In November, the world remembered that Samara is rightfully considered one of the international scientific centres, after scientists from Samara University, together with their colleagues from the United States, proved that life could come to Earth riding on a star. “Sobaka.ru” talked to Ivan Antonov, Senior Researcher at the Samara branch of the LPI and Associate Professor of the Department of Physics at Samara University, one of the authors of this amazing discovery.
Physics, chemistry and astrochemistry

Which area can your discovery be attributed to: is it more physical or chemical?

There is a field at the junction of two sciences: physicists call it chemical physics, and chemists call it physical chemistry. But, in fact, it is a related interdisciplinary field that partly overlaps both the sciences a little bit. And since our experiments are related to interstellar matter, it is also astrochemistry.

Most discoveries, except for those that are completely random, begin with some kind of hypothesis. What hypothesis was behind yours?

It was based on this: about sixty years ago, molecules were discovered in outer space. If up to this point it was assumed that outer space is high vacuum, in which there are only some simple atoms – mainly hydrogen and helium, – radio telescopes have proved that substances in outer space emit at certain frequencies, and these frequencies match the energy of molecular transitions. That is, due to these frequencies, it is possible to determine which molecules already exist in outer space. Since that time, one molecule after another began to be discovered: to date, about two hundred and fifty molecules have already been known. Some of them are rather simple, such as a hydrogen molecule. Some are more complex. However, here, on the Earth, we consider them to be simple organic molecules. Such as, for example, acetic acid. There are still more questions than answers with these molecules. Because how they are formed in outer space is completely unclear. Ralph Kaiser, our leading scientist, put forward the hypothesis that could explain their existence. The essence of it is that these molecules in outer space are formed on dust particles. Imagine, there is dust in outer space too: it is left from previous stellar cycles. That is, when a star explodes and collapses, it leaves dust particles. They are quite small, about a dozen nanometers in size. This is smaller than a cell, and comparable to a virus size. So, at low temperatures, simple molecules from the cosmic vacuum can settle on these dust particles. Then the surface of the dust particles is exposed to radiation, cosmic rays and light from stars, and chemical reactions occur in it, which lead to appearance of larger and more complex molecules. When a new cycle of star formation occurs, that is, a gas-dust cloud gathers in a small area under gravity influence, and in the centre of this cloud, the star is lit, molecules to have formed on the dust begin to evaporate from surfaces of the dust particles. Radio telescopes see these molecules. So, the assumption was as follows: ice films on the surface of cosmic dust are a kind of incubator of complex organic molecules that can get to new planets and provide the basis for new life.

So life can literally arise from dust, cannot it?

More or less! These dust particles... What happens to them during star formation? Those of them to be near the star simply lose their molecules: they evaporate. Those to fly somewhere far away form comets. Around our Solar System, there is the Oort Cloud consisting of comets: this is the belt that is beyond the Pluto orbit. It is located very far from the Earth, at a distance of over six billion kilometers. But this is not a hopeless distance for comets, and they periodically flew to us. It is believed that about four billion years ago, trajectories of these comets often flew through the centre of the Solar System and bombarded its inner planets and the Earth too.

We’re considering, while they’re experimenting

When it is said that the work was divided into theoretical and experimental, how was it organized in practice?

In practice, it was a kind of collaboration: We worked at Samara University and the Samara branch of the LPI, and our colleagues worked at the University of Hawaii in the USA. They have an experimental facility to have been built about ten years ago, and we are good at calculating properties of substances and determining how chemical reactions proceed, by using the method based on quantum-mechanical calculations. This method is very accurate, but requires a large computing resource, which is available at our Institute: We calculate using the Korolev Supercomputer. For the research, we did two types of basic calculations: the first type is detecting how chemical reactions involving certain molecules can occur. We calculated how these molecules react and what might come of it. The second type of the calculations was associated with identifying ionization energy of the reaction products, by which they could then be identified in course of experimenting in Hawaii.

As for these experimental facilities, are they with similar entourage as in
“Spider-Man”? Does everything flash and sparkle?

