# Radioactive decay is not a constant.



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 18, 2011)

This shoots so many proven theories down. Its again proof that we as species have no f#$king clue what we are doing when looking at the universe. 



> It's a mystery that presented itself unexpectedly: The radioactive decay of some elements sitting quietly in laboratories on Earth seemed to be influenced by activities inside the sun, 93 million miles away.
> 
> Is this possible?
> 
> ...



Source


----------



## MRCL (Jul 18, 2011)

Its always interesting when some theory that was taken as granted for a long time gets shaken up.  And its always some dude who randomly noticed something off. We may not know jack about the universe, but we keep inching forward.

I just glanced over the article as I should be doing something else; is the random decay process even considerably off,  or so marginal that when determining the age of some ancient thing, it comes down to mere days off?


----------



## The Witcher (Jul 18, 2011)

Ummmm.....so this means that there is a chance that all these carbon dating were a bit off ? 

Yes....finally a good news.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 18, 2011)

MRCL said:


> Its always interesting when some theory that was taken as granted for a long time gets shaken up.  And its always some dude who randomly noticed something off. We may not know jack about the universe, but we keep inching forward.
> 
> I just glanced over the article as I should be doing something else; is the random decay process even considerably off,  or so marginal that when determining the age of some ancient thing, it comes down to mere days off?


 It all depends on the distance from the Sun. Could be days off. Could be thousands of years off. They don't know. All in all its a kick to the nuts of Archeology and quantum phyics......I love it! 

I love nature. Its the ultimate troll.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 18, 2011)

Well that's interesting.  It sounds like they have more questions than answers though.  It will be interesting where it leads.


----------



## trickson (Jul 18, 2011)

I heard this on " Through the wormhole " ! I love that show .


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 18, 2011)

neutrinos affecting decay rates is nothing surprising.

if you shoot neutrons at atoms they decay faster too (nuclear power, atomic bomb)

would be interesting to see some deviation numbers and compare that to time x number of atoms x number of neutrinos x neutrino interaction chance


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 18, 2011)

10 mb pdf: 
Does neutrino flavor mixing cause oscillations in decay rates?
http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~hept/NonExpEC.pdf


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 18, 2011)

trickson said:


> I heard this on " Through the wormhole " ! I love that show .



Indeed. Everything about it is great down to Morgan Freeman as narrator. Guess I missed that one though.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 18, 2011)

Eh. I've yet to see anything new or exciting on that through the wormhole crap. And I have hard time looking at Morgan Freeman without thinking about that whole stepdaughter thing.


----------



## Millennium (Jul 18, 2011)

This is interesting stuff. Thanks. Nice to know even the Sun still holds secrets.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 18, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Eh. I've yet to see anything new or exciting on that through the wormhole crap. And I have hard time looking at Morgan Freeman without thinking about that whole stepdaughter thing.



Well I'm not exactly a science geek so I find it informative, interesting and entertaining.


----------



## trickson (Jul 18, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Well I'm not exactly a science geek so I find it informative, interesting and entertaining.



I agree .


----------



## Frick (Jul 18, 2011)

""It doesn't make sense according to conventional ideas," Fischbach said. Jenkins whimsically added, "What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."

Beautiful sentence there.


----------



## m4gicfour (Jul 18, 2011)

It's exactly as my high school physics professor said. In Science, there is no fact. There is no proof. There are only theories.  As we do experiments and perform  observations, we can say that a theory is more or less likely true. After time and many properly performed experiments, a theory can be said to be more and more (or less) likely. The "laws" of physics are merely theories which have proven to be very likely true, at least under our observable conditions. (but cannot be said to be, within the constraints of true science. Since we cannot control all variables - or in many cases are not even aware of half the variables involved)

As soon as you start saying anything is without a doubt undeniably true, you are no longer peddling science, you're peddling religion.

(yeah, yeah, MATH, I know...)


----------



## twilyth (Jul 19, 2011)

Everybody knows there are problems with the standard model.  For example the zero point energy predicted by quantum mechanics is off by 120 orders of magnitude from what is measured via the Casimir effect.

I think most physicists would be excited to find that there is some new physics to be discovered beyond what the current standard model can account for.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jul 19, 2011)

Millennium said:


> This is interesting stuff. Thanks. Nice to know even the Sun still holds secrets.


Humanity has come quite far in describing the phenomena around us but the truth is that what we know that we don't know grows faster than what we know (wait wut? ).  We still have many (many) unanswered questions some of which pertain to very fundamental things like the earths magnetic field and climate; the origins of life (as opposed to species); the workings of the mind; even the existence of existence.

_The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge._ - Stephen Hawking


LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Eh. I've yet to see anything new or exciting on that through the wormhole crap. And I have hard time looking at Morgan Freeman without thinking about that whole stepdaughter thing.


I recently saw a couple episodes of Through the Wormhole, and although I didn't see anything new, I really enjoyed the show.  Morgan Freeman, and/or his writers, ask the most fundamental questions which are often indirectly confronted by hosts who do not want to overburden (terrify) their audience.  I think Carl Sagan would very much enjoy the spirit of Freeman's show.


