Meteorites Offer Glimpse of the Early Earth, Say Purdue Scientists
|
|
Thread rating:  |
baalke@earthlink.net - 28 Sep 2005 17:12 GMT http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2005/050927.Lipschutz.meteorites.htm
Meteorites offer glimpse of the early Earth, say Purdue scientists Purdue University September 27, 2005
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - Important clues to the environment in which the early Earth formed may be emerging from Purdue University scientists' recent study of a particular class of meteorites.
By examining the chemistry of 29 chunks of rock that formed billions of years ago, probably in close proximity to our planet, two Purdue researchers, Michael E. Lipschutz and Ming-Sheng Wang, have clarified our understanding of the conditions present in the vicinity of the ancient Earth's orbit. Because direct evidence for these conditions is lacking in terrestrial samples, the scientists believe that the composition of these so-called enstatite chondrite (EC) meteorites could offer a window into the planet's distant past.
"What happened to these rocks most likely happened to the Earth in its early stages - with one great exception," said Lipschutz, a professor of chemistry in Purdue's College of Science. "Shortly after the early Earth formed, an object the size of Mars smashed into it, and the heat from the cataclysm irrevocably altered the geochemical makeup of our entire planet. These EC meteorites, however, are likely formed of matter similar to that which formed the early Earth, but they were not involved in this great collision and so were not chemically altered. They might be the last remaining pristine bits of the material that became the planet beneath our feet."
The research appears in today's (Sept. 27) edition of a new journal, Environmental Chemistry, which solicited the paper. Lipschutz said the journal's editorial board includes F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina, who received the Nobel prize for their discovery that Earth's protective ozone layer was threatened by human activity.
Lipschutz and Wang initially set out to increase our knowledge of EC meteorites, one of many different meteorite classes. Meteorites come from many different parts of the solar system, and a scientist can link one with its parent object by determining the different isotopes of oxygen in a meteorite's minerals. Chunks of the moon, the Earth and EC meteorites, for example, have very similar isotopic "signatures," quite different from those of Mars and other objects formed in the asteroid belt. The variations occurred because different materials condensed in different regions of the disk of gas and dust that formed the sun and planets.
Bits of these materials orbit the sun, occasionally falling to earth as meteorites. But there is one place on our planet that meteorites accumulate and are preserved in a pristine fashion - the ice sheet of Antarctica.
"Over the millennia, many thousands of meteorites have struck the Antarctic ice sheet, which both preserves them and slowly concentrates them near mountains sticking through the ice, much as ocean waves wash pebbles to the shore," said Lipschutz. "These stones have come from many different parts of the solar system and have given us a better picture of the overall properties of their parent objects."
By examining their mineralogy, scientists have determined that about 200 of these Antarctic stones are EC meteorites that formed from the same local batch of material as the Earth did more than 4.5 billion years ago. But there is additional information that the chemistry of these ECs can offer on the temperatures at which they formed. To obtain this information, however, required Lipschutz to analyze chemicals in the meteorites called volatiles - rare elements such as indium, thallium and cadmium.
"Volatiles in meteorites can give unique information on their temperature histories, but only 14 of them had ever been analyzed for these elements," Lipschutz said. "Naturally, we want to know the story behind the formation of objects in our own neighborhood, so we set out to increase that number."
In this study, the researchers gathered samples taken from another 15 EC meteorites that had, for the most part, landed in Antarctica tens of thousands of years ago. Using a unique method involving bombardment of the samples with neutrons, chemically separating the radioactive species and counting them, the researchers were able to determine the amounts of 15 volatiles that together offered clues to each rock's heating history.
"Volatiles can act like thermometers," Lipschutz said. "They can tell you whether the temperature was high or low when the rock formed. We tested two different kinds of ECs, and the oldest, most primitive examples of each kind had very similar volatile contents - which means their temperature at formation was similar. These rocks have essentially recorded the temperature at which the early Earth formed, and we now know that this was much lower than 500 degrees Celsius."
