[HN Gopher] Earth's innermost layer is a 644 kilometer wide ball... ___________________________________________________________________ Earth's innermost layer is a 644 kilometer wide ball of iron, new study finds Author : taubek Score : 134 points Date : 2023-02-22 06:38 UTC (2 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.archyde.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.archyde.com) | nerdponx wrote: | Wait, I definitely remember reading about this in science | magazines years ago: the earth's core is more like solid than | liquid because it's under tremendous pressure from gravity, and | it's spinning, and it's iron, which is why Earth has a magnetic | field. | | Is the new discovery that there is actually a _fifth_ layer, | which is solid, and that what we previously thought of as the | "core" is actually liquid and not the innermost layer? | pfdietz wrote: | No, the Earth's magnetic field isn't because of iron being | ferromagnetic, nor does it come from the solid inner core. The | iron in the core is well above the Curie temperature at which | ferromagnetism ceases. | | Rather, the Earth's magnetic field is due to currents flowing | in the liquid outer core. Convection in the core drives the | conductive metal across these currents, increasing them by a | dynamo effect. This process occurs on a rather small scale and | is difficult to model, and is also somewhat chaotic, leading to | very occasional collapses and flips of the Earth's magnetic | field. | warent wrote: | A _flip_ in the magnetic field? Has something like that ever | happened in history or is ever predicted to happen? What | would the damage be? | GuB-42 wrote: | We are talking about thousands of years for the flip to | happen, and hundreds of thousands of years between each | flip. We have geological records that it happened, as for | the damage, there was a theory that it was linked to mass | extinction, but latest research find it unlikely. | | It would still be bad for us, but not something worth | worrying about right now. | pfdietz wrote: | It happens on a geological timescale, and is used to help | date rocks. The ocean floor is marked with stripes of | normal and reversed magnetic polarity (the magnetic field | is faintly recorded in magnetization of minerals like | magnetite), and this was a strong initial clue that led to | the theory of seafloor spreading and plate tectonics. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal | | https://www.usgs.gov/media/videos/pubtalk-72004-secrets- | ston... | xeromal wrote: | You're in for a treat. Our magnetic field is currently | doing some crazy stuff and moving quite fast. | | https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/M | a... | nerdponx wrote: | I would love to read the primary sources at the time | describing peoples reactions to the movement of magnetic | north. Were they surprised? | throwawayx134ax wrote: | Question: Do you mean current as in movement of material, or | current as in movement of electric fields? | | Or is that not a valid distinction in this case? | pfdietz wrote: | Both meanings were used here. There are electrical | currents, and there are flows of material through the | magnetic field, producing voltages that sustain currents. | The JxB forces also affect the flows. It's a highly | nonlinear phenomenon (magnetohydronamics, or MHD). | hydrogen7800 wrote: | This reminds me of a paradox in my understanding of gravity. I | often read about the pressure inside the earth resulting from | the mass above, but the gravitational force inside a spherical | shell is zero [0], and the only force acting at a given radius | from the center is the mass of the sphere inside that radius. | | [0]http://hyperphysics.phy- | astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/sphshel... | cossatot wrote: | I believe the apparent paradox is that the 'net force' is not | the same thing as pressure; it's basically the vector sum of | pressure. Pressure in the Earth is an isotropic distribution | of stresses, so that in a north-east-up coordinate system, | the upward-pushing stress is matched by the downward-pushing | stress, the eastward-pushing stress is matched by the | westward-pushing stress, etc. So while these _sum_ to zero in | some sense, their magnitude is the density of the rock | between the point and the surface times the depth times | gravity. This is like going deeper in the ocean-the forces | are equal in all directions, meaning that they sum to zero in | some sense and there is no directional flattening or | translation, but they still increase with depth. | codethief wrote: | > I believe the apparent paradox