# Early Universe life genesis...

## Recommended Posts

$t_u = 13.799 \cdot 10^{9} \; \text{y}$ - Universe age (ref. 1)
$t_s = 13.6 \cdot 10^{9} \; \text{y}$ - oldest second generation star age in Milky Way galaxy (ref. 2)
$t_{\odot} = 4.57 \cdot 10^{9} \; \text{y}$ - solar age (ref. 3)
$t_E = 4.54 \cdot 10^{9} \; \text{y}$ - Earth age (ref. 4)
$t_z = 4.4 \cdot 10^{9} \; \text{y}$ - oldest Zircon age (ref. 5)
$t_l = 4.0 \cdot 10^{9} \; \text{y}$ - oldest fossilized RNA life age (ref. 6)

key:
$dt_1$ - minimum time required for second generation stars to form.
$dt_2$ - minimum time required for inner planets to form.
$dt_3$ - minimum time required for liquid water to form.
$dt_4$ - minimum time required for RNA life to form.

According to this basic equation, the amount of universal evolutionary time required to generate self-replicating RNA:
$t_{RNA} = dt_1 + dt_2 + dt_3 + dt_4 = (t_u - t_s) + (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)$

$\boxed{t_{RNA} = (t_u - t_s) + (t_{\odot} - t_E) + (t_E - t_z) + (t_z - t_l)}$

$\boxed{t_{RNA} = 7.69 \cdot 10^{8} \; \text{y}}$

The first self-replicating RNA life could have been generated 769 million years after the Big Bang on the inner planets around second generation and third generation stars, which formed together at the same time.

Reference:
Wikipedia - Universe: (ref. 1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Wikipedia - SMSS J0313-6708: (ref. 2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM0313

Wikipedia - Sun: (ref. 3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Wikipedia - Earth: (ref. 4)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

Wikipedia - Cryptic era: (ref. 5)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptic_era

Wikipedia - Basin Groups: (ref. 6)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basin_Groups

Edited by Orion1

##### Share on other sites

So first generation stars only lasted for about a million years before going nova? That's a lot shorter than I imagined. You list the minimum timeframes required, but nature doesn't seem to be that efficient when it comes to schedules.

Edited by Daecon

##### Share on other sites

Typical masses for Population III stars would be expected to be about several hundred solar masses, which is much larger than that of current stars. Analysis of data on extremely low-metallicity Population II stars such as HE0107-5240, which are thought to contain the metals produced by Population III stars, suggest that these metal-free stars had masses of 20 to 130 solar masses instead. (ref. 1)

So first generation stars only lasted for about a million years before going nova?

According to stellar data, first generation (Population III) stars lasted less than 21.5 million years. (ref. 2)

However, the first generation stellar epoch itself could have lasted up to 800 million years after the Big Bang (ref. 3), and placing the formation of the oldest second generation (Population II) star (SMSS J0313-6708) in the Milky Way galaxy within the first generation stellar epoch at 199 million years:

$\boxed{dt_1 = (t_u - t_s) = 1.99 \cdot 10^{8} \; \text{y}}$

And what a spectacular stellar display that epoch would have been.

nature doesn't seem to be that efficient when it comes to schedules.

Affirmative, very dynamic factors are involved, however nature's efficiency is intrinsically built into the chronological equation on post #1.

Reference:

Wikipedia - First Generation stars (Population III stars) (ref. 1)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_population#Population_III_stars

Wikipedia - Stellar evolution (ref. 2)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

Wikipedia - Cosmos Redshift 7: (ref. 3)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos_Redshift_7

Edited by Orion1

##### Share on other sites

The first self-replicating RNA life could have been generated 769 million years after the Big Bang on the inner planets around second generation and third generation stars, which formed together at the same time.

You appear to be adopting the RNA world hypothesis to explain abiogenesis. If this is a faulty hypothesis your calculation becomes irrelevant. Comment?

Let us assume the appearance of RNA was essential and fundamental to the origin of life. You have assigned a time frame for the emergence of RNA based on its appearance on the Earth. Three points:

1. Your reference (6) does not provide any evidence to support the appearance of RNA at the time you suggest. It merely notes that RNA "may have evolved on earth around 4 bya". May is a very important word. Certainly it was around by 3 billion years ago at least, but that would potentially add one billion years to your timeline.

