This is the kind of really cool science we should be sharing articles about. Thank you, Lugh. (I’m not saying the other posts are bad. This community has a lot of great posts)
This’ll probably expand our search parameters significantly, right?
It is possible that the cyanobacteria performing better under the k-star light is just a coincidence. It’s surprises me science hasn’t got a better handle on the numbers around Panspermia. If we know material from other planetary systems outside our solar system gets to Earth, surely the burning question is how much, and from how many different planetary systems?
Also, looked at the other way around, there is another question. How much Earth asteroid ejecta is getting to k-star planetary systems in our galaxy? The obvious follow-on finding is that such ejecta might easily be spreading life to such places.
It makes me wonder if eventually we’ll find some sort of space “current” that life has traveled on if panspermia is a thing. Everything is spinning.
There is relatively little research modeling asteroid ejecta dispersing throughout the galaxy. I’m really surprised this isn’t researched more.
https://astrobiology.com/2022/02/on-possible-life-dispersal-patterns-beyond-the-earth.html
It’s pretty hard to spot them, that’s the main reason why. It’s a known sore spot that’s been talked about the past couple decades.
Bigger objects are just plain easier to see.
I think a good example is that cigar shaped rock with the Hawaiian name. Ommommuwhatever. No one has a clue where it came from or where it went. That’s basically our ability to track smaller objects in a nutshell.
The research in question grew a common plant - garden cress, and a cyanobacteria under a simulated K dwarf light spectrum. This has never been tested before, somewhat surprisingly, the garden cress grew as normally as it would from our G-type star’s sunlight, but the cyanobacteria grew even better.
Panspermia is the idea that life throughout the universe is seeded from elsewhere. We can easily see the mechanism for this in our own solar system. Asteroid ejecta from Mars has made its way to Earth many times. We can assume the opposite has happened with Earth’s material traveling throughout our solar system. Indeed, if we found life on Mars or Europa, the first question would be if it arose independently or was seeded via Panspermia.
This discovery bolsters the idea that the same thing is happening throughout the galaxy. It would be harder for such asteroid ejecta to escape the gravitational pull of its local solar system, but it does happen. Thus dust from other planets outside the solar system reaches our Earth, and we can assume vice versa.
This is why this discovery is so intriguing. K-type stars are common, making up 12% of all stars. Not only that, they are unusually long-lived and stable. Gliese 86, a K-type star that is 35 light years from us, is 10 billion years old, more than twice the age of our own solar system.
If cyanobacteria perform better under a K-type star’s light - did they originally evolve there?
It is possible we are operating under completely incorrect assumptions, both about the origin of life on our own planet, and the search for life on others. Most research into the origin of life here assumes it arose independently. Perhaps, it is much more reasonable to think Panspermia is the most likely explanation.
Secondly, the search for extraterrestrial life assumes we are looking for something that arose independently elsewhere. Perhaps, that is wrong too. Maybe it is more reasonable to think microbial life is common everywhere in the universe but primarily has spread by Panspermia, with who knows how few times it has arisen independently.
How do K type stars compare to M type stars in regards to flare activity? I’ve read that M dwarfs are particularly grumpy stars with strong and frequent flares, which when combined with the very close habitatable zone, is thought to strip away the atmosphere of planets. Are K type stars more like G (sun-like) type stars or M type stars in that regard?
They are supposed to be far more stable.
There’s nothing about panspermia in the article and nothing in the research that suggests it has anything to do with the results.
The whole point of this instance is ‘evidence-based speculation about the future’. It’s fine to put up your own opinions about things, with supporting arguments, for debate.
It doesn’t suggest that they are correct, merely that they are topics for discussion. Lots of scientific papers suggest jumping off points for other ideas and concepts, that aren’t referenced in the original paper.
