Researcher unveils history of an ancient meteorite

February 26, 2016 by Kathleen Haughney
A piece of  the meteorite Gujba.

A Florida State University student has cracked the code to reveal the deep and interesting history of an ancient meteorite that likely formed at the time our planets were just developing.

Jonathan Oulton, a 2015 FSU graduate, working with Earth, Ocean & Atmospheric Science Professor Munir Humayun, studied the pieces of a meteorite called Gujba. Using sophisticated lasers and mass spectrometers at the FSU-headquartered National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Humayun and Oulton conducted in-depth chemical analysis of the meteorite samples that shattered previous theories about when and how this meteorite had formed.

"We tried to elucidate a story about its origins through this science," said Oulton, who is now pursuing a doctoral degree at University of Colorado.

Previously, scientists believed that Gujba was formed more or less from the dust of the solar system.

But, as Humayun and Oulton analyzed it, they discovered it had a far more complex geological history than previously thought. They inferred that Gujba formed from the debris of a collision between a parent planet that had both a crust and mantle, something that would only be found on a fairly large planet of the kind that is not seen today in the asteroid belt.

To get that type of formation, Gujba would have been involved in more than the equivalent of a solar system fender bender.

Oulton, Humayun and their collaborators argue that Gujba formed from the molten debris produced when a large metallic body smashed into another planet and both bodies were destroyed in the process. Based on chemical traces preserved in Gujba, the target planet might have been even larger than the asteroid 4 Vesta, one of the largest bodies in the asteroid belt with a diameter of about 326 miles or 525 kilometers.

"People used to say that meteorites like Gujba were the building blocks of the solar system," Humayun said. "Now, we know it's the construction debris of the , to borrow a phrase from Ed Scott of the University of Hawaii."

The research will be published in an upcoming issue of Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, but is currently available online.

Oulton presented the preliminary results of the paper at the 2015 Lunar & Planetary Science Conference and received the Dwornik Award of the Geological Society of America for the best undergraduate presentation.

"In a broad sense, people have been trying forever to understand how we got here," Oulton said. "Although this doesn't get to that directly, this research gives us a greater understanding of the physical chemistry of everything that occurred at the time the Earth formed."

Explore further: First evidence of dynamo generation on an asteroid found

More information: Jonathan Oulton et al. Chemical evidence for differentiation, evaporation and recondensation from silicate clasts in Gujba, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (2016). DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2016.01.008

Related Stories

First evidence of dynamo generation on an asteroid found

October 11, 2012

About 4.6 billion years ago, the solar system was little more than a tenuous disk of gas and dust. In the span of merely 10 million years, this soup evolved to form today's massive, complex planets. In the intervening period, ...

Recommended for you

NASA team probes peculiar age-defying star

August 29, 2016

For years, astronomers have puzzled over a massive star lodged deep in the Milky Way that shows conflicting signs of being extremely old and extremely young.

Milky way had a blowout bash six million years ago

August 29, 2016

The center of the Milky Way galaxy is currently a quiet place where a supermassive black hole slumbers, only occasionally slurping small sips of hydrogen gas. But it wasn't always this way. A new study shows that 6 million ...

NASA's Juno successfully completes Jupiter flyby

August 29, 2016

NASA's Juno mission successfully executed its first of 36 orbital flybys of Jupiter today. The time of closest approach with the gas-giant world was 6:44 a.m. PDT (9:44 a.m. EDT, 13:44 UTC) when Juno passed about 2,600 miles ...

21 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Sonhouse
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2016
I wonder if that meteorite could be the smoking gun of the latest theory of how our moon got here, by Earth colliding with a Mars sized body?
HannesAlfven
1.2 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2016
I've got the story they're looking for: The dates have been skewed by space radiation, and the rock is just as possibly recent.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2016
I've got the story they're looking for: The dates have been skewed by space radiation, and the rock is just as possibly recent.

@hannes
and of course you will link the empirical evidence for this... right?

(stop laughing, Ira... i was serious!)
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2016
@Sonhouse: Good catch! I can't really brain today, but since it isn't of the total composition that would go into Earth (at a guess, because they would likely check for that and mention it), it is weakly supporting it.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2016
I've got the story they're looking for: The dates have been skewed by space radiation, and the rock is just as possibly recent.

Because there was this guy, and he did some mushrooms in the desert, and he was staring at some cave paintings, and he saw lightning! And he decided that his hallucination was plausible for getting people to give him money, so he made up a whole story about lightning and Saturn and moon beams, and he called it Electric Universe!

