The Ice Giants’ Magnetism

One interesting measurement made from NASA’S sole flyby of Uranus and Neptune is that they have complicated magnetic fields, and seemingly not the simple dipolar field as found on Earth. The puzzle then is, what causes this? One possible answer is ice.

You will probably consider ice as not particularly magnetic nor particularly good at conducting electric current, and you would be right with the ice you usually see. However, there is more than one form of ice. As far back as 1912, the American physicist Percy Bridgman discovered five solid phases of water, which were obtained by applying pressure to the ice. One of the unusual properties of ice is that as you add pressure, the ice melts because the triple point (the temperature where solid, liquid and gas are in equilibrium) is at a lower temperature than the melting point of ice at room pressure (which is 0.1 MPa. A pascal is a rather small unit of pressure; the M mean million, G would mean billion). So add pressure and it melts, which is why ice skates work. Ices II, III and V need 200 to 600 MPa of pressure to form. Interestingly, as you increase the pressure, Ice III forms at about 200 Mpa, and at about -22 degrees C, but then the melting point rises with extra pressure, and at 350 MPa, it switches to Ice V, which melts at – 18 degrees C, and if the pressure is increased to 632.4 MPa, the melting point is 0.16 degrees C. At 2,100 MPa, ice VI melts at just under 82 degrees C. Skates don’t work on these higher ices. As an aside, Ice II does not exist in the presence of liquid, and I have no idea what happened to Ice IV, but my guess is it was a mistake.

As you increase the pressure on ice VI the melting point increases, and sooner or later you expect perhaps another phase, or even more. Well, there are more, so let me jump to the latest: ice XVIII. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has produced this by compressing water to 100 to 400 GPa (1 to 4 million times atmospheric pressure) at temperatures of 2,000 to 3,000 degrees K (0 degrees centigrade is about 273 degrees K, and the scale is the same) to produce what they call superionic ice. What happens is the protons from the hydroxyl groups of water become free and they can diffuse through the empty sites of the oxygen lattice, with the result that the ice starts to conduct electricity almost as well as a metal, but instead of moving electrons around, as happens in metals, it is assumed that it is the protons that move.

These temperatures and pressures were reached by placing a very thin layer of water between two diamond disks, following which six very high power lasers generated a sequence of shock waves that heated and pressurised the water. They deduced what they got by firing 16 additional high powered lasers that delivered 8 kJ of energy in a  one-nanosecond burst on a tiny spot on a small piece of iron foil two centimeters away from the water a few billionths of a second after the shock waves. This generated Xrays, and from the way they diffracted off the water sample they could work out what they generated. This in itself is difficult enough because they would also get a pattern from the diamond, which they would have to subtract.

The important point is that this ice conducts electricity, and is a possible source of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, which are rather odd. For Earth, Jupiter and Saturn, the magnetic poles are reasonably close to the rotational poles, and we think the magnetism arises from electrically conducting liquids rotating with the planet’s rotation. But Uranus and Neptune have quite odd magnetic fields. The field for Uranus is aligned at 60 degrees to the rotational axis, while that for Neptune is aligned at 46 degrees to the rotational axis. But even odder, the axes of the magnetic fields of each do not go through the centre of the planet, and are displaced quite significantly from it.

The structure of these planets is believed to be, from outside inwards, first an atmosphere of hydrogen and helium, then a mantle of water, ammonia and methane ices, then interior to that a core of rock. My personal view is that there will also be carbon monoxide and nitrogen ices in the mantle, at least of Neptune. The usual explanation for the magnetism has been that magnetic fields are generated by local events in the icy mantles, and you see comments that the fields may be due to high concentrations of ammonia, which readily forms charged species. Such charges would produce magnetic fields due to the rapid rotation of the planets. This new ice is an additional possibility, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that it might contribute to the other giants.

Jupiter is found from our spectroscopic analyses to be rather deficient in oxygen, and this is explained as being due to the water condensing out as ice. The fact that these ices form at such high temperatures is a good reason to believe there may be such layers of ice. This superionic ice is stable as a solid at 3000 degrees K, and that upper figure simply represents the highest temperature the equipment could stand. (Since water reacts with carbon, I am surprised it got that high.) So if there were a layer of such ice around Jupiter’s core, it too might contribute to the magnetism. Whatever else Jupiter lacks down there, pressure is not one of them.

Advertisements

Asteroid (101955) Bennu

The results of the OSIRIS-REx probe have now started to be made public, and while this probe was launched to answer questions about carbonaceous asteroids, and while some information has been obtained that is most certainly interesting, what it has mainly done, in my opinion, is to raise more questions. As is often the case with scientific experiments and observations.

