27 Speculations and Skepticism
intro para
Learning Objectives
By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:
- Critically assess claims, especially claims in news media
- (Discuss the psychology of delusional beliefs)
Since we have yet to find scientific evidence for life outside of the Earth, much of the study of astrobiology is necessarily speculative. Perhaps because of this, there has been and continues to be a tendency for people to believe that evidence does exist for life from beyond Earth interacting with us.
This tendency can be seen in the mythologies associated with the skies across many human cultures. Intelligence and life was assumed to be part of the celestial world, with gods, monsters, and the spirits of once-living terrestrial creatures complete with agency and personalities that could interact with humanity. Constellations, planets, and stars were the first “extraterrestrial life forms” that human beings assumed existed.
With an adoption of scientific perspectives on how the natural world operates, such enchantment of the natural world was eschewed. The planets, stars, and other phenomena we observe with our telescopes has up to now exhibited no signs of magic, intelligence, or life. However, a somewhat large contingent of humanity takes issue with this lack of evidence and proposes, contrariwise, that there is in fact ample evidence for such. This chapter aims to examine some of these claims in some detail.
Before proceeding much further, however, the evidence that will be considered in this chapter will be, in most cases, rejected as problematic, incomplete, or even completely incorrect. How does anyone decide this is the case? Ultimately, you have to use your own judgment to weigh evidence, and this includes the scientific evidence that has thus far been presented in this book.
Skepticism
One possible approach to evaluating claims is that of skepticism. Skeptics, as those who adhere to this position are called, adopt a set of standards for evidence used to hopefully distinguish fact from fantasy. The nature of this position is, however, that there will be people who disagree with the skeptical perspective. If one person argues that a phenomenon exists, the skeptical position is to propose that unless there is convincing and verifiable evidence that can be measured, the phenomenon is assumed not to exist. This type of assumption is called the null hypothesis.
What standards of evidence would be enough to have a skeptic reject the null hypothesis? There is no firm demarcation, and this is likely why there is often controversy surrounding these subjects especially within the popular, philosophical, and sociological discourse. Nevertheless, surveys of experts and scientists tend to show remarkable agreement as to the lack of evidence for a lot of the ideas we will be discussing, according to some general principles of “skepticism” including a famous dictum often attributed to the late Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. What follows is one possible set of criteria that attempt to offer a means to determine which claims are supported by evidence provided by the late Carl Sagan.
Baloney Detector Kit
In his 1991 book, Demon-Haunted World, Sagan attempts to provide his readers with a set of tools that can be used to indicate concern with certain arguments. These tools are not meant to be foolproof methods to determine with absolute certainty whether a claim is true or false, but the hope is as one starts to evaluate more and more claims, the “Baloney Detector Kit” will work to help steer the user in the direction of being able to identify which claims are worthy of more careful consideration and which can be dismissed more quickly. Entertaining every claim is an exhausting endeavor, and with limited time such techniques can be used to move on to more productive avenues of investigation. Sagan writes that the tools in this kit are the following principles, quoted here in full:
- Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
- Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
- Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
- Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
- Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
- Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
- If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
- Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
- Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
In the discussions that follow, try to see where these tools can be applied to the evidence that is provided. It is important to understand that these tools do not say “yes” or “no” in answer to the question, “Is this claimed phenomenon real or not?” The hope is rather to provide enough tools so that the merits of the claims can be evaluated and the reader can make up her or his own mind.
Unidentified Flying Objects
One of the first subjects that students are interested in exploring is the question of whether spacecraft from other intelligent groups are visiting Earth. An extensive catalog of stories attempting to demonstrate evidence for this has been assembled by various investigators often termed “ufologists” as a way of identifying that they study “UFOs”. The term “UFO” Is an acronym that was coined by Air Force Captain Edward J. Ruppelt in the 1950s to stand for the words “unidentified flying object”. At the time, this was intended to be a neutral indicator of the reports: most people who believe they have seen a UFO report that it is flying in the sky, that it is a physical object that can be seen or tracked by, for example, radar, and that the observer does not know what the object is making it “unidentified”. Over the decades, the term has become so closely associated with the claim that there are extraterrestrial intelligent beings visiting the Earth, that now many associate UFO with “alien spacecraft”.
The official investigations of UFOs first happened in a coordinated fashion after World War II. At the time, there was heightened interest in threats from flying objects of human origin. During the Second World War, aerial technology advanced quickly to jet-propelled aircraft and rocket artillery and in the United States a Civil Air Defense Corps was inaugurated to monitor the skies for incoming enemy threats. The culture of reporting unusual aerial phenomena to the authorities was well-established by the time UFO investigations sponsored by the United States Air Force first began.
Under a variety of monickers, after assembling a team of investigators, the US Air Force undertook a number of projects to investigate the reports and determine whether they could be explained or whether they constituted a threat to the national security of the United States. Over the course of nearly a decade, a number of reports came back indicating consistently that some sightings could be identified as being caused by known phenomena and the ones that could not be explained did not rise to a level such that they could conclusively point to any new phenomena beyond the prosaic explanations that identified the other sightings. Since there was nothing conclusive that could be ascertained from the reports the investigations were ended so as to avoid prolonging a wild goose chase.
Since that time, formal studies of UFOs have been only intermittently conducted by governments and the scientific community has all but ignored such ideas. Ongoing claims that evidence for UFOs exist continue to be made, but so far there has not been the acceptance that these extraordinary claims have generated any extraordinary evidence.
Popular interest in UFOs continues in part due to such stories featuring in entertainment and in journalism. H.G. Wells in 1897 wrote War of the Worlds which presented a scenario of intelligent lifeforms from Mars invading the Earth. Likely, Wells was influenced by the recently published book by Percival Lowell entitled, Mars where, erroneously, Lowell reported on the observations of Giovanni Schiparelli and others who argued that there was a network of canals that could be seen on the planet. This inspired considerable speculation that there could be flowing water and life on Mars, but later work revealed that these observations were entirely spurious.
At around the same time, humanity began experimenting with flight starting with airships that used hydrogen gas to achieve the necessary lift. A number of mystery airships were reported in the media with a few newspaper reporters uncritically claiming that they were made by lifeforms from other worlds who had used them to travel to Earth.
Reports of UFOs began to proliferate after a media sensation surrounding the claims of a pilot named Kenneth Arnold who in 1947 who reported seeing nine aircraft that appeared to him to move in a way that was far different than any aircraft he had seen until that point. He argued that such objects appeared to be moving like “saucers skipping across a pond” and the term “flying saucer” was soon attached to the unknown objects. On the basis of his personal observations, Arnold was convinced that aircraft were visiting Earth and were developed by an advanced extra-terrestrial intelligent beings. He consistently argued this for the rest of his life.
Not long after this, the now famous Roswell Incident occurred where a New Mexico rancher saw a balloon crash into a field and wreckage was recovered. The local news story complete with photographs and a visit by the officials from the Army Air Force who removed the physical evidence and eventually explained the event as a weather balloon crash although it was actually a nuclear testing monitoring balloon. The event might have disappeared into obscurity, but interest was revived in the late 1970s through the 1990s when a number of claimants began to argue that there had been recovery of extraterrestrial artifacts including lifeforms. The culmination of this sensation was the production of a so-called “Alien Autopsy” video which was broadcast nationally in 1995 and claimed at the time to be authentic footage, though the filmmaker years later would clarify that it was a reproduction of what he claimed to remember.
Identifying UFOs
Claims of visitations by intelligent lifeforms from beyond the Earth continue to be made in news stories, science fiction, and popular media. The very identification of a sighting of an “unidentified” object makes attribution difficult. The null hypothesis is that such observations have prosaic explanations and such explanations fall into four categories: natural phenomena, human technology, delusions, and hoaxes.
Natural Phenomena
A number of natural phenomena have confused observers into believing they were due to fantastical technology or the supernatural owing to peculiar characteristics, circumstances, or simply not knowing how the phenomena appears in nature.
A number of astronomical objects have been reported as “flying” in ways that observes thought looked like they were piloted by intelligent lifeforms, but this is not the case. Famously, the planet Venus is often puzzling for those who are unaware that it is the third brightest natural object in the sky and can rival the brightness of plane landing lights. In dark sites when there is no moon, Venus is bright enough to cast shadows. As a planet, it is also not a point source and can therefore be distinguished from stars because it exhibits less twinkling than stars exhibit as the random fluctuations in the atmosphere that cause twinkling stars are washed out over the larger apparent size of the planet. Venus is never far from the horizon, giving it the appearance of flying closer to the ground. When it is in the evening sky, Venus sets at approximately the rate of the Sun which makes it appear to be moving through the sky or perhaps landing at some distance. When Venus is very low in the sky, the same atmospheric refraction that causes sunsets can affect the color of Venus on short timescales, making it appear to be flashing different colored lights.
Some transient astronomical phenomena include meteors or bolides which appear as bright streaks and, in some instances, smoke trails in the sky. These are the visible signs that a rocky body from space has entered the Earth’s atmosphere on a collision course. Shooting stars can be seen almost any night, but some points during the year there are many more of them in so-called “meteor showers” at a point in the Earth’s orbit where it passes through the debris field of a comet. The largest fireballs are unusual, but can be extremely bright and happen high enough in the atmosphere to be visible for hundreds of kilometers. Occasionally, these meteors are large enough to cause damage when they hit the ground as meteorites or propagate shockwaves and sonic booms if they explode in the atmosphere.
Birds are, of course, flying objects and while most people think they can readily identify birds, some birds are large enough to confuse the perspective of the observer. One suggestion that has been made to explain Kenneth Arnold’s sighting was that he was observing a flock of pelicans. These large birds can fly fairly high and if they are not identified as birds, it is possible to misjudge their size. Arnold proposed that the objects he saw were the size of aircraft and that they moved very quickly. Pelicans are approximately the size of a small human and if they are mistaken for larger objects, the person seeing them may believe that they are farther away than they actually are as a large object can have the same angular size as a small object when it is at a further distance. What is more, a closer object will appear to move across the field of view at a faster rate than one that is further away, so it has been suggested that Arnold’s estimate of the speed of the objects could have been misjudged as being much faster if he assumed the objects were further away than they were.
Another instance of a possible bird sighting was the so-called “Flatwoods Monster” which was a reported contact with what the observers thought was an extraterrestrial lifeform. The night of the incident was the same night that a meteor was observed, and the people who reported seeing the Flatwoods Monster went to investigate the meteor crash in the local forest. When they happened upon the location where the meteorite hit, they reported seeing a human-like figure that scared them. A sketch artist’s impression of what they saw was mocked up, and a comparison of the drawing to what a barn owl on the top of a moderately-sized tree or stump has been suggested as an intriguing correlation.
A few other usual natural phenomena have been identified in connection to UFO reports. Will-o-the-wisp are claims of glowing lights typically seen in marshy or swampy areas that have identified as sometimes being due to the igniting of combustable methane gas. St. Elmo’s Fire has been described since antiquity but has only recently been identified as electrical discharge that can occur in certain situations where there is substantial charging in the atmosphere as what might happen before a thunderstorm.
Finally, cloud formations have been misidentified, especially lenticular clouds. These clouds are formed under very particular atmospheric conditions and look superficially like the stereotypical “Flying Saucer” spacecraft often claimed in UFO reports. When such clouds appear in the evening or morning, they can reflect and refract light from the sun on the horizon taking on unusual coloring and mimicking flashing lights.
Human Technology
Many comparisons to UFOs are directly to human technology either as the airships of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries through to jet aircraft and rocket ships today. Even so, rocket launches are unusual enough that when they happen and an unsuspecting observer happens to be looking in the direction of a launch, they can be led to believe that they are witnessing something otherworldly. An example of this is the 2009 Norwegian Spiral Anomaly which formed a dramatic blue spiral visible from many parts of Norway one evening. It was identified as a failed rocket launch from Russia, but the unusualness of contrails and exhaust that come from the launch are such some classify it as a member of a class of “Space Jellyfish”.
Once in orbit, satellites can appear in ways that are very unusual in comparison to planes. Low Earth orbit implies a satellite that passes directly overhead will cross from horizon to horizon in 45 minutes, but most of that time will be spent near the horizon. As it passes overhead, it moves at a considerable clip crossing the distance of five full moons in one second. Such satellites reflect the light of the Sun and so can mostly be seen near sunrise or sunset. Low-Earth orbiting satellites pass either into or out of the shadow of the Earth appearing to appear or reappear suddenly, and if the architecture of the satellite is favorable, this can lead to satellites appearing to “flare” as they point a flat reflective surface towards the unsuspecting observer.
Perhaps one of the most famous UFO-related human technology observed are balloons. While most people have experience with party balloons, there are extremely large balloons used for scientific and military purposes which look nothing like those at a party. These high-altitude balloons do not fully inflate until they reach the height of the stratosphere past 15 km or so. Once at these heights, the balloons inflate to the size of a small building and in the early evening when they are typically launched will reflect the setting sun as they travel quickly through the action of the jet stream. West Texas and New Mexico are the launching point for much of the scientific ballooning done in the US and often reports of UFOs to the local media increase during the launch season.
In the last few decades, robotic drone flyers have become another source for confusion by people seeing unexplained things in the sky. Drones used for classified missions have confounded pilots as the size of the drones and therefore their distances are difficult to ascertain. Drones may also be subject to radar detection, but in the case of military uses, stealth technology can be employed to hide or confuse the radar signal so that distances and speeds cannot be accurately ascertained. A number of the latest UFO sightings breathlessly reported in even reputable media have been attributed to drones by skeptics. Commercially available drones are also one of the most common ways to create a UFO hoax.
Delusions
A certain number of UFO sightings are due to delusions, but it is important to realize that anyone can suffer from delusions. The accusation that someone is delusional is often a tool of derision, but intelligent, capable and otherwise competent human beings are suspect to any number of effects that can cause them to believe they have perceived something that they have not perceived. A common example of this is the so-called “Misinformation Effect” where memories can be distorted and inaccurately recalled due to the introduction of misleading information or suggestions. Indeed, suggestibility is a psychological phenomenon that is offered to explain how hypnosis functions. Studies of such effects have cast doubt on the reliability of eyewitness testimony in courts, and in instances where testimony is the only evidence for an observation of a UFO, such effects may be cause for concern. Unfortunately, those who offer eyewitness testimony are often completely unaware that their memory has been distorted and instead take umbrage at the suggestion that they are mistaken, but such concerns are not intended to cast those offering their testimony as liars. Instead, it is an effect to keep in mind as a possible explanation for a testimony that was intended to be offered truthfully.
In some instances, these sorts of misremembered events can be the result of trauma. An instance of this seems to be indicated in the community of abductees who claim with varying degrees of detail and intensity, that they have not only been visited by lifeforms from beyond Earth, but that these lifeforms have captured and, in some cases, tortured them. Some accounts follow patterns that have been identified by psychologists as similar to a condition known as sleep paralysis where a certain somnambulatory state between dreaming and waking happens when a person is aware of what is happening but is unable to physically move.
The first claimed abduction is worth recounting due to the iconic nature of its occurrence. Barney and Betty Hill were an interracial married couple living in New Hampshire in 1961 at a time when interracial marriages were uncommon and actually illegal in many parts of the United States. During a drive home, they saw a UFO, followed it in their car, left the vehicle to investigate, and then became very frightened of what danger it could pose. They reported a strange loss of time upon their arrival back home. For some days afterwards, they were haunted by the trauma of the event and Betty had reported troubling dreams. At the time, UFO stories were still being investigated by national authorities, and the stories often ended up reported in the press uncritically. Also at the time, hypnosis was being actively used in a way we now know is problematic: to help people recall so-called “repressed memories”. Unfortunately, it has been convincingly documented that encouraging people to participate in an activity where they are subject to suggestibility as in a hypnosis session is a way to plant false memories. Nevertheless, through hypnotic sessions that began some years after the incident, Barney and Betty Hill began to describe more remembered features of their encounter including an abduction by what they described as extraterrestrials who took them to their spacecraft and examined them. Betty Hill outlived her husband by decades and continued to produce more and more claims about her contact with the extraterrestrial lifeforms including describing the aliens as the now familiar “gray alien”, and eventually determining that they came from a planet orbiting the star Zeta Reticuli. An entire community of people believe that “Zetans” are the intelligent extraterrestrials visiting Earth largely based on Betty Hill’s prolific accounts that are stored in the archives of the University of New Hampshire library.
Delusions do not only happen to individuals. There are instances of so-called “mass delusions” where multiple independent people or groups of people become convinced of events or phenomena which simply do not exist. One example of this that predates the UFO phenomenon were reports of the Edison Star in March and April of 1897. At this time, there was concern across the United States that Thomas Edison was producing an artificial star to light up the night. Sightings of this star happened in many locations, but there was no such object to be seen. This event is very reminiscent of various “UFO waves” which occur in places from time to time. As media interest intensifies, more and more reports are made of people seeing unexplained objects flying in the sky to the point where the argument is offered, sometimes even explicitly, that if it had to be interactions with extraterrestrial lifeforms because otherwise there would not be so many sightings. After an increasing flurry of interest, the reports eventually come to an end as the attention of the media and society is moved towards other things.
Hoaxes
Since the claims began to proliferate, hoaxes have been promulgated. Faked photographs, video footage, and physical evidence have been used to claim “clear proof” and discoveries of hoaxes inevitably lead skeptics to question claims that come after this. One instance where a hoax was strongly suspected was the first photograph ever taken of a UFO from a farm near McMinnville, Oregon. The pair of pictures appear to show a flying saucer and the claim was that the pictures also indicate the UFO was moving from one part of the scene to the other. Suggestions that the photographs were faked were made almost from when they were first published, most explanations proposing that either an old motor, a hubcap, or a dinner plate was suspended by fishing line. The family never admitted that it was a hoax.
Perhaps the most famous hoax associated with ufology was that of crop circles. For years in the late 1980s and early 1990s, crops in south England were discovered mysteriously flattened in circular patterns that became increasingly elaborate. A craze of investigation happened that captured worldwide attention. Various phenomena were invoked as plausible explanations including claims by many who believed that UFOs were extraterrestrial spacecraft that the crop circles were related to the intelligent lifeforms. In spite of the media sensation, in 1991 two men admitted to producing most of the crop circles in England using fairly rudimentary devices. Even as they were able to demonstrate their production of crop circles, there still remained believers convinced that this was not the explanation some of whom still do not believe the phenomenon was a hoax. Crop circles continue to be produced by artists and other aficionados including one that famously paid homage to the Arecibo Message.
Conspiracy Theories
Even with the large number of prosaic explanations for claimed UFOs and the number of reports issued that concluded there was no strong evidence for UFOs indicating an interaction with life from beyond the Earth, there continue to be those who believe that some UFOs are not explainable by the four categories of identifications listed above. When faced with the question as to why government agencies and experts dismiss such arguments, there is sometimes a claim that there is a conspiracy among a large number of interested parties to conceal the truth of the matter. Stories as to how this has done often include hiding evidence at secret military installations such as the famous “Area 51” in the United States Air Force’s Nevada Test and Training Range where the promoters of the “Alien Autopsy” video claimed evidence was being hidden. There are declassified documents which indicate that the United States Armed Forces in part did not spend time refuting such claims in order to hide the true classified nature of some of these institutions (some of which were involved in the production of espionage technology, for example).
Whether these stories are promoted by people who know they are incorrect or whether they were promoted by people who truly believe in “alternative scenarios” is hard to determine. Suffice to say, these expansive narratives become increasingly complicated as the interested interlocutor continues to ask additional questions about the existence or lack of existence of evidence for such conspiracy theories. Inevitably, completely unrelated arguments end up incorporated. Arguments get made such as, “If NASA is lying about the existence of extraterrestrial lifeforms interacting with human beings, perhaps it is also lying about the shape of the Earth.” Aside from the fact that it is possible to perform some simple experiments yourself to discover that NASA is not lying about the shape of the Earth, the chain of argument becomes longer and longer and weaker and weaker as the explanations continue.
One particular conspiracy theory that has gained traction in the popular media is the proposal that not only are extraterrestrial lifeforms interacting with Earth, but that there is evidence that they have been doing so for millennia. The evidence for such “Ancient Aliens” is usually the large structures that humans built before the Industrial Era. The pyramids of Egypt and Central America, the megaliths of Europe and Asia, the now-abandoned cities of the past in the Eastern and Western Hemispheres are all cited as in certain television shows and popular books that there must have been contact with intelligent lifeforms possessing advanced technology to enable humanity to construct these impressive structures.
Archeologists and anthropologists have entire journals dedicated to explaining the way in which our predecessors constructed the large and complicated features of their societies. Not everything is completely understood, but there is ample evidence of the construction techniques, design knowledge, and abilities of the craftspeople from written records, artifacts, and even oral histories. The presumption by many of those arguing that human beings were incapable of achieving the incredible feats of the past is that because they do not understand how, for example, a pyramid could be built therefore no human being can. The people who built the pyramids beg to differ.
The allure of such arguments is that they excite the imaginations of many. In the modern world, science fiction and fantasy literature may hold functions similar to those that folktales and mythologies used to hold. That some people confuse these stories for factual accounts is not surprising, but as with any claim to truth, it is important to keep stock of the full range of possibilities and narrow on in explanations that are more likely to be correct while avoiding those that are more likely to be incorrect. Hopefully, the baloney detector kit can work.
An Enchanted Universe
The connection of these ideas to mechanisms that are unknown to scientific investigation inspires some people to delve into open questions which have been attempted to be answered through alternative philosophical and religious means. Examples include: Is there something special about life that requires explanations that our physical models will be unable to provide? Are there ways that we and other aspects of reality are influenced beyond the four forces of physics?
While open questions of this sort are, by definition, not answered, there are auxiliary proposals and ideas for which we can examine the evidence.
Astrology
The predictability of the motions of the heavens enabled early astronomers to become accurate timekeepers and calendar makers. This skill required observation and modeling as we currently enjoy, but there were extensions to such predictions that were abandoned by the scientific community in the eighteenth century. These included so-called “astrological” claims that the planets influenced human affairs and current events through personality-like influences. These claims continue to be made today with the influences argued as being due to personal characteristics that the planets and constellations were given. For example, Mars was considered a masculine god of war and Venus a feminine goddess of love. The position of these visible planets with respect to the Sun, Moon, and background stars was meant to influence daily life in individuals depending most strongly on where the Sun appeared to be when they were born, and less strongly on where the Moon and the rest of the planets were. As the Sun, Moon, and planets all orbit in a plane, the only constellations that they can be seen in are the twelve constellations that form the Zodiac or the Plane of the Ecliptic which indicates the orientation of the plane of our Solar System with respect to the Earth (if there were no tilt to our axis, the Plane of the Ecliptic would align with the Celestial Equator).
The idea that the position of the planets with respect to stars influences human behavior or future outcomes generally was (and, by contemporary believers in astrologers, continues to be) attributed to the same mysterious forces which kept the planets moving in their courses. However, with the advent of both the heliocentric model for the solar system and our modern theory of gravity, it became possible to explain the motion of the planets and precisely calculate the strength of the forces that planets exert. The scientific explanations for the motions of the planets often recast the stories of astrology in a different light. For example, retrograde motion of the planets still worries people, many of whom do not know what retrograde motion is. At various points along the synodic period of a planet (the time it takes for a planet to return to the same position in the sky), a planet will appear to stop moving in the normal direction it wanders across the constellations of the Zodiac. At that point it will turn apparently make an abrupt change of course and move in the opposite direction before stopping again and returning to its previous path. This retrograde motion is said by astrologers to indicate a disorienting or disordered characteristic to the planets’ motion (recall that planets were once considered imbued with consciousness as deities or spirits), but in fact it is the result of the Earth moving around the Sun. The analogy can be drawn to cars passing each other on a roadway while traveling in the same direction. For most of the journey, the cars will appear to move in the same direction, but at certain points one car will pass another causing the appearance of the cars moving in different directions. Retrograde motion occurs as the Earth passes the planets that are farther away than the Sun or as the planets that are closer to the Sun swing in their orbit to the opposite side of the Sun and appear to move in a different direction for a time. If you believe the Earth is the center of the Solar System, such motion is strange and puzzling and famously needed to be explained using a complicated system of epicycles which allowed a planet to move backwards at certain points in its motion. With the heliocentric Solar System, the explanation becomes as simple as explaining relative motion.
Our advancing understanding of the motions of the celestial sphere also mean that the claims of many so-called “classical” astrologers are based on calculations that place the planets in different places in the sky than they actually are. The Earth’s axis precesses every 26,000 years which means that the Celestial Poles point in slightly different directions with respect to the background stars year by year. This motion was unknown to ancient astronomers because it requires either a significant baseline of observations before the shifts are seeable without advanced technology. But it has been long enough since the invention of astrology that most people’s “Star Signs” are no longer the constellation that the Sun was in when they were born.
Finally, there is a question of mechanism when it comes to astrology. Some astrologers were probably encouraged by the fact that Isaac Newton’s explanation for gravity required the planets to exert gravitational pulls on human beings. However, the force exerted is minuscule compared to other forces we encounter in our day-to-day lives. The planet Jupiter exerts less of a gravitational influence on you than the gravity from a nearby human being; it is essentially too small to measure. As for the other forces known to physics (electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force), their influences are even smaller.
Thus, in order for astrology to work there would have to be some unknown fifth force originating from the planets, influencing humanity, and following the traditional stories that were told to explain motion of the planets that we now explain through celestial mechanics. Such a force should be measurable, but it does not appear in any of the tests that physicists make to look for such fifth forces. The conclusion that most physicists arrive at, then, is that astrological claims cannot attributable to actual physical influences.
At this point, some believers in astrology appeal to spirituality to argue that the influences cannot be measured. There are profound philosophical implications to believing in the existence of things that cannot be measured, well beyond the scope of this text. By definition, there is no test that can be done to either substantiate or debunk the existence of immeasurable things. We have left the purview of science and have entered into a space of ideas that is more properly contained within metaphysics or religion.
Spirituality and Religion
Some religions make claims directly relevant to the questions this book is seeking to explore. For example, there are those who have a religious belief that there cannot possibly be intelligent life in the Universe other than humanity. Others not only believe in such life, but make claims to know what the life is and how it operates. Some modern religions even incorporate UFOs as part of their belief systems.
Other religious believers question fundamental results of scientific investigation. However, most mainstream religions do not see any necessary conflict between scientific investigations, the facts discovered by science, and the religious beliefs. There may be outstanding queries and disagreements as to what is possible or impossible in such discussions of religion and science, but generally there is an ongoing demarcation that is maintained between religion and science that is only breached in certain philosophical fora. Students are often intrigued by this (lack of) interaction, but because the approaches to explaining the world are very different between a religious perspective and a scientific perspective, it is typically difficult to isolate even what the topics up for discussion should be. Open questions in science are sometimes left to religions to answer. Whether they provide reasonable answers or not is largely a question of faith.
Key Concepts and Summary
Without a second example of life elsewhere, the field of astrobiology is speculative. This offers an excellent opportunity to develop critical thinking, skepticism, and logic as thinking habits. It is human nature to want to succeed. It is scientific nature to be skeptical and demand empirical evidence before jumping to conclusions and the scientists working on SETI and the search for life employ these best practices in their work. They will be the first to say there is no evidence that UFOs are alien spacecraft or to identify hoaxes met to deceive. These practices may be the most important thing you can take away from your study of astrobiology.
Review Questions
Summary Questions
Activities
A unit of power (or luminosity) equal to 1 Joule per second
The cosmos is vast. To contemplate the mere existence of life in the universe, we must step back and ask some fundamental questions: What is the cosmos made of? What is at the center of the cosmos, if there is a center at all? Ancient Greek schools of thought marked a turning point in the approach to answering questions of this kind. Rather than invoking supernatural explanations to celestial phenomena, ancient Greek thinkers constructed empirical models to explain the universe.
Learning Objectives
By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:
- Discuss the different views of the cosmos expressed by Atomists and Aristotelians
- Understand the concept of models and describe the geocentric and heliocentric models
- Explain the apparent retrograde motion of planets
- Describe the significance of Galileo’s telescope observations
- Discuss why Galileo was accused of heresy by the Church in the 17th century
Ancient Greek Cosmologies
Our concept of the cosmos — its basic structure and origin —is called cosmology, a word with Greek roots (the Greek word kosmos means world). Before the invention of telescopes, humans had to depend on the simple evidence of their senses for a picture of the universe. The ancients developed cosmologies that combined their direct view of the heavens with a rich variety of philosophical and religious symbolism. Two main schools of thought regarding the nature of matter arose in the era of the ancient Greeks: the atomists and the Aristotelians. In the context of other life in the universe, the Aristotelians believed that the Earth was the only world and was at the center of the cosmos, while the atomists believed that many worlds can exist throughout the cosmos, and some of these worlds can naturally have life.
What is the Universe made of?
In the sixth century BCE, thinkers began asking questions about what is the basic underlying reality of the world. What is matter composed of? Is all matter made of the same substance? Thales of Miletus (620–546 BCE) set the stage and suggested that the fundamental basis for all material was water. Thales envisioned the Earth as a flat disk floating (resting) on water. This notion based on nature marked a shift away from divine explanations for celestial phenomena and toward scientific reasoning.
A student of Thales, Anaximander, revised these ideas and suggested that all matter in the world originates not from a formed substance like water but rather from apeiron, a boundless entity that pervades all of space. This led to the suggestion that a "plurality" of worlds could exist, with Earth perhaps being just one stage in a never-ending chain of worlds. About a century later, a school of thought called atomism emerged.
The Atomists
According to the atomists, among whom Democritus, Lucretius, and Epicurus were prominent, matter can be subdivided only to a certain point, at which only atoms (which cannot be cut, or are "indivisible") remain. The world is made up of atoms moving in an infinite void. Atoms differed from each other only in size and shape, and different substances with their distinct qualities were made up of different shapes, arrangements, and positions of atoms. Atoms were in continuous motion in the infinite void and constantly collided (“swerved”) with each other. During these collisions they could rebound or stick together because of hooks and barbs on their surfaces. Thus, if life as we know it emerged this way, then the notion of life elsewhere in the universe forming this same way was within the realm of possibility. Thus, atomists also believed in a plurality of words -- or many worlds. There was even speculation at this time, notably by Anaxagoras, that the Moon was rocky and reflected sunlight and was possibly inhabited by "lunarians". For holding the belief that the Moon and Sun were not gods, Anaxagoras was sentenced to death for impiety.
Democritus gave some examples of how the atomic hypothesis could account for qualities such as color and taste (e.g., sharp tastes are caused by sharp atoms), but on the whole atomism, like other contemporary global theories, remained a general theory. It was criticized by Aristotle for some of its logical inconsistencies. For example, if atoms have different shapes, then they have parts, and this means that they are mathematically divisible; if they have different sizes, then among the infinity of their number there must be atoms as big as the world.
The Aristotelians
The Aristotelian description of nature was influenced by Pythagorean idealism. Plato suggested a mathematically perfect cosmos, in which the four fundamental elements – earth, fire, water, and air – are associated with regular solids. For example, fire is associated with a twelve-sided shape called a dodecahedron. Aristotle refined this cosmology and added the “aether”, or quintessence, to account for the void present in the atomist view and thus rendering the cosmos finite. In Aristotle’s view, all matter is at its natural state when at rest, and all objects will naturally fall back to Earth when displaced. Earth is naturally at the center in this system, in line with a geocentric viewpoint. This geocentric cosmology is counter to the plurality of worlds advocated by the atomists.
The last great astronomer of the Roman era was Claudius Ptolemy who flourished in Alexandria in about the year 140 AD. Ptolemy’s most important contribution was a geometric representation of the solar system that predicted the positions of the planets for any desired date and time. Ptolemy supplemented observational data collected by Hipparchus with new observations of his own and produced a cosmological model that endured more than a thousand years, until the time of Copernicus.
To fully explain the motions of bodies in the solar system, particularly the observation that Mars appears to change directions on the sky from time to time (this is known as apparent retrograde motion), some seemingly complicated behavior of the known planets at that time needed to be explained. A picture showing the apparent retrograde motion of Mars is shown in Figure 3. This time lapse sequence shows Mars on the sky over a period of about 8 months and shows that Mars appears to change directions and then change back as it moves on the sky. Trying to explain this unusual motion was a challenge in a geocentric model.
Because the Greeks believed that celestial motions had to be circles (Pythagoras, Plato), Ptolemy had to construct his model using circles alone. To do it, he needed dozens of circles, some moving around other circles, in a complex structure that makes a modern viewer dizzy (Figure 4). In order to match the observed motions of the planets, Ptolemy had to center the deferent circles, not on Earth, but at points some distance from Earth. In addition, he introduced uniform circular motion around yet another axis, called the equant point. All of these considerably complicated his scheme. The principle of Occam’s Razor states that given a number of different explanations, the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. Applying Occam’s Razor to the Ptolemaic model, the simplest explanation comes from a heliocentric model, which puts the Sun at the center (the Greek root helio means sun). However, the lack of evidence for a heliocentric model pushed the heliocentric model to the back burner until the Copernican Revolution.
The geocentric model of Ptolemy, with some modifications, was eventually accepted as authoritative in the Muslim world and (later) in Christian Europe. The Aristotelian notions of purpose and order also fit the Christian mindset much better.
Discussion Question
- The ancient Greeks ultimately adopted a geocentric model of the cosmos. If you could travel back in time and show the Greeks one modern observation to convince them that the heliocentric model is correct, what would the observation be?
- How would you explain this observation? Explain the meaning of the observation and how it supports a heliocentric model.
- Is this observation verifiable*? Explain why or why not you think so.
*In other words, could a scientist go out and take a measurement of that same observation today? For example, in assessing UFO claims, a person's testimonial that they were abducted is not considered verifiable. However, a radio signal received at an observatory, perhaps from an alien civilization, could be verified by astronomers at other observatories.
The Middle Ages
Astronomy made no major advances in strife-torn medieval Europe. The birth and expansion of Islam after the seventh century led to a flowering of Arabic and Jewish cultures that preserved, translated, and added to many of the astronomical ideas of the Greeks. Many of the names of the brightest stars, for example, are today taken from the Arabic, as are such astronomical terms as “zenith.”
As European culture began to emerge from its long, dark age, trading with Arab countries led to a rediscovery of ancient texts such as Ptolemy's Almagest and to a reawakening of interest in astronomical questions. This time of rebirth (in French, “renaissance”) in astronomy was embodied in the work of Copernicus.
The Renaissance and the Copernican Revolution
Copernicus
One of the most important events of the Renaissance was the displacement of Earth from the center of the universe, an intellectual revolution initiated by a Polish cleric in the sixteenth century. Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Toruń, Poland in 1473. His training was in law and medicine, but his main interests were astronomy and mathematics. His great contribution to science was a critical reappraisal of the existing theories of planetary motion and the development of a new Sun-centered, or heliocentric, model of the solar system.
