Where did all the Earths water come from?

Drakkith

Per here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
The amount of Hydrogen in the atmosphere averages out to be 0.55 ppm by volume. That is an extremely low amount at 0.000055%.

To suspend disbelief, if water was manufactured, and it was done in the heterosphere, would the gravity at that altitude have a strong enough pull to form rain drops, or would it just disperse as mist or something along that line? Perhaps it would have to be formed in the stratosphere and no higher for water to form rain droplets and fall back to earth?

Above the homosphere, which is where the heterosphere starts, the different gases aren't mixed together very much due to their different molecular masses. Hydrogen doesn't with Oxygen much because of this.

In all seriousness, Is 1 MeV electrons enough spark or energy to make H20 out of hydrogen and oxygen? And... if it were enough energy, would it give off an antimatter signature?

To my knowledge, the chemical reaction between Hydrogen and Oxygen does NOT create antimatter. There isn't anywhere close to enough energy released to create a positron.

Looking around, it seems that clouds can form upto 100KM in the atmosphere. The source of water vapour is poorly understood.

What? Have you ever watched any source of water evaporate? That is a direct source of water vapor into the atmosphere. This is constantly happening around any body of water. And the earth is covered in water. Hence there is a lot of water vapor in the atmosphere.

MrGamma

Quote by Drakkith

What? Have you ever watched any source of water evaporate? That is a direct source of water vapor into the atmosphere. This is constantly happening around any body of water. And the earth is covered in water. Hence there is a lot of water vapor in the atmosphere.

Yes... and I looked at cumulus clouds, they seems to hit a max peak around 20 km or so, right where the troposphere ends.

The higher altitude clouds, are really high up there. Maybe the Sprites lightning which in all honesty is rather amazing, creates just a little mist and it hovers right around where the cone forms at around 90km to 100km?

Watching the video of the sprites, and I know it is bad measure to assume what is happening based on what my eyes are seeing, but it almost looks like a charge forms at the 100KM mark first, where the hydrogen is condensed, heated to a temperature exceeding it's bounding altitudes, then strikes down 80KM to the surface of the troposphere.

What are the chances that it is carrying, and fusing hydrogen on it's way down, throwing water on the clouds? It almost looks like it is thrusting material down when it strikes too.

Drakkith

Fusing hydrogen? Pretty much not happening. Lightning doesn't reach anywhere near enough of a temperature for that to happen. I don't know why you keep insisting that this lightning is creating water. It is not. It is only transferring current from one area to another, not whole molecules.

Yes... and I looked at cumulus clouds, they seems to hit a max peak around 20 km or so, right where the troposphere ends.

Cumulus clouds are not the only location of water vapor in the atmosphere. There is ALWAYS a small amount of water vapor in the atmosphere almost anywhere you go.

MrGamma

Quote by Drakkith

Fusing hydrogen? Pretty much not happening. Lightning doesn't reach anywhere near enough of a temperature for that to happen. I don't know why you keep insisting that this lightning is creating water. It is not. It is only transferring current from one area to another, not whole molecules.

I am not insisting... I am just sort of asking whether it is probable... what is the temperature requirement to fuse hydrogen and oxygen together?

The wiki claims that atmospheric lightning can fuse silica into glass.

"temperatures approaching 30,000 °C (54,000 °F), hot enough to fuse silica sand into glass"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning

That is bolt lightning though, not sprite lightning. Sprite lighting is said to be much cooler, so perhaps you are right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_%28lightning%29

I am just sort of questioning it, mainly because they might be associated with gamma ray bursts or anti matter signatures. Which I really have no idea what the circumstances or requirements are to make. My guess though, considering they might be associated with galactic explosions, is that to create them it might require a lot of heat. It's nothing counter intuitive, this line of thinking, is it?

Cumulus clouds are not the only location of water vapor in the atmosphere. There is ALWAYS a small amount of water vapor in the atmosphere almost anywhere you go.

I just watched a documentary where they mentioned they were trying to prove that cosmic rays could act as the bonding agent needed for clouds to condense. Maybe that is all it takes is some accretion at the 100KM altitude to cause moisture to condense?

So if the current is following the path of least resistance, and that path is different everytime, I would guess that after lightning strikes the path it follows makes it less conductive and more resistant to another possible lightning strike, correct?

