Belief in Earth's Iron Core still puzzling

[Moontanman]

Wonderful. I did wonder how the reaction would be moderated having no control rods to slow the reaction, and simply assumed that the pressure and thousands of miles of iron etc would allow a crazy wide open reaction with no need for control (its a good thing that the critical mass wasn't huge I suppose).

 

 

I don't really think you can think of the uranium and thorium as having a critical mass as far as being similar to the way an atom bomb does. An atom bomb uses uranium 235 which has to be relatively pure to explode under any circumstances as does plutonium. The reactor proposed for the inside of the earth is more of a liquid metal breeder type reactor and doesn't contain very much or very pure U-235 or plutonium. So an atomic type explosion wouldn't really be in the cards anyway.

 

 

And thanks for the info of how the He3 is detected. I wonder how we know that is coming from the core and not the mantel? In any case thanks for explaining it, its incredible what we can do with so little information.

 

; }>

 

I think most if not all mainstream science assumes the He3 does come from the mantle, lots of radioactivity there independent of the proposed core reactor. As far as I know there would be no mechanism for He3 to escape the core to be detected on the surface. the core reactor does explain certain aspects of the Earths heat production and the Earths magnetic field. But there are other schools of thought...

[Moontanman]

One more thing, the idea of the heavier the element the more likely it is to migrate to the core is negated somewhat by chemistry. For a very long time it was thought that elements like uranium and thorium were too chemically reactive to migrate to the core of the earth. later theories allow this to happen but the jury is till out on if it did or not.

[Pyrotex]

I was wondering what is the latest in the idea that 'fission' or something close is happening in the earths core. If it was true would that have any effect on your belief that the earths core isn't mainly 'iron' ?...

I find myself 'boggled' at the many different paths that have been presented here to support the idea that the Earth's core is NOT iron. :)

 

Rotational inertia, "horizontal gravity", acoustic waves through the Earth, solid hydrogen formation in diamond anvils, fission at the core, fuzzy forces, asteroids, ...

 

It's like putting together a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. You're 2/3 done with it. It's pretty obvious that it's a picture of a Doberman catching a Frisbee. And someone starts arguing that it's really a kitten chasing a butterfly:

 

Well, you know cats are more popular now than dogs.

I've heard of butterflies that have big round wings like a Frisbee.

I have a similar puzzle at home, and it shows a kitten chasing a butterfly.

Frisbees aren't that popular anymore.

I had a kitten once that would chase and fetch toy mice.

Many cats, like lions and tigers, have kittens as big as a dog.

That picture was taken with a dog-biased camera.

In certain kinds of light, cats are hard to tell apart from dogs.

 

It doesn't matter how many of these 'fringe' arguments and unrelated facts you assemble, the puzzle is 2/3 assembled and there can be no rational doubt that the picture is a Doberman catching a Frisbee.

[RevOfAllRevs]

Thanks for the replies.

 

; }>

[RevOfAllRevs]

I find myself 'boggled' at the many different paths that have been presented here to support the idea that the Earth's core is NOT iron. :)

 

Rotational inertia, "horizontal gravity", acoustic waves through the Earth, solid hydrogen formation in diamond anvils, fission at the core, fuzzy forces, asteroids, ...

 

It's like putting together a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. You're 2/3 done with it. It's pretty obvious that it's a picture of a Doberman catching a Frisbee. And someone starts arguing that it's really a kitten chasing a butterfly:

 

Well, you know cats are more popular now than dogs.

I've heard of butterflies that have big round wings like a Frisbee.

I have a similar puzzle at home, and it shows a kitten chasing a butterfly.

Frisbees aren't that popular anymore.

I had a kitten once that would chase and fetch toy mice.

Many cats, like lions and tigers, have kittens as big as a dog.

That picture was taken with a dog-biased camera.

In certain kinds of light, cats are hard to tell apart from dogs.

 

It doesn't matter how many of these 'fringe' arguments and unrelated facts you assemble, the puzzle is 2/3 assembled and there can be no rational doubt that the picture is a Doberman catching a Frisbee.

 

Ha ha so you are the both feet on the ground traditional guy? You and moonman have some interesting debates I'll wager.

 

; {?>

[modest]

the puzzle is 2/3 assembled and there can be no rational doubt that the picture is a Doberman catching a Frisbee.

 

The third-most abundant element in a Doberman is Hydrogen

 

~modest :shrug:

[Pyrotex]

The third-most abundant element in a Doberman is Hydrogen

Modest.

 

:eek2: :doh: :evil: :) :shrug: :doh:

 

Please confine yourself to the threads on Play Dough and Tinker Toys.

 

:hihi:

 

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Moontanman]

Actually Rev, Pyro is right, all the theories other than iron/nickle core are fringe to say the least. The idea of a small, tiny really, core of heavy radioactive metals is not very high on the totem pole as theories go but it doesn't negate the idea of an iron core like the idea of hydrogen core does. A fission core can be put in place with out turning the entire idea of how the earth formed on it's head. As technology to detect neutrinos improves a fission core could be falsified. A hydrogen core on the other hand is simply not possible within the realm of physics as we know them. No way no how.....