> Originally written by *Carl Sagan*
> _We go about our daily lives understanding almost nothing of the world. We give little thought to the machinery that generates the sunlight that makes life possible, to the gravity that glues us to an earth that would otherwise send us spinning off into space, or the atoms of which we are made and on whose stability we fundamentally depend. Except for children (who don’t know enough not to ask the important questions), few of us spend much time wondering why nature is the way it is; where the cosmos came from, or whether it was always here; if time will one day flow back backward and effects precede causes; or whether there are ultimate limits to what humans can know. There are even children, and I have met some of them, who want to know what a black hole looks like; what is the smallest piece of matter; why we remember the past and not the future; how it, if there was chaos early, that there is, apparently, order today; and why there is a universe.
> 
> In our society it is still customary for parents and teachers to answer most of these questions with a shrug, or with an appeal to vaguely recalled religious precepts. Some are uncomfortable with issues like these, because they so vividly expose the limitations of human understanding._


Also, I can't stop thinking about the stepdaughter thing when I'm watching the show either!


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 19, 2011)

God did it /end thread. lol jk

Interesting stuff.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> God did it /end thread. lol jk
> 
> Interesting stuff.



Naaaa just nature trollin'. Good stuff indeed lol

I wish I had the power of nature. I would be trollin' people like Hawkins and the pope like CRAZY!


----------



## douglatins (Jul 19, 2011)

So correct me if i am wrong, atomic clocks are worthless?


----------



## Kreij (Jul 19, 2011)

All posts discussing science vs. religion were moved to this thread


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 19, 2011)

douglatins said:


> So correct me if i am wrong, atomic clocks are worthless?


They don't rely on radioactive decay to function.



This discovery isn't going to have much impact on anything except the age of the known universe.  We're still talking billions of years old but it might end up being ± 1 billion years from 13.75 billion years old instead of the tighter margin of error previously used (± 0.11 billion years).


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They don't rely on radioactive decay to function.
> 
> 
> 
> This discovery isn't going to have much impact on anything except the age of the known universe.  We're still talking billions of years old but it might end up being ± 1 billion years from 13.75 billion years old instead of the tighter margin of error previously used (± 0.11 billion years).



It plays into radiation treatment also. It will allow doctors to be more precise in the dosage.....in theory.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 19, 2011)

Yeah, which could lead to a higher success rate when treating cancers with radiation therapy.  It's still ironic they use radiation which often causes cancers as a means to kill cells/treat cancer.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 19, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's still ironic they use radiation which often causes cancers as a means to kill cells/treat cancer.



i rather have a +20% chance of cancer in 10 years than a 100% chance of dying from cancer in 3 months


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 19, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This discovery isn't going to have much impact on anything except the age of the known universe.  We're still talking billions of years old but it might end up being ± 1 billion years from 13.75 billion years old instead of the tighter margin of error previously used (± 0.11 billion years).



why? i thought current age of the universe is calculated from hubble's constant which is nowadays calculated from WMAP data but other data sources like galaxy observations gave similar results ?


----------



## twilyth (Jul 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> It plays into radiation treatment also. It will allow doctors to be more precise in the dosage.....in theory.



Do they still use radioisotopes in treating cancer?  I thought they used directed energy like the gamma knife - where you use low dose x-rays from multiple angles intersecting the tumor.  

Anyway, proton beam therapy is better and safer than either.  The problem is that you need to build a cyclotron in the basement of your facility in order to offer this treatment and I think there are only 2 or 3 of these machines on the US east coast.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 20, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Everybody knows there are problems with the standard model.  For example the zero point energy predicted by quantum mechanics is off by 120 orders of magnitude from what is measured via the Casimir effect.
> 
> I think most physicists would be excited to find that there is some new physics to be discovered beyond what the current standard model can account for.



The standard model, is born flatly out of observational ignorance.


----------



## Steven Douglas (Dec 3, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This discovery isn't going to have much impact on anything except the age of the known universe.  We're still talking billions of years old but it might end up being ± 1 billion years from 13.75 billion years old instead of the tighter margin of error previously used (± 0.11 billion years).



Sorry for digging up such an old thread, especially as a first time poster, but this is one I found intriguing. 

What I could not discern from what I have learned thus far is whether the decay rates of all radioactive materials are affected. 

If all decay rates are affected by neutrino interaction, this could potentially affect what we know about geophysics, and specifically Plate Tectonics. While it is commonly thought that the Sun was around 70-75% as hot during the Archean, the Earth was exponentially less depleted.  It is also thought, based on the unusually high concentration of nitrogen in the Earth that a storm of neutrinos, mostly solar in origin, could have attacked the Earth through the Archean. 

From one paper:



> The storm of neutrinos from the young sun might have attacked the primitive earth because it is argued that the cyclic thermal expansion of the solar core may be connect to the cyclic occurrence of the glacial epoch.  Although the neutral pion is recognized as a non-exchange part in the nuclear strong field, it clearly plays a decisive role in nuclear transmutation of carbon-oxygen nuclei pairs as catalyst of dynamic nuclear interaction.



Simply put, and assuming an increase in neutrino bombardment equates to an increase in nuclear decay, could a storm of neutrinos from the Sun throughout the Archean caused the Earth to be much hotter than previously thought?  

This is intriguing to me because we are hard pressed to understand or reach a general consensus on why Plate Tectonics (by whatever mechanisms) ever got started on the Earth, let alone continues today.


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2011)

@Steven Douglas

I'm sorry I don't know enough about this to have a proper debate with you. However, what you say seems to make sense and I just want to welcome you to TPU!


----------



## Steven Douglas (Dec 3, 2011)

@qubit - Cheers!  

Nothing to debate, really. I have an avid interest in geodynamics, but I am by no means an expert or authority.  I was just throwing it out there as an intellectual curiosity more than anything.  It's one of those things where a relatively small effect can seem only mildly significant on first glance, but when I think about it on actual geological timescales, and multiply the sheer number of actively decaying elements involved some 3-4 Gya, the ramifications for early Earth processes look staggering to me. 

