and look at us now lol

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  2. How's that different from Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our water and atmosphere were burned away when the Earth was still forming. We got them back from comet impact.

    1. Re:How's that different from Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And from farting volcanoes, you insensitive clod.

    2. Re: How's that different from Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And from God you insensitive clod.

    3. Re:How's that different from Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they evaporated and the gravity of the planet is strong enough to hold onto H2. Unlike Mars for instance.

    4. Re:How's that different from Earth? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Our water and atmosphere were burned away when the Earth was still forming. We got them back from comet impact.

      Not only that, but shallow Earth-like oceans are likely better for life than deep Europa-like oceans. Although we may think of Earth as a watery planet, water is far more rare on Earth than in the rest of the Universe, making up only 0.02% of Earth's mass. If our oceans were as deep as Europa's, the continents would be completely submerged, there would be no upwelling, and all the nutrients would settle at the bottom, 100km below the surface. Without nutrients, the sunlit surface would be nearly lifeless. There might be some life around volcanic vents, but those are too rare to provide much scope for evolution. Mostly likely, if there was life at all, it would never even become multi-cellular. Having your oceans boiled away is a good thing!

    5. Re:How's that different from Earth? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or they evaporated and the gravity of the planet is strong enough to hold onto H2. Unlike Mars for instance.

      Most likely it was a combination of heat and weaker gravity. The hotter the planet, the more gravity needed to hold onto an atmosphere, because the molecules move faster. The Earth's collision with Theia is believed to have generated enough heat to liquify the entire mass of the resulting combined planet. This would have been hot enough to drive off any water vapor in the atmosphere. One reason we believe this is true is the absence of much neon on Earth. Neon is abundant in the universe, but very rare on Earth. If the Earth was too hot to hold on to neon (mw=20) then it wouldn't have been able to hold onto water (mw=18) either.

         

    6. Re: How's that different from Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It was the FSM who fed beans to the volcanoes!

    7. Re:How's that different from Earth? by Immerman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Umm, it seems you're not aware that the prevailing theory is that those volcanic vents were the birthplace of life on Earth, and probably its primary residence for hundreds of millions of years thereafter? And that it's believed that the first light-sensitive molecules were probably used by microorganisms to flee the lethal ultraviolet sunlight penetrating the upper layers of the oceans? Until photosynthesis evolved sunlight had nothing to offer life: the energy gradients around volcanic vents were far more easily harnessed.

      Even today it's believed that the vast mass of life on Earth are chemovores living deep underground, whose ancestors may have never seen sunlight in the entire history of the planet.

      Even multicellular life thrives around those undersea vents, and quite possibly deep underground as well. The upper reaches of the ocean, to say nothing of the land, were barren energy-poor wastelands likely only colonized by those poor saps who couldn't compete for the more desirable locations.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:How's that different from Earth? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can't help but think that there's a lot more to creating a life bearing planet than simply forming from more or less the right components at the right distance from the sun.

      I've long held that there's a good chance that the impact that created our moon, even the presence of our freaky-huge moon* was essential for the development of life, or at least complex multicellular life.

      If to get life you need:
      1. right distance from sun
      2. The right mix of materials - CO2**, hydrocarbons, just the right amount of water, etc...
      3. Lack of the wrong materials - too much any of a huge list.
      4. magnetic field - strong enough to keep the radiation down, but not too large...
      5. Active tectonic system. Enough that you get land masses above the water. Oh, and because eruptions help provide chemicals that may be deadly in large doses, but are required at low levels. Plus oceanic vents and such provide more spots for life to evolve(see extremophiles).
      6. Huge moon(or other way to get significant and varying tides to act as 'mixers' for early life spots)

      etc... On the 'upside', it might mean that there's a lot of planets out there that we could terraform with some effort.

      *Seriously. Look at the moon:planet mass ratio for every other planet in the solar system. Only Pluto scored higher, and it was demoted from being a planet.
      **As far as I know, 'All' of our oxygen was generated by early life.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    9. Re: How's that different from Earth? by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      And don't forget that the we actually from Caprica 70,000 via Battlestar Galactica and its fleet of ships. Those sentient machines are still out there!

    10. Re: How's that different from Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't be silly

      The occupants of the B-ark wiped out the capricans when they declared war on the trees.

    11. Re: How's that different from Earth? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Though they were nearly wiped-out when that committee meeting ran long and no one was present to man the defenses...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  3. One step forward, two steps back by Firethorn · · Score: 2

    It seems every week that we get a story about habitability of planets - one saying that life could be in more places than we thought, two saying it's unlikely in areas we previously thought it was.