[stereologist]

You and moonman have some interesting debates I'll wager.

What I have around here is that these 2 do have interesting debates. Thanks for noticing as well.

 

What I find much more interesting is learning that diamonds have been found containing solid CO2. Although the particles are not optically detectable the signature is there.

 

You'd think that hydrogen might be an important constituent of mafic minerals. But no. It's iron.

[RevOfAllRevs]

I think that some so called fringe theories have a lot of merit. Some of what were once fringe theories are now accepted theory, like plate tectonics (which were ridiculed viciously when first mentioned).

 

Anyway I didn't visualize actual fission occurring but rather but heating caused by the close proximity of high grade naturally occurring radioactive substances. Something like this (see link) but of course inside the core...

 

Oklo: Natural Nuclear Reactors - Fact Sheet

 

; {>

[Moontanman]

I think that some so called fringe theories have a lot of merit. Some of what were once fringe theories are now accepted theory, like plate tectonics (which were ridiculed viciously when first mentioned).

 

Anyway I didn't visualize actual fission occurring but rather but heating caused by the close proximity of high grade naturally occurring radioactive substances. Something like this (see link) but of course inside the core...

 

Oklo: Natural Nuclear Reactors - Fact Sheet

 

; {>

 

It is true that some fringe theories eventually become mainstream, plate tectonics was not accepted right away because no known mechanisms could account for the drifting of continents. You have to understand that plate tectonics was not just a idea thought up due to odd or unusual science, there was a real mystery about the way the crust of the earth formed and moved, there were lots of competing ideas, even religion had a hand in it, none of them adequately explained what was gong on in the real world. Plate techtonics had been proposed many centuries ago before the modern idea was brought forth. Now that we know more about the mechanisms that that exist we can see how it works.

 

In the case of a hydrogen core, for it to be true it would upset the laws of physics in a way that would be highly unlikely, most importantly where dose the mass of the earth come from? How did the hydrogen get in the core and what keeps it there. Such a theory predisposes things that are not impossible but are highly unlikely, like flipping a coin, it can land head or tails but it could conceivably land in it's edge too but we really don't expect to see that happen in the real world.

 

For the Earth to have a hydrogen core the idea of the coin landing on it's side wold have to be stretched many orders of magnitude and it still wouldn't explain very simple things like the earths mass or where the metal hydrogen core came from or how it stayed solid as the earth formed around it. Just too many ifs on that one.

 

The type of fission reactor your article shows could not exist in the core or even very deep in the mantle due to the way it operated with water and the ore aspect. Deep within the earth the substances necessary for this to happen just couldn't exist. main stream science does say that radio-nucleotides are responsible for much of th heat coming from the earth and no concentrated reactor is necessary. They are thought to be widely dispersed and as such contribute to the whole but not in the way a fission reactor would. Unless a way is found to show the existence of a tiny core of heavy metals at the center of the earth that theory will remain just an interesting possibility, no more.

[Pyrotex]

I think that some so called fringe theories have a lot of merit. Some of what were once fringe theories are now accepted theory, like plate tectonics (which were ridiculed viciously when first mentioned). ...

That depends on what you mean by "merit".

 

Plate Tectonics Continental Drift was indeed ridiculed by the "traditional" view of planetary geology when it was first voiced. (I once wrote a paper on this very subject.) However, it was ridiculed because it was novel -- indeed, revolutionary. It was NOT ridiculed because there was hard evidence showing that it was impossible. In fact, there was hardly any evidence either for or against Continental Drift when it was first voiced.

 

The idea of continents "floating" on super-dense magma, and drifting around, colliding with each other, had no precedent. It seemed to be a "solution" for which there was no problem. But, I repeat, no one could point to any geological evidence and say, "see here? this proves that continents cannot float!", or "see here? this proves that continents cannot move!"

 

Scientists then (as scientists are wont to do) went out to FIND the evidence to prove that Continental Drift was nonsense. And what they found was evidence that showed continents WERE floating and moving and colliding. And then they found evidence for Plate Tectonics, which provided a mechanism for causing Continental Drift.

 

So, your analogy doesn't work, Rev. Here we have fringe theories which we "ridicule" because there is already massive evidence showing that those theories just don't fly. Water does not float on oil. Dirt and rock do not float on air. And molten magma does not float on cryogenic hydrogen.

[stereologist]

I would also add that part of the ridicule was aimed at continental drift and not plate tectonics. These are two different theories.

 

I see fringe theories as claims rather than scientific theories. A scientific theory explain a collection of observations. Fringe theories on the other hand post claims without the observations and often in spite of empirical observations.

[RevOfAllRevs]

That depends on what you mean by "merit".

