Life Extinction via Gamma-ray Burst?

Sometimes I’m asked if astronomy really does anybody any good — aside from astronomers, that is. I am always pleased to point out that most science does humanity some good, expecially if we pay attention to the results! Latest case in point is the never-ending saga of mass life extinctions on the early Earth. We all know about the death of the dinosaurs ‘way back when, but there’s clear evidence in the fossil record that life has been nearly wiped out several times since this old planet coalesced out of the primordial solar nebula. About 440 million years ago, in a geologic period called the late Ordovician, the second largest die-off of life occurred. About two-thirds of all species were wiped out. Hardest hit were the life forms that lived on or in shallow water. Deepwater organisms were hardly affected at all. The culprit? Astronomers think that increased ultraviolet radiation was somehow admitted through Earth’s atmosphere in higher-than-usual amounts. This would serve to fry exposed life while not even bothering the buggies and critters hidden on the seafloor muck. What happened to the Earth’s atmosphere? Usually it’s pretty good about protecting the planet from UV — but, it’s possible that a gamma-ray burst from a relatively nearby star that had exploded as a supernova and ultimately formed a black hole might be the culprit. Such a blast within 10,000 light years of the planet woul dbe enough to damage our atmosphere, introduce such pollutants as nitric acide rain, and seriously harm the ozone layer — the last line of planetary defense againsts lethal UV radiation.

We’re just now starting to understand the mechanism of gamma ray bursts — in a few moments they send out so much light and radiation they can frequently outshine the galaxies where they live. So, it doesn’t take much of a stretch to imagine what would happen to our planet if one happened nearby.

Did this happen? There’s a lot of evidence in the fossil record. It would be neat to find a smoking gun supernova/black hole candidate — but in 600 million years, there are bound to be a lot of them that fit the bill. Singling out just one or two would be nearly impossible. But it’s a neat theory and yet another data point to consider as we look for cosmic influences on our little watery globe.

Winding Down

I got back from AAS early Friday morning and crashed for a couple of days. The Atlanta meeting was really quite a hoot. I had not attended a AAS meeting since summer of 2002 in Albuquerque, so it was a great chance to get caught up with all my friends in the community, as well as the latest Big Astronomy (or, as my friend Jim Kaler and I like to refer to it sometimes: Big-Ass Tro). I Fedexed a bunch of press releases and books back to myself, and will likely mine that info for the next few weeks as blogging material. But, it seems to me that there was an underlying theme in this year’s results — maybe it wasn’t intended, but it stood out to me: We’re Finding Things Aren’t Quite What We Expected. Not only is this true of stars and planets and galaxies, but also out at the “limits of the observable universe” where we should be seeing some of the youngest structures in the cosmos.

What does this mean? Did we misunderstand something? Is the timeline of the cosmos all wrong? Are things different out at 13 billion years ago? Is there a problem? As it turns out, not really.

We saw several press releases regarding deep-sky surveys looking at galaxies and objects as they appeared when the universe was maybe 2-3 billion years old. Astronomers expect to see (and in fact, DO see) galaxies in spiral shapes, galaxies in the process of assembly, and so on. But, in at least two surveys (that were discussed at press conferences), what they’re also seeing are highly-evolved elliptical galaxies — ovoids are the likely result of two or more galaxies colliding and commingling. The gravitational forces and interactions reshape the galaxies and you ultimately get these elliptical things. It takes a while, and if it does take billions of years, then maybe the universe is older than we think, or maybe some of these collisions don’t take as long as we think. Or there are some other factors that we need to account for in our calculations and theories about events in the young universe.

This is one of those interesting problems that our advanced telescopes and detectors are delivering frequently enough that we now sit here and scratch our heads for a little while before we plunge into the task of explaining why things look as they do. The theories are probably fine in general, but they likely need a little tweaking in the details. And that’s cool because that’s what science does best: it takes observations and use them to strengthen theories that explain the cosmos around us.