Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Space
Icy objects such as comets may have helped start life on Earth by delivering water and carbon-based molecules to the young planet. Because putting something on ice doesn’t necessarily keep it from changing: a new study finds that even in frigid, deep space environments, simple hydrocarbon molecules can react to become more complex ones. The process even works when temperatures drop to near absolute zero.
But just what kind of organic molecules would exist on the icy bodies of a forming solar system? Researchers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, investigated how organic molecules might evolve toward greater complexity even in the cold of interstellar space.
The scientists found that ultraviolet light, which radiates from stars and galaxies, can induce rapid changes in icy hydrocarbon molecules cooled to 5 kelvin—that’s a frosty minus 451 degrees Fahrenheit.
The chemical reactions resulted in molecules of more complexity—which is the right direction to go if you want to eventually make amino acids and biological molecules. The study appears in the Astrophysical Journal Letters. [Murthy S. Gudipati1 and Rui Yang, In-Situ Probing of Radiation-Induced Processing of Organics in Astrophysical Ice Analogs—Novel Laser Desorption Laser Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectroscopic Studies]
It just goes to show—if you really want to freeze something in place, you’d better encase it in carbonite.
—John Matson
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentI can't follow this line of reasoning - was it not possible for organic compounds to form on Earth? Were the progenitor compounds only found in comets?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand, the Earth received more stellar radiation than comets, and the warmer gases available in the Earth's atmosphere would have been more likely to produce organic chemistry than distant comets...
Unless there is some reason why the precursors to life could not have been present or produced on the Earth, this search for extraterrestrial sources seems to serve some specific agenda...
@jtdwyer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*Microorganisms that crashed to Earth embedded in the fragments of distant planets might have been the sprouts of life on this one, according to new research from Princeton University, the University of Arizona and the Centro de Astrobiología (CAB) in Spain.
The researchers report in the journal Astrobiology that under certain conditions there is a high probability that life came to Earth — or spread from Earth to other planets — during the solar system's infancy when Earth and its planetary neighbors orbiting other stars would have been close enough to each other to exchange lots of solid material.*
The text above is from the web page,
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S34/82/42M30/#top
Thanks very much for the link to the interesting article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found the results somewhat Quixotic, though: their simulations only indicated that some exchanges could occur (one way or the other) between planetary systems of two closely neighboring stars of Solar mass.
IMO, finding that planetary or planetary system exchanges are possible would be important if it were also found that life could not possibly have originated on Earth...
Until then, I still suggest that life simply originated on Earth, possibly using some critical elements accreted from around the Solar system. Even then, there should be some reason why those critical elements could not have originated on Earth (i.e., possibly water) - otherwise I think it's more likely that (most of) the precursors to life originated on Earth.
Stardust originated on Earth?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay - you got me! The critical elements from the protoplanetary disk were finally accreted on Earth, where they reacted to form organic compounds that were eventually incorporated into living cells...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll quarks originated in the big bang - we're really all made of big bang bits...
Why do you feel the need to eliminate all other possibilities but one? Is it not possible for science to have a variety of hypotheses to explain a phenomenon? You are advocating for a default hypothesis which isn't science, it's ideology. Until evidence suggest otherwise I would think it worthwhile pursuing all possible explanations. That's what science is about. The notion that science shouldn't pursue a line of thought because it may not have anything to do with OUR origins is extremely myopic. Whenever anyone suggests that science should not try to understand something or some phenomenon they really need to step back and give their head a shake. Who are you to decide what is valid or not?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do astrophysicists speculate about alternative areas of research?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnless life could not have developed on Earth from chemical processes that occurred on Earth, there is no need to speculate about alternatives. Why can't life have simply developed here?
Why do you continuously feel the need to criticize other commentators? Who are you to judge what "needs" others are "feeling"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease point out where I "judged" you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't understand why you think the case is closed on this issue? Do you really believe that the only science people should do is based only on the origins of life on earth? Should we only pursue concepts if there isn't already a pretty good idea of how things happened? Do you not understand that the statement "no need to speculate about alternatives" is antithetical to science!? I mean, wow, science shouldn't bother trying to understand things that we already feel we have a good handle on!? Stop research on evolution because we seem to have a good idea of how that works; shut down the LHC because it looks we have a pretty good understanding of particle physics; stop looking into the cosmos because we've probably seen a good representation of what is going on out there. Science is no longer the search for knowledge, its now all about jtdwyer's pursuit of a reasonable explanation for stuff!
I might have judged you there...
Currently, life of all variety is found in abundance at earth only. So far, not even microbial life has been detected at any planet or remote comet. So it is obvious that origin of life should be sought at earth rather than some remote comet or planet. If scientists are not able to understand the origin of life at earth, where it is currently available, how they can have better understanding in some remote corners in Solar system or MW galaxy and that too billion of years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if some form of microbial life is found at Mars or some other corners, question of its origin shall remain as wide open as it is today
@ jtdwyer (AKA *Vinodkumarsehg*)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcuse me, but is *Vinodkumarsehg* a substitute name for *jtdwyer*?
It seems to me that the answer is yes! This is the same person behind different name!
And for what is it? To add credibility to the ideas you express?
I think, sincerely, that you are not discussing the theme that the podcast brings to us honestly.
You are just playing the stubborn person, impermeable to the reason!
No, I and "*Vinodkumarsehg*" are not at all the same. In this case Vinod's reasoning is quite sound and as usual independent from my own. We certainly do not always agree or support each other's assessments!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoreover, I am not "playing the stubborn person", but I freely admit that I may be one. Persistence is a virtue as long as it's not pursued in the face of conflicting evidence. I will happily moderate my position on this matter if it can be demonstrated that the chemistry producing the precursors to life could not have occurred on Earth.
Again you seem to think you have the right to a default hypothesis. That no one has the right to explore any other hypothesis until they first prove yours wrong. You have no obligation to prove yours right. That is not how science works! That is how religion works. In science, everyone has an obligation to prove their hypothesis. No one gets a bye. And everyone is free to pursue whatever hypothesis they choose. No one needs to get your permission. What's more the nature of this study goes way beyond the origins of life on earth. That is just one implication of the study but it isn't the only justification for it, as if there needs to be one. So, no need to study chemistry because it doesn't change what you believe about genetics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is like you are saying, if a person is found dead, no need to investigate, just assume the most likely cause. Are you really that out of touch with the scientific method and simple logic? Maybe you should just send a list of areas of science that should no longer be studied because YOU are satisfied with the current hypothesis. Please show some humility.
Robert, you're symptomatic again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a live example of how we build opinion about others based upon our pre-conceived notions, bias and speculations without knowing full details of facts. Neither I know jtdwyer nor you nor influenced inappropriately by the line of thinking of any one unless it is justified, rational and logical. Openness of mind and heart are must for pursuing truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is quite obvious and logical that we should first find the origin of any entity at place where it is found in abundance in all variety.