Copernicus concluded that all the planets circle the Sun and the Moon orbits Earth. Copernicus described his ideas in detail in his book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolution of Celestial Orbs), published in 1543, the year of his death. The Copernican heliocentric model still adhered to the Platonic ideal of perfect circular motion at a constant speed, so the predictions made by the model did not perfectly match observations. This changed when Johannes Kepler, a German astronomer who was a contemporary of Galileo, empirically showed the planets move around the Sun in the shape of an ellipse. (Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion are discussed in detail in the Laws of Motion and Gravity chapter.)
Importantly, the heliocentric model provided a natural and simple explanation for the apparent retrograde motion of planets on the sky (Fig. 3 above). Whereas in the geocentric model a complex system with loops within loops was needed to explain apparent retrograde motion, it is a natural consequence of orbital motion in the heliocentric model. Figure 6 below shows this visually, which shows the situation for Earth and a planet that is further from the Sun, such as Mars or Jupiter. Earth is orbiting closer to the Sun than Mars and is moving faster around the Sun in its orbit than Mars does. As Earth and Mars orbit the Sun in in the same direction, Earth overtakes the planet periodically, like a faster race car on the inside track. From the perspective of the driver of the faster car, a slower car on the outside track will appear to move backwards when it is passed. The path of the planet among the stars is illustrated in the star field on the right side of Figure 6. The apparent motion backwards in the path Mars takes across the sky can be explained entirely due to our perspective on the Earth
.
In the 16th century, the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe collected very precise data of planetary positions, especially Mars, for twenty years at his observatory Uraniborg (the name refers to Urania, the Greek mythological goddess of Astronomy). Tycho hired Kepler to analyze this data, and Kepler eventually showed that the planets orbit the Sun in the shape of an ellipse, rather than a perfect circle. The entertaining video clip below summarizes Tycho's work and life.
Galileo's Observations
Two major milestones in Astrobiology happened around the same time in the 17th century: the invention of the telescope and the microscope -- both are indispensable tools for this subject. It is not certain who first conceived of the idea of combining two or more pieces of glass to produce an instrument that enlarged images of distant objects, making them appear nearer. The first such “spyglasses” (now called telescopes) that attracted much notice were made in 1608 by the Dutch a lens maker. Galileo heard of the discovery and, without ever having seen an assembled telescope, constructed one of his own in 1609. The exact origin of the microscope is unknown but it likely emerged from the same setting in Denmark that saw the telescope emerge. The British physicist Robert Hooke coined the term "cells" after observing chambers inside of a piece of cork (cork is made of dead plant tissue) in 1665. By the late seventeenth century, the Dutch biologist Antonie van Leeuwenhoek had made pioneering strides in microbiology, particularly in the magnification of lenses, and discovered single-celled organisms (“animalcules”).
Galileo revolutionized astronomy by pointing his telescope to the heavens in 1609. He made some key discoveries and he published these results in his book Sidereus Nuncius (The Starry Messenger) in 1610. In addition to other findings, Galileo observed that the planet Venus goes through a full cycle of phases (just like the Moon does) as seen from the Earth, the Moon has "chains of mountains" and Jupiter has four moons that orbit around it. The observation of Venus' phases was direct proof that Venus orbits the Sun, not the Earth, and showed that the geocentric model of the world was wrong. The observation that the Moon has mountains means that it is imperfect and therefore violates the Platonic ideal of mathematical perfection in the cosmos, further closing the door on the notion of geocentrism.
The observation that Jupiter had its own system of moons (see Galileo's sketch on Figure 7) brings back ideas of a plurality of worlds. Earth is a planet with life and it has a moon orbiting around it. Since other planets also have their own moons, perhaps it is natural to assume that some of these planets also have life.
Johannes Kepler was aware of Galileo's observations and interpreted this evidence as support for the idea that there could be other life in our solar system on both the Moon and Jupiter. Kepler wrote in 1610 in his letter Dissertatio cum Nuncio Sidereo (Conversation with the Sidereal Messenger) that "we deduce with the highest degree of probability that Jupiter is inhabited." Galileo, however, did not think that there were worlds beyond our solar system, other than in a purely metaphysical sense.
The Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695), who was the first person to observe the rings of Saturn and also discovered Saturn's moon Titan, also advocated for other life in the universe. Although he did not think there was life on the Moon, since it doesn't have an atmosphere, he imagined life on other planets in our solar system and even on planets around other stars. He speculated how plants and animals could differ on other worlds, depending on their gravity or thickness of their atmosphere. Huygens summarized these ideas in his book Cosmotheoros (New Conjectures Concerning the Planetary Worlds, Their Inhabitants and Productions), published in 1698 intentionally after his death (to avoid censure).
Religion and Science
The Inquisition was active during this time, and any persons denying the teachings of the Catholic faith were open to being accused a heretic. The Dominican friar Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) believed in an infinite cosmos composed of innumerable worlds and planets, an idea clearly at direct odds with the Catholic Church. Bruno’s cosmology consisted of a plurality of inhabited worlds, somewhat akin to the modern idea of parallel universes.
There are countless suns and countless earths all rotating round their suns in exactly the same way as the planets of our system. We see only the suns because they are the largest bodies and are luminous, but their planets remain invisible to us because they are smaller and non-luminous. . . . The unnumbered worlds in the universe are all similar in form and rank and subject to the same forces and the same laws.—Giordano Bruno in On the Infinite Universe and Worlds (1584)
Bruno was tried and accused of heresy and accordingly burned at the stake in the year 1600, a decade before the telescope would show that the cosmos was unimaginably vast.
In this environment, there was little motivation to carry out observations or experiments to distinguish between competing cosmological theories (or anything else). It should not surprise us, therefore, that the heliocentric idea was debated for more than half a century without any tests being applied to determine its validity. (In fact, in the North American colonies, the older geocentric system was still taught at Harvard University in the first years after it was founded in 1636.)
Sometime in the 1590s, Galileo adopted the Copernican hypothesis of a heliocentric solar system. In Roman Catholic Italy, this was not a popular philosophy, for Church authorities still upheld the ideas of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and they had powerful political and economic reasons for insisting that Earth was the center of creation. Galileo not only challenged this thinking but also had the audacity to write in Italian rather than scholarly Latin, and to lecture publicly on those topics. For him, there was no contradiction between the authority of the Church in matters of religion and morality, and the authority of nature (revealed by experiments) in matters of science. It was primarily because of Galileo and his “dangerous” opinions that, in 1616, the Church issued a prohibition decree stating that the Copernican doctrine was “false and absurd” and not to be held or defended.
After Galileo’s work, it became increasingly difficult to deny the heliocentric view, and Earth was slowly dethroned from its central position in the universe and given its place as one of the planets attending the Sun. Initially, however, Galileo met with a great deal of opposition. The Roman Catholic Church, still reeling from the Protestant Reformation, was looking to assert its authority and chose to make an example of Galileo. He had to appear before the Inquisition to answer charges that his work was heretical, and he was ultimately condemned to house arrest. His books were on the Church’s forbidden list until 1836, although in countries where the Roman Catholic Church held less sway, they were widely read and discussed. Not until 1992 did the Catholic Church admit publicly that it had erred in the matter of censoring Galileo’s ideas.
The new ideas of Copernicus and Galileo began a revolution in our conception of the cosmos. It eventually became evident that the universe is a vast place and that Earth’s role in it is relatively unimportant. The idea that Earth moves around the Sun like the other planets raised the possibility that they might be worlds themselves, perhaps even supporting life. As Earth was demoted from its position at the center of the universe, so, too, was humanity. The universe, despite what we may wish, does not revolve around us.
Nineteenth and Twentieth Century
Ideas about other life in the universe continued to be debated into the 19th century. In 1853, the British philosopher William Whewell published Of the Plurality of Worlds, in which he argued against extraterrestrial life because he felt other planets in the solar system did not have the right conditions for life to survive.
Around this same time, in 1835, the so-called Great Moon Hoax happened. The New York Sun, a then fledgling new paper, decided to print a series of stories reporting that there was life on the Moon. The articles provide details of the creatures that lived on the Moon, which included unicorns and lunar bats and quoted the astronomer John Herschel on these findings. Herschel, the son of the eminent William Herschel who had discovered infrared light, had just set up an observatory in South Africa and there was no reason to doubt an article that mentioned him. However, the articles were meant to be satire and were in fact not true!
Of course, that was probably not the first hoax claiming evidence for extraterrestrial life and not the last. In 1938, on the eve of Halloween, Orson Welles broadcast a dramatic rendition of the 1897 novel War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells. Although Orson Welles did not intend this to be interpreted as real, some listeners tuned in and believed that the Earth, specifically New Jersey, was under attack by Martians. Today, elaborate hoaxes claiming evidence of extraterrestrial life are fairly commonplace. A video was circulated in the 1990s that claimed to be evidence of an alien autopsy that happened at Area 51 in Nevada. Crop circles also appeared and these often complex structures were claimed to be the work of extraterrestrials. However, both cases were hoaxes.
Later into the 20th century, there was still belief that Mars was harboring intelligent life -- some of this coming from claims made by the astronomer Percival Lowell who reported that there were man-made canals used for agriculture on Mars -- but this generally was laid to rest after the Mariner missions sent back the first images of Mars in 1965.
Exercises and Activities
Summary Questions
- How do the views of what the universe is made of differ for the Atomists and the Aristoteleans?
- Describe Ptolemy’s geocentric model. Why was it so complex?
- Explain Occam's Razor and how it applies to the Ptolemaic model.
- How did a heliocentric model of the cosmos come to be accepted during the Copernican Revolution?
- Describe and sketch a geocentric model, including the Earth, Sun, Moon and planets in our solar system.
- Describe and sketch a heliocentric model, including the Earth, Sun, Moon and planets in our solar system.
- Explain the apparent retrograde motion of Mars using the heliocentric model. It may be helpful to make a sketch or video.
- What did Galileo’s observe with his telescope in 1610? What is the significance of each of the five observations?
- Discuss why Galileo was accused of heresy by the Church in the 17th century.
Activities
- Galileoscope (or building a simple telescope). Can be developed using telescope simulator at https://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/telescopes/telescope10.html and compare (size and light-gathering power) to modern telescopes like Hubble and JWST.
Quiz
Material Remixed From:
References
- https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/K/KeplerJ.html
- Wilkinson, D. (2013). 'Speculating about a Plurality of Worlds: The Historical Context of Science, Religion, and SETI', chapter in Science, Religion, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. OUP Oxford.
The cosmos is vast. To contemplate the mere existence of life in the universe, we must step back and ask some fundamental questions: What is at the center of the cosmos, if there is a center at all? What is the cosmos made of? Ancient Greek schools of thought marked a turning point in the approach to answering questions of this kind. Rather than invoking supernatural explanations to celestial phenomena, ancient Greek thinkers constructed empirical models to explain the universe.
Ancient Greek Cosmologies
Our concept of the cosmos — its basic structure and origin —is called cosmology, a word with Greek roots (the Greek word kosmos means world). Before the invention of telescopes, humans had to depend on the simple evidence of their senses for a picture of the universe. The ancients developed cosmologies that combined their direct view of the heavens with a rich variety of philosophical and religious symbolism.
What is the Universe made of?
In the sixth century BCE, thinkers began asking questions about what is the basic underlying reality of the world. What is matter composed of? Is all matter made of the same substance? Thales of Miletus (620–546 BCE) set the stage and suggested that the fundamental basis/element for all material was water. Thales envisioned the Earth as a flat disk floating (resting) on water. This notion based on nature marked a shift away from divine explanations for celestial phenomena and toward scientific reasoning.
A student of Thales, Anaximander, revised these ideas and suggested that everything in the world originates not from a formed substance like water but rather from apeiron, a "boundless" entity that pervades all of space.
Two main schools of thought regarding the nature of matter arose in the era of the ancient Greeks: the atomists and the Aristotelians. According to the atomists, among whom Democritus, Lucretius, and Epicurus were prominent, matter can be subdivided only to a certain point, at which only atoms (that which cannot be cut) remain. The world is made up of atoms moving in an infinite void. Atoms differed from each other only in size and shape, and different substances with their distinct qualities were made up of different shapes, arrangements, and positions of atoms. Atoms were in continuous motion in the infinite void and constantly collided (“swerved”) with each other. During these collisions they could rebound or stick together because of hooks and barbs on their surfaces. Thus, if life as we know it emerged this way, then the notion of life elsewhere in the universe forming this same way was within the realm of possibility.
Democritus gave some examples of how the atomic hypothesis could account for qualities such as color and taste (e.g., sharp tastes are caused by sharp atoms), but on the whole atomism, like other contemporary global theories, remained a general theory. It was criticized by Aristotle for some of its logical inconsistencies. For example, if atoms have different shapes, then they have parts, and this means that they are mathematically divisible; if they have different sizes, then among the infinity of their number there must be atoms as big as the world.
The Aristotelian description of nature was influenced by Pythagorean idealism. Plato suggested a mathematically perfect cosmos, in which the four fundamental elements – earth, fire, water, and air – are associated with regular solids. For example, fire is associated with a twelve-sided shape called an dodecahedron. Aristotle refined this cosmology and added the “aether”, or quintessence, to account for the void present in the atomist view and thus rendering the cosmos finite. In Aristotle’s view, all matter is at its natural state when at rest, and all objects will naturally fall back to Earth when displaced. Earth is naturally at the center in this system, in line with a geocentric viewpoint. The Aristotelian notions of purpose and order also fit the Christian mindset much better. [corpuscular nature.] This train of thought eventually merged with a revived atomism, caused by the recovery of Lucretius's De Rerum Natura (On The Nature Of Things) ca. 1415 CE, to give rise to a corpuscular doctrine that provided the material foundation of the mechanistic philosophy of the seventeenth century.
The Inquisition was active during this time, and any persons denying the teachings of the Catholic faith were open to being accused a heretic. The Dominican friar Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) believed in an infinite cosmos composed of innumerable worlds and planets, an idea clearly at direct odds with the Catholic Church. Bruno’s cosmology consisted of a plurality of inhabited worlds, somewhat akin to the modern idea of parallel universes. Bruno was tried and accused of heresy and accordingly burned at the stake in the year 1600, a decade before the telescope would show that the cosmos was unimaginably vast.
Ptolemy’s Model of the Solar System
The last great astronomer of the Roman era was Claudius Ptolemy (or Ptolemaeus), who flourished in Alexandria in about the year 140 AD. He wrote a mammoth compilation of astronomical knowledge, which today is called by its Arabic name, Almagest (meaning “The Greatest”). Almagest does not deal exclusively with Ptolemy’s own work; it includes a discussion of the astronomical achievements of the past, principally those of the 2nd century BC mathematician and astronomer Hipparchus of Nicaea. Hipparchus made many contributions to astronomy, most notably here for observing over 800 stars and creating a catalog in which the stars were classified by their brightness on the sky (or their magnitude). Today, Almagest is our main source of information about the work of Hipparchus and other Greek astronomers.
Ptolemy’s most important contribution was a geometric representation of the solar system that predicted the positions of the planets for any desired date and time. Hipparchus, not having enough data on hand to solve the problem himself, had instead amassed observational material for posterity to use. Ptolemy supplemented this material with new observations of his own and produced a cosmological model that endured more than a thousand years, until the time of Copernicus.
To fully explain the motions of bodies in the solar system, some seemingly complicated behavior of the known planets at that time needed to be explained. The planet Mars, along with Mercury, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn, was known to the Ancients. Over time periods of months, Mars gradually moves on the sky from west to east each night. At certain times of the year, however, Mars appears to reverse course and suddenly change direction, moving from east to west for a few weeks; this is known as apparent retrograde motion. [In general, retrograde motion means in the opposite direction of the rotational]
Furthermore, because the Greeks believed that celestial motions had to be circles (Pythagoras, Plato), Ptolemy had to construct his model using circles alone. To do it, he needed dozens of circles, some moving around other circles, in a complex structure that makes a modern viewer dizzy.
But we must not let our modern judgment cloud our admiration for Ptolemy’s achievement. In his day, a complex universe centered on Earth was perfectly reasonable and, in its own way, quite beautiful. However, as Alfonso X, the King of Castile, was reported to have said after having the Ptolemaic system of planet motions explained to him, “If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon Creation, I should have recommended something simpler.”
The principle of Occam’s Razor states that given a number of different explanations, the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. Applying Occam’s Razor to the Ptolemaic model, the simplest explanation comes from a heliocentric model. However, the lack of evidence for a heliocentric model, in the form of stellar parallax, pushed the heliocentric model to the back burner until the Copernican Revolution.
It is a tribute to the genius of Ptolemy as a mathematician that he was able to develop such a complex system to account successfully for the observations of planets. Whatever his thinking, his model, with some modifications, was eventually accepted as authoritative in the Muslim world and (later) in Christian Europe. (It may be that Ptolemy did not intend for his cosmological model to describe reality, but merely to serve as a mathematical representation that allowed him to predict the positions of the planets at any time.)
The Middle Ages
Astronomy made no major advances in strife-torn medieval Europe. The birth and expansion of Islam after the seventh century led to a flowering of Arabic and Jewish cultures that preserved, translated, and added to many of the astronomical ideas of the Greeks. Many of the names of the brightest stars, for example, are today taken from the Arabic, as are such astronomical terms as “zenith.”
As European culture began to emerge from its long, dark age, trading with Arab countries led to a rediscovery of ancient texts such as Almagest and to a reawakening of interest in astronomical questions. This time of rebirth (in French, “renaissance”) in astronomy was embodied in the work of Copernicus (Figure 4).
The Renaissance and the Copernican Revolution
Nicolaus Copernicus
One of the most important events of the Renaissance was the displacement of Earth from the center of the universe, an intellectual revolution initiated by a Polish cleric in the sixteenth century. Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Torun, a mercantile town along the Vistula River. His training was in law and medicine, but his main interests were astronomy and mathematics. His great contribution to science was a critical reappraisal of the existing theories of planetary motion and the development of a new Sun-centered, or heliocentric, model of the solar system.
Copernicus concluded that Earth is a planet and that all the planets circle the Sun. Only the Moon orbits Earth (Figure 5).
Copernicus described his ideas in detail in his book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolution of Celestial Orbs), published in 1543, the year of his death. By this time, the old Ptolemaic system needed significant adjustments to predict the positions of the planets correctly. Copernicus wanted to develop an improved theory from which to calculate planetary positions, but in doing so, he was himself not free of all traditional prejudices.
He began with several assumptions that were common in his time, such as the idea that the motions of the heavenly bodies must be made up of combinations of uniform circular motions. But he did not assume (as most people did) that Earth had to be in the center of the universe, and he presented a defense of the heliocentric system that was elegant and persuasive. His ideas, although not widely accepted until more than a century after his death, were much discussed among scholars and, ultimately, had a profound influence on the course of world history.
One of the objections raised to the heliocentric theory was that if Earth were moving, we would all sense or feel this motion. Solid objects would be ripped from the surface, a ball dropped from a great height would not strike the ground directly below it, and so forth. But a moving person is not necessarily aware of that motion. We have all experienced seeing an adjacent train, bus, or ship appear to move, only to discover that it is we who are moving.
Copernicus argued that the apparent motion of the Sun about Earth during the course of a year could be represented equally well by a motion of Earth about the Sun. He also reasoned that the apparent rotation of the celestial sphere could be explained by assuming that Earth rotates while the celestial sphere is stationary. To the objection that if Earth rotated about an axis it would fly into pieces, Copernicus answered that if such motion would tear Earth apart, the still faster motion of the much larger celestial sphere required by the geocentric hypothesis would be even more devastating.
The Heliocentric Model (Revived)
The most important idea in Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus is that Earth is one of six (then-known) planets that revolve about the Sun. Using this concept, he was able to work out the correct general picture of the solar system. He placed the planets, starting nearest the Sun, in the correct order: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Further, he deduced that the nearer a planet is to the Sun, the greater its orbital speed. With his theory, he was able to explain the complex retrograde motions of the planets without epicycles and to work out a roughly correct scale for the solar system.
Copernicus could not prove that Earth revolves about the Sun. In fact, with some adjustments, the old Ptolemaic system could have accounted, equally as well, for the motions of the planets in the sky. But Copernicus pointed out that the Ptolemaic cosmology was clumsy and lacking the beauty and symmetry of its successor.
In Copernicus’ time, in fact, few people thought there were ways to prove whether the heliocentric or the older geocentric system was correct. A long philosophical tradition, going back to the Greeks and defended by the Catholic Church, held that pure human thought combined with divine revelation represented the path to truth. Nature, as revealed by our senses, was suspect. For example, Aristotle had reasoned that heavier objects (having more of the quality that made them heavy) must fall to Earth faster than lighter ones. This is absolutely incorrect, as any simple experiment dropping two balls of different weights shows. However, in Copernicus’ day, experiments did not carry much weight (if you will pardon the expression); Aristotle’s reasoning was more convincing.
In this environment, there was little motivation to carry out observations or experiments to distinguish between competing cosmological theories (or anything else). It should not surprise us, therefore, that the heliocentric idea was debated for more than half a century without any tests being applied to determine its validity. (In fact, in the North American colonies, the older geocentric system was still taught at Harvard University in the first years after it was founded in 1636.)
Contrast this with the situation today, when scientists rush to test each new hypothesis and do not accept any ideas until the results are in. For example, when two researchers at the University of Utah announced in 1989 that they had discovered a way to achieve nuclear fusion (the process that powers the stars) at room temperature, other scientists at more than 25 laboratories around the United States attempted to duplicate “cold fusion” within a few weeks—without success, as it turned out. The cold fusion theory soon went down in flames.
How would we look at Copernicus’ model today? When a new hypothesis or theory is proposed in science, it must first be checked for consistency with what is already known. Copernicus’ heliocentric idea passes this test, for it allows planetary positions to be calculated at least as well as does the geocentric theory. The next step is to determine which predictions the new hypothesis makes that differ from those of competing ideas. In the case of Copernicus, one example is the prediction that, if Venus circles the Sun, the planet should go through the full range of phases just as the Moon does, whereas if it circles Earth, it should not (Figure 6). Also, we should not be able to see the full phase of Venus from Earth because the Sun would then be between Venus and Earth. But in those days, before the telescope, no one imagined testing these predictions.
Tycho Brahe’s Observations
Three years after the publication of Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus, Tycho Brahe was born to a family of Danish nobility. He developed an early interest in astronomy and, as a young man, made significant astronomical observations. Among these was a careful study of what we now know was an exploding star that flared up to great brilliance in the night sky. His growing reputation gained him the patronage of the Danish King Frederick II, and at the age of 30, Brahe was able to establish a fine astronomical observatory on the North Sea island of Hven (Figure 7). Brahe was the last and greatest of the pre-telescopic observers in Europe.
At Hven, Brahe made a continuous record of the positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets for almost 20 years. His extensive and precise observations enabled him to note that the positions of the planets varied from those given in published tables, which were based on the work of Ptolemy. These data were extremely valuable, but Brahe didn’t have the ability to analyze them and develop a better model than what Ptolemy had published. He was further inhibited because he was an extravagant and cantankerous fellow, and he accumulated enemies among government officials. When his patron, Frederick II, died in 1597, Brahe lost his political base and decided to leave Denmark. He took up residence in Prague, where he became court astronomer to Emperor Rudolf of Bohemia. There, in the year before his death, Brahe found a most able young mathematician, Johannes Kepler, to assist him in analyzing his extensive planetary data. Using the precise data collected by Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler carefully analyzed the positions in the sky of all the known planets and the Moon, plotting their positions at regular intervals of time. From this analysis, he formulated three laws of planetary motion.
Johannes Kepler
Johannes Kepler was born into a poor family in the German province of Württemberg and lived much of his life amid the turmoil of the Thirty Years’ War (see Figure 7). He attended university at Tubingen and studied for a theological career. There, he learned the principles of the Copernican system and became converted to the heliocentric hypothesis. Eventually, Kepler went to Prague to serve as an assistant to Brahe, who set him to work trying to find a satisfactory theory of planetary motion—one that was compatible with the long series of observations made at Hven. Brahe was reluctant to provide Kepler with much material at any one time for fear that Kepler would discover the secrets of the universal motion by himself, thereby robbing Brahe of some of the glory. Only after Brahe’s death in 1601 did Kepler get full possession of the priceless records. Their study occupied most of Kepler’s time for more than 20 years.
Through his analysis of the motions of the planets, Kepler developed a series of principles, now known as Kepler’s three laws, which described the behavior of planets based on their paths through space. The first two laws of planetary motion were published in 1609 in The New Astronomy. Their discovery was a profound step in the development of modern science.
Galileo and the Beginning of Modern Science
Many of the modern scientific concepts of observation, experimentation, and the testing of hypotheses through careful quantitative measurements were pioneered by a man who lived nearly a century after Copernicus. Galileo Galilei (Figure 8), a contemporary of Shakespeare, was born in Pisa. Like Copernicus, he began training for a medical career, but he had little interest in the subject and later switched to mathematics. He held faculty positions at the University of Pisa and the University of Padua, and eventually became mathematician to the Grand Duke of Tuscany in Florence. Galileo made many important contributions to physics. His experiments with the motion of objects paved the way for Newtonian mechanics.
Sometime in the 1590s, Galileo adopted the Copernican hypothesis of a heliocentric solar system. In Roman Catholic Italy, this was not a popular philosophy, for Church authorities still upheld the ideas of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and they had powerful political and economic reasons for insisting that Earth was the center of creation. Galileo not only challenged this thinking but also had the audacity to write in Italian rather than scholarly Latin, and to lecture publicly on those topics. For him, there was no contradiction between the authority of the Church in matters of religion and morality, and the authority of nature (revealed by experiments) in matters of science. It was primarily because of Galileo and his “dangerous” opinions that, in 1616, the Church issued a prohibition decree stating that the Copernican doctrine was “false and absurd” and not to be held or defended.
Galileo’s Astronomical Observations
It is not certain who first conceived of the idea of combining two or more pieces of glass to produce an instrument that enlarged images of distant objects, making them appear nearer. The first such “spyglasses” (now called telescopes) that attracted much notice were made in 1608 by the Dutch spectacle maker Hans Lippershey (1570–1619). Galileo heard of the discovery and, without ever having seen an assembled telescope, constructed one of his own with a three-power magnification (3×), which made distant objects appear three times nearer and larger (Figure 9).
On August 25, 1609, Galileo demonstrated a telescope with a magnification of 9× to government officials of the city-state of Venice. By a magnification of 9×, we mean the linear dimensions of the objects being viewed appeared nine times larger or, alternatively, the objects appeared nine times closer than they really were. There were obvious military advantages associated with a device for seeing distant objects. For his invention, Galileo’s salary was nearly doubled, and he was granted lifetime tenure as a professor. (His university colleagues were outraged, particularly because the invention was not even original.)
Others had used the telescope before Galileo to observe things on Earth. But in a flash of insight that changed the history of astronomy, Galileo realized that he could turn the power of the telescope toward the heavens. Before using his telescope for astronomical observations, Galileo had to devise a stable mount and improve the optics. He increased the magnification to 30×. Galileo also needed to acquire confidence in the telescope.
At that time, human eyes were believed to be the final arbiter of truth about size, shape, and color. Lenses, mirrors, and prisms were known to distort distant images by enlarging, reducing, or inverting them, or spreading the light into a spectrum (rainbow of colors). Galileo undertook repeated experiments to convince himself that what he saw through the telescope was identical to what he saw up close. Only then could he begin to believe that the miraculous phenomena the telescope revealed in the heavens were real.
Beginning his astronomical work late in 1609, Galileo found that many stars too faint to be seen with the unaided eye became visible with his telescope. In particular, he found that some nebulous blurs resolved into many stars, and that the Milky Way—the strip of whiteness across the night sky—was also made up of a multitude of individual stars.
Examining the planets, Galileo found four moons revolving about Jupiter in times ranging from just under 2 days to about 17 days. This discovery was particularly important because it showed that not everything has to revolve around Earth. Furthermore, it demonstrated that there could be centers of motion that are themselves in motion. Defenders of the geocentric view had argued that if Earth was in motion, then the Moon would be left behind because it could hardly keep up with a rapidly moving planet. Yet, here were Jupiter’s moons doing exactly that. (To recognize this discovery and honor his work, NASA named a spacecraft that explored the Jupiter system Galileo.)
With his telescope, Galileo was able to carry out the test of the Copernican theory mentioned earlier, based on the phases of Venus. Within a few months, he had found that Venus goes through phases like the Moon, showing that it must revolve about the Sun, so that we see different parts of its daylight side at different times (see Figure 6). These observations could not be reconciled with Ptolemy’s model, in which Venus circled about Earth. In Ptolemy’s model, Venus could also show phases, but they were the wrong phases in the wrong order from what Galileo observed.
Galileo also observed the Moon and saw craters, mountain ranges, valleys, and flat, dark areas that he thought might be water. These discoveries showed that the Moon might be not so dissimilar to Earth—suggesting that Earth, too, could belong to the realm of celestial bodies.
The turn of the seventeenth century was indeed a revolutionary time for astrobiology, with the invention not only of the telescope but the microscope as well. The exact origin of the microscope is unknown (Jansen?) but it likely emerged from part of the same (optical) setting in Denmark that saw the telescope emerge. By the late seventeenth century, van Leeuwenhoek had made pioneering strides in microbiology, particularly in the magnification of lenses, and discovered single-celled organisms (“animalcules”).
After Galileo’s work, it became increasingly difficult to deny the Copernican view, and Earth was slowly dethroned from its central position in the universe and given its rightful place as one of the planets attending the Sun. Initially, however, Galileo met with a great deal of opposition. The Roman Catholic Church, still reeling from the Protestant Reformation, was looking to assert its authority and chose to make an example of Galileo. He had to appear before the Inquisition to answer charges that his work was heretical, and he was ultimately condemned to house arrest. His books were on the Church’s forbidden list until 1836, although in countries where the Roman Catholic Church held less sway, they were widely read and discussed. Not until 1992 did the Catholic Church admit publicly that it had erred in the matter of censoring Galileo’s ideas.
The new ideas of Copernicus and Galileo began a revolution in our conception of the cosmos. It eventually became evident that the universe is a vast place and that Earth’s role in it is relatively unimportant. The idea that Earth moves around the Sun like the other planets raised the possibility that they might be worlds themselves, perhaps even supporting life. As Earth was demoted from its position at the center of the universe, so, too, was humanity. The universe, despite what we may wish, does not revolve around us.
Most of us take these things for granted today, but four centuries ago such concepts were frightening and heretical for some, immensely stimulating for others. The pioneers of the Renaissance started the European world along the path toward science and technology that we still tread today. For them, nature was rational and ultimately knowable, and experiments and observations provided the means to reveal its secrets.
Nineteenth and Twentieth Century
Material Drawn From:
The cosmos is vast. To contemplate the mere existence of life in the universe, we must step back and ask some fundamental questions: What is the cosmos made of? What is at the center of the cosmos, if there is a center at all? Ancient Greek schools of thought marked a turning point in the approach to answering questions of this kind. Rather than invoking supernatural explanations to celestial phenomena, ancient Greek thinkers constructed empirical models to explain the universe.
Ancient Greek Cosmologies
Our concept of the cosmos — its basic structure and origin —is called cosmology, a word with Greek roots (the Greek word kosmos means world). Before the invention of telescopes, humans had to depend on the simple evidence of their senses for a picture of the universe. The ancients developed cosmologies that combined their direct view of the heavens with a rich variety of philosophical and religious symbolism. Two main schools of thought regarding the nature of matter arose in the era of the ancient Greeks: the atomists and the Aristotelians. In the context of other life in the universe, the Aristotelians believed that the Earth was the only world and was at the center of the cosmos, while the atomists believed that many worlds can exist throughout the cosmos, and some of these worlds can naturally have life.
What is the Universe made of?
In the sixth century BCE, thinkers began asking questions about what is the basic underlying reality of the world. What is matter composed of? Is all matter made of the same substance? Thales of Miletus (620–546 BCE) set the stage and suggested that the fundamental basis for all material was water. Thales envisioned the Earth as a flat disk floating (resting) on water. This notion based on nature marked a shift away from divine explanations for celestial phenomena and toward scientific reasoning.
A student of Thales, Anaximander, revised these ideas and suggested that all matter in the world originates not from a formed substance like water but rather from apeiron, a boundless entity that pervades all of space. This led to the suggestion that a "plurality" of worlds could exist, with Earth perhaps being just one stage in a never-ending chain of worlds. About a century later, a school of thought called atomism emerged.
The Atomists
According to the atomists, among whom Democritus, Lucretius, and Epicurus were prominent, matter can be subdivided only to a certain point, at which only atoms (which cannot be cut, or are "indivisible") remain. The world is made up of atoms moving in an infinite void. Atoms differed from each other only in size and shape, and different substances with their distinct qualities were made up of different shapes, arrangements, and positions of atoms. Atoms were in continuous motion in the infinite void and constantly collided (“swerved”) with each other. During these collisions they could rebound or stick together because of hooks and barbs on their surfaces. Thus, if life as we know it emerged this way, then the notion of life elsewhere in the universe forming this same way was within the realm of possibility. Thus, atomists also believed in a plurality of words -- or many worlds. There was even speculation at this time, notably by Anaxagoras, that the Moon was rocky and reflected sunlight -- and was possibly inhabited by "lunarians". For holding the belief that the Moon was not a god but rather an object made of rock, Anaxagoras was sentenced to death.
Democritus gave some examples of how the atomic hypothesis could account for qualities such as color and taste (e.g., sharp tastes are caused by sharp atoms), but on the whole atomism, like other contemporary global theories, remained a general theory. It was criticized by Aristotle for some of its logical inconsistencies. For example, if atoms have different shapes, then they have parts, and this means that they are mathematically divisible; if they have different sizes, then among the infinity of their number there must be atoms as big as the world.
The Aristotelians
The Aristotelian description of nature was influenced by Pythagorean idealism. Plato suggested a mathematically perfect cosmos, in which the four fundamental elements – earth, fire, water, and air – are associated with regular solids. For example, fire is associated with a twelve-sided shape called a dodecahedron. Aristotle refined this cosmology and added the “aether”, or quintessence, to account for the void present in the atomist view and thus rendering the cosmos finite. In Aristotle’s view, all matter is at its natural state when at rest, and all objects will naturally fall back to Earth when displaced. Earth is naturally at the center in this system, in line with a geocentric viewpoint. This geocentric cosmology is counter to the plurality of worlds advocated by the atomists.
The last great astronomer of the Roman era was Claudius Ptolemy (or Ptolemaeus), who flourished in Alexandria in about the year 140 AD. He wrote a mammoth compilation of astronomical knowledge, which today is called by its Arabic name, Almagest (meaning “The Greatest”). Ptolemy’s most important contribution was a geometric representation of the solar system that predicted the positions of the planets for any desired date and time. Ptolemy supplemented observational data collected by Hipparchus with new observations of his own and produced a cosmological model that endured more than a thousand years, until the time of Copernicus.
