How Rare is Complex Life in the Universe?

Jonathan Sunny Laxmi Philosophy deals with the study of existence, knowledge, and the interaction between the two. Psychology deals with the behavioral and social underpinnings of human behavior. Physics deals with the nature of reality. How do these three interact? It is only in answering this question that we can unravel the intricately interlaced nature of these three fundamental, interdependent areas of interest. Technology has allowed us to verify beliefs about the universe through direct observation. From exploring the galaxies with advanced telescopic technology, peering into the deep recesses of the universe, and analyzing patterns on a cosmological and quantum level, we have a substantive trough of information supporting our strongest theory on all formationthe Big Bang. Using our knowledge about the universes development coupled with the anthropic principle, which is the argument that any theoretical basis for physical explanations of the universe must account for the conscious life that observe and abide by it, we can move our thoughts to the next logical question: Is there complex life elsewhere in the universe? The question of how rare complex life is in the universe is one that has been debated for several years, and has still not been completely answered to this day. Although it seems that this issue has only become prevalent recently, through the publishing of Rare Earth, a book explaining the possibility that we are alone as intelligent organisms in the galaxy, the issue of life and our existence has been around for some time. The Rare Earth controversy has its roots in ancient Greece, where philosophers asked: Are there other worlds like ours harboring other life like us? (Darling 92). From this conception, we see that the Hellenic kosmos placed the Earth at the center of many revolving spheres. Aristotle, Plato and other followers of this belief established the idea that we were at the center of the universe and that there was nothing else out there except for our sun and our moon. Later on, Copernicus soon realized that the solar system was heliocentric through his observations and plotting of planetary and solar movement. Through the Copernican Revolution, questions of other bodies in space and the galaxy were soon questioned, and within five hundred years, we came to know of the several other stars out there in billions of other galaxies, and the lack of uniqueness of our own system and planet. To redefine our understanding of our own planetary and solar system we began to look at Earths biological status. The two opinions developed during the 1920s and 1930s that were widespread among biologists first, that either the steps leading to life were highly improbable, or second, that the planets of the solar system had formed in the wake of a near-collision between the Sun and another star. This would have given an explanation to those trying to understand the formation of planets of our solar system because it would have shown that planets could only be formed as a result of an incredibly unlikely encounter, therefore making life, and us, rare and unique. By the 1970s a new argument had surfaced which gave way to the present hypotheses that exist today. Some astronomers, led by Michael Hart, spoke of a habitable zone around a star, which was a region in which an Earth-like planet would be able to support liquid water, and how it was narrower than had been originally thought. Through his calculations, he figured that if the Earth had been just one percent farther from the Sun, it would have become permanently encased in ice (Darling 94). Although this was later disproved through the discovery of the importance of extra greenhouse heating, Hart brought up the concept of chaos theory (also known as the 1

butterfly effect), which has proven itself apparent in several other situations. This theory points out that even the smallest change in initial conditions of a dynamical system can cause great changes in the outcomes or eventual products. To put all these concepts into application, Francis Drake proposed an equation in 1961, which estimates the number of advanced civilizations (having intelligent life and being able to communicate) that might be present in the galaxy. Bias placed towards the potential existence of intelligent, complex life elsewhere in the galaxy stems from the use of this equation. The Drake Equation is presented as follows: N = R* fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L. R is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy; fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets; ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets; f is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point; fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life; fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space; and L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space. Although some of the equations elements can be figured out, such as the rate at which stars form in our galaxy, from fl onward, there are no definitive quantities that scientists, astrobiologists, or physicists can attribute. Because we cannot pinpoint the fraction of planets that will go on to develop life, since the only known example of this is Earth, we cannot infer much more objectively from the Drake equation. The components of the Drake Equation are held separately from biological implications and the implications of what had to occur for Earth to be created. Peter D. Ward and David Brownlee were the first two to truly shed light on the importance of a potential rare earth hypothesis. They put forth conditions to explain how life on earth, and the earth itself, must have required a specific order of circumstances and conditions to come into existence, and how there is a very small if any possibility of there being another planet with intelligent, complex life like ours. In essence, aside from the complicated and complex processes in the actual evolution and development of biological life on our planet, both Ward and Brownlee conclude that in order for complex life to exist on a planet, there are certain conditions, that our planet has met and another planet must meet as well to have intelligent life. The planet must have a large, nearby moon; it must experience the right level of catastrophic events to promote biological diversity without completely extinguishing life; it must be an Earth-like world in its stars continuously habitable zone; the planetary system must contain a Jupiter-like world in a Jupiter-like orbit; the planets orbit must be precise so that it does not fall out of orbit around a solitary, stable, Sunlike star; the planet must have ongoing plate tectonics; and the planetary system must move within the Galactic Habitable Zone. (Darling 95) Physicist Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University makes a valid point in saying that Ward and Brownlee summarize clearly the developments over the past few decades that reveal the complexity of the evolution of advanced life on earth. However, demonstrating the complexity of a process is different from demonstrating that the end result is rare (Darling 92). Planets must have a large, nearby moon because if the Earth was spinning at the same rate as it is now, and did not have a large moon, its obliquity would vary chaotically from zero to eighty-five degrees. Obliquity is the angle of tilt of Earths spin axis relative to the plane of its orbit and is the cause of seasonal changes. For most of Earths history, Earths obliquity has not varied from its twenty-three degree obliquity. It [the moon] causes lunar tides, it stabilizes the 2