is that the 'net force' is | not the same thing as pressure | | I don't think that's what OP means. He's saying that the | gravitational _force_ that acts on a given test particle | that 's located inside Earth at a radius r=R from the | center is determined only by the amount of mass "below it", | i.e. the mass inside the ball of radius R, _not_ the matter | making up the spherical shell R < r < R_E, where R_E is | Earth's radius. Put differently, that (hollow) spherical | shell does not cause any gravitational force on test | particles inside it. | | This is absolutely correct and a consequence of Gauss's | law, see | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_gravity | | Meanwhile, you are talking about a different thing | entirely: The pressure. The matter above (as well as below | and next to) our test particle will obviously also | experience gravity and get pulled down. So our test | particle will experience an isotropic force from all sides, | which is generally quantified as pressure (force per area). | This pressure is obviously not zero (but no one ever | claimed that) and does depend on the radius of the outer | spherical shell above it, in the same way as the pressure | under water depends on how deep you are. | Salgat wrote: | The net force is 0 in the same way that if two people are | pushing you from opposite sides, their net force on you is | also zero. You're still being crushed from both sides. | [deleted] | titzer wrote: | Also note that that is only true for (being inside) a hollow | shell, not for a solid sphere. | zehaeva wrote: | This is a confusion between the gravitational force that the | core feels from the layers above, and the pressure that the | layers above push down onto the core. | | That is, the core doesn't feel gravitational pull towards the | outside, because it's balanced on that other side, but the | outside is being pulling in towards the core, which pushes on | the core. | | It might be easier to simplify the mental image by picturing | just a slice of the whole thing. | idlewords wrote: | Think about sinking to the bottom of the Marianas Trench and | then inflating a balloon just enough to make you neutrally | buoyant. The net force on you will be zero, but you'd still | be crushed by the pressure, which is the effect of many | kilometers of seawater above you. | | Another way to think of this is to imagine a small sphere | (like the size of a basketball) around the very center of the | Earth. The matter in that sphere feels no net gravitational | force, but it has to push back against the entire mass of the | rest of the Earth, which is trying to fall into it. | cossatot wrote: | It's been known for decades that the Earth's core (which is | mostly iron and nickel, as opposed to the mantle which is made | of silicates) has a liquid outer layer and a solid inner layer. | This is apparent because seismic shear waves can propagate | through the inner layer but not the outer layer, which is | diagnostic of the medium being liquid and not solid. (The shear | or S-waves get _to_ the inner core because when a seismic | pressure wave, which can travel through liquid, hits the inner- | core-outer-core boundary, some of the energy is converted into | shear waves. Jofer please correct me if this is inaccurate.) | | This article states that the inner core has two different | concentric zones that have very different crystalline | properties. In particular, the inner sanctum is anisotropic | with respect to seismic wave propagation, and the outer sheath | of the inner core is much more isotropic. This suggest that | they have different geologic histories--the innermost core's | crystallographic anisotropy may have resulted from an event | early in Earth's history that deformed the crystals, much as | mountain building events deform the crystals in Earth's crust | and upper mantle. Then, the younger outer sheath of the inner | core cooled and crystallized around the older inner bit later | on, after the deforming event transpired. | topher515 wrote: | Can you explain a bit more about the difference between the | anisotropic and isotopic nature of these different zones? | | Are both of these zones "solid" states of matter? Or does our | intuition about states of matter not really work for | materials at these exotic temperatures and pressures? | Sharlin wrote: | The article seems very poorly written. It reads like "We knew | that Earth's inner core was a solid ball of iron... but now | it's been discovered that the solid ball of iron actually has a | solid ball of iron in its core!" | selimnairb wrote: | Yeah, I'm kind of scratching my head. This can't