Bennu is a carbonaceous asteroid with a semimajor axis of about 1.26 AU, where 1 AU is the Earth-Sun distance. Its eccentricity is 0.2, which means it is Earth-crossing and could collide with Earth. According to Wikipedia, it has a 1 in 2700 chance of impacting Earth between 2175 – 2199. I guess I shall never know, but it would be a threat. It has a diameter of approximately 500 meters, and a mass of somewhere in the vicinity of 7 x 10^10 kg, which means an impact would be extremely damaging near where it struck, but it would not be an extinction event. (The Chicxulub impactor would have been between five to seven orders of magnitude bigger.) So, what do we know about it?

It is described as a rubble pile, although what that means varies in terms of who says it. It is generally not considered to be an original accretion, and it is usually assumed to have formed inside a much larger planetoid which provided heat and pressure to form more complex minerals. Exactly why they are so sure of this is a puzzle to me, because we do not know what the minerals are, and how they are bound into the asteroid. Carbonaceous asteroids usually are found in the outer asteroid belt, and the assumption is this was dislodged inwards as a result of the collision that formed it. Standard theory assumes there were such collisions, but it also assumes such collisions led to planetary formation, and the rather awkward fact that there are no planets in the asteroid belt tends to be overlooked. These collisions are doing a lot of work, first making protoplanets then planets, and second, smashing up protoplanets to make asteroids, with no explanation why two different results arise other than “we need two different results”. Note that the collision velocities in the asteroid belt would be much milder than for the rocky planets, so smashing is more likely the closer to the star. Its relevance to planetary formation may be low since it did not form a planet, and there are no planets that have compositions that could realistically be considered to have come from such a chemical composition.

It is often said that Earth was bombarded with carbonaceous chondrites early on, and that is where the reduced carbon and nitrogen came from to sustain life, as well as the amino acids and nucleobases used to create life. Additionally, it is asserted that the iron and a number of other metals that dissolve in iron that we have on the surface must have come from asteroids, the reason being that in the early formation of Earth, the whole was a mass of boiling silicates in which such metals would dissolve in iron and go to the core. That we have them means something else must have brought them later. This shows one of the major faults of science, in my opinion. Rather than take the observation as a reason to go back and question whether the boiling silicates might be wrong, they introduce a further variable. Unfortunately, this “late veneer”  is misleading because the advocates have refused to accept that we have fragments of asteroids as meteorites. Their isotopes show they could only have contributed the right amount of metals, etc, if they were emulsified in all of Earth’s silicates. But wait. Why would these be emulsified and not go to the core while the original metals were not emulsified and did go to the core?

These asteroids are also believed by many to be the origin of life. They have very small amounts of amino acids and nucleobases, but they have a much wider range of amino acids than are used by our life. If they were the source, why did we not use them? Even more convincing, the nitrogen in the meteorite fragments has more 15N than Earth’s nitrogen. Ours is of solar composition; the asteroids apparently processed it. There is no way to reduce the level of heavy isotopes so these asteroids cannot be the source.

Now, what does a rubble pile conjure up in your mind? I originally considered it to be, well, a pile of rubble, loosely adhering, but Bennu cannot be that. First, consider the escape velocity, which is more than 20 cm/sec in the polar regions but reduces down to 10 cm/sec at the equator, due to the centrifugal force of its rotation. That is not much, and anything loose would be lost in any impact. Yet the surface is littered with boulders, three more than 40 m long. Any significant shock would seemingly dislodge such boulders, especially smaller ones, but there they are, some half buried. There are also impact craters, some up to 150 meters in diameter. Whatever hit it to create that and excavate a hole 150 m in diameter must have delivered a shock wave that should impart more than 10 cm s−1 to a loosely lying boulder, although there is one possible exception, which is when the whole structure was sufficiently flexible to give without fragmenting and absorb the energy by converting it to heat while adding to the kinetic energy of the whole.

Which brings us back to the rubble pile. Bennu’s relative density is 1.19, so if placed in water it would not float, but it would not sink very quickly either. For comparison, it is less than half that of granite and about a third of many basalts. CI asteroidal material has a bulk density of 1.57, while CM asteroidal material has a bulk density of 2.2.  Accordingly, it is concluded that Bennu has a lot of voids in it, which is where the concept of the rubble pile comes to bear. On the other hand, there is considerable stiffness, so something is restricting movement.

So what do we not know about this asteroid? First, we have only a modest idea of what it is made of, although a sample return might be possible. It may well be made entirely of large boulders plus the obvious voids put together with something sticking the boulders together, but what is the something? If made of boulders, what are the boulders made of? It never got hot enough out there to melt silicates, so whatever they are must b held together by some agent, but what? How resilient is that something, and how many times can it be used before it fails? This is important in case we decide it would be desirable to alter its orbit to avoid a collision with Earth. What holds the boulders together? This is important if we want to know how planets form, and whether such an asteroid will be useful in any way. (If, for example, we were to build a giant space station, the nitrogen, organic material and water in such an asteroid would be invaluable.) More to do to unravel this mystery.

