![]() | The Scientific Monthly | ![]() |
THE FORMATION OF THE EARTH
Does the condition of the Earth's interior give evidence on the question of its origin? There are certain important facts which bear upon the problem.
1. The evidence supplied by the volcanoes, by the hot springs, and by the rise in temperature as we go down in all deep mines, is unmistakably to the effect that there is an immense quantity of heat in the Earth's interior. Near the surface the temperature increases at the average of 1° Centigrade for every 30 meters of depth. If this rate were maintained we should at 60 km. in depth arrive at a temperature high enough to melt platinum, the most refractory of the known metals. What the law of temperature-increase at great depths is we do not know, but the temperature of the Earth's deep interior must be very high.
2. The pressures in the Earth increase from zero at the surface to the order of 3,000,000 atmospheric pressures at the center. We know that rock structure, or iron or other metals, can be slightly compressed by pressure, but the experiments at very high pressures, notably those conducted by Bridgman, give no indications that matter under such pressures breaks down and obeys different or unknown laws. It should be said, however, that laboratory pressure-effects alone are not a safe guide as to conditions within the Earth, where high pressures are accompanied by high temperature. Unfortunately it has not been found possible to combine the high-temperature factor with the high-pressure factor in the laboratory experiments. It is well known that the melting points of metals, including rocks, increase with increase of pressure; and although the temperatures in the Earth's interior are very high, it is easy to conceive that the materials of the Earth's interior are nevertheless in the solid state, or that they act like solids, because of the high pressures to which they are subjected.
3. The specific gravity of the entire Earth is 5.5 on the scale of water as one, whereas the density of the stratified rocks averages only
4. The observed phenomena of terrestrial precession can not be explained on the basis of an Earth with a thin solid surface shell and a liquid interior, for the attractions of the Moon and Sun upon the Earth's equatorial protuberance would cause the surface shell to shift over the fluid interior, instead of swinging the entire Earth.
5. If the Earth consisted of a thin solid shell upon a liquid interior there would be tides in the liquid interior, the crust would yield to these tides almost as if it were composed of rubber, and the ocean tides would be only an insignificant amount larger than the land tides. As a result we should not see the ocean tides; their visibility depends upon the contrast between the ocean tides and the land tides. If the Earth were absolutely unyielding from surface to center the ocean tides would be relatively 50 per cent. higher than we now see them. The conclusion from these facts is that the Earth yields to the tidal forces a little less than if it were a solid ball of steel, supposing that the well-known rigidity and density existed from surface to center of the ball. This result is established by Darwin's and Schweydar's studies of ocean tides, by studies of the tides in the Earth's surface strata made by Hecker, Paschwitz and others, and by Michelson's recent extremely accurate comparison of land and water tides. Michelson's results establish further that the Earth is highly elastic: though distortion is resisted, there is yielding, but the original form is recovered quickly, almost as quickly as a perfectly elastic body would recover.
6. Some 25 years ago it was discovered by Küstner that the latitudes of points on the Earth's surface are changing slowly. Chandler proved that these variations pass through their principal cycle in a period of 427 days. The entire Earth oscillates slightly in this period. The earlier researches of Euler had shown that the Earth would have a natural oscillation period of 305 days provided it were an absolutely rigid body. Newcomb showed that the period of oscillation would be 441 days if the Earth had the rigidity of steel. As the observed oscillation requires 427 days, Newcomb concluded that the Earth is slightly more rigid than steel.
7. The first waves from a very distant earthquake come to us directly through the Earth. The observed speeds of transmission are the greater, in general, the more nearly the earthquake origin is exactly on
8. The phenomena of terrestrial magnetism indicate that the distribution of magnetic materials in the Earth is far from uniform or symmetrical; the magnetic poles are distant from the Earth's poles of rotation; the magnetic poles are not opposite each other; the lines of equal intensity as to all the magnetic components involved run very irregularly over the Earth's surface. There is reason to believe that iron in the deep interior of the Earth, in view of its high temperature, is devoid of magnetic properties, but we must not state this as a fact. We know that iron is very widely, but very irregularly spread throughout the Earth's outer strata. Whatever may be the main factors in making the Earth a great magnet, to whatever extent the rotation factor may be important, the Earth's magnetic properties point strongly to a very irregular distribution of magnetic materials in the outer strata where the temperatures are below that at which magnetic materials commonly lose their polarity.