Not quite. I would even say that everything is much more modest. However, it looks good. Of course, nothing sparkles there: everything is desired to be as safe as possible. We are just finishing to build our own facility for independently conducting experiments, so we make sure of all safety requirements to be met.

What is the major difficulty in building such a facility?

The major difficulty is that it is necessary to simulate conditions of outer space, in which very high vacuum reigns: it is almost impossible to get it on the Earth. We are trying to create conditions that would be no different from the point of view of chemistry. Other difficulties are associated with obtaining low temperatures comparable to those in outer space, which is about four to five degrees above absolute zero. It is very hard to get the combination of these parameters.

The discovery that changed our view of the world

How much will your discovery – that the Earth received life from outer space – change many people’s paradigm of thinking?

It’s a little bit wrong question. The discovery is not that the Earth received life from outer space, but that the building materials for life formation could be brought from outer space. Though, they could form here, as well! So, these two hypotheses are still equal and do not contradict each other. It’s just that our discovery has added another argument to the cosmic version of life origin. What is it? The fact is that the early cells that could form on the Earth had to somehow receive from the external environment substances – metal ions, which are needed for cells to reproduce themselves. Modern cells use proteins for transporting metals – complex macrobiological molecules to be synthesized in course of complex processes. In ancient cells, these processes most likely could not have happened. How to reproduce in this case? On the early Earth, there might be simple molecules that had formed in space. They could bind to a metal atom, forming a strong bond – grabbing this atom with something like a crab claw, pushing it through the cell membrane.

All right. And, besides theoretical justification of the hypothesis, does your discovery have any practical result? Will it be used in any way in industry?

In industry, most certainly not. At least, I don’t see such application today: it’s no applied science, but a fundamental one. On the other hand, in case of fundamental science, it is always difficult to understand when something that is being worked on today will be useful. On some spiral of the scientific-technological development, fundamentalists’ discoveries give an unexpected applied outcome. It is impossible to predict unambiguously, but it is important theoretically.

Why did you choose fundamental science? It’s always interesting how people start going in for this kind of science.

Science itself chose me. I studied at Samara University, and then went to the USA to study at the postgraduate school. It so happened that I got into the group that studied simple molecules containing uranium and beryllium. These were primarily works aimed at fundamentally comprehending molecular bonds. Our experiments had practical application: we said that we were studying uranium-containing molecules for optimizing utilization of nuclear fuel. For me, the fundamental component was more important and more interesting. Since then, I have been constantly moving from applied science to fundamental one and from physics to chemistry. Now I have another fundamental stage. You see, it can probably be argued that fundamental science is more important than applied one, which can be considered the final stage of scientific development: you’ve stuck your forehead into the problem and you’re solving it. The fundamental science is when you are at the centre of the universe, and no one knows where your discoveries will lead you further. All roads are open.

Returning home and believing in miracles

You have destroyed one of key stereotypes of modern times by returning from the USA, where conditions for researching are more comfortable, to Russia. What motivated you?
I’ve always wanted to come back: when I left for America, I didn’t plan to stay there forever. I just wanted to gain education and experience there. Besides, here I was offered to participate in the interesting project – in creation of the experimental facility. I teach, interact with students and share my experience with them. I might have found a great job in the States of America, but I wanted to be helpful here.

What do you dream of?

Due to my complicated trajectory in science, I have touched several various interesting areas, so I would like to develop some ideas and projects in these areas. To get financing for building new experimental facilities, as I’m still more an experimenter, not a theorist. I dream of creating new scientific areas and developing them; I want to leave a certain scientific school after me: these are typical dreams for a scientist of my age.

Do scientists believe in fairy tales and miracles?

Yes, of course! You see, I had an interesting experience while working in the USA. When I worked at the Physics Faculty of Northwestern University, there were several professors – with excellent international reputation! – who were strong Christian believers. Watching them, I realized that they had no conflict between scientific and religious cognition. It shouldn't be: science and religion have different ways of knowing. This awareness, of course, did not make me a believer, but there are things that science cannot explain. There are things to be easier for people to comprehend with faith.I understand this.