Processing Minerals in Space

I have seen some recent items on the web that state that asteroids are full of minerals and fortunes await. My warning is, look deeper. The reason is, most asteroids have impact craters, and from basic physics but some rather difficult calculations you can show these were formed from very energetic collisions. That the asteroid did not fly to bits indicates it is a solid with considerable mechanical strength. That implies the original dust either melted to form a solid, or a significant chemical reaction took place. For those who have read my “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis” you will know why they melted, assuming I am right. So what has that got to do with things? Quite simply, leaving aside metals like gold, the metal oxides in molten silica form the olivine or pyroxene families, or aluminosilicates. That is they form rocks. To give an example of the issue, I recently read a paper where various chondrites were analysed, and the method of analysis recorded the elements separately. The authors were making much of the fact that the chondrites contained 19% iron. Yikes! But wait. Fayalite contains almost 55% iron by weight, but it is useless as an ore. The olivine and pyroxene structures have tetrahedral silicon oxides (the pyroxene as a strand polymer) where the other valence of the oxygen is bound to a divalent cation, mostly magnesium because magnesium is the most common divalent element in the supernova dust. What these authors had done was to analyse rock.

If you read my previous post you will see that I have uncovered yet another problem with science: the authors were very specialized but they went outside their sphere of competency, quite accidentally. They cited numbers because so much in science depends on numbers. But it is also imperative to know what the numbers mean.

On Earth, most of the metals we obtain come from ores, which have formed through various forms of geochemical processing. Thus to get iron, we usually process haematite, which is an iron oxide, but the iron almost certainly started as an average piece of basalt that got weathered. It is most unlikely that good deposits of haematite will be found on asteroids, although it is possible on Mars where small amounts have been found. If Mars is to be settled, processing rocks will be mandatory for survival but the problems are different from those of asteroids. For this post, I wish to restrict myself to discussing asteroids as a source of metals. Let us suppose an asteroid is collected and brought to a processing site, the question is, what next?

The first problem is size-reduction, i.e.breaking it down to more manageable pieces. How do you do that? If you hit it with something, you immediately separate, following Newton’s third law. If you want to see the difficulties, stand on a small raft and try to keep on hitting something. Ah, you say, anchor yourself. How? You have to put something like a piton into solid rock, and how do you do that without some sort of impact? Of course it can be done, but it is not easy. Now you start smashing it. What happens next is bits of asteroid fly off into space. Can you collect all of the pieces? If not, you are a menace because the asteroid’s velocity v, which will be in the vicinity of 30 km/s if near Earth, has to be added to whatever is given to the fragments. Worse, they take on the asteroid’s eccentricity ε(how much difference there is between closest and farthest distance from the sun) and whatever eccentricity has been added by the fragmentation. This is important because the relative velocity of impact assuming the target is on a circular orbit is proportional to εv. Getting hit by a rock at these sort of velocities is no joke.

However, suppose you collect all the rock, you have two choices: you can process the rock as is, or you can try to refine it. If you adopt the latter idea, how do you do it? On Earth, such processing arises through millions of years of action with fluids, or through superheated fluids passing through high temperature rock. That does not sound attractive. Now some asteroids are argued to have iron cores so the geochemical processing has been done for you. Of course you still have to work your way through the rock, and then you have to size reduce the iron, which again raises the question, how? There is also a little less good news awaiting you: iron cores are almost certainly not pure iron. The most likely composition is iron with iron silicide, iron phosphide, iron carbide and a lot of iron sulphide. There will also be some nickel, together with corresponding compounds, and (at last joy?) certain high value metals that dissolve in iron. So what do you do with this mess?

Then, supposing you separate out a pure chemical compound, how do you get the metal out? The energy input required can be very large. Currently, there is a lot of effort being put into removing CO2from the atmosphere. The reason we do not pull it apart and dump the carbon is that all the energy liberated from burning it has to be replaced, i.e.a little under 400 kJ/mol. and that is such a lot of energy. Consider that as a reference unit. It takes roughly two such units to get iron from iron oxide, although you do get two iron atoms. It takes about five units to break forsterite into two magnesium atoms and one silicon. It takes ten such units to break down kaolinite to get two aluminium atoms and two silicon atoms. Breaking down rock is very energy intensive.

People say, electrolysis. The problem with electrolysis is the material has to dissolve in some sort of solvent and then be separated into ions. Thus when making aluminium, bauxite, an aluminium oxide is used. Clays, which are aluminosilicates such as kaolinite or montmorillinite, are not used, despite being much cheaper and more easily obtained. In asteroids any aluminium will almost certainly be in far more complicated aluminosilicates. Then there is the problem of finding a solvent for electrolysis. For the least active metals, such as copper, water is fine, but that will not work for the more active ones, such as aluminium. Titanium would be even more difficult to make, as it is made from the reduction of titanium tetrachloride with magnesium. You have to make all the starting materials!

