Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

24 ThemisFollow

#1 Apr 29 2010 at 8:56 AM Rating: Good
Link

Quote:
An icy asteroid orbiting the sun between Mars and Saturn is adding credence to theories that Earth's water was delivered from space, according to a report published in the new issue of the science journal Nature.

Two teams of scientists found their evidence when looking at 24 Themis, a asteroid about 479 million kilometers (300 million miles) from the sun, or roughly three times the average distance from Earth to the sun.

Quote:
Using the infrared telescope at Mauna Kea, Hawaii, they were surprised to find not only water on 24 Themis, but organic compounds as well.


Asteroids were thought to be devoid of water because they sit too close to the sun, while comets have been the water bearers of the universe because they form farther out in space.

"Astronomers have looked at dozens of asteroids with this technique, but this is the first time we've seen ice on the surface and organics," astronomer Andrew Rivkin of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, told Nature.com.

The scientific teams from Johns Hopkins and the University of Central Florida that looked at 24 Themis speculate that the ice may be held in a reservoir under the asteroid's surface. They speculate that the water is brought to the surface as small bodies in the asteroid belt hit the surface of 24 Themis.

The findings on 24 Themis lend weight to the idea that asteroids and comets are the source of Earth's water and organic material.

Geochemists believe that early Earth went through a molten phase that would have removed any organic molecules, meaning any new organic material would have had to come to the planet at a later time, said Humberto Campins at UCF.

"I believe our findings are linked to the origin of life on Earth," he added.

Scientists now plan to scan the asteroid belt for more evidence of water and organic materials, hoping to determine if 24 Themis is just an interloper -- possibly a comet that got caught in the asteroid belt -- or the first of many water-bearing asteroids that will change the way astronomers look at the solar system.

"The old-fashioned picture of the solar system in which asteroids are asteroids and comets are comets is getting harder to sustain," Rivkin said.


I thought about continuing with this in the Hawkings thread, but I think it bears mentioning in it's own thread as it's not "really" about aliens. So, they found water on this thing back in October, but that's not the cool thing. They just found water in the moon, they know there's water in comets, Mars shows signs it had water (it's now believed to be underground), Enceladus has it, & Europa's got it. Water is "abundant" enough in our solar system.

But they mentioned organics. What do they mean by that? They found Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) using infrared. PAHs occur in oil, coal, and tar deposits, and are produced as byproducts of fuel burning (whether fossil fuel or biomass). They're also found in foods (cereals, oils and fats).

It's thought that PAHs were fairly abundant in the "primordial soup" era of earth, which would have been after the molten phase the earth went through. So it's not a huge leap to think that a meteor or comets brought water & organics to earth.

Space is cool.

Edited, Apr 29th 2010 10:57am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#2 Apr 29 2010 at 9:06 AM Rating: Good
What I don't find is an explanation as to why the supposition is that water was brought to Earth. Why is it nut supposed that water formed on Earth the same way it formed on asteroids?
#3 Apr 29 2010 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
God is a flying space rock.


And the Pastafarians wept.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#4 Apr 29 2010 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
What I don't find is an explanation as to why the supposition is that water was brought to Earth. Why is it nut supposed that water formed on Earth the same way it formed on asteroids?


I was thinking the same thing. There seems to be so much water on Earth, it seems weird to assume that it all came from comets or asteroids.

Edited, Apr 29th 2010 10:14am by Belkira
#5 Apr 29 2010 at 9:22 AM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
What I don't find is an explanation as to why the supposition is that water was brought to Earth. Why is it nut supposed that water formed on Earth the same way it formed on asteroids?


I was thinking the same thing. There seems to be so much water on Earth, it seems weird to assume that it all came from comets or asteroids.

Edited, Apr 29th 2010 10:14am by Belkira


Maybe the Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules bonded to each other naturally over time.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#6 Apr 29 2010 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
What I don't find is an explanation as to why the supposition is that water was brought to Earth. Why is it nut supposed that water formed on Earth the same way it formed on asteroids?


The water part, while surely emphasized in the article, didn't strike me as the important part. PAHs, the organics they mentioned, was what I found interesting. Organics aren't quite as abundant.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#7 Apr 29 2010 at 9:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Harkening back to my Astronomy class days, the short answer is that the mineral dusts which slowly bonded together and formed the planet wouldn't have had any native moisture due to their composition, distance to the sun and lack of protective atmosphere. Water would have had to been introduced sometime after the planet had already formed.

I don't recall the details beyond that well enough to get into it unless I do some research. Which is research you could just be doing yourself.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Apr 29 2010 at 9:50 AM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Harkening back to my Astronomy class days, the short answer is that the mineral dusts which slowly bonded together and formed the planet wouldn't have had any native moisture due to their composition, distance to the sun and lack of protective atmosphere. Water would have had to been introduced sometime after the planet had already formed.

I don't recall the details beyond that well enough to get into it unless I do some research. Which is research you could just be doing yourself.

