Is the Earth's Core a Nuclear Reactor?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the hypothesis that the Earth's core may function as a nuclear reactor, primarily due to the presence of dense elements like uranium. Participants explore the implications of this theory on our understanding of planetary formation and the stability of such a system. Key points include the role of atomic number and mass in determining density, the effects of cooling on solidification, and the potential clustering of fissile materials in the inner core. The conversation highlights the need for further investigation into the geophysical processes at play within the Earth's core.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of nuclear physics and geophysics
  • Knowledge of atomic structure and density principles
  • Familiarity with the concepts of solidification and diffusion in extreme conditions
  • Awareness of planetary formation theories
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of uranium and its role in nuclear reactions
  • Study the processes of solidification and diffusion in high-pressure environments
  • Explore the implications of the Gaia theory on planetary science
  • Investigate existing evidence for the nuclear georeactor hypothesis in geological formations
USEFUL FOR

Geophysicists, nuclear physicists, planetary scientists, and anyone interested in the origins and dynamics of Earth's core and its implications for planetary formation theories.

Andre
Messages
4,294
Reaction score
73
The Nuclear Heart of the Earth
Think of the early Earth as having been like a spherical steel hearth. A hot ball of liquid elements freshly formed out of the primordial disc surrounding our sun. The densest metals sinking down by force of gravity while lighter materials "floated" outwards. Uranium is very dense. At about 19 grams per cubic centimeter, it is 1.6 times more dense than lead at the Earth's surface. But deep within our planet density depends only on atomic number and atomic mass. Uranium, having the greatest atomic number and atomic mass, would be the most dense substance in our planet and will ultimately end up at the center of the Earth. The implications of this relatively new georeactor hypothesis are far reaching indeed. Not only does it threaten to change the way we view our own Earth and planetary formation in general but the very origin of the stars might need to be rewritten

or the scientific version: Nuclear georector origine of oceanic basalt 3He/4He, evidence and implications

There are a few far fetched hypotheses and perhaps some flaws, I would say, but other than that, some good explanations for existing evidence. What would happen when the nuclear heart would stop or did it stop already perhaps even millions of years ago? Any thoughts?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
It seems more plausible than most such speculative theories, so much so that perhaps it is not original to the researcher.

Will its physics fit? No immediate errors come to mind, although his physics may be oversimplified.

I sent the link to my boss who's into Gaia (living planet) theory.
 
Well
But deep within our planet density depends only on atomic number and atomic mass
I don't think this is physically true, is it ?
Could be that density only depends on the atomic number ?
Shouldn't it also depend on how the atoms repeal from each other (and therefore depends on the distance between each two atoms) ?
 
And what would happen when such a high concentration of uranium is located in one place? Is such a system even nuclearly stable?

Do we have a way of testing this hypothesis?
 
Gravitational effects become smaller as we approach the Earth's core. As we get close to the center, diffusion would dominate significantly over gravity. There will be no concentration of dense elements near the zero G center.

Njorl
 
I tend to agree, Njorl, about the diffusion dominating. But there is more. What would have happened when the Earth started cooling perhaps billions of years ago and the solid inner core started solidifying? Would some molecules have solidified easier and started clustering into the first beginnings of the solid inner core ? Could that have been the fissable heavy elements? Could that have been the start of the natural georeactor?
 
Originally posted by Andre
I tend to agree, Njorl, about the diffusion dominating. But there is more. What would have happened when the Earth started cooling perhaps billions of years ago and the solid inner core started solidifying? Would some molecules have solidified easier and started clustering into the first beginnings of the solid inner core ? Could that have been the fissable heavy elements? Could that have been the start of the natural georeactor?

If anything, non-radioactive atoms would have preferentially solidified. The radioactive elements, while denser, would change their atomic structures, causing their molecular bonds to break. So, for some proto-solid, while the non-radioactive elements form solids less easily, they are more durable, and so can accumulate over time.

I am not familiar with extreme temperature and pressure mechanics. If solidification occurred on a catastrophic time scale- ie, a huge mass solidified in a very short time, things would be different than I portray them. If the volume-surface ratio was always large, the radioactive elements would be protected from diffusing into the liquid core when they decayed to an atomic structure that was not compatible with nearby solids. This rapid solidification is not unknown in nature, but I don't have any reason to expect it to have happened in the core.

Njorl
 
Very very interesting idea, I think it would get everyone thinking again if soemthing we seemed so sure about turned out diffrently
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K