just be a | distinction without a difference, can it? Maybe the discovery | is that the solid core has two layers of different densities | with a gradual "margin" between the two? | throwaway81523 wrote: | Site archyde.com seems to be some kind of weird splog. Is there a | better source? What exactly is the new discovery, just that the | innermost part of the core has a slightly different composition | than the surrounding part? | SllX wrote: | Is it me, or does 644 kilometers wide seem kind of small for the | inner core of the Earth? Does it even stay in place then, or does | it kind of drift around slightly within the outer core over time? | blacksmith_tb wrote: | That seems like a point of reference thing to me, presumably | the iron core is denser than the molten layer around it, | gravity is pulling that towards it, but it's all spinning, and | there are other gravitational influences from the moon, the | rest of the solar system, etc. which could cause some slight | sloshing around, I'd bet. | treeman79 wrote: | How big a ball of the rare but much heavier elements? | autokad wrote: | I've always wondered that. like wouldn't uranium, gold, and | other heavier elements be more dominant the closer you get to | the center of the core? but they are pretty confident on this | iron thing | wincy wrote: | I've thought about this too, if dark matter is affected by | gravity but not other forces, wouldn't that mean if we were | able to drill to the center of any substantial gravity well | (say the moon rather than the earth), would we be able to | detect a big clump of dark matter? Does that mean there's a | bunch of dark matter at the center of all the stars? | pixl97 wrote: | If we assume dark matter is a particle that only reacts via | gravity, well, I'm not so sure you will. | | The question here is how your particle that only reacts via | gravity loses energy. First it will have whatever momentum it | has from the galaxy relative to the speed of our solar system | and planet. Then as it falls into our gravity well it picks | up even more speed. When it reaches the center of our planet | it's hauling ass with no brakes so no reason to stop, so it | goes screeching out the other side. Even if you somehow had a | dark matter particle at 0 relative motion to your gravity | well before it fell in, how long is it going to take to bleed | off its gravitational energy? | autokad wrote: | I find the description of dark matter confusing. I hear | statements like "dark matter has negligible interaction with | ordinary matter". So, how do scientists know that dark matter | exists? | | "The answer is that our galaxies spin too fast for the | visible matter alone to hold them together. Dark matter, | which makes up 27% of the universe, provides the additional | gravitational force needed. In contrast, visible matter only | makes up 5%." | | However, I'm left wondering whether dark matter does or | doesn't interact significantly with visible matter. | kerpotgh wrote: | [dead] | hoppla wrote: | Earth's diameter is around 13000km, if there is an inner core | with a 600 km width, you will find this core around 6000km below | your feet, which is more than 1600 km below your feet (as the | article correctly stated...) | pmontra wrote: | Yes, I also noticed it. It's too large a difference to be some | miles to km conversion mistake. There is nothing 1600 km wide | inside [1], not even the distance between the inner core and | this new inner-inner core boundaries. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core%E2%80%93mantle_boundary | marginalia_nu wrote: | I do think conversion is involved in generating these odd | figures somehow. May not be the sole part, but the figure in | the title is definitely an conversion that's sprouted | additional sigfigs. | | 644 km is 400,000 miles (within 0.04% error). | mkl wrote: | Typo there: 400 miles. The actual paper's abstract [1] says | "~650-km". In a skim through I didn't see anything that | might correspond to the strange 1600km depth. | | [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-36074-2 | jmclnx wrote: | And if I was asked, I would have guessed it would have been | around 1000km. | adamwong246 wrote: | If only there were a decent way to mine the earth's core | directly. There's more usable material already on Earth than the | entire asteroid belt. It's just all melted together, molten and | buried under thousands of miles of dirt. | kelseyfrog wrote: | Exactly! Plugging this into Wolfram Alpha reveals that Earth's | core is worth $3.268x10^19 (US dollars)[1]. For comparison | total global wealth is merely US$431T. | | 1. thirty-two quintillion