Sea Life Wiped Out by Neutron Star Collision? 726
Memorize writes "Scientists report in the Journal of Astrophysical Letters that a mass extinction of marine life 450 million years ago might have been caused by radiation from an exploding star, such as a collision between two neutron stars, or a neutron star collapsing into a black hole. Such an event would cause a ten-second burst of gamma radiation, and if it occurred within our galaxy, it could have wiped out many species on earth. At least if astronomers find out that an asteroid is heading our way, we can do something about it, but if there is a gamma burst, we get no warning. And if we did, would there be any way to protect the planet?"
Scary Stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember reading this a while back on the Wikipedia entry for the Permian Triassic Extinction Event (link [wikipedia.org]), but the Wiki entry quotes specifically that an extinction like this would only happen if the star were 10 parsecs, or 30 light years away.
Dr Melott in the article claims that a star like this would have to be 6,000 light years away, or closer. (That's more than 200 times the distance previously claimed.
Keep in mind the volume of a sphere is 4/3 pi r^3, so the volume of space that this would take up is increased by a factor of 8,000,000. I'd say, that the chance of this happening to us, therefore is increased by a factor of 8 million.
As I said before, scary stuff.
Yet another reason (Score:2, Insightful)
Black Holes Ain't (Score:1, Insightful)
Didn't slashdot report that Black Holes don't exists [nature.com]
Whom am I to believe?
There is a solution (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Yet another reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, all this does is strip off the ozone layer, which would mess with the marine food chain for a few years. It's not like it would bake people or anything. I'm sure we'll collectively do more damage to the sea than this sort of thing ever could. How fast will we destroy 60% of the ocean's species? I'm guessing something on the order of decades. If this is something we care about, we should be worrying about ourselves and not about imploding neutron stars.
lenny bruce is not afraid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scary Stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, this could completely destroy the human race, but either way I'm dead, so my stake in it is over.
Re:Scary Stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
Something like this, you have absolutely no legacy whatsoever. No kids to carry things on, nobody left to remember you, none of your accomplishments mattering.
I, for one, don't want to see the human race become extinct, regardless of if it's in my lifetime or not.
Are we really this blind? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No - we're doomed. (Score:5, Insightful)
For that matter, even without warning around half the world population would automatically be shielded - well if China and India were on the exposed side that might be much less than half though
Re:Scary Stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
From that perspective, my personal death is NOT as important as the continuation of my children.
Most parents know this at the instinctual level.
The argument that says I'm going to die - what to I care about the rest of humanity - is clearly bogus for most humans. All life on earth strives harder to pass on genetic information than to survive as an individual. That's why we age - and why we fall apart much more rapidly after child-rearing age is past.
Re:Scary Stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:bad reason for a space program (Score:3, Insightful)
Never mind that, what about the far side of THIS planet? I have a hard time believing that gamma rays could be much of a threat with 7,000 miles of rock and molten iron for shielding. Energy transmission falls off exponentially with linear increases in the thickness of your shielding, don't forget.
Unless it's the Big Bang reprised, I don't think any organism on the "dark side" of the Earth would suffer a bit of harm. And anything like a neutrino that could pass through the Earth would also (statistically, at least) sail right through you, leaving you untouched.
IANAA-p. I am not an astro-physicicst. Anyone see any flaw in my argument?
Re:No - we're doomed. (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the article the burst has to originate within 6,000 light years...so if we work out what causes them all we have to do is scour the near vicinty for the pairs of neutron stars required (if that's it). Not trivial but not impossible either. Once we've done that we will likely be able to predict when the burst will occur.
Not neccessarily - it depends on the source.
we'd have to high-tail it outta here at close to the speed of light in order to get far enough away for the inverse-square law to have an effect.
Actually you don't need to worry about the inverse square law if you are going that fast. Red shift will make the gamma's harmless.
If you actually read the article (but this is Slashdot so what am I talking about!) you'll see that the effect is caused by interaction between the gammas and the ozone layer. If the gammas had enough energy (or intensity) that a significant dose penetrated 1.6km of water the heat load would actually be what would kill you and not the radiation itself! Such a massive heat load would have melted rocks etc and, I would guess, leave a significant geological record. In any case there is no way the burst could penetrate the earth and affect life on the otherside directly which you scenario would require - otherwise no more than 50% of the earth could be affected and the seas far less than the land due to the water shielding.
Re:It doesn't seem quite so scary to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scary Stuff (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Scary Stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
A random gamma ray burst on the other hand I can do nothing about. [0] Since a big part of our point is the continuation of our race as a whole (we are genetically predisposed to want to do this), we will also be hard wired to fear events that can totally end the entire genetic line of our species. Also, I expect a death by gamma ray burst would be drawn out and deeply unpleasant. Dying of radiation poisoning whilst watching everyone around you do the same thing will be a pretty nasty event.