2. Since we do not know what steps were involved in the emergence of life or the production of RNA, its "rapid" emergence on Earth may have been highly improbable, even unique. That potentially minimises the value of the calculation.

3. Isn't this really a modified extract of the first terms in the Drake equation? Nothing wrong with that, but a nod to acknowledge would be nice.

##### Share on other sites

My initial concern when I saw your age of the universe was "what was the blackbody temperature at this time."

However if I've done my calculation correct the age corresponds to scale factor 0.006. Which will make the average temperature roughly 166 Kelvin.

##### Share on other sites

You appear to be adopting the RNA world hypothesis to explain Abiogenesis. If this is a faulty hypothesis your calculation becomes irrelevant. Comment?

The calculation would not become 'irrelevant', the transitional epoch times would remain relatively the same, however the calculation would require an update to the latest data. For example, transitioning the calculation from RNA to DNA or the discovery of life fossils on other solar planets that are older than those on Earth.

The RNA world hypothesis is supported by RNA's ability to store, transmit, and duplicate genetic information, as DNA does. RNA can act as a ribozyme, a special type of enzyme. Because it can perform the tasks of both DNA and enzymes, RNA is believed to have once been capable of supporting independent life forms. (ref. 4)

Let us assume the appearance of RNA was essential and fundamental to the origin of life. You have assigned a time frame for the emergence of RNA based on its appearance on the Earth. Three points:

1. Your reference (6) does not provide any evidence to support the appearance of RNA at the time you suggest. It merely notes that RNA "may have evolved on earth around 4 bya". May is a very important word. Certainly it was around by 3 billion years ago at least, but that would potentially add one billion years to your timeline.

A study by Kevin A. Maher and David J. Stevenson shows that if the deep marine hydrothermal setting provides a suitable site for the origin of life, then abiogenesis could have happened as early as 4.0 to 4.2 Ga, whereas if it occurred at the surface of the Earth, abiogenesis could only have occurred between 3.7 and 4.0 Ga. (ref. 1)

The earliest life on Earth existed before 3.5 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon. Physical evidence has been found in biogenic graphite in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks from southwestern Greenland and microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone from Western Australia. Evidence of early life in rocks from Akilia Island, near the Isua supracrustal belt in southwestern Greenland, dating to 3.7 billion years ago have shown biogenic carbon isotopes. At Strelley Pool, in the Pilbarra region of Western Australia, compelling evidence of early life has been found in pyrite-bearing sandstone in a fossilized beach, that showed rounded tubular cells that oxidised sulfur by photosynthesis in the absence of oxygen. More recently, geochemists have found evidence that life likely existed on Earth at least 4.1 billion years ago — 300 million years earlier than previous research suggested. (ref. 1)

2. Since we do not know what steps were involved in the emergence of life or the production of RNA, its "rapid" emergence on Earth may have been highly improbable, even unique. That potentially minimizes the value of the calculation.

On August 8, 2011, a report, based on NASA studies with meteorites found on Earth, was published suggesting building blocks of RNA (adenine, guanine and related organic molecules) may have been formed extraterrestrially in outer space. On August 29, 2012, and in a world first, astronomers at Copenhagen University reported the detection of a specific sugar molecule, glycolaldehyde, in a distant star system. The molecule was found around the protostellar binary IRAS 16293-2422, which is located 400 light years from Earth. Glycolaldehyde is needed to form ribonucleic acid, or RNA, which is similar in function to DNA. This finding suggests that complex organic molecules may form in stellar systems prior to the formation of planets, eventually arriving on young planets early in their formation. (ref. 4)

3. Isn't this really a modified extract of the first terms in the Drake equation? Nothing wrong with that, but a nod to acknowledge would be nice.

