IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Water formed by the solar wind.
The idea that the water on the Earth all came from comets never made much sense to me. New research shows that water can be formed by the solar wind hitting rocks and dust.

http://phys.org/news...e-laboratory.html

Water ice is the most abundant solid material in the universe. Much of it was created as the byproduct of star formation, but not all. John Bradley of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and his team may have discovered a new source of water in our solar system. His lab experiments reveal that the solar wind may be creating water on interplanetary dust.

The sun ejects high-speed charged particles in all directions. Bodies in the inner solar system get bombarded by this wind of particles, which continuously varies in intensity.

Small bodies, such as dust particles or tiny asteroids, can be eroded by these harsh winds. Larger bodies that do not have an atmosphere, such as the Moon, are bombarded by both the solar wind and tiny meteorites. This form of bombardment causes a phenomenon called space weathering. (Atmospheres protect planets from tiny meteorites, while a magnetic field can deflect solar winds.)

[...]

The best way to determine whether water forms on silicate rims is to do these experiments on the types of silicate material that exist in space. Bradley did this by using three types of these minerals: olivine, clinopyroxene, and anorthine. These were exposed to charged hydrogen and helium particles, which were a proxy for the solar wind.

If water is formed by the solar wind, it would only be found in the samples that were exposed to hydrogen – not in those exposed to helium. And that is what happened. As reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Bradley's sensitive tests repeatedly found water, but only in the samples that were bombarded by hydrogen.

Martin McCoustra at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh finds the work convincing. He said: "I am not very surprised that water could be formed on silicates. However, now that they have shown that it can, it could be an important source of water."

Bradley's work implies that water molecules must have been forming for billions of years on interplanetary dust particles, on the Moon, and possibly on asteroids. However, McCoustra warns that "This source of water, albeit new, won't be able to account for a large proportion of water in the solar system. Most of that water was formed during the process of star formation that our sun went through."

Some have argued that water-rich comets planted water on our planet. But McCoustra reckons that a single-source is unlikely. And this study provides another potential source for the material that helps make our planet habitable.


Neat.

Cheers,
Scott.
New And the lack of water on the moon or Mars are because...?
Alex

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

-- Isaac Asimov
New The gravity is too weak, and/or lack of a magnetic field or
Gotta have something to protect the surface water from the solar wind once it is there. Gravity needs to be strong enough and the temperature needs to be in the right range, too. Having a reasonably thick atmosphere can help.

E.g. deep craters on the moon that aren't exposed to the solar wind have ice - http://www.nrl.navy.mil/clementine2/

http://en.wikipedia....rial_liquid_water

IOW, God's will. ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New And today: NASA says water detected on Ceres
http://science.nasa....2014/22jan_ceres/

Jan. 22, 2014: Scientists using the Herschel space observatory have made the first definitive detection of water vapor on the largest and roundest object in the asteroid belt, dwarf planet Ceres.

"This is the first time water vapor has been unequivocally detected on Ceres or any other object in the asteroid belt and provides proof that Ceres has an icy surface and an atmosphere," said Michael Küppers of ESA in Spain, lead author of a paper in the journal Nature.

[...]

For the last century, Ceres was known as the largest asteroid in our solar system. But in 2006, the International Astronomical Union, the governing organization responsible for naming planetary objects, reclassified Ceres as a dwarf planet because of its large size. It is roughly 590 miles (950 kilometers) in diameter. When it first was spotted in 1801, astronomers thought it was a planet orbiting between Mars and Jupiter. Later, other cosmic bodies with similar orbits were found, marking the discovery of our solar system's main belt of asteroids.

Scientists believe Ceres contains rock in its interior with a thick mantle of ice that, if melted, would amount to more fresh water than is present on all of Earth. The materials making up Ceres likely date from the first few million years of our solar system's existence and accumulated before the planets formed.

[...]


Neat.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Heartening news for those of us who have shepherded protons
in humongous numbers--from one place t'another (usually in pursuit of a Nobel or other prize for superior model-making.)
Who'd a thunk that the omniverse was chock-full of ... humongous numbers too, of OH- ions!
more or less just meandering about, along some silica and.. just..
..Waiting for Godot !?

(And what an exquisite appreciation) demonstrated in launching this experiment, for: just how vanishingly-small bits
--if there are enough of them nearby, can supply a planet with enough of this Elixir to, say, in some next:
Grow the improved-successor to Homo-Sap.

(Maybe this new species traps a few of our quadrillionth-watt I Love Lucy broadcasts--as reach them just before they ponder ...
The Curious Question of the Isotope which Splits, somehow?)


Maybe Piet Hein was ~wrong? We might even be Missed. Right?


Is life not a hundred times too short for us to stifle ourselves
--Nietzsche

To sum up: 1. The cosmos is a gigantic fly-wheel making 10,000 revolutions a minute. 2. Man is a sick fly taking a dizzy ride on it.
3. Religion is the theory that the wheel was designed and set spinning to give him the ride.
--HL Mencken
New Astrobiology
I recommend Charles Cockrell's MOOC "Astrobiology and the Search for Extraterrestrial Life."
https://www.coursera.org/course/astrobio I took the course last year and enjoyed it immensely. He just started it up again last week.

