The Weekly Poll: "Could There be Life in the Universe Far Older Than Ours?"

 

          

 

What do you think? "Could There be Life in the Universe Far Older Than Ours?"  We'll publish the results on Friday, September 7.

The raw materials for building terrestrial planets were available very soon after the Big Bang, raising the possibility that there could be life in the Universe far older than we. Perhaps they reside around long-lived red dwarf stars, or have moved on from their home system after their star expired. Or, perhaps, we really are the first, which means that if life has happened just once throughout the entire history of the Universe, our existence must be a fluke and our planet very, very special indeed.

The Kepler Mission has changed the way we view exoplanets. Simply by observing so many all at once in its field-of-view, the space telescope is taking an unprecedented census of alien worlds. It has found 2,321 candidate planets to date, over a third of which are smaller, rocky planets (Jupiter-sized gas giants or larger make up just 11 percent, with the rest being Neptune-sized worlds of indeterminate nature), whereas before Kepler you could count the number of rocky exoplanets discovered on one hand. Follow-up studies of their host stars have since revealed a surprising discovery.

"We found that the existence of small planets does not depend as strongly on the metallicity of their star as is the case for the larger planets," says Lars Buchhave of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen. Buchhave is lead author of a new study involving a multinational group of astronomers investigating the spectra of 150 stars that play host to 226 candidate planets found by Kepler. Their research was initially presented at the 220th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Anchorage, Alaska this June, followed by a paper in Nature.

"At first glance it appears very counter-intuitive that gas giants should be the ones caring about metallicity and terrestrial planets less so," says Anders Johansen of Lund Observatory in Sweden, who was a co-author on the Buchhave paper. Only when you stop to consider how planets are constructed does it begin to make sense. The process of accreting hierarchically from smaller building blocks is termed core accretion, but there has been something of a debate surrounding gas giants like Jupiter. Can they condense straight out of the gas of the solar nebula like a star, or do they need a large seed around which to grow by rapidly gathering gas from the protoplanetary disc in a runaway process?

Findings that show rocky planets existing around stars irrespective of their heavy element abundances mean that larger areas of galaxies than thought could be potentially habitable.

The preference of gas giants for higher metallicity stars indicates that they formed through core accretion, building up a central rocky core ten times the mass of Earth that could dominate the protoplanetary disc and sweep up much of the gas before it dissipates after around ten million years. In lower metallicity systems there would not be enough heavy elements to build up large cores, leaving only small rocky worlds. Johansen suggests that one way of looking at terrestrial planets is to see them as failed gas giant cores.

Limits to Life Planetary systems around stars possessing a deficiency in heavy elements might prove to be attractive locales to search for life because, without the presence of gas giants, life might have an easier time of it.

Most of the extra-solar gas giants that we have discovered are so-called 'hot Jupiters' located very close to their stars and completing an orbit in just a few days. These planets were not born this close, instead they migrated in-system from their birth orbits. Johansen says that more and more astronomers are coming around to the idea that such migration is forced by the gravitational pull and dynamical friction of the gas, or by close encounters with other planets. These interactions with fellow constituents of the protoplanetary disc removed angular momentum from the planets, often causing them to spiral towards their stars. Any smaller planets unfortunate to be in their way are thrown out of the system by the marauding gas giant.

"If a Jupiter-type planet migrates and in the process scatters all the smaller planets away, one should probably look for terrestrial planets elsewhere," says Buchhave. Life may have had a more pleasant ride in the early Universe when, thanks to the lower metallicity, there were no gas giants – and the argument that Jupiter-sized planets are needed as a shield against comet impactors no longer holds water either. Life can do without gas giant planets. If Earth-sized planets do not require stars with high abundances of heavy elements, then that has huge implications, expanding the possible abodes for life throughout both space and time.

Galaxies tend to evolve chemically from the inside out, with the highest abundances of heavy elements closer to the galactic center than in the outskirts of the spiral arms. Under the previous paradigm, the outer regions of the spiral arms were effectively the badlands, incapable of building planets or life. Yet when metallicity is no longer such a big issue, the galactic habitable zone – a region where environmental conditions including the metallicity and the rate of supernovae conspire to make habitable planets possible – suddenly widens to encompass much wider swathes of a galaxy.

The abundance of heavy elements in the Universe has grown over history. In the past the average metallicity would be quite a bit less. Again, under the previous paradigm this had been assumed to preclude rocky planet formation early in the Universe, but now we know that such planets could have been constructed in environments that contained much poorer levels of heavy elements.

This means that planets that could potentially have supported life may have formed eight, ten, maybe even twelve billion years ago. Surveys do detect a decrease in the number of planet-hosting stars with decreasing metallicity, but this drop is much shallower for terrestrial planets than it is for gas giants. Of course, the presence of some heavy elements during the planet-building phases is required, but the minimum level has not yet been determined.