Most of the radiogenic elements in the earth are fixed in quantity and have long been depleted, but if neutrino storms accelerated this depletion process early on, in ways nobody anticipated given the _a priori_ assumption of decay rates as reliable constants - that could equate to heat production and heat flows on scales nobody has considered.  

Meh, fun to think about anyway.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 3, 2011)

Steven Douglas said:


> Sorry for digging up such an old thread, especially as a first time poster, but this is one I found intriguing.
> 
> What I could not discern from what I have learned thus far is whether the decay rates of all radioactive materials are affected.
> 
> ...


Plate tectonics are actually fairly easy to explain.  Under our feet, about 95% of it is magma and other liquid metals which have currents and flows just like on the surface in the oceans.  The other 5% is at the flow's mercy having no point of stability except itself.  The crust forms naturally because of the temperature difference between the vacuum of space and the hot interior of the Earth.  The plates are the result of the magma flows creating tensions on the surface which in turn, cause the plates to break where they are weakest.

Basically, plate tectonics started in much the same way as slag occurs on molten iron.  The iron is more dense than the crust and has internal flows because of the variation in temperature.  The less dense slag is at the flows mercy.

There's only two areas of parting consensus I know of:
1) The Expanding Earth theory.  That is, as the Earth cools, it expands in size.  Just as someone putting fat on fast creates stretch marks, Earth growing (since skin is more flexible than rock) creates  fissures which in turn form plates.

The theory opposing it with more consensus is that Earth was always the same size more or less and the magma flows created the plates.


2) The source of heat at the center of the Earth.  There's theories from nuclear fission to plain old pressure.  Obviously, there's no way to test the core of the Earth--only theorize about it.



As for decay, it is a can of worms that will take a long time to unravel.  The scientists studying it didn't think it had much of an impact but there is no way to prove it either way.  All we really can be pretty sure about is the sequence of events--not when they happened relative to modern dates.


----------



## Bow (Dec 3, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> It all depends on the distance from the Sun. Could be days off. Could be thousands of years off. They don't know. All in all its a kick to the nuts of Archeology and quantum phyics......I love it!


----------



## Steven Douglas (Dec 3, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Plate tectonics are actually fairly easy to explain.



It's actually not quite that simple. There is quite a difference between what is being commonly taught and what is actually known.  Despite "molten slag", mantle plumes (of every shape size and ad hoc definition), rolling convection cells (whole or partial mantle) and other visualizations, we are still without an accepted mechanism for what triggers, causes and drives Plate Tectonics. That is not controversial, as I can give a ton of quotes to that effect from some of the most respected Penrose Medal winning names in the industry.

Here is an excerpt from the USGS: (emphasis mine)



> The tectonic plates do not randomly drift or wander about the Earth's surface; they are driven by definite yet unseen forces. Although _scientists can neither precisely describe nor fully understand the forces_, most believe that the relatively shallow forces driving the lithospheric plates are coupled with forces originating much deeper in the Earth.
> 
> We know that forces at work deep within the Earth's interior drive plate motion, but we may never fully understand the details._ At present, *none of the proposed mechanisms can explain all the facets of plate movement*_; because these forces are buried so deeply, no mechanism can be tested directly and proven beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that the tectonic plates have moved in the past and are still moving today is beyond dispute, but the details of why and how they move will continue to challenge scientists far into the future.



That is actually a very mild, diplomatic way of putting it. It is not a simple question of knowing the basics as we try to refine the details. As a contributor and presenter to the GSA, I know firsthand the level of controversy that exists in this field. The only thing that is not controversial is the fact of controversy itself. 

"Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift died in 1926, primarily because no one could suggest an acceptable driving mechanism.  In an ironical twist, continental drift (now generalized to plate tectonics) is almost universally accepted, but we still do not understand the driving mechanism in anything other than the most general terms" - Walter Alvarez   

All that to say, Plate Tectonics, for as invaluable as it has been as a working paradigm, has produced as many questions as answers, and is still very much in search of fundamental, definitive support, after thirty years of enthronement as the reigning paradigm. That has nothing to do with alternative theories (e.g., "expanding/growing earth), but rather theories that fall firmly within the Continental Displacement/Plate Tectonics regime.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 4, 2011)

Steven Douglas said:


> It's actually not quite that simple. There is quite a difference between what is being commonly taught and what is actually known.  Despite "molten slag", mantle plumes (of every shape size and ad hoc definition), rolling convection cells (whole or partial mantle) and other visualizations, we are still without an accepted mechanism for what triggers, causes and drives Plate Tectonics. That is not controversial, as I can give a ton of quotes to that effect from some of the most respected Penrose Medal winning names in the industry.
> 
> Here is an excerpt from the USGS: (emphasis mine)
> 
> ...


You a geophysics major?


----------



## Steven Douglas (Dec 4, 2011)

AphexDreamer said:


> You a geophysics major?



No, I'm actually an old man.  My degrees are in physics and electrical engineering.  I worked in geophysics on the mineral exploration side in my younger years (ground resistivity and ground/aerial magnetometer surveys). I learned from the geophysicists I worked with, and have a circle of geologist and geophysicist friends still, but I'm otherwise self-taught over the years.  Even the papers I present are all self-funded, just an avocation for me.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 4, 2011)

Steven Douglas said:


> No, I'm actually an old man.  My degrees are in physics and electrical engineering.  I worked in geophysics on the mineral exploration side in my younger years (ground resistivity and ground/aerial magnetometer surveys). I learned from the geophysicists I worked with, and have a circle of geologist and geophysicist friends still, but I'm otherwise self-taught over the years.  Even the papers I present are all self-funded, just an avocation for me.



