What keeps the Earth cooking?
A main source of the 44 trillion watts of heat that flows from the interior of the Earth is the decay of radioactive isotopes in the mantle and crust. Scientists using the KamLAND neutrino detector in Japan have measured how much heat is generated this way by capturing geoneutrinos released during radioactive decay. Credit: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
What spreads the sea floors and moves the continents? What melts iron in the outer core and enables the Earth's magnetic field? Heat. Geologists have used temperature measurements from more than 20,000 boreholes around the world to estimate that some 44 terawatts (44 trillion watts) of heat continually flow from Earth's interior into space. Where does it come from?
Radioactive decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium in Earth's crust and mantle is a principal source, and in 2005 scientists in the KamLAND collaboration, based in Japan, first showed that there was a way to measure the contribution directly. The trick was to catch what Kamioka Liquid-scintillator Antineutrino Detector (KamLAND) dubbed geoneutrinos more precisely, geo-antineutrinos emitted when radioactive isotopes decay.
"As a detector of geoneutrinos, KamLAND has distinct advantages," says Stuart Freedman of the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), which is a major contributor to KamLAND. Freedman, a member of Berkeley Lab's Nuclear Science Division and a professor in the Department of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley, leads U.S. participation. "KamLAND was specifically designed to study antineutrinos. We are able to discriminate them from background noise and detect them with very high sensitivity."
KamLAND scientists have now published new figures for heat energy from radioactive decay in the journal Nature Geoscience. Based on the improved sensitivity of the KamLAND detector, plus several years' worth of additional data, the new estimate is not merely "consistent" with the predictions of accepted geophysical models but is precise enough to aid in refining those models.
One thing that's at least 97-percent certain is that radioactive decay supplies only about half the Earth's heat. Other sources primordial heat left over from the planet's formation, and possibly others as well must account for the rest.
Hunting for neutrinos from deep in the Earth
Antineutrinos are produced not only in the decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium isotopes but in a variety of others, including fission products in nuclear power reactors. In fact, reactor-produced antineutrinos were the first neutrinos to be directly detected (neutrinos and antineutrinos are distinguished from each other by the interactions in which they appear).

The KamLAND anti-neutrino detector is a vessel filled with scintillating mineral oil and lined with photomultiplier tubes (inset), the largest scintillation detector ever constructed, buried deep underground near Toyama, Japan. Credit: KamLAND Collaboration
Because neutrinos interact only by way of the weak force and gravity, insignificant except on the scale of the cosmos they stream through the Earth as if it were transparent. This makes them hard to spot, but on the very rare occasions when an antineutrino collides with a proton inside the KamLAND detector a sphere filled with a thousand metric tons of scintillating mineral oil it produces an unmistakable double signal.The first signal comes when the antineutrino converts the proton to a neutron plus a positron (an anti-electron), which quickly annihilates when it hits an ordinary electron a process called inverse beta decay. The faint flash of light from the ionizing positron and the annihilation process is picked up by the more than 1,800 photomultiplier tubes within the KamLAND vessel. A couple of hundred millionths of a second later the neutron from the decay is captured by a proton in the hydrogen-rich fluid and emits a gamma ray, the second signal. This "delayed coincidence" allows antineutrino interactions to be distinguished from background events such as hits from cosmic rays penetrating the kilometer of rock that overlies the detector.
Says Freedman, "It's like looking for a spy in a crowd of people on the street. You can't pick out one spy, but if there's a second spy following the first one around, the signal is still small but it's easy to spot."
KamLAND was originally designed to detect antineutrinos from more than 50 reactors in Japan, some close and some far away, in order to study the phenomenon of neutrino oscillation. Reactors produce electron neutrinos, but as they travel they oscillate into muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos; the three "flavors" are associated with the electron and its heavier cousins.
Being surrounded by nuclear reactors means KamLAND's background events from reactor antineutrinos must also be accounted for in identifying geoneutrino events. This is done by identifying the nuclear-plant antineutrinos by their characteristic energies and other factors, such as their varying rates of production versus the steady arrival of geoneutrinos. Reactor antineutrinos are calculated and subtracted from the total. What's left are the geoneutrinos.