"I expect there will be a lower limit," says Johansen. "Simply because below a threshold metallicity there is not enough building material to form Earth-mass planets." Clearly, a heavy element abundance a tenth of the Sun's or less would struggle to build any planets. However, each galaxy evolves differently and there is no way to say for sure when the Milky Way crossed this threshold, although it is likely to have been early in the history of the Universe, for the young cosmos was particularly adept at producing multiple generations of stars in quick succession.

Star-formation rates of 4,000 solar masses per year have been measured less than a billion years after the Big Bang, compared to the paltry ten solar masses of gas converted into stars each year in the Milky Way.

"A typical massive star that exploded and released heavy elements 10 to 12 billion years ago had a metallicity of about a tenth of the Sun," adds Johan Fynbo, Professor of Cosmology at the Niels Bohr Institute. "But whenever you have a new generation of stars then you start enriching the interstellar gas with heavy elements."

Rocky planets around more stars, across greater expanses of the Milky Way and going back deeper in time than we had ever dreamt adds more fuel to the fire of the Fermi Paradox. First voiced by the brilliant nuclear physicist Enrico Fermi in 1950, the Fermi Paradox questions why, given all the stars and planets out there coupled with the huge age of the Universe, have no alien civilizations encountered Earth yet? Where are they all?

The problem is made even worse when you consider that the first term in the Drake Equation – Frank Drake's method for estimating the number of intelligent civilizations in the Galaxy – is the star formation rate, which on average was much higher in the Universe 10 to 13 billion years ago when it seems planets could first begin forming. In the Milky Way today the average annual star formation rate is ten solar masses; an order of ten or one hundred greater has the effect of bumping up the product of the equation: the estimated number of civilizations.

One of the favorite counter-arguments to the Fermi Paradox was that the threshold metallicity takes time to build up, resulting in the Sun being one of the first stars at the required level and hence Earth would be one of the first planets with life. Now we see that planets and possibly life could have arisen at practically any point in cosmic history, undermining this counter-argument and once again forcing us to ask, where is everybody?

If life did first appear on worlds 12 to13 billion years ago, then intelligent civilizations (if indeed they survived all this time) would now billions of years ahead of us and their concerns may no longer include the happenings on a damp mudball somewhere in the galactic hinterlands. Perhaps civilizations that are many billions of years old instead spend their time siphoning energy from black holes or living inside Dyson Spheres.

There are, however, some twists in the tale. In 2010 researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany, found a gas giant planet around a star so lacking in heavy elements that it must have formed very early in the history of the Universe. To add to the intrigue, the star, known as HIP 13044 and located 2,000 light years away, is part of a stellar stream that is all that remains of a dwarf galaxy that has been cannibalized by the Milky Way.

This year, the same researchers found another low metallicity star with two gas giants. Based on its abundance of hydrogen and helium the star, known as HIP 11952, was born 12.8 billion years ago, a mere 900 million years after the Big Bang. Why gas giants have been able to form around these heavy-metal deficient stars is unknown, perhaps hinting at an alternative process for gas planet formation. On the other hand new results suggest that, in some regions of the Universe at least, gas giants have been able to form all along.

Elemental Abundance For some faint galaxies in the distant Universe, whose light is too feeble to allow a measurement of their spectra, it is possible to cheat by making use of natural backlights such as highly luminous quasars to probe faint foreground galaxies. When taking advantage of this method to study the chemical composition of a galaxy that existed 12 billion years ago, a team of astronomers including Johan Fynbo made a rather surprising revelation.

"We looked at a background quasar whose light was passing through a galaxy in front of it, where the light of the quasar was absorbed," says Fynbo. "This allowed us to see the absorption lines from oxygen, sulphur, carbon and all the elements that have been synthesized in the galaxy."

Twelve billion years ago the chemistry of galaxies should have been fairly primitive, yet in this one particular galaxy Fynbo and his colleagues, who reported on their findings in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, found abundances of heavy elements equivalent to the abundance in the Sun.

Such finds at high distances are not unusual in themselves, but they tend to occur within the hearts of quasars, across a very small area of a galaxy. In this instance, however, the quasar light was shining through the disc of the foreground galaxy revealing the solar levels of heavy elements 52,000 light years from the center, right in the outskirts.

Even today our own Milky Way isn't so heavily chemically processed to the edge of its spiral arms, so how did this distant galaxy become so enriched throughout its full extent so quickly? The best explanation so far is that a starburst – a ferociously rapid bout of star formation – within the inner regions of the galaxy has blown the heavy elements into the galactic outlands. This can be done simply though the gale force stellar winds of radiation emanating from hot, massive stars, or riding on the shock waves of supernovae.

