Core values set new date for birth of the Earth

Jul 12, 2010
Core values set new date for birth of the Earth

(PhysOrg.com) -- The Earth could be up to 70 million years younger than scientists previously thought, a study has found.

An international team of researchers used geochemical information taken from the Earth's , and compared it with similar data from meteorites to create a new set of models showing how the planet might have been born.

The results suggest that the length of time between the date at which the solar system was formed, about 4.567 billion years ago, and the point at which the reached its present size, may have been far longer than traditionally presumed.

Scientists have typically suggested that the Earth's development - a process known as "accretion" - happened over the course of 30 million years.

Writing in the journal Nature Geoscience, however, the researchers argue that while the Earth probably grew to 60% of its size relatively quickly, the process may well have then slowed, taking about 100 million years in all.

"The whole issue hinges on working out how long it took for the core of the Earth to form, which is one of the big unknowns in this area of science," co-author Dr. John Rudge, from the University of Cambridge, said.

"One of the problems has been that scientists usually presume Earth's accretion happened at an exponentially decreasing rate. We believe that the process may not have been that simple and that it could well have been a much more staggered, stop-start affair."

The accretion of the Earth involved a series of collisions between dozens of smaller planetary bodies, referred to as "planetary embryos". Parts of these proto-planets blended together as they collided, and the intense heat of impact caused their interiors to melt. Over time, this led to the formation of a core at the heart of the Earth, with a silicate mantle overlying it.

Many scientists believe that the final part of the process happened when a body roughly the size of Mars collided with the Earth and caused part of the planet to break off, forming the Moon.

While they are broadly in agreement about the style of accretion, working out how long accretion took and thus how old the Earth really is has proven much more difficult.

The research team behind the new study used information taken from isotopes of elements which would have undergone a process of radioactive decay while accretion was happening, to create a set of mathematical models revealing the different ways in which accretion might have occurred.

This hinges on the principle that some elements are naturally attracted, or have an "affinity" for, the silicate mantle of the Earth, while others are drawn to the metal at the centre.

Some elements have isotopes which decay to form isotopes of other elements with a different affinity. One good example is 182-hafnium, an isotope of a silicate-loving element, which decays to 182-tungsten, an isotope of a metal-loving element, most of which would have sunk to the Earth's core.

Traces of 182-tungsten can now be found within the mantle of the Earth, and some of this appeared after the formation of the core ceased as a result of the decay of 182-hafnium.

These geochemical signatures can be compared with what are called "chondritic" meteorites: primitive meteorites that have fallen to Earth in modern times, but have never undergone any sort of metal segregation.

Differences in the isotopic values of Earth tungsten and that taken from chondritic meteorites can provide some sense of how long accretion took, because we already know how long it takes for tungsten to go through each stage of decay.

These periods, known as "half lives", are millions of years long, which makes the calculation far from precise. Typically, however, scientists have used the hafnium-tungsten radioactive clock to estimate that accretion took 30 million years, presuming that the process of accretion was relatively steady.

In the new study, the researchers combined this data with a similar set of readings for uranium-lead decay, which also happened during accretion. The half-life readings for lead are much longer, but when they were put together with the tungsten measurements, overlaps could be determined.

Dr. Rudge modelled every single way in which the Earth could have undergone a process of accretion while matching the hafnium-tungsten and uranium-lead observations. Critically, the team never presumed that accretion happened at any particular rate.

While a wide variety of options emerged, the modelling process showed that the Earth almost certainly could not have formed within 30 million years. Instead, the results suggested that the planet initially grew very quickly, reaching two-thirds of its size within about 10 to 40 million years. then slowed down, however, and took perhaps another 70 million years to complete.

"If correct, that would mean the Earth was about 100 million years in the making altogether," Dr. Rudge said. "We estimate that makes it about 4.467 billion years old - a mere youngster compared with the 4.537 billion-year-old planet we had previously imagined."

Explore further: NASA's HS3 mission spotlight: The HIRAD instrument

Related Stories

Fresh insight into the origins of Planet Earth

Jun 03, 2010

For the first time, an international team of researchers has incorporated extensive geochemical data on the formation of Earth into a model - with surprising results: more models can be used for the process ...

The Earth and Moon formed later than previously thought

Jun 07, 2010

The Earth and Moon were created as the result of a giant collision between two planets the size of Mars and Venus. Until now it was thought to have happened when the solar system was 30 million years old or ...

Ideas on gas-giant planet formation take shape

Mar 22, 2006

Rocky planets such as Earth and Mars are born when small particles smash together to form larger, planet-sized clusters in a planet-forming disk, but researchers are less sure about how gas-giant planets such as Jupiter and ...

Atomic Particles Help Solve Planetary Puzzle

Nov 10, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- A University of Arkansas professor and his colleagues have shown that the Earth's mantle contains the same isotopic signatures from magnesium as meteorites do, suggesting that the planet formed ...

Recommended for you

Scientists stalk coastal killer

2 hours ago

For much of Wednesday, a small group of volunteers and researchers walked in and out of the surf testing a new form of surveillance on the biggest killer of beach swimmers - rip currents.

Fires in Central Africa During July 2014

15 hours ago

Hundreds of fires covered central Africa in mid-July 2014, as the annual fire season continues across the region. Multiple red hotspots, which indicate areas of increased temperatures, are heavily sprinkled ...

NASA's HS3 mission spotlight: The HIRAD instrument

Jul 24, 2014

The Hurricane Imaging Radiometer, known as HIRAD, will fly aboard one of two unmanned Global Hawk aircraft during NASA's Hurricane Severe Storm Sentinel or HS3 mission from Wallops beginning August 26 through ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
1.5 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2010
And yet, the Martian ground appears to be covered, in places, by glaciers.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2010
"We estimate that makes it about 4.467 billion years old - a mere youngster compared with the 4.537 billion-year-old planet we had previously imagined."

Hopefully he was grinning when he said that. Yeah, 4.467 billion is really young, the old girl's just about to go out dancing. The correction only changes the age by ~1.5%. Now I look forward to creationists making this seem like they confirmed a young Earth.
Sonhouse
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2010
Don't worry, creationists are already massaging this piece to come up with the best spin:
"See, even scientists don't know how old the Earth really is so our arguments are just as valid".
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2010
Earth's "age" is not a single value!

The Earth's iron core formed first in a central, iron-rich disk surrounding the proto-Sun, and this iron core then served as the accretion site upon which its silicate mantle was later deposited [Earth & Planetary Science Letters 6 (1969) 346-348; Geochemical Journal 15 (1981) 247-267].

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo