Globular clusters in the halo of our galaxy are thought to be very old. What are the chances intelligent life resides out there?

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Less than the chance of there being other intelligent life in the Milky Way. The Milky Way is bigger which means more stars which means more planets ect...

__________________
MacTalk - The Australian Apple Community - iPod, iPhone and Mac.

The stars in these clusters can be so close to each other, I wonder if it is a suitable place for complex life forms at all?

It would decrese the chance yes, but surely there would be low density areas, of stars.

__________________
MacTalk - The Australian Apple Community - iPod, iPhone and Mac.

Indeed. I'm sure the nightsky would be great too, especially if this cluster is a good way off the Milky Way plane. Would be quite a sight to see our galaxy from a distance.

I agree the skys would be pretty, but no life.

Extremely low since the stars that comprise them are first generation stars with little in the way of heavier elements.

Dave Mitsky

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Dave's hit the nail on the head...

Until recently, it was thought to be highly unlikely that globular cluster stars would even have planets because the heavy elements needed weren't so plentiful early on in the universe's (and galaxy's) life... no planets, therefore no life...

However, earlier this year a gas giant was discovered orbiting a star in a globular cluster so even though they might be rare, they do exist. That being the case, maybe there were a few Earth-like planets too...

__________________
"The stars are my home"
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe... Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion... I've watched c-beams glitter in the dark, near the Tanhauser Gate... all those moments will be lost, in time... like tears in the rain..."

I didn't think of that! Of course we are made of stardust. I was just thinking that if the clusters are supposed to be so old, maybe there is something out there we're missing. How do we know they are all first generation stars? Maybe, there is some kind of interaction with the mysterious dark matter we know nothing about! Is dark matter out around the globular clusters?

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Are you insinuating there may be dark matter life forms? I wouldn't get used to entertaining that idea. Even the simplest life needs to consume and output a significant amount of energy, meaning visible matter.

Recent finds are showing quite a few solar systems in our galaxy they are quite similar to our own, but younger. I'm surprised we're finding younger ones as opposed to older ones, since we're the toddlers around here.

__________________
<span style='font-family:tahoma'>Reverend J. Vance Tyree</span>

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. - <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>Albert Einstein</span>

Perhaps they emit dark energy?? :P

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

Emit Gamma Ray???? ????

That wasn't quite what I was wondering about. But, now that you've mentioned it, maybe the dark energy to "dark beings" is like sunlight to us. Perhaps, the dark beings cannot look toward us because we are too bright, light hurts their radiation sensors!

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

The only way to find out is either go there, or try to find planets. It seems planets can exist around any star, and why shouldn't it be possible to find life as well. The clusters are thought to consist of old (first generation) stars, but we don't know how old they really are. I think the chances of finding life in globular clusters are the same as anywhere else.
Cheers.

Dark energy isn't the same kind of energy you're thinking. It's a hypothetical energy that's responsible for the acceleration of the universe's expansion. We've never actually detected this dark energy and new theories are starting to neglect it entirely.
Any stars made up of the heavier elements. Just like Dave said, first generation stars didn't have the heavier elements needed for planetary formation.
That all depends on the age of the stars. As well, it depends on how close the stars are to each other. If the stars are too close, then it would be very difficult for any kind of planet to form do to gravitational instability. No planet = No life.

__________________
<span style='font-family:tahoma'>Reverend J. Vance Tyree</span>

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. - <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>Albert Einstein</span>

We know they're first generation stars by looking at their spectra. No heavy elements. No carbon. No oxygen. No silicon. No iron. No calcium. None of the things that are needed to make life "as-we-know-it". Presumably any planets around such stars have similar composition - hydrogen and helium and precious little else.

Now life "as-we-don't-know-it" (e.g. dark energy kangaroos) might just exist there, but why confine them to globular clusters? They might exist anywhere.

Speculation is so much fun, and inexpensive too.

that is very interesting, how many (proportionally) of these stars are there?

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Spectroradiometry Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art

I believe slim to none, and Slim just left the galaxy.

where is slim now?

just what is the proportion of these stars are there in the universe?

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Spectroradiometry Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art

That's a very good question. I went looking for a source that might give an estimate and couldn't find anything. I found LOTS of sources that describe the difference between Population I and Population II stars. Here's one of the better ones.

Pop II are the old "first generation" stars that we're talking about here, but the two "populations" really grade into each other with a full range of intermediaries. Sounds like neither group is rare, but I couldn't find an estimate of the proportions of the two groups.

Perhaps the reason I couldn't find such an estimate is because it would be difficult and pointless to develop one.

Difficult because the brightest stars we see are all young and therefore Pop II, because big bright stars don't live long. All Pop II stars would be dimmer than the sun except for the few that are currently in the red giant stage. Also, since Pop I stars live in the Galactic disk, and Pop II stars live in the halo, nearby stars are mostly Pop I (like the sun). Any astronomer would recognize that both those differences would bias any survey toward over-estimating the proportion of Pop I, so it would be difficult to find ways to account for that bias.

Pointless because there is no clear line between Pop I and Pop II - they form a continuum, not two groups - pick your dividing line and you can make any number come out right.

Or maybe I'm just stupid and the next link I checked would have had it.

Here's a link about an extreme Pop II star.

thank you for that....i see your point actually, and that extreme star is well - extreme!

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Spectroradiometry Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art