six hundred eighty quadrillion | dollars | willis936 wrote: | I bet it's worth more than that in usable electricity if we | ran it through a heat exchanger + steam turbine. | barelyauser wrote: | These calculations are always bogus. Once mining starts, the | price of iron will plummet. The exact same reason some | reserves are seldom explored, as the decline in price will | render the effort pointless. | mkl wrote: | In case you're serious, there isn't thousands of miles of dirt, | but just metres to tens of metres. Then there's rock, which we | do mine. | vatys wrote: | If we started mining the earth's core, it would seem infinite | at first. Can we be trusted to only take a little bit and not | eventually hollow it out? | notfed wrote: | If at some point we become anywhere advanced enough to do so, | surely we could switch to mining other planets/objects. | cossatot wrote: | If we took the entire core to the surface (without collapsing | the Earth which is impossible) we would cover the Earth with | iron and nickel to a depth of hundreds of km. | IncRnd wrote: | This page is very rough and shouldn't be considered scientific. I | didn't even find a link or the actual study name on the page. Not | only that, Dr. Thanh-Son Pham is listed as a co-author but the | page doesn't even mention the name of the second author, Hrvoje | Tkalcic. | | I was able to find the home page for Dr. Thanh-Son Pham [1] and | his google scholar page with his list of publications. [2] He | looks extremely accomplished and a prolific researcher, | especially for someone who appears to be so young. I was very | impressed and can only think that others would have also liked to | have a link to this paper. I found the actual paper online. [3] | Abstract: Probing the Earth's center is critical for | understanding planetary formation and evolution. However, | geophysical inferences have been challenging due to the | lack of seismological probes sensitive to the Earth's | center. Here, by stacking waveforms recorded by a growing | number of global seismic stations, we observe up-to-fivefold | reverberating waves from selected earthquakes along the Earth's | diameter. Differential travel times of these exotic arrival | pairs, hitherto unreported in seismological literature, | complement and improve currently available information. The | inferred transversely isotropic inner-core model contains a | ~650-km thick innermost ball with P-wave speeds ~4% slower | at ~50deg from the Earth's rotation axis. In contrast, the | inner core's outer shell displays much weaker anisotropy | with the slowest direction in the equatorial plane. Our | findings strengthen the evidence for an anisotropically- | distinctive innermost inner core and its transition to a | weakly anisotropic outer shell, which could be a fossilized | record of a significant global event from the past. | | [1] https://sites.google.com/view/tsonpham/home | | [2] https://sites.google.com/view/tsonpham/publication | | [3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-36074-2 | mikeyouse wrote: | Yeah it looks like that website just stole the text from CNN | and omitted a bunch of it. CNN didn't interview the other | authors, but at least their figures are properly attributed | (all tagged with Drew Whitehouse/Son Pham/Hrvoje Tkalcic -- | Whitehouse apparently works for National Computational | Infrastructure and did the visualizations)and they directly | link to the study. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34929145 | photochemsyn wrote: | Thanks for looking that up. | zoklet-enjoyer wrote: | NSFW link. I'm getting 2 large hentai ads. I hope they're not | targeted haha | trollerator23 wrote: | Loool. They are targeted. | mfer wrote: | You don't have an ad blocker? | zoklet-enjoyer wrote: | Nope | behringer wrote: | The fbi recommends you get one | adolph wrote: | I think they did that to delegitimize ad blockers. | 867-5309 wrote: | the fbi still knows you like hentai. the ad blocker just, | well.. blocks the hentai ad | zoklet-enjoyer wrote: | The weird thing is I don't like hentai | notJim wrote: | This is a safe space, we aren't shaming you here | brianwawok wrote: | At least if you are the kind of person who is a target of | Hentai ads | carabiner wrote: | Ditto. I look at porn, but this is the first time I've seen a | hentai ad attached to an innocuous article. The hentai ad is | non-nude but says it's for adults. | cjbgkagh wrote: | I got science documentaries... | umvi wrote: | > I hope they're not targeted haha | | Most of my ads are targeted (tech-related based on stuff I've | searched previously). I did not get any NSFW ads. | kaapipo