On Earth, many oxides are reduced to metal by heating with carbon (usually very pure coal) and allow the carbon to take the oxygen and disappear as a gas. The problem with that, in space, is there is no readily available source of suitable carbon. Carbonaceous chondrites have quite complicated molecules. The ancients used charcoal, and while this is NOT pure carbon, it is satisfactory because the only other element there in volume tends to be oxygen. (Most charcoal is about 35% oxygen.) The iron in meteors could certainly be useful, but for some other valuable elements, such as platinum, while it may be there as the element, it will probably be scattered through the matrix and be very dilute.

Undoubtedly there will be ways to isolate such elements, but such methods will probably be somewhat different from what we use. In some of my novels I have had fusion power tear the molecules to atoms, ionise them, and separate out the elements in a similar way to how a mass spectrometer works, that is they are accelerated and then bent with powerful electromagnetic fields. The “bend” in the subsequent trajectory depends on the mass of the ions, so each isotope is separated. Yes, that is fiction, but whatever is used would probably seem like fiction now. Care should be taken with any investment!

Rocky Planets and their Atmospheres

The previous post outlined how I consider the rocky planets formed. The most important point was that Earth formed a little inside the zone where calcium aluminosilicates could melt and phase separate while the star was accreting, as when the disk cooled down this would create a dust that, when reacted with the water vapour in the disk, would act as a cement. The concept is that this would bind basaltic rocks together, especially if the dust was formed in the collision between the rocks. The collisions were, by and large, gentle at first, driven by the gas sweeping smaller material closer to bigger material. Within this proposed mechanism, because the planet grows by collisions with objects at low relative velocities, the planet starts with a rather porous structure. It gradually heats up due to gravitational potential energy being converted to heat as more material lands, and eventually, if it gets to 1550 degrees, iron melts and runs down the pores towards the centre, while aluminosilicates, with densities about 0.4 – 1.2 g/cm3less than basalt, move upwards. The water is driven from the cements and also rises through the porous rock to eventually form the sea. The aluminosilicates form the granitic/felsic continents upon which we live.

Earth had the best setting of aluminosilicates because after the accretion disk cooled, it was at a temperature where these absorbed water best. Venus is smaller because it was harder to get started, as the cement was sufficiently warm that water had trouble reacting, but once it got going the density of basaltic and iron-bearing rocks was greater. This predicts Venus will have small granitic/felsic cratons on its surface; we have yet to find them. Mercury probably formed simply by accreting silicates and iron during the stellar accretion stage. Mars did not have a good supply of separated aluminium oxides, so it is very short of granite/felsic rock, although the surface of Syrtis Major appears to have a thin sheet of plagioclase. Because the iron did not melt at Mars, its outer rock would have contained a lot of iron dust or iron oxide. Reaction with water would have oxidised it subsequently. Most Martian rocks have roughly the same levels of calcium as Earth, about half the aluminium content, and about half as much again of iron oxide, which as an aside, may be why Mars does not have plate tectonics: because of the iron levels it cannot make eclogite which is necessary for pull subduction.

However, there is also a lot of chemistry going on in the stage 1 accretion disk in addition to what I have used to make the planets. In the vapour phase, carbon is mainly in the form of carbon monoxide in the rocky planet zone, but this can react catalytically with hydrogen to make methanol and hydrocarbons. These will have a very short lifetime and would be what chemists call reactive intermediates, but they would condense on silicates to make carbonaceous material, and they will react with oxides and metal vapour to make carbides. At the temperatures of at least the inner rocky planet zone, nitrogen reacts with oxides to make nitrides, and with carbides to make cyanamides, and some other materials.

Returning to the planet while it is heating up, the water coming off the cement should be quite reactive. If it meets iron dust it will oxidise it. If it meets a carbide there will be options, although the metal will invariably become an oxide. If the carbide was of the structure of calcium carbide it will make acetylene. If it oxidises anything, it will make hydrogen and the oxide. For many carbides it may make methane and metal oxide, or carbon monoxide, and invariably some hydrogen. Carbon monoxide can be oxidised by water to carbon dioxide, making more hydrogen, but carbon monoxide and hydrogen make synthesis gas, and a considerable variety of chemicals can be made, most of which are obvious contenders to help make life. Nitrides react with water largely to make ammonia, but ammonia is also reactive, and hydrogen cyanide and cyanoacetylene should be made. In the very early stages of biogenesis, hydrogen cyanide is an essential material, even though now it is poisonous.

