From: LARRY KLAES (ljk4_at_msn.com)
Date: Wed Jan 08 2003 - 06:48:58 PST
Another caveat to add is that the paper assumes life
must begin on an Earth-like planet. What about on a
Jovian-type world, or one of their moons, or in a cloud
of gas and dust, or how about on a neutron star? Or
something else we can't even imagine right now?
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Yvan Dutil
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 9:52 PM
To: setipublic
Subject: Re: SETI public: No really old life forms in the Universe?
I have read the paper and it conclude that the oldest planet should be
12 billions years old and
wonder what this imply to the Fermi paradoxe. Certainly, they ahve not
taken account of the
detructive impact of the supernovea blast at the time of the formation
of the galaxie. And the optimal,
combinaison of C and O.
Yvan Dutil
LARRY KLAES a écrit :
> Chances for earth-like planets and life around metal-poor stars
> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=7478
>
> We discuss the difficulties of forming earth-like planets in
> metal-poor environments, such as those prevailing in the Galactic halo
> (Pop II), the Magellanic Clouds, and the early universe. We suggest
> that, with less heavy elements available, terrestrial planets will be
> smaller size and lower mass than in our solar system (solar
> metallicity). Such planets may not be able to sustain life as we know
> it. Therefore, the chances of very old lifeforms in the universe are
> slim, and a threshold metallicty (1/2 solar?) may exist for life to
> originate on large enough earth-like planets.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Jan 08 2003 - 07:12:25 PST