Paper Menu >>
Journal Menu >>
![]() Journal of Modern Physics, 2011, 2, 587-594 doi:10.4236/jmp.2011.226068 Published Online June 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jmp) Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JMP Origin and Evolution of Life Constraints on the Solar Model Karo Michaelian1, Oliver Manuel2 1Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Cto. de la Investigación Científica, Cuidad Universitaria, Mexico City, Mexico 2Associate, Climate & Solar Science Institute, Former Apollo PI for NASA, Cape Girardeau, USA E-mail: karo@fisica.unam.mx, omatumr@yahoo.com Received February 18, 2011; revised April 1, 2011; accepted April 26, 2011 Abstract Life arose as a non-equilibrium thermodynamic process to dissipate the photon potential generated by the hot Sun and cold outer space. Evidence from the geochemical record of the evolutionary history of life on Earth suggests that life originated in a hot aqueous environment dissipating UV light and evolved later to dissipate visible light. This evidence places constraints on models of solar origin and evolution. The standard solar model seems less compatible with the data than does the pulsar centered solar model. Keywords: Pulsar Centered Solar Model (PCS), Standard Solar Model, Origin of Life, Ultraviolet and Temperature Assisted Replication (UVTAR), Constraints on Solar Model 1. Introduction Life is an out of equilibrium, thermodynamic process. As such, its origin, persistence, and evolution are strictly dependent on the dissipation of an external thermody- namic potential (entropy production) and the evolution of this potential in time. By far the most important thermo- dynamic potential which has promoted the existence of life on Earth is the temperature gradient provided by the hot photosphere of the Sun (~5,800 K today) and the cool volume of outer space (2.7 K). Life arose as an en- tropy producing thermodynamic process in response to the Earth being located between the Sun's hot photo- sphere and the cool space environment. The origin and evolution of life on Earth must, therefore, in some way (to be explored below) parallel the origin and evolution of our Sun. The evolutionary history of life on Earth thus provides constraints on models for the origin and evolu- tion of our Sun. Here we show that these constraints yield convincing arguments for distinguishing between competing solar models. 2. Appearance of Life Constraints on Earth’s Solar Environment The most probable first molecules of life, RNA or DNA [1,2], are transparent to visible light. However, in the ultraviolet, in a region centered on 260 nm of width of 100 nm, the aromatic rings of the nucleic acid bases (adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil) absorb light very strongly [3,4]. If RNA and DNA are in water, they dissipate this photon-induced collective electronic excitation energy extremely rapidly (sub pico-second) [5] and efficiently to heat that can be easily absorbed by the water. These molecules when exposed to ultraviolet light are thus very efficient producers of entropy. Therefore, if RNA and DNA were the first molecules of life, and if indeed life arose as a response to dissipating the photon potential generated on Earth by the Sun and outer space, then the solar spectrum in the ultraviolet between about 200 and 300 nm arriving at the surface of the Earth at the beginning of life (~3.8 billion years ago) must have been sufficiently intense for nature to have embarked on a program of constructing uphill, endergonic, organic mo- lecules for the dissipation of these photons. Furthermore, since water is an important solvent for the formation of the nucleic acids from more simple or- ganic molecules such as hydrogen cyanide under electric discharge or UV light sources [6], and since the dissipa- tion of the electronic excitation energy of the nucleic acid bases only occurs efficiently in the presence of liq- uid water (non-radiatively to mainly the vibrational de- grees of freedom of the water molecules), the incident intensity and absorption of sunlight at the surface of the ![]() K. MICHAELIAN ET AL. Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JMP 588 Archean Earth must have been such as to maintain water in its liquid phase. Today, ozone and oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere block all but one in 1030 photons from the Sun at 250 nm [7]. During the Archean, however, there was very little oxygen or ozone in the Earth’s atmosphere, and the most likely atmospheric gases, CO2, N2, H2O, and methane are transparent to UV photons in this wavelength region [8]. High surface temperatures (see below) would have im- plied a much greater amount of water vapor in the at- mosphere than today, effectively blocking most solar infrared radiation from reaching the surface. Also, UV photochemical reactions on the most common volcanic gasses, carbon dioxide, water vapor and sulfur dioxide, would have produced a thin layer of sulfuric acid clouds very reflective in the visible (as on Venus today, albedo 0.77). Ultraviolet light in the 200 - 300 nm region could thus have been the most important (enthropically speak- ing) part of the solar spectrum reaching the Earth’s sur- face and would have been responsible for a large part of surface heating during the Archean. 