But remember Jupiter's core isn't molten core but a frozen hydrogen due to high pressures....the solid core acts as superconductor creating can Allen belts

But why ? Don't forget about Moon. It is Moon who make our core in liquid state. If our Moon would be smaller like Phobos and Deimos, we haven't magnetic field.

yes a misleading tittle but a very interesting study.(he said they dont have the solution yet, but they send spacecraft to orbit 3 planets for more study, one of them is mar he did directly state the other two, he did mention jupiter and venus doe)

You wish your teachers made loud sloppy saliva noises with every word they spoke?

I agree! I have seen many of these type of talks, and while they are fascinating, none of them ever gave solutions or answers. They are always in the process phase of research. None of them will give us the anticipated information. But what can you/we do? Think, think, think. Be creative, and figure it out yourself, and share your best knowledge, so the rest of the world has a chance to became a more informed and better place. This is all we can do, learn from each other.

U2 little things

We dont understand life enough to have even an educated guess...all we have is sample size of 1....

You just saved me ten minutes (double speed) thanks :)

Thanks. I didn't waste my time after the first 3 mins and reading the comments. I could pose interesting questions all day long that I can't find the answers to, besides my own theories and imaginings. The eternal WHY? And WHY NOT? and IF? AND....The 5 W's and the H....

The ocean moons are the best candidates here, but I think we should only use mars for a pit stop. Like a stepping stone to beyond our solar system

I am a little late but whatever you are talking about makes sense to me.

Venus is bigger. More gravity, better at clinging on. Perhaps also, it's generating enough atmosphere from processes at or below ground level to make up for any losses to solar wind.

I thought Venus was slightly smaller than Earth. That's why Venus didn't have quite enough mass to create the required internal dynamo to produce a magnetosphere.

@@randynelson2265 The difference is fractional. Mass is clearly not an issue all of it's own. Earths molten core is radiactive and I think that's what's sustaining it. The magma keeps flowing and that's what keeps our magnetosphere running. Venus might be cold, or made of the wrong materials. I'll have to look it up.

Three conditions are required to sustain a magnetic field: 1) The presence of liquid metals, 2) Convection currents driving the liquid metals toward and away from the core, 3) Rotational forces driving lateral movement of the liquid metals. Venus doesn't have an endogenous magnetic field because it is rotating too slowly; its day is 5,832 hours (243 earth days) long, and as such the liquid metals at its core are not subject to enough rotational forces to generate a magnetic field from inside the planet. The Martian mantel is very rich in hydrogen, which interferes with the ability of heavier elements like iron and nickel to sink into the Martian core, thus stalling the convective currents also necessary to generate a magnetic field from within. If we could come up with a way to remove this hydrogen, Mars' magnetic field could theoretically reboot, which would be a necessary first step to terraforming the planet into a habitable world. The liquid metals at Earth's core are subject to enough rotational and convective forces to generate and sustain a magnetic field, which is the main reason we have one while Venus and Mars do not. The radioactive elements in the Earth's mantel and core generate heat as they decay, and this helps keep the metals fluid enough to churn up a magnetic field, but radioactive decay does not itself directly contribute to Earth's magnetism. Venus has managed to hold on to its atmosphere for two reasons: 1) Its extremely dense ionosphere interacts with solar winds to generate an exogenous magnetic field which, though relatively weak, deflects a percentage of the sun's charged particles away from the planet. 2) Venus' atmosphere is comprised mainly of heavier gases like CO2, and contains thick clouds of H2SO4, another heavy and energy-soaking molecule. Since Venus' gravity is comparable to Earth's (91%), these dense atmospheric gases are heavy enough that they require a lot energy put into them before they can escape Venus' gravity well. Despite this, Venus is still losing atmosphere; it's simply that it's an extremely dense and partially protected atmosphere comprised of heavy gases that are difficult to eject.

nuke the core

Yes. We only need several atomic bombs exploding every second to achieve that kind of magnetic field :)

that means its possible but impossible :p

nope won't happen ever not with our species. our species our planet all that is unique but primitive in existence. we don't even fit the criteria for the type of existence that could generate technology that could do such things...... impossible in the truest sense of the word impossible. if anything was truly impossible that's the one.

My point exactly

There is no other "life as we don't know". Life needs WATER. Every life. Then there are few atoms (oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, phosphorus, sulphur). And this is not because these atoms won a lottery. This is STRICTLY because of their energetic bonds they can create. So anywhere in the Universe whatever life exists it will use the same building blocks and the same idea of DNA chains.

...would you settle for “life as we define it”

Garrett Garvin extraterrestrial life (if i exists) wll have to adhere to the same laws of natuer as the one on earth: a) it will need energy (and thus very likely a potential gradient), b) it will required a liquid phase, as otherwise the reactions can't take place an it's ot alive but dead. This phase doesn't have to be water, but due to the elementary composition of the universe everything else is highly unlikely, c) it's gonna be based on carbon. No other elements shows the required properties. No matter how much "out of the box thinking" you'll do .. you won't get away from these basic requirements.

It probably wouldn't have had plants or anything. I doubt Mars could ever have had a significant amount of nitrogen or oxygen in its atmosphere.

Well, we are sister planets with Mars so it would seem we're next in line.

jean cary Our field is weakening because its getting ready to flip. After it settles it will strengthen again. The north magnetic pole is racing towards russia currently.

Magnetic flipping, the new Y2K bug.

Yeah, or a fart from a unicorn while we're at it. You'd need a prolonged, discharge - in a single, perfect pattern no less (electricity doesn't quite work that way) - to *burn* through several hundred thousand tonnes (at *least* ) of *rock* to make that formation visible from *space.* I added the emphasis because you're a moron.

The remaining 9 minutes are basically just sloppy saliva noises..

Did you know the people who invented lasers had no idea What their invention could be useful for, and at this point lasers have revolutionized multiple scientific fields?

AW Crowe It does do the greater good to study science (and all the stars, etc). Eventually people will colonize each and everyone of them star systems and they'll live better than most of us. Science makes a country (or a great space faring civilization) great! If we can get to space cheaper, then we'll develop unlimited clean energy, too. Then we'll make bigger telescopes. But in the meantime, we have to make do with spectroscopy... Necessity drives innovation which is supposed to erase poverty. Imagine Benjamin saying to himself "na, quit wasting time playing around with kites in the rain"... He wasn't that cheap!

wow responses sound like starwars fans lol...... they think this culture and era created lasers 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

we will not be able to.... the tech advancement is capped off by our planet itself...... we don't have what we need to come up with real solutions. All our scientists would be dedicated to the space race if the were the case. thank God there are intelligent men and women that are still more focused on Earth ya know one of the most perfect blends of events that give us life as we know it....... people are too blind to understand the very possibility that we could be one of a kind period. Even out of trillions of stars and zillions of planets we could be there only one that produced intelligent life. very very very possible.

that's an interesting idea

The Universe is electrical in nature.... and there is no such thing as "magnetic friction" .... and no magnetic fields in "space" without electricity....

Petar is right to a certain extent. Though the friction occurring between earth and the moon is not magnetic but gravitational of nature. Gravitational or "tidal" friction is what's keeping the ocean's of Europa warm. I think it is a better idea to create an artificial magnetic field between the sun and Mars, because shooting a large celestial object at Mars to generate the electic field is like using a nuclear bomb to grill your steak.

That has long been an idea floated by the scientific community. The material to do so could easily be found from the asteroid belt. However, the issue is timing. Even if humans are able to form an object large enough to cause the gravitational friction necessary and "launch" it into a sustainable orbit around Mars that causes that friction to occur, it will still take hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of years for the friction to create the desired effect on Mars's core.

Learn more about science before writing outlandish commentary.

The universe ain't 20 billions years old lol 14 billion 😄

I often think of it like planting a tree. If you plant a tree with your child and they grow up with it (them) and love them then they will realize how long it takes for a tree to grow and develop, making them much more reverent towards trees. Same thing on a much bigger scale here. We will be able to get a much better perspective of what we have if we could understand what it takes to make life on earth possible. I also think that is you or anyone were to look at your life and understand fully the impacts you have on earth, you would make a whole lot of changes. Traditionally war has helped us to learn and grow. I think that going to space and colonizing other planets is a much more effective and peaceful way for we humans to improve ourselves. By reaching for the stars

Depends what you mean by doesn't change a damn thing - it doesn't give us a concrete answer, but it seems to change what you might reasonably predict - he's saying we've found thousands of habitable type planets in one tiny bit of the sky, which extrapolated out equals forty to fifty billion habitable planets in the galaxy. Now if you said life forming on a habitable planet was EXTREMELY unlikely - say a billion-to-one against, (MUCH less likely than winning the lotto!) you'd still have to conclude there should be forty to fifty planets in the galaxy with life on them. We still don't know, so sure it doesn't change a thing, but when you're talking tens of billions of opportunities per Galaxy, and hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe, iterated over billions of years, that unlikely-sounding billion-to-one event must surely be happening all the time?! It's a tantalising glimpse of what the answer to the 'are we alone' question might be, and the ability to gather this data is another little step on our journey to finding out for sure!

Habitable doesn't necessarily mean Earth-like.

The numbers "prove" whatever you want them to.... That's how we ended up with blackholes, dark matter/energy and other non-existent flights of fancy.... I'm "100% sure" of this.

Habitable does not mean inhabited. Life does not spontaneously arise from non-living processes. If you roll a pair of dice a trillion trillion times you're never going to roll a thirteen - 100 percent sure.

Life came from a non living process. It's already happened. Your existence is proof. The universe wasn't created with life. If you give it trillions of more opportunities, it will certainly happen again. It is almost certain that there is other life in the Milky Way. There is probably life in other parts of our solar system. We are only years or decades away from proof.

Seeker Rild and I’ve heard of unicorns, Zeus, Thor, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus and leprechauns.

The (real) scientific evidence supports your model!

Science has not yet excluded the possibility that Earth is the only planet which harbors life. It's statistically certain that there is life somewhere else or has been in the past, since the universe is so ridiculously big. Probably the very large majority of life is just a very primitive form of micro organism.

Look up Pasteur's flask experiment disproving the Spontaneous Generation of life. If I carefully created a million billion trillion replications of that experiment there would still be NO Spontaneous Generation of life. Having a huge number of galaxies doesn't change Pasteur's Results. Until Scientifically PROVEN otherwise, the Spontaneous Generation of life has been shown to NOT occur. THIS is a PROVEN Scientific FACT.

Now conduct your experiment, then allow the chemistry to play out over a billion years incorporating energy input from the Sun, electrical discharges, geothermal heat, and interaction with other primordial elements. Perhaps some new form of complex, self-replicating molecules might emerge. A human time scale experiment can not replicate conditions over a geologic time scale.

Why would God create a universe with trillions of stars and even more planets just to only populate one of those planets? The human ego is an amazing thing.

Jesus wouldn't like this talk?

Well the jokes kinda helped to understand and after all keep it entertaining for "not-so-interested-people". I was interested in this and if I just listen to the facts, the jokes are automatically ignored, at least thats how it was for me. If you couldn't focus on the presentation, you need to focus more I guess because his "off-topic" jokes were not distracting at all. If you listen to one physics class or some other mathematic-based stuff you would be greatful if it contains some humour, because these can be exhausting af.

omg, i thought i was the only one! go do an open-mic if you want to horse around that badly. the guy moves more on stage than robin williams

Dave Chappelle should redo this Ted talk

Id rather have cheesey jokes that keep people's attention rather than lose people's attention.. Thats the point of TED talks..