To fully explain the motions of bodies in the solar system, some seemingly complicated behavior of the known planets at that time needed to be explained. The planet Mars, along with Mercury, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn, was known to the Ancients. Over time periods of months, Mars gradually moves on the sky from west to east each night. At certain times of the year, however, Mars appears to reverse course and suddenly change direction and move backwards, moving from east to west for a few weeks; this is known as apparent retrograde motion.
Furthermore, because the Greeks believed that celestial motions had to be circles (Pythagoras, Plato), Ptolemy had to construct his model using circles alone. To do it, he needed dozens of circles, some moving around other circles, in a complex structure that makes a modern viewer dizzy.
The principle of Occam’s Razor states that given a number of different explanations, the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. Applying Occam’s Razor to the Ptolemaic model, the simplest explanation comes from a heliocentric model, which puts the Sun at the center (the Greek root helio means sun). However, the lack of evidence for a heliocentric model pushed the heliocentric model to the back burner until the Copernican Revolution.
The geocentric model of Ptolemy, with some modifications, was eventually accepted as authoritative in the Muslim world and (later) in Christian Europe. The Aristotelian notions of purpose and order also fit the Christian mindset much better. [corpuscular nature.] This train of thought eventually merged with a revived atomism, caused by the recovery of Lucretius's De Rerum Natura (On The Nature Of Things) ca. 1415 CE, to give rise to a corpuscular doctrine that provided the material foundation of the mechanistic philosophy of the seventeenth century.
The Middle Ages
Astronomy made no major advances in strife-torn medieval Europe. The birth and expansion of Islam after the seventh century led to a flowering of Arabic and Jewish cultures that preserved, translated, and added to many of the astronomical ideas of the Greeks. Many of the names of the brightest stars, for example, are today taken from the Arabic, as are such astronomical terms as “zenith.”
As European culture began to emerge from its long, dark age, trading with Arab countries led to a rediscovery of ancient texts such as Almagest and to a reawakening of interest in astronomical questions. This time of rebirth (in French, “renaissance”) in astronomy was embodied in the work of Copernicus (Figure 4).
The Renaissance and the Copernican Revolution
The Inquisition was active during this time, and any persons denying the teachings of the Catholic faith were open to being accused a heretic. The Dominican friar Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) believed in an infinite cosmos composed of innumerable worlds and planets, an idea clearly at direct odds with the Catholic Church. Bruno’s cosmology consisted of a plurality of inhabited worlds, somewhat akin to the modern idea of parallel universes. Bruno was tried and accused of heresy and accordingly burned at the stake in the year 1600, a decade before the telescope would show that the cosmos was unimaginably vast.
Nicolaus Copernicus
One of the most important events of the Renaissance was the displacement of Earth from the center of the universe, an intellectual revolution initiated by a Polish cleric in the sixteenth century. Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Torun, a mercantile town along the Vistula River. His training was in law and medicine, but his main interests were astronomy and mathematics. His great contribution to science was a critical reappraisal of the existing theories of planetary motion and the development of a new Sun-centered, or heliocentric, model of the solar system.
Copernicus concluded that Earth is a planet and that all the planets circle the Sun. Only the Moon orbits Earth (Figure 5).
Copernicus described his ideas in detail in his book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolution of Celestial Orbs), published in 1543, the year of his death. By this time, the old Ptolemaic system needed significant adjustments to predict the positions of the planets correctly. Copernicus wanted to develop an improved theory from which to calculate planetary positions, but in doing so, he was himself not free of all traditional prejudices.
He began with several assumptions that were common in his time, such as the idea that the motions of the heavenly bodies must be made up of combinations of uniform circular motions. But he did not assume (as most people did) that Earth had to be in the center of the universe, and he presented a defense of the heliocentric system that was elegant and persuasive. His ideas, although not widely accepted until more than a century after his death, were much discussed among scholars and, ultimately, had a profound influence on the course of world history.
One of the objections raised to the heliocentric theory was that if Earth were moving, we would all sense or feel this motion. Solid objects would be ripped from the surface, a ball dropped from a great height would not strike the ground directly below it, and so forth. But a moving person is not necessarily aware of that motion. We have all experienced seeing an adjacent train, bus, or ship appear to move, only to discover that it is we who are moving.
Copernicus argued that the apparent motion of the Sun about Earth during the course of a year could be represented equally well by a motion of Earth about the Sun. He also reasoned that the apparent rotation of the celestial sphere could be explained by assuming that Earth rotates while the celestial sphere is stationary. To the objection that if Earth rotated about an axis it would fly into pieces, Copernicus answered that if such motion would tear Earth apart, the still faster motion of the much larger celestial sphere required by the geocentric hypothesis would be even more devastating.
The Heliocentric Model (Revived)
The most important idea in Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus is that Earth is one of six (then-known) planets that revolve about the Sun. Using this concept, he was able to work out the correct general picture of the solar system. He placed the planets, starting nearest the Sun, in the correct order: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Further, he deduced that the nearer a planet is to the Sun, the greater its orbital speed. With his theory, he was able to explain the complex retrograde motions of the planets without epicycles and to work out a roughly correct scale for the solar system.
Copernicus could not prove that Earth revolves about the Sun. In fact, with some adjustments, the old Ptolemaic system could have accounted, equally as well, for the motions of the planets in the sky. But Copernicus pointed out that the Ptolemaic cosmology was clumsy and lacking the beauty and symmetry of its successor.
In Copernicus’ time, in fact, few people thought there were ways to prove whether the heliocentric or the older geocentric system was correct. A long philosophical tradition, going back to the Greeks and defended by the Catholic Church, held that pure human thought combined with divine revelation represented the path to truth. Nature, as revealed by our senses, was suspect. For example, Aristotle had reasoned that heavier objects (having more of the quality that made them heavy) must fall to Earth faster than lighter ones. This is absolutely incorrect, as any simple experiment dropping two balls of different weights shows. However, in Copernicus’ day, experiments did not carry much weight (if you will pardon the expression); Aristotle’s reasoning was more convincing.
In this environment, there was little motivation to carry out observations or experiments to distinguish between competing cosmological theories (or anything else). It should not surprise us, therefore, that the heliocentric idea was debated for more than half a century without any tests being applied to determine its validity. (In fact, in the North American colonies, the older geocentric system was still taught at Harvard University in the first years after it was founded in 1636.)
Contrast this with the situation today, when scientists rush to test each new hypothesis and do not accept any ideas until the results are in. For example, when two researchers at the University of Utah announced in 1989 that they had discovered a way to achieve nuclear fusion (the process that powers the stars) at room temperature, other scientists at more than 25 laboratories around the United States attempted to duplicate “cold fusion” within a few weeks—without success, as it turned out. The cold fusion theory soon went down in flames.
How would we look at Copernicus’ model today? When a new hypothesis or theory is proposed in science, it must first be checked for consistency with what is already known. Copernicus’ heliocentric idea passes this test, for it allows planetary positions to be calculated at least as well as does the geocentric theory. The next step is to determine which predictions the new hypothesis makes that differ from those of competing ideas. In the case of Copernicus, one example is the prediction that, if Venus circles the Sun, the planet should go through the full range of phases just as the Moon does, whereas if it circles Earth, it should not (Figure 6). Also, we should not be able to see the full phase of Venus from Earth because the Sun would then be between Venus and Earth. But in those days, before the telescope, no one imagined testing these predictions.
Tycho Brahe’s Observations
Three years after the publication of Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus, Tycho Brahe was born to a family of Danish nobility. He developed an early interest in astronomy and, as a young man, made significant astronomical observations. Among these was a careful study of what we now know was an exploding star that flared up to great brilliance in the night sky. His growing reputation gained him the patronage of the Danish King Frederick II, and at the age of 30, Brahe was able to establish a fine astronomical observatory on the North Sea island of Hven (Figure 7). Brahe was the last and greatest of the pre-telescopic observers in Europe.
At Hven, Brahe made a continuous record of the positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets for almost 20 years. His extensive and precise observations enabled him to note that the positions of the planets varied from those given in published tables, which were based on the work of Ptolemy. These data were extremely valuable, but Brahe didn’t have the ability to analyze them and develop a better model than what Ptolemy had published. He was further inhibited because he was an extravagant and cantankerous fellow, and he accumulated enemies among government officials. When his patron, Frederick II, died in 1597, Brahe lost his political base and decided to leave Denmark. He took up residence in Prague, where he became court astronomer to Emperor Rudolf of Bohemia. There, in the year before his death, Brahe found a most able young mathematician, Johannes Kepler, to assist him in analyzing his extensive planetary data. Using the precise data collected by Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler carefully analyzed the positions in the sky of all the known planets and the Moon, plotting their positions at regular intervals of time. From this analysis, he formulated three laws of planetary motion.
Johannes Kepler
Johannes Kepler was born into a poor family in the German province of Württemberg and lived much of his life amid the turmoil of the Thirty Years’ War (see Figure 7). He attended university at Tubingen and studied for a theological career. There, he learned the principles of the Copernican system and became converted to the heliocentric hypothesis. Eventually, Kepler went to Prague to serve as an assistant to Brahe, who set him to work trying to find a satisfactory theory of planetary motion—one that was compatible with the long series of observations made at Hven. Brahe was reluctant to provide Kepler with much material at any one time for fear that Kepler would discover the secrets of the universal motion by himself, thereby robbing Brahe of some of the glory. Only after Brahe’s death in 1601 did Kepler get full possession of the priceless records. Their study occupied most of Kepler’s time for more than 20 years.
Through his analysis of the motions of the planets, Kepler developed a series of principles, now known as Kepler’s three laws, which described the behavior of planets based on their paths through space. The first two laws of planetary motion were published in 1609 in The New Astronomy. Their discovery was a profound step in the development of modern science.
Galileo and the Beginning of Modern Science
Many of the modern scientific concepts of observation, experimentation, and the testing of hypotheses through careful quantitative measurements were pioneered by a man who lived nearly a century after Copernicus. Galileo Galilei (Figure 8), a contemporary of Shakespeare, was born in Pisa. Like Copernicus, he began training for a medical career, but he had little interest in the subject and later switched to mathematics. He held faculty positions at the University of Pisa and the University of Padua, and eventually became mathematician to the Grand Duke of Tuscany in Florence. Galileo made many important contributions to physics. His experiments with the motion of objects paved the way for Newtonian mechanics.
Sometime in the 1590s, Galileo adopted the Copernican hypothesis of a heliocentric solar system. In Roman Catholic Italy, this was not a popular philosophy, for Church authorities still upheld the ideas of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and they had powerful political and economic reasons for insisting that Earth was the center of creation. Galileo not only challenged this thinking but also had the audacity to write in Italian rather than scholarly Latin, and to lecture publicly on those topics. For him, there was no contradiction between the authority of the Church in matters of religion and morality, and the authority of nature (revealed by experiments) in matters of science. It was primarily because of Galileo and his “dangerous” opinions that, in 1616, the Church issued a prohibition decree stating that the Copernican doctrine was “false and absurd” and not to be held or defended.
Galileo’s Astronomical Observations
It is not certain who first conceived of the idea of combining two or more pieces of glass to produce an instrument that enlarged images of distant objects, making them appear nearer. The first such “spyglasses” (now called telescopes) that attracted much notice were made in 1608 by the Dutch spectacle maker Hans Lippershey (1570–1619). Galileo heard of the discovery and, without ever having seen an assembled telescope, constructed one of his own with a three-power magnification (3×), which made distant objects appear three times nearer and larger (Figure 9).
On August 25, 1609, Galileo demonstrated a telescope with a magnification of 9× to government officials of the city-state of Venice. By a magnification of 9×, we mean the linear dimensions of the objects being viewed appeared nine times larger or, alternatively, the objects appeared nine times closer than they really were. There were obvious military advantages associated with a device for seeing distant objects. For his invention, Galileo’s salary was nearly doubled, and he was granted lifetime tenure as a professor. (His university colleagues were outraged, particularly because the invention was not even original.)
Others had used the telescope before Galileo to observe things on Earth. But in a flash of insight that changed the history of astronomy, Galileo realized that he could turn the power of the telescope toward the heavens. Before using his telescope for astronomical observations, Galileo had to devise a stable mount and improve the optics. He increased the magnification to 30×. Galileo also needed to acquire confidence in the telescope.
At that time, human eyes were believed to be the final arbiter of truth about size, shape, and color. Lenses, mirrors, and prisms were known to distort distant images by enlarging, reducing, or inverting them, or spreading the light into a spectrum (rainbow of colors). Galileo undertook repeated experiments to convince himself that what he saw through the telescope was identical to what he saw up close. Only then could he begin to believe that the miraculous phenomena the telescope revealed in the heavens were real.
Beginning his astronomical work late in 1609, Galileo found that many stars too faint to be seen with the unaided eye became visible with his telescope. In particular, he found that some nebulous blurs resolved into many stars, and that the Milky Way—the strip of whiteness across the night sky—was also made up of a multitude of individual stars.
Examining the planets, Galileo found four moons revolving about Jupiter in times ranging from just under 2 days to about 17 days. This discovery was particularly important because it showed that not everything has to revolve around Earth. Furthermore, it demonstrated that there could be centers of motion that are themselves in motion. Defenders of the geocentric view had argued that if Earth was in motion, then the Moon would be left behind because it could hardly keep up with a rapidly moving planet. Yet, here were Jupiter’s moons doing exactly that. (To recognize this discovery and honor his work, NASA named a spacecraft that explored the Jupiter system Galileo.)
With his telescope, Galileo was able to carry out the test of the Copernican theory mentioned earlier, based on the phases of Venus. Within a few months, he had found that Venus goes through phases like the Moon, showing that it must revolve about the Sun, so that we see different parts of its daylight side at different times (see Figure 6). These observations could not be reconciled with Ptolemy’s model, in which Venus circled about Earth. In Ptolemy’s model, Venus could also show phases, but they were the wrong phases in the wrong order from what Galileo observed.
Galileo also observed the Moon and saw craters, mountain ranges, valleys, and flat, dark areas that he thought might be water. These discoveries showed that the Moon might be not so dissimilar to Earth—suggesting that Earth, too, could belong to the realm of celestial bodies.
The turn of the seventeenth century was indeed a revolutionary time for astrobiology, with the invention not only of the telescope but the microscope as well. The exact origin of the microscope is unknown (Jansen?) but it likely emerged from part of the same (optical) setting in Denmark that saw the telescope emerge. By the late seventeenth century, van Leeuwenhoek had made pioneering strides in microbiology, particularly in the magnification of lenses, and discovered single-celled organisms (“animalcules”).
After Galileo’s work, it became increasingly difficult to deny the Copernican view, and Earth was slowly dethroned from its central position in the universe and given its rightful place as one of the planets attending the Sun. Initially, however, Galileo met with a great deal of opposition. The Roman Catholic Church, still reeling from the Protestant Reformation, was looking to assert its authority and chose to make an example of Galileo. He had to appear before the Inquisition to answer charges that his work was heretical, and he was ultimately condemned to house arrest. His books were on the Church’s forbidden list until 1836, although in countries where the Roman Catholic Church held less sway, they were widely read and discussed. Not until 1992 did the Catholic Church admit publicly that it had erred in the matter of censoring Galileo’s ideas.
The new ideas of Copernicus and Galileo began a revolution in our conception of the cosmos. It eventually became evident that the universe is a vast place and that Earth’s role in it is relatively unimportant. The idea that Earth moves around the Sun like the other planets raised the possibility that they might be worlds themselves, perhaps even supporting life. As Earth was demoted from its position at the center of the universe, so, too, was humanity. The universe, despite what we may wish, does not revolve around us.
Most of us take these things for granted today, but four centuries ago such concepts were frightening and heretical for some, immensely stimulating for others. The pioneers of the Renaissance started the European world along the path toward science and technology that we still tread today. For them, nature was rational and ultimately knowable, and experiments and observations provided the means to reveal its secrets.
Nineteenth and Twentieth Century
Material Drawn From:
The cosmos is vast. To contemplate the mere existence of life in the universe, we must step back and ask some fundamental questions: What is the cosmos made of? What is at the center of the cosmos, if there is a center at all? Ancient Greek schools of thought marked a turning point in the approach to answering questions of this kind. Rather than invoking supernatural explanations to celestial phenomena, ancient Greek thinkers constructed empirical models to explain the universe.
Ancient Greek Cosmologies
Our concept of the cosmos — its basic structure and origin —is called cosmology, a word with Greek roots (the Greek word kosmos means world). Before the invention of telescopes, humans had to depend on the simple evidence of their senses for a picture of the universe. The ancients developed cosmologies that combined their direct view of the heavens with a rich variety of philosophical and religious symbolism. Two main schools of thought regarding the nature of matter arose in the era of the ancient Greeks: the atomists and the Aristotelians. In the context of other life in the universe, the Aristotelians believed that the Earth was the only world and was at the center of the cosmos, while the atomists believed that many worlds can exist throughout the cosmos, and some of these worlds can naturally have life.
What is the Universe made of?
In the sixth century BCE, thinkers began asking questions about what is the basic underlying reality of the world. What is matter composed of? Is all matter made of the same substance? Thales of Miletus (620–546 BCE) set the stage and suggested that the fundamental basis for all material was water. Thales envisioned the Earth as a flat disk floating (resting) on water. This notion based on nature marked a shift away from divine explanations for celestial phenomena and toward scientific reasoning.
A student of Thales, Anaximander, revised these ideas and suggested that all matter in the world originates not from a formed substance like water but rather from apeiron, a boundless entity that pervades all of space. This led to the suggestion that a "plurality" of worlds could exist, with Earth perhaps being just one stage in a never-ending chain of worlds. About a century later, a school of thought called atomism emerged.
The Atomists
According to the atomists, among whom Democritus, Lucretius, and Epicurus were prominent, matter can be subdivided only to a certain point, at which only atoms (which cannot be cut, or are "indivisible") remain. The world is made up of atoms moving in an infinite void. Atoms differed from each other only in size and shape, and different substances with their distinct qualities were made up of different shapes, arrangements, and positions of atoms. Atoms were in continuous motion in the infinite void and constantly collided (“swerved”) with each other. During these collisions they could rebound or stick together because of hooks and barbs on their surfaces. Thus, if life as we know it emerged this way, then the notion of life elsewhere in the universe forming this same way was within the realm of possibility. Thus, atomists also believed in a plurality of words -- or many worlds. There was even speculation at this time, notably by Anaxagoras, that the Moon was rocky and reflected sunlight -- and was possibly inhabited by "lunarians". For holding the belief that the Moon was not a god but rather an object made of rock, Anaxagoras was sentenced to death.
Democritus gave some examples of how the atomic hypothesis could account for qualities such as color and taste (e.g., sharp tastes are caused by sharp atoms), but on the whole atomism, like other contemporary global theories, remained a general theory. It was criticized by Aristotle for some of its logical inconsistencies. For example, if atoms have different shapes, then they have parts, and this means that they are mathematically divisible; if they have different sizes, then among the infinity of their number there must be atoms as big as the world.
The Aristotelians
The Aristotelian description of nature was influenced by Pythagorean idealism. Plato suggested a mathematically perfect cosmos, in which the four fundamental elements – earth, fire, water, and air – are associated with regular solids. For example, fire is associated with a twelve-sided shape called a dodecahedron. Aristotle refined this cosmology and added the “aether”, or quintessence, to account for the void present in the atomist view and thus rendering the cosmos finite. In Aristotle’s view, all matter is at its natural state when at rest, and all objects will naturally fall back to Earth when displaced. Earth is naturally at the center in this system, in line with a geocentric viewpoint. This geocentric cosmology is counter to the plurality of worlds advocated by the atomists.
The last great astronomer of the Roman era was Claudius Ptolemy who flourished in Alexandria in about the year 140 AD. Ptolemy’s most important contribution was a geometric representation of the solar system that predicted the positions of the planets for any desired date and time. Ptolemy supplemented observational data collected by Hipparchus with new observations of his own and produced a cosmological model that endured more than a thousand years, until the time of Copernicus.
To fully explain the motions of bodies in the solar system, particularly the observation that Mars appears to change directions on the sky from time to time (this is known as apparent retrograde motion), some seemingly complicated behavior of the known planets at that time needed to be explained. Because the Greeks believed that celestial motions had to be circles (Pythagoras, Plato), Ptolemy had to construct his model using circles alone. To do it, he needed dozens of circles, some moving around other circles, in a complex structure that makes a modern viewer dizzy.
The principle of Occam’s Razor states that given a number of different explanations, the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. Applying Occam’s Razor to the Ptolemaic model, the simplest explanation comes from a heliocentric model, which puts the Sun at the center (the Greek root helio means sun). However, the lack of evidence for a heliocentric model pushed the heliocentric model to the back burner until the Copernican Revolution.
The geocentric model of Ptolemy, with some modifications, was eventually accepted as authoritative in the Muslim world and (later) in Christian Europe. The Aristotelian notions of purpose and order also fit the Christian mindset much better. [corpuscular nature.] This train of thought eventually merged with a revived atomism, caused by the recovery of Lucretius's De Rerum Natura (On The Nature Of Things) ca. 1415 CE, to give rise to a corpuscular doctrine that provided the material foundation of the mechanistic philosophy of the seventeenth century.
The Middle Ages
Astronomy made no major advances in strife-torn medieval Europe. The birth and expansion of Islam after the seventh century led to a flowering of Arabic and Jewish cultures that preserved, translated, and added to many of the astronomical ideas of the Greeks. Many of the names of the brightest stars, for example, are today taken from the Arabic, as are such astronomical terms as “zenith.”
As European culture began to emerge from its long, dark age, trading with Arab countries led to a rediscovery of ancient texts such as Ptolemy's Almagest and to a reawakening of interest in astronomical questions. This time of rebirth (in French, “renaissance”) in astronomy was embodied in the work of Copernicus.
The Renaissance and the Copernican Revolution
One of the most important events of the Renaissance was the displacement of Earth from the center of the universe, an intellectual revolution initiated by a Polish cleric in the sixteenth century. Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Torun, a mercantile town along the Vistula River. His training was in law and medicine, but his main interests were astronomy and mathematics. His great contribution to science was a critical reappraisal of the existing theories of planetary motion and the development of a new Sun-centered, or heliocentric, model of the solar system.
Copernicus concluded that Earth is a planet and that all the planets circle the Sun; only the Moon orbits Earth. Copernicus described his ideas in detail in his book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolution of Celestial Orbs), published in 1543, the year of his death. The Copernican heliocentric model still adhered to the Platonic ideal of perfect circular motion at a constant speed, so the predictions made by the model still did not perfectly match observations. This changed when Johannes Kepler, a German astronomer who was a contemporary of Galileo, empirically showed the planets move around the Sun in the shape of an ellipse. (Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion are discussed in detail in the Gravity chapter.)
In the 16th century, the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe collected very accurate data of planetary positions, especially Mars, for twenty years. Tycho hired Kepler to analyze this data, and the heliocentric model was now in perfect accordance with observations, now that circles had been replaced by ellipses.
Galileo's Observations
Two major milestones in Astrobiology happened around the same time in the 17th century: the invention of the telescope and the microscope -- both are indispensable tools for this subject. It is not certain who first conceived of the idea of combining two or more pieces of glass to produce an instrument that enlarged images of distant objects, making them appear nearer. The first such “spyglasses” (now called telescopes) that attracted much notice were made in 1608 by the Dutch a lens maker. Galileo heard of the discovery and, without ever having seen an assembled telescope, constructed one of his own with a three-power magnification (3×), which made distant objects appear three times nearer and larger. In 1609, Galileo revolutionized astronomy by pointing his telescope to the heavens. Galileo made some key discoveries, including that the planet Venus goes through a full cycle of phases (just like the Moon does) as seen from the Earth, and that Jupiter has four moons that orbit around it. The first observations about Venus' phases was actually direct proof that the goecentric model of the world was wrong.
The observation that Jupiter had its own system of moons brings back ideas of a plurality of worlds. Earth is a planet with life and it has a moon orbiting around it. Since other planets also have their own moons, perhaps it is natural to assume that some of these planets also have life.
Religion and Science
The Inquisition was active during this time, and any persons denying the teachings of the Catholic faith were open to being accused a heretic. The Dominican friar Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) believed in an infinite cosmos composed of innumerable worlds and planets, an idea clearly at direct odds with the Catholic Church. Bruno’s cosmology consisted of a plurality of inhabited worlds, somewhat akin to the modern idea of parallel universes. Bruno was tried and accused of heresy and accordingly burned at the stake in the year 1600, a decade before the telescope would show that the cosmos was unimaginably vast.
In this environment, there was little motivation to carry out observations or experiments to distinguish between competing cosmological theories (or anything else). It should not surprise us, therefore, that the heliocentric idea was debated for more than half a century without any tests being applied to determine its validity. (In fact, in the North American colonies, the older geocentric system was still taught at Harvard University in the first years after it was founded in 1636.)
Galileo and the Beginning of Modern Science
Sometime in the 1590s, Galileo adopted the Copernican hypothesis of a heliocentric solar system. In Roman Catholic Italy, this was not a popular philosophy, for Church authorities still upheld the ideas of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and they had powerful political and economic reasons for insisting that Earth was the center of creation. Galileo not only challenged this thinking but also had the audacity to write in Italian rather than scholarly Latin, and to lecture publicly on those topics. For him, there was no contradiction between the authority of the Church in matters of religion and morality, and the authority of nature (revealed by experiments) in matters of science. It was primarily because of Galileo and his “dangerous” opinions that, in 1616, the Church issued a prohibition decree stating that the Copernican doctrine was “false and absurd” and not to be held or defended.
Galileo’s Astronomical Observations
On August 25, 1609, Galileo demonstrated a telescope with a magnification of 9× to government officials of the city-state of Venice. By a magnification of 9×, we mean the linear dimensions of the objects being viewed appeared nine times larger or, alternatively, the objects appeared nine times closer than they really were. There were obvious military advantages associated with a device for seeing distant objects. For his invention, Galileo’s salary was nearly doubled, and he was granted lifetime tenure as a professor. (His university colleagues were outraged, particularly because the invention was not even original.)
Others had used the telescope before Galileo to observe things on Earth. But in a flash of insight that changed the history of astronomy, Galileo realized that he could turn the power of the telescope toward the heavens. Before using his telescope for astronomical observations, Galileo had to devise a stable mount and improve the optics. He increased the magnification to 30×. Galileo also needed to acquire confidence in the telescope.
At that time, human eyes were believed to be the final arbiter of truth about size, shape, and color. Lenses, mirrors, and prisms were known to distort distant images by enlarging, reducing, or inverting them, or spreading the light into a spectrum (rainbow of colors). Galileo undertook repeated experiments to convince himself that what he saw through the telescope was identical to what he saw up close. Only then could he begin to believe that the miraculous phenomena the telescope revealed in the heavens were real.
Beginning his astronomical work late in 1609, Galileo found that many stars too faint to be seen with the unaided eye became visible with his telescope. In particular, he found that some nebulous blurs resolved into many stars, and that the Milky Way—the strip of whiteness across the night sky—was also made up of a multitude of individual stars.
Examining the planets, Galileo found four moons revolving about Jupiter in times ranging from just under 2 days to about 17 days. This discovery was particularly important because it showed that not everything has to revolve around Earth. Furthermore, it demonstrated that there could be centers of motion that are themselves in motion. Defenders of the geocentric view had argued that if Earth was in motion, then the Moon would be left behind because it could hardly keep up with a rapidly moving planet. Yet, here were Jupiter’s moons doing exactly that. (To recognize this discovery and honor his work, NASA named a spacecraft that explored the Jupiter system Galileo.)
With his telescope, Galileo was able to carry out the test of the Copernican theory mentioned earlier, based on the phases of Venus. Within a few months, he had found that Venus goes through phases like the Moon, showing that it must revolve about the Sun, so that we see different parts of its daylight side at different times (see Figure 6). These observations could not be reconciled with Ptolemy’s model, in which Venus circled about Earth. In Ptolemy’s model, Venus could also show phases, but they were the wrong phases in the wrong order from what Galileo observed.
Galileo also observed the Moon and saw craters, mountain ranges, valleys, and flat, dark areas that he thought might be water. These discoveries showed that the Moon might be not so dissimilar to Earth—suggesting that Earth, too, could belong to the realm of celestial bodies.
The turn of the seventeenth century was indeed a revolutionary time for astrobiology, with the invention not only of the telescope but the microscope as well. The exact origin of the microscope is unknown (Jansen?) but it likely emerged from part of the same (optical) setting in Denmark that saw the telescope emerge. By the late seventeenth century, van Leeuwenhoek had made pioneering strides in microbiology, particularly in the magnification of lenses, and discovered single-celled organisms (“animalcules”).
After Galileo’s work, it became increasingly difficult to deny the Copernican view, and Earth was slowly dethroned from its central position in the universe and given its rightful place as one of the planets attending the Sun. Initially, however, Galileo met with a great deal of opposition. The Roman Catholic Church, still reeling from the Protestant Reformation, was looking to assert its authority and chose to make an example of Galileo. He had to appear before the Inquisition to answer charges that his work was heretical, and he was ultimately condemned to house arrest. His books were on the Church’s forbidden list until 1836, although in countries where the Roman Catholic Church held less sway, they were widely read and discussed. Not until 1992 did the Catholic Church admit publicly that it had erred in the matter of censoring Galileo’s ideas.
The new ideas of Copernicus and Galileo began a revolution in our conception of the cosmos. It eventually became evident that the universe is a vast place and that Earth’s role in it is relatively unimportant. The idea that Earth moves around the Sun like the other planets raised the possibility that they might be worlds themselves, perhaps even supporting life. As Earth was demoted from its position at the center of the universe, so, too, was humanity. The universe, despite what we may wish, does not revolve around us.
Most of us take these things for granted today, but four centuries ago such concepts were frightening and heretical for some, immensely stimulating for others. The pioneers of the Renaissance started the European world along the path toward science and technology that we still tread today. For them, nature was rational and ultimately knowable, and experiments and observations provided the means to reveal its secrets.
Nineteenth and Twentieth Century
Material Drawn From:
The cosmos is vast. To contemplate the mere existence of life in the universe, we must step back and ask some fundamental questions: What is the cosmos made of? What is at the center of the cosmos, if there is a center at all? Ancient Greek schools of thought marked a turning point in the approach to answering questions of this kind. Rather than invoking supernatural explanations to celestial phenomena, ancient Greek thinkers constructed empirical models to explain the universe.
Ancient Greek Cosmologies
Our concept of the cosmos — its basic structure and origin —is called cosmology, a word with Greek roots (the Greek word kosmos means world). Before the invention of telescopes, humans had to depend on the simple evidence of their senses for a picture of the universe. The ancients developed cosmologies that combined their direct view of the heavens with a rich variety of philosophical and religious symbolism. Two main schools of thought regarding the nature of matter arose in the era of the ancient Greeks: the atomists and the Aristotelians. In the context of other life in the universe, the Aristotelians believed that the Earth was the only world and was at the center of the cosmos, while the atomists believed that many worlds can exist throughout the cosmos, and some of these worlds can naturally have life.
What is the Universe made of?
In the sixth century BCE, thinkers began asking questions about what is the basic underlying reality of the world. What is matter composed of? Is all matter made of the same substance? Thales of Miletus (620–546 BCE) set the stage and suggested that the fundamental basis for all material was water. Thales envisioned the Earth as a flat disk floating (resting) on water. This notion based on nature marked a shift away from divine explanations for celestial phenomena and toward scientific reasoning.
A student of Thales, Anaximander, revised these ideas and suggested that all matter in the world originates not from a formed substance like water but rather from apeiron, a boundless entity that pervades all of space. This led to the suggestion that a "plurality" of worlds could exist, with Earth perhaps being just one stage in a never-ending chain of worlds. About a century later, a school of thought called atomism emerged.
The Atomists
According to the atomists, among whom Democritus, Lucretius, and Epicurus were prominent, matter can be subdivided only to a certain point, at which only atoms (which cannot be cut, or are "indivisible") remain. The world is made up of atoms moving in an infinite void. Atoms differed from each other only in size and shape, and different substances with their distinct qualities were made up of different shapes, arrangements, and positions of atoms. Atoms were in continuous motion in the infinite void and constantly collided (“swerved”) with each other. During these collisions they could rebound or stick together because of hooks and barbs on their surfaces. Thus, if life as we know it emerged this way, then the notion of life elsewhere in the universe forming this same way was within the realm of possibility. Thus, atomists also believed in a plurality of words -- or many worlds. There was even speculation at this time, notably by Anaxagoras, that the Moon was rocky and reflected sunlight and was possibly inhabited by "lunarians". For holding the belief that the Moon and Sun were not gods, Anaxagoras was sentenced to death for impiety.
Democritus gave some examples of how the atomic hypothesis could account for qualities such as color and taste (e.g., sharp tastes are caused by sharp atoms), but on the whole atomism, like other contemporary global theories, remained a general theory. It was criticized by Aristotle for some of its logical inconsistencies. For example, if atoms have different shapes, then they have parts, and this means that they are mathematically divisible; if they have different sizes, then among the infinity of their number there must be atoms as big as the world.
The Aristotelians
The Aristotelian description of nature was influenced by Pythagorean idealism. Plato suggested a mathematically perfect cosmos, in which the four fundamental elements – earth, fire, water, and air – are associated with regular solids. For example, fire is associated with a twelve-sided shape called a dodecahedron. Aristotle refined this cosmology and added the “aether”, or quintessence, to account for the void present in the atomist view and thus rendering the cosmos finite. In Aristotle’s view, all matter is at its natural state when at rest, and all objects will naturally fall back to Earth when displaced. Earth is naturally at the center in this system, in line with a geocentric viewpoint. This geocentric cosmology is counter to the plurality of worlds advocated by the atomists.
The last great astronomer of the Roman era was Claudius Ptolemy who flourished in Alexandria in about the year 140 AD. Ptolemy’s most important contribution was a geometric representation of the solar system that predicted the positions of the planets for any desired date and time. Ptolemy supplemented observational data collected by Hipparchus with new observations of his own and produced a cosmological model that endured more than a thousand years, until the time of Copernicus.
To fully explain the motions of bodies in the solar system, particularly the observation that Mars appears to change directions on the sky from time to time (this is known as apparent retrograde motion), some seemingly complicated behavior of the known planets at that time needed to be explained. Because the Greeks believed that celestial motions had to be circles (Pythagoras, Plato), Ptolemy had to construct his model using circles alone. To do it, he needed dozens of circles, some moving around other circles, in a complex structure that makes a modern viewer dizzy.
The principle of Occam’s Razor states that given a number of different explanations, the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. Applying Occam’s Razor to the Ptolemaic model, the simplest explanation comes from a heliocentric model, which puts the Sun at the center (the Greek root helio means sun). However, the lack of evidence for a heliocentric model pushed the heliocentric model to the back burner until the Copernican Revolution.