    I'm just sad because the equations seem to be shaping up to quite a distance* between intelligent complex tool using species.

    *If you assume they're more or less randomly scattered, the lower the odds per solar system, the longer the median distance between such races/civilizations.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:One step forward, two steps back by peragrin · · Score: 0

      Still go back and do the math.

      say .1% of stars in the galaxy are like our own, and .1% of those stars have planets in just the right configuration, and .1% of those planets have plant life, and .1% of those worlds have intelligent life.

      Then in this galaxy alone there are 100,000's of different sentient species. Even if they are separated over 100 million years of time odds are we are not alone right now.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:One step forward, two steps back by tpjunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, given that there's 100-400 billion stars in the galaxy, and 0.001^4 works out to one in a trillion, that gives you about a 10 to 40% chance of there being one intelligent species in the milky way. /semantic But I agree, in general. The odds of earth being the only planet with life at all in the whole galaxy...are pretty astronomical, in my opinion.

    3. Re:One step forward, two steps back by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      Still go back and do the math.

      What part of 'the math' did I screw up? I don't recall ever calling the presence of additional 'intelligent complex tool using species' in question. I stated that, assuming a random distribution, the lower the odds of such a species the further apart they will be, on average.

      Then I said that that makes me sad. I forgot to mention that it makes me sad because the further apart we are, the more difficult finding and talking to each other are.

      You also forgot a few steps. of the .1% with intelligent life, .1% have complex tool using intelligent life. That leaves us with 100 potential planets to talk to without actually going out and visiting them.

      My sad is tpjunkie's point. There's a non-zero chance that the odds of intelligent life are low enough that there's a real probability that we ARE alone, at least in the galaxy. Them being tool users of sufficient complexity that we'd be able to find each other via something like radio waves is even less(though by how much, we don't know). The Universe is a different matter. But unless we really rewrite physics, traveling between galaxies ends up being as difficult a jump from a colonized galaxy as we would find expanding from a colonized Sol to the next star.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:One step forward, two steps back by Spugglefink · · Score: 1

      Then I said that that makes me sad. I forgot to mention that it makes me sad because the further apart we are, the more difficult finding and talking to each other are.

      On the bright side, if we did find intelligent life out there, we would immediately launch into action doing something nasty to them. They're better off not knowing us, and if they're like us, we're probably better off not knowing them too. Good fences make good neighbors.

  4. A nice dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Assuming there is life elsewhere in the universe, and there's a good chance, it takes many right circumstances to happen.

    What's more, to be relevant to us it must also coincide with our time frame. We've only been capable over interacting with extra-terrestrials for about 150 years of 2+B years of the Earth's existence. Another civilization would have to be both advanced (more than we are) and at the right time for us to meet.

    1. Re:A nice dream by dpilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Earth has been advertising itself for more like a half-billion years. An atmosphere with free oxygen is rare, at least we haven't found one yet out of the explanets we've discovered. To be sure, we haven't studied the atmosphere on very many, but at the very least we know how to do so, at least for some.

      There has been some suggestion of merely chemical processes that can give rise to free oxygen in the atmosphere, but I don't know how likely (or un) those processes are, and whether they cause the levels the Earth has, especially with traces of methane present at the same time.

      We know our atmosphere has been biosculpted, and that would be something others could have seen for half a billion years.

      One must assume that any alien civilization capable of interstellar travel would know at least as much as we do about the relevant technologies. That would include something Keplar-like, only better. You don't want to take your first interstellar steps to a place with no relevant planets.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    2. Re:A nice dream by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      we will likely send our first interstellar probe to Alpha Centauri system (with three stars) whether it has "relevant" planets or not.

    3. Re:A nice dream by shaitand · · Score: 2

      It doesn't just need to coincide with our timeframe but also with our timescale. Neurons are actually fairly simple energy patterns all told. If you have lots of them you have intelligence. Something that has a similar pattern that fires on thousand year scales wouldn't be able to perceive us and wouldn't move fast enough to seem intelligent to us.

    4. Re:A nice dream by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Possibly true, but only because it's much closer than the alternatives, and offers three different star systems to explore for (roughly) the price of one. I rather doubt the Centaurians would send probes here unless they already had some reason to believe there was something interesting to see.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:A nice dream by iggymanz · · Score: 0

      If age of A or B 7 billion years as some studies say then perhaps they did just that a couple billion years ago, found algae and fungus, and wrote the place off as totally boring.

    6. Re:A nice dream by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Assuming there is life elsewhere in the universe, and there's a good chance, it takes many right circumstances to happen.