Ah very nice. I'm currently studying for Geophysics and found your post quite intriguing. 

But welcome to our forums, we are a decent bunch and you can guarantee we will be there in your time of need (and from my experience here, that isn't just tech exclusive).


----------



## twilyth (Dec 4, 2011)

@Steven Douglas:  Welcome.  There are a lot us older folks here and it's always a pleasure to find a member with a rigorous scientific background.

One of the theories I've heard that makes some sense to me is the idea that tectonics is caused by convection currents in the mantle and that these in turn result from radioactive decay of heavy elements like Uranium near the core.  It seems to me that without some internal heat source, our core should have solidified long ago.  How well regarded is this idea?  Thanks.


----------



## St.Alia-Of-The-Knife (Dec 4, 2011)

i remember a video where a 405nm laser was shined on thorium ore and there was an unexplained drop in gamma ray emission but i just cant seem to find the video...damn


----------



## St.Alia-Of-The-Knife (Dec 4, 2011)

The original video was removed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtughFzaIlo

Cant get the video to embed


----------



## Steven Douglas (Dec 4, 2011)

twilyth said:


> @Steven Douglas:  Welcome.  There are a lot us older folks here and it's always a pleasure to find a member with a rigorous scientific background.
> 
> One of the theories I've heard that makes some sense to me is the idea that tectonics is caused by convection currents in the mantle and that these in turn result from radioactive decay of heavy elements like Uranium near the core.  It seems to me that without some internal heat source, our core should have solidified long ago.  How well regarded is this idea?  Thanks.



There are more schools of thought than there are schools at this point, but that is at least a subset of one of the more popular ones.

Generally speaking, one prevailing school of thought is that the majority of radiogenic heat producing elements are contained within the continental crust, such that heat flow becomes a function of secular cooling of the core and mantle and radiogenic heating of the crust. 

Kellogg and others have hypothesized over the past decade or so the possibility of a chemically distinct layer in the lower mantle with a substantial concentration of radiogenic materials to account for heat flow through the surface. This is but one of the _many_ plausible conjectures posited, which can't be directly falsified, but only indirectly tested, while mostly inferred.  

Even the general agreement that exists about total heat flow is an adopted number based on approximations using a _boatload_ of assumptions. We can't measure heat loss near mid-ocean ridges, and there are large areas over continents where heat flow is not measured - not to mention we don't know very much at all about radioactive concentration in the lower crust. 

How it's received, on the other hand, is another story.  Like any new hypothesis, there will be followers just because it is a lead that can be followed. This one is among the more popular flavors of the decade, because it simultaneously reinforces the popular concepts of bottom-up whole-mantle convection and deep mantle plumes.  

Those who are engaged or wedded to their own theories tend to respond with either not responding, or else responding with the classic, _"Is this really required?"_  Which, of course, means only that their equally plausible, and in their minds more straight forward or elegant, explanation is to be preferred. 

Here is an example [pdf] of how this is dealt with by Warren Hamilton, Penrose Medal winner from the Colorado School of Mines:



> A conceptual shift is overdue in geodynamics. Popular models that present plate
> tectonics as being driven by bottom-heated whole-mantle convection, with or without
> plumes, are based on obsolete assumptions, are contradicted by much evidence, and
> fail to account for observed plate interactions. Subduction-hinge rollback is the key to
> ...



I probably should have just quoted Hamilton to begin with, rather than shoot my mouth off and open a potential can of worms. But oh well. I really don't have a horse in this race - and I don't see a need for anyone to have one. There is so much that I don't know, especially as regards some of the more complex, and less comprehensible (IMO) work that has been produced.  I tend to be more of a champion of "Multiple Working Hypotheses", as I oppose, in principle, the notion of paradigm enthronement of any kind.  It is really unnecessary, and can lead to circular self-reinforcement, given how difficult it is to unseat an incumbent (like the Ptolemaic universe and other reigning paradigms).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 4, 2011)

Steven Douglas said:


> It's actually not quite that simple. There is quite a difference between what is being commonly taught and what is actually known.  Despite "molten slag", mantle plumes (of every shape size and ad hoc definition), rolling convection cells (whole or partial mantle) and other visualizations, we are still without an accepted mechanism for what triggers, causes and drives Plate Tectonics. That is not controversial, as I can give a ton of quotes to that effect from some of the most respected Penrose Medal winning names in the industry.
> 
> Here is an excerpt from the USGS: (emphasis mine)
> 
> ...


I must be missing something because how, exactly, does fluid dynamics not account for plate techtonics?  Yes, it is impossible to prove but from what we see on the surface, it appears to be a match.  Actually, it wouldn't be very hard to produce a computer simulation and attempt to map out all the currents in the magma that would create the plate techtonic movements on the surface.


It sounds to me like Warren Hamilton was unintentionally describing the need for the expanding Earth theory.  Personally, I believe plate tectonics are a result of fluid dynamics and the expanding Earth theory.  The expanding Earth theory can explain the annomalies in age, especilly under the Pacific Ocean.  Fluid dynamics can explain other annomalies like the New Madrid Fault.


----------



## Steven Douglas (Dec 4, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I must be missing something because how, exactly, does fluid dynamics not account for plate techtonics?  Yes, it is impossible to prove but from what we see on the surface, it appears to be a match.  Actually, it wouldn't be very hard to produce a computer simulation and attempt to map out all the currents in the magma that would create the plate techtonic movements on the surface.



There are thousands of such models, and they are anything but simple, unless you are talking about a mere visualization.  I can do that with a simple rendering program, but it would be scientifically meaningless.  I can also do a numerical simulation, but which assumptions do I plug in, and using which physics? 