tilt of Earths spin axis, and it slows the Earths rate of rotation. Of these, the most important is its effect on its obliquity (Ward & Brownlee 223). This argument was derived from the work of Jacques Laskar and his coworkers in 1993. It is this tilt, of course, that gives rise to the seasons: northern hemisphere summer occurs when the North Pole is tilted towards the Sun, while winter occurs when the North Pole is tilted away from the Sun. Ward and Brownlee point out that obliquities approaching 90 degrees would lead to extreme seasonal cycles, especially in polar continental interiors where the moderating effects of the ocean are small. Continents located near the equator would experience an unusual seasonal cycle with two summers and two winters each year, but their climates would not be subject to the extremes of temperature that would occur at high latitudes. We cannot be sure that a moonless Earth would have prevented intelligent life from arising. A moonless Earth's obliquity would vary chaotically depends on the planet's spin rate and initial obliquity, as well as on the masses and orbital periods of the other planets (Kasting 3). Models that have been made of Earth-Moon systems indicate that Earth may have been spinning at a rapid rate initially and may have slowed down over time due to friction caused by solar and lunar tides. Without the moon, tidal dissipation rate would have been smaller, and the Earths spin would not have decreased as fast. The only issue is that the very reason why the Earth was spinning so fast was because of the presupposed Moon-forming impact, therefore not giving a clear answer as to the true initial effects of the moon upon the Earth, or the full consequences of a moonless Earth. It is extremely difficult to predict whether other Earth-like planets will be in the chaotic obliquity regime or not, so we cannot yet determine whether this is a widespread problem for planetary habitability (Kasting 2-3). Even is a large moon is found in a separate planetary system for a planet, we cannot conclude that conditions for complex life exist. Another factor that plays into the Rare Earth hypothesis and that a specific set of circumstances gave birth to the formation of Earth and its intelligent life is the creation of the moon itself. The giant impact hypothesis states that through young Earths collision with a Marssized body called Theia, the moon was formed. There is indirect evidence that comes from rocks collected during the Apollo Moon landings, which show similar oxygen isotope compositions to those of the Earth. When Theia grew to be the size of Mars it became too massive to stay in its own Trojan orbit, so it began to fluctuate its orbit and hit the Earth. Because it is thought that Theia struck the Earth at an oblique angle, we believe Theia was destroyed and a significant portion of its planetary substance was ejected into space. Through computer simulation we have estimated that about two percent of the original mass of Theia then became a ring of debris, which then grouped together into the Moon between one and a hundred years after the impact. (Ward & Brownlee 229-234) Due to the randomness and specific circumstances of this event we see how the Rare Earth hypothesis can be further supported. If it takes such a specific and random set of circumstances to create a large, nearby moon (which is hypothesized as a necessity for intelligent life) then chances are, it is even less possible for there to be other planets that can house or support intelligent life in the galaxy. The habitable zones discussed earlier in this paper play an important role in the Rare Earth hypothesis. Earths location being a seemingly ideal distance from the sun gives further support to the idea of a habitable zone. This zone represents a region where heating from a 3