Maybe the re-ignition of the Sprite is an indication that it is following a different type of path? Perhaps it is following a path which is chemically conductive? perhaps nitrogen is a better conducing agent rather than oxygen?

[EDIT]

Okay... so what if the atmosphere is so thin where these sprites are occurring that heat cannot generate in a traditional sense, and it has to escape by another means? Is that a possibility? Would that explain why there is such a large amount of energy, enough to create Gamma ray flashes, or anti-matter signatures. Perhaps the radically different environment explains whey they could exist without causing a loud thunder clap?

I have seen physics demonstrations that represent heat as molecules exciting and basically bumping around into each other more frantically. Perhaps the atmosphere is not dense enough to do this where the sprite occurs? If that is the case, would the lack of atmosphere or "heat" prevent any sort of fusion happening? Or maybe it is the perfect environment for "cold fusion"?

I know that was a big science issue a while back, that's why I use the word "cold fusion" lightly.

Drakkith

Quote by MrGamma

I am not insisting... I am just sort of asking whether it is probable... what is the temperature requirement to fuse hydrogen and oxygen together?

The wiki claims that atmospheric lightning can fuse silica into glass.

"temperatures approaching 30,000 °C (54,000 °F), hot enough to fuse silica sand into glass"

Nuclear Fusion is in no way related to either of those. Hydrogen and Oxygen don't "fuse" together, they form a chemical bond with each other. The fusing of silica into glass just means that it gets heated enough to melt silica.

I am just sort of questioning it, mainly because they might be associated with gamma ray bursts or anti matter signatures. Which I really have no idea what the circumstances or requirements are to make. My guess though, considering they might be associated with galactic explosions, is that to create them it might require a lot of heat. It's nothing counter intuitive, this line of thinking, is it?

I'd say it isn't counter intuitive or intuitive. It is simply that you are asking questions, getting answers, and then picking at random facts about 10 different subjects that seems to you to make this possible and asking more questions using those as guides. Instead, I would recommend learning what antimatter is, how it is created, what Nuclear Fusion is, etc. Just the basics.

I just watched a documentary where they mentioned they were trying to prove that cosmic rays could act as the bonding agent needed for clouds to condense. Maybe that is all it takes is some accretion at the 100KM altitude to cause moisture to condense?

That might be plausible, I really don't know.

So if the current is following the path of least resistance, and that path is different everytime, I would guess that after lightning strikes the path it follows makes it less conductive and more resistant to another possible lightning strike, correct?

Maybe the re-ignition of the Sprite is an indication that it is following a different type of path? Perhaps it is following a path which is chemically conductive? perhaps nitrogen is a better conducing agent rather than oxygen?

No, the effect of lightning is at first preceded by a breakdown of the gas, aka Ionization, between the cloud and the target, either the ground or another cloud. After the strike the gas recombines and ceases to be ionized. Nothing about the path would cause it to become less conductive than it initially was. I don't know enough about sprite lightning to really speak on it, but the concept is similar.

Okay... so what if the atmosphere is so thin where these sprites are occurring that heat cannot generate in a traditional sense, and it has to escape by another means? Is that a possibility? Would that explain why there is such a large amount of energy, enough to create Gamma ray flashes, or anti-matter signatures. Perhaps the radically different environment explains whey they could exist without causing a loud thunder clap?

How do you know they don't cause a thunder clap? I've seen plenty of lightning in a storm that caused no thunder. Besides, the distance between the sprites and the ground along with the low density of the air probably doesn't allow a sound wave to reach us audibly.

I have seen physics demonstrations that represent heat as molecules exciting and basically bumping around into each other more frantically. Perhaps the atmosphere is not dense enough to do this where the sprite occurs? If that is the case, would the lack of atmosphere or "heat" prevent any sort of fusion happening? Or maybe it is the perfect environment for "cold fusion"?

I know that was a big science issue a while back, that's why I use the word "cold fusion" lightly.

Fusion is not happening at all. Nor is cold fusion, as it doesn't exist in form the commonly used term refers to.

MrGamma

I'm not particle physicist, but I thought fusion was a technical term for the particles surrounding the nucleus of an atom to bond with another. Or to split from it's parent molecule creating new type of material. I am not really fluent with all that stuff, it sort of eludes me once the whole plum pudding model is proven to be wrong. I just don't understand how they figure the weak and strong nuclear forces or what not, and for that matter, I just have no real concept of the difference between a chemical bond and nuclear fission or fusion. They are both chemical reactions the way I see it.