Yeah, I remember that too. What doesn't track though is how we come up with 3.6*10^20 gallons of water from outside impacts. If we get our atmosphere from impact debris (evaporating water, released gases), why doesn't the moon have a similar atmosphere? I wouldn't expect it to mirror Earth's, but something substantially thinner should still exist.
#9 Apr 29 2010 at 9:55 AM Rating: Decent
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
If we get our atmosphere from impact debris (evaporating water, released gases), why doesn't the moon have a similar atmosphere?


[smartass]

Maybe it's there but we just can't see it.

[/smartass]
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#10 Apr 29 2010 at 10:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
If we get our atmosphere from impact debris (evaporating water, released gases), why doesn't the moon have a similar atmosphere? I wouldn't expect it to mirror Earth's, but something substantially thinner should still exist.

Variety of reasons. Less gravity, the speed of the moon "flings off" lighter elements such as nitrogen and oxygen, scoured/blown off by impacts and solar wind, etc.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Apr 29 2010 at 10:15 AM Rating: Good
Moe wrote:
but something substantially thinner should still exist.


Something substantially thinner does exist.

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#12 Apr 29 2010 at 10:47 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
What I don't find is an explanation as to why the supposition is that water was brought to Earth. Why is it nut supposed that water formed on Earth the same way it formed on asteroids?


I was thinking the same thing. There seems to be so much water on Earth, it seems weird to assume that it all came from comets or asteroids.

Well, back when this was happening, there were far, far more small objects roaming about the solar system, likely totaling more than the mass of the Earth itself. If most of these had accumulated, say, half their mass in frozen water then ended up peppering the planet, voila.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#13 Apr 29 2010 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
What doesn't track though is how we come up with 3.6*10^20 gallons of water from outside impacts.
Eh, it's not beyond possibility that the source of a large portion of the water would have been the impactor that produced the Moon. (It's not particularly likely unless that object was mostly ice, but it's a possibility.)

Keep in mind that an icy impactor roughly the size of Mars (which is about the size proposed for the one that formed the Moon) would only have had to leave about 1% of its mass in water to give us that much water.

(This is, of course, assuming that the Moon was produced by a Mars-sized impactor, not some other mechanism.)
#14 Apr 29 2010 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
It's all a pointless discussion as Bob blinked everything in to existence exactly as it is today, anyway.
#15 Apr 29 2010 at 11:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sarah Palin? Dat j00?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Apr 29 2010 at 11:38 AM Rating: Good
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
It's all a pointless discussion as Bob blinked everything in to existence exactly as it is today, anyway.
Exhibit A: New Jersey, which is clearly Hell.
#17 Apr 29 2010 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Sarah Palin? Dat j00?

No, she would have suggested she knows more about this because she can see the baby Jesus from her house.
#18 Apr 29 2010 at 12:46 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
If we get our atmosphere from impact debris (evaporating water, released gases), why doesn't the moon have a similar atmosphere? I wouldn't expect it to mirror Earth's, but something substantially thinner should still exist.

Variety of reasons. Less gravity, the speed of the moon "flings off" lighter elements such as nitrogen and oxygen, scoured/blown off by impacts and solar wind, etc.


There is a not particularly well accepted set of experiments which show that large, icy comets strike Earth at about the right rate that all water came from space at a steady rate, which still occurs now. However, the standard theory is that there was a time after the Earth's surface cooled that the rate was very high - and it is lower now (I forget what that time was called the second something or another).

As for why the Moon does not hold much of an atmosphere, at least of lighter elements, it is mostly an effect of energy.

So there are two competing energies: the gravitational potential energy holding the gas to the moon and the thermal kinetic energy. The potential energy is taken to be zero at infinity* and is more negative the nearer to the Moon. This is like a chemical bond, which is often said to have negative energy (which has to be overcome to break the bond). The thermal kinetic energy is positive. If the thermal is greater in magnitude then the gravitational potential is negative (e.g. if you add them and get a positive number) then the particle has enough energy to escape the Moon (Note: this may well not be enough to escape either the Earth's or the Sun's pull).

To go further, we have to discuss the formulas: The average** thermal kinetic energy is given by 3/2 k_b T, where the k_b is Boltzmann's constant and T is the temperature, in Kelvin (or any other absolute scale such as Ridberg).

The gravitational potential is given by -Gm_M m_gas / r, where G is the universal gravitational constant, m_M is the mass of the moon and m_gas is the mass of your gas particle and r is the distance from the center of the moon to the gas particle. Let us set r to the radius of the moon (which assumes the gas is on the surface, or at low altitude).

To find the minimum temperature of the gas to leave the Moon, we set the two forms of energy equal.

Let me eliminate all the universal constants and replace them with C.

So if: C m_M m_gas / r > T, then the gas stays. Otherwise it has enough energy to leave. The absolute temperature of the Moon is not terribly different from the Earth, so the main reason stuff leaves is low mass.