wrote: | What's the shame in consuming content that would lead to | hentai-themed targeted ads? :) | kerpotgh wrote: | [dead] | Footkerchief wrote: | Actual study link | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-36074-2 | null3cksor wrote: | I saw a documentary recently about this, its called 'Core' where | they build a ship to dive into the mantle to spin up this ball of | iron using nukes. | | On a serious note, it's amazing that we still have studies about | this, and revising our knowledge! | c256 wrote: | NGL, I came here to get the link to make a _The Core_ joke to | several friends... | codethief wrote: | Is that a common joke/meme? I only found https://www.reddit.c | om/r/NetflixBestOf/comments/1p9vdb/the_c... | potamic wrote: | You mean, a movie? | xeromal wrote: | They're taking the piss | MarcoZavala wrote: | [dead] | otikik wrote: | Earth. What an irony. | napolux wrote: | i wanna touch it | beeforpork wrote: | Do you want to go there or do you want it to come to you? | irrational wrote: | I saw a documentary about people that did just that. It was | called The Middle, or something like that. | titaniumtown wrote: | ...they touched the core of the earth? | flatiron wrote: | i thought you are going to say "the core"! | kloch wrote: | Are you sure? It's about the same temperature as the surface of | the Sun. | | That means if you could see it, it would also be as white hot | as the Sun seen from Space. | magic_hamster wrote: | Huh. I was under the impression this was known for a long time. | If I recall, this is how the Earth's magnetic field is explained. | | Edit: I should really read more comment before adding my own, | shouldn't I? | dheera wrote: | > latest research supports a theory that our blue planet holds an | iron ball in the middle | | Uh, I thought my 6th grade teacher taught me this? What exactly | is the "discovery"? | Sharlin wrote: | Yeah, it's a very poorly written article. The actual discovery | seems to be that the solid inner core is divided into "outer" | and "innermost" inner core, both of which solid iron-nickel but | with somewhat different properties and a gradual transition | between the layers. | miga wrote: | Would love to see "new study" that actually finds something new. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | This article shows the layers of the Earth as being perfectly | spherical, like the oblate spheroid that is the top layer of | Earth's crust. Little 8km high Everest mountain ranges or 8km | deep Mariana trenches are peach fuzz on the 12,750 km diameter | billiard ball, and I suppose it seems reasonable to assume that | the mantle and core beneath are similarly shaped by gravity to | near-perfect spheroids. | | But I recently learned about the African and Central Pacific | mantle plumes, which rise far above the circles in those Pac-man | renderings: | | https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/01/seismic-... | | I expect that's old news to someone in the field, but I haven't | thought critically about that diagram since high school. | simonh wrote: | I don't think it's really fair to say that. The difference in | diameter across the axes is about a third of a percent. Given | the size of the image, that's about 2 pixels. I think you're | being a bit optimistic expecting to be able to perceive that | with the naked eye. | [deleted] | anshumankmr wrote: | This seems like a fantastic prompt for a sci fi novel. | [deleted] | itronitron wrote: | I don't know why, but it took me a full minute to realize that | graphic was spinning in a counter-clockwise fashion. | dylan604 wrote: | What would you expect for a planet where the sun rises in the | east and sets in the west? | bregma wrote: | A plane, like the Earth, with the sun appearing and | disappearing over the edge. | dylan604 wrote: | see, the flat earthers have it all wrong, which is | evident by this comment. clearly, it is the sun that is | traveling around the earth. i mean, if it disappeared, it | wouldn't be coming back. so at least my theory is much | more logical. and mars just likes to screw with us by | reversing course a couple of times just to see if we're | paying attention | itronitron wrote: | I think because the continents fade out as they approach | the point closest to the viewer it makes it look like they | are actually fading into the background and behind the red | blobby thingies. | alecbz wrote: | Same -- I think something about the graphic (maybe how it | blends in with the background in place?) creates that kind of | "spinning balerina" illusion. | jofer wrote: | Mantle plumes don't significantly change the shape of the core | or