Hello ! Just a (naive ?) question here :
I've read that the atoms that are now in our body were originally formed inside stars that exploded, and by doing that the same atoms were "enabled" to "make" us.
Looking at the night sky, one sees thousands of stars, that are no longer really there, since their light reaches us now, but they can be millions of light years away from us.
So, could it be that we can actually see the light of a star that no longer exists, but contained atoms that are now parts of our bodies ? In other words : Can we still "see" where parts of us came from ?
Thanks !
Nope. Since the atoms cannot travel faster than light, they can't get here before the visual information that the star has died. Or at least, that's what I'd think. Since common sense doesn't apply in physics maybe one of our more informed physics people has a different story :P
Also:
http://zenpencils.com/comic/42-neil-deg ... ding-fact/ (http://zenpencils.com/comic/42-neil-degrasse-tyson-the-most-astounding-fact/)
Because I still like promoting this guy 8-)
That's actually a pretty cool concept, though like Plu said it doesn't seem to work unless (like alot of physics) it goes all sorts of crazy.
Quote from: "Plu"Nope. Since the atoms cannot travel faster than light, they can't get here before the visual information that the star has died. Or at least, that's what I'd think. Since common sense doesn't apply in physics maybe one of our more informed physics people has a different story :P
Also:
http://zenpencils.com/comic/42-neil-deg ... ding-fact/ (http://zenpencils.com/comic/42-neil-degrasse-tyson-the-most-astounding-fact/)
Because I still like promoting this guy 8-)
I like Neil but I still like Mikio too and even Amy Mainzer who has the additional advantage of being rather cute~
The other problem with the question is that those atoms/elements came from 1st and 2nd generation stars that only burned for millions/hundreds of millions of years over 13 billion years ago before going super nova. Not certain on how far the WMAP (13.5 billion yrs I think it was.) goes but it's borderline to those so I doubt the light would still be visible even if it were still around.
We are also made of something that is big and went bang. :)
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"We are also made of something that is big and went bang. :)
Hey now this is a family board! Cool your jets pal!
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"We are also made of something that is big and went bang. :)
Hey now this is a family board! Cool your jets pal!
Get your brain out of the gutter before it gathers sludge. :P
Well I'll say it. I'm made from lust! Dirty, filthy, disgusting lust. My mom and dad did the horizontal dance and 9 months later my mom cussed me out of her body and probably cussed my dad too.
The star(s) that exploded to form the solar system (after the remnants collided with a molecular cloud of hydrogen and triggered its collapse) did so about 5 billion years ago, but only in our immediate stellar neighborhood (likely less than 50 light years away). Also, most of the individual stars we can see with our naked eye are only in the range of about 4 light years to a few thousand light years away.
And in any case, light from stars travels at the speed of light, while matter ejected from an exploding star travels slower than that.
So as cool as the idea my be, the answer is "No, we can't see the stars that made us." However, there are apparently remains of the original stellar cloud that are still detectable... but I'd have to google it and I don't have the time right now.
Every time I flush the toilet I'm going to remind myself that I'm made from stars.
Thank you for your answers !
I haven't read all the responses, but here is my take. Yes, I think we are made of stars. The first and only elements created in the big bang were hydrogen and helium. The rest of the elements could only form in the core of stars where sufficiently large amounts of heat and energy were available to create the rest of the periodic table. At least this is the limit of what I know from only one source than I have read.
It's not like these far flung stars are flinging new atoms through the universe and constantly restocking our supply of atoms necessary for life. But they were formed in the stars. Those atoms we currently use have been around for longer than the time it takes light to travel from the farthest reaches of the universe. I presume those atoms we use are from a time when things weren't so far away. Obviously they can't be older than 13.8 billion years, but they don't need to be. All that is necessary is that we are lucky enough to have a small amount from ancient nearby stars.
Edit: I should not have said newer atoms have been around for longer than the time it takes light to reach us from the farthest points of the universe. That would be impossible, of course. But the rest of the argument should still make sense. Well, at least to me.