The geocentric model of Ptolemy, with some modifications, was eventually accepted as authoritative in the Muslim world and (later) in Christian Europe. The Aristotelian notions of purpose and order also fit the Christian mindset much better. [corpuscular nature.] This train of thought eventually merged with a revived atomism, caused by the recovery of Lucretius's De Rerum Natura (On The Nature Of Things) ca. 1415 CE, to give rise to a corpuscular doctrine that provided the material foundation of the mechanistic philosophy of the seventeenth century.
The Middle Ages
Astronomy made no major advances in strife-torn medieval Europe. The birth and expansion of Islam after the seventh century led to a flowering of Arabic and Jewish cultures that preserved, translated, and added to many of the astronomical ideas of the Greeks. Many of the names of the brightest stars, for example, are today taken from the Arabic, as are such astronomical terms as “zenith.”
As European culture began to emerge from its long, dark age, trading with Arab countries led to a rediscovery of ancient texts such as Ptolemy's Almagest and to a reawakening of interest in astronomical questions. This time of rebirth (in French, “renaissance”) in astronomy was embodied in the work of Copernicus.
The Renaissance and the Copernican Revolution
One of the most important events of the Renaissance was the displacement of Earth from the center of the universe, an intellectual revolution initiated by a Polish cleric in the sixteenth century. Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Torun, a mercantile town along the Vistula River. His training was in law and medicine, but his main interests were astronomy and mathematics. His great contribution to science was a critical reappraisal of the existing theories of planetary motion and the development of a new Sun-centered, or heliocentric, model of the solar system.
Copernicus concluded that Earth is a planet and that all the planets circle the Sun; only the Moon orbits Earth. Copernicus described his ideas in detail in his book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolution of Celestial Orbs), published in 1543, the year of his death. The Copernican heliocentric model still adhered to the Platonic ideal of perfect circular motion at a constant speed, so the predictions made by the model did not perfectly match observations. This changed when Johannes Kepler, a German astronomer who was a contemporary of Galileo, empirically showed the planets move around the Sun in the shape of an ellipse. (Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion are discussed in detail in the Gravity chapter.)
In the 16th century, the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe collected very precise data of planetary positions, especially Mars, for twenty years. Tycho hired Kepler to analyze this data, and the heliocentric model was now in perfect accordance with observations, now that circles had been replaced by ellipses.
Galileo's Observations
Two major milestones in Astrobiology happened around the same time in the 17th century: the invention of the telescope and the microscope -- both are indispensable tools for this subject. It is not certain who first conceived of the idea of combining two or more pieces of glass to produce an instrument that enlarged images of distant objects, making them appear nearer. The first such “spyglasses” (now called telescopes) that attracted much notice were made in 1608 by the Dutch a lens maker. Galileo heard of the discovery and, without ever having seen an assembled telescope, constructed one of his own with a three-power magnification (3×), which made distant objects appear three times nearer and larger. In 1609, Galileo revolutionized astronomy by pointing his telescope to the heavens. Galileo made some key discoveries, including that the planet Venus goes through a full cycle of phases (just like the Moon does) as seen from the Earth, the Moon has "chains of mountains" and Jupiter has four moons that orbit around it. The first observation of Venus' phases was actually direct proof that the geocentric model of the world was wrong. The observation that the Moon has mountains means that it is imperfect and thus violates the Platonic ideal of mathematical perfection in the cosmos.
The observation that Jupiter had its own system of moons brings back ideas of a plurality of worlds. Earth is a planet with life and it has a moon orbiting around it. Since other planets also have their own moons, perhaps it is natural to assume that some of these planets also have life.
Johannes Kepler was aware of Galileo's observations and referred to them in his defense of the idea of other worlds inhabited by life.
Religion and Science
The Inquisition was active during this time, and any persons denying the teachings of the Catholic faith were open to being accused a heretic. The Dominican friar Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) believed in an infinite cosmos composed of innumerable worlds and planets, an idea clearly at direct odds with the Catholic Church. Bruno’s cosmology consisted of a plurality of inhabited worlds, somewhat akin to the modern idea of parallel universes. Bruno was tried and accused of heresy and accordingly burned at the stake in the year 1600, a decade before the telescope would show that the cosmos was unimaginably vast.
In this environment, there was little motivation to carry out observations or experiments to distinguish between competing cosmological theories (or anything else). It should not surprise us, therefore, that the heliocentric idea was debated for more than half a century without any tests being applied to determine its validity. (In fact, in the North American colonies, the older geocentric system was still taught at Harvard University in the first years after it was founded in 1636.)
Galileo and the Beginning of Modern Science
Sometime in the 1590s, Galileo adopted the Copernican hypothesis of a heliocentric solar system. In Roman Catholic Italy, this was not a popular philosophy, for Church authorities still upheld the ideas of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and they had powerful political and economic reasons for insisting that Earth was the center of creation. Galileo not only challenged this thinking but also had the audacity to write in Italian rather than scholarly Latin, and to lecture publicly on those topics. For him, there was no contradiction between the authority of the Church in matters of religion and morality, and the authority of nature (revealed by experiments) in matters of science. It was primarily because of Galileo and his “dangerous” opinions that, in 1616, the Church issued a prohibition decree stating that the Copernican doctrine was “false and absurd” and not to be held or defended.
On August 25, 1609, Galileo demonstrated a telescope with a magnification of 9× to government officials of the city-state of Venice. By a magnification of 9×, we mean the linear dimensions of the objects being viewed appeared nine times larger or, alternatively, the objects appeared nine times closer than they really were. There were obvious military advantages associated with a device for seeing distant objects. For his invention, Galileo’s salary was nearly doubled, and he was granted lifetime tenure as a professor. (His university colleagues were outraged, particularly because the invention was not even original.)
Others had used the telescope before Galileo to observe things on Earth. But in a flash of insight that changed the history of astronomy, Galileo realized that he could turn the power of the telescope toward the heavens. Before using his telescope for astronomical observations, Galileo had to devise a stable mount and improve the optics. He increased the magnification to 30×. Galileo also needed to acquire confidence in the telescope.
At that time, human eyes were believed to be the final arbiter of truth about size, shape, and color. Lenses, mirrors, and prisms were known to distort distant images by enlarging, reducing, or inverting them, or spreading the light into a spectrum (rainbow of colors). Galileo undertook repeated experiments to convince himself that what he saw through the telescope was identical to what he saw up close. Only then could he begin to believe that the miraculous phenomena the telescope revealed in the heavens were real.
Beginning his astronomical work late in 1609, Galileo found that many stars too faint to be seen with the unaided eye became visible with his telescope. In particular, he found that some nebulous blurs resolved into many stars, and that the Milky Way—the strip of whiteness across the night sky—was also made up of a multitude of individual stars.
Examining the planets, Galileo found four moons revolving about Jupiter in times ranging from just under 2 days to about 17 days. This discovery was particularly important because it showed that not everything has to revolve around Earth. Furthermore, it demonstrated that there could be centers of motion that are themselves in motion. Defenders of the geocentric view had argued that if Earth was in motion, then the Moon would be left behind because it could hardly keep up with a rapidly moving planet. Yet, here were Jupiter’s moons doing exactly that. (To recognize this discovery and honor his work, NASA named a spacecraft that explored the Jupiter system Galileo.)
Galileo's sketches of the four largest moons of Jupiter. Galileo observed that these four moons changes position over the course of one evening.With his telescope, Galileo was able to carry out the test of the Copernican theory mentioned earlier, based on the phases of Venus. Within a few months, he had found that Venus goes through phases like the Moon, showing that it must revolve about the Sun, so that we see different parts of its daylight side at different times (see Figure 6). These observations could not be reconciled with Ptolemy’s model, in which Venus circled about Earth. In Ptolemy’s model, Venus could also show phases, but they were the wrong phases in the wrong order from what Galileo observed.
Galileo also observed the Moon and saw craters, mountain ranges, valleys, and flat, dark areas that he thought might be water. These discoveries showed that the Moon might be not so dissimilar to Earth—suggesting that Earth, too, could belong to the realm of celestial bodies.
The turn of the seventeenth century was indeed a revolutionary time for astrobiology, with the invention not only of the telescope but the microscope as well. The exact origin of the microscope is unknown (Jansen?) but it likely emerged from part of the same (optical) setting in Denmark that saw the telescope emerge. By the late seventeenth century, van Leeuwenhoek had made pioneering strides in microbiology, particularly in the magnification of lenses, and discovered single-celled organisms (“animalcules”).
After Galileo’s work, it became increasingly difficult to deny the Copernican view, and Earth was slowly dethroned from its central position in the universe and given its rightful place as one of the planets attending the Sun. Initially, however, Galileo met with a great deal of opposition. The Roman Catholic Church, still reeling from the Protestant Reformation, was looking to assert its authority and chose to make an example of Galileo. He had to appear before the Inquisition to answer charges that his work was heretical, and he was ultimately condemned to house arrest. His books were on the Church’s forbidden list until 1836, although in countries where the Roman Catholic Church held less sway, they were widely read and discussed. Not until 1992 did the Catholic Church admit publicly that it had erred in the matter of censoring Galileo’s ideas.
The new ideas of Copernicus and Galileo began a revolution in our conception of the cosmos. It eventually became evident that the universe is a vast place and that Earth’s role in it is relatively unimportant. The idea that Earth moves around the Sun like the other planets raised the possibility that they might be worlds themselves, perhaps even supporting life. As Earth was demoted from its position at the center of the universe, so, too, was humanity. The universe, despite what we may wish, does not revolve around us.
Most of us take these things for granted today, but four centuries ago such concepts were frightening and heretical for some, immensely stimulating for others. The pioneers of the Renaissance started the European world along the path toward science and technology that we still tread today. For them, nature was rational and ultimately knowable, and experiments and observations provided the means to reveal its secrets.
Nineteenth and Twentieth Century
Material Drawn From:
The cosmos is vast. To contemplate the mere existence of life in the universe, we must step back and ask some fundamental questions: What is the cosmos made of? What is at the center of the cosmos, if there is a center at all? Ancient Greek schools of thought marked a turning point in the approach to answering questions of this kind. Rather than invoking supernatural explanations to celestial phenomena, ancient Greek thinkers constructed empirical models to explain the universe.
Ancient Greek Cosmologies
Our concept of the cosmos — its basic structure and origin —is called cosmology, a word with Greek roots (the Greek word kosmos means world). Before the invention of telescopes, humans had to depend on the simple evidence of their senses for a picture of the universe. The ancients developed cosmologies that combined their direct view of the heavens with a rich variety of philosophical and religious symbolism. Two main schools of thought regarding the nature of matter arose in the era of the ancient Greeks: the atomists and the Aristotelians. In the context of other life in the universe, the Aristotelians believed that the Earth was the only world and was at the center of the cosmos, while the atomists believed that many worlds can exist throughout the cosmos, and some of these worlds can naturally have life.
What is the Universe made of?
In the sixth century BCE, thinkers began asking questions about what is the basic underlying reality of the world. What is matter composed of? Is all matter made of the same substance? Thales of Miletus (620–546 BCE) set the stage and suggested that the fundamental basis for all material was water. Thales envisioned the Earth as a flat disk floating (resting) on water. This notion based on nature marked a shift away from divine explanations for celestial phenomena and toward scientific reasoning.
A student of Thales, Anaximander, revised these ideas and suggested that all matter in the world originates not from a formed substance like water but rather from apeiron, a boundless entity that pervades all of space. This led to the suggestion that a "plurality" of worlds could exist, with Earth perhaps being just one stage in a never-ending chain of worlds. About a century later, a school of thought called atomism emerged.
The Atomists
According to the atomists, among whom Democritus, Lucretius, and Epicurus were prominent, matter can be subdivided only to a certain point, at which only atoms (which cannot be cut, or are "indivisible") remain. The world is made up of atoms moving in an infinite void. Atoms differed from each other only in size and shape, and different substances with their distinct qualities were made up of different shapes, arrangements, and positions of atoms. Atoms were in continuous motion in the infinite void and constantly collided (“swerved”) with each other. During these collisions they could rebound or stick together because of hooks and barbs on their surfaces. Thus, if life as we know it emerged this way, then the notion of life elsewhere in the universe forming this same way was within the realm of possibility. Thus, atomists also believed in a plurality of words -- or many worlds. There was even speculation at this time, notably by Anaxagoras, that the Moon was rocky and reflected sunlight and was possibly inhabited by "lunarians". For holding the belief that the Moon and Sun were not gods, Anaxagoras was sentenced to death for impiety.
Democritus gave some examples of how the atomic hypothesis could account for qualities such as color and taste (e.g., sharp tastes are caused by sharp atoms), but on the whole atomism, like other contemporary global theories, remained a general theory. It was criticized by Aristotle for some of its logical inconsistencies. For example, if atoms have different shapes, then they have parts, and this means that they are mathematically divisible; if they have different sizes, then among the infinity of their number there must be atoms as big as the world.
The Aristotelians
The Aristotelian description of nature was influenced by Pythagorean idealism. Plato suggested a mathematically perfect cosmos, in which the four fundamental elements – earth, fire, water, and air – are associated with regular solids. For example, fire is associated with a twelve-sided shape called a dodecahedron. Aristotle refined this cosmology and added the “aether”, or quintessence, to account for the void present in the atomist view and thus rendering the cosmos finite. In Aristotle’s view, all matter is at its natural state when at rest, and all objects will naturally fall back to Earth when displaced. Earth is naturally at the center in this system, in line with a geocentric viewpoint. This geocentric cosmology is counter to the plurality of worlds advocated by the atomists.
The last great astronomer of the Roman era was Claudius Ptolemy who flourished in Alexandria in about the year 140 AD. Ptolemy’s most important contribution was a geometric representation of the solar system that predicted the positions of the planets for any desired date and time. Ptolemy supplemented observational data collected by Hipparchus with new observations of his own and produced a cosmological model that endured more than a thousand years, until the time of Copernicus.
To fully explain the motions of bodies in the solar system, particularly the observation that Mars appears to change directions on the sky from time to time (this is known as apparent retrograde motion), some seemingly complicated behavior of the known planets at that time needed to be explained. Because the Greeks believed that celestial motions had to be circles (Pythagoras, Plato), Ptolemy had to construct his model using circles alone. To do it, he needed dozens of circles, some moving around other circles, in a complex structure that makes a modern viewer dizzy.
The principle of Occam’s Razor states that given a number of different explanations, the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. Applying Occam’s Razor to the Ptolemaic model, the simplest explanation comes from a heliocentric model, which puts the Sun at the center (the Greek root helio means sun). However, the lack of evidence for a heliocentric model pushed the heliocentric model to the back burner until the Copernican Revolution.
The geocentric model of Ptolemy, with some modifications, was eventually accepted as authoritative in the Muslim world and (later) in Christian Europe. The Aristotelian notions of purpose and order also fit the Christian mindset much better. [corpuscular nature.] This train of thought eventually merged with a revived atomism, caused by the recovery of Lucretius's De Rerum Natura (On The Nature Of Things) ca. 1415 CE, to give rise to a corpuscular doctrine that provided the material foundation of the mechanistic philosophy of the seventeenth century.
The Middle Ages
Astronomy made no major advances in strife-torn medieval Europe. The birth and expansion of Islam after the seventh century led to a flowering of Arabic and Jewish cultures that preserved, translated, and added to many of the astronomical ideas of the Greeks. Many of the names of the brightest stars, for example, are today taken from the Arabic, as are such astronomical terms as “zenith.”
As European culture began to emerge from its long, dark age, trading with Arab countries led to a rediscovery of ancient texts such as Ptolemy's Almagest and to a reawakening of interest in astronomical questions. This time of rebirth (in French, “renaissance”) in astronomy was embodied in the work of Copernicus.
The Renaissance and the Copernican Revolution
One of the most important events of the Renaissance was the displacement of Earth from the center of the universe, an intellectual revolution initiated by a Polish cleric in the sixteenth century. Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Torun, a mercantile town along the Vistula River. His training was in law and medicine, but his main interests were astronomy and mathematics. His great contribution to science was a critical reappraisal of the existing theories of planetary motion and the development of a new Sun-centered, or heliocentric, model of the solar system.
Copernicus concluded that Earth is a planet and that all the planets circle the Sun; only the Moon orbits Earth. Copernicus described his ideas in detail in his book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolution of Celestial Orbs), published in 1543, the year of his death. The Copernican heliocentric model still adhered to the Platonic ideal of perfect circular motion at a constant speed, so the predictions made by the model did not perfectly match observations. This changed when Johannes Kepler, a German astronomer who was a contemporary of Galileo, empirically showed the planets move around the Sun in the shape of an ellipse. (Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion are discussed in detail in the Gravity chapter.)
In the 16th century, the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe collected very precise data of planetary positions, especially Mars, for twenty years. Tycho hired Kepler to analyze this data, and the heliocentric model was now in perfect accordance with observations, now that circles had been replaced by ellipses.
Galileo's Observations
Two major milestones in Astrobiology happened around the same time in the 17th century: the invention of the telescope and the microscope -- both are indispensable tools for this subject. It is not certain who first conceived of the idea of combining two or more pieces of glass to produce an instrument that enlarged images of distant objects, making them appear nearer. The first such “spyglasses” (now called telescopes) that attracted much notice were made in 1608 by the Dutch a lens maker. Galileo heard of the discovery and, without ever having seen an assembled telescope, constructed one of his own with a three-power magnification (3×), which made distant objects appear three times nearer and larger. In 1609, Galileo revolutionized astronomy by pointing his telescope to the heavens. Galileo made some key discoveries, including that the planet Venus goes through a full cycle of phases (just like the Moon does) as seen from the Earth, the Moon has "chains of mountains" and Jupiter has four moons that orbit around it. The first observation of Venus' phases was actually direct proof that the geocentric model of the world was wrong. The observation that the Moon has mountains means that it is imperfect and thus violates the Platonic ideal of mathematical perfection in the cosmos, thus closing the door on the Aristotelian notion of geocentrism .
The observation that Jupiter had its own system of moons brings back ideas of a plurality of worlds. Earth is a planet with life and it has a moon orbiting around it. Since other planets also have their own moons, perhaps it is natural to assume that some of these planets also have life.
Johannes Kepler was aware of Galileo's observations and interpreted this evidence as support for the idea that there could be other life in our solar system on both the Moon and Jupiter. Kepler wrote in 16XX that "we deduce with the highest degree of probability that Jupiter is inhabited."
Religion and Science
The Inquisition was active during this time, and any persons denying the teachings of the Catholic faith were open to being accused a heretic. The Dominican friar Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) believed in an infinite cosmos composed of innumerable worlds and planets, an idea clearly at direct odds with the Catholic Church. Bruno’s cosmology consisted of a plurality of inhabited worlds, somewhat akin to the modern idea of parallel universes. Bruno was tried and accused of heresy and accordingly burned at the stake in the year 1600, a decade before the telescope would show that the cosmos was unimaginably vast.
In this environment, there was little motivation to carry out observations or experiments to distinguish between competing cosmological theories (or anything else). It should not surprise us, therefore, that the heliocentric idea was debated for more than half a century without any tests being applied to determine its validity. (In fact, in the North American colonies, the older geocentric system was still taught at Harvard University in the first years after it was founded in 1636.)
Galileo and the Beginning of Modern Science
Sometime in the 1590s, Galileo adopted the Copernican hypothesis of a heliocentric solar system. In Roman Catholic Italy, this was not a popular philosophy, for Church authorities still upheld the ideas of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and they had powerful political and economic reasons for insisting that Earth was the center of creation. Galileo not only challenged this thinking but also had the audacity to write in Italian rather than scholarly Latin, and to lecture publicly on those topics. For him, there was no contradiction between the authority of the Church in matters of religion and morality, and the authority of nature (revealed by experiments) in matters of science. It was primarily because of Galileo and his “dangerous” opinions that, in 1616, the Church issued a prohibition decree stating that the Copernican doctrine was “false and absurd” and not to be held or defended.
On August 25, 1609, Galileo demonstrated a telescope with a magnification of 9× to government officials of the city-state of Venice. By a magnification of 9×, we mean the linear dimensions of the objects being viewed appeared nine times larger or, alternatively, the objects appeared nine times closer than they really were. There were obvious military advantages associated with a device for seeing distant objects. For his invention, Galileo’s salary was nearly doubled, and he was granted lifetime tenure as a professor. (His university colleagues were outraged, particularly because the invention was not even original.)
Others had used the telescope before Galileo to observe things on Earth. But in a flash of insight that changed the history of astronomy, Galileo realized that he could turn the power of the telescope toward the heavens. Before using his telescope for astronomical observations, Galileo had to devise a stable mount and improve the optics. He increased the magnification to 30×. Galileo also needed to acquire confidence in the telescope.
At that time, human eyes were believed to be the final arbiter of truth about size, shape, and color. Lenses, mirrors, and prisms were known to distort distant images by enlarging, reducing, or inverting them, or spreading the light into a spectrum (rainbow of colors). Galileo undertook repeated experiments to convince himself that what he saw through the telescope was identical to what he saw up close. Only then could he begin to believe that the miraculous phenomena the telescope revealed in the heavens were real.
Beginning his astronomical work late in 1609, Galileo found that many stars too faint to be seen with the unaided eye became visible with his telescope. In particular, he found that some nebulous blurs resolved into many stars, and that the Milky Way—the strip of whiteness across the night sky—was also made up of a multitude of individual stars.
Examining the planets, Galileo found four moons revolving about Jupiter in times ranging from just under 2 days to about 17 days. This discovery was particularly important because it showed that not everything has to revolve around Earth. Furthermore, it demonstrated that there could be centers of motion that are themselves in motion. Defenders of the geocentric view had argued that if Earth was in motion, then the Moon would be left behind because it could hardly keep up with a rapidly moving planet. Yet, here were Jupiter’s moons doing exactly that. (To recognize this discovery and honor his work, NASA named a spacecraft that explored the Jupiter system Galileo.)
Galileo's sketches of the four largest moons of Jupiter. Galileo observed that these four moons changes position over the course of one evening.With his telescope, Galileo was able to carry out the test of the Copernican theory mentioned earlier, based on the phases of Venus. Within a few months, he had found that Venus goes through phases like the Moon, showing that it must revolve about the Sun, so that we see different parts of its daylight side at different times (see Figure 6). These observations could not be reconciled with Ptolemy’s model, in which Venus circled about Earth. In Ptolemy’s model, Venus could also show phases, but they were the wrong phases in the wrong order from what Galileo observed.
Galileo also observed the Moon and saw craters, mountain ranges, valleys, and flat, dark areas that he thought might be water. These discoveries showed that the Moon might be not so dissimilar to Earth—suggesting that Earth, too, could belong to the realm of celestial bodies.
The turn of the seventeenth century was indeed a revolutionary time for astrobiology, with the invention not only of the telescope but the microscope as well. The exact origin of the microscope is unknown (Jansen?) but it likely emerged from part of the same (optical) setting in Denmark that saw the telescope emerge. By the late seventeenth century, van Leeuwenhoek had made pioneering strides in microbiology, particularly in the magnification of lenses, and discovered single-celled organisms (“animalcules”).
After Galileo’s work, it became increasingly difficult to deny the Copernican view, and Earth was slowly dethroned from its central position in the universe and given its rightful place as one of the planets attending the Sun. Initially, however, Galileo met with a great deal of opposition. The Roman Catholic Church, still reeling from the Protestant Reformation, was looking to assert its authority and chose to make an example of Galileo. He had to appear before the Inquisition to answer charges that his work was heretical, and he was ultimately condemned to house arrest. His books were on the Church’s forbidden list until 1836, although in countries where the Roman Catholic Church held less sway, they were widely read and discussed. Not until 1992 did the Catholic Church admit publicly that it had erred in the matter of censoring Galileo’s ideas.
The new ideas of Copernicus and Galileo began a revolution in our conception of the cosmos. It eventually became evident that the universe is a vast place and that Earth’s role in it is relatively unimportant. The idea that Earth moves around the Sun like the other planets raised the possibility that they might be worlds themselves, perhaps even supporting life. As Earth was demoted from its position at the center of the universe, so, too, was humanity. The universe, despite what we may wish, does not revolve around us.
Most of us take these things for granted today, but four centuries ago such concepts were frightening and heretical for some, immensely stimulating for others. The pioneers of the Renaissance started the European world along the path toward science and technology that we still tread today. For them, nature was rational and ultimately knowable, and experiments and observations provided the means to reveal its secrets.
Nineteenth and Twentieth Century
Material Drawn From:
The cosmos is vast. To contemplate the mere existence of life in the universe, we must step back and ask some fundamental questions: What is the cosmos made of? What is at the center of the cosmos, if there is a center at all? Ancient Greek schools of thought marked a turning point in the approach to answering questions of this kind. Rather than invoking supernatural explanations to celestial phenomena, ancient Greek thinkers constructed empirical models to explain the universe.
Ancient Greek Cosmologies
Our concept of the cosmos — its basic structure and origin —is called cosmology, a word with Greek roots (the Greek word kosmos means world). Before the invention of telescopes, humans had to depend on the simple evidence of their senses for a picture of the universe. The ancients developed cosmologies that combined their direct view of the heavens with a rich variety of philosophical and religious symbolism. Two main schools of thought regarding the nature of matter arose in the era of the ancient Greeks: the atomists and the Aristotelians. In the context of other life in the universe, the Aristotelians believed that the Earth was the only world and was at the center of the cosmos, while the atomists believed that many worlds can exist throughout the cosmos, and some of these worlds can naturally have life.
What is the Universe made of?
In the sixth century BCE, thinkers began asking questions about what is the basic underlying reality of the world. What is matter composed of? Is all matter made of the same substance? Thales of Miletus (620–546 BCE) set the stage and suggested that the fundamental basis for all material was water. Thales envisioned the Earth as a flat disk floating (resting) on water. This notion based on nature marked a shift away from divine explanations for celestial phenomena and toward scientific reasoning.
A student of Thales, Anaximander, revised these ideas and suggested that all matter in the world originates not from a formed substance like water but rather from apeiron, a boundless entity that pervades all of space. This led to the suggestion that a "plurality" of worlds could exist, with Earth perhaps being just one stage in a never-ending chain of worlds. About a century later, a school of thought called atomism emerged.
The Atomists
According to the atomists, among whom Democritus, Lucretius, and Epicurus were prominent, matter can be subdivided only to a certain point, at which only atoms (which cannot be cut, or are "indivisible") remain. The world is made up of atoms moving in an infinite void. Atoms differed from each other only in size and shape, and different substances with their distinct qualities were made up of different shapes, arrangements, and positions of atoms. Atoms were in continuous motion in the infinite void and constantly collided (“swerved”) with each other. During these collisions they could rebound or stick together because of hooks and barbs on their surfaces. Thus, if life as we know it emerged this way, then the notion of life elsewhere in the universe forming this same way was within the realm of possibility. Thus, atomists also believed in a plurality of words -- or many worlds. There was even speculation at this time, notably by Anaxagoras, that the Moon was rocky and reflected sunlight and was possibly inhabited by "lunarians". For holding the belief that the Moon and Sun were not gods, Anaxagoras was sentenced to death for impiety.
Democritus gave some examples of how the atomic hypothesis could account for qualities such as color and taste (e.g., sharp tastes are caused by sharp atoms), but on the whole atomism, like other contemporary global theories, remained a general theory. It was criticized by Aristotle for some of its logical inconsistencies. For example, if atoms have different shapes, then they have parts, and this means that they are mathematically divisible; if they have different sizes, then among the infinity of their number there must be atoms as big as the world.
The Aristotelians
The Aristotelian description of nature was influenced by Pythagorean idealism. Plato suggested a mathematically perfect cosmos, in which the four fundamental elements – earth, fire, water, and air – are associated with regular solids. For example, fire is associated with a twelve-sided shape called a dodecahedron. Aristotle refined this cosmology and added the “aether”, or quintessence, to account for the void present in the atomist view and thus rendering the cosmos finite. In Aristotle’s view, all matter is at its natural state when at rest, and all objects will naturally fall back to Earth when displaced. Earth is naturally at the center in this system, in line with a geocentric viewpoint. This geocentric cosmology is counter to the plurality of worlds advocated by the atomists.
The last great astronomer of the Roman era was Claudius Ptolemy who flourished in Alexandria in about the year 140 AD. Ptolemy’s most important contribution was a geometric representation of the solar system that predicted the positions of the planets for any desired date and time. Ptolemy supplemented observational data collected by Hipparchus with new observations of his own and produced a cosmological model that endured more than a thousand years, until the time of Copernicus.
To fully explain the motions of bodies in the solar system, particularly the observation that Mars appears to change directions on the sky from time to time (this is known as apparent retrograde motion), some seemingly complicated behavior of the known planets at that time needed to be explained. Because the Greeks believed that celestial motions had to be circles (Pythagoras, Plato), Ptolemy had to construct his model using circles alone. To do it, he needed dozens of circles, some moving around other circles, in a complex structure that makes a modern viewer dizzy.
The principle of Occam’s Razor states that given a number of different explanations, the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. Applying Occam’s Razor to the Ptolemaic model, the simplest explanation comes from a heliocentric model, which puts the Sun at the center (the Greek root helio means sun). However, the lack of evidence for a heliocentric model pushed the heliocentric model to the back burner until the Copernican Revolution.
The geocentric model of Ptolemy, with some modifications, was eventually accepted as authoritative in the Muslim world and (later) in Christian Europe. The Aristotelian notions of purpose and order also fit the Christian mindset much better. [corpuscular nature.] This train of thought eventually merged with a revived atomism, caused by the recovery of Lucretius's De Rerum Natura (On The Nature Of Things) ca. 1415 CE, to give rise to a corpuscular doctrine that provided the material foundation of the mechanistic philosophy of the seventeenth century.
The Middle Ages
Astronomy made no major advances in strife-torn medieval Europe. The birth and expansion of Islam after the seventh century led to a flowering of Arabic and Jewish cultures that preserved, translated, and added to many of the astronomical ideas of the Greeks. Many of the names of the brightest stars, for example, are today taken from the Arabic, as are such astronomical terms as “zenith.”
As European culture began to emerge from its long, dark age, trading with Arab countries led to a rediscovery of ancient texts such as Ptolemy's Almagest and to a reawakening of interest in astronomical questions. This time of rebirth (in French, “renaissance”) in astronomy was embodied in the work of Copernicus.
The Renaissance and the Copernican Revolution
Copernicus
One of the most important events of the Renaissance was the displacement of Earth from the center of the universe, an intellectual revolution initiated by a Polish cleric in the sixteenth century. Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Torun, Poland in 1473. His training was in law and medicine, but his main interests were astronomy and mathematics. His great contribution to science was a critical reappraisal of the existing theories of planetary motion and the development of a new Sun-centered, or heliocentric, model of the solar system.
Copernicus concluded that Earth is a planet and that all the planets circle the Sun and the Moon orbits Earth. Copernicus described his ideas in detail in his book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolution of Celestial Orbs), published in 1543, the year of his death. The Copernican heliocentric model still adhered to the Platonic ideal of perfect circular motion at a constant speed, so the predictions made by the model did not perfectly match observations. This changed when Johannes Kepler, a German astronomer who was a contemporary of Galileo, empirically showed the planets move around the Sun in the shape of an ellipse. (Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion are discussed in detail in the Gravity chapter.)
In the 16th century, the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe collected very precise data of planetary positions, especially Mars, for twenty years at his observatory Uraniborg (the name refers to Urania, the Greek mythological goddess of Astronomy). Tycho hired Kepler to analyze this data, and the heliocentric model was now in perfect accordance with observations, now that circles had been replaced by ellipses.
Galileo's Observations
Two major milestones in Astrobiology happened around the same time in the 17th century: the invention of the telescope and the microscope -- both are indispensable tools for this subject. It is not certain who first conceived of the idea of combining two or more pieces of glass to produce an instrument that enlarged images of distant objects, making them appear nearer. The first such “spyglasses” (now called telescopes) that attracted much notice were made in 1608 by the Dutch a lens maker. Galileo heard of the discovery and, without ever having seen an assembled telescope, constructed one of his own in 1609 with a three-power magnification (3×), which made distant objects appear three times nearer and larger. The exact origin of the microscope is unknown but it likely emerged from the same setting in Denmark that saw the telescope emerge. The British physicist Robert Hooke coined the term "cells" after observing chambers inside of a cork. By the late seventeenth century, the Dutch biologist Antonie van Leeuwenhoek had made pioneering strides in microbiology, particularly in the magnification of lenses, and discovered single-celled organisms (“animalcules”).
Galileo revolutionized astronomy by pointing his telescope to the heavens in 1609. He had improved the optics of his telescope and the magnification was now 25×. Galileo made some key discoveries and he published these results in his book Sidereus Nuncius (The Starry Messenger) in 1610. In addition to other findings, Galileo observed that the planet Venus goes through a full cycle of phases (just like the Moon does) as seen from the Earth, the Moon has "chains of mountains" and Jupiter has four moons that orbit around it. The first observation of Venus' phases was actually direct proof that the geocentric model of the world was wrong. The observation that the Moon has mountains means that it is imperfect and thus violates the Platonic ideal of mathematical perfection in the cosmos, thus closing the door on the Aristotelian notion of geocentrism.
The observation that Jupiter had its own system of moons brings back ideas of a plurality of worlds. Earth is a planet with life and it has a moon orbiting around it. Since other planets also have their own moons, perhaps it is natural to assume that some of these planets also have life.
Johannes Kepler was aware of Galileo's observations and interpreted this evidence as support for the idea that there could be other life in our solar system on both the Moon and Jupiter. Kepler wrote in 16XX that "we deduce with the highest degree of probability that Jupiter is inhabited." Kepler, however, did not think that there were worlds beyond our solar system, other than in a purely metaphysical sense.
The Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695), who was the first person to observe the rings of Saturn and also discovered Saturn's moon Titan, also advocated for other life in the universe. Although he did not think there was life on the Moon, since it doesn't have an atmosphere, he imagined life on other planets in our solar system and even on planets around other stars. He speculated how plants and animals could differ on other worlds, depending on their gravity or thickness of their atmosphere. Huygens summarized these ideas in his book Cosmotheoros (New Conjectures Concerning the Planetary Worlds, Their Inhabitants and Productions), published in 1698 intentionally after his death (to avoid censure).
Religion and Science
The Inquisition was active during this time, and any persons denying the teachings of the Catholic faith were open to being accused a heretic. The Dominican friar Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) believed in an infinite cosmos composed of innumerable worlds and planets, an idea clearly at direct odds with the Catholic Church. Bruno’s cosmology consisted of a plurality of inhabited worlds, somewhat akin to the modern idea of parallel universes. Bruno was tried and accused of heresy and accordingly burned at the stake in the year 1600, a decade before the telescope would show that the cosmos was unimaginably vast.