One of the best, most respected modelers in the business is Paul J. Tackley of UCLA - I'll let him do the speaking on that one.  None of the following is considered controversial: (pdf, part 2)



> *The Quest for a Self-Consistent Plate Tectonics* (emphasis added)
> 
> Lithospheric plate tectonics and mantle convection are
> different aspects of the same, coupled system,* yet mantle
> ...



The rigid lid problem is just one problem geodesists and geodynamicists face with models. There are many others - so many variables, known and unknown, especially at depth, with so many observable behaviors of the lithosphere which must be interpreted correctly and accounted for by any model. 



FordGT90Concept said:


> It sounds to me like Warren Hamilton was unintentionally describing the need for the expanding Earth theory.  Personally, I believe plate tectonics are a result of fluid dynamics and the expanding Earth theory.  The expanding Earth theory can explain the annomalies in age, especilly under the Pacific Ocean.  Fluid dynamics can explain other annomalies like the New Madrid Fault.



Warren Hamilton, an absolutely brilliant man whom I have talked with at length, has a very specific general theory of his own which is explicable, plausible, and which he believes accounts for all observable lithospheric behavior. But to interpret a call for new paradigm cannot be interpreted by anyone as a call for their favorite paradigm.

Hamilton's problem, one faced by so many in his position _in the mainstream_, is not that he must dethrone the PT paradigm itself; only a few major governing assumptions surrounding that paradigm, which have become untenable, fraught with problems, and do not fit with what we now understand after 30 years of PT enthronement. That is a daunting task on its own, _even for one in the mainstream_. 

Once the fictitious monster was erected and given putative life, every governing assumption, right or wrong, became vital enough to be defended, even with numerous ad hoc repairs if it was later contradicted by numerical modeling or observation. 

I don't personally dismiss out of hand alternate theories of any plausibility, regardless how outlandish seeming at first.  That includes Expanding/Growing Earth theories, in all their forms, which offer explanations for many observable phenomena while giving rise to many new problems - _big ones_, like how to account for the expansion itself, which cannot be volume alone, due to gravity problems, but in some cases a seven or eight fold increase in the mass of the Earth which would be required over a relative short span of geological time (~250My). Furthermore, if a theory involves the assumption of a changing constant, or completely new physics with no foundational support (like in the case of Neal Adams), even then it does not mean that their theories are not true; only that the worker championing that theory is faced with even more daunting tasks - _ones usually left to others_ (e.g., "My theory of FTL travel can explain everything - _all we/you all need to do_ is find a way to make dilithium crystals..." 

One of the major problems with paradigm enthronement, rather than a continued Multiple Working Hypotheses approach, involves conclusions that are hastily and prematurely drawn based on observations that falsify an existing theory.  The work of Wegener, Hess, Vine, Matthews and many others had successfully and conclusively established that at least some continents were, at one time connected, and had since been displaced - _by whatever mechanism_ which was yet to be established.  That much was proved to everyone beyond all doubting.  Wegener's "continents plowing through oceanic crust" was untenable (mere conjecture, Wegener did not propose this as part of any theory, but just threw it out there as one plausibility based on what was known at the time).  

Another plausibility was "slag floating on molten mantle", with rolling convection cells, and the cyclical creation and destruction of oceanic crust.  It was so visually and intuitively plausible, in fact, that it became enthroned as part of the theory _just because it makes sense_ - even though we had no way of knowing at the time if it was true.  When that happens, what is known and unknown, including fundamental untested assumptions, are conflated to form the skeleton of a hypothesis which must be later fleshed out - on the _a priori_ assumption that it is all essentially correct.  Thus, anything that falls outside that paradigm can, and often is, dismissed without further inquiry. 

In this way, science can often be like a friend who asks you to dinner, takes you to McDonalds, lets you know that anything on the menu is available for selection, and then asks you "What kind of a small orange soda would you prefer?"

Anyway, I'm rambling now, and need to stop.  All this to say that I think that the _pouncing onto_ and latching hold of anything based on a visually intuitive plausibility is not necessarily a bad thing.  It's just a lead; one more avenue to explore, so you follow it. But you don't enthrone it. You don't seal off all other avenues of exploration, and channel all resources into a favored channel, regardless how compelling.  If it is truth, it will need no defenders, but will reward all adherents - as it reveals itself as such over time.


----------



## qubit (Dec 4, 2011)

St.Alia-Of-The-Knife said:


> The original video was removed
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtughFzaIlo
> 
> Cant get the video to embed



This is how you do it, put the bit after the = sign between tags: [yt]vtughFzaIlo[/ yt] _(just take out the space after the /)
_
Here it is embedded:


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 4, 2011)

> This is because present
> convection models assume that the mantle is a viscous fluid,
> and ‘realistic’ temperature-dependent viscosity results in an
> stiff, immobile, rigid lid.


And that's the heart of it, no?  We don't know how fluid the magma is and it is difficult to theorize about because there is an enormous volume of it, has variable densities (closer to the center, the more dense it is), variable heat, and variable pressures.  You're right, it would be difficult to make a working physics model because there's too many variables and not enough information.

I think there's only one way to get a definitive answer and that is to start construction on probes.  At the same time, what applicable knowledge could be gained from this?  It would no doubt be very expensive requiring a lot of very exotic materials in order to withstand the heat and pressure.  Something has to offset/justify the cost.




Steven Douglas said:


> ...like how to account for the expansion itself...


The core cooling.  As it cools, it causes the crust to grow thicker.