I am asking to learn. Not to magically make something happen that otherwise would not be happening. I am not a magician.

Quote by Drakkith

How do you know they don't cause a thunder clap?

I am just reading and regurgitating what I find on the web. I don't know for certain if anything people put on the web is accurate.

Fusion is not happening at all. Nor is cold fusion, as it doesn't exist in form the commonly used term refers to.

So could hydrogen and oxygen chemically bond without a fusion event, or a massive heat requirement? Maybe it just needs a little bit of heat? In a lab... not the sky...

In any event. How do Red Sprites create anti-matter signatures? I thought anti-matter was an indirect observation of matter production. Gamma Rays being the result of two atoms colliding and forming matter, like fusion.

The only thing I know about Gamma Rays and how they are produced is from reading about pair production... which is a form of intense energy forming matter. Maybe the scale of thinking on that is wrong, maybe that is sub-atomic, when really the only requirement is some sort of chemical requirement?

See? Pair production, Gamma Rays - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_generation

On the list is fusion too... so I am just wondering why lightning produces them as well... maybe I have concepts mixed up... I really don't know...

Drakkith

Quote by MrGamma

I'm not particle physicist, but I thought fusion was a technical term for the particles surrounding the nucleus of an atom to bond with another. Or to split from it's parent molecule creating new type of material. I am not really fluent with all that stuff, it sort of eludes me once the whole plum pudding model is proven to be wrong. I just don't understand how they figure the weak and strong nuclear forces or what not, and for that matter, I just have no real concept of the difference between a chemical bond and nuclear fission or fusion. They are both chemical reactions the way I see it.

Well, if you really wish to discuss science, then it is best that you learn! Wikipedia is a good place to start. Look up Nuclear Fusion, Nuclear Fission, Chemical Bond.

So could hydrogen and oxygen chemically bond without a fusion event, or a massive heat requirement? Maybe it just needs a little bit of heat? In a lab... not the sky...

Hydrogen and Oxygen need very little heat to get them to bond. It is not fusion at all.

In any event. How do Red Sprites create anti-matter signatures? I thought anti-matter was an indirect observation of matter production. Gamma Rays being the result of two atoms colliding and forming matter, like fusion.

I have no idea. I don't know that it is happening at all.

The only thing I know about Gamma Rays and how they are produced is from reading about pair production... which is a form of intense energy forming matter. Maybe the scale of thinking on that is wrong, maybe that is sub-atomic, when really the only requirement is some sort of chemical requirement?

Gamma Radiation is specifically referring to EM radiation produced from the nucleus of an atom. There are more ways than just matter-antimatter annihilation to produce it. And no, chemical reactions do not produce it.

On the list is fusion too... so I am just wondering why lightning produces them as well... maybe I have concepts mixed up... I really don't know...

Nuclear Fusion does produce gamma rays typically. But this is NOT happening here.

MrGamma

I am reading the wiki... that's how I'm learning, that and forum threads help sort things through... and I do appreciate you helping.

So... This was mentioned in the thread already which I think is interesting.

"University of Florida lightning expert Dr. Martin Uman says, "Observers of
thunderstorms, from antiquity to the present, have noted that a heavy gush of rain
often reaches ground a minute or two after a lightning flash and its accompanying
thunder." He explains that questions about the relationship between lightning, thunder
and rain gushes were finally resolved in the 1960s, when radar observations of
precipitation in clouds before and after lightning confirmed that, in some cases, a gush
followed the flash.

Researchers postulate that cloud droplets near a lightning channel and its many
branches acquire such intense charge that they repel each other, flying outward and
colliding with non-charged drops, thereby growing large and falling as a rain gush."

http://blog.chicagoweathercenter.com...in-follow.html

(There are papers on it too, but that is clearer)

So this seems probable in the sense that perhaps lightning causes rain droplets to charge and bounce into each other. However, wouldn't this basically mean that during every lightning flash, we should expect a gush of rain to follow? I mean during the downpour, once a flash occurs that would charge the rain causing it to drop faster? And during periods of non-lightning, and non-thunder the rain would be a lighter downpour.

It should be predictable to one degree or another, in rhythm for a lack of a better term, correct?