The two different kinds of EC meteorites, known as ELs and EHs, were found in the Purdue study to have condensed at low temperatures like the Earth. However, the two groups are controversial because scientists have not been able to agree on whether they originated from a single parent object or two different ones. Unfortunately, Lipschutz said, the data from the 29 ECs they analyzed were insufficient to settle the issue.
"There are still quite a few unanswered questions about the earliest periods of the Earth's history, and this study only provides one piece of the puzzle," he said. "But aspects of this study also show that ECs differ substantially from other meteorite types that came from much farther out in the disk, in the region of the asteroid belt."
For Lipschutz, who had an asteroid named for him on his 50th birthday in honor of his many studies of meteorites, their parent bodies and the early history of the solar system, deeper answers may lie farther away than Antarctica.
"If we understand how our solar system formed, we might be better able to understand the processes at work in other solar systems, which we are just beginning to discover," he said. "Probing the asteroid belt could give us clues to these processes."
This research was funded in part by NASA.
Writer: , (765) 494-2081, cboutin@purdue.edu
Source: Michael E. Lipschutz, (765) 494-5326, rnaapunl@purdue.edu
Purdue News Service: (765) 494-2096; purduenews@purdue.edu Related Web site: Lipschutz's asteroid <http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html3month/870722.Lipschutz.planet.html>
PHOTO CAPTION:
Purdue University's Michael E. Lipschutz analyzed enstatite chondrite meteorites in a recent study of the materials near Earth at the dawn of the solar system about 4.5 billion years ago. Data from the study may offer clues into the conditions under which the Earth formed, evidence of which no longer exists in terrestrial stone. (NASA photo/ID number S91-41199)
marsfossils@canada.com - 29 Sep 2005 14:51 GMT I love this stuff and the way the casually drop zingers into it ...
>> "Shortly after the early Earth >> formed, an object the size of Mars smashed into it, I have never heard that before. Does anybody know where the evidence for this Mars-sized is described. Unless that is the Mar-sized body that splashed off the moon and formed the Pacific ocean, but I thought those theories were defunct.
Best,
Michael
don findlay - 29 Sep 2005 16:04 GMT > I love this stuff and the way the casually drop zingers into it ... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I have never heard that before. Does anybody know where the evidence > for this Mars-sized is described. Rumour has it that the banded iron formations will eventually be shown to be the result of lunar impact or very close:- "The whole-Earth scale of the structures and their rotational asymmetry imply causational dynamics in opposition to the Earth's gravity, reviving earlier speculation that protracted prograde Moon capture during Archean to Proterozoic times may have caused the deformation. In support are cited the pan-global distribution of banded iron formations (as possible impact-related dust fall) virtually co-eval with the ages of lunar impacts, the heavy cratering on the nearside of the Moon, the obliquity of the rotational axes of both the Earth and the Moon to the ecliptic, and the present ambital enlargement of the Earth as a remnant related effect of the same forces that initiated the disruptive tectonics." But they need to be reinterpreted. http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/abstract.html http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/precursor.html (Some event. Some dust fall)
Or check out the Moon Book for the Mars-size collision model (Heiken, Vaniman and French)
> Unless that is the Mar-sized body > that splashed off the moon and formed the Pacific ocean, but I thought [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Michael marsfossils@canada.com - 29 Sep 2005 17:21 GMT >> The whole-Earth scale of the structures That's another thing I love -- guys who look at the big picture. What structures are they referring to?
Are not the bands and layers in the banded iron formations evidence that their formation was a result of a cyclical process. BIF origins are complicated, but how would be a catastrophically-captured moon would help describe what we see. I thought the banded iron formations were linked to early life producing oxygen and the rise of oxygen in the early atmosphere. Wouldn't a Mars-sized body crashing down seriously set back the progress of life?
>> during Archean to Proterozoic times That's a long period. When did it come crashing in -- We would be right back into the Hadean? Shouldn't there be better evidence for the crash if it came down during the Proterozoic. I would expect shattercones everywhere in Precambrian rocks and some kind of disruption or anomaly on the far side of the planet.
