3 ms·
Life as we know it on earth came about very, very late in the age of the universe. That’s not just fascinating (as facts about the universe generally are), but
by AnonC 6y ago
Life as we know it on earth came about very, very late in the age of the universe. That’s not just fascinating (as facts about the universe generally are), but also highly surprising. That we’re here now seems to be a big fluke. Considering how much humans have evolved in understanding things around us and having the capacity as a species to create larger and coordinated changes, the daily news we see is generally such a huge disappointment. “Squandering” doesn’t even cover what we’re doing to the only planet we can inhabit for now.
> But life’s signatures will not last forever. The prospects for life in the distant future are gloomy. The dark and frigid conditions that will result from the accelerated expansion of the universe by dark energy will likely extinguish all forms of life 10 trillion years from now. Until then, we could cherish the temporary gifts that nature had blessed us with. Our actions will be a source of pride for our descendants if they sustain a civilization intelligent enough to endure for trillions of years.
Let’s hope we’re able to give the gift of wonder and awe to many more generations to come.
- Koshkin 6y ago> very, very late But rather soon after Earth has cooled down (i.e. about 1 billion years since the planet has formed), which is more relevant. > seems to be a big fluke So, no, it doesn't.
- jacquesm 6y agoEarth orbits a second generation star. So the first generation had to form and live to the end of its sequence before the stellar explosion created the heavier elements that our solar system is made out of. Without that life is very hard to imagine. So a lot of this 'delay' is perfectly natural, life may not have had a chance to emerge much sooner in this particular solar system than it did.
- AtlasBarfed 6y agoBlue hypergiants only last about 10 million years. What really is necessary to know, I believe there is still debate, is whether main sequence supernovae can generate all the necessary elements. I believe gold and heavier are might not be possible with normal supernovae and may require neutron star mergers to generate. I believe earth tectonics, not a small aspect of Earth's long term stability/cycle, need radioactives to maintain a liquid core (not to mention the magnetic shield provided by the core). Still, an earth like world in a mostly stable/quiet area of a galaxy may be possible only a few billion years after the big bang with some luck with blue hypergiants and a lucky neutron star merger, if that is in fact necessary for heavy elements and radioactives.
- BlueTemplar 6y agoHow do you get any elements out of a neutron star ?
- AtlasBarfed 6y agoThe collisions have so much energy that matter (neutronium) is ejected. I believe it might happen in neutron star - black hole mergers too due to the crazy gravitational energy involved. Anyway, you eject clumps of "pure neutronium" then they will undergo rapid evolution to elements as neutrons decay to protons in order as they try to become stable elements. I'm not a nuclear physicist... I'm not a physicist.... Personally, if neutron star mergers are responsible for most heavy elements, then the "island of stability" above the current transuranics probably doesn't exist, because neutronium would almost certainly traverse those islands as it followed all the different decay chains.
- jacquesm 6y agoThat stability is the physics interpretation of the word stability, where stability could be measured in hours, minutes or even seconds rather than on a timescale where those elements would be present in measurable quantities billions of years later.
- BlueTemplar 6y agoHuh, I missed that development ! Yeah, I guess that there's some (literally !) "golden middle", where the energies involved are high enough to eject some large fraction of the neutronium, while the masses involved aren't high enough to immediately result in a black hole ?