Tracking the heat
All models of the inner Earth depend on indirect evidence. Leading models of the kind known as bulk silicate Earth (BSE) assume that the mantle and crust contain only lithophiles ("rock-loving" elements) and the core contains only siderophiles (elements that "like to be with iron"). Thus all the heat from radioactive decay comes from the crust and mantle about eight terawatts from uranium 238 (238U), another eight terawatts from thorium 232 (232Th), and four terawatts from potassium 40 (40K).
KamLAND's double-coincidence detection method is insensitive to the low-energy part of the geoneutrino signal from 238U and 232Th and completely insensitive to 40K antineutrinos. Other kinds of radioactive decay are also missed by the detector, but compared to uranium, thorium, and potassium are negligible contributors to Earth's heat.
Additional factors that have to be taken into account include how the radioactive elements are distributed (whether uniformly or concentrated in a "sunken layer" at the core-mantle boundary), variations due to radioactive elements in the local geology (in KamLAND's case, less than 10 percent of the expected flux), antineutrinos from fission products, and how neutrinos oscillate as they travel through the crust and mantle. Alternate theories were also considered, including the speculative idea that there may be a natural nuclear reactor somewhere deep inside the Earth, where fissile elements have accumulated and initiated a sustained fission reaction.
KamLAND detected 841 candidate antineutrino events between March of 2002 and November of 2009, of which about 730 were reactor events or other background. The rest, about 111, were from radioactive decays of uranium and thorium in the Earth. These results were combined with data from the Borexino experiment at Gran Sasso in Italy to calculate the contribution of uranium and thorium to Earth's heat production. The answer was about 20 terawatts; based on models, another three terawatts were estimated to come from other isotope decays.
This is more heat energy than the most popular BSE model suggests, but still far less than Earth's total. Says Freedman, "One thing we can say with near certainty is that radioactive decay alone is not enough to account for Earth's heat energy. Whether the rest is primordial heat or comes from some other source is an unanswered question."
Better models are likely to result when many more geoneutrino detectors are located in different places around the globe, including midocean islands where the crust is thin and local concentrations of radioactivity (not to mention nuclear reactors) are at a minimum.
Says Freedman, "This is what's called an inverse problem, where you have a lot of information but also a lot of complicated inputs and variables. Sorting those out to arrive at the best explanation among many requires multiple sources of data."
More information: "Partial radiogenic heat model for Earth revealed by geoneutrino measurements," Nature Geoscience
Provided by DOE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
2 comments
-
[Drift velocity] Factors affecting velocity
1 hour ago
-
does cold gasoline have less energy
2 hours ago
-
distribution of molecules throughout the atmosphere
4 hours ago
-
The Global Positioning System !
5 hours ago
-
A Question relating Power
6 hours ago
-
Writing a book so im learning about things, i have some general questions please read
8 hours ago
- More from Physics Forums - General Physics
More news stories
Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?
(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...
Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed
(Phys.org) -- An international collaboration of scientists, including Thomas Blum, associate professor of physics, is reporting in landmark detail the decay process of a subatomic particle called a kaon ...
May 25, 2012 |
4.2 / 5 (21) |
47
|
Lying in wait for WIMPs: Researchers seek to dramatically increase sensitivity of Large Underground Xenon detector
Although it's invisible, dark matter accounts for at least 80 percent of the matter in the universe. No one knows what it is, but most scientists would bet on weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs.
May 23, 2012 |
4 / 5 (7) |
15
|
Hawaii lab turns laser-powered bubbles into microrobots
(Phys.org) -- A team of scientists from the University of Hawaii are working on microrobots created from bubbles of air in a saline solution. The bubbles take on their title of robots as a laser ...
Sound increases the efficiency of boiling
Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology achieved a 17-percent increase in boiling efficiency by using an acoustic field to enhance heat transfer. The acoustic field does this by efficiently removing vapor bubbles ...
May 24, 2012 |
5 / 5 (2) |
2
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidias competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
Browser wars flare in mobile space
The browser wars are heating up again, but this time the fight is for dominance of the mobile Internet.
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
Keep food safety in mind this memorial day weekend
(HealthDay) -- Picnics, parades and cookouts are as much a part of Memorial Day weekend as tributes to the United States' war veterans.
Social welfare cuts ultimately come with heavy price, researchers say
(Phys.org) -- Slashing government funding for Medicaid, food stamps and other programs that serve the poor while politically popular with some lawmakers and many conservatives may do more harm ...
Jul 17, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
Seriously though:
"One thing we can say with near certainty is that radioactive decay alone is not enough to account for Earth's heat energy. Whether the rest is primordial heat or comes from some other source is an unanswered question." - Stuart Freedman
A complete theory can undoubtedly contribute to researchers researching climate. I can see a well founded Geoscience theory as part of any climate model.
Jul 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (18)
Another, rather conspirative theory
http://beforeitsn...ore.html
Jul 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Jul 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
http://arxiv.org/...4071.pdf
Jul 17, 2011
Rank: 3.9 / 5 (14)
Jul 17, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (9)
Jul 17, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (17)
Except there can never be any test for the devil. We can however come up with tests to search for theoretical kinds of dark matter. Also skeptics conveniently define dark matter as "something that doesn't exist." It's a circular definition.
Neutrinos were considered dark matter until they were actually discovered. They still are dark though; they don't interact with electromagnetic radiation. That's all "dark" means. Neutrinos are real so at least one variety of dark matter has panned out. It would stand to reason that a form of matter that interacts exclusively through gravity would be even more difficult than neutrinos to verify and it really shouldn't come as a shock that there isn't any conclusive proof yet.
Some day all the various dark matter theories will be proved or disproved but not the devil. It's a poorly constructed analogy.
Jul 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
However perhaps there is more low energy decay going on that is not being noticed by the detector.
A dense cloud of antineutrinos intense enough to warm the earth would probably have been detected by this machine too!
Other possibilities are that heat loss from the earth varies over time and at the current era is running at higher rates than production. Some other gravity effect such as tidal heating or absorption of high frequency gravitational waves is heating the interior. A slow recrystallization is releasing heat. Density segregation is still occurring releasing potential energy.
Jul 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Next you guys will be telling me higgs is old news and we have gravimetric sensors.
Jul 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Jul 17, 2011
Rank: 2.2 / 5 (9)
Thanks for the report.
Dr. J. Marvin Herndon has pursued this issue for years.
http://nuclearplanet.com/
Excess heat in the outer planets, like Jupiter, probably comes from high levels of Th, U, Pu in their cores. The r-process (rapid neutron capture) that made Th, U, Pu also produced excess Xe-136 in Jupiter [1].
But Earth's iron core accumulated from iron meteorites made by the e-process (equilibrium) near the supernova core. The e-process does not make Th, U, Pu and iron meteorites have little of these [2].
1. Meteoritics 33, A97, 5011 (1998)
www.lpi.usra.edu/...5011.pdf
2. Geochemical Journal 15, 247-267 (1981)
www.omatumr.com/a...eGas.pdf
Best wishes,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
you would be right... about 3 terawatts
http://en.wikiped...y_budget
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
about to week to reach -32 deg.C
http://www.popsci...de/24698
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
What actual percent does the Sun contribute to us staying warm?
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
It would take a lot longer than a million years to reach minus 400'C, or minus 27 Kelvin as I would call it.
The sun contributes 100% to us staying warm, without it we would not be warm at all.
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
it would take a lot longer than a million years to reach minus 400'C - or minus 27 Kelvin as i would call it.
the sun contributes 100% to our staying warm , without it we would not be warm at all.
Gross solar input is about 1kW per sq meter, about 100 petawatts, using pi R squared.
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (9)
minus 400°C would be -127°K IF such a temperature were at all possible, but it isn't.
The definition of temperature is a quantity that is reliant on the motion of atoms. At 0°K (absolute zero, -273°C) we are already at a full stop.