mantle, though. They're convection within the mantle. They | rise from the core mantle boundary, but they're basically | temperature features, not structural features. | | In other words, mantle plumes are parts of the mantle that are | hotter than the other identically composed mantle around them. | | In contrast, the core and the crust are different compositions | than the mantle. | | Just to clear up another common confusion, the mantle is very | much solid, except for a tiny fraction of melt in a narrow and | shallow zone called the athenosphere. The mantle flows over | time despite being solid, though (think of a glacier). Just | like a marble slab will bend over time (see benches in old | graveyards that sag in the middle), the mantle slowly flows, | but a hammer/etc would bounce right off of it. That's also true | of large portions of the crust. | | As far as how smooth or not smooth the actually core boundaries | are, we don't really know in detail. To a first order, they're | smooth (i.e. we measure a broadly consistent radius from | multiple directions), but that doesn't mean they're necessarily | a "billard ball". There's likely fairly complex topography at | the boundary that we can't easily measure. | ASalazarMX wrote: | > Just like a marble slab will bend over time (see benches in | old graveyards that sag in the middle), the mantle slowly | flows | | I had to see more of this, and it took me a while because | most results are about construction and marble products. It | looks like thin slabs of marble bow because of microfractures | and internal stress, not by flowing. | | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00254-008-1307-z | thehappypm wrote: | Microfractures and internal stress are a form of flowing in | this case. | hcrisp wrote: | Does the athenosphere produce surface lava? | jofer wrote: | That's a surprisingly complex question. The best answer is | probably "sometimes". | | The chemistry of volcanic rocks gives a lot of clues as to | the origin of the melt. The athenosphere is actually a bit | poorly defined in this sense (it's a mechanical | classification, not a chemical classification). Regardless, | it's easy to distinguish magmas with a pure mantle source | from others. MORB (mid ocean ridge basalt) is a common | acronym for volcanic rocks with a chemistry that indicates | they're essentially pure mantle melt. | | In the most common type of volcanoes you see on land (arc | volcanoes), magma forms due to the introduction of water | and other volatiles that lower the melting point of the | upper mantle. That's what happens at arc volcanoes like the | Cascades or Mt Fuji in Japan. It's not exactly coming from | the athenosphere in that case, and it's often the | lithospheric mantle and lower crust that are being melted. | It's not heat that causes it, but instead the introduction | of water. | | Volcanoes can also form due to the introduction of extra | heat, as happens above hotspot volcanoes (e.g. the | Galapagos or Hawaii). In many of those cases, you're | basically seeing the athenosphere supplying extra heat to | the mantle lithosphere and crust and melting it. The magma | usually isn't coming directly from the athenosphere in | those cases (though some of it can and does). However, | flood basalts are an extreme case of hotspots, and their | chemical signatures suggest that it's more or less melt | directly from the athenosphere. | | Finally, one of the most common types of volcano on the | planet does come directly from the athenosphere: mid ocean | ridge systems. (Where the term MORB comes from) Those are | almost entirely deep in the oceans, so non-geologists don't | think about them as much, but they make up the bulk of | volcanic activity on Earth. In those cases, you're | essentially bringing the athenosphere up and melting more | and more of it as it rises. Those are the cases where magma | is most directly sourced from the athenosphere. | bcbrown wrote: | I'm curious how water would lower the melting point of | solid rock. I'm aware that adding ethanol to water lowers | the boiling point of the resulting solution, but that's a | combination of two liquids. I can't think of a physical | mechanism where adding a liquid to hot solid rock results | in hot liquid rock. | | Where does the water come from? Is it liquid, or gaseous? | jofer wrote: | It's more or less the same way putting salt on ice causes | it to melt. Diffusion still occurs with solids, just at a | lower rate than with liquids. | | As for whether it's liquid or gaseous, I probably | shouldn't have called it "water", and should have said | "hydrogen and oxygen in silicate