[0] No, I don't actually sit around worrying about gamma ray bursts, in fact I give it very little thought. I give much more thought to ways of avoiding being run down by cars.
Gamma Rays (Score:2, Insightful)
Not nearly good enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
Surviving the first 10 seconds is not the problem. Surviving the next 30 years is the problem.
There have been many articles and papers and whatnot published over the last several years, all proposing different models of what happens when Earth gets hit by a gamma-ray burst. They all point to Very Bad Things happening to the atmospheric layers, which then has a cascading effect.
Fine, you survive the first 10 seconds, but none of the crops did. Growing new crops in time to feed anyone is problematic when the UV shielding is gone. Reactions in the lower atmosphere would likely form a fair deal of the chemicals that result in "acid rain", so once you're wearing 100% UV sunscreen and can go outside, you still can't grow anything. Etc, etc.
Because people don't understand large numbers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scary Stuff (Score:2, Insightful)
If the burst are "extremely short", only ~half the surface of the planet would be affected. Sure this kills all the plankton, and does a shedload of damage to the biosphere, but would it actually wipe out humanity? Even humans on the wrong side of the planet are a lot hardier than plankton. And we have other ways of making food,that aren't dependant on crops and animals. Sure, we don't use them a whole lot atm, but if we had to, we probably could.
Mightn't be able to supply everyone, but enough people surely to ensure continuance of the race.
same with any global catastrophy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Scary Stuff - Child rearing (Score:3, Insightful)
Stress is a symptom of other problems, not a cause, the way of your body telling you you are doing something very wrong in maintaining it. The sooner everyone realizes this, the happier they will be.
Re:Scary Stuff (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason we age is because there is no selection mechanism for longevity. Diseases that affect us after we pass on our genes do not affect our ability to pass on our genes. Once people have their children, their genes are passed on and they are deemed "successful". People who die shortly after the birth of their children are on the same footing as those who live to 100, from a natural selection point of view.
Re:Ah, yes: the selfish gene (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scary Stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
If so, they've chosen a fantastically inefficient way to do it, haven't they? You could have a dozen kids, and still lose 0.024% of your genes forever. If you have two kids, a full 1/4 of your genes would never be transmitted to posterity.
Sexual reproduction is a good trade-off for an organism, but a terrible deal for the organism's genes.
--Tom
Re:Scary Stuff - Child rearing (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, but we evolved to run after food every day, and survive without when we couldn't catch it. Modern life has changed faster than evolution can keep up. We aren't made to sit in a cubicle all day. We aren't made to drive cars everywhere, or get a meal whenever we want it, or play video games after sitting in a classroom all day. Hence many problems from living a modern life; American obesity comes to mind.
Re:Scary Stuff (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:not anymore (Score:4, Insightful)
Further, are human morals, theories, and ideas more important to spread than those of protozoans? And before you answer that they do not have any of those, I challenge you to irrefutably prove it.
Now that you realize you are a miniscule and insignificant creature (like the rest of us), go home and cry and welcome your gamma-ray overlords.
Re:Scary Stuff - Child rearing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Where's the raw data? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure that's the principal reason we invented religion, but it is one of the main reasons for its broad appeal...
Re:Scary Stuff - Child rearing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scary Stuff - Child rearing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: The Biology of Senesence (Score:5, Insightful)
This argument is so often used falsely about biological systems that it needs correcting (even though I doubt you intended to sound like a creationist). Organized systems will decay towards randomness without energy input. Fortunately there's this huge fusion furnace in the sky dumping energy into the system like crazy.
There may well be a reason why organized systems tend to have limited duration, but it's not thermodynamics!
Half Extinction (Score:2, Insightful)
Humanity is certainly positioned to survive such an event, though many wild species lack our enviable dispersion and would not.
Re:Scary Stuff - Child rearing (Score:3, Insightful)
Or the sheer wonderment and joy on their faces as they experience something new to them, that you take for granted everyday. (Think elevators for a minute, or escalators until security shows up
Or doing the inevitable childrens damage to themselves, and crying, yet a kiss from you wipes all the tears and pain away. And then in return offering you a kiss when you say "Ow!"
Or maybe last week, when Daddy was sick, how my 2.5 year old was concerned enough to get me my
medicine (really just vitamin C tablets) and juice and water. Concerned enough to come up with "Daddy has to lie down, get better! No 'puter!!"
Or perhaps how they have a different view of things, in that they can teach you as much as you teach them.
I could go on and on...
"during the process of raising children you get worn out physically and mentally. I'm thinking all the late nights, interrupted sleep, emotional and physical drain of being in close contact with children."
Never looked at it that way. You are correct in a way....but it's all worth it.
Vip