Furthermore, the quasar light was reddened by intervening dust in the galaxy. Dust is the most basic building block of planet formation, coming together in conglomerations and clumps that build up into protoplanets. Dust is also a product of the violent bombardment phase endured by young planetary systems and is copiously manufactured in supernovae.

"In order to make planets you clearly need metals and that seems to be possible quite far out in a galaxy at a very early time, which is what surprised us," says Fynbo. However, such high metallicities enables gas giant planets to also form but, although Lars Buchhave has mentioned what difficulties gas giants can cause for habitable planets, they don't necessarily have to be a show-stopper and our Solar System with Jupiter and Saturn is not the only exception.

"In the Kepler-20 planetary system there are five planets," he says, "Three are Saturn-sized planets and two are terrestrial-sized, with the order being big–small–big–small–big. If the Saturn-mass planets migrated in, how can the small planets be in-between the larger ones?'

The image at the top of the page by Carter Roberts of the Eastbay Astronomical Society in Oakland, CA, shows the Milky Way region of the sky where the Kepler spacecraft/photometer will be pointing --equal to 1/400th of the galaxy. Each rectangle indicates the specific region of the sky covered by each CCD element of the Kepler photometer. There are a total of 42 CCD elements in pairs, each pair comprising a square.

Journal reference: Nature

 

The Daily Galaxy via Astrobio.net

Comments

[phillip]

to answer your question about alien civilizations and given the age of the universe: first of all the aliens have been here many times or have you ever heard about jesus christ and the angels?? secondly you wouldnt be able to see them anyway in your mere mortal state let alone give rise to your stupid speculations. live long and prosper mr spock.

[qraal]

All the Haters and Jesus-Goons: Please go infest some other locale.

Interesting article DG. I think the Fermi Paradox answer is that They have very effective Game-Keepers looking after this little nature reserve.

[HDS]

Thank you for this interesting, well written article.

Apart from visits, why don't we see any evidence with all the looking we have done over the years? Really, no radio transmissions at all seen with SETI for years? Even if they all move on to better technologies quickly, radio seems obvious and easy as a first step. so why not tons of noise out there? Editor's Note: Thanks.

[Tamara]

Logically, if there's civilizations which started billions of years before us, we are of no interest to them. And if they wanted to study us, or our planet, showing themselves to us would certainly not be necessary. Unfortunately we still make the assumptions that everyone in the universe is subject to our limited knowledge and our fledgling so called "universal laws". The truth is they could be here right now and no one in this planet would have a clue.

[Bob Greenwade]

To me, this seems like a fairly easy question.

Is there life in the universe far older than us? I'd be very, very surprised if there wasn't.

Are there civilizations in the universe far older than ours? I wouldn't be quite so surprised if there wasn't, but I do think that they probably do exist.

The generation of heavier elements does seem to me (as mentioned in the article) an important component of life; we're still relatively early in the life-generating period of the universe. Assuming the classical Big Bang Theory of the universe's origin, this unnamed distant galaxy would have to be a fluke. Of course, it's also a prime candidate for the presence of a civilization far older than ours.

As for ETs visiting us, I agree with Tamara other than her first statement. We (or at least many of us) have an interest in the social functions of various animal species; why wouldn't ETs have an interest in ours? If there's a far-older civilization in the Milky Way (whether native or extragalactic), they're probably watching us and learning from us, as cultural anthropologists.

HDS' comment lacks a logical step: why would there be "tons" of radio noise? The matter under discussion is other life elsewhere in the universe. Take, for example, my belief that we're the only civilization in the Milky Way; the closest others would be in the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies. It would be an astounding coincidence if we happened to listening for radio waves that had been broadcast from there at just the right time for us to receive them. It would also be astounding if, even if we did receive them, we could make out anything intelligible from the cacophony of multiple broadcast sources, to say nothing of detecting it through natural radio waves.

(Of course, that illogic is fairly mild, unlike qraal's use of the phrase "Haters and Jesus-Goons." That's so ridiculous as to be comical -- kind of like when I overheard someone calling another person a "foul-mouthed ***hole.")

[Nerd-Face McGee]

I cant help but think that there HAS to be other life out there, and sure, maybe there is extraterrestrial life on earth already, that may explain a few things about some of the people I encounter on a daily basis.
As far as contact being made, I tend to consider the fact that I generally don't just show up over friends houses unannounced. I will usually call first.
Taking into consideration that OUR call, the Arecibo message, will take 25,000 light years to ring and another 25,000 to be answered, there is a pretty big lag in communications.
If another civilization decided to call us first before coming over for an interstellar beer, I would assume that it would take just as long if not longer.
Given that optical astronomy has only been around for just over 400 years and radio astronomy for less than 90 years, we may have just missed the call, or hopefully, just haven't received it yet.
Not that it would matter anyway, we can't even communicate with each other effectively.