Drakkith

I have no idea. I have never noticed anything like this myself, nor have I ever heard of it until now.

*DoggerDan*

I think water was around long before the Earth, at least according to this Time article on black holes.

It seems the Universe is predisposed to create water whenever H2 and O2 meet, at least if they meet with the relatively slight amount of energy required for combustion.

Drakkith

Quote by DoggerDan

I think water was around long before the Earth, at least according to this Time article on black holes.

It seems the Universe is predisposed to create water whenever H2 and O2 meet, at least if they meet with the relatively slight amount of energy required for combustion.

Lol, of course. I have no doubt that at least SOME water was around in the nebula that we were formed from.

*DaveC426913*

Quote by Drakkith

Lol, of course. I have no doubt that at least SOME water was around in the nebula that we were formed from.

ALL of it was around in the nebula we formed from. 100%.

Drakkith

Quote by DaveC426913

ALL of it was around in the nebula we formed from. 100%.

Do you mean that the atoms that eventually formed all the water was in the nebula already, or that the actual water molecules were already formed? I'm guessing the former.

*DaveC426913*

Quote by Drakkith

Do you mean that the atoms that eventually formed all the water was in the nebula already, or that the actual water molecules were already formed? I'm guessing the former.

Oh, I see now what you were getting at.

Yes all the oxygen and hydrogen were around pre-Earth, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was all in the form of water yet. Got it.

One thing the OP should consider is that water is a very common substance in the universe, partly because its components are common and partly because those components have a huge affinity for each other (one of the strongest on the periodic table) which means they need little energy to combine (one of the reasons we use them for rocket fuel).

CowedbyWisdom

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0712144743.htm

Some new info I found on Science Daily. Hope this is helpful.

MrGamma

Looks like the Swiss have invented technology which uses lasers to create rain with the available molecules in the sky.

http://inhabitat.com/swiss-team-crea...-into-the-sky/

The technique, called laser-assisted water condensation, sees laser beams create water droplets in the air allowing mankind to, for the first time, determine where and when rain falls. This could solve drought, famine and all sorts of climate change catastrophes. Except storms.

“We have not yet generated raindrops – they are too small and too light to fall as rain. To get rain, we will need particles a hundred times the size, so they are heavy enough to fall,” said Jérôme Kasparian, a physicist at the University of Geneva, writing in the journal Nature Communications.

Read more: Swiss Team Create Rain By Firing Laser Beams Into The Sky | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

Anyways... here is another article claiming red sprites have this much energy...

High speed photometer measurements show that the duration of sprites is only a few ms. Current evidence strongly suggests that sprites preferentially occur in decaying portions of thunderstorms and are correlated with large positive cloud-to-ground lightning strokes. The optical intensity of sprite clusters, estimated by comparison with tabulated stellar intensities, is comparable to a moderately bright auroral arc. The optical energy is roughly 10-50 kJ per event, with a corresponding optical power of 5-25 MW. Assuming that optical energy constitutes 1/1000 of the total for the event, the energy and power are on the order of 10-100 MJ and 5-50 GW, respectively.

And another article claiming the energy amount in the lasers used to create rain clouds...

http://inhabitat.com/shooting-laser-...e-rain-clouds/

The team, led by Jerome Kasparian, first tested the method in a lab setting. By shooting a 220-millijoule laser beam into a below-freezing, water-saturated chamber, scientists were able create clouds. To understand just how powerful that laser beam is, 220 millijoules is about as much energy as the intensity of 1,000 power plants!

Similar Threads for: Where did all the Earths water come from?
Thread	Forum	Replies
any more earths???	Earth	24
what if there other earths out there?	General Discussion	13
How many Earths would fit into the Sun?	Introductory Physics Homework	1
Mass of Earths water (simply)	Introductory Physics Homework	1
CO2 in Earths Crust	Earth	3

Drakkith Recognitions: Gold Member	I have no idea. I have never noticed anything like this myself, nor have I ever heard of it until now.

DoggerDan	I think water was around long before the Earth, at least according to this Time article on black holes. It seems the Universe is predisposed to create water whenever H2 and O2 meet, at least if they meet with the relatively slight amount of energy required for combustion.

CowedbyWisdom	http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0712144743.htm Some new info I found on Science Daily. Hope this is helpful.