Does the earth expand and contract

  • Thread starter Thread starter venturerite
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of whether the Earth expands and contracts, exploring the implications of internal temperature fluctuations and the geological processes involved. Participants examine the relationship between crustal features, tectonic activity, and internal heat sources, considering both theoretical and observational aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the Earth's crust structure, such as mountains and canyons, may be influenced by expansion and contraction similar to a balloon, potentially linked to internal temperature changes.
  • Others argue that crust creation and destruction occur in balance due to tectonic processes, emphasizing that physical stress rather than thermal changes is the primary driver of geological features.
  • A participant questions whether fluctuations in interior temperature could lead to measurable expansion or contraction of the globe, despite acknowledging that any effect would likely be small.
  • There is a discussion about internal heat sources, such as radioactive decay and tidal friction, and their limited impact on the Earth's core temperature, with some suggesting that these sources are insufficient to cause significant temperature increases.
  • Another participant raises a point about the historical dominance of radioactive decay as a heat source for the Earth's interior, seeking clarification on its current significance compared to the heat from the planet's formation.
  • Some mention that the current molten state of the core is due to slow cooling rates, influenced by the properties of the crust as a conductor.
  • References to external sources highlight the role of radioactive decay in planetary sciences, though the exact importance of this heat source remains unclear among participants.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance of internal temperature fluctuations and the role of radioactive decay in the Earth's geological processes. There is no consensus on whether the Earth expands and contracts in a meaningful way, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying definitions of expansion and contraction, the complexity of geological processes, and the challenges in measuring small changes in the Earth's crust related to temperature fluctuations.

venturerite
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
perhaps some of the crust structure texture (mountains & canyons) is constructed from the Earth expanding and contracting like a balloon does when it warms or cools, though I'd think this would all be based on its internal temp...

Dan
 
Last edited:
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
You should read this http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/plate_tectonics/introduction.html (split across several pages).

The important point to take from reading that is to learn that crust is created and destroyed in balance- if crust is destroyed or compresed in one area then to balance this there is more created at the mid ocean ridges. Mountain building (aka orogeny) happens when tectonic plates collide as shown here. This is largely due to physical stress rather than thermal changes. Most valleys and canyons are formed by erosion, but rift valleys can be formed when crust spreads locally and forms faults, leading to graben formation. Again this is largely due to physical stress rather than temperature.
The Earth is slowly cooling and thus shrinking but this rate is miniscule and insignificant compared to plate tectonic processes. I wouldn't be surprised if the rate at which it shrinks is overbalanced by the rate at which it recives material from space leading to an overall growth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nevertheless, it is an interesting question. Does the interior temperature fluctuate? And if so, does the globe expand or contract, and could this veriable any apreciable amount of buckling of the crust. Obviously, any such effect would be very small, but could it eb measured?
 
Earth has no internal heat source that I'm aware of so I'm not sure it could increase in temperature. Tectonic activity and configuration/size/thickness of plates could affect the rate of cooling on a global scale, but I'd think only on incredibly long timescales.

Local differences on the other hand... The majority of scientists think that hot spot swells are at least partially due to local heating of the Earth's crust by hot buoyant mantle plumes.
 
There are intenrla heat sources from radioactive decay and tidal friction from the moon - but neither are enough to seriously change the temperature of the core.
There is a significant amount of up or down motion of the crust at northern latitiudes as it 'rebounds' from the weight of the ice being removed in the last ice-age. This is in the mm/year range for parts of northern europe.
 
mgb_phys said:
There are intenrla heat sources from radioactive decay and tidal friction from the moon - but neither are enough to seriously change the temperature of the core.
Now here's something I would like to get straitened out in my head; I thought I once heard that the internal sources, and especially radioactive decay, are by far the dominant heat source of the interior, and that the heat from the planet's original formation would have cooled off much more by now than it has, if it weren't for this heat source. Is this incorrect?
Also, good point about the hotspots like Hawaii, Mathyaouw. These of course represent a change that is dependent on location rather than time, but they illustrate the idea that an internal temperature change can have a quite significant effect on surface topography.
 
The core was melted by radioactive decay shortly after the Earth formed.
The current molten core is molten because it hasn't cooled down yet. The cooling rate is very low because there is quite a lot of it and the crust isn't a good conductor.
I don't know what the current heat input from radioactive decay is, probably low since it will only be from remaining long-lived low-activity species.
 
About two-thirds down the page at this site:
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm06/fm06-sessions/fm06_MR53A.html
it says
Radioactive decay plays a central role in planetary sciences as appropriate decay schemes are used to date geological and astronomical processes and radioactivity provides an important source of heat in planetary bodies, both in their early history during accretion and differentiation and also over geological times.
But it doesn't say how important. Of course, the paper ends with a proposal to build an antinutrino detector to try to measure just how much radiation is involved.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
7K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
9K
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
47K