In this environment, there was little motivation to carry out observations or experiments to distinguish between competing cosmological theories (or anything else). It should not surprise us, therefore, that the heliocentric idea was debated for more than half a century without any tests being applied to determine its validity. (In fact, in the North American colonies, the older geocentric system was still taught at Harvard University in the first years after it was founded in 1636.)
Sometime in the 1590s, Galileo adopted the Copernican hypothesis of a heliocentric solar system. In Roman Catholic Italy, this was not a popular philosophy, for Church authorities still upheld the ideas of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and they had powerful political and economic reasons for insisting that Earth was the center of creation. Galileo not only challenged this thinking but also had the audacity to write in Italian rather than scholarly Latin, and to lecture publicly on those topics. For him, there was no contradiction between the authority of the Church in matters of religion and morality, and the authority of nature (revealed by experiments) in matters of science. It was primarily because of Galileo and his “dangerous” opinions that, in 1616, the Church issued a prohibition decree stating that the Copernican doctrine was “false and absurd” and not to be held or defended.
After Galileo’s work, it became increasingly difficult to deny the Copernican view, and Earth was slowly dethroned from its central position in the universe and given its rightful place as one of the planets attending the Sun. Initially, however, Galileo met with a great deal of opposition. The Roman Catholic Church, still reeling from the Protestant Reformation, was looking to assert its authority and chose to make an example of Galileo. He had to appear before the Inquisition to answer charges that his work was heretical, and he was ultimately condemned to house arrest. His books were on the Church’s forbidden list until 1836, although in countries where the Roman Catholic Church held less sway, they were widely read and discussed. Not until 1992 did the Catholic Church admit publicly that it had erred in the matter of censoring Galileo’s ideas.
The new ideas of Copernicus and Galileo began a revolution in our conception of the cosmos. It eventually became evident that the universe is a vast place and that Earth’s role in it is relatively unimportant. The idea that Earth moves around the Sun like the other planets raised the possibility that they might be worlds themselves, perhaps even supporting life. As Earth was demoted from its position at the center of the universe, so, too, was humanity. The universe, despite what we may wish, does not revolve around us.
Nineteenth and Twentieth Century
Ideas about other life in the universe continued to be debated into the 19th century. In 1853, the British philosopher William Whewell published Of the Plurality of Worlds, in which he argued against extraterrestrial life because he felt other planets in the solar system did not have the right conditions for life to survive.
Around this same time, in 1835, the so-called Great Moon Hoax happened. The New York Sun, a then fledgling new paper, decided to print a series of stories reporting that there was life on the Moon. The articles provide details of the creatures that lived on the Moon, which included unicorns and lunar bats and quoted the astronomer John Herschel on these findings. Herschel, the son of the eminent William Herschel who had discovered infrared light, had just set up an observatory in South Africa and there was no reason to doubt an article that mentioned him. However, the articles were meant to be satire and were in fact not true!
Of course, that was probably not the first hoax claiming evidence for extraterrestrial life and not the last. In 1938, on the eve of Halloween, Orson Welles broadcast a dramatic rendition of the 1895 novel War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells. Although Orson Welles did not intend this to be interpreted as real, some listeners tuned in and believed that the Earth, specifically New Jersey, was under attack by Martians. Today, elaborate hoaxes claiming evidence of extraterrestrial life are fairly commonplace. A video was circulated in the 1990s that claimed to be evidence of an alien autopsy that happened at Area 51 in Nevada. Crop circles also appeared and these often complex structures were claimed to be the work of extraterrestrials. However, both cases turned out to be hoaxes.
Later into the 20th century, there was still belief that Mars was colonized -- some of this coming from claims made by the astronomer Percival Lowell who reported that there were man-made canals used for agriculture on Mars -- but this generally was laid to rest after the Mariner missions sent back the first images of Mars in 1965.
As a final note, the idea of multiple worlds turned from science fiction to a possible scientific reality in the wake of quantum mechanics. The "many world interpretation" in quantum mechanics The physicist Hugh Everett III showed mathematically in 1957 that multiple universes (multiverses) could exist. Such ideas, although inherently unprovable, perhaps seemed more feasible in light of the observation made by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s that the universe contains other galaxies and that the fabric of the universe itself is expanding with time.
Material Remixed From:
- https://openstax.org/books/astronomy/pages/2-2-ancient-astronomy
- https://cnx.org/contents/UYkiSgoQ@4/Atomism
References
- https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/K/KeplerJ.html
- Wilkinson, D. (2013). 'Speculating about a Plurality of Worlds: The Historical Context of Science, Religion, and SETI', chapter in Science, Religion, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence . OUP Oxford.
#historical
Project Ozma (Cicconi & Morrison), 1990s to SETI Institute, Arecibo, VLA, Green Bank, Wow!
#modern
BL,
Given all the developments in astrobiology, it seems possible that life could have developed on many planets around other stars. Even if that life is microbial, we saw that we may soon have ways to search for chemical biosignatures. This search is of fundamental importance for understanding biology, but it does not answer the question, “Are we alone?” that many wish to ask. When we ask this question, many people think of other intelligent creatures living on distant worlds, but unfortunately, there is a level of begging the question occurring assuming that life outside of the Earth might have developed similarly enough to the way life did on Earth that some sort of analog to intelligent humans appearing on some distant world. But what do we mean by "intelligent"?
## Technology and Intelligence
Given the difficulties we have had defining "life", it is perhaps no surprise that there are more difficulties defining "intelligence". Many assumptions have been made about what intelligence implies and how it can be measured which are increasingly criticized by social scientists and philosophers. One of the first steps that we take to try to define intelligence is to distinguish between lifeforms that are not intelligent and those that are, but attempts to make these clean distinctions have run into problems. For example, some attempts at defining human intelligence as distinct from other lifeforms invoked consciousness or sentience (roughly knowledge of one's self identity) as a criteria. This requires, however, a theory of mind that assumes these aspects of our existence are generalizable and identifiable in other life forms in ways that are difficult to measure. While neuroscientists are actively investigating consciousness in new and clever ways, there is no agreed upon way to determine whether and how any given lifeform is conscious at this time. Using that as a criteria for intelligence, then, is likely to cause more problems than it will solve.
At one time it was assumed that what distinguished human intelligence from that of other animals was an ability to communicate through language. Nevertheless, anyone who has spent significant time with a dog knows that animals are capable of communication in very sophisticated ways. The late Koko the Gorilla had a sign-language vocabulary in excess of 1000 signs by some measures, although whether that constituted learning a language and to what extent her human handlers "projected" communication onto Koko's interactions is of enough concern to problematize claims that she "learned" sign language. Controversies over intelligence and, in particular, psychometric testing of human beings, have also highlighted the problem of under what research contexts different definitions for intelligence in individuals are useful. IQ tests, for example, may highlight more about what is valued in a particular societal contexts instead of probing some manner of objective measure of whom is more intelligent than whom.
What those interested in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) use as a definition for intelligence is different from that which human or biological researchers in the subject use. Astronomers assume that the ability to produce similar technology to our own to enable interstellar communication is the mark of a group of intelligent lifeforms. As far as we know, the only lifeforms capable of such on Earth are humans. Even if a particular individual human does not know how to construct interstellar communication themselves, the knowledge and the skills were possible for us as a group to develop and create as demonstrated by the existence of the technology itself. Evolutionary biologists still debate when humanity first had the intellectual capacity to develop the technology of our modern world, but most would agree that early humans from at least 100,000 years ago exhibited the same brain-size, tool-making abilities, and language processing that we have today and that seem to be necessary to accomplish this. Research is ongoing in attempts to answer the question of how smart our ancestors were in comparison to us which may have implications for how we ask these questions in the first place.
But why should interstellar communication be the hallmark of intelligence?
If we want to answer the question "Are we alone?" we need to find a way to discover the other intelligent lifeforms. If any intelligent, technical societies have arisen, as has happened on Earth in the most recent blink of cosmic time, how could we make contact with them?
This problem is similar to making contact with people who live in a remote part of Earth. If students in the United States want to converse with students in Australia, for example, they have two choices. Either one group gets on an airplane and travels to meet the other, or they communicate by sending a message remotely. Given how expensive airline tickets are, most students would probably select the message route.
In the same way, if we want to get in touch with intelligent life around other stars, we can travel, or we can try to exchange messages. Because of the great distances involved, interstellar space travel would be very slow and prohibitively expensive. The fastest spacecraft the human species has built so far would take almost 80,000 years to get to the nearest star. While we could certainly design a faster craft, the more quickly we require it to travel, the greater the energy cost involved. To reach neighboring stars in less than a human life span, we would have to travel close to the speed of light. In that case, however, the expense would become truly astronomical.
Bernard Oliver, an engineer with an abiding interest in life elsewhere, made a revealing calculation about the costs of rapid interstellar space travel. Since we do not know what sort of technology we (or other civilizations) might someday develop, Oliver considered a trip to the nearest star (and back again) in a spaceship with a “perfect engine”—one that would convert its fuel into energy with 100% efficiency. Even with a perfect engine, the energy cost of a single round-trip journey at 70% the speed of light turns out to be equivalent to several hundred thousand years’ worth of total U.S. electrical energy consumption. The cost of such travel is literally out of this world.
So. Life in the Universe? Frank Drake, a pioneer in the search for life with radio telescopes, first penned an equation in 1961 to estimate the probability that technologically capable and communicating civilizations exist in our galaxy.
The Drake equation distills the key parameters that we need to know. Seth Shostak at the SETI institute characterizes this equation as a map, not a destination.
where,
- NN is the number of communicative civilizations that we could detect,
- RSRS is the rate of formation of suitable stars,
- fPfP is the fraction of stars with planets,
- ηEηE is the number of "Earths" per planetary system,
- fLfL is the fraction of these "Earths" where life develops,
- fIfI is the fraction of the instances of life where intelligent life develops,
- fCfC is the fraction of intelligent life that develops communicating technology,
- LL is the lifetime of communicating civilizations
The Drake equation is a way of organizing our thoughts about the probability of technological, communicating life elsewhere.
Let us consider each of these terms. We will provide provisional numbers, but many of them are merely educated guesses (some more educated than others).
### Stars
We can make a rough estimation of the star formation rate of the galaxy by considering what we know about the galaxy today. Currently, the galaxy holds about 100-400 billion stars. We also know the galaxy to be approximately 10 billion years old. From this, we find that on average stars have been be forming at a rate of 10-40 stars per year.
400billionstars10billionyears=40starsyear400billionstars10billionyears=40starsyear
This is a very simplistic estimate. It does not take into account how many of these stars may be suitable for life, such as short-lived O or B type stars, or whether the rate of star formation has been constant over the lifetime of the galaxy. However, this estimate gives a decent upper and lower bound.
### Planets
Thank to discoveries over the past decade, we now have a good estimate for the fraction of stars with planets. This was completely unknown at the time Frank Drake first wrote down his equation. The discoveries from the *Kepler* mission provide statistical evidence that essentially every star has one or more planets. When you look up at the night sky, there are actually more unseen exoplanets there than there are stars. We can therefore assign a value of 1 for fPfP and a value of 0.9, or 90%, as a more conservative estimate.
The next parameter, ηEηE, is the number of Earth-like habitable planets. The *Kepler* mission stopped just short of determining this value. However, astronomers have extrapolated out from the parameter space where Earth-sized planets were detected and estimate that the number of habitable Earths ranges from 0.5 to 3 per system. Maybe the requirement of an Earth-like planet is too conservative. Would a moon do? Titan, Europa, and Enceladus all offer possible platforms for life in our solar system that are well outside the habitable zone.
10×0.9×0.5×5×109=22.5×10910×0.9×0.5×5×109=22.5×109 (lower limit of 22.5 billion)
40×1×3×5×109=600×10940×1×3×5×109=600×109 (upper limit of 600 billion)
If we want to estimate the probability of technological civilizations, then don't multiply by the longevity of habitable worlds (because that's not the number you want to find)... keep going!
Life
The term fLfL asks us to consider the fraction of Earth-like planets in the habitable zone where life of any kind (including single-celled microbes) emerges. This term must be non-zero, because there exists life on Earth but we have yet to find life anywhere else. What we do know is that the Earth formed about 4.56 Gya. We have firm evidence of life from stromatolites at 3.5 Gya, which must have been preceded by less complex organisms. These numbers indicate that life formed relatively quickly on Earth, even though it is not yet clear to us how. We can infer that perhaps life appears between 10% and 100% of the time on habitable planets, but you should make your own guess for this fraction. What is your justification?
10×0.9×0.5×0.1×5×109=2.25×10910×0.9×0.5×0.1×5×109=2.25×109 (lower limit: 2.25 billion planets in our galaxy have life of some kind)
40×1×3×1×5×109=600×10940×1×3×1×5×109=600×109 (upper limit: 600 billion sites with life in the galaxy)
If we want to keep going, to estimate the probability of technological civilizations, then don't multiply by the longevity of life on habitable worlds (because that's not the number you want to find)
### Intelligent and communicating
Intelligence is hard to describe, hard to quantify, and hard to detect. Besides the example of intelligent life on Earth, we have no other concrete evidence towards a true value for the fraction of life that becomes intelligent. We could again use what happened on Earth as a general guiding example - a sort of "Copernican" view for biology. Come up with your own estimates and reasoning for fifi.
Here is one possible argument: We know that bio-complexity requires energy, which requires efficient metabolism. On Earth this takes the form of aerobic respiration, and the Cambrian explosion marks the time when complex life emerged. This occurred in the last 0.6 billion years in the lifespan of Earth.
This makes the argument time-based. Inherently, right or wrong, we are guessing that life everywhere will evolve and that statistically perhaps 0.13 of the habitable planets that we find with life will have life forms that evolved to become intelligent.
However, we have no true understanding of how typical our planet is. We do not have a sense of whether the evolution of complex life is rare or inevitable for all Earth analogs. An upper bound might be 1, meaning all planets with life will eventually evolve the complexity that leads to intelligence or it might happen on one of a million inhabited worlds. That's a big range!
#### Technology
The next term, fcfc, tries to capture another attribute that is hard to estimate. On inhabited planets with intelligent life, how often will that life develop technology so that it can communicate across the galaxy? We are technological adolescents, and there is the significant problem of light travel time. If we send a message to a civilization that is 10,000 light years away (a small distance in our galaxy, which is 100,000 light years in diameter), then it takes 20,000 years for the round-trip reply. Will we still be here? Will anyone still be listening? The intelligent life on Earth has had this communication technology for only about 100 years. That is a tiny fraction of time for intelligent life on Earth: 100 years out of 200,000 years that homosapiens have existed.
The example of Earth points to another possibility. We have taken our first steps out into the solar system. The Apollo-11 mission took us to the moon and Elon Musk wants to help us get to Mars. Even if the emergence of intelligent, technological, communicating civilizations is rare, they may spread to other planets.
### Lifetime
The chance of discovering life inherently depends on how long life survives on a planet. On Earth, life has persisted for at least 3.5 billion years. At most, life on Earth will exist until the Sun evolves and the Earth loses its oceans (about 5 billion years). From the geological history, we know that life is fairly resilient. Our answer for the lifetime of microbes would be very different from our guess for the lifetime of technological civilizations.
There is a good expectation that we have the engineering skills to mitigate certain natural disasters, such as asteroid impacts. At the same time, the development of technology can negatively impact the lifetime of a civilization. Industrialization has led to rapid climate change and nuclear weaponization that could threaten our existence on timescales of a few generations.
### Finale
Finally, the finale. We can collect our musings from above to calculate a value for N, the number of communicating civilizations that we could detect. We should note that when we multiply these numbers together, we do not really get a low and high estimate for technological life. Because we put in the extreme limits of our guesses, we get extreme limits for the range of possibilities. It is better to treat each of these as distribution functions and combine them in a statistically rigorous manner.
**Term** | **Lower** **Estimate** | **Upper** **Estimate** | |
RSRS | 10 stars/yr | 40 stars/yr | rate of star formation |
fPfP | 0.9 | 1 | fraction of stars with planets |
ηEηE | 1 | 3 | number of "Earths" per planetary system |
fLfL | 0.1 | 1 | fraction of "Earths" where life develops |
fIfI | 0.001 | 1 | fraction of instance of life where intelligent life develops |
fCfC | 10^-6 | 0.5 | fraction of intelligent life that develops communicating technology |
LL | 200 years | 10,000 yrs | lifetime of communicating civilizations |
**300 billion** | **conservative estimates for the possible number of communicating civilizations that we could detect** |
Some of the terms for which we have observations are quite certain. We know the rate of star formation and the fraction of stars with planets, and we have solid estimates for the number of habitable planets per planetary system. In contrast, the last four terms are extremely uncertain. But all we need to firm this up is one other example of a world where life exists.
#### So where are they? The Fermi Paradox
Particle physicist Enrico Fermi is credited with posing this question. If the universe is teeming with life, why haven't we observed it yet? There are many resolutions to this question. Watch the 6-minute animated TedEd video below to hear some resolutions to this question.
The cosmos is vast. To contemplate the mere existence of life in the universe, we must step back and ask some fundamental questions: What is the cosmos made of? What is at the center of the cosmos, if there is a center at all? Ancient Greek schools of thought marked a turning point in the approach to answering questions of this kind. Rather than invoking supernatural explanations to celestial phenomena, ancient Greek thinkers constructed empirical models to explain the universe.
Ancient Greek Cosmologies
Our concept of the cosmos — its basic structure and origin —is called cosmology, a word with Greek roots (the Greek word kosmos means world). Before the invention of telescopes, humans had to depend on the simple evidence of their senses for a picture of the universe. The ancients developed cosmologies that combined their direct view of the heavens with a rich variety of philosophical and religious symbolism. Two main schools of thought regarding the nature of matter arose in the era of the ancient Greeks: the atomists and the Aristotelians. In the context of other life in the universe, the Aristotelians believed that the Earth was the only world and was at the center of the cosmos, while the atomists believed that many worlds can exist throughout the cosmos, and some of these worlds can naturally have life.
What is the Universe made of?
In the sixth century BCE, thinkers began asking questions about what is the basic underlying reality of the world. What is matter composed of? Is all matter made of the same substance? Thales of Miletus (620–546 BCE) set the stage and suggested that the fundamental basis for all material was water. Thales envisioned the Earth as a flat disk floating (resting) on water. This notion based on nature marked a shift away from divine explanations for celestial phenomena and toward scientific reasoning.
A student of Thales, Anaximander, revised these ideas and suggested that all matter in the world originates not from a formed substance like water but rather from apeiron, a boundless entity that pervades all of space. This led to the suggestion that a "plurality" of worlds could exist, with Earth perhaps being just one stage in a never-ending chain of worlds. About a century later, a school of thought called atomism emerged.
The Atomists
According to the atomists, among whom Democritus, Lucretius, and Epicurus were prominent, matter can be subdivided only to a certain point, at which only atoms (which cannot be cut, or are "indivisible") remain. The world is made up of atoms moving in an infinite void. Atoms differed from each other only in size and shape, and different substances with their distinct qualities were made up of different shapes, arrangements, and positions of atoms. Atoms were in continuous motion in the infinite void and constantly collided (“swerved”) with each other. During these collisions they could rebound or stick together because of hooks and barbs on their surfaces. Thus, if life as we know it emerged this way, then the notion of life elsewhere in the universe forming this same way was within the realm of possibility. Thus, atomists also believed in a plurality of words -- or many worlds. There was even speculation at this time, notably by Anaxagoras, that the Moon was rocky and reflected sunlight and was possibly inhabited by "lunarians". For holding the belief that the Moon and Sun were not gods, Anaxagoras was sentenced to death for impiety.
Democritus gave some examples of how the atomic hypothesis could account for qualities such as color and taste (e.g., sharp tastes are caused by sharp atoms), but on the whole atomism, like other contemporary global theories, remained a general theory. It was criticized by Aristotle for some of its logical inconsistencies. For example, if atoms have different shapes, then they have parts, and this means that they are mathematically divisible; if they have different sizes, then among the infinity of their number there must be atoms as big as the world.
The Aristotelians
The Aristotelian description of nature was influenced by Pythagorean idealism. Plato suggested a mathematically perfect cosmos, in which the four fundamental elements – earth, fire, water, and air – are associated with regular solids. For example, fire is associated with a twelve-sided shape called a dodecahedron. Aristotle refined this cosmology and added the “aether”, or quintessence, to account for the void present in the atomist view and thus rendering the cosmos finite. In Aristotle’s view, all matter is at its natural state when at rest, and all objects will naturally fall back to Earth when displaced. Earth is naturally at the center in this system, in line with a geocentric viewpoint. This geocentric cosmology is counter to the plurality of worlds advocated by the atomists.
The last great astronomer of the Roman era was Claudius Ptolemy who flourished in Alexandria in about the year 140 AD. Ptolemy’s most important contribution was a geometric representation of the solar system that predicted the positions of the planets for any desired date and time. Ptolemy supplemented observational data collected by Hipparchus with new observations of his own and produced a cosmological model that endured more than a thousand years, until the time of Copernicus.
To fully explain the motions of bodies in the solar system, particularly the observation that Mars appears to change directions on the sky from time to time (this is known as apparent retrograde motion), some seemingly complicated behavior of the known planets at that time needed to be explained. Because the Greeks believed that celestial motions had to be circles (Pythagoras, Plato), Ptolemy had to construct his model using circles alone. To do it, he needed dozens of circles, some moving around other circles, in a complex structure that makes a modern viewer dizzy.
The principle of Occam’s Razor states that given a number of different explanations, the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. Applying Occam’s Razor to the Ptolemaic model, the simplest explanation comes from a heliocentric model, which puts the Sun at the center (the Greek root helio means sun). However, the lack of evidence for a heliocentric model pushed the heliocentric model to the back burner until the Copernican Revolution.
The geocentric model of Ptolemy, with some modifications, was eventually accepted as authoritative in the Muslim world and (later) in Christian Europe. The Aristotelian notions of purpose and order also fit the Christian mindset much better. [corpuscular nature.] This train of thought eventually merged with a revived atomism, caused by the recovery of Lucretius's De Rerum Natura (On The Nature Of Things) ca. 1415 CE, to give rise to a corpuscular doctrine that provided the material foundation of the mechanistic philosophy of the seventeenth century.
The Middle Ages
Astronomy made no major advances in strife-torn medieval Europe. The birth and expansion of Islam after the seventh century led to a flowering of Arabic and Jewish cultures that preserved, translated, and added to many of the astronomical ideas of the Greeks. Many of the names of the brightest stars, for example, are today taken from the Arabic, as are such astronomical terms as “zenith.”
As European culture began to emerge from its long, dark age, trading with Arab countries led to a rediscovery of ancient texts such as Ptolemy's Almagest and to a reawakening of interest in astronomical questions. This time of rebirth (in French, “renaissance”) in astronomy was embodied in the work of Copernicus.
The Renaissance and the Copernican Revolution
Copernicus
One of the most important events of the Renaissance was the displacement of Earth from the center of the universe, an intellectual revolution initiated by a Polish cleric in the sixteenth century. Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Torun, Poland in 1473. His training was in law and medicine, but his main interests were astronomy and mathematics. His great contribution to science was a critical reappraisal of the existing theories of planetary motion and the development of a new Sun-centered, or heliocentric, model of the solar system.
Copernicus concluded that Earth is a planet and that all the planets circle the Sun and the Moon orbits Earth. Copernicus described his ideas in detail in his book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolution of Celestial Orbs), published in 1543, the year of his death. The Copernican heliocentric model still adhered to the Platonic ideal of perfect circular motion at a constant speed, so the predictions made by the model did not perfectly match observations. This changed when Johannes Kepler, a German astronomer who was a contemporary of Galileo, empirically showed the planets move around the Sun in the shape of an ellipse. (Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion are discussed in detail in the Gravity chapter.)
In the 16th century, the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe collected very precise data of planetary positions, especially Mars, for twenty years at his observatory Uraniborg (the name refers to Urania, the Greek mythological goddess of Astronomy). Tycho hired Kepler to analyze this data, and the heliocentric model was now in perfect accordance with observations, now that circles had been replaced by ellipses.
Galileo's Observations
Two major milestones in Astrobiology happened around the same time in the 17th century: the invention of the telescope and the microscope -- both are indispensable tools for this subject. It is not certain who first conceived of the idea of combining two or more pieces of glass to produce an instrument that enlarged images of distant objects, making them appear nearer. The first such “spyglasses” (now called telescopes) that attracted much notice were made in 1608 by the Dutch a lens maker. Galileo heard of the discovery and, without ever having seen an assembled telescope, constructed one of his own in 1609 with a three-power magnification (3×), which made distant objects appear three times nearer and larger. The exact origin of the microscope is unknown but it likely emerged from the same setting in Denmark that saw the telescope emerge. The British physicist Robert Hooke coined the term "cells" after observing chambers inside of a cork. By the late seventeenth century, the Dutch biologist Antonie van Leeuwenhoek had made pioneering strides in microbiology, particularly in the magnification of lenses, and discovered single-celled organisms (“animalcules”).
Galileo revolutionized astronomy by pointing his telescope to the heavens in 1609. He had improved the optics of his telescope and the magnification was now 20×. Galileo made some key discoveries and he published these results in his book Sidereus Nuncius (The Starry Messenger) in 1610. In addition to other findings, Galileo observed that the planet Venus goes through a full cycle of phases (just like the Moon does) as seen from the Earth, the Moon has "chains of mountains" and Jupiter has four moons that orbit around it. The first observation of Venus' phases was actually direct proof that the geocentric model of the world was wrong. The observation that the Moon has mountains means that it is imperfect and thus violates the Platonic ideal of mathematical perfection in the cosmos, thus closing the door on the Aristotelian notion of geocentrism.
The observation that Jupiter had its own system of moons brings back ideas of a plurality of worlds. Earth is a planet with life and it has a moon orbiting around it. Since other planets also have their own moons, perhaps it is natural to assume that some of these planets also have life.
Johannes Kepler was aware of Galileo's observations and interpreted this evidence as support for the idea that there could be other life in our solar system on both the Moon and Jupiter. Kepler wrote in 1610 in his letter Dissertatio cum Nuncio Sidereo (Conversation with the Sidereal Messenger) that "we deduce with the highest degree of probability that Jupiter is inhabited." Kepler, however, did not think that there were worlds beyond our solar system, other than in a purely metaphysical sense.
The Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695), who was the first person to observe the rings of Saturn and also discovered Saturn's moon Titan, also advocated for other life in the universe. Although he did not think there was life on the Moon, since it doesn't have an atmosphere, he imagined life on other planets in our solar system and even on planets around other stars. He speculated how plants and animals could differ on other worlds, depending on their gravity or thickness of their atmosphere. Huygens summarized these ideas in his book Cosmotheoros (New Conjectures Concerning the Planetary Worlds, Their Inhabitants and Productions), published in 1698 intentionally after his death (to avoid censure).
Religion and Science
The Inquisition was active during this time, and any persons denying the teachings of the Catholic faith were open to being accused a heretic. The Dominican friar Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) believed in an infinite cosmos composed of innumerable worlds and planets, an idea clearly at direct odds with the Catholic Church. Bruno’s cosmology consisted of a plurality of inhabited worlds, somewhat akin to the modern idea of parallel universes. Bruno was tried and accused of heresy and accordingly burned at the stake in the year 1600, a decade before the telescope would show that the cosmos was unimaginably vast.
In this environment, there was little motivation to carry out observations or experiments to distinguish between competing cosmological theories (or anything else). It should not surprise us, therefore, that the heliocentric idea was debated for more than half a century without any tests being applied to determine its validity. (In fact, in the North American colonies, the older geocentric system was still taught at Harvard University in the first years after it was founded in 1636.)
Sometime in the 1590s, Galileo adopted the Copernican hypothesis of a heliocentric solar system. In Roman Catholic Italy, this was not a popular philosophy, for Church authorities still upheld the ideas of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and they had powerful political and economic reasons for insisting that Earth was the center of creation. Galileo not only challenged this thinking but also had the audacity to write in Italian rather than scholarly Latin, and to lecture publicly on those topics. For him, there was no contradiction between the authority of the Church in matters of religion and morality, and the authority of nature (revealed by experiments) in matters of science. It was primarily because of Galileo and his “dangerous” opinions that, in 1616, the Church issued a prohibition decree stating that the Copernican doctrine was “false and absurd” and not to be held or defended.
After Galileo’s work, it became increasingly difficult to deny the Copernican view, and Earth was slowly dethroned from its central position in the universe and given its rightful place as one of the planets attending the Sun. Initially, however, Galileo met with a great deal of opposition. The Roman Catholic Church, still reeling from the Protestant Reformation, was looking to assert its authority and chose to make an example of Galileo. He had to appear before the Inquisition to answer charges that his work was heretical, and he was ultimately condemned to house arrest. His books were on the Church’s forbidden list until 1836, although in countries where the Roman Catholic Church held less sway, they were widely read and discussed. Not until 1992 did the Catholic Church admit publicly that it had erred in the matter of censoring Galileo’s ideas.
The new ideas of Copernicus and Galileo began a revolution in our conception of the cosmos. It eventually became evident that the universe is a vast place and that Earth’s role in it is relatively unimportant. The idea that Earth moves around the Sun like the other planets raised the possibility that they might be worlds themselves, perhaps even supporting life. As Earth was demoted from its position at the center of the universe, so, too, was humanity. The universe, despite what we may wish, does not revolve around us.
Nineteenth and Twentieth Century
Ideas about other life in the universe continued to be debated into the 19th century. In 1853, the British philosopher William Whewell published Of the Plurality of Worlds, in which he argued against extraterrestrial life because he felt other planets in the solar system did not have the right conditions for life to survive.
Around this same time, in 1835, the so-called Great Moon Hoax happened. The New York Sun, a then fledgling new paper, decided to print a series of stories reporting that there was life on the Moon. The articles provide details of the creatures that lived on the Moon, which included unicorns and lunar bats and quoted the astronomer John Herschel on these findings. Herschel, the son of the eminent William Herschel who had discovered infrared light, had just set up an observatory in South Africa and there was no reason to doubt an article that mentioned him. However, the articles were meant to be satire and were in fact not true!
Of course, that was probably not the first hoax claiming evidence for extraterrestrial life and not the last. In 1938, on the eve of Halloween, Orson Welles broadcast a dramatic rendition of the 1895 novel War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells. Although Orson Welles did not intend this to be interpreted as real, some listeners tuned in and believed that the Earth, specifically New Jersey, was under attack by Martians. Today, elaborate hoaxes claiming evidence of extraterrestrial life are fairly commonplace. A video was circulated in the 1990s that claimed to be evidence of an alien autopsy that happened at Area 51 in Nevada. Crop circles also appeared and these often complex structures were claimed to be the work of extraterrestrials. However, both cases turned out to be hoaxes.
Later into the 20th century, there was still belief that Mars was colonized -- some of this coming from claims made by the astronomer Percival Lowell who reported that there were man-made canals used for agriculture on Mars -- but this generally was laid to rest after the Mariner missions sent back the first images of Mars in 1965.
As a final note, the idea of parallel universes or multiple worlds turned from science fiction to a possible scientific reality via the "many worlds interpretation" to emerge from quantum mechanics. The physicist Hugh Everett III showed mathematically in 1957 that multiple universes (multiverses) could exist. Such ideas, although inherently unprovable, perhaps seemed more feasible in light of the observation made by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s that the universe contains other galaxies and that the fabric of the universe itself is expanding with time, and that there is a limit to the "observable" universe.
Material Remixed From:
- https://openstax.org/books/astronomy/pages/2-2-ancient-astronomy
- https://cnx.org/contents/UYkiSgoQ@4/Atomism
References
- https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/K/KeplerJ.html
- Wilkinson, D. (2013). 'Speculating about a Plurality of Worlds: The Historical Context of Science, Religion, and SETI', chapter in Science, Religion, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence . OUP Oxford.
The Habitable Zone around the Sun. Credit: Cornell University/NASA.
In assessing the possibility that life could exist on another world, one of the first questions to ask is: "Is it in the habitable zone?". The habitable zone around a star is the region in which the temperature on the surface of the planet would be in the proper range to allow liquid water to exist. If a planet does fall into the habitable zone around its host star, we cannot immediately conclude that life exists but it is a useful starting point in looking for other worlds that contain life.
Defining the Habitable Zone Around a Star
One of the mantra's in Astrobiology is "Follow the water!" This makes sense from our Earthly perspective, since absolutely all life on Earth requires liquid water. Of course, other liquids could serve this same purpose in other environments, but we stay focused on water for defining the habitable zone around a star.
The Greenhouse Effect
Exoplanetary Habitable Zones
The search for extraterrestrial intelligence inherently assumes that any civilization that we make contact with will have gained a certain level of intelligence. Intelligence can have many different connotations, and in the context of SETI it has a specific meaning: the civilization is able to send out signs or signals that indicate an advanced civilization. The best way to think of this is by asking when the Earth became an advanced intelligent civilization that sent out signs of this, and the answer is development of radio equipment, both transmitters and receivers, at the turn of the 20th century. We will start there and see how SETI searches have evolved from our planet's first radio transmissions to modern surveys that scan the skies over broad bands to look for that cosmic needle in the haystack.
The Beginnings of Radio Astronomy
Huge strides in understanding the physical nature of electromagnetic radiation in the mid- to late-1800s led to the first electronic search for radio signals in 1899. Nikola Tesla was born in Croatia and emigrated to the United States in 1884. In 1899, while working on a project that would enable a global wireless communication network (indeed, Tesla was way ahead of the times on realizing that wi-fi networks were quite feasible), Tesla detected a repeating signal that he eventually attributed to Mars:
"Twenty-two years ago, while experimenting in Colorado with a wireless power plant, I obtained extraordinary experimental evidence of the existence of life on Mars. I had perfected a wireless receiver of extraordinary sensitiveness, far beyond anything known, and I caught signals which I interpreted as meaning 1--2--3--4. I believe the Martians used numbers for communication because numbers are universal.", Nikola Tesla, 1923, Albany Telegram.
Another pioneer of radio communication and a contemporary of Tesla, Guglielmo Marconi received the first trans-Atlantic radio transmission in 1901
detected an anomalous signal in 1921 and believed that it was a Martian response to signals that Marconi had sent out earlier.Today, we know that neither Tesla nor Marconi's detections were of a Martian origin, but at the time the
Project Ozma (Cicconi & Morrison), 1990s to SETI Institute, Arecibo, VLA, Green Bank, Wow!
#modern
BL,
One can only imagine how the field of biology will change the moment extraterrestrial life is discovered for the first time. Will we see shocking similarities? Or will life elsewhere be so different that it is barely recognizable to us?