Heavy gasses (such as neon, argon) have much greater masses and are found in the lunar atmosphere (according to my copy of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 64th edition). Both the mass and radius of the Moon contribute in major ways. Basically, the Moon is vastly less massive (like 0.01 Earth masses) then the Earth, but only 1/3 the radius.

The speed of the Moon has nothing (well, very, very little) to do with it. And the Moon experiences the same solar wind as the Earth, but lacks a magnetic field to protect it and that has to do with the interior. Why Earth has the field it does is a bit of a mystery. And I'm sure the solar wind is a major contributer. However, the gravity can be understood more easily so I've put it here.


*actually, there is no real zero of energy - only changes in energy are measurable - thus the zero is arbitrary and this choice is convenient for this discussion.

** this is only the average kinetic energy. Some particles will have a few times more or less energy. There is a distribution. If the average particle has enough energy to leave, the gas will leave in a hurry. However, even if the average particle has 2-5 times less then enough energy, some small fraction of the particles will leave per unit time and eventually there will be NO atmosphere left, of that type of gas.
#19 Apr 29 2010 at 12:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'll take your word for it. I was paraphrasing vague memories from a class three years ago.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Apr 29 2010 at 1:09 PM Rating: Good
Lou Frank is the guy with the claims about the boatloads of icy comets striking the Earth, daily. A good summary of the discussion is available here:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/badminicomet.html

and here:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/minicomet.html

This is Frank's presentation on the small comets:

http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/preslectures/frank99/index.html

#21 Apr 29 2010 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
yossarian wrote:
However, the standard theory is that there was a time after the Earth's surface cooled that the rate was very high - and it is lower now (I forget what that time was called the second something or another).
The "Late Heavy Bombardment".
#22 Apr 30 2010 at 8:18 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
It's all a pointless discussion as Bob blinked everything in to existence exactly as it is today, anyway.


I'm more of the opinion that if "Bob" did anything, He did it a really long time ago & has since sat back & watched. While there are certainly theories about water "arising on earth" or being present during the planet's infancy, the combination of organics & water in the asteroid belt is interesting for a few reasons.

The origin of water on earth from comets had been debunked years ago, due to their D/H levels. However, both Asteroid & Kuiper belt objects that have ice, have D/H levels similar to oceanic water. Since ice only forms past the "frost line" in the solar system, which is right in the middle of the asteroid belt itself, it's unlikely much of it was here while the Earth was a hot mess. But if after it cooled some of these impacted the earth, with carbon based organics (the PAHs that are thought to have helped create RNA in the primordial soup itself), then you've got a pretty clear picture of how "life" may have come to be from the early solar system.

And that life now, billions of years later, combines all this stuff & we have the ability to observe it is neat.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#23 Apr 30 2010 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
The origin of water on earth from comets had been debunked years ago, due to their D/H levels.

The origin of water purely being from comets, perhaps.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Apr 30 2010 at 9:23 AM Rating: Good
Odds are the earth's been hit by comets too, but the odds are now more likely a massive (or many) asteroid brought much of the water.

And we can should thank one of them (comet or asteroid) for offing the dinosaurs for us. That worked out well.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#25 Apr 30 2010 at 10:33 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Odds are the earth's been hit by comets too, but the odds are now more likely a massive (or many) asteroid brought much of the water.

And we can should thank one of them (comet or asteroid) for offing the dinosaurs for us. That worked out well.

If the dinosaurs hadn't been offed several million years ago they may have evolved to FTL by now and would be scouring the galaxy!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#26 Apr 30 2010 at 2:14 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
The origin of water on earth from comets had been debunked years ago, due to their D/H levels.

The origin of water purely being from comets, perhaps.


Yes, that is what Jewett believes. He writes: "This D/H ratio, higher than that in terrestrial water and more than 10 times the value for protosolar H2, implies that comets cannot be the only source for the oceans on Earth."

link: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5352/842?ijkey=192b9a07fcdcd57f84211b1e1518bc43e0e6cbef&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Checking a few references:

"The deuterium enrichment in P/Halley is rather similar to the enrichment observed by Jacq et al. (1990) in interstellar H2O, implying an interstellar origin of at least a sizeable fraction of the cometary water. This model and other implications of the high D/H in P/Halley are discussed."

link: http://cel.isiknowledge.com/InboundService.do?product=CEL&action=retrieve&SrcApp=Highwire&UT=A1995RZ17000034&SID=3F357@OkjiFKfIbFh1j&Init=Yes&SrcAuth=Highwire&mode=FullRecord&customersID=Highwire

And another:

" Under reasonable assumptions, we find that no more than a few percent of Earth’s water can be attributed to comets, in agreement with the constraints derived from D/H. Our results also suggest that a significant part of Earth’s atmospheric nitrogen might come from comets. "

ref: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-4WMM7FV-1&_user=521370&_coverDate=11/30/2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1317971943&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000059554&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=521370&md5=e617bf108895b1acef552157ce9e750b

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 271 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (271)