And next – this is the main thing!

What can you say about where humanity is heading? What technological breakthroughs can be expected in the near future?

I watch the progress has been made in the information sphere for a very long time, but there is no significant progress in the field of new energy sources and new ways of movement. In many ways, the standstill in these areas is due to the fact that we have reached the limits of our technologies based on chemical energy sources. For making progress in these areas, we need new materials: everything rests on them. Let’s take, for example, thermonuclear fusion: for this technology to appear – and its appearance will solve many problems of humanity, – materials capable of withstanding a huge stream of neutrons are needed. Not just to withstand, but to absorb these neutrons and convert their energy into heat. We haven’t had such materials yet. Therefore, there is no progress too. There are interesting areas related to quantum computing and computers. They are currently actively developing, but the point when a quantum computer will appear is not in the near future.

But surely the advent of new materials and quantum computers, among other things, will change the usual way of life, won’t it? Passwords, for example, will become useless.

This is not the most important thing: a new encoding system to be based on other principles will quickly appear. Quantum computers are more important for other reasons: in the 80s, the late Richard Feynman explained why humanity needed quantum computing. If we want to predict properties of substances, materials and new drugs, we need methods that will not use the standard binary structure, but qubits – bits that can be in super positions and consider not just the contribution of each, but also the relative phase. When using the classical binary structure, we quickly run into the lack of memory for saving the amount of information to be needed even to describe small molecules. An ordinary amino acid can currently be calculated only very approximately, and a quantum computer will dramatically increase accuracy of calculations. Such a computer will also make it possible to predict properties of a new material, which will allow moving research from laboratories to a quantum-computing centre, accelerating the progress and speed of developing new substances and drugs. However, as for quantum computers, there is still more noise than business.

What do you think of interplanetary travels that Elon Musk is talking about?

Well, we can already launch interplanetary spacecraft; this is a difficult technical task, but it’s solvable. As for manned flights, they seem to me to have been launched long ago if it had not been possible to solve some tasks without human participation. It is possible to launch a human to Mars. But what for? It is dangerous, and there are many problems to be associated with the flight duration and exposure to radiation. It is literally a kind of lottery to launch a human into space for a year, knowing that, while flying to Mars, (s)he can get a fatal dose of radiation. Just imagine a spacecraft crew of ten people, and one of them will definitely die from radiation disease. The risk is great. In the past centuries, such risks did not stop adventurers. But times have changed, and the cost of human life has increased.

Tell us please as a physicist and chemist: are talks about global warming another horror story, or should we wait for a collapse?

Global warming is such a big and complex concept that has many manifestations in a wide variety of fields. This concept is based on the fact that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing for about seventy years. It grows almost linearly, this is an objective fact. Many people associate this growth with human activity, and there are grounds for such an opinion. What does the increase in carbon dioxide concentration lead to? To redirecting back part of the Earth’s thermal radiation, and less heat is radiated into outer space. That is, the Earth’s temperature, visible from outer space, constantly decreases, and this leads to the increase in average temperature on the planet. Then it’s an interesting thing: there are mechanisms that haven’t be well explored. These are all kinds of feedbacks, which are divided into negative and positive ones. For example, negative feedback means that temperature on the planet grows, there is some mechanism to compensate for this increase. Positive feedback, on the contrary, raises the temperature if it grows. It is the balance of these mechanisms that will ultimately determine how destructive and dangerous the increase in temperature can be. Some scientists believe that small increase in average temperature on the planet will not lead to anything much. There is also an opposite opinion: positive feedbacks will multiply the temperature jump on the Earth. If this happens, we expect quite severe consequences, and part of the land may become unsuitable to live there. So it’s still impossible to say that global warming is nothing: you can’t ignore it.

What is the most interesting thing about your work?

As for me, the most interesting thing is to understand how something works and how the gears of the universe turn. The field of physical chemistry that I research is highly mathematized, and I am very fond of finding new interesting mathematical relations for some physical processes and building numerical models based on experiment. I still like when there is an opportunity to do something with my hands, and not just in theory.

Source: sobaka.ru