The building blocks of life can form rapidly around young stars
New research could solve the mystery of how the complex building blocks of life first formed.
Scientists have long queried how the complex molecules needed for life could have formed around the tumultuous and violent environment of the sun in its youth.
A family of meteorites called "chondrites" is theorized to have delivered the right stuff for life to Earth. But the question is, how did complex organic molecules containing elements like carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen come to be sealed in these meteorites in the first place?
New research suggests that the "hot spot" for the formation of these macromolecules, the essential building blocks of life, may be so-called "dust traps" in swirling disks of matter around infant stars. Here, intense starlight from the central young star could irradiate the accumulating ice and dust to form carbon-containing macromolecules in just decades, which is relatively rapid.
This would mean the macromolecules could already be present when larger planetesimals form planets, or they could be sealed in asteroids in the form of small pebbles. These asteroids could have then be broken down by repeated collisions in space, creating smaller bodies. Some of these could have arrived at Earth in the form of meteorites.
Related: Enchanting new Hubble Telescope image reveals an infant star's sparkle
"It is incredible to discover a new crucial role of dust traps in the formation of macromolecular matter that planets may need for hosting life," team member Paola Pinilla of the Mullard Space Science Laboratory at University College London told Space.com. "Dust traps are beneficial regions for dust particles to grow to pebbles and planetesimals, which are the building blocks of planets."
Pinilla explained that in these regions, very small particles can be continuously recreated and replenished by ongoing destructive collisions. These tiny micron-sized grains can easily be lifted to the upper layers of the flattened cloud of star-forming material that surrounds an infant star, called a protoplanetary disk.
Once here, Pinilla said these particles can receive the right amount of irradiation from their infant star to efficiently convert these tiny icy particles into complex macromolecular matter.
Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
Replicating the solar system's early days in the lab
Stars like the sun are born when overdense patches form in massive clouds of interstellar gas and dust. First becoming a protostar, the infant stellar body gathers matter from what remains of its birthing cloud, piling on the mass needed to trigger the nuclear fusion of hydrogen to helium in its cores. This is the process that defines a star's "main sequence" lifetime, which for a star around the mass of the sun will last around 10 billion years.
This young star is surrounded by a protoplanetary disk, which is material that wasn't consumed during its creation and ascension to the main sequence. As the name suggests, it is from this material and within the disk that plants form, but it also accounts for the origin of comets and asteroids.
Our solar system went through this creation process around 4.5 billion years ago.
Previous research conducted in labs here on Earth has indicated that when these protoplanetary disks are irradiated with starlight, complex molecules of hundreds of atoms can form within them. These molecules are built mostly of carbon and are similar to black soot or graphene.
Dust traps are high-pressure locations in protoplanetary disks where the motion of molecules is slowed, and dust and ice grains can accumulate. The slower speeds in these areas can allow grains to grow and, for the most part, avoid collisions that cause fragmentation. This means they could be essential to the formation of planets.
The team wanted to know if the radiation that starlight brings to these areas could cause complex macromolecules to form, using computer modeling to test this idea. The model was based on observational data collected by the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), an array of 66 radio telescopes in northern Chile.
"Our research is a unique combination of astrochemistry, observations with ALMA, laboratory work, dust evolution, and the study of meteorites from our solar system," team member Nienke van der Marel of Leiden University said. "It's really super cool that we can now use an observation-based model to explain how large molecules can form."
The model revealed to the team that the creation of macromolecules in dust traps is a feasible idea.
"We had hoped for this result, of course, but it was a nice surprise that it was so obvious," team leader Niels Ligterink of the University of Bern said. "I hope that colleagues will pay more attention to the effect of heavy radiation on complex chemical processes. Most researchers focus on relatively small organic molecules of a few dozen atoms in size, while chondrites contain mostly large macromolecules."
"In the near future, we look forward to testing these models with more laboratory experiments and observations using powerful telescopes like the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA)," Pinilla concluded.
The team's research was published on Tuesday (July 30) in the journal Nature Astronomy.
Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.
Robert Lea is a science journalist in the U.K. whose articles have been published in Physics World, New Scientist, Astronomy Magazine, All About Space, Newsweek and ZME Science. He also writes about science communication for Elsevier and the European Journal of Physics. Rob holds a bachelor of science degree in physics and astronomy from the U.K.’s Open University. Follow him on Twitter @sciencef1rst.
-
rod An interesting report on how dust and starlight can work together to create the stuff of life :) I note from the opening in the report:Reply
"Scientists have long queried how the complex molecules needed for life could have formed around the tumultuous and violent environment of the sun in its youth. A family of meteorites called "chondrites" is theorized to have delivered the right stuff for life to Earth. But the question is, how did complex organic molecules containing elements like carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen come to be sealed in these meteorites in the first place? New research suggests that the "hot spot" for the formation of these macromolecules, the essential building blocks of life, may be so-called "dust traps" in swirling disks of matter around infant stars. Here, intense starlight from the central young star could irradiate the accumulating ice and dust to form carbon-containing macromolecules in just decades, which is relatively rapid."