Michael
George - 29 Sep 2005 22:39 GMT >>> The whole-Earth scale of the structures > > That's another thing I love -- guys who look at the big picture. What > structures are they referring to? What are you referring to? I have found no reference in that report to "whole-Earth scale".
> Are not the bands and layers in the banded iron formations evidence > that their formation was a result of a cyclical process. BIF origins [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the early atmosphere. Wouldn't a Mars-sized body crashing down > seriously set back the progress of life? The banded Iron formations are only 2 billion years old. The earth is 4.54 billion years old. The collision occured during its early formation, according to the theory, when it was still in its accretionary phase.
don findlay - 30 Sep 2005 02:01 GMT marsfoss...@canada.com wrote:
> >> The whole-Earth scale of the structures > > That's another thing I love -- guys who look at the big picture. What > structures are they referring to? BIG PICTURE- You're looking at the reasons for the demise of plate tectonics and its substitution by Earth expansion. The dedicated followers of fashion on this ng are still with plate tectonics because they've forgotten (if they ever knew) how to think, and are much too concerned with each other's bums. The structures involved are those describing the break-up of the Mesozoic crust (ocean floors and mountain belts) and the balance between 'uplift' of continental platforms and their erosion ("whole-Earth" through geological time). The pattern can be extrapolated right back the Phanerozoic and probably into the Proterozoic. The picture very closely relates to the evolution of the planet. Hence "Whole-Earth". That's Earth expansion. It relates the geological history of the Earth to gravitational - rotational imbalance and its position in the solar system Plate Tectonics ignores this connection, seeing the geological history more anatomically, and related to internal convection in the mantle ('indigestion')
So, ..Whole-Earth structure: its differentiated layering, its oblate shape, the global break-up of the mantle (spreading ridges/ transform fault sets/ zones of crust-mantle overriding (earlier called 'subduction zones'), the remants of Mesozoic crustal collapse, the entirety of stratigraphic sequence, ... everything in fact. And yes, you have to look at it as a whole as the big picture. You lose it if you look at the elemental parts (Plate Tectonics)
> Are not the bands and layers in the banded iron formations evidence > that their formation was a result of a cyclical process. Yes, indeed. What could be more cyclical than the accumulation of Earth-Moon dust? Mars-sized object slams into the planet, through the crust, the mantle, and right to the core, knocking off a piece and throwing up an iron plasma. (The Earth was a lot smaller then with very little stratigraphic sequence, only Archaean crust riddled with greenstone belts (mantle intrusions/ effusions). Mantle was much thinner.) Much plasma escapes the gravitational field. So there we have a picture of two planetary bodies now, encased in dust, travelling through the solar system, and every year picking up a new charge of settling dust. Settling dust - Every day, Every month, Every Year, and comming back regularly for a re-charge. What could be more 'seasonally cyclical' cyclical than that?
> BIF origins > are complicated, but how would be a catastrophically-captured moon > would help describe what we see. I thought the banded iron formations > were linked to early life producing oxygen and the rise of oxygen in > the early atmosphere. Yes, ..I know, that's what they say, when they put it under the microscope, and of course it has to accummulate in water, but they can't even tell whether they're looking at iron grains or biological residue. But when you look at the bigger (whole-Earth) picture, the spread of ages related to those of Lunar impacts (and all those phenomenal craters on the Moon), and the areal/ temporal distribution, and take into account all the micrometeorites they're finding in the interbeds, you have to wonder at what they've got for marbles by sticking to their story. The banded iron formations is the legacy on Earth of what we can see on the Moon all the way from here. Once people get an eye for them, they'll be seeing evidence everyshere:-
"Evidence for four impacts even older than than Vredefort, that occurred 3.2 to 3.5 billion years ago, has been found in the greenstone rocks around Barberton in South Africa and corresponding rocks in the eastern Pilbara block of Western Australia. However, these impacts are no longer recognizable as structures on the surface like Vredefort's."