Comet impacts during the Late Heavy Bombardment still seem the likeliest source for most of the water on Earth.

As to why the Moon and Mars do not have large reserves of surface water, well you need a few things working in concert to retain water: a radiant core producing a magnetic field (Mars' is mostly gone), active volcanism to stoke the atmosphere, substantial gravity, and—once sufficient surface water is present through LHB or other means—plate tectonics to keep the engine running.
New Neat. Thanks very much.
New A short video that explains it.
https://plus.google....posts/YznssmChgvL

(or on YouTube for you Google-less folks - https://www.youtube....tch?v=_LpgBvEPozk )

Makes sense I guess. :-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New Well done!
Alex

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

-- Isaac Asimov
New That's so hard to get my head around
All the water here was deposited bit by bit by meteoroids. That's ... no, I can't fit that in my brain. Doesn't mean it's not true, of course.
--

Drew
New It's the time thing that I usually forget.
The Earth is really, really old. Lots of not-very-likely things can happen given enough time.

There's a lot of stuff out there that wants to come visit...

Animated GIF of known near-Earth objects - http://www.minorplan...ns/Inner_2011.gif

(from http://www.minorplan...s/Animations.html )

Cheers,
Scott.
New Cool ... though that monster gif crashed my damn browser
--

Drew
New Sorry. I meant to mention that it was 30 MB (!!!).
New Rosetta says not comets like Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
ESA:

Previous measurements of the deuterium/hydrogen (D/H) ratio in other comets have shown a wide range of values. Of the 11 comets for which measurements have been made, it is only the Jupiter-family Comet 103P/Hartley 2 that was found to match the composition of Earth’s water, in observations made by ESA’s Herschel mission in 2011.

By contrast, meteorites originally hailing from asteroids in the Asteroid Belt also match the composition of Earth’s water. Thus, despite the fact that asteroids have a much lower overall water content, impacts by a large number of them could still have resulted in Earth’s oceans.

It is against this backdrop that Rosetta’s investigations are important. Interestingly, the D/H ratio measured by the Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and Neutral Analysis, or ROSINA, is more than three times greater than for Earth’s oceans and for its Jupiter-family companion, Comet Hartley 2. Indeed, it is even higher than measured for any Oort cloud comet as well.

“This surprising finding could indicate a diverse origin for the Jupiter-family comets – perhaps they formed over a wider range of distances in the young Solar System than we previously thought,” says Kathrin Altwegg, principal investigator for ROSINA and lead author of the paper reporting the results in the journal Science this week.

“Our finding also rules out the idea that Jupiter-family comets contain solely Earth ocean-like water, and adds weight to models that place more emphasis on asteroids as the main delivery mechanism for Earth’s oceans.”

“We knew that Rosetta’s in situ analysis of this comet was always going to throw up surprises for the bigger picture of Solar System science, and this outstanding observation certainly adds fuel to the debate about the origin of Earth’s water,” says Matt Taylor, ESA’s Rosetta project scientist.


Nature's almost always more complex than our simple pictures.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who still needs to look at the course you referenced. :-)
New It appears the picture is still evolving.
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-earth.html

Early Earth's accidental deluge via water-carrying comets has long been a stumbling block for those interested in life on other planets.
Scientists agree that life needs water to evolve. But if water only arrives through chance impacts with comets, then life elsewhere might indeed be rare.

Water is common among the meteorites and other small bodies whose collisions formed the Earth, but scientists have long believed that the intense heat of the events dried out the young planet. Water must have arrived later, splashing down from comets after the planet was formed.

New research, however, is changing that view. Evidence is mounting that the planet's water arrived early, during formation, aboard meteorites and small bodies called "planetesimals." The work also suggests that though the planet-forming collisions were so energetic that they led to oceans of magma and widespread melting, even the intense heat would not have dried out the planet completely.

The emerging view of a watery birth for the Earth has raised the hopes of scientists seeking extrasolar life. If the presence of water isn't left to chance collisions but instead is a product of the planet-forming process, then oceans where life can evolve may be common after all.

"It is very possible that many planets are born with liquid water oceans," said Linda Elkins-Tanton, director of the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Terrestrial Magnetism.

[...]


Neat.
New Water is older than the Sun.
How's that for something mind-boggling?

Phys.org:

In its youth, the Sun was surrounded by a protoplanetary disk, the so-called solar nebula, from which the planets were born. But it was unclear to researchers whether the ice in this disk originated from the Sun's own parental interstellar molecular cloud, from which it was created, or whether this interstellar water had been destroyed and was re-formed by the chemical reactions taking place in the solar nebula.
"Why this is important? If water in the early Solar System was primarily inherited as ice from interstellar space, then it is likely that similar ices, along with the prebiotic organic matter that they contain, are abundant in most or all protoplanetary disks around forming stars," Alexander explained. "But if the early Solar System's water was largely the result of local chemical processing during the Sun's birth, then it is possible that the abundance of water varies considerably in forming planetary systems, which would obviously have implications for the potential for the emergence of life elsewhere."