The Drake equation was not considered when the equation on post #1 was derived, however I am intrigued by the similarities. Extrapolating relevant variables from the Drake equation and using current data results from Wikipedia and setting the duration of the RNA world epoch between biogenic carbon in zircon at 4.1 Gy and microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone:

$L_{RNA} = (4.1 \; \text{Gy} - 3.48 \; \text{Gy}) = 620 \; \text{My}$

Total number of planets currently experiencing the RNA world epoch: (ref. 5)

$N_{RNA} = R_{\ast} \cdot f_p \cdot n_e \cdot f_{\ell} \cdot L_{RNA} = 1.736 \cdot 10^{9} \; \text{planets}$

$\boxed{N_{RNA} = 1.736 \cdot 10^{9} \; \text{planets}}$

Reference:

Wikipedia - The earliest biological evidence for life on Earth (ref. 1)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#The_earliest_biological_evidence_for_life_on_Earth

Bell, Elizabeth A.; Boehnike, Patrick; Harrison, T. Mark; et al. - Potentially biogenic carbon preserved in a 4.1 billion-year-old zircon: (ref. 2)

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/14/1517557112.full.pdf

Wikipedia - Abiogenesis - support_and_difficulties: (ref. 3)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world#Support_and_difficulties

Wikipedia - RNA world - Support and difficulties: (ref. 4)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world#Support_and_difficulties

Wikipedia - Drake equation: (ref. 5)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation

Edited by Orion1

##### Share on other sites
On 2/14/2016 at 2:42 PM, Mordred said:

My initial concern when I saw your age of the universe was "what was the blackbody temperature at this time."

However if I've done my calculation correct the age corresponds to scale factor 0.006. Which will make the average temperature roughly 166 Kelvin.

Solar surface temperature: (ref. 1)
$T_{\odot} = 5772 \; \text{K}$
$\;$
$R_{\odot} = 6.963 \cdot 10^{5} \; \text{km}$
$\;$
Earth orbital radius semi-major axis: (ref. 2)
$r_{\oplus} = 1.496 \cdot 10^{8} \; \text{km}$
$\;$
Earth albedo reflectivity:  (ref. 2)
$\alpha_{\oplus} = 0.367$
$\;$
Earth surface temperature at present time: (ref. 3)
$T_{\oplus} = T_{\odot} \left(\frac{\left(1 - \alpha_{\oplus} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} R_{\odot}}{2 r_{\odot}} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} = 248.367 \; \text{K}$
$\boxed{T_{\oplus} = 248.367 \; \text{K}}$
$\;$
Cosmic photon background radiation temperature at present time: (ref. 4)
$T_{\gamma,0} = 2.72548 \; \text{K}$
$\;$
Cosmology scale factor:
$\boxed{\frac{a\left(t_0 \right)}{a\left(t \right)} = \frac{T_{\gamma,t}}{T_{\gamma,0}}}$
$\;$
Cosmology scale factor at present time:
$\boxed{a\left(t_0 \right) = 1}$
$\;$
Cosmic photon background radiation temperature at past time is equivalent to Earth surface temperature at present time:
$\boxed{T_{\gamma,t} = T_{\oplus}}$
$\;$
Universe abiogenesis epoch scale factor at past time:
$a\left(t \right) = \frac{T_{\gamma,0}}{T_{\gamma,t}} = 0.011$
$\boxed{a\left(t \right) = \frac{T_{\gamma,0}}{T_{\gamma,t}}}$
$\boxed{a\left(t \right) = 0.011}$
$\;$
If every planet around every second generation star and every third generation star were illuminated with a luminous cosmic photon background radiation source that is cleaner and more stable than the host star radiation source, could this cosmic photon background radiation have initiated a universe abiogenesis epoch?
$\;$
According to your universe model calculator, what is the universe age at this scale factor?
$\;$
$\;$
Reference:
Wikipedia - Sun Sol: (ref. 1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
Wikipedia - Earth: (ref. 2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
UVIC - The blackbody temperature of a planet: (ref. 3)
http://www.astro.uvic.ca/~venn/A201/maths.7.planet_temperature.pdf
Wikipedia - Cosmic microwave background radiation: (ref. 4)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Importance_of_precise_measurement

Edited by Orion1
source code correction...

##### Share on other sites
On 10/15/2019 at 6:06 PM, Orion1 said:

"what was the blackbody temperature at this time?"

Affirmative, revision complete.