central star provides a planetary surface temperature at which a water ocean neither freezes over nor exceeds its boiling point (Ward & Brownlee 16-17) But not only is there a habitable zone according to Ward and Brownlee, but also an Animal Habitable Zone. This zone is where a planet has to have a mean surface temperature between 0 and 50C. They came to this conclusion because 50C seems to be the upper limit above which animal life cannot exist. Because water can exist on a planetary surface at temperatures up to the boiling point, a planet with liquid water on its surface might be much too hot to allow animal life (Ward & Brownlee 20). This further narrows the conditions under which complex life can actually exist, if it can come to exist outside of our planet at all. The location of a planetary system within a galaxy must be favorable to the development of life. Ward and Brownlee point out that not all regions of the Milky Way galaxy are equally likely to harbor habitable planets. There are planets that are too close to the center of the galaxy and those that are too far. Those planets that are orbiting stars too close to the center of the galaxy have a higher chance of being disturbed by close stellar encounters, and may find themselves more susceptible to catastrophic events such as supernovae or gamma ray bursts. Stars that are near the outer edge of the galaxy are less rich in metals than the sun, and therefore have less of a chance of having orbiting planets in the first place. In order for there to be life, a system must be close enough to the galactic center so that there are enough heavy elements can form rocky planets. Also, heavier elements may also need to be present as they form complex molecules of life, such as iron or iodine. (Kasting 3-4) While any specific example of a heavier element may not be necessary for all life, heavier elements in general become increasingly necessary for complex life on Earth (both as complex molecules and as sources of energy (Brown 1). Considering the topic of protection from hazardous impacts and extraneous objects, we see the importance of the presence of a Jupiter-like world in a Jupiter-like orbit. This argument derives largely from the work of George Wetherill in 1994. In general, Jupiter helps shield the inner Solar System from cometary impacts which originate from either the Oort Cloud or the Kuiper Belt. Because Jupiter is so massive, more than three hundred times Earths size, it is able to kick back most of the perturbed objects that are brought into orbit in the region occupied by planets before it reaches the inner solar system. Wetherills studies suggest that if Jupiter was not present the frequency of cometary impacts on Earth could have been as much as 1,000 to 10,000 times the current value. (Kasting 1-2) But unfortunately, the existence of Jupiter can prove to be a detriment to our planetary system as well. Due to Jupiters large mass and gravity, the Earth has been hit occasionally by asteroids that have come from the asteroid belt. The large gravity of Jupiter makes it a doubleedged sword in this way. It was most likely an asteroid, not a comet, that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as evidenced by the high concentrations of iridium in the boundary layer clay. Indeed, the very existence of the asteroid belt is most likely a result of Jupiter's large gravity, which prevented a planet from forming in that region. So, to the extent that asteroid impacts are a danger to life on Earth, Jupiter is a villain as well as a protector (Kasting 1-2). Recent studies in 2008 have shown that Jupiter acts more as a sniper in attracting asteroids and other materials in space within the solar system than it does to protect it. This observation dismisses the fact that a Jupiter-like planet is necessary for intelligent life to exist. 4

Another concept important to the understanding of whether there is the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is the Fermi paradox. The Fermi paradox is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations. This idea was supposedly put forth by Enrico Fermi at a lunch in 1950, where he had wondered where extraterrestrial life could be. Due to the extreme age of the universe and the amount of stars, it is intrinsically suggested that if the earth is typical, extraterrestrial life should be common. Enrico Fermi questioned why, if a multitude of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist in the Milky Way galaxy, evidence such as spacecrafts or probes are not seen (Wesson 161). There are several reasons for why intelligent life may not have contacted us, including the idea that an intelligent race may have already destroyed itself, may not know how to communicate with us, or just may be too distant from us within the galaxy to communicate. All these implications can be answered by the fact that there may not be intelligent life out there, as the Rare Earth hypothesis suggests. The chance of there being intelligent life is extremely low, and if there is intelligent life, we still do not know how to or if we will communicate with them. It is important to remember that fifty years ago we did not have any idea about the quantitative amounts used in the Drake equation. Although we are still missing definitive knowledge to know the number of planets with intelligent life (N) in the Drake equation we have calculated the amounts for the first three symbols in the equation. We know R, the rate of star formation, to be ten stars in our galaxy; fp to be .5, and ne to be 2 (with Mars being on the edge of the habitable zone). (Bounama, Von Bloh, & Franck 747, 748) Through this we can see that progress has been made with the Drake equation, and hopefully if we continue to work with our observations, scientific deductions, and possibly any signs or communication we may receive from intelligent life in the future, we will understand better the concept of how rare complex life really is in the universe.

(This paper was written by Jonathan Sunny Laxmi for Dr. Steven Soters New York University Honors Seminar Class Life in the Universe. Dr. Steven Soter, is an astrophysicist currently holding the positions of scientist-in-residence for NYUs Environmental Studies Program and of Research Associate for the Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History. He co-wrote Carl Sagan's 1980 astronomy documentary series Cosmos.) 5

Works Cited Bounama, Christine, and Werner Von Bloh, & Siegfried Franck. "How Rare Is Complex Life in the Milky Way?." Astrobiology 7 (2007).

Brown, Ann. "Is Iron an Energy Source for Early Life on Anoxic Earth?." The Geological Society of America (2005).

Darling, David. Life Everywhere: The Maverick Science of Astrobiology. New York: Basic Books, 2001.

Kasting, James F.. "Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee's "Rare Earth"." Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 44 (2001): 117-131.

Ward, Peter D., and Donald Brownlee. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. New York: Copernicus, 2000.

Wesson, Paul S.. "Cosmology, Extraterrestrial Intelligence, and a Resolution of the Fermi-Hart Paradox." Royal Astronomical Society 31(1990): 161-170.