Matteo Cantiello edited But_let_s_forget_intelligence__.tex  almost 8 years ago

Commit id: 82dc5270103017ec7043f44506b721687b2c1001

deletions | additions      

       

This is an interesting question, as in the standard cosmological model (called ``$\Lambda$CDM'') our Universe is only about 13 billion years old and expected to exist and expand for a much longer (infinite?) amount of time. So the number of stars that are yet to be born is still large. Obviously, even in an eternal Universe the amount of gas available to form stars is limited. In an astrophysical sense, we recently passed the baby boom phase: The peak in star formation happened a few billion years ago, and the cold gas in galaxies is expected to be effectively exhausted in about 20-30 billion years or so from now. Long story short, it is possible to count how many stars have been born so far and what is their mass, and also how many more will be born in the future. Yes, astrophysics rocks!  Now, it turns out that the most common type of star in the Universe is not a star like the Sun, but one about 1/10th its mass. The particularity of these very-low mass stars is that they are much dimmer: They burn their candle very slowly and live about 1000 times longer than the a star like our  Sun. Thermonuclear reactions allows our Sun to shine for about 10 billion years. A star 0.1 times the mass of the Sun lives for 10 trillion years. This offers plenty of opportunity for life to emerge in the future around stars smaller than the Sun. These stars will still be shining when no more star formation will be occurring in the Universe. It then seems obvious that, assuming these low-mass stars provide similar environment for life as our Sun, the relative probability of life-emergence has to peak in the far future. This is the main result of Loeb and collaborators.  The results is particularly nice since it is relative: It doesn't state how many planets hosting life are present at a certain time. It just calculates the relative probability as function of time.