      What's more, to be relevant to us it must also coincide with our time frame. We've only been capable over interacting with extra-terrestrials for about 150 years of 2+B years of the Earth's existence. Another civilization would have to be both advanced (more than we are) and at the right time for us to meet.

      Well we know other civs either go silent or don't exist because we don't hear them. But a silent civ isn't necessarily an irrelevant one. If relativity holds they probably haven't even heard of us yet, they might have probes that noticed stone age humans roaming around but they didn't know if we'd developed. And even if they have noticed us they may not be ready to contact us yet. Maybe they want to give us a million years or so to play around on our own first.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:A nice dream by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Perhaps, though unless life is extremely common in the universe even algae and fungus would likely make us incredibly interesting, even if they only check back every few hundred million years or so to see if the slime as done anything interesting yet.

      Then again maybe they dropped by 4 billion years ago and discovered only lifeless rocks, and we all evolved from the stuff they flushed from their bilge tanks as they restocked.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:A nice dream by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      My personal belief is that life is common in the galaxy, but complex multicellular life rare. We've had 3 billion years of the simple, then only half a billion of the complex.

    9. Re:A nice dream by Immerman · · Score: 2

      I'm inclined to agree. But be careful - don't conflate muticellular with complex, we know quite well that at least some modern unicellular life is astoundingly complex. Hell, we share something like 20% of our genome with single-celled yeast. It may well be that complexity was increasing steadily, and it just took three billion years for unicellular life to become complex enough that it could really exploit the advantages of forming larger colonies. After all, it doesn't do you much good to form large colonies unless the individual cells possess the versatility to form specialized sub-structures that can provide a decisive advantage. Otherwise you're just reducing your surface to volume ratio, and with it the rate at which you can absorb nutrients to multiply.

      We don't actually have much evidence that far back, but there's even some inconclusive evidence suggesting that multicellular life may have actually emerged almost immediately, for some reason it just didn't really start flourishing and diversifying until the Cambrian explosion.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:A nice dream by jambox · · Score: 1

      According to Brian Cox, Eukaryotic cells may be a single-event bottleneck. In which case, prokaryotic life might be common but nothing else. If anything, that'd be a superb result because we'd have lots of new places to live and little competition.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    11. Re:A nice dream by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Are you so sure of that? Almost all life on Earth, including virtually everything that's substantially dangerous to us, are unicellular (or non-cellular). I'm not sure how much easier it would actually be to colonize a "slime world" than a world with non-sapient complex life.

      Unless it's just the sapience you were considering, in which case yeah, less competition on that front would make thing easier, but also a lot less interesting.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    12. Re:A nice dream by butalearner · · Score: 1

      Well we know other civs either go silent or don't exist because we don't hear them.

      Just because we can't hear them doesn't necessarily mean they're silent or don't exist. Due to the inverse square law, most of our signals are indistinguishable from background noise by the time they hit Alpha Centauri. A couple years ago we pumped a lot of energy into a directed Arecibo transmission toward the Wow! signal, but even that will get lost in the noise a couple hundred light years away. This is not to mention that we transmit on and listen to a certain band of frequencies. My understanding is that, for SETI to hear anything, an extraterrestrial civilization has to aim a very high-powered signal toward us in a frequency band that isn't already saturated by local electromagnetic signals.

  5. Comets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could comets have come along later and re-added water?

    1. Re:Comets by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Nah, if that sort of wildly speculative nonsense could happen there'd be water on Earth today, instead of the dry barren moonscape left after the existing water was boiled off by the planet-liquefying collision with Theia.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  6. Initial conditions by Grizzley9 · · Score: 2

    [Researchers found] through computer simulations that some planets close to low-mass stars likely had their water and atmospheres burned away

    That's a large assumption they had any atmosphere or water in the first place.

    1. Re:Initial conditions by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      nitrogen oxygen and hydrogen are pretty common throughout the universe. It would be reasonable to assume many planets had water at least at some point in their existence.

  7. Um yea no... by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Given that we have a sample size of one: The earth
    I think it's a tad ridiculous that we assume we have any idea what kind of environment can support life at all. There is no environment that we've explored that we can rule out the existence of life on. Yes, I understand that's because we haven't really explored any of them... but that's kind of the point.

    1. Re:Um yea no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I knew there was going to be one of these.

      There always is.

      Each time, someone has to explain that the point of looking for life like us is because we know what we're looking for.