Steven Douglas said:


> ...in some cases a seven or eight fold increase in the mass of the Earth which would be required over a relative short span of geological time (~250My).


Mass likely didn't change--density decreased.  If mass did increase, it would likely be the result of an extraterrestrial body colliding with the Earth and their respective masses joined.

Random thought: Don't major earthquakes cause days to become a fraction longer?  Would that not be explained by the Earth getting a fraction larger?


----------



## Kreij (Dec 4, 2011)

Steven Douglas said:


> Anyway, I'm rambling now



Here on TPU we don't "ramble". We "discuss at great length even to the point of nausea".
Until you start seeing tl;dr you are good to go. 

You commented that you are an "old man". How old (if you don't mind me asking)?

One more question, you said that you hold a degree in Physics. Could you switch to writing computer games for a living? The physics in a lot of the games are terrible and the industry needs you. 

Oh btw ... welcome to TPU.


----------



## Steven Douglas (Dec 4, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think there's only one way to get a definitive answer and that is to start construction on probes.  At the same time, what applicable knowledge could be gained from this?  It would no doubt be very expensive requiring a lot of very exotic materials in order to withstand the heat and pressure.  Something has to offset/justify the cost.



The very best we can do with probes at this point, and it is being tried, is tantamount to a tiny pinprick on the skin of the Earth - just at one point, and not relatively deep at that.  It is a massive undertaking with results that are extensively studied, and teaching us a lot.  



FordGT90Concept said:


> The core cooling.  As it cools, it causes the crust to grow thicker.



The word crust has to be qualified, same as the core, as differentiated from the mantle and the crust, all of which cool at different rates, some of which are thermally insulated.  Differentiated crust (continental and oceanic) "thickens" by top-down cooling and solidification, but there is a finite amount of chemically distinct continental crust, which does not "thicken" (i.e., the actual mass quantity of continental crust does not increase) with cooling.  



FordGT90Concept said:


> Mass likely didn't change--density decreased.  If mass did increase, it would likely be the result of an extraterrestrial body colliding with the Earth and their respective masses joined.



An increase in density and not mass would necessarily, and by definition, entail a contraction, not expansion - which would then beg a completely different explanation for new oceans and the displacement of ancient continents.  The only way that you can have an expanding earth by way of increased density is to make part of the interior Earth hollow (becomes more dense by displacement) - which may be covered by an entirely different theory described using that word.   

A mass increase in the Earth based on collisions or accretion would still need to be explained, including some kind of evidence, including an explanation of how a manifold increase in mass resulted in a continental displacement which occurred only in the past 250 My. 

Nothing I want to argue or entertain, necessarily, I'm just describing some of the challenges proposed by any proposition, as I see them. 



FordGT90Concept said:


> Random thought: Don't major earthquakes cause days to become a fraction longer?  Would that not be explained by the Earth getting a fraction larger?



Shorter, not longer, but not based on a change in diameter.  Google "earthquakes lod" (sans quotes) - lots of stuff on that.



Kreij said:


> You commented that you are an "old man". How old (if you don't mind me asking)?



51-ish. Not really old, just too old to have "a major" in something. lol



Kreij said:


> One more question, you said that you hold a degree in Physics. Could you switch to writing computer games for a living? The physics in a lot of the games are terrible and the industry needs you.
> 
> Oh btw ... welcome to TPU.



Cheers! 

No, my code writing ability is atrocious, I'd just make the games worse. I do like playing games, but could never write them.  And, btw, I don't hold advanced degrees in anything.  No Masters, no PhD.  Moreover, I have Huntington's Disease - initial onset - which has caused a deterioration of my brain to the point where I can't even do the math any more - even relatively simple stuff.  Thus, a lot of stuff I won't even get very far into here, and will readily cave in and turtle on arguments, just to avoid taxing myself. Gotta budget those interests, so whatever I talk about here, take it all with a shaker of demented salt!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 4, 2011)

Steven Douglas said:


> The very best we can do with probes at this point, and it is being tried, is tantamount to a tiny pinprick on the skin of the Earth - just at one point, and not relatively deep at that.  It is a massive undertaking with results that are extensively studied, and teaching us a lot.


Yes, which is why we need a device that will bore through the crust, hit the mantle, and presumably fall to the core.  It would have to be extremely dense and very thermo-resistant (hence expensive).





Steven Douglas said:


> The word crust has to be qualified, same as the core, as differentiated from the mantle and the crust, all of which cool at different rates, some of which are thermally insulated.  Differentiated crust (continental and oceanic) "thickens" by top-down cooling and solidification, but there is a finite amount of chemically distinct continental crust, which does not "thicken" (i.e., the actual mass quantity of continental crust does not increase) with cooling.


The thickening of the crust would presumably be composed of the same material in the mantel closest to where the two meet.  So yes, chemically they're likely not to be the same.





Steven Douglas said:


> An increase in density and not mass would necessarily, and by definition, entail a contraction, not expansion - which would then beg a completely different explanation for new oceans and the displacement of ancient continents.  The only way that you can have an expanding earth by way of increased density is to make part of the interior Earth hollow (becomes more dense by displacement) - which may be covered by an entirely different theory described using that word.


An increase in volume with no increase in mass means a decrease in density.  I said "density decreased," not increased.   




Steven Douglas said:


> A mass increase in the Earth based on collisions or accretion would still need to be explained, including some kind of evidence, including an explanation of how a manifold increase in mass resulted in a continental displacement which occurred only in the past 250 My.


You reference 250 My frequently.  How was that number reached?  Radioactive decay? 




Steven Douglas said:


> Shorter, not longer, but not based on a change in diameter.  Google "earthquakes lod" (sans quotes) - lots of stuff on that.