Alternative Biochemistries
While carbon is clearly favored for Earth-based organisms, other hypothetical biochemistries have been considered by biochemists. One of the most frequently imagined alternatives is silicon-based life. Silicon is similar to carbon in that it also has four valence electrons. However, these electrons are in silicon's third electron shell while carbon's valence electrons appear in its second electron shell. The additional shielding of valence electrons by two inner filled shells of electrons is enough to change the nature of silicon bonds. Because of the valence electrons of silicon are farther from the positively charged nucleus, silicon bonds are weaker than carbon bonds. While carbon can effectively form the complex long molecular chains necessary for life, it is rare to find more than three silicon atoms in a single molecule. Even when they do form, compounds with multiple silicon atom have bonds that are easily disrupted by water. The difference in valence shell energy also makes it harder for silicon atoms to form double or triple bonds. Therefore, silicon molecules seldom exhibit chirality.
Because the valence electrons of silicon are more weakly held to the atom, it is easier for oxygen to bond with silicon, but it is also much harder to break these bonds. Once oxygen has bonded with silicon, it takes a lot of energy to pull it away. Biological processes often require recycling elements into different organic compounds. The difficulty in breaking down silicon-oxygen molecules slows the reaction rates. The structure of silicon-oxygen bonds also renders many important organic molecules unfriendly for life. For instance, we exhale carbon dioxide, CO2, as part of the process that generates energy. The silicon counterpart of CO2, silicon dioxide, is a solid rather than a gas, making it much harder to dispose of than carbon dioxide. In general, silicon tends to form more solid, crystalline structures when compared to its carbon counterparts.
We should not assume that silicon will "never" be a good choice for biochemistry. However, the laws of chemistry seem to strongly favor carbon-based life, especially in temperature and pressure environments found on Earth. The next time your favorite science-fiction movie portrays silicon-based life, remember that it should expel a mouth full of silicon dioxide crystals with every breath.
Water as life's solvent
Water is thought to be essential to life both because where there is life there is water and where there is water there is life. Water possess many unique chemical properties that make it conducive to both life and the organic reactions that govern it.
Water makes up the most of most living systems. The average organism is 70% or more water by weight. Recall that water, or H2O, consists of one oxygen molecule and two hydrogen molecules. As mentioned before, oxygen is particularly good at attracting electrons. Even within a molecule of water, the electrons preferentially spend time closer to the oxygen molecule than to the hydrogen atoms. Because electrons carry a negative charge, the result is that the oxygen molecule is slightly negative while the hydrogen atoms are left with a slightly positive residual charge.
The water molecule is slightly polar.
This charge differential across the water molecules makes water polar and consequently useful for organic chemistry in several ways. The different charges help group nonpolar molecules together and create effects like self-assembling phospholipid structures. Proteins are also folded with the help of water when amino acids with nonpolar side chains are naturally folded inside more water-friendly side chains.
Because of its polarity, water has a strong bond to neighboring water molecules. Water molecules can form hydrogen bonds with one another. These bonds help water to remain liquid over a greater range of temperature. Water provides a safe, stable environment to nurture the complex reactions required by life.
The difference in charge also allows water to more easily pull compounds apart, making it easier for chemicals (like the salt crystal in the Figure below) to dissolve in water. This has earned water the moniker "the universal solvent." Once in the water, chemicals are free to move around and interact with other chemicals.
A crystal of table salt (NaCl) dissolving in water. The table salt is easily dissolved into negatively charged chlorine ions (green) and the positively charged sodium ions (yellow) in water where the ions are stabilized through interacting with the differently charged ends of water. What section of the water molecule preferentially faces the sodium atom and which end preferentially faces the chlorine atom? Recall that it is opposite charges that attract.
When water freezes into ice, the positively-charged hydrogen atoms align with the negatively-charged oxygen atoms, forming an organized lattice (Figure below). In this highly-organized configuration, the molecules in ice are more widely spaced than molecules in water, resulting in a lower density that allows ice to float on top of water. This property carries many benefits for biology as ice can therefore serve as a protective barrier for the water underneath. It is capable of blocking out potentially damaging radiation and cooling water to stabilize certain compounds.
Could life outside the Earth be based on a different liquid solvent? There are a few considerations to make. If we assume that the liquid state is what is required for biochemistry, then we might consider the range of possible temperatures at which a particular chemical is liquid. This is dependent on the atmospheric pressure with the range increasing as the pressure increases. For convenience sake, the range of temperatures where various chemicals are liquid at standard atmospheric pressure (usually designated with the measurement "one atmosphere") is given in Figure XXX. The compounds which are liquid over the largest range of temperatures are constitued bypolar molecules similar to water and generally liquid at temperatures that exceed 200 K.
Scenarios where one of these other chemical compounds would be the dominant liquid on a planet's surface are subject to the availability of the chemical to the exclusion of others. This is an important consideration as water as a chemical compound is observed to be rather common throughout the universe. The instances where water is not available to act as a solvent in our own solar system are largely due to either the conditions being such so that the material is either permanently frozen solid or is in a perpetual gaseous state sometimes escaping the gravitational pull of the world entirely. In most instances, this results in a dry world with no surface liquid present in any abundance. Other than the Earth, the one exception to this in our own solar system is Saturn's moon, Titan, which has liquid methane (CH4) and ethane (C2H6) on its surface--this liquid being dominant mostly because the surface temperatures are so low.
Alternatively, subsurface liquids are known to exist in many worlds and it is likely that most of the liquid chemicals in our solar system are contained in such interior oceans. The higher interior pressures beneath solid surfaces provides for environments that are well-suited to preserving liquid state as long as there is some energy source to keep the interiors at high enough temperatures. In many moons, this energy source is derived from tidal stresses. In contrast to larger worlds, they are small enough to have lost the internal heat that was present at their formation and, unlike the Earth, far fewer radioactive elements are present, so some external source of heating is required to keep the interiors warm. The challenges of studying subsurface oceans are similar to the challenges we have on Earth in attempting to access the interior of our own planet compounded by the space travel necessary to reach these distant worlds. Thus, we have yet to directly access any of these subsurface oceans to confirm their composition, but evidence seems to point to many if not most of these subsurface oceans are water.
However, some worlds seem to have interior conditions that might not allow for liquid water. For example, there is evidence that Neptune's largest moon, Triton, has a reservoir of liquid nitrogen beneath its surface. Such cryoliquids (chemicals that are liquid at very low temperatures) could exist in contexts where temperatures were too cold for liquid water. In many cases, these cryoliquid chemicals are made of nonpolar molecules. At these incredibly low temperatures, chemistry happens at far slower rates and there are some who question whether complex organic chemistry can happen at all, but such bizarre environments are very difficult for us to test carefully since even if we can afford to run experiments at these very cold temperatures, we tend to require human-timescales to run experiments.
Alternative Nucleic Acids
The RNA World Hypothesis sets forth an intriguing possibility that the first proto-life on Earth was derived primarily from RNA and only later did lipids, polypeptides, and DNA become crucial to biochemistry. However, are DNA and RNA the only possibilities for such nucleic acids?
One possibility that briefly excited some in the news media was the claimed discovery in 2010 of a bacteria called GFAJ-1 that appeared to be based on a nucleic acid that had an arsenic backbone rather than the phosophorus backbone of DNA and RNA. Like silicon and carbon, arsenic and phosphorus share similar chemistries. Unfortunately, this claim was disputed by most independent experts who evaluated the claim and a study in 2012 showed that the organism instead of using arsenic actually still relied on phosphorus and was simply arsenic resistant.
More generally, some scientists have speculated and even created entire Xeno Nucleic Acids (XNA) in laboratory environments which use different backbones, sugars, and base pairs. Such study is part of the larger endeavor of xenobiology which involves the creation of biologically active chemicals that are not found naturally. Of course, just because such xenobiological chemicals are not found in terrestrial habitats, this does not mean there are no instances of such in the vast universe of possibilities beyond our Earth.
CRISPR (added here)
The way that atoms behave and interact is defined by their subatomic particles, and in particular the number of electrons in an atom. Here we discuss how and why atoms interact to form molecules as well as how to represent these molecules. We conclude with a deep dive on the elements most commonly found in life.
Learning Objectives
By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:
- Explain how electrons are organized within an atom, and how this relates to chemical bonding and behavior
- Describe the different types of chemical bonds that hold molecules and compounds together
- Understand the different ways molecules are represented
- Understand the most common elements found in biological reactions
Chemical Bonds
Recall that the subatomic particles within an atom, the protons, neutrons, end electrons, change the nature and behavior of an atom. Every element has a fixed number of protons (for example, hydrogen has 1 proton and carbon has 6 protons), but the number of electrons and neutrons can very. For a quick refresher, take a look at this simulation on building atoms. The number of neutrons changes the isotope of an atom and can affect the stability of the atom. The number of negatively-charged electrons in an atom can change the charge of the atom. Here, we discuss how the number of electrons in an atom also controls the number and types of chemical bonds an atom can form.
Electron Shells
We can approximate the position of electrons inside an atom as being organized into different orbital shells surrounding the nucleus, where each orbital shell represents a different energy level. In reality, it is impossible to know the exact location of the electrons in an atom as they orbit the nucleus. As such, we make use of the concept of orbital shells that represent different energy levels as a useful approximation to understand how the number and state of electrons affect the behavior of atoms.
Figure 1 shows a graphical representation of electrons organized into orbital shells around neutral hydrogen (H), carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and oxygen (O) atoms, as represented by the chemical symbol for each element. Recall that for a neutral atom, the number of electrons matches the number of protons. Black, co-centric circles represent the orbital shells for each atom; one orbital shell is shown for hydrogen while two are shown for the other three elements. The smaller, innermost circle represents the lowest energy level. The outer circle represents a higher-energy level.
Only a certain number of electrons can exist at each energy level, which places a limit on the number of electrons that can occupy each shell. The innermost and lowest energy shell can contain only two electrons. The next energy level up can contain eight electrons.
The outermost orbital shell is known as the valence shell. Electrons in this shell are called valence electrons. It is in this valence shell where bonding between atoms most typically occurs via interactions between the atoms' valence electrons. The chemistry of molecular bonds is driven by the stability of an atom with a filled valence electron shell. Atoms form chemical bonds so that they can completely fill their valence electron shell.
For example, in Figure 1 the pictured single carbon atom has four electrons in its outer valence shell. We know that this second orbital shell can hold up to eight electrons. A carbon atom with a valence shell completely filled with eight electrons is more stable, and therefore more chemical favored, than a valence shell with only four electrons.
Atoms will form chemical bonds to gain access to valence electrons that will fill their valence shells. When more than one atom bonds together, they form a molecule. These molecular bonds are typical divided into two categories: ionic bonds and covalent bonds.
Ionic Bonds
In an ionic bond, electrons are transferred from one atom to another. This results in two oppositely charged ions that are bonded by the attraction between opposite charges. For example, table salt is representative of a category of salts whose molecules are held together by ionic bonds. Table salt consists of bonded sodium (Na) and chlorine (Cl) atoms.
Sodium has one valence electron in its second orbital shell while chlorine has seven valence electrons in a valence shell that can hold eight electrons total. When sodium forms an ionic bond with chlorine, sodium "donates" its one valence electron to chlorine. Chlorine gains an electron, meaning it now has eight valence electrons and a fully filled valence shell. This transfer of electrons is shown in Figure 2.
The sodium atom, whose valence shell is now the filled second orbital shell, has a slightly positive charge. With this extra electron from sodium, the chlorine atom now carries a negative charge. The attraction between the positively and negatively charged sodium and chlorine atoms (respectively) form an ionic bond.
Covalent Bonds
In a covalent bond, the electron orbitals of two or more atoms merge into a new system that allows electron pairs to be shared equally between more than one nucleus. Most chemical bonds in biological organisms are covalent bonds.
There are different types of covalent bonds depending on the number of shared electrons between the two bonded atoms. A single bond between two atoms shares a single pair of electrons, i.e. two electrons total are shared between the two atoms. A double bond shares two pairs (four electrons) and a triple bond shares three pairs (six electrons). Double bonds are shorter and harder to break than single bonds. Triple bonds even more so.
As with all chemical bonds, the details of how and when these bonds form is dependent on an atom's valence electrons. Figure 3 portrays how two hydrogen (H) atoms and one oxygen (O) atom shares electrons to form a water molecule.
A neutral hydrogen atom has one proton and therefore one corresponding electron. With just one electron, hydrogen's valence shell is the lowest energy orbital shell, which can hold up to two electrons. Hydrogen therefore has one valence electron and needs only one additional electron to complete its valence shell.
Oxygen, with eight electrons, has two electrons in the first electron shell and six valence electrons in the second, valence shell. Oxygen needs two additional electrons to fill its outer shell and can form two single or one double bond. In water, we see that oxygen shares electrons with two hydrogen atoms. From this, oxygen acquires access to the two additional electrons it needs to fill its valence shell. Each of the three atoms remains neutral, and each atom has a completely filled outer electron shell.
Chemical Formulas
The molecules, or chemicals, that are formed due to chemical bonding can be represented in a variety of ways. Figure 4 shows examples of different representations for methane, which consists of a carbon (C) atom bond to four hydrogen (H) atoms.
A molecular formula uses an element's chemical symbol to indicate the types of atoms in a molecule followed by subscripts to show the number of atoms in the molecule. If there is no subscript, then there is only one atom of that element in the compound. With one carbon (C) atom and four hydrogen (H) atoms, methane's molecular formula is CH4. Molecular formulas are used in chemistry to specify the molecule and to understand what atoms are needed to make up the molecule.
It is important to note that a subscript following a chemical symbol and a number in front of a symbol do not represent the same thing. For example, H2 and 2H represent distinctly different species. With a subscript, H2 is the molecular formula for two hydrogen molecules bonded to each other. On the other hand, 2H indicates two separate atoms of hydrogen that are not bonded together. The expression 2H2 indicates two molecules of diatomic hydrogen (see Figure 5).
The structural formula for a molecule shows how the atoms are connected in the molecule. Both a molecular and structural formula shows how many of each atom are in a molecule, but a structural formula more clearly indicates how the atoms are bonded together to form the molecule. For methane, the structural formula (see Figure 4 b) reveals that all four hydrogen atoms are bonded to a central carbon atom.
A ball-and-stick model shows the geometric arrangement of the atoms, which are not drawn to scale. As the name suggests, atoms are represented as balls and the bonds between atoms are represented as sticks. A ball-and-stick model expands on the bonds shown in a structural model by representing these bonds in 3D. For methane, the ball-and-stick model (see Figure 4.c) reveals that the four hydrogen atoms bonded to carbon form a pyramidal structure.
A space-filling model shows the 3D arrangement of atoms drawn to scale. It therefore is similar to ball-and-stick models, but incorporates information on atom size. For methane, the space filling model (see Figure 4.d) shows that the carbon atom is much larger than the hydrogen atom. We also see that the chemical bonds between the atoms do not protrude from each atom as suggested in the ball-and-stick model.
Empirical Formulas
Isomers
With more complex molecular formulas, a variety of isomers become possible. Isomers are compounds with the exact same molecular formula but different structures. Isomers are similar in spirit to homographs---words that have the same spelling but are pronounced differently (like minute, meaning 60 seconds, and minute, meaning small). Isomers cannot be differentiated by their molecular formula alone, it is necessary to use their structural formula to identify an isomer without ambiguity.
There are different types of isomers. Structural isomers describe isomers for which the atoms in the molecules are connected in completely different arrangements. These isomers tend to be exhibit completely different behavior. Stereoisomers describe isomers that are mirror-images of each other. It is important to consider the 3D geometry of molecules (for example with a ball-and-stick or space-filling model) to understand the differences in stereoisomers. Lastly, conformers are isomers that differ only in the conformation of the atoms in the molecule. In other words, though the atoms are bonded together in the same way, molecules can twist along single bonds, which result in molecules with different confirmations.
Building Molecules
Most atoms lack some valence electrons in their outermost electron orbital and thus have the potential to form a bond. In general, a molecule is "complete" or no longer prone to reacting when all there are no empty spots for electrons in any of the valence shells of the atoms in the molecule.
You can learn more about building molecules with this Molecule Building simulation!
CHNOPS: the Most Common Elements in Life
By mass, 95% of all biological systems on Earth are either carbon (C), hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), or nitrogen (N) atoms. This dominance is sometimes referred to as CHON. With phosphorous (P) and sulfur (S), which gives us CHNOPS, these six elements make up 98% of all life on Earth. By considering the valence electrons of these elements, we can understand how they behave and react in biochemistry.
Recall from our discussion of covalent bonds above that hydrogen has one valence electron and needs only an additional electron to complete its valence shell. Because hydrogen is so close to a full valence shell, it is highly reactive---it is easy to form a bond with hydrogen. With its one electron, hydrogen can form bonds wherever valence shells need to be completed; consequently, hydrogen makes up 59% of biological compounds.
Oxygen is short just two electrons of a full valence shell, which also renders oxygen atoms quite reactive. Oxygen is also very electronegative, meaning it can attract shared electrons towards itself. In covalently bonded molecules, this means electrons will spend more time near oxygen atoms than the atom on the other end of the bond. Oxygen in molecules therefore tend to carry a negative charge. In the example of water (see Figure 3), the oxygen atom is slightly negatively charged and the hydrogen atoms are slightly positively charged. This difference in charge makes oxygen a polar molecule.
Nitrogen, with seven electrons, has five valence electrons. This means nitrogen can form up to three bonds: three single bonds, or a single and a double bond, or a triple bond. All thee options are commonly found throughout organic chemistry. Oxygen's ability to attract electrons and nitrogen's relatively weak bonding of valence electrons drive many biochemical reactions. An example of the possible bonds formed by CHON is given in Figure 7, which diagrams the covalent bonds for a molecule called glycine.
Carbon is so central to organic processes that organic chemistry is sometimes defined as the study of compounds that contain carbon. With six total electrons, carbon has four valence electrons occupying its second electron shell. This allows carbon atoms to form four bonds or a combination of single, double, and triple bonds. Carbon-carbon bonds are particularly easily made and remain very stable. This allows carbon to form large and complicated structures, such as networked lattices (e.g., graphite or diamonds), cyclic structures, and other complex molecules used throughout biology.
Carbon's ability to form four separate single bonds at once allows it to acquire the important property of chirality. Chirality is defined as the property of an object that can not be superimposed on its mirror image. The classic example, illustrated below in Figure 8, is your left and right hands. When both hands are palm up, they are mirror images of one another. If you lay your hands flat on a table, it is not possible to slide one hand over the other and match the other hand exactly. For this reason, chirality is often also referred to as "handedness".
Carbon atoms exhibit chirality when they are simultaneously bound to four different things. In such a case, the carbon atom provides a chiral center. Chirality can have a huge impact on the reactivity of a molecule in biological systems. Further details and an example is give in the next chapter, which discusses chirality in amino acids (link to anchor/section).
Phosphorus and sulfur, while relatively less abundant, are nonetheless essential to life as we know it. Phosphorus is involved in forming the borders between cells, the back bone of genetic material, and energy storage and transport in cells. Sulfur helps to ensure proteins maintain their shape and carry on important functions. These key biochemicals are discussed more in the following chapter.
Key Concepts and Summary
Biochemistry is driven by electrostatic forces to share electrons of elements as a way of balancing positive and negative charges. The electrons in covalent bonds are shared equally between two or more atoms, while ionic bonds essentially transfer a loosely bound electron to fill the valence shell of another atom. The most common elements used by life on Earth are carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen as well as phosphorus and sulfur (CHNOPS). Carbon is central to organic processes with half of its outer valence shell empty and carbon easily forms single, double and triple bonds with other elements. Just two electrons short of filling its outer valence shell, oxygen is highly reactive, driving many reactions in geology and biochemistry.
Review Questions
Exercises
- Use Molview, a free-to-use software that will allow you to build molecules (especially organic molecules) to learn about the structures of simple and complex molecules. Choose a molecule and investigate how modifying different atoms included in it will affect the structure of the molecule. Find molecules in this text or in other resources that are important for life and see if these molecules are included in its database. Alternatively, build your own molecule using its chemical formula.
Summary Questions
- How does the electronic structure of atoms affect the way atoms bond?
- What is the difference between ionic and covalent bonds?
- What information is contained in a chemical formula? What do the different letters and numbers in a chemical formula indicate?
- What are CHNOPS? How are they important for life?
- What is chirality and how does it affect the way different compounds are used by living things?
Given that we have identified the important atoms for life, the CHNOPS that we need to form living things, we now are interested in what combinations of these atoms are necessary for life to exist. In particular, there are simple and complex molecules that living things depend on to maintain the processes of life.
Chemistry, chemicals, and chemical formulas
Chemistry is the study of the arrangements of atoms. If all that existed in the universe were individual atoms, it is hard to know whether life could exist. The reality is that most the atomic material in the universe is in single-atom form, but when atoms get close enough to each other under the right conditions, they can combine to form chemical compounds (sometimes simply referred to as "chemicals"). In chemistry labs on Earth, the interest is often in looking at how different atoms are arranged with respect to other atoms to form molecules and compounds.
The atoms we use as building blocks to investigate chemistry are charge neutral when the number of electrons is exactly the same as the number of protons. For example, a hydrogen atom has one proton (by definition) and so a neutral hydrogen atom will have one electron. It is possible to create scenarios where a hydrogen atom has no electron or, alternatively, where a hydrogen atoms has two electrons. These are called “ions” of hydrogen and are indicated as carrying an electric charge since the number of protons is not equal to the number of electrons. While such situations are common if not the norm in outer space, in terrestrial laboratories the overwhelming strength of the electromagnetic forces that exist between positively and negatively charged objects mean that under most normal conditions the number of electrons and protons in a system will be the same. Since the only place we know where life occurs is in the context of such conditions, we will investigate chemistry and develop models for chemicals under those conditions.
Under terrestrial conditions, electrons in close proximity to nuclei are constrained by the rules of quantum mechanics to exist in orbitals of various energy levels, the higher the energy level, the farther away on average the electrons are from the nucleus of the atom (in much the same way as gravitational potential energy being higher the further away two masses are from each other). It is highly unusual, outside of the noble gases, to find atoms that are isolated and not in compounds because it generally is more energetically stable for the highest occupied energy level surrounding a nucleus to be filled with a maximum number of electrons because the existence of partially-filled orbitals in an energy level will allow for other electrons to get close to the nucleus and thus feel a stronger attraction to the nucleus -- an attraction that can get strong enough to form a bond between atoms. The outermost orbitals of a nucleus are known as the “valence shell” and it is here where molecular bonding most typically occurs. In the chemistry we will be investigating, we will look for “filled” valence shells which are, in the presence of lots of other molecules, the most stable configurations for molecules to have. However, we should note that in interstellar space, the density of atoms and molecules is so low that there is no particular reason that valence shells need to be filled.
The chemical reactivity of an element is largely dependent on the arrangement of electrons. Valence electrons affect chemical reactivity of an element because this determines the ease and number of chemical bonds that can form. The total number of electrons in an electrically neutral atom is equal to the number of protons (the atomic number), thus hydrogen has only one electron while carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen have 6, 7, and 8 electrons respectively. According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the first electron shell can hold two electrons and the second electron shell can hold up to eight electrons. Being electrically neutral is not the lowest energy state for many atoms. The chemistry of elements is driven by the additional stability that occurs when the valence electron shell is filled.
Bonding in chemistry is generally divided into two categories: ionic and covalent bonding. In ionic bonding, electrons are transferred from one atom to another resulting in two oppositely charged ions that are bonded together (or bonded to solvent molecules in the case of aqueous chemistry). Alternatively, covalent bonding (pictured below) occurs when the electron orbitals of two or more atoms merge into a new system that allows electron pairs to be shared between more than one nucleus.
Hydrogen needs only one electron to complete the first electron shell. If hydrogen simply added an electron, the atom would be negatively charged. Instead, atoms tend to share the electrons that are needed to complete their valence shell. If a shared electron is more tightly held by one atom, then the chemical bond is ionic and the resulting molecule will be polar, with a distortion in the electron cloud that makes one atom slightly more negative and the other atom slightly more positive. If sharing of valence electrons is more equitable, the bond is covalent and the molecule is non-polar. Most chemical bonds in biological organisms are covalent bonds. The Figure below portrays atoms that are sharing their valence shells to aggregate as molecules. Each atom remains neutral, with a completely filled outer electron shell.
A molecule of glycine, the simplest amino acid. Large, black circles represent the outermost electron shell while colored dots represent electrons. Every hydrogen atom has a full first shell with two electrons while every carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen atom has a full second electron shell with eight electrons. The bonds that are formed are shown to the right as lines between the two elements. Each hydrogen atom has formed one bond while oxygen, nitrogen and carbon have formed 2, 3, and 4 bonds respectively based on their different numbers of valence electrons.
Oxygen, with eight electrons, has two electrons in the first electron shell and six valence electrons in the second shell. Oxygen needs two additional electrons to fill its outer shell and can form two single or one double bond. Double bonds are shorter and harder to break than single bonds. Because hydrogen and oxygen are so close to a full electron shell, they are chemically aggressive ("highly reactive) in trying to complete their shells. This property makes oxygen very effective in attracting electrons from other atoms.
Nitrogen, with seven electrons, has five valence electrons. This means nitrogen can form up to three bonds: three single bonds, or a single and a double bond, or a triple bond. All thee options are commonly found throughout biochemistry. Oxygen's ability to attract electrons and nitrogen's relatively weak bonding of valence electrons drive many biochemical reactions. Hydrogen, with its one electron, can form bonds wherever shells need to be completed and makes up 59% of elements in life.
Carbon is so central to organic processes that organic chemistry is sometimes defined as the study of compounds that contain carbon. With six total electrons, carbon has four valence electrons occupying its second electron shell, allowing it to form four bonds or a combination of single, double, and triple bonds. Stable bonds form elements like carbon monoxide (CO) or carbon dioxide (CO2). Carbon-carbon bonds in particular are easily made and remain very stable, allowing carbon to form the networked lattice in graphite or diamonds, or long, cyclical structures, or long, complex hydrocarbon molecules.
Carbon's ability to form four separate bonds at once allows it to acquire the important property of chirality. Chirality is defined as the property of an object that can not be superimposed on its mirror image. The classic example, illustrated below, occurs with your left and right hands. When both hands are palm up, they are mirror images of one another. If you lay your hands flat on a table, it is not possible to slide one hand over the other and match the other hand exactly. For this reason, chirality is often also referred to as "handedness".
An example of chiral objects. Hands are chiral objects because their reflections cannot be matched up. Even though this image draws fingers rather poorly, the point is nonetheless made with the thumbs of either hand that are pointing in different directions. A symmetric vase does not have this property because its reflection is no different. Can you think of something that is not symmetric but still achiral?
Carbon atoms exhibit chirality when they are simultaneously bound to four different things. In such a case, the carbon atom provides a chiral center. Chirality can have a huge impact on the reactivity of a molecule in biological systems. An example is give in the Section below, which discusses chirality in amino acids.
Phosphorus and sulfur, while much less abundant, are nonetheless essential to life as we know it, and warrant an honorable mention with CHNOPS. Phosphorus is involved in forming the borders between cells, the back bone of DNA, and energy storage and transport in cells. Sulfur helps to ensure proteins maintain their shape and carry on important functions.
To describe the chemicals that form due to chemical bonding, we represent them using a variety of chemical formulas:
- A molecular formula is a representation of a molecule that uses chemical symbols to indicate the types of atoms followed by subscripts to show the number of atoms of each type in the molecule. (A subscript is used only when more than one atom of a given type is present.) Molecular formulas are also used as abbreviations for the names of compounds.
- The structural formula for a compound gives the same information as its molecular formula (the types and numbers of atoms in the molecule) but also shows how the atoms are connected in the molecule. The structural formula for methane contains symbols for one C atom and four H atoms, indicating the number of atoms in the molecule (Figure 2.16). The lines represent bonds that hold the atoms together. (A chemical bond is an attraction between atoms or ions that holds them together in a molecule or a crystal.) We will discuss chemical bonds and see how to predict the arrangement of atoms in a molecule later. For now, simply know that the lines are an indication of how the atoms are connected in a molecule.
- A ball-and-stick model shows the geometric arrangement of the atoms with atomic sizes not to scale
- a space-filling model shows the relative sizes of the atoms.
Although many elements consist of discrete, individual atoms, some exist as molecules made up of two or more atoms of the element chemically bonded together. For example, most samples of the elements hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen are composed of molecules that contain two atoms each (called diatomic molecules) and thus have the molecular formulas H2, O2, and N2, respectively. Other elements commonly found as diatomic molecules are fluorine (F2), chlorine (Cl2), bromine (Br2), and iodine (I2). The most common form of the element sulfur is composed of molecules that consist of eight atoms of sulfur; its molecular formula is S8 (Figure 2.17).
It is important to note that a subscript following a symbol and a number in front of a symbol do not represent the same thing; for example, H2 and 2H represent distinctly different species. H2 is a molecular formula; it represents a diatomic molecule of hydrogen, consisting of two atoms of the element that are chemically bonded together. The expression 2H, on the other hand, indicates two separate hydrogen atoms that are not combined as a unit. The expression 2H2 represents two molecules of diatomic hydrogen (Figure 2.18).
Compounds are formed when two or more elements chemically combine, resulting in the formation of bonds. For example, hydrogen and oxygen can react to form water, and sodium and chlorine can react to form table salt. We sometimes describe the composition of these compounds with an empirical formula, which indicates the types of atoms present and the simplest whole-number ratio of the number of atoms (or ions) in the compound. For example, titanium dioxide (used as pigment in white paint and in the thick, white, blocking type of sunscreen) has an empirical formula of TiO2. This identifies the elements titanium (Ti) and oxygen (O) as the constituents of titanium dioxide, and indicates the presence of twice as many atoms of the element oxygen as atoms of the element titanium (Figure 2.19).
As discussed previously, we can describe a compound with a molecular formula, in which the subscripts indicate the actual numbers of atoms of each element in a molecule of the compound. For example, it can be determined experimentally that benzene contains two elements, carbon (C) and hydrogen (H), and that for every carbon atom in benzene, there is one hydrogen atom, but an experimental determination of the molecular mass of benzene reveals that a molecule of benzene contains six carbon atoms and six hydrogen atoms, so the molecular formula for benzene is C6H6 (Figure 2.20).
We will use a compound’s formula to specify the chemical and to understand what atoms are needed to make up the molecule. For example, the molecular formula for acetic acid, the component that gives vinegar its sharp taste, is C2H4O2. This formula indicates that a molecule of acetic acid (Figure 2.21) contains two carbon atoms, four hydrogen atoms, and two oxygen atoms.
Most atoms and molecules we will consider lack some valence electrons in their outermost electron orbital and thus have the potential to form a bond. We typically represent covalent bonds in structural forumlae and ball-and-stick models with connectors that link two atoms together and thus stand for a new bonded molecular orbital where a pair of electrons is shared between two nuclei in a molecule. In general, we will consider a molecule complete when all there are no empty spots for electrons in any of the atoms in the molecule.
There are three different types of covalent bonds we will be considering: single bonds, double bonds, and triple bonds. These numbers indicate the number of shared electrons between the two bonded atoms. A single bond between two atoms shares a single pair (that is two) electrons. A double bond shares two pairs (four electrons) and a triple bond shares three pairs (six electrons). The details of how and when these different sorts of bonds form is dependent on understanding the geometry of atomic and molecular orbitals. For our purposes, we will represent single lines or rigid connectors while double and triple bonds are indicated with two or three.
Unfortunately, as molecular formulas get more complicated, there can be a variety of isomers possible, and this can create confusion. This means that there may be more than one way to use all the atoms indicated by the molecular formula and connect them to each other with all the bonds accounted for. In such instances, you need to look for a structural formula to decide which isomer is relevant. Structural formulas specify, without ambiguity, the proper way to construct the molecule.
Some isomers are considered completely different compounds with entirely different names because the atoms in the molecule are connected in completely different arrangements. These are called “structural isomers”. Others isomers may be mirror-image pairs to each other. These are called “stereoisomers”. We will deal more with stereoisomers later on in our investigation. Finally, there are some rearrangements of molecules that can happen simply by twisting the atoms in the molecule around single bonds. These are called “conformers” as they generally indicate different conformations of the molecule and do not require bonds to be broken to create the different forms.
The following are some of the simplest molecules that have been detected in outer space or are present in Earth's atmosphere in some abundance. Some are more important to life than others, but as they are simple compounds, they are important for much of basic chemistry.
water | H2O | hydrogen peroxide | H2O2 |
hydrogen gas | H2 | nitrogen gas | N2 |
carbon monoxide | CO | carbon dioxide | CO2 |
oxygen gas | O2 | ozone | O3 |
methane | CH4 | ammonia | NH3 |
hydrogen sulfide | H2S | phosphine | PH3 |
sulfur dioxide | SO2 | nitrous oxide | N2O |
hydrogen cyanide | HCN | phosphorus mononitride | PN |
Organic chemistry
Organic chemistry is a subject unto itself and began as an investigation of the chemistry of life when it was thought that only living things could create organic compounds. However, we now understand that organic chemistry is really the chemistry of carbon. Many organic molecules are rather complex and the structural formulas that are often used to describe them look simpler than the ones described above (so-called "skeletal formulas"). Here are simple rules for how to interpret a skeletal formula:
- Each vertex in a skeletal formula is a carbon atom.
- Double bonds and triple bonds are shown using two or three lines.
- Bonds that face towards the viewer are indicated with a filled triangle while bonds that face away from the viewer are indicated with striped triangle.
- Every atom that is not a carbon or a hydrogen atom is indicated explicitly at a vertex.
- Hydrogen atoms that are not connected to a carbon atom are indicated explicitly
- Hydrogen atoms that are connected to carbon atoms are omitted.
In this section, we will identify some common organic molecules that are either involved in or precursors to biochemistry. The name, chemical formula, and skeletal structural formula of each of these molecules will be indicated.
The simplest kind of organic molecule is called a "hydrocarbon". As the name suggests, hydrocarbons are molecules that contain only hydrogen and carbon. We already considered the simplest hydrocarbon, methane, above. Simple hydrocarbon chains use methane as a starting point. These saturated chain hydrocarbons are made with only single bonds between carbon and hydrogen. Each carbon is linked to two carbons and two hydrogens unless it is on the end in which case it is linked to three hydrogens.
ethane | C2H6 | propane | C3H8 | ||
butane | C4H10 | hexane | C3H8 | ||
octane | C3H8 |
It is can also be the case that organic compounds are not saturated and thus there may be double or triple bonds between carbon atoms. Here are two famous unsaturated hydrocarbons that have been detected in interstellar space.
acetylene | C2H2 | Propylene | C3H6 |
Next, we will consider more complicated hydrocarbon structures called rings. The first ring we will consider is the cyclohexane ring. This hydrocarbon shape is very important in organic chemistry and biochemistry. It consists of six carbon atoms in a ring with the rest of the bonds taken up by hydrogen atoms. There are two conformers of the hexane ring. Known as chair cyclohexane and boat cyclohexane which are distinguished between each other by the way the bonds are oriented in the molecule. Note that cyclohexane can fairly easily flip back and forth between the two conformers which means that these are not enantiomers or chiral copies (unlike examples we will see later).