Should abiogenesis doctrine which I begin in 1871 with Charles Darwin warm little pond letter, start the paradigm in the dust clouds and meteorites for the origin of life? IMO, yes so catastrophism and fortuitous collisions and events are needed. However, getting those "carbon-containing macromolecules" converted into life remains another problem in the origin of life model using abiogenesis.
How stars' magnetic fields could impact the chance for life on orbiting planets, https://forums.space.com/threads/how-stars-magnetic-fields-could-impact-the-chance-for-life-on-orbiting-planets.67469/ -
Unclear Engineer The words "macro molecules containing carbon" are really vague, compared to "building blocks of life". I would like to see some specific examples of the macro molecules that are being called "building blocks of life" so that I have some idea about how complex they are and how far along the path to the basics for life and DNA/RNA proteins these cosmic molecules can get.Reply -
skynr13 What I'd like to know from this is, first they have substantiated the idea these carbon/organic molecules were created in dust clouds in proto planet formation, but do these molecules survive the heating and magma formation when the proto planet eventually becomes a planet? If so, then life on Earth formed on Earth and not from some meteor that happened to plop down here.Reply -
skynr13
Yes, they have found in the dust grains from asteroid sample missions that amino acids and some proteins form on asteroids around our solar system and possibly RNA.Unclear Engineer said:The words "macro molecules containing carbon" are really vague, compared to "building blocks of life". I would like to see some specific examples of the macro molecules that are being called "building blocks of life" so that I have some idea about how complex they are and how far along the path to the basics for life and DNA/RNA proteins these cosmic molecules can get. -
billslugg What happens is a tiny percentage of the pebbles end up as the new planet. Most of the pebbles are left over and still out in space. Those underutilized pebbles will continure to rain down on the cooled off planet. Their chemicals will survive.Reply -
rod
So when these pebbles survive all the catastrophism and bombardment, this must breakdown various molecules so those same chemicals derived from pebbles in space are put back together (randomly) so life can evolve from non-living matter? The abiogenesis paradigm looks like that now to me.billslugg said:What happens is a tiny percentage of the pebbles end up as the new planet. Most of the pebbles are left over and still out in space. Those underutilized pebbles will continure to rain down on the cooled off planet. Their chemicals will survive. -
billslugg Yes, that is correct. A bunch of random chemicals made life with no prompting from anyone. This may not have happened on the Earth. It may have been seeded with life from somewhere else, but at some point in the past, it had to have originated chemically.Reply
Abiogenesis is a big stretch. For that, you need lots of precursors, lots of water, heat, moisture, and high energy radiation to kick things off. Natural radioactivity is possible but not always reliable. What is reliable is UV in outer space, near a star. Precursors are made in abundance there, then sent down to cloudy Earth where enough gather to seed life. I don't remember, I was just a little baby back then, but this is what I've been told by the elders. -
BenH Type-o comment, and a reminder: The "spell-checker" is not likely to stop valid words from being mixed up. The author may have wanted the word "planets" rather than the word "plants" which easily slipped through . Maybe people should do the proofreading?Reply -
Unclear Engineer Yes, I saw that. Proof reading seems to be a lost art.Reply
I wonder what "AI" will "learn" as it ingests typos like that in the current Internet banter. Maybe "Plants grow in dust traps" or maybe "Plants circle stars in dust traps."
When "AI" learns critical thinking, then I will call it "intelligence". For now, it seems to be automated silliness.
So, I don't think we can trust it to proof read, yet. -
BenH
I have leaned a long time towards accepting the above (re)stated reasoning. However there is 1) the not so minor (seeminly-) glossed-over "next step" issue, besides 2) the 'all chemical reactions are local' issue.billslugg said:Yes, that is correct. A bunch of random chemicals made life with no prompting from anyone. This may not have happened on the Earth. It may have been seeded with life from somewhere else, but at some point in the past, it had to have originated chemically.
Abiogenesis is a big stretch. For that, you need lots of precursors, lots of water, heat, moisture, and high energy radiation to kick things off. Natural radioactivity is possible but not always reliable. What is reliable is UV in outer space, near a star. Precursors are made in abundance there, then sent down to cloudy Earth where enough gather to seed life. I don't remember, I was just a little baby back then, but this is what I've been told by the elders.
1) Those rare chemicals that are formed would need to remain available (or be possible to be replicated locally) for a substantial amount of time to ensure 'successful', continued development. A one-off 'reaction' might make for a start, yet would imply immediate shutdown of whatever 'progress' was made.
2) Even if whatever reaction resulted in potentially useful outcome product, it would only make for a next step if it were produced likewise in 'gazillions' of locations. This is in a way covered by "you need lots of precursors", yet such phrasing seems a colossal understatement when the discussion concerns micro-scale, chance, rare-molecule meets rare-molecule events physically happening on a global-size stage.