Astronomy Without A Telescope – Life In Cosmic Rays

by Steve Nerlich on May 29, 2010

We all know that astronomy is just plain awesome – and pretty much everything that’s interesting in the world links back to astronomy and space science in one way or another. Here I’m thinking gravity, wireless internet and of course ear thermometers. But wouldn’t it be great if we could ascribe the whole origin of life to astronomy as well? Well, apparently we can – and it’s all about cosmic rays.

Three key contenders for how it all started are:

1) Deep ocean vents, with heat, water and lots of chemistry churning away, enabled the random creation of a self-replicating crystalline compound – which, being self-replicating, rapidly came to dominate an environment of limited raw materials. From there, because it was imperfectly self-replicating, particular forms that were slightly more efficient at utilizing those limited resources came to dominate over other forms and yada, yada;

2) Something arrived on a comet or asteroid. This is the panspermia hypothesis, which just pushes the problem one step back, since life still had to start somewhere else. A bit like the whole God hypothesis really. Nonetheless, it’s a valid option; and

3) The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that if you zap a simple mix of water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen with an electric spark, roughly equivalent to a lightning bolt in the early Earth’s prebiotic atmosphere, you convert about 15% of the carbon present in that inorganic atmosphere into organic compounds, notably 22 amino acid types. From this base, it’s assumed that a self-replicating molecule came to be and from there… well, see point 1).

Additional support for the Miller-Urey option comes from the analysis of ‘old’ genes, being genes which are common to a wide diversity of different species and are hence likely to have been passed down from a common early ancestor. It’s found that these old genes preferentially code for amino acids that can be produced in the Miller-Urey experiment, being the only amino acids that would have been available to early Earth organisms. Only later did a much larger set of amino acids become available when subsequent generations of organisms began to learn how to synthesize them.

Nonetheless, Elykin and Wolfendale argue that the available spark energy generated in a average lightning storm would not have been sufficient to generate the reactions of the Miller-Urey experiment and that an extra factor is needed to somehow intensify the lightning in early Earth’s atmosphere. This is where cosmic rays come in.

An electron air shower produced by a high energy cosmic ray particle.

While many cosmic rays are generated by solar activity and most don’t penetrate far into the atmosphere, high energy cosmic ray particles, which generally originate from outside the solar system, can create electron air showers. These arise from a cosmic ray particle colliding with an atmospheric particle producing a cascade of charged pions, which decay into muons and then electrons – resulting in a dense collection of electrons showering down to two kilometers or less above the Earth’s surface.

Such a dense electron air shower could initiate, enhance and sustain a high energy lightning storm and the researchers propose that, perhaps when the early solar system was drifting past some primeval supernova event over four billion years ago, this was what started it all.

Awesome.

  • HeinDuPlessis

    Sorry Steve, your very last line needs amendment. It should read FREAKING AWESOME.

  • http://home.comcast.net/~jacobsdale/AquaFarmIN.pps Aqua

    @Steve Nerlich: Your comment, “I am struggling to see the relevance of the article to the European Union. Perhaps we should define our acronyms here..” LOL! In this web blog, EU has long been erroneously assigned to any theory even vaguely referring to electricity of any sort i.e. “Electric Universe’ theories as I am sure you are well aware?

    My initial comment was indeed a ‘poke’ at those individuals who for one reason or another are in denial that ‘electrical’ activity plays any role in our universe. Clearly this article demonstrates otherwise.

    Concerning electron air showers… the 2D model you’ve chosen conveys the basic concept well enough as a schematic diagram but does not portray the actual 3D radial structure(s) very well. The electromagnetic shapes generated by cascading electron showers might more closely be represented by expanding spirals. One visualization is that of a hurricane as viewed from overhead. Imagine a spiraling core surrounded by dozens, hundreds or thousands of tornado’s as they spin off outer perimeter clouds.

  • Torbjorn Larsson OM

    Wow Aqua, two strawmen and both wet; which effigy will you try to burn next?