> Wouldn't a Mars-sized body crashing down > seriously set back the progress of life? I guess, ..if there was any. (Might even start it. )
> >> during Archean to Proterozoic times > > That's a long period. When did it come crashing in -- We would be > right back into the Hadean? Shouldn't there be better evidence for the > crash if it came down during the Proterozoic. Banded iron formations have a spread of age maxima, with the oldest ones being somewhere around 3.8by. The spread is slightly offset from that worked out for lunar impacts, so that discrepancy and the hubris of human error in suchlike matters will be used by those with no imagination or common sense, to discredit the notion of a correlation. That's why I said it was just a rumour just now (being spread by me). After all that money being spent on getting to the Moon they've worked out the Mars impactor thing as a 'best fit' model for the origin of the Moon, but for some reason don't link it to that unique near-contemporaneous stratigraphic history. They still have to waken up on that one. I'm a bit more flexible whether it was a third party or the Moon itself, because (of this whole_Earth thing again) everything that we see at the present day ties right back to then. Whatever happened, the repercussions are still going on, and appear to be accellerating. That's why I go for fly-by. Impact or fly-by - I don't much bother. I find a 'hit' difficult to envisage without the whole lot disintetrating to another asteroidal belt or whatever. Either way it would have been pretty catastrophic. I believe it has been calculated that if it was retrograde capture, Earth would have been vaporised. Even at the size it is now. So, .. But I do think capture is a bit iffy, though I suggest it on my site. Maybe being a 'clump' of sorts that got kicked out of some original orbit (links to asteroid belt? the third planet model? ..who knows..)
> I would expect > shattercones everywhere in Precambrian rocks and some kind of > disruption or anomaly on the far side of the planet. Depends how brittle or mushy I guess, how rapid the hit. You know how when you throw a stone high in the air so that zips through the surface of the water almost without a mark..? What sort of shock absorbption is that, compared to a more 'noisy' one? Would there be a difference? Personally I reckon Spinifex textures in the Archaean ultramafics are best interpreted as stress-textures of sorts, either shock or pressure release or metamorphic textures of some sort (this one from the archives, from years back):- http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ore/spinifexshock.html (but that's another bandwagon like plate tectonics/ orogensis/ isostacy/ etc that people can't see past.) There's a whole spectrum from crystallites in glass in ramifying veinlets to large interlocking laths overprinting schistosity in entire stratigraphic sequences. "Quenching" is usually touted as a heat thing, when stress (to me) seems much more likely.
> Michael Henry Spencer - 29 Sep 2005 17:49 GMT >>> "Shortly after the early Earth >>> formed, an object the size of Mars smashed into it, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that splashed off the moon and formed the Pacific ocean, but I thought >those theories were defunct. You're confusing two different theories, I think.
The theory that the Pacific Ocean and the Moon were connected somehow is long defunct. It died with the rise of plate tectonics: the Pacific is a relatively recent feature of Earth. (Earth has long had big oceans, but the details have varied greatly over time as the continents have shuffled around.)
The theory that the Moon is mantle rock splashed up from an off-center impact by a Mars-sized body is widely believed because it's about the only credible theory of the Moon's origin. All the others were destroyed by the Apollo samples: the Moon's rocks are too Earthlike to have had an independent origin, and too different to have had a similar history (notably, they were severely baked sometime quite early). The giant- impact theory is the only one that fits all the data.
 Signature spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net
Aidan Karley - 29 Sep 2005 23:00 GMT > >> "Shortly after the early Earth > >> formed, an object the size of Mars smashed into it, > > I have never heard that before. This says more about your lack of attention to planetary science over the last 30 years than it does about the well-founded hypothesis that the Earth-Moon system is the result of a large impact early in the history of the history of the system.
> Does anybody know where the evidence > for this Mars-sized is described. It's a deduction of the properties needed for an impactor to form an Earth-Moon-like system with the detailed chemical properties of each.