And some people BELIEVED! And they populated science sites and tried to infect others with their belief! And behold, some BELIEVED!

and AMEN! PRAISE THE SHRIMP!!! For they sprung from the canyons of the LIGHTNING and they are SACRED!
Moltvic
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2016
Just because we've never "witnessed" a planet undergo mitosis, is no reason to rule it out as the best explanation for our moon.
yep
1.3 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2016
I've got the story they're looking for: The dates have been skewed by space radiation, and the rock is just as possibly recent.

Because there was this guy, and he did some mushrooms in the desert, and he was staring at some cave paintings, and he saw lightning! And he decided that his hallucination was plausible for getting people to give him money, so he made up a whole story about lightning and Saturn and moon beams, and he called it Electric Universe!

And some people BELIEVED! And they populated science sites and tried to infect others with their belief! And behold, some BELIEVED!

and AMEN! PRAISE THE SHRIMP!!! For they sprung from the canyons of the LIGHTNING and they are SACRED!


Must suck for you reading what EU has been saying about the composition of meteotites for the last twelve years being validated.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2016
Must suck for you reading what EU has been saying about the composition of meteotites for the last twelve years being validated.
[sic]@yep
actually i don't see it that way

of course, you could always show your evidence
(and not links to eu sites... but actual studies -validated are better- from reputable peer reviewed journals)

and... of course, i gotta share this with you too

.
EITHER:
1- research scientists are all incompetent

2- research scientists are all in a conspiracy to deceive you

3- research scientists know something you don't

-potholer54
https://www.youtu...dYvz0VwQ

torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2016
@Moltvic: You mix biology and planet science into a meaningless soup. We have observed several examples of fragmented planets (in the astrophysical sense), such as Tellus/Theia, several asteroid system bodies, and several KBO system such as Pluto/Pluto moons. The Tellus/Theia and Pluto/Charon observations is uncanny analogs!

@yep: Must suck for you when no one has been reading what EU has been saying about the composition of meteotites for the last twelve years, because there isn't anything published.

And the entirety mainstream knowledge on this is a major mass of data to explain by alternatives, besides predicting something not yet seen. That is is just trying to mimic what is found tell us others it is meaningless and crackpotism both.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2016
I wonder if that meteorite could be the smoking gun of the latest theory of how our moon got here, by Earth colliding with a Mars sized body?

The simulations I've seen would indicate that the entire surface of the planet was molten slag after such an impact. So there's not much in the way of stable remnants from either that would have survived (unless we are talking ejecta that came back after the surface cooled off)
AGreatWhopper
4 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2016
yip 1.4 /5 (5) 12 hours ago

Must suck for you reading what EU has been saying about the composition of meteotites for the last twelve years being validated.


Must suck having cognitive processes that can believe complete bullshit, having no life, trolling science sites, and no reading comprehension. And being a 1 point something loser.

Why can't the moderators create a simple EU filter and just delete that crap as spam?

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2016
Why can't the moderators create a simple EU filter and just delete that crap as spam?
1- because it would require more moderation (say: $$) and updating the cranks

2- the site makes money off of individual profiles and volume of content (as well as posts/feedback volume) and auto-deleting the crackpots would drop their interactions to a very small amount of comments giving the illusion that there is no one interested.

Of course, it doesn't take into consideration that the bulk of the cranks are also socks of a very few people

OR that the actual bulk of interested parties who would leave good feedback or comments left for better moderation and less pseudoscience

it gets tiring repeating the exact same anti-pseudoscience argument every thread proving idiocy wrong and showing evidence that refutes the pseudoscience claims
yep
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2016
yip 1.4 /5 (5) 12 hours ago

Must suck for you reading what EU has been saying about the composition of meteotites for the last twelve years being validated.


Must suck having cognitive processes that can believe complete bullshit, having no life, trolling science sites, and no reading comprehension. And being a 1 point something loser.

Why can't the moderators create a simple EU filter and just delete that crap as spam?


Quite laughable coming from science zealots who belive in a physics defying Big Bang miracle cosmology. Black holes? Dark Matter? You fools might as well be religious beliving in the garbage science that you do.

1. Reasearch scientists with a priori are fitting data to a belief system.
2. Reasearch scientists are deluding themselves and the public because their faith in that priori.
3. Not all reasearch scientists believe the accepted science dogma.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (5) Feb 29, 2016
Must suck for you reading what EU has been saying about the composition of meteotites for the last twelve years being validated.
Laughable! Not a single thing, Not one,We knew hte majority about the composition of meteorites a hundred years before the stupidity that is EU came along, and everything we have learned about them since has reinforced that knowledge.