This explains a little more of what we see in terms of the per centage composition. Mars, as noted above, has extremely little felsic/granitic material, and has a much higher proportion of iron oxide. It has less carbon dioxide than expected, even after allowing for some having escaped to space, and that is because since Mars was cooler, the high temperature carbide formation was slower. It has less water because the calcium silicates absorb less, although there is an issue here of how much is buried under the surface. The nitrogen is a puzzle. Mars has extremely little nitrogen, and the question is, why not. One possibility is that the temperatures were too low for significant nitride production. The other possibility, which I proposed in my novel Red Gold, is that at least some nitrogen was there and was emitted as ammonia. If so, it solves another puzzle: Mars has clear signs of ancient river flows, but all evidence is it was too cold for ice to melt. However, ammonia dissolves in ice and melts it down to minus eighty degrees Centigrade. So, in my opinion, the river flows were ammonia/water solutions. The carbon would have been emitted as methane, but that oxidises to carbon dioxide in the presence of water vapour and UV light.  Ammonia reacts with carbon dioxide first to form ammonium carbonate (which will also lower the melting point of ice) then urea. If I am right, there will be buried deposits of urea, or whatever it converts to after billions of years, in selected places on Mars.

The experts argue that methane and ammonia would only survive for a few years due to the UV radiation. However, smog would tend to protect them, and Titan still has methane. Liquid water also tends to protect ammonia. There are two samples from early Earth. One is of the atmosphere encased in rock at Isua, Greenland. It contains methane (as well as some hydrogen). The other is from Barberton (South Africa) which contains samples of seawater trapped in rock. The concentration of ammonia in seawater at 3.2 Gy BP was such that about 10% of the planet’s nitrogen currently in the atmosphere was in the sea in the form of ammonia.

We finally get to the initial question: why is Venus so different? The answer is simple. It will have had a lower per centage of cement and a high per centage of basalt simply because it formed at a hotter place. Accordingly, it would have much less water than Earth. However, it would have had more carbides and nitrides, and that valuable water got used up making the atmosphere, and in oxidising sulphur to sulphates. Accordingly, I expect Venus to have relatively small deposits of granite on the surface.

There is also the question of the deuterium to hydrogen ratio, which is at least a hundred times higher than solar. If the above mechanism is right, all the oxygen in the oxides, and all the nitrogen in the atmosphere, came from water reacting. My answer is that just about all the water was used up making the atmosphere, sulphates, and whatever. The initial reaction is of the sort:

R – X  + H2O  ->  R –OH + H – X

In this, one hydrogen atom has to transfer from the water to the X (where it will later be dislodged and lost to space). If there is a choice, the atom that is most weakly bonded will move, and deuterium is bonded quite more strongly than hydrogen. The electronic binding is the same, but there are zero point vibrations, and hydrogen, being lighter uses more of this as vibrational energy. In general chemistry, the chemical isotope effect, as it is called, can make the hydrogen between four and twenty-five times more likely to move, depending on the activation energy. Venus did not need to lose the supply of water equivalent to Earth’s oceans to get its high deuterium content; the chemical isotope effect is far more effective.

Further details can be found in my ebook “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis”http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007T0QE6I.

How do Rocky Planets Form?

A question in my last post raised the question of how do rocky planets form, and why is Venus so different from Earth? This will take two posts; the first covers how the planets form and why, and the second how they evolve immediately after formation and get their atmospheres.

First, a quick picture of accretion. At first, the gas cloud collapses and falls into the star, and in this stage the star the size of the sun accretes something like 2.5 x 10^20 kg per second. Call that stage 1. When the star has gobbled up most of the material, such accretion slows down, and in what I shall call stage 2 it accretes gas at least four orders of magnitude slower. The gas heats due to loss of potential energy as it falls into the star, although it also radiates heat from the dust that gets hot. (Hydrogen and helium do not radiate in the infrared easily.) In stage 1, the gas reached something like 1600 degrees C at 1 A.U. (the distance from Earth to the sun). In stage 2, because far less gas was falling in, the disk had temperatures roughly what bodies have now. Even in stage 2, standard theory has it that boulder-sized objects will fall into the star within about a hundred years due to friction with the gas.

So how did planets form? The standard explanation is that after the star had finished accreting, the dust very rapidly accreted to planetesimals (bodies about 500 km across) and these collided to form oligarchs, and in turn these collided to form planets. I have many objections to this. The reasons include the fact there is no mechanism to form the planetesimals that we assume to begin with. The calculations originally required one hundred million years (100 My) to form Earth, but we know that it had to be essentially formed well before that because the collision that formed the Moon occurred at about 50 My after formation started. Calculations solved the Moon-forming problem by saying it only took 30 My, but without clues why this time changed. Worse, there are reasons to believe Earth had to form within about 1 My of stage 2 because it has xenon and krypton that had to come from the accretion disk. Finally, in the asteroid belt there is evidence of some previous collisions between asteroids. What happens is they make families of much smaller objects. In short, the asteroids shatter into many pieces upon such collisions. There is no reason to believe that similar collisions much earlier would be any different.

The oldest objects in the solar system are either calcium aluminium inclusions or iron meteorites. Their ages can be determined by various isotope decays and both had to be formed in very hot regions. The CAIs are found in chondrites originating from the asteroid belt, but they needed much greater heat to form than was there in stage 2. Similarly, iron meteorites had to form at a temperature sufficient to melt iron. So, how did they get that hot and not fall into the sun? The only time the accretion disk got sufficiently hot at a reasonable distance from the sun was when the star was accreting in stage 1. In my opinion, this shows the calculations were wrong, presumably because they missed something. Worse, to have enough material to make the giants, about a third of the stellar mass has to be in the disk, but observation of other disks in stage 2 shows there is simply not enough mass to make the giants.

The basic argument I make is that whatever was formed in the late stages of stellar accretion stayed more or less where it was. One of the puzzles of the solar system is that most of the mass is in the star, but most of the angular momentum resides in the planets, and since angular momentum has to be conserved and since most of that was with the gas initially, my argument is any growing solids took angular momentum from the gas, which sends then mass further from the star, and it had to be taken before the star stopped accreting. (I suggest a mechanism in my ebook.)

Now to how the rocky planets formed. During primary stellar accretion, temperatures reached about 1300 degrees C where Mars would form and 1550 degrees C a little beyond where Earth would grow. This gives a possible mechanism for accretion of dust. At about 800 degrees C silicates start to get sticky, so dust can accrete into small stones there, and larger ones closer to the star. There are a number of different silicates, all of which have long polymers, but some, especially aluminosilicates are a little more mobile than others. At about 1300 degrees C, calcium silicate starts to phase separate out, and about 1500 degrees C various aluminosilicates phase separate. This happens because the longer the polymer, the more immiscible it is in another polymer melt (a consequence of the first two laws of thermodynamics, and which makes plastics recycling so difficult.) If this were the only mechanism for forming rocky planets, the size of the finished planet would diminish significantly with distance from the star. Earth, Venus and Mercury are in the wrong order. Mercury may have accreted this way, but further out, stones or boulders would be the biggest objects.

Once primary stellar accretion ends, temperatures were similar to what they are now. Stones collide, but with temperatures like now, they initially only make dust. There is no means of binding silicates through heat. However, if stones can come together, dust can fill the spaces. The key to rocky planet formation is that calcium silicate and calcium aluminosilicates could absorb water vapour from the disk gases, and when they do that, they act as cements that bind the stones together to form a concrete. The zone where the aluminosilicates start to get formed is particularly promising for absorbing water and setting cement, and because iron starts to form bodies here, lumps of iron are also accreted. This is why Earth has an iron core and plenty of water. Mars has less water because calcium silicate absorbs much less water, and its iron is mainly accreted as fine dust.

Finally, Mars is smaller because the solids density is less, and the disk is cleared before it has time to fully grow. The evidence for the short-lived disk is from the relatively small size of Jupiter compared with corresponding planets around similar sized stars that our sun cleared out the accretion disk sooner than most. This is why we have rocky planets, and not planets like the Neptune-sized planets in the so-called habitable zone around a number of stars. Venus is smaller than Earth because it was harder to get going, through the difficulty of water setting the cement, which is partly why it has very little water on its surface. However, once started it grows faster since the density of basaltic rocks is greater. Mercury is probably smaller still because it formed a slightly different way, through excessively mobile silicates in the first stage of the accretion disk, and by later being bombed by very large rocky bodies that were more likely to erode it. That is somewhat similar to the standard explanation of why Mercury is small but has a large iron core. The planets grow very quickly, and soon gravity binds all dust and small stones, then as it grows, gravity attracts objects that have grown further away, which perforce are large, but still significantly smaller than the main body in the zone.

Next post: how these rocky planets started to evolve to where they are now.

Science that does not make sense

Occasionally in science we see reports that do not make sense. The first to be mentioned here relates to Oumuamua, the “interstellar asteroid” mentioned in my previous post. In a paper (arXiv:1901.08704v3 [astro-ph.EP] 30 Jan 2019) Sekanina suggests the object was the debris of a dwarf interstellar comet that disintegrated before perihelion. One fact that Sekanina thought to be important was that no intrinsically faint long-period comet with a perihelion distance less than about 0.25 AU, which means it comes as close or closer than about two-thirds the distance from the sun as Mercury, have ever been observed after perihelion. The reason is that if the comet gets that close to the star, the heat just disintegrates it. Sekanina proposed that such an interstellar comet entered our system and disintegrated, leaving “a monstrous fluffy dust aggregate released in the recent explosive event, ‘Oumuamua should be of strongly irregular shape, tumbling, not outgassing, and subjected to effects of solar radiation pressure, consistent with observation.” Convinced? My problem: just because comets cannot survive close encounters with the sun does not mean a rock emerging from near the sun started as a comet. This is an unfortunately common logic problem. A statement of the form “if A, then B” simply means what it says. It does NOT mean, there is B therefor there must have been A.