 

Plate Tectonics was indeed ridiculed by the "traditional" view of planetary geology when it was first voiced. (I once wrote a paper on this very subject.) However, it was ridiculed because it was novel -- indeed, revolutionary. It was NOT ridiculed because there was hard evidence showing that it was impossible. In fact, there was hardly any evidence either for or against Techtonics when it was first voiced.

 

The idea of continents "floating" on super-dense magma, and drifting around, colliding with each other, had no precedent. It seemed to be a "solution" for which there was no problem. But, I repeat, no one could point to any geological evidence and say, "see here? this proves that continents cannot float!", or "see here? this proves that continents cannot move!"

 

Scientists then (as scientists are wont to do) went out to FIND the evidence to prove that Techtonics was nonsense. And what they found was evidence that showed continents WERE floating and moving and colliding.

 

So, your analogy doesn't work, Rev. Here we have fringe theories which we "ridicule" because there is already massive evidence showing that those theories just don't fly. Water does not float on oil. Dirt and rock do not float on air. And molten magma does not float on cryogenic hydrogen.

 

Ha ha! Touched a nerve eh? Of course the plate tectonic idea had no hard evidence or it would of been accepted, but it did have circumstantial evidence. Science being science it couldn't accept a theory with little or no hard evidence. The problem I have is when people are destroyed or harmed by the ridicule, but the way our scientific community is 'arranged' I don't see this changing anytime soon. In the end the guys that ridiculed the original idea had to eat crow. Is that so bad?

 

Oh, by merit I mean that the fringe theories call attention to the problem and suggest a solution. As for your continuing mentioning of hydrogen I haven't said anything of the sort, maybe you are confusing me with someone else, the only place other than this forum that I have heard of metallic hydrogen (possibly existing) was the core of Jupiter. ie; Making A Metal Out Of Hydrogen

 

I am a serious amateur astronomer and have always been interested in planetary geology (astrogeology/exogeology). Again thanks for your reply.

 

; {>

 

ps better be careful with those absolutes, crow tastes like dog poo.

[HydrogenBond]

I don't feel settled with the idea of heavier mass atoms sinking to the core of the earth, because one should be dealing with solutions of atoms at high temperature. The atoms won't just sink, due to the weakest force in nature, but will operate under the laws of EM force and entropy when in solutions. For example, salt will sink in water, until it dissolves via EM forces. Then it will use entropy to occupy the entire aqueous space, going up against gravity.

 

To get an iron core to form in the center of the earth, to avoid dissolving while it sinks, the iron core would need to form before the rest of the earth. One simple way is to start with magnetic iron dust and rocks, scattered among the other atoms that would form the earth. The iron will preferentially attract with a magnetic force, which is much higher than gravity, concentrating the iron to form larger and larger ferro-magnetics, which can attract further and further away.

 

Eventually, there is enough mass within the giant iron magnetic to get gravity more involved, collecting other atoms, the lighter things, like silicates, aluminum, water and then N2 last as the mass of the earth gets higher and higher. The pseudo- steady state would a solid iron core and the rest of the surrounding material, with the gravity pressure putting on the squeeze in the core to increase the temperature and pressure.

 

This is where EM solutions and entropy become more of a factor with the more mobile mantle dissolving the core at the outer core, creating a current flow. With the dissolving increasing with temperature, we will always get more current perpendicular to the equator, and the magnetic field aligned with the poles. We also have chemical energy for an engine that spins the iron core faster than the surface.

 

Mars is the iron planet, but more of its core may have dissolved away, so there is more iron closer to the surface. This iron doesn't sink so well on Mars but stays in the mantle, because it never sank in the first place, it EM and entropy floated in solution from its dissolving iron core.

[stereologist]

Then it will use entropy to occupy the entire aqueous space, going up against gravity.

 

I don't believe this claim. Entropy is not a force. The dispersion of salt in a solution is due to the motion of the atoms.

 

Also, the conditions in molten rock are not as simple as salt in water. The chemistry of molten materials is complex and difficult to understand.

 

We also have chemical energy for an engine that spins the iron core faster than the surface.

I also don't believe this claim.

[Moontanman]

HB seems to be under the impression that at some point in the formation of the Earth all the atoms were separate. Nothing could be further from the truth. In nature iron is often found chemically pure, most of it in asteroids of simple iron and nickle. silicon how ever is almost never fond pure in nature. When the earth formed as different parts became molten heavy elements tended down due to density and gravity, It was essentially a reducing environment, the iron was not oxidized. as the Earth heated up due to radioactive decay and gravitational compression, the bombardment helped too, iron sunk to the core lighter elements rose to the surface. Chemical reactions played a part by making it more difficult for some elements to be pure and to differentiate but it wasn't enough to stop the differentiation of the elements and compounds in the earth. The Earths core is not made of hydrogen, there is no mechanism that would allow this, there are no chunks of metallic hydrogen floating around space..... The mass and surface gravity insures that the core is made of iron.