Chair cyclohexane | C6H12 | |
Boat cyclohexane | C6H12 |
If instead of single bonds, half of the bonds in the ring of six carbons are double bonds, the compound benzene is formed. This hydrocarbon shape is also very important in organic chemistry and biochemistry. Moreover, benzene has been detected in interstellar space. Benzene consists of six carbon atoms that are bonded in a single bond to one adjacent carbon atom and a double bond to another. In reality, however, this alternating single-double bond configuration is only an approximation of the actual bonds that are happening which are actually something more akin to 1.5 bonds shared between every adjacent carbon atom. If you study the molecular orbitals, it becomes obvious how this can occur, but in our situation we must approximate it through alternating single and double bonds.
benzene | C6H6 |
When comparing the two hydrocarbon rings the difference between their 3-D geometries that is most apparent is that benzene is flat or planar while cyclohexane has a three-dimensional form.
Now we will consider carbon all by itself. Carbon can form many interesting structures even isolated, and depending on how the bonds happen, there will be different properties of the resulting material. These different forms are called the allotropes of carbon. The two most common allotropes of carbon are graphite and diamond. Graphite shares many bonding features with the benzene ring but the hydrogens are replaced with carbon atoms that are connected to other rings. This forms a planar graphite structure that can explain the flakiness and flat physical properties of graphite. To form a model of the diamond structure, a modeler can start with the chair hexane ring and replace the hydrogen with carbons. Other chair hexane rings can branch off to form a sturdy and 3-D crystal structure that explains some of hardness and crystal properties of diamond. Other allotropes of carbon have been discovered as well with one of the more unique ones being fullerene where sixty carbons are bonded together to form a soccer-ball shaped molecule. There have been some spectroscopic observations that indicate this sort of molecule may be found in interstellar dust.
graphite | C | |
diamond | C | |
fullererne | C60 |
Adding other atoms to the hydrogens and carbons we've been considering up until now greatly increases the possibilities for organic chemistry. If we consider oxygen-contained molecules as well, a new variety of organic molecules is seen. An oxygen attached to a hydrogen is called a “hydroxyl” group and is extremely important to biochemistry. The simplest hydroxyl containing organic molecules are called "alcohols" and a few have been discovered in interstellar space.
methanol | CH3OH | ethanol | C2H5OH | ||
ethylene glycol | C2H4(OH)2 | vinyl alcohol | C2H3OH |
An organic molecule that has a double-bonded oxygen on one end is called an “aldehyde”. The oxygen double bonded to a carbon is called a “carbonyl” group, and at least three aldehydes have been detected in interstellar space
formaldehyde | CH2O | glycolaldehyde | C2H4O2 | ||
propionaldehyde | C3H6O |
An organic molecule with a carbonyl group in the middle of a chain is called a “ketone” with at least two, acetone and cyclopropenone, detected in interstellar space. If there is a carbonyl group bonded to a hydroxyl group on the same carbon, the results is an organic acid. Two organic acids, formic acid and acetic acid, have been detected in interstellar space. If an organic acid and an alcohol react with each other, a molecule of water and an ester can be formed. Esters are known to produce many of the scents most easily detected by humans, and two, ethyl formate and methyl acetate, have been detected in interstellar space. Finally, if two alcohols react with each other, a molecule of water and an ether can be formed. Ethers are extremely important in biochemistry as their chemistry features in carbohydrates and biopolymers. The only ether detected in interstellar space so far has been dimethyl ether.
acetone | C3H6O | cyclopropenone | C3H2O | ||
formic acid | CH2O2 | acetic acid | C2H4O2 | ||
ethyl formate | C3H6O2 | methyl acetate | C3H6O2 | ||
dimethyl ether | C3H6O |
Now let’s add nitrogen to our organic molecules. All such molecules are based in part on the chemistry of ammonia. An amine is ammonia with one of the hydrogens replaced with a different functional group while an amide is the same except it is bonded first to a carbonyl and then to a different functional group. Two amines, methyl amine and aminoacetonitrile, and three amides, urea, methanamide, and acetamide, have been discovered in interstellar space .
methyl amine | CH3NH2 | aminoacetonitrile | C2H4N2 | ||
urea | CO(NH2)2 | methanamide | CHONH2 | ||
acetamide | C2H3NH2 |
Molecules with sulfur and phosphorus have also been discovered. The three organosulfides that have been detected by astronomers are methyl mercaptan, thiocyanic acid, and thioformaldehyde while one organic compounds containing phosophorus have been identified: phosphaethyne.
methyl mercaptan | CH4S | thiocyanic acid | CHSN | ||
thioformaldehyde | CH2S | phosphaethyne | CHP |
Though not yet discovered in astronomical contexts, carbohydrates are important organic compounds in biochemistry and will be of interest to us for later modeling. One important class of carbohydrates are the sugars. Sugars are complicated enough that they often come in a variety of forms including some that are stereoisomers meaning that they have distinguishable characteristics from their mirror images. As described above, this feature is known as "chirality". “Chirality” refers to the property that left and right human hands have in that the left and right are mirror images of each other, but there is no way in three dimensional space to move the right hand so that it matches the left (try it yourself!). This is the relationship that enantiomers have with each other. In general, only one enantiomer of a chiral molecule will be biochemically active. For example, certain enantiomers of sugars cannot be digested by many living things even though their chemistry is essentially the same (you would still be able to taste them as sweet, for example). For amino acids and nucleic acids that undergo interactions that depend highly upon precise “key and lock” type matching between one molecule and another, this becomes extremely important.
glucose | ||
sucrose | ||
ribose |
The Flag of the Earth
In assessing the possibility that life could exist on another world, one of the first questions to ask is: "Is it in the habitable zone?". The habitable zone around a star is the region in which the temperature on the surface of the planet would be in the proper range to allow liquid water to exist. If a planet does fall into the habitable zone around its host star, we cannot immediately conclude that life exists but it is a useful starting point in looking for other worlds that contain life.
Defining the Habitable Zone Around a Star
One of the mantra's in Astrobiology is "Follow the water!". This makes sense from our Earthly perspective, since absolutely all life on Earth requires liquid water. On Earth, where there is water, there is life. Of course, other liquids could serve this same purpose in other environments, but we stay focused on liquid water for defining the habitable zone around a star.
The habitable zone around a star is the region where the conditions are appropriate for liquid water to exist on the surface of a world. Sometimes this region is called the "Goldilocks Zone," in analogy to the fairly Tale Goldilocks and The Three Bears and the "just right" temperature for porridge (not too hot or too cold).
Strictly speaking, this means that a planet in the habitable zone has a temperature in the range between the freezing point and the melting point of water: 273 K - 373 K (which is 0°C - 100°C, or 32°F - 212°F). But this is too simplistic, as the presence of liquid water depends not only on temperature but on the surface pressure of a world and whether there is an atmosphere. As we will see when we add in a discussion of the Greenhouse effect, which is essential to consider for any planet or moon with an atmosphere, determining whether or not a world that is in the habitable zone could actually harbor any life requires more information. For example, the Moon is in the habitable zone around the Sun but it is not a habitable world. While we tend to mainly think of rocky worlds as places that can harbor life -- as life on Earth likely began at the liquid water-land boundary -- many exoplanets that are gas giants fall into the habitable zone around their star. The first exoplanet detected around a Sun-like star, 51 Pegasi b, is actually a gas giant.
Let's start by looking at the habitable zone in our own solar system, as shown in Figure 1. Currently, the Sun is about halfway through its life, with an age of about 4.6 billion years. Over time, the Sun will get hotter and the habitable zone around it will shift further away from the Sun -- we discuss this point further in the X section below. Today, the Earth and Mars fall into the Sun's habitable zone; Venus is too close to the Sun for liquid water oceans to exist on its surface -- any previous liquid water has completely evaporated. The Earth is at a distance of 1 AU from the Sun. What are the inner and outer boundaries of the Sun's habitable zone?
Two ranges for the habitable zone are often quoted: one is a conservative estimate, with a more narrow range of distances, and the second is the optimistic estimate, which is wider. The conservative estimate accounts for changes due to water in a planet's upper atmosphere that can lead to a "moist" greenhouse effect, which sets in earlier than the "runaway" greenhouse effect. For the Sun, the conservative range is 0.95 - 1.37 AU, while the optimistic range extends the borders to 0.85 - 1.7 AU. Figure 1 shows the optimistic habitable zone around the Sun; the conservative estimate would not include Mars, which is 1.5 AU from the Sun.
The box below shows an examples of how to calculate the boundaries for the habitable zone around a star, just using the freezing and boiling points of water to set the boundaries. (
The Boundaries of the Habitable Zone Around a Star
A simple way to approximate the inner boundary of the habitable zone is to calculate the distance from the star where the temperature is equal to the boiling point of water. The outer boundary of the habitable zone is calculated as the distance from the star where the temperature would equal the freezing point of water.
Recall from the Stefan-Boltzmann law that the luminosity (total power output) of a star is:
[latex] L = \sigma T^4 4 \pi d^2 [/latex]
where [latex] 4 \pi d^2 [/latex] is the surface area that the light from the star has reached at the distance d from the star. By taking the ratio of these values and using the conservative inner and outer habitable zone boundaries for our solar system (dinner,Earth = 0.95 AU and douter,Earth = 1.37 AU), we obtain the following relationships:
[latex] d_{inner,star} = 0.95 \sqrt{L_{star}/L_{Sun}} [/latex] AU
[latex] d_{outer,star}= 1.37 \sqrt{L_{star}/L_{Sun}} [/latex] AU
For example, let's calculate the habitable zone around the star Pegasi 51 (this is the star that 51 Pegasi b orbits). A quick search shows that the luminosity of Pegasi 51 is 1.3 times more than the Sun: L51 Peg = 1.3 LSun. In one step, we can put this luminosity into the reltionships above and find that the inner and outer boundaries for the habitable zone around 51 Peg are dinner = 1.08 AU and douter = 1.56 AU.
- Calculate the inner and outer boundaries of the habitable zone around the star TRAPPIST-1.
- Calculate the optimistic habitable zone boundaries around TRAPPIST-1.
[Ans: (1) dinner = 0.022 AU, douter = 0.032 AU; (2) 0.020 - 0.040 AU]
The Greenhouse Effect: Venus, Earth & Mars
Although they are very different places today, the planets Venus, Earth and Mars all started out with very similar conditions. They all formed at roughly the same time from materials in the solar nebula, meaning that they all started off with the same compositions mixed together in a hot liquid. As these molten planets cooled, their interiors differentiated and their early atmospheres and oceans formed. The materials in the atmosphere came primarily from volcanic outgassing with some contributions possibly from impacts from comets (all three planets experienced many impacts during the Late Heavy Bombardment from 4.1 - 3.8 Gyr ago). Some materials that were outgassed include a mix of CHONS: sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2), and ammonia (NH3). Note that there was no O2 in these early atmospheres, as oxygen will quickly bond with other elements once it enters the atmosphere. Oxygen in Earth's atmosphere is a byproduct of life.
Today, the Earth's atmosphere is dominated by molecular nitrogen (N2) and oxygen while both Mars and Venus have atmospheres almost entirely dominated by CO2. These differences can be explained by considering both the size and distance from the Sun of Venus and Mars.
Exoplanetary Habitable Zones
Galactic Habitable Zone
In assessing the possibility that life could exist on another world, one of the first questions to ask is: "Is it in the habitable zone?". The habitable zone around a star is the region in which the temperature on the surface of the planet would be in the proper range to allow liquid water to exist. If a planet does fall into the habitable zone around its host star, we cannot immediately conclude that life exists but it is a useful starting point in looking for other worlds that contain life.
Defining the Habitable Zone Around a Star
One of the mantra's in Astrobiology is "Follow the water!". This makes sense from our Earthly perspective, since absolutely all life on Earth requires liquid water. On Earth, where there is water, there is life. Of course, other liquids could serve this same purpose in other environments, but we stay focused on liquid water for defining the habitable zone around a star.
The habitable zone around a star is the region where the temperature is appropriate for liquid water to exist on the surface of a world. Sometimes this region is called the "Goldilocks Zone," an analogy to the fairly tale Goldilocks and The Three Bears and the "just right" temperature for porridge (not too hot or too cold).
Strictly speaking, this means that a planet in the habitable zone has a temperature in the range between the freezing point and the melting point of water: 273-373 K (which is 0-100°C, or 32-212°F). While this may seem simplistic, as the presence of liquid water depends not only on temperature but on the surface pressure of a world and whether there is an atmosphere, it is a good way to begin the process of identifying potentially habitable exoplanets around another star. Other factors can then be considered to rule out the world as being habitable. For example, the Moon is in the habitable zone around the Sun but it is not a habitable world; the Moon is much smaller than the Earth and has lost all of its internal heat. While we tend to mainly think of rocky worlds as places that can harbor life -- as life on Earth likely began at the liquid water-land boundary -- many exoplanets that are gas giants fall into the habitable zone around their star. The first exoplanet detected around a Sun-like star, 51 Pegasi b, is actually a gas giant.
Let's start by looking at the habitable zone in our own solar system, as shown in Figure 1. Currently, the Sun is about halfway through its life, with an age of about 4.6 billion years. Over time, the Sun will get hotter and the habitable zone around it will shift further away from the Sun -- we discuss this point further in the X section below. Today, the Earth and Mars fall into the Sun's habitable zone; Venus is too close to the Sun for liquid water oceans to exist on its surface -- any previous liquid water has completely evaporated. The Earth is at a distance of 1 AU from the Sun. What are the inner and outer boundaries of the Sun's habitable zone?
Two ranges for the habitable zone are often quoted: one is a conservative estimate, with a more narrow range of distances, and the second is the optimistic estimate, which is wider. The conservative estimate accounts for changes due to water in a planet's upper atmosphere that can lead to a "moist" greenhouse effect, which sets in earlier than the "runaway" greenhouse effect. For the Sun, the conservative range is 0.95 - 1.37 AU, while the optimistic range extends the borders to 0.85 - 1.7 AU. Figure 1 shows the optimistic habitable zone around the Sun; the conservative estimate would not include Mars, which is 1.5 AU from the Sun.
The box below shows an example of how to estimate the boundaries for the habitable zone around any star.
The Boundaries of the Habitable Zone Around a Star
A simple way to approximate the inner boundary of the habitable zone is to calculate the distance from the star where the temperature is equal to the boiling point of water. The outer boundary of the habitable zone is calculated as the distance from the star where the temperature would equal the freezing point of water.
Recall from the Stefan-Boltzmann law that the luminosity (total power output) of a star is:
[latex] L = \sigma T^4 4 \pi d^2 [/latex]
where is the distance d from the star. By taking the ratio of these values and using the conservative inner and outer habitable zone boundaries for our solar system (dinner,Earth = 0.95 AU and douter,Earth = 1.37 AU), we obtain the following relationships:
[latex] d_{inner,star} = 0.95 \sqrt{L_{star}/L_{Sun}} [/latex] AU
[latex] d_{outer,star}= 1.37 \sqrt{L_{star}/L_{Sun}} [/latex] AU
For example, let's calculate the habitable zone boundaries around the star Pegasi 51 (this is the star that 51 Pegasi b orbits). A quick search shows that the luminosity of Pegasi 51 is 1.3 times more than the Sun: L51 Peg = 1.3 LSun. In one step, we can put this luminosity into the reltionships above and find that the inner and outer boundaries for the habitable zone around 51 Peg are dinner = 1.08 AU and douter = 1.56 AU.
- Calculate the inner and outer boundaries of the habitable zone around the star TRAPPIST-1.
- Calculate the optimistic habitable zone boundaries around TRAPPIST-1.
[Ans: (1) dinner = 0.022 AU, douter = 0.032 AU; (2) 0.020 - 0.040 AU]
The Greenhouse Effect: Venus, Earth & Mars
Although they are very different places today, the planets Venus, Earth and Mars all started out with very similar conditions. They all formed at roughly the same time from materials in the solar nebula, meaning that they all started off with the same compositions mixed together in a hot liquid. As these molten planets cooled, their interiors differentiated and their early atmospheres and oceans formed. The materials in the atmosphere came primarily from volcanic outgassing with some contributions possibly from impacts from comets (all three planets experienced many impacts during the Late Heavy Bombardment from 4.1 - 3.8 Gyr ago). Some materials that were outgassed include a mix of CHONS: sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2), and ammonia (NH3). Note that there was no O2 in these early atmospheres, as oxygen will quickly bond with other elements once it enters the atmosphere. Oxygen in Earth's atmosphere is a byproduct of life.
Today, the Earth's atmosphere is dominated by molecular nitrogen (N2) and oxygen while both Mars and Venus have atmospheres almost entirely dominated by CO2. These differences can be explained by considering both the size and distance from the Sun of Venus and Mars.
Venus | Earth | Mars | |
Mass | 0.82 | 1 | 0.12 |
Radius | 0.95 | 1 | 0.53 |
Distance from the Sun (AU) | 0.72 | 1.00 | 1.52 |
Surface gravity | 0.91 | 1 | 0.38 |
Atmospheric pressure | 90 | 1 | 0.007 |
The Earth and Venus are actually very close in size while Mars is significantly smaller. Table 1 summarizes the data. In terms of radius, Venus is a little smaller than the Earth (82% Earth's size) while Mars has just 12% the radius of Earth. This means that Mars likely has already lost most or all of its internal heat while Venus may still retain internal heat to this day that can drive geological activity. The surface gravity of Venus is very close to the Earth's (at 91%) while Mars has only 38% the surface gravity of Earth. This means that it is much easier for any atmosphere Mars had in the past to be lost to space, and this is consistent with the extremely thin atmosphere that Mars holds onto today.
Equilibrium Temperature
It is quite possible that for the first billion years, Venus had a moderate temperature atmosphere, surface water, and perhaps even life. However, because Venus is closer to the Sun, it intercepts more energy than the Earth. Liquid water would have gradually evaporated, forming a potent greenhouse gas that trapped more solar energy, leading to a positive feedback loop that further warmed the planet, driving water out of the crust of Venus. Ultraviolet radiation dissociates water molecules into its component atoms of hydrogen and oxygen. The Venus Express spacecraft, launched in 2005 by the European Space Agency (ESA), has measured the escape of hydrogen and oxygen (roughly in a ratio of 2:1) from the upper atmosphere of Venus. Over the 4.56 billion year lifetime of the planet, Venus has lost its water. Carbon dioxide is chemically bound in the crust of Earth rocks. However, in the presence of a hot, dry Venusian climate, carbon dioxide would evaporate out of the mantle of the planet, producing the heavy CO2 atmosphere observed today. The current condition of Venus is the fate of an Earth-like planet that is too close to its star to retain liquid surface water.
Considering that the amount of energy from the Sun received by a planet should be equal to the amount of energy emitted by the planet, we can calculate the equilibrium temperature of a planet (see Box 2 below for details). The equilibrium temperature of Venus and Earth are Teq,Venus = 220 K and Teq,Earth = 255 K. How does this compare with the actual measured values at the surface of Venus and Earth? The actual temperature at the surface of Venus is 730 K (457°C)! The Earth's actual surface temperature is 288 K (15°C), putting it right into the habitable zone range for liquid water. The Greenhouse effect is often portrayed in a negative way, as it is the increase of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere that is causing the global temperature to rise -- and this is a real concern if Earth is to avoid the fate of Venus prematurely. However, keep in mind that without a Greenhouse effect the Earth would be an ice ball!
Calculating the Equilibrium Temperature of a Planet
Stefan-Boltzmann law + planetary albedo. Energy in = Energy out
- Earth
- Venus
- find for Mars
Exoplanetary Habitable Zones
The discussion of the habitable so far has focused on the Sun. However, we can intuitively imagine how the habitable zone would differ for stars that are hotter and cooler than the Sun.
Thought Question: How do you expect the habitable zone to look for a star hotter than the Sun? Will it be closer, further, or the same distance away from the star as the Sun's habitable zone? Will it be narrower or wider, or the same width as the Sun's habitable zone? Now answer the same question for a star that is cooler than the Sun.
Show Answer
The Continuous Habitable Zone
Galactic Habitable Zone
In assessing the possibility that life could exist on another world, one of the first questions to ask is: "Is it in the habitable zone?". The habitable zone around a star is the region in which the temperature on the surface of the planet would be in the proper range to allow liquid water to exist. If a planet does fall into the habitable zone around its host star, we cannot immediately conclude that life exists but it is a useful starting point in looking for other worlds that contain life.
Defining the Habitable Zone Around a Star
One of the mantra's in Astrobiology is "Follow the water!". This makes sense from our Earthly perspective, since absolutely all life on Earth requires liquid water. On Earth, where there is water, there is life. Of course, other liquids could serve this same purpose in other environments, but we stay focused on liquid water for defining the habitable zone around a star.
The habitable zone around a star is the region where the temperature is appropriate for liquid water to exist on the surface of a world. Sometimes this region is called the "Goldilocks Zone," an analogy to the fairly tale Goldilocks and The Three Bears and the "just right" temperature for porridge (not too hot or too cold).
Strictly speaking, this means that a planet in the habitable zone has a temperature in the range between the freezing point and the melting point of water: 273-373 K (which is 0-100°C, or 32-212°F). While this may seem simplistic, as the presence of liquid water depends not only on temperature but on the surface pressure of a world and whether there is an atmosphere, it is a good way to begin the process of identifying potentially habitable exoplanets around another star. Other factors can then be considered to rule out the world as being habitable. For example, the Moon is in the habitable zone around the Sun but it is not a habitable world; the Moon is much smaller than the Earth and has lost all of its internal heat. While we tend to mainly think of rocky worlds as places that can harbor life -- as life on Earth likely began at the liquid water-land boundary -- many exoplanets that are gas giants fall into the habitable zone around their star. The first exoplanet detected around a Sun-like star, 51 Pegasi b, is actually a gas giant.
Let's start by looking at the habitable zone in our own solar system, as shown in Figure 1. Currently, the Sun is about halfway through its life, with an age of about 4.6 billion years. Over time, the Sun will get hotter and the habitable zone around it will shift further away from the Sun -- we discuss this point further in the Continuous Habitable Zone section below. Today, the Earth and Mars fall into the Sun's habitable zone; Venus is too close to the Sun for liquid water oceans to exist on its surface -- any previous liquid water has completely evaporated. The Earth is at a distance of 1 AU from the Sun. What are the inner and outer boundaries of the Sun's habitable zone?
Two ranges for the habitable zone are often quoted: one is a conservative estimate, with a more narrow range of distances, and the second is the optimistic estimate, which is wider. The conservative estimate accounts for changes due to water in a planet's upper atmosphere that can lead to a "moist" greenhouse effect, which sets in earlier than the "runaway" greenhouse effect. For the Sun, the conservative range is 0.95 - 1.37 AU, while the optimistic range extends the borders to 0.85 - 1.7 AU. Figure 1 shows the optimistic habitable zone around the Sun; the conservative estimate would not include Mars, which is 1.5 AU from the Sun.
The box below shows an example of how to estimate the boundaries for the habitable zone around any star.
The Boundaries of the Habitable Zone Around a Star
A simple way to approximate the inner boundary of the habitable zone is to calculate the distance from the star where the temperature is equal to the boiling point of water. The outer boundary of the habitable zone is calculated as the distance from the star where the temperature would equal the freezing point of water.
Recall from the Stefan-Boltzmann law that the luminosity (total power output) of a star is:
[latex] L = \sigma T^4 4 \pi d^2 [/latex]
where is the distance d from the star. By taking the ratio of these values and using the conservative inner and outer habitable zone boundaries for our solar system (dinner,Earth = 0.95 AU and douter,Earth = 1.37 AU), we obtain the following relationships:
[latex] d_{inner,star} = 0.95 \sqrt{L_{star}/L_{Sun}} [/latex] AU
[latex] d_{outer,star}= 1.37 \sqrt{L_{star}/L_{Sun}} [/latex] AU
For example, let's calculate the habitable zone boundaries around the star TRAPPIST-1. A quick search shows that the luminosity of TRAPPIST-1 is less than just one-thousandth of the luminosity of the the Sun: L51 Peg = 0.00052 LSun. In one step, we can put this luminosity into the relationships above and find that the inner and outer boundaries for the habitable zone around TRAPPIST-1 are dinner = 0.022 AU and douter = 0.032 AU. In our solar system, Mercury is 0.39 AU, so the habitable zone for TRAPPIST-1 is extremely close to the star compared with our habitable zone.
- Calculate the inner and outer boundaries of the habitable zone around the star Pegasi 51 (this is the star that 51 Pegasi b orbits).
- Calculate the optimistic habitable zone boundaries around Pegasi 51.
[Ans: (1) dinner = 1.08 AU, douter = 1.56 AU; (2) 0.97 - 1.94 AU. Note that a luminosity of 1.3 LSun was used for these calculations.]
Comparing Venus, Earth & Mars
Although they are very different places today, the planets Venus, Earth and Mars all started out with very similar conditions. They all formed at the same time from materials in the solar nebula, meaning that they all started off with the same compositions mixed together in a hot liquid. As these molten planets cooled, their interiors differentiated and their early atmospheres and oceans formed. The materials in the atmosphere came primarily from volcanic outgassing with some contributions possibly from impacts from comets (all three planets experienced many impacts during the Late Heavy Bombardment from 4.1 - 3.8 Gyr ago). Some materials that were outgassed include a mix of CHONS: sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2), and ammonia (NH3). Note that there was no free O2 in these early atmospheres, as oxygen will quickly bond with other elements once it enters the atmosphere. Oxygen in Earth's atmosphere is a byproduct of life.
Today, the Earth's atmosphere is dominated by molecular nitrogen (N2) and oxygen while both Mars and Venus have atmospheres almost entirely dominated by CO2. These differences can be explained by considering both the size and distance from the Sun of Venus and Mars.
Venus | Earth | Mars | |
Mass | 0.82 | 1 | 0.12 |
Radius | 0.95 | 1 | 0.53 |
Distance from the Sun (AU) | 0.72 | 1.00 | 1.52 |
Surface gravity | 0.91 | 1 | 0.38 |
Atmospheric pressure | 90 | 1 | 0.007 |
Main atmospheric gas(es) | CO2 | N2, O2 | CO2 |
The Earth and Venus are actually very close in size while Mars is significantly smaller. Table 1 summarizes the data. In terms of radius, Venus is a little smaller than the Earth (82% Earth's size) while Mars has just 12% the radius of Earth. This means that Mars likely has already lost most or all of its internal heat while Venus may still retain internal heat to this day that can drive geological activity. The surface gravity of Venus is very close to the Earth's (at 91%) while Mars has only 38% the surface gravity of Earth. This means that it is much easier for any atmosphere Mars had in the past to be lost to space, and this is consistent with the extremely thin atmosphere that Mars holds onto today. We devote an entire chapter to exploring the possibility of water (and life) on Mars.
It is quite possible that for the first billion years, Venus had a moderate temperature atmosphere, surface water, and perhaps even life. However, because Venus is closer to the Sun, it intercepts more energy than the Earth. Liquid water would have gradually evaporated, forming a potent greenhouse gas that trapped more solar energy, leading to a positive feedback loop that further warmed the planet, driving water out of the crust of Venus. Ultraviolet radiation dissociates water molecules into its component atoms of hydrogen and oxygen. The Venus Express spacecraft, launched in 2005 by the European Space Agency (ESA), has measured the escape of hydrogen and oxygen (roughly in a ratio of 2:1) from the upper atmosphere of Venus. Over the 4.56 billion year lifetime of the planet, Venus has lost its water. Carbon dioxide is chemically bound in the crust of Earth rocks. However, in the presence of a hot, dry Venusian climate, carbon dioxide would evaporate out of the mantle of the planet, producing the heavy CO2 atmosphere observed today. The current condition of Venus is the fate of an Earth-like planet that is too close to its star to retain liquid surface water.
Equilibrium Temperature
Considering that the amount of energy from the Sun received by a planet should be equal to the amount of energy emitted by the planet, we can calculate the equilibrium temperature of a planet (see Box 2 below for details). The equilibrium temperature of Venus and Earth are Teq,Venus = 220 K and Teq,Earth = 255 K. How does this compare with the actual measured values at the surface of Venus and Earth? The actual temperature at the surface of Venus is 730 K (457°C)! The Earth's actual surface temperature is 288 K (15°C), putting it right into the habitable zone range for liquid water. The Greenhouse effect is often portrayed in a negative way, as it is the increase of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere that is causing the global temperature to rise -- and this is a real concern if Earth is to avoid the fate of Venus prematurely. However, keep in mind that without a Greenhouse effect the Earth would be an ice ball!
Calculating the Equilibrium Temperature of a Planet
Stefan-Boltzmann law + planetary albedo. Energy in = Energy out
- Earth
- Venus
- find for Mars
Exoplanetary Habitable Zones
The discussion of the habitable so far has focused on the Sun. However, we can intuitively imagine how the habitable zone would differ for stars that are hotter and cooler than the Sun.
Thought Question: How do you expect the habitable zone to look for a star hotter than the Sun? Will it be closer, further, or the same distance away from the star as the Sun's habitable zone? Will it be narrower or wider, or the same width as the Sun's habitable zone? Now answer the same question for a star that is cooler than the Sun.
Show Answer
As seen in Figure X, a star hotter than the Sun (such as those with spectral types OBAF) has a wider habitable zone that is further away from the Sun. This makes sense, as a hotter star on the Main Sequence has a higher luminosity and thus more energy reaches the planet than from a cooler star. Because there is more of it, this energy can spread further before the temperature dips below the freezing point of water, so the habitable zone is wider. The same logic can be applied to the cooler stat, which has a narrower habitable zone that is closer to the star.
Let's look at the habitable zone around the star TRAPPIST-1, which we considered above. You can see a nice animation of the habitable zone for TRAPPIST-1 at https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/eyes-on-exoplanets/#/system/TRAPPIST-1/. The inner and outer boundaries of TRAPPIST-1's habitable zone were estimated to be from 0.022-0.032 AU. This is exemplified by seeing that the TRAPPIST-1 system needs to be zoomed in 25-times for it to be compared on the same image as our solar system.
The habitable zone for different spectral type stars is summarized in Figure X, where
The Continuous Habitable Zone
The Sun is getting more luminous as it ages. This means that over time the habitable zone around the Sun will be pushed further away, and eventually Earth will be in the "too hot" zone. This is true of all stars on the Main Sequence (link to H-R diagram)
(Galactic Habitable Zone)
Activities and Exercises
- Generate the habitable zone around another star. Choose an exoplanetary system that you think could have some habitable planets. [Try http://astro.twam.info/hz/ (my fave, just email owner to be sure its okay to use the sim) or https://ccnmtl.github.io/astro-simulations/circumstellar-habitable-zone-simulator/]
- Greenhouse effect PHeT sim
Quiz
In assessing the possibility that life could exist on another world, one of the first questions to ask is: "Is it in the habitable zone?". The habitable zone around a star is the region in which the temperature on the surface of the planet would be in the proper range to allow liquid water to exist. If a planet does fall into the habitable zone around its host star, we cannot immediately conclude that life exists but it is a useful starting point in looking for other worlds that contain life.
Defining the Habitable Zone Around a Star
One of the mantra's in Astrobiology is "Follow the water!". This makes sense from our Earthly perspective, since absolutely all life on Earth requires liquid water. On Earth, where there is water, there is life. Of course, other liquids could serve this same purpose in other environments, but we stay focused on liquid water for defining the habitable zone around a star.
The habitable zone around a star is the region where the temperature is appropriate for liquid water to exist on the surface of a world. Sometimes this region is called the "Goldilocks Zone," an analogy to the fairly tale Goldilocks and The Three Bears and the "just right" temperature for porridge (not too hot or too cold).
Strictly speaking, this means that a planet in the habitable zone has a temperature in the range between the freezing point and the melting point of water: 273-373 K (which is 0-100°C, or 32-212°F). While this may seem simplistic, as the presence of liquid water depends not only on temperature but on the surface pressure of a world and whether there is an atmosphere, it is a good way to begin the process of identifying potentially habitable exoplanets around another star. Other factors can then be considered to rule out the world as being habitable. For example, the Moon is in the habitable zone around the Sun but it is not a habitable world; the Moon is much smaller than the Earth and has lost all of its internal heat. While we tend to mainly think of rocky worlds as places that can harbor life -- as life on Earth likely began at the liquid water-land boundary -- many exoplanets that are gas giants fall into the habitable zone around their star. The first exoplanet detected around a Sun-like star, 51 Pegasi b, is actually a gas giant.
Let's start by looking at the habitable zone in our own solar system, as shown in Figure 1. Currently, the Sun is about halfway through its life, with an age of about 4.6 billion years. Over time, the Sun will get hotter and the habitable zone around it will shift further away from the Sun -- we discuss this point further in the Continuous Habitable Zone section below. Today, the Earth and Mars fall into the Sun's habitable zone; Venus is too close to the Sun for liquid water oceans to exist on its surface -- any previous liquid water has completely evaporated. The Earth is at a distance of 1 AU from the Sun. What are the inner and outer boundaries of the Sun's habitable zone?
Two ranges for the habitable zone are often quoted: one is a conservative estimate, with a more narrow range of distances, and the second is the optimistic estimate, which is wider. The conservative estimate accounts for changes due to water in a planet's upper atmosphere that can lead to a "moist" greenhouse effect, which sets in earlier than the "runaway" greenhouse effect. For the Sun, the conservative range is 0.95 - 1.37 AU, while the optimistic range extends the borders to 0.85 - 1.7 AU. Figure 1 shows the optimistic habitable zone around the Sun; the conservative estimate would not include Mars, which is 1.5 AU from the Sun.
The box below shows an example of how to estimate the boundaries for the habitable zone around any star.
The Boundaries of the Habitable Zone Around a Star
A simple way to approximate the inner boundary of the habitable zone is to calculate the distance from the star where the temperature is equal to the boiling point of water. The outer boundary of the habitable zone is calculated as the distance from the star where the temperature would equal the freezing point of water.
Recall from the Stefan-Boltzmann law that the luminosity (total power output) of a star is:
[latex] L = \sigma T^4 4 \pi d^2 [/latex]
where is the distance d from the star. By taking the ratio of these values and using the conservative inner and outer habitable zone boundaries for our solar system (dinner,Earth = 0.95 AU and douter,Earth = 1.37 AU), we obtain the following relationships:
[latex] d_{inner,star} = 0.95 \sqrt{L_{star}/L_{Sun}} [/latex] AU
[latex] d_{outer,star}= 1.37 \sqrt{L_{star}/L_{Sun}} [/latex] AU
For example, let's calculate the habitable zone boundaries around the star TRAPPIST-1. A quick search shows that the luminosity of TRAPPIST-1 is less than just one-thousandth of the luminosity of the the Sun: L51 Peg = 0.00052 LSun. In one step, we can put this luminosity into the relationships above and find that the inner and outer boundaries for the habitable zone around TRAPPIST-1 are dinner = 0.022 AU and douter = 0.032 AU. In our solar system, Mercury is 0.39 AU, so the habitable zone for TRAPPIST-1 is extremely close to the star compared with our habitable zone.