That subject (earthquakes shortening days) still confounds me.  Could you explain how, exactly, that happens in a sentence or two?  Is it due to the jolt of energy released when the pressure is released?  I mean, the length of day is strongly tied to the Moon.  How can something minor like that, here on Earth, have any impact on the length of day.

The links suggest "Earth's mass shifted" but that's about as descriptive as calling the Sun orange.


----------



## Steven Douglas (Dec 4, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You reference 250 My frequently.  How was that number reached?  Radioactive decay?



No, radioactive decay is involved, but it's based on a very liberal estimate of the age of the very oldest ocean floors, along with an even looser tie-in with the Permian Triassic mass extinction event (The Great Dying), and the Siberian Traps of similar age, which preceded the creation of what are now the deep oceans, and which many believe was a triggering event of some kind, or coupled in some way.  The actual oldest "large body" ocean floor is in the western Pacific, near the Mariana Trench, and has been dated to 180 My.  All continental crust is much, much older.  



FordGT90Concept said:


> That subject (earthquakes shortening days) still confounds me.  Could you explain how, exactly, that happens in a sentence or two?  Is it due to the jolt of energy released when the pressure is released?  I mean, the length of day is strongly tied to the Moon.  How can something minor like that, here on Earth, have any impact on the length of day.
> 
> The links suggest "Earth's mass shifted" but that's about as descriptive as calling the Sun orange.



Just remember that when we're talking about possible LOD changes based on earthquakes, we are talking MINISCULE hypothetical changes.  Even the moon's effect on the LOD is based on tidal forces on a body that is not perfectly solid.  If the Earth was a perfect solid, there would be no shifting of mass (especially the oceans), and no change in rotation.

The best lay explanation I can offer:  Imagine yourself freefloating in space. Without something to push away from, you will remain in one place (or, at least, on the same Newtonian trajectory). However, you can, by shifting your own mass internally, cause yourself to rotate - quite fast, in fact, without anything but your own mass pushing against itself. You won't go anywhere, but you will rotate.  And, conversely, you can "reverse" this rotation by shifts in the opposite direction. That's really all that happens with an earthquake or a tidal shifting of mass caused by any external body (the sun has tidal effects on the Earth as well). 

Technically, every single movement you make can cause a miniscule, albeit unmeasurable and negligible, change in the LOD, as your mass, which is part of the Earth, shifts.  So when people say that an earthquake caused a shift in the LOD, it is not a question of whether this occurred, but only how substantially it occurred, and in what direction.


----------



## Steven Douglas (Dec 4, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> An increase in volume with no increase in mass means a decrease in density.  I said "density decreased," not increased.



My mistake, sorry.  An increase in volume, and corresponding decrease in density necessarily means an ENORMOUS _decrease_ in surface gravity over time (inverse square law - [corrected]).  That poses many problems, and is untenable on many fronts, only one of which is trapped sediment dunes of a given height that would have been impossible under increased gravity. It also poses a problem for dinosaurs, who are already being made much lighter and stronger than ever previously thought in order to fit the assumption of fixed surface gravity.  A decrease-in-density/increase-in-volume would strain that even further, crushing the dinosaurs, even at their already adjusted putative mass and strengths.  The only way around that is to increase mass along with volume - and not a small increase in mass, but by many times the original mass of the Earth.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 5, 2011)

Steven Douglas said:


> The actual oldest "large body" ocean floor is in the western Pacific, near the Mariana Trench, and has been dated to 180 My.  All continental crust is much, much older.


The crust is the thinest under the oceans so it makes sense that it would be the youngest.  Likewise, the crust is the thickest on land and specifically, above-water mountain ranges so it makes sense that it would be the oldest.




Steven Douglas said:


> My mistake, sorry.  An increase in volume, and corresponding decrease in density necessarily means an ENORMOUS _decrease_ in surface gravity over time (inverse square law - [corrected]).


Gravity is the result of mass, not density.  The Sun and Jupiter are very gaseous (lower density than Earth) and they are still very massive.  Earth would produce the same amount of gravity it does now if all of its mass were compressed into a pin-point.  Likewise, Earth would produce the same gravity it does now if it were mostly made of gases.  Unless there was a significant extaterrestrial impact with the Earth increasing Earth's mass, it is very likely the dinosaurs experienced more or less the same amount of gravity we do today.


----------



## Steven Douglas (Dec 5, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The crust is the thinest under the oceans so it makes sense that it would be the youngest.  Likewise, the crust is the thickest on land and specifically, above-water mountain ranges so it makes sense that it would be the oldest.



It's important to understand that oceanic and continental crust are completely different in composition, and that continental crust is thicker primarily because there is so much more of it in solidified form, but that it is also still counted as continental crust even in a partially or fully melted state. 

Oceanic (mafic, or "dark") crust (0-200 My old), is comprised mostly of basalt and gabbro igneous rock created by partial melting of the mantle at the mid-ocean rifts, which cools to a thermal isolation thickness that averages ~5-7 miles (i.e., cools to a mean thickness, beyond which further cooling/thickening occurs very, VERY slowly).  Oceanic crust IS upper mantle material, so there is much more of it overall, but only a small portion of which is actually solidified as ocean floor covering.  

Oceanic crust is also denser than continental crust, so it seats lower atop the softer mantle below. Because all crust contracts and becomes denser as it cools (over millions of years) there is a distinct, even predictive age to water depth correlation in the deep oceans. However, age is not the main reason continental crust is so much thicker.  