At this point it is of interest to consider what comets are comprised of. The usual explanation is they are formed by ices and dust accreting. The comets are formed in the very outer solar system (e.g.the Oort cloud) by the ices sticking together. The ices include gases such as nitrogen and carbon monoxide, which are easily lost once they get hot. Here, “hot” is still very cold. When the gases volatalise, they tend to blow off a lot of dust, and that dust is what we see as the tail, which is directed away from the star due to radiation pressure and solar wind. The problem with Sekanina’s interpretation is, the ice holds everything together. The paper conceded this when it said it was a monstrous fluffy aggregate, but for me as the ice vaporizes, it will push the dust apart. Further, even going around a star, it will still happen progressively. The dust should spread out, as a comet tail. It did not for Oumuamua.

The second report was from Bonomo, in Nature Astronomy(doi.org/10.1038/s41550-018-0648-9). They claimed the Kepler 107 system provided evidence of giant collisions, as described in my previous post, and the sort of thing that might make an Oumuamua. What the paper claims is there are two planets with radii about fifty per cent bigger than Earth, and the outer planet is twice as dense (relative density ~ 12.6 g/cm^3) than the inner one (relative density ~ 5.3 g/cm^3). The authors argue that this provides evidence for a giant collision that would have stripped off much of the silicates from the outer planet, thus leaving more of an iron core. In this context, that is what some people think is the reason for Mercury having a density almost approaching that of Earth so the authors are simply tagging on to a common theme.

So why do I think this does not make sense? Basically because the relative density of iron is 7.87 g/cm^3. Even if this planet is pure iron, it could not have a density significantly greater than 7.8. (There is an increase in density due to compressibility under gravity, but iron is not particularly compressible so any gain will be small.) Even solid lead would not do. Silicates and gold would be OK, so maybe we should start a rumour? Raise money for an interstellar expedition to get rich quick (at least from the raised money!) However, from the point of view of the composition of dust that forms planets, that is impossible so maybe investors will see through this scam. Maybe.

So what do I think has happened? In two words, experimental error. The mass has to be determined by the orbital interactions with something else. What the Kepler mehod does is determine the orbital characteristics by measuring the periodic times, i.e.the times between various occultations. The size is measured from the width of the occultation signal and the slope of the signal at the beginning and the end. All of these have possible errors, and they include the size of the star and the assumed position re the equator of the star, so the question now is, how big are these errors? I am starting to suspect, very big.

This is of interest to me since I wrote an ebook, “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis”. In this, I surveyed all the knowedge I could find up to the time of writing, and argued the standard theory was wrong. Why? It took several chapters to nail this, but the essence is that standard theory starts with a distribution of planetesimals and lets gravitational interactions lead to their joining up into planets. The basic problems I see with this are that collisions will lead to fragmentation, and the throwing into deep space, or the star, bits of planet. The second problem is nobody has any idea how such planetesimals form. I start by considering chemical interactions, and when I do that, after noting that what happens will depend on the temperatures around where it happens (what happens in chemistry is often highly temperature dependent) you get very selective zoes that differ from each other quite significantly. Our planets are in such zones (if you assume Jupiter formed at the “snow zone”) and have the required properties. Since I wrote that, I have been following the papers on the topic and nothing has been found that contradicts it, except, arguably things like the Kepler 107 “extremely dense planet”. I argue it is impossible, and therefore the results are in error.

Should anyone be interested in this ebook, see http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007T0QE6I

Oumuamua (1I) and Vega

Oumuamua is a small asteroidal object somewhere between 100 – 1000 meters long and is considerably longer than it is broad. Basically, it looks like a slab of rock, and is currently passing through the solar system on its way to wherever. It is our first observation of an interstellar object hence the bracketed formal name: 1 for first, I for interstellar. How do we know it came from interstellar space? Its orbit has been mapped, and its eccentricity determined. The eccentricity of a circular orbit is zero; an eccentricity greater than zero but less than one means the object is in an elliptical orbit, and the larger the eccentricity, the bigger the difference between closest and furthest approach to the sun. Oumuamua was found to have an eccentricity of 1.1995, which means, being greater than 1, it is on a hyperbolic orbit. It started somewhere where the sun’s gravity is irrelevant, and it will continue on and permanently leave the sun’s gravitational field. We shall never see it again, so the observation of it could qualify it for entry in “The Journal of Irreproducible Results”.

Its velocity in interstellar space (i.e.without the sun’s gravitational effects) was 26.3 km/s. We have no means of knowing where it came from, although if is trajectory is extrapolated backwards, it came from the direction of Vega. Of course it did not come from Vega, because when it passed through the space that Vega now occupies, Vega was somewhere else. Given there is no sign of ice on Oumuamua, which would form something like a cometary tail, it presumably came from the rocky zone closer to its system’s star, and this presumably has given rise to the web speculation that Oumuamua was some sort of alien space ship. Sorry, but no, it is not, and it does not need motors to enter interstellar space.

