From: Liam. A. Chu (achu@comp-lib.org)
Date: Wed Nov 24 1999 - 04:03:35 MST
Long ago, Poul Anderson (I think) wrote a story based on the then-current
notion that a planet which has coalesced from the fused output of a single
supernova would not have very much in the way of elements past about Ca;
this is distinct from Sol system which was held to be the product of nuclei
from two successive supernovae. If memory serves, the two types of stars
are labeled Population II and I, respectively (and counterintuitively).
If it takes two supernovae to get (e.g.) Fe through U, maybe we _are_ the
Elder Gods, such as there are. 4 Billion + 4 Billion + 4.5 Billion adds up
about right, in Fermi number terms.
What are the odds of getting two Rigels in a row, followed by a nice G-type
star?
At 01:14 1999/11/24 -0800, you wrote:
>
>On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Eric Watt Forste wrote:
>
>> Perhaps Universe is so young that we are the first kids on the
>> block.
>
>Doubtful, Kardashev points out in several of his articles that
>the age of the universe is 2, perhaps 3 times the age of our
>solar system.
>
>>
>> ... Lighter metals such as carbon and oxygen are produced in
>> medium-size stars and distributed by planetary nebula ejection and
>> by white-dwarf novas. The heaviest elements are made and distributed
>> only in supernovas. There are several different kinds of events,
>> and each has a different characteristic rate, and the rate for each
>> event varies from galaxy to galaxy.
>
>The heavy metals get produced very rapidly, within a few hundred
>million years of the formation of the galaxies (high H gas cloud
>density leads to rapid formation of stars with M > 10 M_sun
>that go supernova after very short lives).
>
>>From Astronomy Today (1997):
> Star Class Mass Luminosity Lifetime
> (M_sun) (L_sun) (years)
> Rigel B8Ia 10 44000 20*10^6
> Sirus A1V 2.3 23 1000*10^6
> A. Centuri G2V 1.1 1.4 7000*10^6
> Sun G2V 1.0 1.0 10000*10^6
> P. Centuri M5V 0.1 0.6 1000000*10^6
>
>So, the big stars burn very fast. Supernovas, I believe also
>throw out a fair amount of C & O. I'm unsure of the relative
>contributions of "life elements" by novas vs. SN but am fairly
>sure that you get sufficient materials within the first
>couple of billion years to form planetary systems that
>can support life. A more serious constraint might be
>the gradual decline in nearby SN that would fatally
>damage proto-genetic material. But we have discussed that
>extensively. And of course Deinococcus radiodurans does show
>that life can be radition tolerant.
>
>> I did find a textbook of
>> cosmochemistry that looked promising, but if the numbers I'm looking
>> for were in there, they were deeply buried in mathematics that I
>> have yet to do the homework for.
>
>The best book, IMO, is "Nucleosynthesis and Chemical Evolution of Galaxies"
>by Bernard E. J. Pagel, and you are right that the numbers are probably
>buried in the math and a collection of astronomy papers.
>
>>
>> Another way to estimate these rates is to look for a metallicity
>> gradient in redshift. How much richer in metal are nearby (older)
>> galaxies with respect to distant (younger) galaxies? I haven't yet
>> done any research in this direction. I don't even know whether it
>> is more difficult to measure metallicity from distant-galaxy spectra
>> than from individual star spectra.
>
>It is more difficult, because the lines will be weaker and you will
>need longer observation times. You probably also have an interesting
>problem of an assortment of star ages in a galactic "point source"
>and the line doppler shifting caused by stars rotating toward you
>and away from you (in side on) galaxies. You may be limited to
>picking a handful of stars of a specific spectral class and measuring
>the average metal abundances in them. But since stars in our
>galaxy have some really wide ranges of metal abundances (probably
>depending on local space region history) extracting an overall
>accumulation of metal profile for a galaxy seems really difficult.
>
>This type of work has been done in globular clusters that seem
>to be old (because the metal content is low). But this fails
>to consider whether the metal content is low because they might
>have been mined. If you need "rare" elements and are planning
>to be around for trillions of years, it might make sense to
>construct "star-processing" stations. You then run simulations
>of galactic orbital dynamics and locate good sling-shot candidates
>whare a minor orbital tweek will send the star out of the galaxy to
>one of the "star-processing" stations (aka globular cluster).
>The stars we now see there are the leftovers.
>
>>
>> In the absence of this information, I'm comfortable with the
>> assumption that most planetary systems formed before 4.6 gigayears
>> ago (when ours formed) were below the metallicity threshold required
>> for the spontaneous development of self-reproducing molecules.
>
>Bad bet, IMO. I'd push the threshold for planetary systems back
>to 8-10 Gyr. Keeping in mind that *if* star mining can occur
>on a large scale, then the stellar age estimates based on metal
>accumulation will be *underestimates*.
>
>The problems the biotech people are going to have with the
>right and left wing luddites are going to be small compared
>to the problems the transhumanists are going to have getting
>the astrophysicists to consider a "life-filled" universe.
>
>Robert
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:50 MST