Re: Just a non-biologist type question
@JassMan "But how do they know that life would develop at all..." They don't mention anything about life or having longer to evolve in the paper. So you are being unfair in your speculation of their beliefs.
I have read the scientific paper linked in article ‘MEASURING THE MELTING CURVE OF IRON AT SUPER-EARTH CORE CONDITIONS and that is what it is about.
So, while the reason for doing this study is because “size of the liquid metal core, is an important factor for understanding the potential for generating a radiation-shielding magnetic field” the paper is purely scientific in nature.
They experimentally determined the high-pressure melting curve and structural properties of pure iron up to 1000 GPa. Performed experiments to emulate conditions iron descending to the core of a super-earth would see.
More experiments lots of maths some assumptions which results in this “super-Earth cores will take up to 30% longer to solidify than Earth’s core, where this model predicts Earth’s core will solidify in 6.2(3.4) billion years (Gyr)”.
The whole speculation on “Life on Super-Earths may have more time to develop and evolve” by this article’s author is based on this ““While there are a lot of requirements for a habitable planet, such as a surface temperature that enables liquid water, having a magnetosphere that can protect against solar radiation for long periods of time could offer long durations of time for life to evolve,” Richard Kraus, lead author of the paper and a physicist at the LLNL, told The Register.”
Now what prompted this comment is unknown, but I would hazard a guess that this article’s author latched onto the final sentence of the paper “Assuming the solidification time scale sets the time scale for dynamos, the results lead to the notable finding that super-Earths are likely to have a longer duration of magnetically shielded habitability than Earth.”. Then asked a question about that sentence speculating life would have longer to evolve.