Spectacular force: A georeactor deep in the ancient Earth's D''-layer (dark orange layer near core) goes supercritical - suddenly increasing temperatures to 13,000ºC. This turns rock into vapour, creating a rising bubble which pushes mantle, crust and atmosphere into space in a giant eruption.
Credit: Theo Barten
ALREADY THE BASIC ASSUMPTION of de Meijer's theory is controversial – the concept that powerful, spontaneous nuclear chain reactions occurred deep inside the Earth.
It all started 50 years ago in a study in the journal Chemical Physics, when Japanese geochemist Paul Kuroda conjectured that natural nuclear reactions happen in the Earth, in so-called 'georeactors'. He argued that early in Earth's history, many radioactive elements were still naturally 'enriched', because their spontaneous decay had only just started.
Kuroda's idea was controversial until 1972, when French researchers found the defunct remnants of a natural georeactor in Gabon in Western Africa. This reactor, near the surface, was probably extinguished two billion years ago by lack of water, which is necessary to moderate the speed of the neutrons that cause uranium fission.
American geophysicist J. Marvin Herndon was one of those who concluded that, even now, the Earth's core still holds a giant georeactor. De Meijer has serious doubts about this, like many geochemists.
After all, uranium and thorium – the natural ingredients required for a georeactor – scarcely mix with iron, the main ingredient of the Earth's core. But that doesn't mean that a georeactor deep within the Earth is ruled out, he says. Recent publications hint that the convoluted boundary between core and mantle, the D''-layer (D-double-prime layer), would be an ideal location for a georeactor.
"This boundary layer must have been in place 4.5 billion years ago," says de Meijer. "Such georeactors might still be in existence now, without us noticing."
He took his idea further by collaborating with van Westrenen, with whom he is co authoring a book on the interior of the Moon and Earth.
"When he told me about it for the first time…I was extremely sceptical," van Westrenen told me as we sat in his university office. "This would take me only two minutes to refute," I thought. "[But], I still can't debunk his story. That makes it interesting enough to work on and see how far we can take it."
THE ORIGIN OF THE MOON has been a mystery for centuries, mainly because our long-time celestial companion is the odd one out in our Solar System. Compared to other moons in the neighbourhood, our Moon is anomalously large relative to its planet. On the other hand, its density is rather low, suggesting it contains much less iron than Earth. The core of the Moon contains just four per cent of its total mass, whereas the Earth's core contains 30 per cent.
Before man set foot on the Moon almost 40 years ago, there were still three theories to explain its origin. The first stated that the Moon, like the Earth, was the result of the accretion of cosmic dust into ever more massive chunks. The second argued that the Moon formed elsewhere in space and was later captured by Earth, without impact. Under the third hypothesis, the primordial Earth was spinning so fast that the matter that formed the Moon flew from Earth, by the apparent centrifugal force.
This last one, the 'fission hypothesis', was proposed as early as 1880 by George Darwin, son of the famous father of evolution, Charles Darwin. As evidence, he put forward the Pacific Ocean. This gaping hole, he suggested, was visible evidence that a large mass was missing from the Earth.
It didn't take Apollo missions to refute Darwin's idea. The discovery of plate tectonics provided a more plausible explanation for the Pacific Ocean. Also, around 1930 other scientists calculated that although a day would have lasted just 2.5 hours, the early Earth was spinning too slowly to eject so much matter. "The centrifugal force was insufficient for a Moon to escape," says de Meijer.
Birth of the Moon: a runaway nuclear reaction?
I read a rather instersting article about how writers approach stories regarding new scientific theories. And reading this article it struck me just how true there was in that article.
Once again, the guy with the new theory, in this case Rob de Meijer and his coleague, is being painted as mavericks. He is trying to attain legitimate consideration for his "radical" new theory. He has an uphill battle against the well established theories of his peers and they will do everything they can to debunk him and his ridiculous theory.
Well for one thing, why don't you let your readers decide for themselves whether a theory is outlandish.
Also, debunking theories, new or old is how science works. Theories are supposed to be able to stand up to scrutiny. Eventually, the evidence will either lend credence to or disprove the theory.
Not A 'Maverick' story in my world
From my read of the article, we have a scientist who has an interesting new idea about the moons formation that, if it proves to be viable, might explain some anomalies in the system, relative to the other popular explanations.
I don't see any "people are trying to suppress me" whining. I just see someone with a fledgling theory that seems properly (dis)provable and he's trying to put together an experiment that would properly put his theory to a test.
If he manages to build his anti-neutrino detector, I'd like to see what results it generates. Among other things, I'm curious about it detecting antineutrinos that are unrelated to either georeactors or human-built reactors -- and what that might expose about the universe around us.
THE MOON
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE MOON WAS CREATED IN A COLLISION. IT MAY NOT BE TRUTH. THE MOON WAS CREATED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE EARTH. IT NEED TO BE SUPER HOT TO FORM THE CIRCLE. IS LIKE A DROP OF WATER WHEN IT FALLS IT MAKES A PERFECT CIRCLE, BECAUSED OF THE GRAVITY. SO IF A COLLISION OCCURED THE MOON WOULD NOT BE IN A PERFECT SHAPE THAT IS NOW. IT WILL BE LIKE THE ASTEROIDS WITH NO FIGURE IN SHAPE. MAGMA ONCE IS COLD WILL DO DIFRENT SHAPES. BUT WHEN IS HOT AND CONTINUES TO BE HOT WILL FORM A PERFECT CIRCLE ONCE YOU DROP IT IN THE AIR. WILL FORM A PERFECT CIRCLE. AS THE MOON NEED TO SUPER HOT TO BE IN THE SHAPE THAT IS NOW.
Energy calculation
"....a one gigawatt nuclear reactor generates just 1017 joules a year.."
I guess this is probably meant to read "3 x 10^16 joules a year"
Calculations
Similarly " ...so you'd need the annual energy production of 1013 of these reactors to get the same amount."
I guess this should read "10^13".
Error in typography
On p5 of this article, surely the phrase "a one gigawatt nuclear reactor generates just 1017 joules a year," should read "a one gigawatt nuclear reactor generates just 10^17 joules a year,"
Errors fixed
Thank you, dear readers. Sometimes superscripting drops off in translations to the web, unless we keep out an eagle eye. All fixed now!
Wilson da Silva
Editor-in-Chief
page 5 (& printable) still broken.
page 5 (& printable) still broken.
The superscript tag isn't closed, so some text is missing and everything after it is in superscript.
You have (using the wrong brackets so they don't get exec'd):
[sup] 13[/su
where you need
[sup]13[/sup]
page 5 (& printable) still broken.
page 5 (& printable) still broken.
The superscript tag isn't closed, so some text is missing and everything after it is in superscript.
You have (using the wrong brackets so they don't get exec'd):
[sup] 13[/su
where you need
[sup]13[/sup]
I agree with the other visitor
Yes! Please fix your html so we don't need to view source to see the end of a sentence.
Also, and I ask so many media outlets to do this, put an e-mail address on your contact page specifically for typos, wrong information, etc, so we don't just post comments you're likely to not read often!