[...]

So the team created models that simulated a protoplanetary disk in which all the deuterium from space ice has already been eliminated by chemical processing, and the system has to start over "from scratch" at producing ice with deuterium in it during a million-year period. They did this in order to see if the system can reach the ratios of deuterium to hydrogen that are found in meteorite samples, Earth's ocean water, and "time capsule" comets. They found that it could not do so, which told them that at least some of the water in our own Solar System has an origin in interstellar space and pre-dates the birth of the Sun.
"Our findings show that a significant fraction of our Solar System's water, the most-fundamental ingredient to fostering life, is older than the Sun, which indicates that abundant, organic-rich interstellar ices should probably be found in all young planetary systems," Alexander said.


First we're not the center of the Universe. Now life is unlikely to be unique here? Oh, no!!111

Or, alternatively...

See! The Genesis story is right!! The water came first!!11

:-)

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who thinks it's fascinating that something as simple as "where did water come from" is still a complex topic with lots of potential explanations.)
New Fascinating indeed, (however unlikely to affect the Certain.)
Can't approach the larger 'Genesis' however: (The Q. we are not allowed to ask.. seriously) "Why" is there anything at all?
I mean.. we ~see the "equivalence mass==energy" (Dark, White or multicolored.) This demonstrated fact (and our "physics") hold that to be Truthiness--whether or not
there were any creature we call sentient--to observe same. But ... Can We correctly skip that QM koan re an Observer ... this cavalierly? as just a little [Referent] imprecision.

Methinks that, those of us who enlisted in the Science game have special responsibilities in All areas (not just where we find the 'experiments' handily do-able.)
Science is not allowed to address' Why?' just 'How'. At the dawn of the category later called Physics such methodical inquiries were called Natural Philosophy.
Modern Philosophers had bloody-well better know something of Science (unless within a protected-Class like say, Repos.)

I remain unsure if many Scientists acknowledge that, at the most incisive levels: they'd bloody-well better have paid attention to Philosophy too
(as both these categories also morphed through time.) We may never grok-to-fullness any 'Why' of that: putative infinite-energy/within infinitesimal 'space' suddenly manifesting er itSelf?
but pretending/pronouncing that "time began" there, so forget any Whys..! begs both the Question and its dismissal.

A modern Scientist can always emulate Boltzmann, absorb the snide remarks of his cohorts and their [Referents]. Think how marvelous a discovery (IF..)
that math just might posit some angles-of-view of pre-Genesis? Time=0 is a philosophical metaphor, not just because it messes with the jelloware's every 'experience'. Here: it weasels.
The world's first Theoretical Philosopher-Physicist Nobelist?
(Singularity is another junk-word just like non-specific vaginitis in medicine, no?) Recall that Phlogiston was current in another era; someone needs to focus
upon the elided Questions--at regular intervals--or we'll just know more & moar about less and less; it's such a safe plan.

And yes, I do focus now more at the Limits than the insanely-great Accomplishments (Einstein said it better, of course.) If I can't, by now, internally summarize all the onion layers
yet adsorbed, notice where weasel-words have substituted for further inquiry? w.t.f. was the use of all that crammed-in material, the uncounted hours and expense?
I coulda been Partying.


I hardly worry any more that, should I disappear--thus too.. that Projector-thing! and my ocular receptors--Everything in the daily illusion shall also cease. to. exist.
I am humble in that respect. (I may find out in the last n-Sec? but do not seek to hasten this last-test.)

But what if YOU are the culprit?!ONE111 (and I wink-out ..never knowing what To Be sorta meant!)

;^>
     Water formed by the solar wind. - (Another Scott) - (16)
         And the lack of water on the moon or Mars are because...? -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
             The gravity is too weak, and/or lack of a magnetic field or - (Another Scott)
             And today: NASA says water detected on Ceres - (Another Scott)
         Heartening news for those of us who have shepherded protons - (Ashton)
         Astrobiology - (gcareaga) - (8)
             Neat. Thanks very much. -NT - (Another Scott)
             A short video that explains it. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                 Well done! -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                 That's so hard to get my head around - (drook) - (3)
                     It's the time thing that I usually forget. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                         Cool ... though that monster gif crashed my damn browser -NT - (drook) - (1)
                             Sorry. I meant to mention that it was 30 MB (!!!). -NT - (Another Scott)
             Rosetta says not comets like Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko - (Another Scott)
         It appears the picture is still evolving. - (Another Scott)
         Water is older than the Sun. - (Another Scott) - (1)
             Fascinating indeed, (however unlikely to affect the Certain.) - (Ashton)

IANK.
72 ms