> Unless that is the Mar-sized body > that splashed off the moon and formed the Pacific ocean, but I thought > those theories were defunct. As they stand, those theories died the Death of a Thousand Cuts in the mid 1960s as dating evidence accumulated for seafloors, the concept of Plate Tectonics (I can hear the French idiot and the Australian idiot screaming already; I almost wonder what they'll scream at my killfile?) Was showing why the Pacific was to be expected to be ephemeral, why the oceans are basalt-floored. When the physical evidence arrived on the Apollo return craft, the similarites of Moon and Earth isotopic composition raised one set of puzzles (basically, these two objects formed at the same distance from the Sun), while their chemical differences (lack of volatiles on the Moon) indicated major differences of history between the bodies. New evidence, new ideas.
> BIF origins > are complicated, but how would be a catastrophically-captured moon > would help describe what we see. I thought the banded iron formations > were linked to early life producing oxygen and the rise of oxygen in > the early atmosphere. Wouldn't a Mars-sized body crashing down > seriously set back the progress of life? The formation of the Moon and the deposition of BIFs are events separated by 1-+-bit to 2 thousand million years. The formation of the Moon, by the "Mars-sized" impactor was the earlier event. By a lot.
> When did it come crashing in -- We would be > right back into the Hadean? Yes. Actually, since the best fits come with the Earth around 1/2 to 1/4 it's present mass, calling it the Hadean is being a bit previous. Earth was still aCCUMULATING (bLOODY cAPSlOCK KEY!) And only a few % of the ejecta went ot make the present-day Moon.
> Shouldn't there be better evidence for the > crash if it came down during the Proterozoic. I would expect > shattercones everywhere in Precambrian rocks and some kind of > disruption or anomaly on the far side of the planet. For a Moon-forming impact you're looking at an almost total dismantling and reconstruction of the planet. "Side" of the planet doesn't really survive from "before" to "after". See http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~robin/c03finalrev.pdf pages 48-53 approx, plus text.
 Signature Aidan Karley, Aberdeen, Scotland, Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
David Williams - 29 Sep 2005 16:20 GMT -> >> "Shortly after the early Earth -> >> formed, an object the size of Mars smashed into it, -> I have never heard that before. Does anybody know where the evidence -> for this Mars-sized is described. Unless that is the Mar-sized body -> that splashed off the moon and formed the Pacific ocean, but I thought -> those theories were defunct. There is good evidence that a planet (actually somewhat bigger than Mars) collided with the Earth early in its history. The cores of the two planets melted together, and became the core of the present Earth. A lot of surface material - continental stuff - got thrown off into space. Some of it went into orbit around the Earth, and later joined together to form the moon. This is why the mean density of the Earth is the highest of all the bodies in the solar system, because it lost the low-density crust. The moon, on the other hand, has a low mean density. This event has NOTHING to do with the Pacific Ocean. That part of the theory, that the Pacific was formed by the impact, is indeed defunct. dow
David Williams - 30 Sep 2005 16:28 GMT -> >...This is why the mean density of the Earth is -> >the highest of all the bodies in the solar system, because it lost the -> >low-density crust... -> Small correction: Earth's density is not particularly out of line with -> those of Venus and Mars. Earth is only very slightly denser than Venus, -> and the larger difference between Earth and Mars is partly because Mars's -> smaller size and weaker gravity compresses it less. Earth didn't lose -> very much of its outer layers in the Moon-forming impact. According to the Rubber Bible, the mean densities of the inner planets and the moon are, in grams per cubic centimetre: Mercury .... 5.431 Venus ...... 5.256 Earth ...... 5.519 Moon ....... 3.342 Mars ....... 3.907 So Earth is about five percent denser than Venus. How much crustal material would have had to have been lost to produce this difference in density? Obviously, it depends on the densities of the core and crust, but it must have been a substantial fraction *of the original crust*. -> Mercury is the inner planet with the anomalous density -- about equal to -> Earth's despite much smaller size -- and it must be essentially all core. -> The best explanation for that, with the caveat that our data on Mercury is -> very limited, is stripping of the mantle by one or more large impacts. Or, maybe, that the more volatile crustal materials didn't condense that close to the sun. MESSENGER should tell us more. dow
|
|
|