New finding supports Moon creation hypothesis

September 26, 2016
This is a composite image of the lunar nearside taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in June 2009, note the presence of dark areas of maria on this side of the moon. Credit: NASA

A layer of iron and other elements deep underground is the evidence scientists have long been seeking to support the hypothesis that the moon was formed by a planetary object hitting the infant Earth some 4.5 billion years ago, a new study led by Johns Hopkins University scientists argues.

Published in the current issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the paper uses laboratory simulations of an Earth impact as evidence that a stratified layer beneath the rocky mantle – which appears in seismic data – was created when the Earth was struck by a smaller object. The authors argue this was the same impact that sent a great mass of debris hurtling into space, creating the moon.

"Our experiments bring additional evidence in favor of the giant impact hypothesis," said Maylis Landeau, the lead author of the paper, who was a post-doctoral fellow in Johns Hopkins' Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences when the experiments were conducted. "They demonstrate that the giant impact scenario also explains the stratification inferred by seismology at the top of the present-day Earth's core. This result ties the present-day structure of Earth's core to its formation."

Landeau, now a Marie Curie Fellow at the University of Cambridge, co-wrote the paper with Peter Olson, research professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Benjamin H. Hirsh, who was an undergraduate at Johns Hopkins, and Renaud Deguen of Claude Bernard University in Lyon, France.

Olson said the giant impact argument for the formation of the moon is the most prevalent scientific hypothesis on how the Earth satellite was formed, but it is still considered unproven because there's been no "smoking gun" evidence.

"We're saying this stratified layer might be the smoking gun," said Olson. "Its properties are consistent with it being a vestige of that impact."

Their argument is based on seismic evidence of the composition of the stratified layer – believed to be some 200 miles thick and lie 1,800 miles below the Earth's surface – and on laboratory experiments simulating the turbulence of the impact. The turbulence in particular is believed to account for the stratification – meaning a mix of materials in layers rather than a homogeneous composition – at the top of the core.

The stratified layer is believed to consist of a mix of iron and lighter elements, including oxygen, sulfur and silicon. The very existence of this layer is understood from seismic imaging, as it lies far too deep underground to be sampled directly.

Up to now, most simulations of the impact have been done numerically, and have not accounted for impact turbulence, Olson said. Olson said turbulence is difficult to simulate mathematically and no computer model has yet done it successfully.

The researchers in this experiment simulated the impact using liquids meant to approximate the turbulent mixing of materials that would have occurred when the planetary object struck when the Earth was just about fully formed – a "proto-Earth," as scientists call it.

Olson said the experiments depended on the principle of "dynamic similarity." In this case, that means a way to make reliable comparisons of fluid flows without replicating the scale, materials and force of the original Earth impact, which would be impossible. Instead, the experiment was meant to simulate the key ratios of forces acting on each other to produce the turbulence of the impact that could leave behind a layered mixture of material.

The researchers conducted more than 60 experiments in which about 3.5 ounces of saline or ethanol solutions representing the planetary projectile that hit the Earth was dropped into a rectangular tank holding about six gallons of fluid representing the early Earth. In the tank was a combination of fluids in layers that do not mix: oil floating on the top to represent the Earth's mantle and water below representing the Earth's core.

The analysis of the showed that a mix of materials was left behind in varying amounts, and also that the distribution of the mixture depended on the size and density of the projectile hitting the "Earth." The larger the projectile, the more likely the entire core of the Earth, and not just a layer, would be a mix of material. The authors argue for a smaller moon-forming projectile, smaller or equal to the size of Mars, a bit more than half the size of the Earth.

Explore further: Is iron rain the reason why Earth and the moon are so different?

More information: Maylis Landeau et al. Core merging and stratification following giant impact, Nature Geoscience (2016). DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2808

Related Stories

A dash of water on the lunar rocks

July 7, 2016

Ever since Apollo astronauts walked the lunar surface in 1969 and brought rocks back for laboratory analysis, it has been clear that lunar rocks are missing chemical components that boil off at relatively low temperature, ...

Earth's carbon points to planetary smashup

September 5, 2016

Research by Rice University Earth scientists suggests that virtually all of Earth's life-giving carbon could have come from a collision about 4.4 billion years ago between Earth and an embryonic planet similar to Mercury.

Recommended for you

Climate change made Harvey rainfall 15 percent more intense

December 14, 2017

A team of scientists from World Weather Attribution, including researchers from Rice University and other institutions in the United States and Europe, have found that human-caused climate change made the record rainfall ...

East Antarctic Ice Sheet has history of instability

December 13, 2017

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet locks away enough water to raise sea level an estimated 53 meters (174 feet), more than any other ice sheet on the planet. It's also thought to be among the most stable, not gaining or losing ...

Hydraulic fracturing negatively impacts infant health

December 13, 2017

From North Dakota to Ohio to Pennsylvania, hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, has transformed small towns into energy powerhouses. While some see the new energy boom as benefiting the local economy and decreasing ...

9 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

richk
5 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2016
wasn't there an article last week with evidence based on a complete mixing hypothesis, in comlete contradiction to this, the standard theory?
BartV
2 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
Can anyone please provide a computer physics model where a collision of a smaller body with a larger body in space can end up with a body 1/4 of the diameter of the larger body, almost perfectly orbiting the larger body? You can even choose the most optimal initial conditions and impact conditions. And even use as many millions of years as your want.

I don't think it can be done.
But please do this first before staking out bizarre theories as in this article.

BartV
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2016
Can anyone please provide a computer physics model where a collision of a smaller body with a larger body in space can end up with a body 1/4 of the diameter of the larger body, almost perfectly orbiting the larger body? You can even choose the most optimal initial conditions and impact conditions. And even use as many millions of years as your want.

I don't think it can be done.
But please do this first before staking out bizarre theories as in this article.

Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2016
BartV
There are plenty of such simulations.
What is the reason that you refuse to acknowledge that?
BartV
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
There are plenty of such simulations.
What is the reason that you refuse to acknowledge that?


OK. If there are, just show me 1.

BartV
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2016
No, I didn't mean a 1 star. I meant 1 such simulation.
:)

guptm
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2016
I totally agree with BartV. Collision hypothesis is only a hypothesis not reality. Physics doesn't support it at all. Why the ejecta started orbiting instead of traveling into the space? What impacted Jupiter to make 67 moons? Impact hypothesis must be rejected by real scientists.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2016
@BartV, guptm: Bart has already asked that question, and at least once been given a link by me. The theory is in Wikipdeia, which has references, Pick one.

(If you don't know how to look for references, try this one: https://arxiv.org...12.5323, it references Chamber's simulations (18. J.E. Chambers, Making More Terrestrial Planets, Icarus 152 (2001) 205-224.) [From https://en.wikipe...the_Moon .]

But note that in general you are supposed to do your own leg work before you criticize a hypothesis or theory! It is all right to ask for help in cases where references are scarce, but a general question about references that are all over the place is beyond the pale.
BartV
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2016
Hi Torbjorn. Many thanks for your comments. Your link did not work, but I could Google and find what you were referencing.

In your link, while many simulations are generally referred to, unfortunately there are no details of any specific simulation. It is noted, for example, that many of the higher impact parameter and velocity impacts are not accurately modelled.

You are a scientist, so you know that anyone who puts out a theory has the onus to do their leg work before presenting. This has not been done in the moon creation hypothesis.

And you know that if a collision occurs and a chuck of material is flung into space, while the chunk itself may be rotating, it does not start rotating around the center of gravity of the main body by itself. It either escapes the gravity completely, or get pulled back directly toward the center of gravity.

Why do keep trying to fall back on and defend unfounded theories?

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.