    2. Re:Um yea no... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Well, we have a somewhat decent understanding of the terrestrial requirements for "life as we know it". "Life as we don't know it" is a fascinating topic, but without any data points on which to rest an argument it's just not one worth seriously discussing outside of synthetic biochemistry labs. At least not unless an until we have reason to believe we may have discovered some.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Um yea no... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Yes, but there's clearly a huge amount of life, even on this planet, that we don't understand at all. And even some of the life we know about on this planet has been proven to be able to live in environments very similar to what we see on planets we're assuming are uninhabitable. Doesn't that seem a tad foolish?

      It seems like these stories we keep hearing about aren't about finding a planet that has life... they're more about finding a planet we could live on. While that's definitely a noble goal, I think they're kind of putting the cart before the horse.

    4. Re:Um yea no... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      "Life as we know it" aka intelligent life requires an enormous amount of energy. We can't measure the output of a pool of bacteria on other planets, only of full ecosystems. To sustain full ecosystems as we know it, we need water. It makes sense because hydrogen is a very common product in space as is carbon. Water has some very specific properties that sustain life (frozen water rises, if it didn't, our oceans would be a frozen wasteland) Although evolution without hydrogen and carbon is probably possible, there is less 'other stuff' out there so it's less likely something happened with the less abundant stuff.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    5. Re:Um yea no... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      In fairness, for now the kinds of planet we could live on are the only ones we're certain any life could survive on. And it's not like we're ignoring the rest, I have no doubt that will be listening, and eventually (once it's possible) be sending interstellar signals to every planet showing evidence of possessing complex chemistry. Just in case. In the mean time, well, Earthlike worlds have a romantic quality that sells headlines. There's something deep in our genetic imperative that tells us to seek out new frontiers. No doubt a valuable trait in a species that has evolved to become the deadliest animal on the planet. We became our own only serious competition, and the first gene-line to set foot in distant green pastures where its progeny could multiply without competition would have a nigh-insurmountable numerical advantage over any latecomers.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:Um yea no... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking "life as we know it" is a lot less specific than that. Like, say, based on DNA. Or at least amino acids. Perhaps cellular. Carbon-based. Water-based.

      We share 20% of our genome with baker's yeast, along with most of the environmental requirements for survival. *That* is life as we know it. Life almost identical to us. There's no reason to assume "life as we don't know it" would share *any* of those qualities. Silicon-based crystalline life forms? Sentient standing waves of energy? We just don't have the foggiest idea what truly alien life might look like.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:Um yea no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the life is based on DNA then the planet would need a magnetosphere.

    8. Re:Um yea no... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      My point was that all that stuff we are made out of is abundant in the Universe. Silicon isn't nearly as abundant therefore the likelihood of stuff happening with it is less likely. How would we even know what to look for with "standing waves of energy"? If what we are has happened elsewhere in the Universe, it would've happened a lot. Perhaps with silicon, perhaps with energy but it's more likely to have happened with carbon and hydrogen.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  8. That's hot ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The odds of Earth being the only host for 'selfconcious beings' in the universe might be bigger than we thought

  9. What if we're the oddballs . . . ? by mmell · · Score: 1

    If the oxygen content of Earth's atmosphere is unusual, perhaps our form of life is also unusual. Life could well be as plentiful as we could hope throughout the Universe - but life we can recognize evolved to exist in a Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere like ours may prove considerably less common.

  10. comets? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Caveat, I'm not an astrophysicist or anyone who would know anything about this. I couldn't even play one on TV. However:

    > some planets close to low-mass stars likely had their water and atmospheres burned away when they were still forming because they were exposed to high temperatures from their parent stars.

    Ok, I understand that, but isn't it possible for an ice bearing comet (or several) to impact the planet at some later time when the sun was cooler? Surely those planetary systems have their own equivalent of oort clouds?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  11. Missing Asterisk by dohzer · · Score: 1

    There's a missing asterisk right next to every mention of the word "life" to qualify it as "earth like". Who knows what other life forms might exist without requiring water?!

  12. parent stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the parent stars were too overbearing and self centered to let the solar systems have life. Sad but true.

  13. Unless they migrated by mbone · · Score: 1

    We really don't have much idea how much migration goes on in early planetary systems, but it looks like there is a lot. So, a "mirage Earth" won't be a mirage if it sent its formative years further out from its star.

  14. Did they forget planetary migration? by VernonNemitz · · Score: 1

    It is known that some planets migrate closer to their stars during the early stages of star-system formation. So, a planet that forms outside the habitable zone, but migrate into the habitable zone after the intense-heat period, could still be a good prospect for life.

  15. Planets move by towermac · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Presumptuous maybe, but TFA is flawed as hell; planets move after they have formed, and generally inwards. They make no mention of this fact anywhere.