[Caraleisa]

Is there other life anywhere in the universe? Almost certainly, probably tons of it.

Is there other intelligent life? Almost certainly, though not as prevalent as 'general' life.

Have extra-terrestrial aliens tried to contact us or have they visited us? Unlikely, partcularly so in the time that humans have existed. Is it possible? Sure. But there's no reason for secrecy.

Our space exploration has not even taken its first baby steps, so it's extremely unikely that we'd already know how to tango. In other words, we have no clue about the behavior and motivations of other non-terrestrial life-forms, we need to find some first, Hollywood notwithstanding.

[Simon Jackson]

Poll Answer: Yes.

Would they be that interested in us if they had the technology to get here? Not very.

Face it, we live in the sticks of the galaxy. Many other places in the Milky Way have been a glow for far longer. Have they all been GRB hyper-nova boiled? Maybe, but this is hard to prove as an actuality, as statistical fudging can say almost anything.

[Olga Altstatt]

Probably one thing is right.We are dangerous ANIMALS with tons of SOFISTICATED Weapons! Who would care to deal with BARBARIANS who put first DEATH articles ?

[Allan W Janssen]

Sure there is lifeout there, and after seeing what we produce in our own oceans, I wouldn't be surprised at what aliens looked like!

[jim]

Why do we keep hearing the idiotic retort, "if they're that advanced, they wouldn't be interested in us" ?
Human have robots on Mars, but we also study ants. Why?
How would you know what civilizations a million or a billion years advanced of our own is interested in? or what they're activities might be?
Really. That question entails impossible levels of arrogance.

[Kris]

I think that there must be life on other planets that is older than the life on Earth and that some of it is as varied and advanced (or more so) as the life on Earth. There's likely also life on other planets that is younger than the life on Earth. The Earth is a neat place but on a cosmic scale it's nothing special.

The number of other planets in the universe, throughout the time-span of the universe, has got to be ENORMOUS, and other planets will continue to form. Surely many other planets have had life, currently have life, or will have life after the Earth is consumed by the Sun.

[Kris]

Olga brought up a good point. Life (whether 'intelligent' or not) on other planets is really not likely to be anything like a human, regardless of whether that life is older or younger than the life on the Earth. Right here on the Earth there are lots and lots of organisms that are very different from humans, yet they are just as alive as we are. And just think of all the animals, plants, etc., that lived on the Earth in the past and are extinct, and the extant ones that we haven't even discovered yet, especially in the depths of the oceans.

[Patrick Burch]

I thought you'd be interested in this.

[Greg]

Im sure there are countless planets out there with life at varying stages of evolution. To find intelligence might be a gamble but I am sure it is out there. Just think of how long the dinosaurs were on Earth, like 180 Million years? How long have we been here? like 200,000? How long have we been able to send electronic communications? like 100 years? Us looking at another planet that has life. What are the chances we are going to looking at that exact fraction where intelligent life has already evolved.

[tom perry]

hope this isn't trivial, but my take on Fermi paradox might be: 1.intelligent life on earth is exceedingly rare if not unique and solitary in the universe; if it's just 'rare' maybe another life could never find us. This is the 'Earth won the lottery' conjecture or 2. life is so plentiful that there is no compelling reason to search out and contact other life. This is the 'so what' conjecture

[April]

To think we're *it* is a tad egotistical? I believe, without a doubt, that there is intelligent life out there a LOT more advanced than we are. I bet they're not killing one another. I'm not convinced that we'll make it at the rate we're going. Too bad, there are a lot of incredible things waiting to be discovered. *sigh*

[Jack]

conflict,war,suffering, all of these you have to transcend in order to survive and earn your place in the cosmos.
Humans are still fighting, how can we communicate with other civilizations in the Universe if we can't even communicate with ourselves?

[Tennie]

Or, perhaps, we really are the first, which means that if life has happened just once throughout the entire history of the Universe, our existence must be a fluke and our planet very, very special indeed.

[Ray from Holland]

We do live in interesting times today. These studies show that we are making progress understanding the formation of other solar systems than just our own. Every few months the numbers of 'earth-like' planets in habitable zones in other solar systems grows extraordinary. When you combine that with the exploration of many new forms of life in very, very hostile environments on earth, you get a combination that tells us that the chemical processes of forming life are very 'pushy' as soon as there are right conditions for it to spark it off.
I am sure our explorations of Mars could help us in growing our understanding of the conditions life needs to start. Maybe investigating the moons of Jupiter could add to that. If life appears or has appeared in any (simple, basic) form even on other places within our own solar system, this could add up to the hypothesis that the chemical process starting basic processes of life formation are just waiting to happen if circumstances are OK.
My guess is that within the next few decades we will learn more on what (and how extreme compared to earth) these circumstances can be and where (in this solar system and beyond) this has happened already. Interesting times!