minerals". Silicates | always have oxygen, but some hydrogen too (hydroxyl | groups - i.e. OH). | | Basically, you have minerals that transform to other | minerals at depth due to the pressures and temperatures | involve. That transformation leads to the release of | hydrogen and oxygen as they're in one crystal structure | and not in the other. (Basically, minerals with hydroxyl | groups transform into minerals that do not have hydrogen | in their composition, releasing hydrogen and oxygen in | the process.) That hydrogen and oxygen diffuses into | adjacent mineral crystals and can cause them to melt. | | With that said, any time you have magma (i.e. melt), it's | going to have H2O, CO2, halogens, etc dissolved in it, | just like water has oxygen and carbon dioxide dissolved | in it. We talk about these in simple terms of "H2O" and | "CO2" etc, but often the details of how things are bonded | are a bit different, just like CO2 dissolved in water | isn't exactly CO2, but is carbonic acid (H2CO3) instead. | bcbrown wrote: | Fascinating stuff, thanks for the explanation. | valarauko wrote: | > In other words, mantle plumes are parts of the mantle that | are hotter than the other identically composed mantle around | them. | | The parent's link suggests that alternate views exist, that | the mantle plumes are indeed chemically distinct from the | surrounding rock. | | From the linked article: This suggests that | the edges of the blobs mark a transition between materials, | not just temperature. In this view, the blobs are | so-called thermochemical piles, clumps of dense rock with a | distinct chemical composition. Because of their prolonged | contact with the core, they are hotter than the rest of the | mantle, causing plumes to sprout. | jofer wrote: | Yes, there's a chemical component as well. I was | simplifying. Regardless, though, they're not core material | rising up. They're still basically olivine+pyroxenes+etc, | same as what's around them. They're not the exact same, and | indeed they bring deep mantle material up, but they're not | nickle-iron rising up from the outer core, which is what I | was trying to get across. | hguant wrote: | >They rise from the core mantle boundary, but they're | basically temperature features, not structural features. | | my understanding was that this was not actually a settled | topic, and there was ongoing debate as to whether or not they | were thermochemical structures, with the main evidence | against them being "basically temperature features" the fact | that they're not a classic plume shape | jofer wrote: | Yeah, it's far from settled in detail, and for a long time | there was a camp that maintained that mantle plumes did not | really exist in the normal sense. | | However, further imaging work seems to show that 1) they | actually do seem to be a classic plume shape in many cases | (or, more precisely, have complex shapes compatible with | convection), and 2) most do have temperature anomalies | associated with them. Some things we thought were plume | related may not be, but folks are much more in agreement | that they look a lot more like convection-related features. | | E.g. compare these two papers (which are both basically | review papers): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artic | le/abs/pii/S00128... | https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-021-00168-6 | hutzlibu wrote: | Layman question: why isn't the core of the earth made up of the | most dense and heavy elements? One would assume, that they sink | in to the deepest. | | But of course, there is also the spinning of the earth, that | counters it and makes the heavier elements go outside? | BurningFrog wrote: | Yeah, I've heard that the heat from all the Uranium in the | center is a big reason the core is still hot. | hutzlibu wrote: | Yes, that is kind of the question in my head: is the core of | the earth basically a nuclear reactor? And if not, why not? | mikeyouse wrote: | It's a weird article/website -- they just stole most of the text | from CNN. Including a section where they say, "Geoscientists | first suggested that Earth's core might have an imperceptible | extra layer about 20 years ago, according to a press release | leaked to CNN News." | | There's no hint of who runs it/operates it -- is it some sort of | auto-plagiarizer? | | The cribbed article is here: | https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/21/world/earths-core-iron-metall... | NetOpWibby wrote: | Thank you | xjwm wrote: | Interesting that the core is oversized. 640Km should be enough | for any body. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-02-24 23:00 UTC)