    In our case, we had the Jupiter - Saturn duo that stabilized things, and prevented Jupiter from crashing into the Sun, taking the inner 4 planets with it.

    It's entirely plausible that decent planets with atmospheres exist within the habitable zones of small stars, with crazy shit like 50 day years, and the dark side of the moon melts a little when it swings close to the sun. Heh.

    But, a planet that formed close in to a star early on, and has remained there the whole time the system has cooled down, is likely to be a barren rock. Agreed. And a bit obvious...

    1. Re:Planets move by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Even an outer planet of a class M star that had an atmosphere at some point and drifted into what would be the goldilocks zone for water would not retain its atmosphere (and water) for long. As other posters have mentioned, class M stars are relatively low mass and there for have huge solar flares that would bombard said planet, thus blowing away the atmosphere. Even if such a planet was lucky enough to survive that, by the time that activity has declined, the star has cooled significantly and said planet would be too cold for liquid water. That is assuming, of course, that such a star would have enough mass for there to even be outer planets that could form and then fall inward.

  16. Earth size planets with moons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It seems that earth size planets with moons formed by impact have nil chance to support life due to boiling of the atmosphere and water as a result of the impact by a Mars size object

    oh well, another promising candidate off the list

  17. Flare stars by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ok, I understand that, but isn't it possible for an ice bearing comet (or several) to impact the planet at some later time when the sun was cooler? Surely those planetary systems have their own equivalent of oort clouds?

    The whole reason that a red dwarf is so dangerous to live around is its low gravity. It can hurl flares from its surface that ascend far out into space and reach its tight little "habitable zone", and its planets will occasionally orbit through a flare and get zapped. The flares are channeled and accelerated by electromagnetic turbulence that originates from deep inside the star. Even after the surface temperature of its photosphere finally declines, the star will continue to flare until it shrinks down to a white dwarf (which has no habitable zone at all, since its starlight is extreme ultraviolet radiation that can easily blast water molecules apart). Since M-class stars typically have expected lifetimes of trillions of years, you'd have to wait a long time to see it happen.

    1. Re:Flare stars by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Ok. So it's not just that water has been boiled off during the star's hot stage, it's that low mass stars go through multiple stages, none of which are conducive to life, for different reasons. Thanks, I get it.

      So, there's not just a goldilocks zone, there are goldilocks stars. Too small is not good, and too big is probably not good for other reasons.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Flare stars by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Stars that are too big have lifetimes of only several million years, not billions. The Earth itself was still pretty messed up when it was only a million years old.

  18. a simulation? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

    > [Researchers found] through computer simulations

    Simulations are not science. I could produce my own simulation that would show exactly the opposite of what his simulation showed. It's all a matter of your assumptions. No simulation can sufficiently mimic the complexity of the real world. This is guessing and nothing more. That simulations have somehow become 'science' is just sad. Simulations, if anything, are the opposite of science.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    1. Re:a simulation? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      > [Researchers found] through computer simulations

      Simulations are not science. I could produce my own simulation that would show exactly the opposite of what his simulation showed. It's all a matter of your assumptions. No simulation can sufficiently mimic the complexity of the real world. This is guessing and nothing more. That simulations have somehow become 'science' is just sad. Simulations, if anything, are the opposite of science.

      Simulations have always been part of science. They are called mathematical models and they usually exist until a better, more refined model comes about.

  19. Comets are the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comets could bring back an atmosphere and water. They may have done that for Earth, although the deuterium ratio is wrong...

  20. A planet needs a magnetosphere to protect DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If all life is based is based on DNA/RNA then a magnetosphere must exist to protect it. Or.. perhaps life was formed before a harmful burst of radiation penetrated the exoplanet and some form of protective bond formed over the DNA. radiation will cause DNA to mutate and eventually break apart. If life does exist on a planet without a magnetosphere then it would be much different than what is here on earth.

  21. This assumes ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... that all planets/solar systems collect their water and air at the time of their formation. Some systems may experience a longer and/or later period of comet collisions bringing water, gasses and possibly biological material. If that period of collisions persisted after the star had cooled down, the lost water would be replaced. And, as TFA states, a period of high solar energy can result in the buildup of some elements like oxygen.

    We consider how improbable life on Earth is given the odds of multiple events occurring at just the right time. But its possible that numerous different paths can be taken, each with their own likelihood, that lead to the same point. Its possible that the conditions for life involve nothing more than a planet settling into some 'sweet spot' of biochemical stability, where processes act to stabilize the environment around that point for a time sufficient for life to evolve. Whetever does evolve will be suited for that particular stable point.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.