That depends on what you call 'warm'. Would the water on the earth's surface freeze of the sun weren't there? Yes. Would it grow ever colder? Only slowly because as long as the radioactive decay within the earth's mantle/core is fairly constant an equilibrium would be reached which is substantially above absolute zero. So in relation the rest of the universe it would be pretty warm. With relation to human comfort zones it would be pretty cold.
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Agreed. The surface of the Earth flexes by dozens of cm each day as it rotates, from the effects of both rotation in relation to sun/moon and movement of the oceans over the surface.
Much of this heat would reflect back and forth inside the earth, greatly reducing the amount of heat lost by the core, very similar to how a tire generates heat, a little by friction with the road, but the vast majority by the flexing of the tire as it rotates.
Ionizing radiation is a poor heat generator (nuclear reactors have very specific properties to collect heat).
As for the sun "shutting off", I'd bet that the Earth's temperature would be survivable for a while (assuming you had food and standard winter heating). However, if the sun were to disappear, and Earth shot off in a straight line, I'm guessing survivability would drop to a matter of hours or days.
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
And, in regards to the more mysterious statement, why would it affect our survival if the earth shot off in a straight line as opposed to maintaining its current orbit?
If the sun turned off, the entire LAND SURFACE of the earth would reach the temperatures of Antarctica within a day. Coastal areas would take several days due to the warming effects of the oceans. Survivability in both circumstances is a very relative term. Antarctic temperatures in Mexico City would be more catastrophic than those temperatures in Toronto.
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
As for heat reflecting, the flexing of the crust and a portion of the mantle generate heat, which will reflect inside the earth, as does any energy source when it hits a phase change, of which there would be several inside the earth, reflecting from mantle to core, to mantle to core, multiple times.
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
This, too, will reach an equilibrium. If reflection heats the inner part up then it will get hotter. But a hotter inner part means more heat transmission through the crust (because of increased heat differential)...which in turn will lower the inner temperature because of the increased heat loss, etc., etc.
Tidal forces alone won't keep us warm, either. Basically without the sun human life is screwed. The polar zones don't see the sun for up to half a year, but still benefits from the sun shining elswhere and the heat getting transferred via the atmosphere and the oceans.
I don't know _how_ cold it will get without the sun. But temperatures around liquid carbon dioxide or even liquid oxygen might be the equilibrium point.
So: Bye Bye atmosphere.
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I love these, and they always seem to crop up when the Earth's internal heat is the topic. Makes sense, it's the only heat source we'd have left.
But no, it wouldn't save us. if you take that 44 TW and spread it over the surface of the Earth, you'll get somewhere between 40K and 60K after you take into account that the Earth's crust is such a good insulator.
Heck, Antarctica routinly sees temps of -85C in winter, and that's with a free ocean and atm moderating temps.
Take the Sun away and you start losing about 12C/day on land. Much less out in the open ocean, but it ends the same anyway.
See "A Pale of Air".
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
Jonathan Swift: "When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him".
I'm not saying, I'm genius in any way - but who predicted this observation here before months? Why just the people, who are predicting correctly, what will happen there are considered at the very end?
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (9)
What a crafty, lying crackpot you are. You stated Earth was being heated by Dark Matter on that thread. Since the nature of DM is unknown, but is even less interactive than anti/neutrinos you get a one. Now you're sying it was anti-neutrinos, contradicting yourself. So you get a one. And the article doesn't suggest it's the anti-neutrinos that cause the heating, they're a by-product. So you get a one. Oh, and BTW, anti-neutrinos don't form clouds, no more than light does. A one AGAIN. See, if you could have earned four ones for that post, I would have given them to you. Heck, you have such a backlog of unassignable ones that you should be given ones even for your blue moon posts that merit a two.
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (2)
Now you can either continue to complain about getting downvoted or you can put on your big boy pants and ask for constructive criticism in the future. Well written comments that don't cite absurd movies as reference make for good conversation
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
I do agree with it. I'm the only poster here, who says, the dark matter is formed with missing antimatter. The other scientists are seeking for WIMPS and another particles.
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
http://physicswor...ws/45005
My English is inherently bad, but I'm sure, my comments are perfectly understandable for most of yours. The problem is somewhere else - in deep pathological skepticism of contemporary people against specific sort of information and way of thinking.