The way a body like Oumuamua could be thrown into interstellar space goes like this. There has to be a collision between two rocky bodies that are big enough to form fragments of the required size and the collision has to be violent enough to give the fragment a good velocity. That will also make a lot of dust. The fragments would be assumed to then go into elliptical orbits, but if there are both rocky planets and giants, the body could be ejected in the same way the Voyager space craft have left our solar system, namely through gravity assists. If the object is on the right trajectory it could get a gravity assist from an earth-like rocky planet, then another one from a giant that could give it enough impetus to leave the system. This presumably happened a long time ago, so we have no idea where the object came from.

Notwithstanding that, Oumuamua brought Vega to my attention, and it is, at least for me, an interesting star. That, of course, is because I have published a theory of planetary formation that is at odds with the generally accepted one. Vega has about twice the mass of the sun, and because it is bigger, it burns faster, and will have a life of about a billion years. It is roughly half-way through that, so it won’t have had time for planets to evolve intelligent life. The concentration of elements heavier than helium in Vega is about a third that of the sun. Vega also has an abnormally fast rate of rotation, so much so that it is about 88% of what would be required to start the star breaking up. This is significant because one of the oddities of our solar system is that the bulk of the angular momentum resides in the planets, while by far the bulk of the mass lies in the star. The implication might be that the lower level of heavier elements meant that Vega did not form cores fast enough and hence it does not have the giant planets of sufficient size to have taken up sufficient angular momentum. The situation could be like an ice skater who spins very fast, but slows the rotation by extending her arms. If the arms are very short, the spin cannot be slowed as much.

The infra-red emissions from Vega are consistent with a dust disk from about 70 – 100 A.U. out to 330 A.U. from the star (an A.U. is the distance from the sun to the Earth). This is assumed to have arisen from recent collisions of objects comparable to those in the Kuiper Belt here. There is apparently another dusty zone at 8 A.U., which would have to have originated from collisions between rocky objects. So far there is no evidence of planets around Vega, but equally there is no evidence there are none. We view Vega almost aligned with its axis of rotation, so most of the usual techniques for finding planets will not work. The transiting technique of the Kepler program requires us to be aligned with the ecliptic (which should be aligned with the equator) and the Doppler technique has similar limitations, although it has more tolerance for deviation. The Doppler technique detects the gravitational wobble of the star and if you could detect such a wobble directly, you could see it from along the polar axis. Unfortunately, we can’t, at least not yet, and worse, detecting such wobbles works best with very large planets around small stars. Here, if you follow my theory and accept the low metallicity, we expect small planets around a very large star. Direct observation has so far only worked for the first few million years of the star, where giant planets are radiating yellow to white light from their surface temperature that is so hot because of the gravitational accretion energy. These cool down reasonably quickly.

What grabbed my attention about Vega was the 8 A.U. dust zone. That can only be generated by a number of collisions because such dust zones have to be replenished. That is because solar radiation slows dust down, and it gradually falls into the star. So to have a good number of frequent collisions, you need a very large number of objects that could collide, which effectively requires a belt of boulders. So why have they not collided and formed a planet, when the standard theory of planetary formation says planets are formed by the collision of boulders to form planetesimals, and these collide to form embryos, which collide to form planets. In my ebook, “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis” I provide an answer, which is basically that to form rocky planets, the collisions have to happen in the accretion disk, and they happen very fast, and they happen because water vapour in the disk helps set cement. Once the accretion disk is removed, further accretion is impossible, other than from objects colliding with a big enough object for gravity to hold all the debris. Accordingly, collisions of boulder-sized objects or asteroids will make dust, and that would create a dust belt that would not last all that long. The equivalent of the Kuiper Belt around Vega appears to be between 3 – 6 times further out. In my theory, if the planet accreted in the same as the sun, it would be approximately 8 times further out. However, lower dust content may make it harder to radiate energy, hence accretion may be slower. If this second belt scales accordingly, it could correspond to our asteroid belt.  We know occasional collisions did occur in our asteroid belt because we see families of smaller fragments whose trajectories extrapolate back to a singe event. So maybe dust belts are tolerably common for short periods in the life of a star. It would not be a great coincidence we see one around Vega; there are a huge number of stars, we see a very large number of accretion disks, so dust belts should turn up sooner or later.

Finally, why does the star spin faster? Again, in my theory, the planets accrete from the solid and take their angular momentum, but then they also take angular momentum from the disk gas through a mechanism similar to the classical Magnus force. Vega has less dust to make planets, hence less angular momentum is taken that way, and because the planets should be smaller there is less gravity to take angular momentum from the gas, and more gas anyway. So the star retains a higher fraction of its angular momentum. All of this does not prove that my theory is right, but it is comforting that it at least has some sort of plausible support. If interested further, check out http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007T0QE6I.