Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Nuclear Heart?

  1. Apr 8, 2003 #1
    The Nuclear Heart of the Earth
    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?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 8, 2003 #2
    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.
     
  4. Apr 9, 2003 #3
    Well
    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) ?
     
  5. Apr 9, 2003 #4

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    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?
     
  6. Apr 9, 2003 #5

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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
     
  7. Apr 10, 2003 #6
    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?
     
  8. Apr 10, 2003 #7

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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
     
  9. Apr 10, 2003 #8
    Very very intresting idea, I think it would get everyone thinking again if soemthing we seemed so sure about turned out diffrently
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Nuclear Heart?
  1. Brain and heart (Replies: 9)

  2. Heart cancer? (Replies: 19)

  3. Emotions and the heart (Replies: 3)

  4. Rhesus factor and heart (Replies: 13)

Loading...