Quote from: "Atheon"The star(s) that exploded to form the solar system (after the remnants collided with a molecular cloud of hydrogen and triggered its collapse) did so about 5 billion years ago, but only in our immediate stellar neighborhood (likely less than 50 light years away). Also, most of the individual stars we can see with our naked eye are only in the range of about 4 light years to a few thousand light years away.
And in any case, light from stars travels at the speed of light, while matter ejected from an exploding star travels slower than that.
So as cool as the idea my be, the answer is "No, we can't see the stars that made us." However, there are apparently remains of the original stellar cloud that are still detectable... but I'd have to google it and I don't have the time right now.
Had I read all the responses before I posted, I would have just pointed to this post and saved some time.
This is very intriguing! Going with this, why aren't more planets similar to earth, then? Why would our planet only be able to sustain human life? Seeing that this wasn't an ''ordered'' but rather random occurence. Not sure if my question makes sense? :-k
Quote from: "Deidre32"This is very intriguing! Going with this, why aren't more planets similar to earth, then? Why would our planet only be able to sustain human life? Seeing that this wasn't an ''ordered'' but rather random occurence. Not sure if my question makes sense? :-k
Dee, they have found rocky planets in the Universe like Earth, most have been bigger and determining the makeup is a little difficult at this time but it will happen eventually. The count on planets discovered outside our own solar system is well over 2,000 now. Most are like Jupiter and Saturn but only because they're larger and easier to find than those like Earth. Looking for Earth like planets is looking for one particular needle in a stack of needles inside a crate of needles. :P
As I stated earlier the existence of life elsewhere goes beyond the drake equation and now also includes a planets place in a stable region of a galaxy, a stabilizing moon and even tectonic activity or so the theory now goes.
Quote from: "Moriarty"Quote from: "Deidre32"This is very intriguing! Going with this, why aren't more planets similar to earth, then? Why would our planet only be able to sustain human life? Seeing that this wasn't an ''ordered'' but rather random occurence. Not sure if my question makes sense? :-k
Dee, they have found rocky planets in the Universe like Earth, most have been bigger and determining the makeup is a little difficult at this time but it will happen eventually. The count on planets discovered outside our own solar system is well over 2,000 now. Most are like Jupiter and Saturn but only because they're larger and easier to find than those like Earth. Looking for Earth like planets is looking for one particular needle in a stack of needles inside a crate of needles. :P
As I stated earlier the existence of life elsewhere goes beyond the drake equation and now also includes a planets place in a stable region of a galaxy, a stabilizing moon and even tectonic activity or so the theory now goes.
Thank you for your answer, Moriarty!
But, it still begs the question--why is earth so far, the only planet that can sustain human life? (to the best of our knowledge) If the universe was created by a random occurence, how can that be? I'm not suggesting that the occurence was not random, but there should be more definitive answers as to why earth is the only planet capable of sustaining human life? We are fortunate to have even survived this long, when you stop to think about it. lol
Quote from: "Deidre32"Quote from: "Moriarty"Quote from: "Deidre32"This is very intriguing! Going with this, why aren't more planets similar to earth, then? Why would our planet only be able to sustain human life? Seeing that this wasn't an ''ordered'' but rather random occurence. Not sure if my question makes sense? :-k
Dee, they have found rocky planets in the Universe like Earth, most have been bigger and determining the makeup is a little difficult at this time but it will happen eventually. The count on planets discovered outside our own solar system is well over 2,000 now. Most are like Jupiter and Saturn but only because they're larger and easier to find than those like Earth. Looking for Earth like planets is looking for one particular needle in a stack of needles inside a crate of needles. :P
As I stated earlier the existence of life elsewhere goes beyond the drake equation and now also includes a planets place in a stable region of a galaxy, a stabilizing moon and even tectonic activity or so the theory now goes.
They also believe several of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn to possibly be able to sustain simple life forms.
Thank you for your answer, Moriarty!
But, it still begs the question--why is earth so far, the only planet that can sustain human life? (to the best of our knowledge) If the universe was created by a random occurence, how can that be? I'm not suggesting that the occurence was not random, but there should be more definitive answers as to why earth is the only planet capable of sustaining human life? We are fortunate to have even survived this long, when you stop to think about it. lol
I can only answer with theory~ They do believe that Mars was once a twin to Earth and capable of supporting life. Since it is smaller its iron metal core cooled down more quickly than ours, it stopped rotating which caused it's electromagnetic field to more or less disappear and turned it into the wasteland it is now.