Hey Acolyte, you are aware that they fall out of the sky on occasion right? Unlike giant canyon causing imaginary lightning beams, we can actually touch them.

Hey you still think lightning causes the continents to move? Or stars to shine? Can you say gullible?
Captain Stumpy
3.6 / 5 (5) Feb 29, 2016
Unlike giant canyon causing imaginary lightning beams, we can actually touch them.
@MAG
asteroids etc also cause craters to form on the moon, too! i mean... we've actually WATCHED them do this, but the eu acolytes still claim the craters are from imaginary lightning beams! LOL

.

1. Reasearch scientists with a priori are fitting data to a belief system.
@Yep
1- if you had evidence of this, you would be a god to the eu cult/clan - you would also be a household name for the complete overturning of the scientific method
2- science is about evidence (you know, that stuff eu doesn't have?)... only pseudoscience like eu can make this assumption with a straight face and believe it... because there is no evidence supporting it
2. Reasearch scientists are deluding themselves and the public because their faith in that priori.
see last answer
also- as science advances by evidence, this is demonstrably false.. and if you could prove it... etc
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 29, 2016
@yep cont'd
3. Not all reasearch scientists believe the accepted science dogma.
not all research scientists believe in the tooth fairy too

it is NOT ABOUT BELIEF, it is about what can be proven... that is why you can actually believe in a faith and still be an effective scientist (so long as you don't: 1- make it a religion, where dogma trumps evidence. and 2- let the faith interfere with or dictate to the evidence - like proving the biblical flood is real, or that magic lightning made the grand canyon or broke apart Shoemaker-Levy 9 despite observations and evidence)

do EITHER:
1- research scientists are all incompetent

2- research scientists are all in a conspiracy to deceive you

3- research scientists know something you don't

-potholer54
https://www.youtu...dYvz0VwQ

you can't prove 1 or 2... there is no evidence, so obviously 3 is the only logical conclusion
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2016
@yep: "science zealots who belive in a physics".

It is obvious to all that you don't know what science is - you can accept it or reject it (criticize positively or negatively), but is never demanded to 'believe' - why did you try to discuss it in the first place? You would be better served by asking what science is, how it works - and if you were really interested in our planet system history - ask what has been found.
yep
1 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2016
You guys are so impressively brilliant your like Neutron stars no even better your pulsars full of "strange matter" that's how incredible you guys are!
Hahahahahaha no not really because those things do not exist either.

I would be better served if you guys would read and understand the history of science. Then you might realize many ideas generally accepted as fact today will be considered "gross superstition" tomorrow. Such as Neutron stars and other physics defying nonsense. When science is based on assumptions it is not science it is belief and all the theoretical computer modeling and math will not change this.
As I have said to the Capitan before, time and data will be the great decider so enjoy your cherished beliefs now while they are still accepted dogma.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2016
You guys are so impressively brilliant your like Neutron stars no even better your pulsars full of "strange matter" that's how incredible you guys are!
Hahahahahaha no not really because those things do not exist either.

I would be better served if you guys would read and understand the history of science. Then you might realize many ideas generally accepted as fact today will be considered "gross superstition" tomorrow. Such as Neutron stars and other physics defying nonsense. When science is based on assumptions it is not science it is belief and all the theoretical computer modeling and math will not change this.
As I have said to the Capitan before, time and data will be the great decider so enjoy your cherished beliefs now while they are still accepted dogma.


From the geniuses who brought us the 'Electric Comet'. Lol.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
You guys are so impressively brilliant your like Neutron stars no even better your pulsars full of "strange matter" that's how incredible you guys are!
Hahahahahaha no not really because those things do not exist either.

I would be better served if you guys would read and understand the history of science. Then you might realize many ideas generally accepted as fact today will be considered "gross superstition" tomorrow. Such as Neutron stars and other physics defying nonsense. When science is based on assumptions it is not science it is belief and all the theoretical computer modeling and math will not change this.
As I have said to the Capitan before, time and data will be the great decider so enjoy your cherished beliefs now while they are still accepted dogma.


Yep, typical Acolyte! You want to burn us at the stake too? You should pound your desk while you're proselytizing, maybe people will take you more seriously!

What a maroon lol!!
Thirteenth Doctor
not rated yet Mar 04, 2016
steroids etc also cause craters to form on the moon, too! i mean... we've actually WATCHED them do this, but the eu acolytes still claim the craters are from imaginary lightning beams! LOL


Wait wait wait.....what?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.