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
http://news.disco...310.html
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Neither of the articles you cited really had anything to do with this article or your particular views on how antineutrinos are heating the earth. I didn't actually read the discussion in that first article but citing a discussion is like citing a fictional movie: it's not credible. I want to try and understand your thoughts here but you need to cite relevant scholarly articles to help you.
Also, in your "up until 1930" comment, they actually continued to see the correlation after factoring human-related warming. That's straight from the article... I'm not sure what you're trying to point out in that comment
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 2.2 / 5 (5)
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
Anyway - the people, who are whining, they cannot understand my English, or that the links to the original publications aren't relevant enough, when they're posted at some discussion, are religious trolls and not worth of further discussion anyway. The form of information is more important, than the content for such people. Such people are lazy or they're not interested about such info anyway. If you require a fluent English and perfect matter-of-fact references at the end of every sentence, you should consider the reading of Bible.
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
I'm fairly sure Johan is back :(
Jul 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Anyway, just didn't want you to feel like I didn't care! I'm reading through the links now but as you stated there are a lot
Jul 19, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (6)
Maybe your soul will find its peace by understanding that everybody uses his own set of evaluation parameters when rating another user's comment. You don't have the power to change this fact.
So you'll have to learn to live with some users rating your bad habit of posting with different nicks.
And, btw, I don't mind bad English; its identifiability is quite charming.
Jul 19, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
These users downrate only the posts, which are predicting something new in original way, in accordance to famous proverb "After Pythagoras discovered his fundamental theorem he sacrificed a hecatomb of oxen. Since that time all dunces tremble whenever a new truth is discovered."
These readers don't bother to downvote another posts of the same author. It's the foresight, which actually upsets these people.
Jul 19, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
You can whine about the dunces of the world not liking your ideas or you can continue sharing your ideas with the understanding that there are intelligent people listening and willing to debate. Do you also cry when they present counter arguments to your ideas and call them dunces? I hope not. I can't stand hypocrites
Jul 19, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
Your speech implies on background, I could be a hypocrite. Doesn't it appeal to readers, "how disgusting I could really be"?
The Straw Man fallacy is a rhetorical technique that exaggerates or caricatures the opponents position to make it easier to attack. A popular form of this ruse is the fallacy of negation, i.e. the notion that if we discredit one side of an opponent or his arguments, the observer is forced to accept the other arguments.
Jul 20, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
"Doesn't it appeal to readers, "how disgusting I could really be"?"
I wish you wouldn't go to extremes. If I've offended, it wasn't my intent. This started with a single post that was mostly unreadable and referenced a ridiculous movie. It deserved to be downvoted. Your response (and rawa's above) was unnecessary and proved nothing other than you're more interested in proving yourself right than finding the truth. Now please stop taking offense and get back to spreading your ideas!
Jul 20, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Callippo = rawa1 = Zephyr = ...
As he continues to use more than one nick in the same forum I continue to rate him accordingly. He knows this but prefers to stage "The Genius Underestimated by the Mainstream". He misuses this forum as a stage for his vanity.
Jul 20, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
@NotAsleep:
Yeah, kind of like athletes foot. We're going to have to start snorting zinc powder.
NotAsleep, you haven't seen the tenth of his out-of-his-ass (as another post put it) ideas. The light and neutrino cloud one is kind of, you know, pretty. About all that can be said for them is that when properly broken down and arranged they do come off soundly like mildly charming oriental poetry.
Jul 20, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Yea, I can totally see that... some of his previous posts could probably go in the "engrish funny" website
Since I'm an engineer, not a quantum physicist, I'll let the bigger brains duke it out over what's "right", "wrong", and "downright ridiculous". You're right, I haven't seen anything about neutrino clouds in the comments over the 4-5 years I've been surfing this website... sounds pretty, though!
I just can't stand whiners. It drives me nuts when anyone on here takes things personally
Jul 21, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Jul 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
You needn't take it personally...;-)
Jul 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
We discussed it for example here.
http://www.physor...wed.html
Jul 23, 2011
Rank: not rated yet