WMAP satellite cosmological composition parameters at photon decoupling time: (ref. 1)
$\Omega_{\gamma,t} = 0.15$
$\;$
Photon species total effective degeneracy number:
$\boxed{N_{\gamma} = 2}$
$\;$
Solar surface temperature: (ref. 2)
$T_{\odot} = 5772 \; \text{K}$
$\;$
$R_{\odot} = 6.963 \cdot 10^{5} \; \text{km}$
$\;$
Earth orbital radius semi-major axis: (ref. 3)
$r_{\oplus} = 1.496 \cdot 10^{8} \; \text{km}$
$\;$
Earth albedo reflectivity: (ref. 3)
$\alpha_{\oplus} = 0.367$
$\;$
Earth surface temperature at present time: (ref. 4)
$T_{\oplus} = T_{\odot} \left(\frac{\left(1 - \alpha_{\oplus} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} R_{\odot}}{2 r_{\oplus}} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} = 248.367 \; \text{K}$
$\boxed{T_{\oplus} = 248.367 \; \text{K}}$
$\;$
Isotropic cosmic photon background radiation temperature at present time: (ref. 5)
$T_{\gamma} = 2.72548 \; \text{K}$
$\;$
Toy model universe age at isotropic cosmic photon background radiation time: (ref. 6)
$\boxed{T_{u,\gamma} = \frac{3}{4\left(k_B T_{\gamma,t} \right)^2} \sqrt{\frac{5 \Omega_{\gamma,t} \hbar^3 c^5}{G N_{\gamma} \pi^3}}} \; \; \; m_{\gamma} = 0$
$\;$
Isotropic cosmic photon background radiation temperature at past time is equivalent to Earth surface temperature at present time:
$\boxed{T_{\gamma,t} = T_{\oplus}}$
$\;$
Toy model universe age at isotropic cosmic photon background radiation time integration via substitution:
$T_{u,\gamma} = \frac{3}{4\left(k_B T_{\gamma,t} \right)^2} \sqrt{\frac{5 \Omega_{\gamma,t} \hbar^3 c^5}{G N_{\gamma} \pi^3}} = \frac{3}{2 \left(k_B T_{\odot} \right)^2} \left( \frac{r_{\oplus}}{R_{\odot}} \right) \sqrt{\frac{5 \Omega_{\gamma,t} \hbar^3 c^5}{G N_{\gamma} \left(1 - \alpha_{\oplus} \right) \pi^3}}$
$\;$
Toy model universe age at abiogenesis epoch time:
$\boxed{T_{u,\gamma} = \frac{3 r_{\oplus}}{2 R_{\odot} \left(k_B T_{\odot} \right)^2} \sqrt{\frac{5 \Omega_{\gamma,t} \hbar^3 c^5}{G N_{\gamma} \left(1 - \alpha_{\oplus} \right) \pi^3}}}$
$\boxed{T_{u,\gamma} = 1.447 \cdot 10^{15} \; \text{s}} \; \; \; \left(4.585 \cdot 10^{7} \; \text{years} \right)$
$\;$
If every planet around every second generation star and every third generation star were illuminated with a luminous isotropic cosmic photon background radiation source that is more cleaner and isotropic and more stable than the host star radiation source, could this cosmic photon background radiation have initiated a universe abiogenesis epoch?
$\;$
$\;$

Reference:
WMAP satellite content of the Universe: (ref. 1)
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/080998/index.html
Wikipedia - Sun Sol: (ref. 2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
Wikipedia - Earth: (ref. 3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
UVIC - The blackbody temperature of a planet: (ref. 4)
http://www.astro.uvic.ca/~venn/A201/maths.7.planet_temperature.pdf
Wikipedia - Cosmic microwave background radiation: (ref. 5)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background Importance_of_precise_measurement
Science Forums - Orion1 - Photon decoupling time: (ref. 6)
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86694-observable-universe-mass/?do=findComment&comment=1037262

Edited by Orion1
source code correction...

##### Share on other sites

May want to consider volcanic and ice moons as strong candidates too.

Tidal heating is less restrictive in terms of location than solar.

Edited by Endy0816

## Create an account

Register a new account