Continental (felsic, or "light") crust (average age 2Gy old) is much more varied in composition than oceanic crust, and also less dense, so that it rides simultaneously _higher and deeper_ atop the underlying mantle than oceanic crust.  Think of continents as giant deep-keeled "landbergs" - not in terms of ability to float about, but only in how they sit on the surface of the underlying mantle.  

So continents are literally the differentiated, mostly silicate "scum" that floated to the surface of the earliest Earth. Continental crust, unlike oceanic crust, is ever buoyant, and does not sink, or even subduct (into the mantle, as in fully submerged) - at least not to any great amounts. 

Following is a map I created based on the latest CRUST 2.0 map.  It is simplified to illustrate thickness distribution of crust over the Earth, but especially thickness distribution within the continents, with the thickest mean averages >35km (and much thicker in those same areas) dominating the interiors, away from continental shelves. 







There is a lot more to it, of course, especially as pertains to internal composition and formation of the continents.  The important thing to note is that continental and oceanic crust are two completely separate beasts, each with distinct properties of their own, with thickness differences derived more from their unique compositions rather than respective ages. 

Hope that helps!


----------



## Steven Douglas (Dec 5, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Gravity is the result of mass, not density.  The Sun and Jupiter are very gaseous (lower density than Earth) and they are still very massive.  Earth would produce the same amount of gravity it does now if all of its mass were compressed into a pin-point.  Likewise, Earth would produce the same gravity it does now if it were mostly made of gases.  Unless there was a significant extaterrestrial impact with the Earth increasing Earth's mass, it is very likely the dinosaurs experienced more or less the same amount of gravity we do today.



The force of gravity is dependent in part on the distance between two massive objects, and while distant astronomical objects may often be treated as point masses, the *surface gravity* of a given sphere is very much dependent on its radius, given the formula: 

g = G * M / r2 (surface gravity = Gravitational Constant times the Mass of the object divided by the squared radius) - as the radius gets smaller, the gravitational acceleration at the outer surface, measured in units-of-distance per units-of-time-squared, increases (G * M divided by a smaller squared number) 

This where the inverse square law of gravity kicks in. Ready for some fun?  

Example 1: I weigh 200 lbs. on our current Earth at 1 g. surface gravity.  Half the radius of the same mass would mean _four times the gravitational acceleration_ felt on the surface, giving me an equivalent weight of of 800 lbs. 

Sound like a lot? It gets better. (or worse, depending on one's perspective)

Example 2: An Earth compressed to a pin-point would produce the same gravitational pull with respect to distant objects (e.g., the moon), but _the surface gravity_ would be positively staggering, with human weight equivalent ramifications that would be much too large to comprehend. So let's move on instead to...

Example 3: Earth is now compressed to a 10km radius, or 20km diameter. It would completely destroy me, as I would feel an acceleration of ~406,433 g's at the surface, meaning that I, a mere 200 lb. man on our current Earth, would have a weight equivalent (the actual pull of the Earth against my mass) of more than 40,000 tons! I would be little more than a flat reddish stain - a very faint paint job, which would spread out very quickly over the entire _very solid, mirror-fine and ultra-smooth_ surface.

And that is the problem with an Expanding Earth without a corresponding mass increase, because it must begin with an Earth that is far less massive.  Otherwise, half the radius with the same mass would mean that a 9 ton T-Rex would weigh in at some 36 tons instead.

The thing to remember here is that each and every individual molecule that makes up the earth follows the gravitational inverse square law with respect to each individual molecule in your body.  So the difference between the attraction felt by the chunk of Earth beneath your own home and a chunk of Earth somewhere on the other side of the globe is beyond enormous.  Compressing the entire Earth would bring _all_ of these individual molecules closer to your body all at once, thus concentrating/increasing the gravitational pull felt by you toward each and every massive atom simultaneously. If it was reduced to a pinpoint, your body would be drawn into that pinpoint at hyper-relativistic speeds. 

EDIT:  I found a site where you can have some fun with this yourself. Go here.  The mass and radius is set for the Earth by default. After entering a different radius, click the equal sign to the right.  Then click the "More units" button in the results window and it will display the equivalent g. force felt at the surface. Multiply that by your own weight, and that is what you would weigh.



EDIT II:  I had some more fun with this, asking myself the question, "To what size would the Earth need to be compressed before it became a Black Hole?" (i.e., escape velocity becomes equal to the relativistic speed of light in a vacuum)  

The answer:  .00088 km, or 34.6456 inches, with a diameter of 69.3 inches, or 5' 9" across.  So long before the Earth is compressed to a pin-point: I am six feet tall, which means that if I "stand" on an Earth surface, the diameter of which is three inches shorter than me, the soles of my feet are literally on an Event Horizon!

For the Sun to become a black hole, it would need to have a radius of 2.953 km, or just less than 6km in diameter.
For Jupiter to become a black hole - compress it to 18 1/2 feet in diameter.


----------



## Hardrata (Jul 7, 2015)

Ugh sorry to be so late to the party and I hope Mr. Douglas is still around. You raise an interesting point about the expanding Earth theory that I had not considered or heard mentioned elsewhere. There is however one issue you may not have considered and that is one of angular momentum. Earth at the same mass, but smaller radius will spin much faster and have a much higher centripetal force effect, canceling out some of the surface gravity increase (or perhaps negating the increased surface gravity completely, I have not done the calculations). It was one idea I had for explaining the size of dinosaurs, they felt less gravity due to centripetal force increase on a faster spinning Earth.

Also, I had one idea for an explanation of an expanding Earth volume: radioactive decay. It appears that when a large atom decays, the daughter atoms occupy more volume space, when combined, than the original larger atom.


----------