    First strawman: EU crackpots believes that the universe is basically run by plasma effects.
    Second strawman: Those who discuss actual science here does not in general deny that EM is a major interaction in the universe.

    Without EM there would be no chemical bonds or van der Waal’s forces so no planets, for example. And there would certainly be no life.

    Btw, OT but as it is discussed: your topology suggestion out of and in the blue, why would atmospheric electron showers spiral in the weak gradient of the Earth magnetic field density if they are energetic enough to cross the field lines over long distances?

    Aren’t you simply confusing these showers with bubble chamber photographs? References please!

  • Lawrence B. Crowell

    It is my understanding that the Miller-Urey simulation is not regarded as a likely model for the origin on complex molecules. The problem is not so much that electric arcs don’t produce organic compounds, as the Miller-Urey demonstrates, but that conditions on the early Earth probably did not match the experiment. So while it is the case that cosmic rays are the catalytic energy for lightning paths, they may not have been the source of organic chemistry for life.

    I think that volcanic vents are now the leading theory for the source of pre-biotic chemistry.

    I don’t want to get in the EU (not European Union) debates here. However, electrons in the tertiary shower products do not spiral much. They are in the KeV to MeV range of energy and as such they do not respond much to the Earth’s weak magnetic field. The Lorentz force is F = qvxB, B = magnetic field, v = velocity and q = charge, x = cross product. This is equal to the centripetal force for a circular orbit and by Newton’s second law

    mv^2/r = qvxB

    which for v and B perpendicular we get mv^2/r = qvB. Well now just compute the radius of the orbit r and you get

    r = qB/mv

    so as v get big (higher energy) the arc becomes large — and in this case very large. The positron does eventually get annihilated by another electron, and electrons in this intermediate energy range are pretty quickly stopped by atomic scattering. So before electrons execute much of an arcing motion they are stopped. Any suggestion these electrons produce currents that cycle around in the upper atmosphere is preposterous.

    LC

  • Olaf

    As always a nice explanation TL and LBC.

    I have a question for you. You guys made me curious enough to get into the formulas of Quantum Field Theory. But something funny is explained in the books that does not male sense to me.

    Feynman diagram show an anti particle moving against time a normal particle moves with time. This confuses me a bit. It is hard for me to believe that an anti-particle would move against time for real. Maybe it is just a representation only.

  • Lawrence B. Crowell

    This involves CPT discrete symmetry. The discrete operators C change charge of a field, P changes the parity and T the time direction of the field. The product of these operators is CPT = 1. So let us look at CP = T^{-1}, the inverse of T. These operators are as it turns out idempotent, for the inverse also changes the time and so T^2 = 1. To see this in greater detail does require working with a quantum field explicitly, but I will avoid that for now. So an anti-fermion has the opposite charge, such as the positron relative to an electron, and the handedness of the field (partiy) is changed. So to mathematically define an anti-fermion you apply CP to it and this is equivalent to the application of the T operator. So the positron is equivalent to an electron moving backwards in time.

    LC

  • http://home.comcast.net/~jacobsdale/AquaFarmIN.pps Aqua

    oTay.then… read a bit of this?
    http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/tornado/Parameters_for_Vortex_Formation_-_Charge_Sheath.html

    I was assuming that induced currents might ‘seed’ vortex generation? I used the ‘hurricane’ model as a simple analogy, not as an actual effect from an electron shower.

    My apologies if I overstepped.

  • Olaf

    Thanks LBC, I still have a lot to learn. LOL

    I also understand now why none of the relativity and quantum mechanics formulas made sense to me, they were shorthand versions of something more complex. I have a very good book “quantum field theory Demystified” But I really should get the other books, they are great.

