A Where can I find a text about heavy elements migration?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the migration of heavy siderophile elements, particularly molybdenum, during Earth's formation, specifically how they tend to sink into the core when the planet was molten. The user seeks broader sources discussing this phenomenon, noting that while some articles address molybdenum's concentration in the mantle and crust, they lack comprehensive insights on element migration during the planet's early molten state. Participants reference the iron catastrophe and the late heavy bombardment as significant events influencing the distribution of heavy elements. There is a debate about the complexity of the issue, with some arguing that the sinking of dense elements should be straightforward. Additionally, there is curiosity about whether volcanic activity can bring up heavier elements from deeper layers compared to meteoric sources.
Guilherme Franco
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
Let me be more specific:

I'm needing some source that talks, in a more broad way, about how heavier elements tend to "sink into the core" during Earth's formation (when we're talking about siderophile elements, that readily combine with molten iron). Wikipedia's page about the Goldschmidt classification comments that but assigns no specific source to that claim.

My particular interest is about Molydenum, which is siderophile, and I found articles talking about its concentration in Earth's mantle and crust and about what was expected of it.

But I can't manage to find any more broad comments on the question of heavy siderophile elements tending to "sink" during Earth's formation when it's still mostly molten rock.

I need this just to serve as a reference to this comment.

I've even downloaded some books on astrophysics of planet formation, but they don't talk about the particular question of element migration after the rocky planet has been just formed and is still hot enough to have molten rock on the surface.

Thanks by the help!
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Let me try something. You are talking about the iron catastrophe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_catastrophe

1. the entire planet became molten, so why would orther dense elements not sink as well?
Densities
iron: 7.874 g/cm3 and Nickel: 8.903g/cm3
Mo: 10.28g/cm3
2. Consider the late heavy bombardment which is thought to have bought many of the current crustal heavy elements to earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment

So I think you are making something straightforward more complex than it needs to be.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
jim mcnamara said:
Let me try something. You are talking about the iron catastrophe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_catastrophe

1. the entire planet became molten, so why would orther dense elements not sink as well?
Densities
iron: 7.874 g/cm3 and Nickel: 8.903g/cm3
Mo: 10.28g/cm3
2. Consider the late heavy bombardment which is thought to have bought many of the current crustal heavy elements to earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment

So I think you are making something straightforward more complex than it needs to be.

I was just being specific about what I wanted to know. The question is just that, when looking with keywords associated with heavy element migration towards the core, I didn't found any of this.

Now, another question if you know: Does volcanic activity bring up material from layers deep enough to have a greater richness of heavy elements than the crust? Or are meteors a more important source?

Thanks!
 
jim mcnamara said:
1. the entire planet became molten, so why would orther dense elements not sink as well?
Densities
iron: 7.874 g/cm3 and Nickel: 8.903g/cm3
Mo: 10.28g/cm3
The density of trace elements is irrelevant. All that matters is their solubilities.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Both have short pulses of emission and a wide spectral bandwidth, covering a wide variety of frequencies: "Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are detected over a wide range of radio frequencies, including frequencies around 1400 MHz, but have also been detected at lower frequencies, particularly in the 400–800 MHz range. Russian astronomers recently detected a powerful burst at 111 MHz, expanding our understanding of the FRB range. Frequency Ranges: 1400 MHz: Many of the known FRBs have been detected...
Back
Top