QuoteBut, it still begs the question--why is earth so far, the only planet that can sustain human life?
Because we've only been able to search for them for a very short time, they're very difficult to find, and the odds of a planet being capable of sustaining life aren't all that big.
We've spotted barely anything in this vast universe of ours, so it's a bit early to start making claims about why something is the only one. We simply haven't the data yet.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteBut, it still begs the question--why is earth so far, the only planet that can sustain human life?
Because we've only been able to search for them for a very short time, they're very difficult to find, and the odds of a planet being capable of sustaining life aren't all that big.
We've spotted barely anything in this vast universe of ours, so it's a bit early to start making claims about why something is the only one. We simply haven't the data yet.
That is a good point.
Quote from: "Deidre32"Quote from: "Plu"QuoteBut, it still begs the question--why is earth so far, the only planet that can sustain human life?
Because we've only been able to search for them for a very short time, they're very difficult to find, and the odds of a planet being capable of sustaining life aren't all that big.
We've spotted barely anything in this vast universe of ours, so it's a bit early to start making claims about why something is the only one. We simply haven't the data yet.
That is a good point.
Watch this Dee, give a pretty good explanation of how small and insignificant our planet, even solar system is.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/cos ... f-galaxies (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/cosmology-and-astronomy/universe-scale-topic/scale-earth-galaxy-tutorial/v/hubble-image-of-galaxies)
Thanks Moriarty. :)
I do realize we/earth is but a speck in the scheme of things, but what I would like to see science reveal/discover is that other planets could very well have the same potential. There was a discovery that I read about stating that Mars is thought to have been the planet originating life (and that life traveled here), but to the best of our current knowledge base, no planet even can remotely offer the potential that earth has with regards to sustaining human life. Or any life forms similar to human life. Similar to human life even?
I will continue to wait impatiently. lol
Well well Dee.......decide for yourself!
http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/are-we-alone (http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/are-we-alone)
All this week I believe.
Quote from: "Deidre32"But, it still begs the question--why is earth so far, the only planet that can sustain human life? (to the best of our knowledge) If the universe was created by a random occurence, how can that be? I'm not suggesting that the occurence was not random, but there should be more definitive answers as to why earth is the only planet capable of sustaining human life? We are fortunate to have even survived this long, when you stop to think about it. lol
1. Within our Solar System
The Earth is the only planet which lies at the right distance from the sun to sustain liquid water. Earth remains consistently within the "habitable zone" of our solar system.
However, there is evidence that Mars once had oceans of liquid water long ago; plus there's reason to believe that oceans of liquid water lie under the icy surfaces of Europa and Enceladus, which may also harbor life... we just haven't explored it yet.)
2. Elsewhere in our galaxy (and beyond)
We just don't have the information yet. Small, earth-sized planets with liquid water in habitable zones of distant stars are very hard to detect. Data from missions such as the Kepler Space Telescope suggest that there are hundreds of billions of planets in our galaxy alone, which means that given our own existence (and the existence of hundreds of billions of galaxies), life of some form seems likely elsewhere. But our technology is not yet advanced enough to detect it. Out of around 2000 confirmed planets, a handful seem to be rocky planets in their stars' habitable zones, so there are at least some candidate planets out there. We've only just begun exploring.
We are indeed made out of star stuff (at least everything heavier than Hydrogen and Helium), but not from the stars you see in the night time. The Mother star that we are made of exploded for more than ~4.6 billion years ago and its resulting dust cloud formed the new Solar system and the planets that we today know. Just ask Joseph.
Quote from: "Deidre32"This is very intriguing! Going with this, why aren't more planets similar to earth, then? Why would our planet only be able to sustain human life? Seeing that this wasn't an ''ordered'' but rather random occurence. Not sure if my question makes sense? :-k
(//http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/492/281/050.jpg)
The chances of life must be high, kepler has found a number of exoplanets that are in the habitable zone.