9. Irregularities in the direction of the plumb-line and in the force of gravity as observed widely and accurately over the Earth's surface indicate that the surface strata are very irregular as to density. To harmonize the observed facts Hayford has shown the need of assuming
10. The radio active elements have been found by Strutt and others in practically all kinds of rock accessible to the geologists, but they are not found in significant quantities in the so-called metals which exist in a pure state. These radioactive elements are liberating heat. Strutt has shown that if they existed down to the Earth's center in the same proportion that he finds in the surface strata they would liberate a great deal more heat than the body of the Earth is now radiating to outer space. The conclusion is that they are restricted to the strata relatively near the Earth's surface, and are not in combination with the materials composing the Earth's core. They have apparently found some way of coming to the higher levels. Chamberlin suggests that as they liberate heat they would raise surrounding materials to temperatures above the normals for their strata, and that these expanded materials would embrace every opportunity to approach the surface of the Earth, carrying the radioactive substances with them.
The evidence is exceedingly strong, and perhaps irresistible, to the effect that the Earth is now solid, or acts like a solid, from surface to center, with possibly local, but on the whole negligible, pockets of molten matter here and there; and further, that the Earth existed in a molten, or at the least a thickly plastic, state throughout a long part of its life. The nucleus, whether gaseous or meteoric, from which I believe it has grown, may have been fairly hot or quite cold, and the materials which were successively drawn into the nucleus may have been hot or cold: heat would be generated by the impacts of the incoming materials; and as the attraction toward the center of the mass became strong, additional heat would be generated in the contraction process. The denser materials have been able, on the whole, to gravitate to the center of the structure, and the lighter elements have been able, on the whole, to rise to and float upon the surface very much as the lighter impurities in an iron furnace find their way to the surface and form the slag upon the molten metal. The lighter materials which in general form the surface strata are solid under the conditions of solids known to us in every-day life. The interior is solid or at least acts as a solid, because the materials, though at high temperatures, are under stupendous pressures. If the pressures were removed the deep-lying materials would quickly liquefy, and probably even vaporize.
If the Earth grew from a small nucleus to its present size by the extremely gradual drawing-in of innumerable small masses in its neighborhood, the process would always be slow; much slower at first when the small nucleus had low gravitating powers, more rapid when the body was of good size and the store of materials to draw upon plentiful,
Whether the Earth of its present size was ever completely liquefied, that is, from center to surface, at one and the same time, is doubtful. The lack of homogeneity, as indicated by the plumb-line, gravity, terrestrial magnetism and radiaoctive matter, extending in a perceptible degree down to 122 km., and quite probably in lesser and imperceptible degree to a much greater depth, is opposed to the idea.
Solidification would respond to the fall of temperature down to the point required under the existing high pressures, and it is probable that the solidification began at the center and proceeded outwards. It is natural that the plastic state should have developed and existed especially during the age of most rapid growth, for this would be the age of most rapid generation of heat. Later, while the rate of growth was declining, the body could probably have solidified slowly and successively from center out to surface. In later slow depositions of materials, the denser substance would not be able to sink down to the deepest strata: they must lie within a limited depth and horizontal distance from where they fell, and the outer stratum of the Earth would be heterogeneous in density.
The simplest hypothesis we can make concerning the Earth's deep interior is that the chief ingredient is iron; perhaps a full half of the volume is iron. The normal density of iron is 7.8, and of rock formations about 2.8. If these are mixed, half and half, the average density is 5.3. Pressures in the Earth should increase the density and the heat in the Earth should decrease the density. The known density of the Earth is 5.5. We know that iron is plentiful in the Earth's crust, and that iron is still falling upon the Earth in the form of meteorites. The composition of the Earth as a whole, on this assumption, is very similar to the composition of the meteorites in general. They include many of the metals, but especially iron, and they include a large proportion of stony matter. Iron is plentiful in the Sun and throughout the stellar universe. Why should it not be equally plentiful in the materials which have coalesced to form the Earth? It is difficult to explain the Earth's constitution on any other hypothesis.
The Earth's form is that which its rotation period demands. Undoubtedly if the period has changed, the form has changed. Given a little time, solids under great pressure flow quite readily into new forms. Now any great slowing-down of the Earth's rotation period within geological times would be expected to show in the surface features. The
Geologists estimate from the deposition of salt in the oceans, and from the rates of denudation and sedimentation, that the formation of the rock strata has consumed from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 years. If the Earth had substantially its present form 80,000,000 years ago we are safe in saying that the period of time represented in the building up of the Earth from a small nucleus to its present dimensions has been vastly longer, probably reckoned in the thousands of millions of years.
For more than a century past the problem of the evolution of the stars, including the solar system and the Earth, has occupied the central place in astronomical thought. No one is bold enough to say that the problem has been solved. The chief difficulty proceeds from the fact that we have only one Earth, one solar system and one stellar system available for tests of the hypotheses proposed; we should like to test them on many systems, but this privilege is denied us. However, the search for the truth will undoubtedly proceed at an ever increasing pace, partly because of man's desire to know the truth, but chiefly, as Lessing suggested, because the investigator finds an irresistible satisfaction in the process. There is always with him the certainty that the truth is going to be incomparably stranger and more interesting than fiction.
![]() | The Scientific Monthly | ![]() |