- Calculate the inner and outer boundaries of the habitable zone around the star Pegasi 51 (this is the star that 51 Pegasi b orbits).
- Calculate the optimistic habitable zone boundaries around Pegasi 51.
[Ans: (1) dinner = 1.08 AU, douter = 1.56 AU; (2) 0.97 - 1.94 AU. Note that a luminosity of 1.3 LSun was used for these calculations.]
Comparing Venus, Earth & Mars
Although they are very different places today, the planets Venus, Earth and Mars all started out with very similar conditions. They all formed at the same time from materials in the solar nebula, meaning that they all started off with the same compositions mixed together in a hot liquid. As these molten planets cooled, their interiors differentiated and their early atmospheres and oceans formed. The materials in the atmosphere came primarily from volcanic outgassing with some contributions possibly from impacts from comets (all three planets experienced many impacts during the Late Heavy Bombardment from 4.1 - 3.8 Gyr ago). Some materials that were outgassed include a mix of CHONS: sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2), and ammonia (NH3). Note that there was no free O2 in these early atmospheres, as oxygen will quickly bond with other elements once it enters the atmosphere. Oxygen in Earth's atmosphere is a byproduct of life.
Today, the Earth's atmosphere is dominated by molecular nitrogen (N2) and oxygen while both Mars and Venus have atmospheres almost entirely dominated by CO2. These differences can be explained by considering both the size and distance from the Sun of Venus and Mars.
Venus | Earth | Mars | |
Mass | 0.82 | 1 | 0.12 |
Radius | 0.95 | 1 | 0.53 |
Distance from the Sun (AU) | 0.72 | 1.00 | 1.52 |
Surface gravity | 0.91 | 1 | 0.38 |
Atmospheric pressure | 90 | 1 | 0.007 |
Main atmospheric gas(es) | CO2 | N2, O2 | CO2 |
The Earth and Venus are actually very close in size while Mars is significantly smaller. Table 1 summarizes the data. In terms of radius, Venus is a little smaller than the Earth (82% Earth's size) while Mars has just 12% the radius of Earth. This means that Mars likely has already lost most or all of its internal heat while Venus may still retain internal heat to this day that can drive geological activity. The surface gravity of Venus is very close to the Earth's (at 91%) while Mars has only 38% the surface gravity of Earth. This means that it is much easier for any atmosphere Mars had in the past to be lost to space, and this is consistent with the extremely thin atmosphere that Mars holds onto today. We devote an entire chapter to exploring the possibility of water (and life) on Mars.
It is quite possible that for the first billion years, Venus had a moderate temperature atmosphere, surface water, and perhaps even life. However, because Venus is closer to the Sun, it intercepts more energy than the Earth. Liquid water would have gradually evaporated, forming a potent greenhouse gas that trapped more solar energy, leading to a positive feedback loop that further warmed the planet, driving water out of the crust of Venus. Ultraviolet radiation dissociates water molecules into its component atoms of hydrogen and oxygen. The Venus Express spacecraft, launched in 2005 by the European Space Agency (ESA), has measured the escape of hydrogen and oxygen (roughly in a ratio of 2:1) from the upper atmosphere of Venus. Over the 4.56 billion year lifetime of the planet, Venus has lost its water. Carbon dioxide is chemically bound in the crust of Earth rocks. However, in the presence of a hot, dry Venusian climate, carbon dioxide would evaporate out of the mantle of the planet, producing the heavy CO2 atmosphere observed today. The current condition of Venus is the fate of an Earth-like planet that is too close to its star to retain liquid surface water.
Equilibrium Temperature
Considering that the amount of energy from the Sun received by a planet should be equal to the amount of energy emitted by the planet, we can calculate the equilibrium temperature of a planet (see Box 2 below for details). The equilibrium temperature of Venus and Earth are Teq,Venus = 220 K and Teq,Earth = 255 K. How does this compare with the actual measured values at the surface of Venus and Earth? The actual temperature at the surface of Venus is 730 K (457°C)! The Earth's actual surface temperature is 288 K (15°C), putting it right into the habitable zone range for liquid water. The Greenhouse effect is often portrayed in a negative way, as it is the increase of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere that is causing the global temperature to rise -- and this is a real concern if Earth is to avoid the fate of Venus prematurely. However, keep in mind that without a Greenhouse effect the Earth would be an ice ball!
Calculating the Equilibrium Temperature of a Planet
Stefan-Boltzmann law + planetary albedo. Energy in = Energy out
- Earth
- Venus
- find for Mars
Exoplanetary Habitable Zones
The discussion of the habitable so far has focused on the Sun. However, we can intuitively imagine how the habitable zone would differ for stars that are hotter and cooler than the Sun.
Thought Question: How do you expect the habitable zone to look for a star hotter than the Sun? Will it be closer, further, or the same distance away from the star as the Sun's habitable zone? Will it be narrower or wider, or the same width as the Sun's habitable zone? Now answer the same question for a star that is cooler than the Sun.
Show Answer
As seen in Figure X, a star hotter than the Sun (such as those with spectral types OBAF) has a wider habitable zone that is further away from the Sun. This makes sense, as a hotter star on the Main Sequence has a higher luminosity and thus more energy reaches the planet than from a cooler star. Because there is more of it, this energy can spread further before the temperature dips below the freezing point of water, so the habitable zone is wider. The same logic can be applied to the cooler stat, which has a narrower habitable zone that is closer to the star.
Let's look at the habitable zone around the star TRAPPIST-1, which we considered above. You can see a nice animation of the habitable zone for TRAPPIST-1 at https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/eyes-on-exoplanets/#/system/TRAPPIST-1/. The inner and outer boundaries of TRAPPIST-1's habitable zone were estimated to be from 0.022-0.032 AU. This is exemplified by seeing that the TRAPPIST-1 system needs to be zoomed in 25-times for it to be compared on the same image as our solar system.
The habitable zone for different spectral type stars is summarized in Figure X, where
The Continuous Habitable Zone
The Sun is getting more luminous as it ages. This means that over time the habitable zone around the Sun will be pushed further away, and eventually Earth will be in the "too hot" zone. This is true of all stars on the Main Sequence (link to H-R diagram)
(Galactic Habitable Zone)
Activities and Exercises
- Generate the habitable zone around another star. Choose an exoplanetary system that you think could have some habitable planets. [Try http://astro.twam.info/hz/ (my fave, just email owner to be sure its okay to use the sim) or https://ccnmtl.github.io/astro-simulations/circumstellar-habitable-zone-simulator/]
- Greenhouse effect PHeT sim
Quiz
In assessing the possibility that life could exist on another world, one of the first questions to ask is: "Is it in the habitable zone?". The habitable zone around a star is the region in which the temperature on the surface of the planet would be in the proper range to allow liquid water to exist. If a planet does fall into the habitable zone around its host star, we cannot immediately conclude that life exists but it is a useful starting point in looking for other worlds that contain life.
Defining the Habitable Zone Around a Star
One of the mantra's in Astrobiology is "Follow the water!". This makes sense from our Earthly perspective, since absolutely all life on Earth requires liquid water. On Earth, where there is water, there is life. Of course, other liquids could serve this same purpose in other environments, but we stay focused on liquid water for defining the habitable zone around a star.
The habitable zone around a star is the region where the temperature is appropriate for liquid water to exist on the surface of a world. Sometimes this region is called the "Goldilocks Zone," an analogy to the fairly tale Goldilocks and The Three Bears and the "just right" temperature for porridge (not too hot or too cold).
Strictly speaking, this means that a planet in the habitable zone has a temperature in the range between the freezing point and the melting point of water: 273-373 K (which is 0-100°C, or 32-212°F). While this may seem simplistic, as the presence of liquid water depends not only on temperature but on the surface pressure of a world and whether there is an atmosphere, it is a good way to begin the process of identifying potentially habitable exoplanets around another star. Other factors can then be considered to rule out the world as being habitable. For example, the Moon is in the habitable zone around the Sun but it is not a habitable world; the Moon is much smaller than the Earth and has lost all of its internal heat. While we tend to mainly think of rocky worlds as places that can harbor life -- as life on Earth likely began at the liquid water-land boundary -- many exoplanets that are gas giants fall into the habitable zone around their star. The first exoplanet detected around a Sun-like star, 51 Pegasi b, is actually a gas giant.
Let's start by looking at the habitable zone in our own solar system, as shown in Figure 1. Currently, the Sun is about halfway through its life, with an age of about 4.6 billion years. Over time, the Sun will get hotter and the habitable zone around it will shift further away from the Sun -- we discuss this point further in the Continuous Habitable Zone section below. Today, the Earth and Mars fall into the Sun's habitable zone; Venus is too close to the Sun for liquid water oceans to exist on its surface -- any previous liquid water has completely evaporated. The Earth is at a distance of 1 AU from the Sun. What are the inner and outer boundaries of the Sun's habitable zone?
Two ranges for the habitable zone are often quoted: one is a conservative estimate, with a more narrow range of distances, and the second is the optimistic estimate, which is wider. The conservative estimate accounts for changes due to water in a planet's upper atmosphere that can lead to a "moist" greenhouse effect, which sets in earlier than the "runaway" greenhouse effect. For the Sun, the conservative range is 0.95 - 1.37 AU, while the optimistic range extends the borders to 0.85 - 1.7 AU. Figure 1 shows the optimistic habitable zone around the Sun; the conservative estimate would not include Mars, which is 1.5 AU from the Sun.
The box below shows an example of how to estimate the boundaries for the habitable zone around any star.
The Boundaries of the Habitable Zone Around a Star
A simple way to approximate the inner boundary of the habitable zone is to calculate the distance from the star where the temperature is equal to the boiling point of water. The outer boundary of the habitable zone is calculated as the distance from the star where the temperature would equal the freezing point of water.
Recall from the Stefan-Boltzmann law that the luminosity (total power output) of a star is:
[latex] L = \sigma T^4 4 \pi d^2 [/latex]
where is the distance d from the star. By taking the ratio of these values and using the conservative inner and outer habitable zone boundaries for our solar system (dinner,Earth = 0.95 AU and douter,Earth = 1.37 AU), we obtain the following relationships:
[latex] d_{inner,star} = 0.95 \sqrt{L_{star}/L_{Sun}} [/latex] AU
[latex] d_{outer,star}= 1.37 \sqrt{L_{star}/L_{Sun}} [/latex] AU
For example, let's calculate the habitable zone boundaries around the star TRAPPIST-1. A quick search shows that the luminosity of TRAPPIST-1 is less than just one-thousandth of the luminosity of the the Sun: L51 Peg = 0.00052 LSun. In one step, we can put this luminosity into the relationships above and find that the inner and outer boundaries for the habitable zone around TRAPPIST-1 are dinner = 0.022 AU and douter = 0.032 AU. In our solar system, Mercury is 0.39 AU, so the habitable zone for TRAPPIST-1 is extremely close to the star compared with our habitable zone.
- Calculate the inner and outer boundaries of the habitable zone around the star Pegasi 51 (this is the star that 51 Pegasi b orbits).
- Calculate the optimistic habitable zone boundaries around Pegasi 51.
[Ans: (1) dinner = 1.08 AU, douter = 1.56 AU; (2) 0.97 - 1.94 AU. Note that a luminosity of 1.3 LSun was used for these calculations.]
Comparing Venus, Earth & Mars
Although they are very different places today, the planets Venus, Earth and Mars all started out with very similar conditions. They all formed at the same time from materials in the solar nebula, meaning that they all started off with the same compositions mixed together in a hot liquid. As these molten planets cooled, their interiors differentiated and their early atmospheres and oceans formed. The materials in the atmosphere came primarily from volcanic outgassing with some contributions possibly from impacts from comets (all three planets experienced many impacts during the Late Heavy Bombardment from 4.1 - 3.8 Gyr ago). Some materials that were outgassed include a mix of CHONS: sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2), and ammonia (NH3). Note that there was no free O2 in these early atmospheres, as oxygen will quickly bond with other elements once it enters the atmosphere. Oxygen in Earth's atmosphere is a byproduct of life.
Today, the Earth's atmosphere is dominated by molecular nitrogen (N2) and oxygen while both Mars and Venus have atmospheres almost entirely dominated by CO2. These differences can be explained by considering both the size and distance from the Sun of Venus and Mars.
Venus | Earth | Mars | |
Mass | 0.82 | 1 | 0.12 |
Radius | 0.95 | 1 | 0.53 |
Distance from the Sun (AU) | 0.72 | 1.00 | 1.52 |
Surface gravity | 0.91 | 1 | 0.38 |
Atmospheric pressure | 90 | 1 | 0.007 |
Main atmospheric gas(es) | CO2 | N2, O2 | CO2 |
The Earth and Venus are actually very close in size while Mars is significantly smaller. Table 1 summarizes the data. In terms of radius, Venus is a little smaller than the Earth (82% Earth's size) while Mars has just 12% the radius of Earth. This means that Mars likely has already lost most or all of its internal heat while Venus may still retain internal heat to this day that can drive geological activity. The surface gravity of Venus is very close to the Earth's (at 91%) while Mars has only 38% the surface gravity of Earth. This means that it is much easier for any atmosphere Mars had in the past to be lost to space, and this is consistent with the extremely thin atmosphere that Mars holds onto today. We devote an entire chapter to exploring the possibility of water (and life) on Mars.
It is quite possible that for the first billion years, Venus had a moderate temperature atmosphere, surface water, and perhaps even life. However, because Venus is closer to the Sun, it intercepts more energy than the Earth. Liquid water would have gradually evaporated, forming a potent greenhouse gas that trapped more solar energy, leading to a positive feedback loop that further warmed the planet, driving water out of the crust of Venus. Ultraviolet radiation dissociates water molecules into its component atoms of hydrogen and oxygen. The Venus Express spacecraft, launched in 2005 by the European Space Agency (ESA), has measured the escape of hydrogen and oxygen (roughly in a ratio of 2:1) from the upper atmosphere of Venus. Over the 4.56 billion year lifetime of the planet, Venus has lost its water. Carbon dioxide is chemically bound in the crust of Earth rocks. However, in the presence of a hot, dry Venusian climate, carbon dioxide would evaporate out of the mantle of the planet, producing the heavy CO2 atmosphere observed today. The current condition of Venus is the fate of an Earth-like planet that is too close to its star to retain liquid surface water.
Equilibrium Temperature
Considering that the amount of power from the Sun received by a planet should be equal to the amount of power emitted by the planet, we can calculate the equilibrium temperature of a planet (see Box 2 below for details). The equilibrium temperature of Venus and Earth are Teq,Venus = 260 K and Teq,Earth = 255 K. How does this compare with the actual measured values at the surface of Venus and Earth? The actual temperature at the surface of Venus is 730 K (457°C)! Venus experienced a runaway greenhouse effect, with all of its CO2 now baked out of rocks and in the atmosphere.
The Earth's actual surface temperature is 288 K (15°C), putting it right into the habitable zone range for liquid water. The Greenhouse effect is often portrayed in a negative way, as it is the increase of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere that is causing the global temperature to rise -- and this is a real concern if Earth is to avoid the fate of Venus prematurely. However, keep in mind that without a Greenhouse effect the Earth would be an ice ball!
Calculating the Equilibrium Temperature of a Planet
To find the equilibrium temperature of a planet, we can consider the power that reaches the planet from its star and is absorbed by the planet, and the power that is emitted by the planet. This planetary energy budget is in balance so we can set them equal to each other: [latex] P_{in} = P_{out} [/latex]
The power reaching the surface of the planet is the product of the amount of energy reaching the planet, the cross-section of the planet that receives this energy, and the fraction of this light that is absorbed by the surface. This can be written:
[latex] Pin = (L_{star} / 4 \pi d_{p}^2) \times (\pi R_{p}^2) \times (1-a) [/latex]
where [latex] L_{star} [/latex] is the luminosity of the star, [latex] d_{p} [/latex] is the distance from the star to the planet, [latex] R_{p} [/latex] is the radius of the planet, and [latex] a [/latex] is a variable called the planetary albedo. The planetary albedo is a measure of how much light is reflected back by the planet, meaning it doesn't reach the surface. This can be due to ice on the surface or in clouds. In our solar system, [latex] a_{Earth} [/latex] = 0.32 and [latex] a_{Venus} [/latex] = 0.75; Mercury has the lowest albedo at 0.12. The luminosity of the star can be written using the Stefan-Boltzman law as [latex] L_{star} = \sigma T_{star}^4 4 \pi R_{star}^2 [/latex].
The power emitted by the planet is the produce of the energy flux radiated by the planet (in W/m2) multiplied by the total surface area of the planet:
[latex] Pout = (\sigma T_{p}) \times (4 \pi R_{p}^2) [/latex]
where [latex] T_{p} [/latex] is the temperature of the planet.
Setting [latex] P_{in} = P_{out} [/latex] and solving for [latex] T_{p} [/latex], we obtain the following equation for the planetary temperature:
[latex] T_{p} = T_{star} \sqrt{R_{star}/(2 d_{p})} (1-a)^{(1/4)} [/latex]
We can rescale this relationship so that the input units are AU for [latex] d_{p} [/latex] and we use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to rewrite [latex] T_{star} [/latex] and [latex] R_{star} [/latex] in terms of [latex] L_{star} [/latex]:
[latex] T_{p} = 278 (L_{star}/L_{Sun}) \sqrt{1/(d_{p}} (1-a)^{(1/4)} [/latex]
Example 1: Equilibrium temperature of Venus
For Venus, we just need the distance from the Sun in AU and Venus' planetary albedo: [latex] d_{V} [/latex] = 0.72 AU and a = 0.75. For the luminosity of the star, since it is the Sun, [latex] L_{star} = L_{Sun} [/latex]
[latex] T_{Venus} = 278 (L_{Sun}/L_{Sun} \sqrt{1/0.72} (1-0.75)^{(1/4)} [/latex] = 260 K
- Earth
- Venus
- find for Mars
Exoplanetary Habitable Zones
The discussion of the habitable so far has focused on the Sun. However, we can intuitively imagine how the habitable zone would differ for stars that are hotter and cooler than the Sun.
Thought Question: How do you expect the habitable zone to look for a star hotter than the Sun? Will it be closer, further, or the same distance away from the star as the Sun's habitable zone? Will it be narrower or wider, or the same width as the Sun's habitable zone? Now answer the same question for a star that is cooler than the Sun.
Show Answer (click to continue)
As seen in Figure X, a star hotter than the Sun (such as those with spectral types OBAF) has a wider habitable zone that is further away from the Sun. This makes sense, as a hotter star on the Main Sequence has a higher luminosity and thus more energy reaches the planet than from a cooler star. Because there is more of it, this energy can spread further before the temperature dips below the freezing point of water, so the habitable zone is wider. The same logic can be applied to the cooler stat, which has a narrower habitable zone that is closer to the star.
Let's look at the habitable zone around the star TRAPPIST-1, which we considered above. You can see a nice animation of the habitable zone for TRAPPIST-1 at https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/eyes-on-exoplanets/#/system/TRAPPIST-1/. The inner and outer boundaries of TRAPPIST-1's habitable zone were estimated to be from 0.022-0.032 AU. This is exemplified by seeing that the TRAPPIST-1 system needs to be zoomed in 25-times for it to be compared on the same image as our solar system.
(The habitable zone for different spectral type stars is summarized in Figure X.)
The Continuous Habitable Zone
The Sun is getting more luminous as it ages. This means that over time the habitable zone around the Sun will be pushed further away, and eventually Earth will be in the "too hot" zone. This is true of all stars on the Main Sequence (link to H-R diagram). A star's brightness increases by about 0.7% every 100 million years. Since forming 4.5 billion years ago, it is now 30% brighter today than it was when it started shining continuously. In about 2 billion years from now, the Sun's optimistic habitable zone's inner edge will be out past 1 AU, so Earth will no longer fall into this zone. Figure X shows how far the Sun's habitable zone will extend once the Sun becomes a red giant star, in about 8 million years from now. Notice that Mercury and Venus have been swallowed up by the Sun at this point.
(Galactic Habitable Zone)
Activities and Exercises
- Generate the habitable zone around another star. Choose an exoplanetary system that you think could have some habitable planets. [Try http://astro.twam.info/hz/ (my fave, just email owner to be sure its okay to use the sim) or https://ccnmtl.github.io/astro-simulations/circumstellar-habitable-zone-simulator/]
- Greenhouse effect PHeT sim
Quiz
In assessing the possibility that life could exist on another world, one of the first questions to ask is: "Is it in the habitable zone?". The habitable zone around a star is the region in which the temperature on the surface of the planet would be in the proper range to allow liquid water to exist. If a planet does fall into the habitable zone around its host star, we cannot immediately conclude that life exists but it is a useful starting point in looking for other worlds that contain life.
Defining the Habitable Zone Around a Star
One of the mantra's in Astrobiology is "Follow the water!". This makes sense from our Earthly perspective, since absolutely all life on Earth requires liquid water. On Earth, where there is water, there is life. Of course, other liquids could serve this same purpose in other environments, but we stay focused on liquid water for defining the habitable zone around a star.
The habitable zone around a star is the region where the temperature is appropriate for liquid water to exist on the surface of a world. Sometimes this region is called the "Goldilocks Zone," an analogy to the fairly tale Goldilocks and The Three Bears and the "just right" temperature for porridge (not too hot or too cold).
Strictly speaking, this means that a planet in the habitable zone has a temperature in the range between the freezing point and the melting point of water: 273-373 K (which is 0-100°C, or 32-212°F). While this may seem simplistic, as the presence of liquid water depends not only on temperature but on the surface pressure of a world and whether there is an atmosphere, it is a good way to begin the process of identifying potentially habitable exoplanets around another star. Other factors can then be considered to rule out the world as being habitable. For example, the Moon is in the habitable zone around the Sun but it is not a habitable world; the Moon is much smaller than the Earth and has lost all of its internal heat. While we tend to mainly think of rocky worlds as places that can harbor life -- as life on Earth likely began at the liquid water-land boundary -- many exoplanets that are gas giants fall into the habitable zone around their star. The first exoplanet detected around a Sun-like star, 51 Pegasi b, is actually a gas giant.
Let's start by looking at the habitable zone in our own solar system, as shown in Figure 1. Currently, the Sun is about halfway through its life, with an age of about 4.6 billion years. Over time, the Sun will get hotter and the habitable zone around it will shift further away from the Sun -- we discuss this point further in the Continuous Habitable Zone section below. Today, the Earth and Mars fall into the Sun's habitable zone; Venus is too close to the Sun for liquid water oceans to exist on its surface -- any previous liquid water has completely evaporated. The Earth is at a distance of 1 AU from the Sun. What are the inner and outer boundaries of the Sun's habitable zone?
Two ranges for the habitable zone are often quoted: one is a conservative estimate, with a more narrow range of distances, and the second is the optimistic estimate, which is wider. The conservative estimate accounts for changes due to water in a planet's upper atmosphere that can lead to a "moist" greenhouse effect, which sets in earlier than the "runaway" greenhouse effect. For the Sun, the conservative range is 0.95 - 1.37 AU, while the optimistic range extends the borders to 0.85 - 1.7 AU. Figure 1 shows the optimistic habitable zone around the Sun; the conservative estimate would not include Mars, which is 1.5 AU from the Sun.
The box below shows an example of how to estimate the boundaries for the habitable zone around any star.
The Boundaries of the Habitable Zone Around a Star
A simple way to approximate the inner boundary of the habitable zone is to calculate the distance from the star where the temperature is equal to the boiling point of water. The outer boundary of the habitable zone is calculated as the distance from the star where the temperature would equal the freezing point of water.
Recall from the Stefan-Boltzmann law that the luminosity (total power output) of a star is:
[latex] L = \sigma T^4 4 \pi d^2 [/latex]
where is the distance d from the star. By taking the ratio of these values and using the conservative inner and outer habitable zone boundaries for our solar system (dinner,Earth = 0.95 AU and douter,Earth = 1.37 AU), we obtain the following relationships:
[latex] d_{inner,star} = 0.95 \sqrt{L_{star}/L_{Sun}} [/latex] AU
[latex] d_{outer,star}= 1.37 \sqrt{L_{star}/L_{Sun}} [/latex] AU
For example, let's calculate the habitable zone boundaries around the star TRAPPIST-1. A quick search shows that the luminosity of TRAPPIST-1 is less than just one-thousandth of the luminosity of the the Sun: L51 Peg = 0.00052 LSun. In one step, we can put this luminosity into the relationships above and find that the inner and outer boundaries for the habitable zone around TRAPPIST-1 are dinner = 0.022 AU and douter = 0.032 AU. In our solar system, Mercury is 0.39 AU, so the habitable zone for TRAPPIST-1 is extremely close to the star compared with our habitable zone.
- Calculate the inner and outer boundaries of the habitable zone around the star Pegasi 51 (this is the star that 51 Pegasi b orbits).
- Calculate the optimistic habitable zone boundaries around Pegasi 51.
[Ans: (1) dinner = 1.08 AU, douter = 1.56 AU; (2) 0.97 - 1.94 AU. Note that a luminosity of 1.3 LSun was used for these calculations.]
Comparing Venus, Earth & Mars
Although they are very different places today, the planets Venus, Earth and Mars all started out with very similar conditions. They all formed at the same time from materials in the solar nebula, meaning that they all started off with the same compositions mixed together in a hot liquid. As these molten planets cooled, their interiors differentiated and their early atmospheres and oceans formed. The materials in the atmosphere came primarily from volcanic outgassing with some contributions possibly from impacts from comets (all three planets experienced many impacts during the Late Heavy Bombardment from 4.1 - 3.8 Gyr ago). Some materials that were outgassed include a mix of CHONS: sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2), and ammonia (NH3). Note that there was no free O2 in these early atmospheres, as oxygen will quickly bond with other elements once it enters the atmosphere. Oxygen in Earth's atmosphere is a byproduct of life.
Today, the Earth's atmosphere is dominated by molecular nitrogen (N2) and oxygen while both Mars and Venus have atmospheres almost entirely dominated by CO2. These differences can be explained by considering both the size and distance from the Sun of Venus and Mars.
Venus | Earth | Mars | |
Mass | 0.82 | 1 | 0.12 |
Radius | 0.95 | 1 | 0.53 |
Distance from the Sun (AU) | 0.72 | 1.00 | 1.52 |
Surface gravity | 0.91 | 1 | 0.38 |
Atmospheric pressure | 90 | 1 | 0.007 |
Main atmospheric gas(es) | CO2 | N2, O2 | CO2 |
The Earth and Venus are actually very close in size while Mars is significantly smaller. Table 1 summarizes the data. In terms of radius, Venus is a little smaller than the Earth (82% Earth's size) while Mars has just 12% the radius of Earth. This means that Mars likely has already lost most or all of its internal heat while Venus may still retain internal heat to this day that can drive geological activity. The surface gravity of Venus is very close to the Earth's (at 91%) while Mars has only 38% the surface gravity of Earth. This means that it is much easier for any atmosphere Mars had in the past to be lost to space, and this is consistent with the extremely thin atmosphere that Mars holds onto today. We devote an entire chapter to exploring the possibility of water (and life) on Mars.
It is quite possible that for the first billion years, Venus had a moderate temperature atmosphere, surface water, and perhaps even life. However, because Venus is closer to the Sun, it intercepts more energy than the Earth. Liquid water would have gradually evaporated, forming a potent greenhouse gas that trapped more solar energy, leading to a positive feedback loop that further warmed the planet, driving water out of the crust of Venus. Ultraviolet radiation dissociates water molecules into its component atoms of hydrogen and oxygen. The Venus Express spacecraft, launched in 2005 by the European Space Agency (ESA), has measured the escape of hydrogen and oxygen (roughly in a ratio of 2:1) from the upper atmosphere of Venus. Over the 4.56 billion year lifetime of the planet, Venus has lost its water. Carbon dioxide is chemically bound in the crust of Earth rocks. However, in the presence of a hot, dry Venusian climate, carbon dioxide would evaporate out of the mantle of the planet, producing the heavy CO2 atmosphere observed today. The current condition of Venus is the fate of an Earth-like planet that is too close to its star to retain liquid surface water.
Equilibrium Temperature
Considering that the amount of power from the Sun received by a planet should be equal to the amount of power emitted by the planet, we can calculate the equilibrium temperature of a planet (see Box 2 below for details). The equilibrium temperature of Venus and Earth are Teq,Venus = 260 K and Teq,Earth = 255 K. How does this compare with the actual measured values at the surface of Venus and Earth? The actual temperature at the surface of Venus is 730 K (457°C)! Venus experienced a runaway greenhouse effect, with all of its CO2 now baked out of rocks and in the atmosphere.
The Earth's actual surface temperature is 288 K (15°C), putting it right into the habitable zone range for liquid water. The Greenhouse effect is often portrayed in a negative way, as it is the increase of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere that is causing the global temperature to rise -- and this is a real concern if Earth is to avoid the fate of Venus prematurely. However, keep in mind that without a Greenhouse effect the Earth would be an ice ball!
Calculating the Equilibrium Temperature of a Planet
To find the equilibrium temperature of a planet, we can consider the power that reaches the planet from its star and is absorbed by the planet, and the power that is emitted by the planet. This planetary energy budget is in balance so we can set them equal to each other: [latex] P_{in} = P_{out} [/latex]
The power reaching the surface of the planet is the product of the amount of energy reaching the planet, the cross-section of the planet that receives this energy, and the fraction of this light that is absorbed by the surface. This can be written:
[latex] P_{in} = (L_{star} / 4 \pi d_{p}^2) \times (\pi R_{p}^2) \times (1-a) [/latex]
where [latex] L_{star} [/latex] is the luminosity of the star, [latex] d_{p} [/latex] is the distance from the star to the planet, [latex] R_{p} [/latex] is the radius of the planet, and [latex] a [/latex] is a variable called the planetary albedo. The planetary albedo is a measure of how much light is reflected back by the planet, meaning it doesn't reach the surface. This can be due to ice on the surface or in clouds. In our solar system, [latex] a_{Earth} [/latex] = 0.32 and [latex] a_{Venus} [/latex] = 0.75; Mercury has the lowest albedo at 0.12. The luminosity of the star can be written using the Stefan-Boltzman law as [latex] L_{star} = \sigma T_{star}^4 4 \pi R_{star}^2 [/latex].
The power emitted by the planet is the produce of the energy flux radiated by the planet (in W/m2) multiplied by the total surface area of the planet:
[latex] P_{out} = (\sigma T_{p}) \times (4 \pi R_{p}^2) [/latex]
where [latex] T_{p} [/latex] is the temperature of the planet.
Setting [latex] P_{in} = P_{out} [/latex] and solving for [latex] T_{p} [/latex], we obtain the following equation for the planetary temperature:
[latex] T_{p} = T_{star} \sqrt{R_{star}/(2 d_{p})} (1-a)^{(1/4)} [/latex]
We can rescale this relationship so that the input units are AU for [latex] d_{p} [/latex] and we use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to rewrite [latex] T_{star} [/latex] and [latex] R_{star} [/latex] in terms of [latex] L_{star} [/latex]:
[latex] T_{p} = 278.1 (L_{star}/L_{Sun}) \sqrt{1/(d_{p}} (1-a)^{(1/4)} [/latex]
Example 1: Equilibrium temperature of Venus
For Venus, we just need the distance from the Sun in AU and Venus' planetary albedo: [latex] d_{V} [/latex] = 0.72 AU and a = 0.75. For the luminosity of the star, since it is the Sun, [latex] L_{star} = L_{Sun} [/latex]
[latex] T_{Venus} = 278 (L_{Sun}/L_{Sun} \sqrt{1/0.72} (1-0.75)^{(1/4)} [/latex] = 260 K
This is much cooler than the actual surface temperature of Venus, which has undergone a runaway greenhouse effect. To calculate the adjusted temperature that factors in the greenhouse effect, an extra term ge must be factored into the equation, which appears as the extra term (ge)-1/4. This term varies from 0 to 1, where 1 means no greenhouse effect. Try recalculating the temperature of Venus with different values for the ge term. Which gives a good match to Venus' actual surface temperature of 730 K? [ans: about 0.15]
- Earth
- Venus
- find for Mars
Exoplanetary Habitable Zones
The discussion of the habitable so far has focused on the Sun. However, we can intuitively imagine how the habitable zone would differ for stars that are hotter and cooler than the Sun.
Thought Question: How do you expect the habitable zone to look for a star hotter than the Sun? Will it be closer, further, or the same distance away from the star as the Sun's habitable zone? Will it be narrower or wider, or the same width as the Sun's habitable zone? Now answer the same question for a star that is cooler than the Sun.
Show Answer (click to continue)
As seen in Figure X, a star hotter than the Sun (such as those with spectral types OBAF) has a wider habitable zone that is further away from the Sun. This makes sense, as a hotter star on the Main Sequence has a higher luminosity and thus more energy reaches the planet than from a cooler star. Because there is more of it, this energy can spread further before the temperature dips below the freezing point of water, so the habitable zone is wider. The same logic can be applied to the cooler stat, which has a narrower habitable zone that is closer to the star.
Let's look at the habitable zone around the star TRAPPIST-1, which we considered above. You can see a nice animation of the habitable zone for TRAPPIST-1 at https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/eyes-on-exoplanets/#/system/TRAPPIST-1/. The inner and outer boundaries of TRAPPIST-1's habitable zone were estimated to be from 0.022-0.032 AU. This is exemplified by seeing that the TRAPPIST-1 system needs to be zoomed in 25-times for it to be compared on the same image as our solar system.
(The habitable zone for different spectral type stars is summarized in Figure X.)
The Continuous Habitable Zone
The Sun is getting more luminous as it ages. This means that over time the habitable zone around the Sun will be pushed further away, and eventually Earth will be in the "too hot" zone. This is true of all stars on the Main Sequence (link to H-R diagram). A star's brightness increases by about 0.7% every 100 million years. Since forming 4.5 billion years ago, it is now 30% brighter today than it was when it started shining continuously. In about 2 billion years from now, the Sun's optimistic habitable zone's inner edge will be out past 1 AU, so Earth will no longer fall into this zone. Figure X shows how far the Sun's habitable zone will extend once the Sun becomes a red giant star, in about 8 million years from now. Notice that Mercury and Venus have been swallowed up by the Sun at this point.
(Galactic Habitable Zone)
Activities and Exercises
- Generate the habitable zone around another star. Choose an exoplanetary system that you think could have some habitable planets. [Try http://astro.twam.info/hz/ (my fave, just email owner to be sure its okay to use the sim) or https://ccnmtl.github.io/astro-simulations/circumstellar-habitable-zone-simulator/]
- Greenhouse effect PHeT sim