3. Evolution of Life Constraints on Models for the Evolution of Earth’s Solar Environment The most copious life in the biosphere today, both in terms of number and mass, are the photosynthesizing cyanobacteria and plant life. These phototrophic organ- isms employ chlorophyll to absorb sunlight in the visible and utilize the free energy in this light to fix carbon from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the process of photosynthesis. However, photosynthesis utilizes only about 0.1% of the free energy available in sunlight inci- dent on the plant [9]. By far the greatest amount of free energy available in sunlight is utilized in transpiration (evaporation of water) from the leaves of the plant or from phytoplankton floating on the surface of bodies of water. In most phototrophic organisms, a large array of organic pigments absorb in a continuous spectrum from about 200 nm (far ultraviolet) to 700 nm (red). Therefore, the most important thermodynamic function that these autotrophs perform is the absorption and dissipation of photons from the most intense region of the Sun’s spec- trum. Still other irreversible thermodynamic process, such as the water cycle, hurricanes, and ocean and wind currents, are spawned in the process, dissipating estab- lished heat gradients and thereby promoting still further entropy production [10]. There is evidence that while the organic pigment in- ventory was increasing over the evolutionary history of life on Earth, the absorption maxima of the newly added pigments was also increasing in wavelength. RNA and DNA were probably the first pigments, absorbing strongly at 260 nm. The three aromatic amino acids, phenyla- lanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan have strong absorption maxima at 260, 280, and 295 nm respectively [8]. These amino acids are generally believed to have appeared shortly after RNA and DNA in life’s history. The reac- tion center of anoxic purple bacteria, the most ancient photosynthesizing organisms known, contains bacterio- chlorophyll and the aromatic amino acids and thus also absorb strongly at 280 nm [11]. Recently discovered pigments absorbing over the range 310 to 400 nm, my- cosporines, appeared early in the history of life but are less ancient than the amino acids [12]. The earliest porphyrins (e.g. chlorophyll) and phycobilins, absorbing in the visible, 400 to 700 nm, have been discovered in Precambrian rock dating from 1.7 to 2.6 Ga [13]. Besides chlorophyll, there exist other contemporary visible ab- sorbing pigments such as the carotenoids in green plants and the phycobilins in phytoplankton, also absorbing over the range 400 to 700 nm. If indeed the primordial function of life was, and is, to dissipate the imposed photon gradient, then the apparent gradual incorporation in phototrophic life of pigments of ever increasing wavelength of maximum absorption sug- gests a gradual increase in wavelength of the peak inten- sity of the spectrum of sunlight reaching the Earth’s sur- face. This light would, of course, be dependent on, not only the solar spectrum, but also on the absorption prop- erties of Earth’s atmosphere. However, a thermodynamic perspective on life would suggest that life has continu- ally adjusted the gases of the atmosphere (in the sense of Gaia [14]) in such a manner so as to lead to transparency for the most intense (enthropically speaking) part of the solar spectrum. This situation is, indeed, what we ob- serve today for our present atmosphere. 4. The Sun Harkins reported that seven elements with even atomic numbers (Fe, O, Ni, Si, Mg, S and Ca) comprise 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites and concluded “... in the evolution of elements much more material has gone into the even-numbered elements than into those which are odd ...” [15]. Later Payne [16] and Russell [17] re- ported high abundances of hydrogen, an odd numbered element, in the solar atmosphere. They did not suggest that the interior of the Sun is hydrogen. The Standard Solar Model (SSM) came later, after Goldschmidt sug- gested [18] in 1938 that rocky planets and ordinary me- teorites lost volatile elements. However, Hoyle [19] ac- knowledges that he, Eddington, and other astronomers thought “... the Sun was made mostly of iron ...” until the ![]() K. MICHAELIAN ET AL. Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JMP 589 end of World War II [19]. Then in 1946 Hoyle wrote at least 99% of the initial mass of stars “must be in the form of hydrogen” [20] and he tried to show how heavier ele- ments were made from hydrogen [21], as originally sug- gested by Prout [22]. Hoyle [19] expressed surprised at sudden, worldwide acceptance of the idea “that the high-hydrogen, low-iron solution was to be preferred for the interiors as well as for the atmospheres” of stars [19]. Hoyle’s 1946 papers [20,21] and the 1952 hydrogen bomb explosion greatly impacted opinions on the Sun. According to the classical B2FH [23] paper on element synthesis: “It seems prob- able that the elements all evolved from hydrogen” [23], and “Hydrogen burning is responsible for the majority of the energy production” [23]. 4.1. The Standard Solar Model (SSM) of a Hydrogen-Filled Sun Textbooks of astronomy and astrophysics [24-26] and research reports [27-30] generally assume the standard solar model (SSM) of a hydrogen-filled Sun, produced by the collapse of an interstellar cloud of primordial hy- drogen and helium and contaminated with a small por- tion of heavier elements from previous generation stars. Bethe suggested [31] that 12C might serve as a catalyst for fusion of hydrogen into helium in stars via the CNO cycle. But the low flux of solar neutrinos reported in 1968 [27] showed that H-fusion via the CNO cycle gen- erates little if any solar energy. Subsequent measure- ments in the 20th Century [28,29] confirmed less solar neutrinos than expected from any known path for H-fusion. H-fusion via the proton-proton chain generates the least amount of energetic neutrinos and thus gained popularity as the main source of solar luminosity [24-30]. According to the SSM, the Sun now generates energy in the core mainly via the proton-proton chain reaction at T ~ 15,000,000 K. After a significant fraction of hydro- gen was consumed, the fusion rate decreased and gravi- tation caused the density and temperature in the core to increase. Then the fusion rate and the luminosity of the star increased. Thus our star is predicted to be about 30% more luminous now than at the time of the origin of life on Earth [32,33]. Neutron repulsion was recognized as an energy source near the start of the 21st Century and it was suggested that the solar neutrino puzzle might indicate a neutron star in the Sun's core [34-36]. The SNO group [37,38] proposed that solar neutrinos instead oscillate into three flavors because neutrinos have mass and transmute on passing through matter. A later study [39] casts doubt on the SNO group’s interpretation of solar neutrino data [37,38], but most members of the solar physics commu- nity accept the SSM and seem confident of its ability to describe the evolutionary history of our Sun correctly. However, early questions about an interstellar cloud col- lapsing gravitationally to form the Sun [40] were kept alive by space age observations that seemed to conflict with the standard solar model. 4.2. The Model of a Pulsar Centered Sun (PCS) Analysis of meteorites, planets, the Moon and the Sun revealed evidence that our Sun may have formed on a pulsar—the collapsed core of the star that gave birth to the solar system [41]. Baade and Zwicky [42] suggested that a collapsed supernova core might change into a neu- tron star, and Wolszczan and Frail [43] reported Earth- like planets orbiting a pulsar in 1992. Exotic, superfluid material has been suggested in the centers of ordinary stars and neutron stars [44,45]. Below is a summary of implications for the early Earth and the evolution of life [41]: a) The precursor star exploded axially ~5 Gyr ago, based on 244Pu and 238U age dating [46], probably driven by neutron repulsion. b) Neutron repulsion causes continuous emission of neutrons from the pulsar. These decay into the glowing ball of hydrogen seen in the photosphere. c) Layers of elements and isotopes from the precur- sor star were still present in the equatorial plane when solids started to condense. d) Flash heating, perhaps from ignition of H-fusion partially melted early solids to produce chondrules—the aerodynamically quenched droplets seen in meteorites. The photosphere slowly evolved into its current mix of hydrogen and helium. e) Earth accreted in layers, beginning with the for- mation of an iron core. f) Beneath the photosphere the Sun also formed a mantle of mostly Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca—like the material in rocky planets and ordinary meteorites. g) Following neutron-emission and neutron-decay, H+ ions are accelerated upward by the pulsar’s magnetic field. The upward flow of this “carrier gas” maintains mass separation in the Sun [47]. h) Circular polarized (CP) light from the pulsar sepa- rated the d- and l-amino acids in meteorites [48] before CP light from the pulsar itself was blocked by radiation from the solar photosphere. i) Early radiations from the pulsar were more ener- getic (shorter wavelength) than current solar radiation. Pulsars release a greater proportion of γ-rays, x-rays and ultraviolet (UV) radiation [49], and a very old pulsar (~5 ![]() K. MICHAELIAN ET AL. Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JMP 590 × 109 years old) was reported to still be observable in the extreme ultraviolet [50]. j) Based on current solar luminosity and the emission rate of neutrons from the solar core, we estimate that solar luminosity was higher by ~1% - 4%, rather than being lower by ~30%, in the critical origin-of-life period when the SSM predicts frozen oceans and a “faint early Sun” [32,33]. In the following section, we present arguments from the life sciences for reconsidering the standard solar model in favor of the pulsar centered solar model. 5. Arguments for a New Solar Model 5.1. The Faint Young Sun Paradox 18O/16O ratios found in cherts of the Barberton green- stone belt of South Africa suggest that Earth had liquid water and a temperature of around 80˚C at the time of the origin of life at 3.8 Ga [51] and (70 ± 15)˚C during the 3.5 - 3.2 Ga era [52]. Surface temperatures of around 80˚C would have allowed a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) type of mechanism for RNA and DNA reproduction (Ultraviolet and Temperature Assisted Reproduction—UV-TAR) to have been operating at the beginning of life [2], thereby avoiding the difficulty of early RNA or DNA reproduction fidelity necessary for the codification of complicated denaturing enzymes. However, the standard solar model predicts that at 3.8 Ga the solar luminosity should have been from 25% - 30% less than at present [33]. For such a luminosity, under reasonable assumptions for greenhouse gases and other atmospheric conditions, the Earth’s surface should have been completely frozen over, a “snow ball Earth”, in stark contradiction to the evidence. This has become known as the “faint young Sun paradox” [33]. Furthermore, evidence for liquid water on Mars at 3.0 Ga is a fact even more difficult to reconcile with the faint young Sun of the standard solar model [53]. The faint young sun paradox has been addressed by a number of ingenious, but evidence lacking, hypothesis, such as the possible migration of the planets from ear- lier more inner orbits due to early large solar mass loss [54]. The suggestion receiving the most attention until recently, however, has been that of a greenhouse gas early atmosphere [55]. An upper limit exists for at- mospheric carbon dioxide determined by the prevalence of magnetite in the Archean sediments [56], and it was later shown that neither ammonia (NH3) nor methane (CH4) could have weathered the intense UV radiation during the Archean [57,58]. Most importantly, however, after years of searching, there is now a conspicuous lack of evidence for high greenhouse-gas concentra- tions on early Earth [58,60-62]. Recent attempts to re- solve the issue have recurred to even less evidence sub- stantiated theories, such as more extent heat absorbing oceans and a lack of cloud forming seeds leading to reduced Earth albedo during the Archean [56] and frac- tal shaped smog which purportedly blocks methanelys- ing UV light while permitting visible light to penetrate to the surface [63]. The standard solar model remains inconsistent with the data. The pulsar centered solar model predicts that the solar luminosity at the origin of life on Earth would have been up to 4% greater than that of today, and not the 25% - 30% less predicted by the standard solar model, and thus resolves the “faint young Sun paradox”. 5.2. Early Life Metabolized UV Light Besides the proliferation of organic pigments in the ul- traviolet and conservation of the codification for these in the genomes of present day phototrophs, there is also evidence of a period when life may have been depend- ent upon UV-C dissipation. Bacteriochlorophyll and its associated reaction center, used by the most ancient purple bacteria, strongly absorbs at 280 nm [11]. It is also a remarkable fact that the protein bacteriorhodop- sin, that promotes ATP production in Archaea by acting as a proton pump through the absorption of a photon at 568 nm in the visible, also works perfectly well by ab- sorbing at 280 nm in the ultraviolet [64]. The UV pho- ton energy is absorbed on the aromatic amino acids tyrosine and tryptophan and the energy transmitted to the chromophore. Pigments based on rhodopsins used by bacteria to perform anoxygenic photosynthesis were shown through phylogenetic analyses by Xiong and Bauer [65] to have already been present when oxygenic photosyn- thesis developed. These pigments are all are robust to far ultraviolet (UV-C) light, while this does not appear to be the case for more recent oxygenic photosynthetic pigments associated with chlorophyll [66]. This life history of phototrophs thus suggests an early high UV-C environment on Earth. An analysis of young proxy G-type stars near the main sequence has shown that the young Sun was probably much more active in the extreme UV and X-ray region [67]. The strong ab- sorption of these short wavelengths in the atmosphere by N2, CO2, and other Archean gases would have im- plied significant degradation into the 200 - 300 nm window of atmospheric transparency. This data requires, at the very minimum, a re-thinking of the standard solar model but may be completely consistent with a pulsar centered solar model. ![]() K. MICHAELIAN ET AL. Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JMP 591 5.3. Incorporation of Organic Pigments of Ever Longer Wavelength Absorption The evidence that the peak in absorption of newly added organic pigments gradually increased in wavelength over the evolutionary history of life on Earth (see Section 3) is consistent with the gradual increase in wavelength of the peak in the intensity of the spectrum from a cooling pul- sar star centered Sun. To be compatible with the standard solar model, in which the peak wavelength of emission instead decreases over the lifetime of the Sun (as the Sun became hotter), would require an unexplained shift in the atmospheric window of transparency in the opposite di- rection, towards longer wavelengths, and a fortuitous coincidence of the window of transparency coinciding with the maximum of intensity of the solar spectrum to- day. It seems more probable that the overlap that we see today is not at all a coincidence, but rather the result of a biotic-abiotic coupling of irreversible processes operat- ing to increase the overall entropy production of the Earth in its solar environment through photon dissipation [2]. 5.4. Amino Acid Handedness in Meteorites The molecules of life are chiral, i.e. they come in two mirror images that absorb light of either right- or left- handed circular polarization preferentially within a given wavelength region. Abiogenisis of these molecules shows no preference for one enantiomer over the other. How- ever, almost all amino acids used by life are left-handed (L), while the nucleotides and RNA and DNA are right-handed (R). How life acquired such homochirality has been the subject of much controversy (see Micha- elian [68] for a review), but one suggestion has it that the Earth was seeded with left-handed amino acids from space. One possibility being that highly circularly polar- ized light of a pulsar preferentially photo-lysed the right- handed amino acids existing in one of its hemispheres [69,70]. Up to 15% L-enantiomer excess has been claimed for some non-biological α-methyl amino acids delivered to the Earth in carbonaceous chondrite meteorites such as Murchinson. Biological amino acids found in these me- teorites, however, have little, if any, enantiomer excess [71]. High temperatures, cosmic rays, and UV light all cause racemization (the equilibration of any initial enan- tiomer excess). The α-methyl amino acids found with non-negligible enantiomer excess in meteorites have significant stability against racemization [72], but the α-hydrogen amino acids composing the 22 natural amino acids of today’s proteins do not [73]. The pulsar star centered solar model may thus explain the abundance of L-enantiomer non-biological amino acids found in meteorites. Whether some of the initial L-enantiomer excess in the less stable biological amino acids (α-hydrogen) could have survived the radiation environment of space and the heat of entry into the Earth’s atmosphere and thereby provided the seeds for the homochirality of life today remains to be investigated in more detail. 6. Conclusions Data from the life sciences indicates a warm Earth with liquid water at the origins of life ca 3.8 Ga. It appears that life began dissipating UV light and gradually incur- porated pigments of ever greater wavelength, probably following the peak in the emission spectrum of the evolving Sun. If life’s origin and evolution is indeed concerned with solar photon dissipation, then this evi- dence becomes very difficult to reconcile with the SSM (standard solar model). The PCS (pulsar centered sun) model [41] seems more compatible with the concurrent evolution of life on Earth and nuclear evolution in the Sun, as three reactions there successively release ~1.2%, ~0.1% and ~0.7% of nuclear rest mass (m) as photo-energy (E), ΔE = Δmc2 [41]. 7. Acknowledgements K. Michaelian is grateful for financial support from DGAPA-UNAM, grant IN-112809. 8. References [1] L. E. Orgel, “Pre-Biotic Chemistry and the Origin of the Rna World,” Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Mo- lecular Biology, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2004, pp. 99-123. doi:10.1080/10409230490460765 [2] K. Michaelian, “Entropy Production and the origin of Life, this Special Issue,” This special issue entitled “Re- cent Advances in The Thermodynamics of Life and Evo- lution”, Journal of Modern Physics, Vol. 2, 2011, pp. 9-15; “Thermodynamic Dissipation Theory for The Ori- gin of Life,” Earth System Dynamics, Vol. 2, 2011, pp. 37-51. www.earth-syst-dynam.net/2/37/2011/. [3] D. Voet, W. B. Gratzer, R. A. Cox and P. Doty, “Absorp- tion Spectra of Nucleotides, Polynucleotides and Nucleic Acids in the Far Ultraviolet,” Biopolymers, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1963, pp. 193-208. doi:10.1002/Bip.360010302 [4] P. R. Callis, “Electronic States and Luminescence of Nucleic Acid Systems,” Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, Vol. 34, No. 1, 1983, pp. 329-357. doi:10.1146/Annurev.Pc.34.100183.001553 [5] C. T. Middleton, K. De La Harpe, C. Su, Y. K. Law, C. E. ![]() K. MICHAELIAN ET AL. Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JMP 592 Crespo-Hernández and B. Kohler, “DNA Excited—State Dynamics: From Single Bases to the Double Helix,” An- nual Review of Physical Chemistry, Vol. 60, 2009, pp. 217-239. doi:10.1146/Annurev.Physchem.59.032607.093719 [6] J. Oró and A. P. Kimball, “Synthesis of Purines under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions, Ii. Purine Intermedi- ates from Hydrogen Cyanide,” Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Vol. 96, No. 2, 1962, pp. 293-313. doi:10.1016/0003-9861(62)90412-5 [7] R. Chang, “Physical Chemistry for the Chemical and Biological Sciences,” University Science Books, Sausa- lito, 2000. [8] I. Cnossen, J. Sanz-Forcada, F. Favata, O. Witasse, T. Zegers and N. F. Arnold, “The Habitat of Early Life: So- lar X-Ray and UV Radiation at Earth’s Surface 4 - 3.5 Billion Years Ago,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, 2007, Article ID E02008. [9] D. M. Gates, “Biophysical Ecology,” Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980. [10] K. Michaelian, “Thermodynamic Function of Life,” Gen- eral Physics, 2009, Arxiv: 0907.0040v2; “Biological Ca- talysis of the Hydrological Cycle: Life’s Thermodynamic Function,” Hydrology and Earth System Science Discus- sion, Vol. 8, 2011, pp. 1093-1123. [11] T. Nozawa, J. T. Trost, T. Fukada, M. Hatano, J. D. Mcmanus and R. D. Blankenship, “Properties of the Re- action Center of the Thermophilic Purple Photosynthetic Bacterium Chromatium Tepidum,” Biochimica et Bio- physica Acta, Vol. 894, No. 3, 1987, pp. 468-476. doi:10.1016/0005-2728(87)90126-5 [12] K. Whitehead and J. I. Hedges, “Analysis of Myco- sporine-Like Amino Acids in Plankton by Liquid Chro- matography Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry,” Marine Chemistry, Vol. 80, No. 1, 2002, pp. 27-39. doi:10.1016/S0304-4203(02)00096-8 [13] M. P. Kolesnikov and I. A. Egorov, “Porphyrins and Phycobilins in Precambrian Rocks,” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1977, pp. 383-390. doi:10.1007/BF00927910 [14] J. E. Lovelock, “The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth,” W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1988. [15] W. D. Harkins, “The Evolution of the Elements and The Stability of Complex Atoms,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, Vol. 39, No. 5, 1917, pp. 856-879. doi:10.1021/ja02250a002 [16] C. H. Payne, “Stellar Atmospheres,” In: H. Shapley, Ed., Harvard Observatory Monographs, No. 1, McGraw-Hill book col, Inc., Cambridge, 1925, p. 215. [17] H. N. Russell, “On the Composition of the Sun’s Atmos- phere,” Astrophysics Journal, Vol. 70, 1929, pp. 11-82. doi:10.1086/143197 [18] V. M. Goldschmidt, “Geochemische Verteilungsgestze Der Elemente. Ix. Die Mengenverhältnisse Der Elemente Und Der Atom-Arten, Skrifter Norske Videnskaps-Ak- ad.,” Matematisk-naturvidenskapelig Klasse, No. 4, 1938, p. 148. [19] F. Hoyle, “Home Is Where the Wind Blows,” University Science Books, Mill Valley, 1994, pp. 153-154, [20] F. Hoyle, “The Chemical Composition of the Stars,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 106, 1946, pp. 255-259. http://tinyurl.com/4uzx7wd [21] F. Hoyle, “The Synthesis of the Elements from Hydro- gen,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 106, 1946, pp. 343-383. http://tinyurl.com/6elx9ly, http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1946mnras.106.34 3h/0000343.000.Html [22] W. Prout, “On the Relation between the Specific Gravities of Bodies in Their Gaseous State and the Weights of Their Atoms,” Annals of Philosophy, Vol. 6, 1815, pp. 321-330. http://web.lemoyne.edu/~Giunta/Ea/Proutann.html; “Cor- rection of a Mistake in the Essay on the Relation between the Specific Gravities of Bodies in Their Gaseous State and the Weights of Their Atoms,” Annals of Philosophy, Vol. 7, 1816, pp. 111-113. http://Web.Lemoyne.Edu/~Giunta/Ea/Proutann.Html [23] E. M. Burbidge, G. R. Burbidge, W. A. Fowler and F. Hoyle (B2FH), “Synthesis of the Elements in Stars,” Re- views of Modern Physics, Vol. 29, No. 4, 1957, pp. 547-650. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.29.547 [24] D. D. Clayton, “Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nu- cleosynthesis,” 2nd Edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1983. . [25] C. E. Rolfs and W. S. Rodney, “Cauldrons in the Cos- mos,” University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988. [26] E. Chaisson and S. Mcmillan, “Astronomy Today,” 3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1999. [27] R. Davis Jr., D. S. Harmer and K. C. Hoffman, “Search for Neutrinos from the Sun,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 20, No. 21, 1968, pp. 1205-1209. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.20.1205 [28] J. N. Bahcall and R. Davis Jr., “Solar-Neutrinos: A Sci- entific Puzzle,” Science, Vol. 191, No. 4224, 1976, pp. 264-267. doi:10.1126/science.191.4224.264 [29] T. Kirsten, “Solar Neutrino Experiments: Results and Implications,” Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 71, No. 4, 1999, pp. 1213-1232. doi:10.1103/revmodphys.71.1213 [30] A. Dar and G. Shaviv, “Standard Solar Neutrinos,” As- trophysics Journal, Vol. 468, 1996, pp. 933-946. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9604009v1 [31] H. Bethe, “Energy Production in Stars,” Physical Review, Vol. 55, No. 1, 1938, pp. 103-103. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.55.103 [32] M. Newman, “Evolution of the Solar Constant,” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1980, pp. 105-110. [33] C. Sagan and C. Chyba, “The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Organic Shielding of Ultraviolet-Labile Greenhouse Gases,” Science, Vol. 276, No. 5316, 1997, pp. 1217-1221. doi:10.1126/science.276.5316.1217 [34] O. Manuel, C. Bolon and P. Jangam, “The Sun’s Origin, Composition and Source of Energy, Lunar and Planeta- ![]() K. MICHAELIAN ET AL. Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JMP 593 ry,” Science, Vol. XXIX, 2001. http://www.omatumr.com/lpsc.prn.pdf [35] O. Manuel, B. W. Ninham and S. E. Friberg, “Super-Fl- uidity in the Solar Interior: Implications for Solar Erup- tions and Climate,” Journal of Fusion Energy, Vol. 21, No. 3-4, 2002, pp. 193-198. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501441v1 doi:10.1023/A:1026250731672 [36] O. Manuel and S. Friberg, “Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios,” European Space Agency, Lacoste (ESA SP-517), Hugette, 2003, pp. 345-348. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717v1 [37] Q. R. Ahmad, et al., “Measurement of Charged Current Interactions Produced by 8B Solar Neutrinos at the Sud- bury Neutrino Observatory,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 87, No. 7, 2001, p. 6. http://prl.aps.org/abstract/prl/v87/i7/e071301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.071301 [38] Q. R. Ahmad, et al., “Direct Evidence for Neutrino Flavor Transfor-Mation from Neutral-Current Interact- ions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 89, No. 1, 2002, p. 6. http://prl.aps.org/abstract/prl/v89/i1/e011301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.011301 [39] A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo, et al., “Event Excess in the Miniboone Search For e vv Oscillations,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 105, No. 18, 2010, p. 5. http://prl.aps.org/abstract/prl/v105/i18/e181801 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.181801 [40] S.-S. Huang, “A Nuclear-Accretion Theory of Star For- mation,” Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. 69, 1957, pp. 427-430. doi:10.1086/127117 [41] O. K. Manuel, “Neutrino Repulsion,” The Apeiron Jour- nal, in Press, 2011, p. 19. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1 [42] W. Baade and F. Zwicky, “Cosmic Rays from Su- per-Novae,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 20, No. 5, 1934, pp. 259-263. doi:10.1073/pnas.20.5.259 [43] A. Wolszczan and D. Frail, “A Planetary System around the Millisecond Pulsar 1257 + 12,” Nature, Vol. 355, 1992, pp. 145-147; A. Wolszczan, “Confirmation of Ear- th Mass Planets Orbiting the Millisecond Pulsar 1257 + 12,” Science, Vol. 264, No. 5158, 1994, pp. 538-542. doi:10.1126/science.264.5158.538 [44] B. W. Ninham, “Charged Bose Gas in Astrophysics,” Physics Letters, Vol. 4, No. 5, 1963, pp. 278-279. doi:10.1016/0031-9163(63)90599-7 [45] V. Dzhunushaliev, V. Folomeev, B. Kleihaus and J. Kunz, “A Star Harbouring a Wormhole at Its Center,” 2011. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.4454v1 [46] P. K. Kuroda and W. A. Myers, “Plutonium-244 Fission Xenon in the Most Primitive Meteorites,” Radiochimica Acta, Vol. 64, 1994, pp. 167-174. [47] O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat and M. Mozina, “The Sun is a Plasma Diffuser that Sorts Atoms by Mass,” Physics of Atomic Nuclei, Vol. 69, No. 11, 2006, pp. 1847-1856. doi:10.1134/s106377880611007x [48] J. R. Cronin and S. Pizzarello, “Enantiomeric Excesses in Meteoritic Amino Acids,” Science, Vol. 275, No. 5302, 1997, pp. 951-955. doi:10.1126/science.275.5302.951 [49] O. Kargaltsev, G. G. Pavlov and J. A. Wong, “Young Energetic PSR J1617-5055, Its Nebula, and Tev Source Hess J1616-508,” Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 690, No. 1, 2009, pp. 891-901. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009apj...690..891k doi:10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/891 [50] S. Bowyer, “Detection of Neutron Stars in the Extreme Ultraviolet, Flares and Flashes,” Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 454, 1995, pp. 419-422. http://www.springerlink.com/content/y1564687471l4841/ [51] L. P. Knauth, “Isotopic Signatures and Sedimentary Re- cords,” In: N. Clauer and S. Chaudhuri, Eds., Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences #43, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992, pp. 123-152. doi:10.1130/G20342.1 [52] D. R. Lowe and M. M. Tice, “Geologic Evidence for Archean Atmospheric and Climatic Evolution: Fluctuat- ing Levels of Co2, Ch4, and O2 with an Overriding Tec- tonic Control,” Geology, Vol. 32, 2004, pp. 493-496. [53] J. S. Kargel, “Mars—A Warmer Wetter Planet,” Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2004, ISBN 1-85233-568-8. [54] D. A. Minton and R. Malhotra, “Assessing the Massive Young Sun Hypothesis to Solve the Warm Young Earth Puzzle,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 660, No. 2, 2007, pp. 1700-1706. doi:10.1086/514331 [55] C. Sagan and G. Mullen, “Earth and Mars: Evolution of Atmospheres and Surface Temperatures,” Science, Vol. 177, No. 4043, 1972, pp. 52-56. doi:10.1126/science.177.4043.52 [56] M. T. Rosing, D. K. Bird, N. H. Sleep and C. J. Bjerrum, “No Climate Paradox under the Faint Early Sun,” Nature Letters, Vol. 464, No. 7289, 2010, pp. 744-749. doi:10.1038/nature08955 [57] W. R. Kuhn and S. K. Atreya, “Ammonia Photolysis and the Greenhouse Effect in The Primordial Atmosphere of the Earth,” Icarus, Vol. 37, No. 1, 1979, pp. 207-213. doi:10.1016/0019-1035(79)90126-X [58] J. F. Kasting, “Stability of Ammonia in the Primitive Terrestrial Atmosphere,” Journal of Geophysical Re- search, Vol. 87, No. C4, 1982, pp. 3091-3098. doi:10.1029/JC087iC04p03091 [59] R. Rye, P. H. Kuo and H. D. Holland, “Atmospheric Carbon-Dioxide Concentrations before 2.2-Billion Years Ago,” Nature, Vol. 378, No. 6557, 1995, pp. 603-605. doi:10.1038/378603a0 [60] N. H. Sleep and K. Zahnle, “Carbon Dioxide Cycling and Implications for Climate on Ancient Earth,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Planets, Vol. 106, No. E1, 2001, pp. 1373-1399. doi:10.1029/2000JE001247 [61] A. M. Hessler, D. R. Lowe, R. L. Jones and D. K. Bird, “A Lower Limit for Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels 3.2 Billion Years Ago,” Nature, Vol. 428, 2004, pp. 736-738. doi:10.1038/nature02471 ![]() K. MICHAELIAN ET AL. Copyright © 2011 SciRes. JMP 594 [62] N. D. Sheldon, “Precambrian Paleosols and Atmospheric Co2 Levels,” Precambrian Research, Vol. 147, No. 1-2, 2006, pp. 148-155. doi:10.1016/j.precamres.2006.02.004 [63] E. T. Wolf and O. B. Toon, “Fractal Organic Hazes Pro- vided an Ultraviolet Shield for Early Earth,” Science, Vol. 328, No. 5983, 2010, pp. 1266-1268. doi:10.1126/science.1183260 [64] O. Kalisky, J. Feitelson and M. Ottolenghi, “Photo- chemistry and Fluorescence of Bacteriorhodopsin Excited in Its 280-nm Absorption Band,” Biochemistry, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1981, pp. 205-209. doi:10.1021/bi00504a034 [65] J. Xiong and K. E. Bauer, “Complex Evolution of Photo- synthesis,” Annual Review of Plant Physiology, Vol. 53, 2002, pp. 503-21. doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.100301.135212 [66] K. Mahdavian, M. Ghorbanli and Kh. M. Kalantari, “The Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation on the Contents of Chlo- rophyll, Flavonoid, Anthocyanin and Proline in Capsicum Annuum L,” Turkish Journal of Botany, Vol. 32, 2008, pp. 25-33. [67] M. G. Tehrany, H. Lammer, F. Selsis, I. Ribas, E. F. Guinan and A. Hanslmeier, “The Particle and Radiation Environment of the Early Sun,” Proceedings of the 10th Solar Physics Meeting, Prague, 9-14 September 2002, pp. 209-212. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2002esasp.506..209t [68] K. Michaelian, “Homochirality Through Photon-Induced Melting of RNA/DNA: The Thermodynamic Dissipation Theory of the Origin of Life,” Nature Precedings, Vol. 1, 2010, p. 8. http://hdl.handle.net/10101/npre.2010.5177 [69] W. A. Bonner and E. Rubenstein, “Supernovae, Neutron Stars and Biomolecular Chirality,” Biosystems, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1987, pp. 99-111. doi:10.1016/0303-2647(87)90025-6 [70] D. B. Cline, “On the Physical Origin of The Homochiral- ity of Life,” European Review, Vol. 13, No. S2, 2005, p. 4959. doi:10.1017/S1062798705000657 [71] S. Pizzarello, M. Zolensky and K. A. Turk, “Nonracemic Isovaline in the Murchison Meteorite: Chiral Distribution And Mineral Association,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 67, No. 8, 2003, pp. 1589-1595. doi:10.1016/S0016-7037(02)01283-8 [72] J. L. Bada, “Amino Acid Cosmogeochemistry,” Philoso- phical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Vol. 333, No. 1268, 1991, pp. 349-358. doi:10.1098/rstb.1991.0084 [73] S. Pizzarello and J. R. Cronin, “Non-Racemic Amino Acids in the Murray and Murchison Meteorites,” Geo- chimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 64, No. 2, 2000, pp. 329-338. doi:10.1016/S0016-7037(99)00280-X |