  • http://home.comcast.net/~jacobsdale/AquaFarmIN.pps Aqua

    As Brian Ventrudo wrote in this blog on June 3rd, 2009 in his article “How magnetic tornadoes Might regenerate Mercury’s atmosphere”

    “During its second flyby of the planet on October 6, 2008, MESSENGER discovered that Mercury’s magnetic field can be extremely leaky indeed. The spacecraft encountered magnetic “tornadoes” – twisted bundles of magnetic fields connecting the planetary magnetic field to interplanetary space – that were up to 500 miles wide or a third of the radius of the planet.

    “These ‘tornadoes’ form when magnetic fields carried by the solar wind connect to Mercury’s magnetic field,” said Slavin. “As the solar wind blows past Mercury’s field, these joined magnetic fields are carried with it and twist up into vortex-like structures. These twisted magnetic flux tubes, technically known as flux transfer events, form open windows in the planet’s magnetic shield through which the solar wind may enter and directly impact Mercury’s surface.”

    Venus, Earth, and even Mars have thick atmospheres compared to Mercury, so the solar wind never makes it to the surface of these planets, even if there is no global magnetic field in the way, as is the case for Venus and Mars. Instead, it hits the upper atmosphere of these worlds, where it has the opposite effect to that on Mercury, gradually stripping away atmospheric gas as it blows by.

    The process of linking interplanetary and planetary magnetic fields, called magnetic reconnection, is common throughout the cosmos. It occurs in Earth’s magnetic field, where it generates magnetic tornadoes as well. However, the MESSENGER observations show the reconnection rate is ten times higher at Mercury.”

  • Olaf

    Aqua your so called tornado’s has nothing to do with the 2D diagram and cosmic rays you claimed to be wrong!

    Also according to the European Union, finding magnetic reconnection would be proof that Europe does not exist.

  • Lawrence B. Crowell

    @ Olaf, Given the recent problems with Greece and now related issues in Spain and Italy, maybe the EU will cease to exist. On the currency markets the Euro has taken a bit of a beating.

    Aqua, Please, tornadoes have lightning which is generated in much the same way as in clouds. I am not much of a meteorologist or atmospheric physicist, but while lightning is maybe induced by cosmic ray tertiary particles, they are not currents which are direct products of cosmic rays. The GKZ limit on cosmic rays puts a proton energy limit at 10^6TeV, or about equal to the kinetic energy of a golf ball in flight off the tee. A lightning bolt has a lot more energy than that. So lightning is not due to circulating currents from electron tertiaries from cosmic rays.

    LC

  • http://home.comcast.net/~jacobsdale/AquaFarmIN.pps Aqua

    Its obvious you didn’t give that link a read.. why do I bother?

  • http://www.cheapastro.com Steve Nerlich

    @Aqua

    Thanks – Electric Universe, huh? Hmmm…

  • Olaf

    Aqua, your link has nothing to do with your 2D graph claimed to be incomplete.

    I see a lack of evidences on that paper, just a lots of hyped words strung together creating an logical sounding theory which would fail dramatically when actually testes for real.

    Where are his formulas and where are his numbers?

    If his theory is sound then he should submit it as a science paper to be tested by other scientists. Did he do that?

    Also if you go to the top page of your link you soon discover stuff like:
    “Introduction to Gluten-free diets, lifestyle and the coeliac condition”, ” Introduction to low fat and low sugar diets , lifestyle, discussion “,Is there Life on Mars? – Science and Technology….

  • http://home.comcast.net/~jacobsdale/AquaFarmIN.pps Aqua

    Cosmic rays and their subsequent electron showers may act as ‘seed’ generators/fractal initiators for the likes of Sprites, Jelly’s and Blue energy beams and may also seed lightning, ball lightning and tornadoes.

    All of these electrodynamic phenom need to be more fully explored before any definite conclusions are made. Never-the-less, they are all very interesting and controversial topics! Mr. Nerlich is very brave in posting the association with the evolution of life which in itself is a VERY controversial subject! I like!

    Detractors to open discussion serve no purpose other than personal gratification but are to be expected given the level of consciousness in general on our planet.

  • Olaf

    Aqua it has nothing to do with your claim that the 2D image is incomplete.

Previous post:

Next post: