Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
NatureBoff

What Chance Is Earth's Core Non-Baryonic?

What Chance Is Earth's Core Non-Baryonic?  

9 members have voted

  1. 1. What Chance Is Earth's Core Non-Baryonic?

    • 100% - i'm ultra confident that it's at least partly non-baryonic
    • 75% - there's a very real chance imo
      0
    • 50% - it's certainly possible
      0
    • 25% - maybe
    • 0% - no chance


30 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

NatureBoff

I've just sent this email to prof Ishii of Harvard University, w.r.t to their work on the innermost core of the Earth Earth's New Center May Be The Seed Of Our Planet's Formation

Dear Prof Ishii, I wish to give my deep compliments on the detailed the work by yourself and prof Dziewonski showing the 360 mile diameter innermost core of the Earth. I like the idea of the 'seed formation' of the Earth and would like to know your personal opinion on the possiblity of this seed being non-baryonic in nature?

100% - i'm ultra confident that it's at least partly non-baryonic

75% - there's a very real chance imo

50% - it's certainly possible

25% - maybe

0% - no chance

It has implications for Earth's 'inclination earth tides' on a 100,000 year cycle which could affect the climate giving us the glacial phenomena and be a challenge to the generally accepted Milankovitch eccentricity insolation forcing hypothesis.

Kind regards and my compliments again,

Alan Lowey

Before she replies, if she ever does, what's your opinion on their proposition of a seed formation for planet Earth?

post-94765-0-98656900-1296042713_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silus

I doubt it a lot but it can't be ruled out completely for obvious reasons. I always hope that the "out there" option is true as it is usually much more exotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatureBoff

I doubt it a lot but it can't be ruled out completely for obvious reasons. I always hope that the "out there" option is true as it is usually much more exotic.

Thanks for the positive touch to your post Silus. Did you vote 0% though, or was that someone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silus

Yes I voted 0 but it is probably about 5-7%. I think that any differences they find between layers at the inner most core are purely down to differing pressures, just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave

I kinda of doubt you will get a meaningful answer, because you don't give a meaningful reason why the seed at the Earth's core need be ``non-baryonic''.

It could certainly be considerably more massive than the rest of the core (isn't that why she discovered it?), but you don't give any reason about why it need be non-baryonic.

As assume you are not suggesting that the core be mesonic or leptonic or bosonic. Are you suggesting that the core be made of pentaquark particles?

Or are you suggesting (as I think you are) that the core be made of particles that are not contained within the standard model?

It will be interesting, of course, to see what her reply is.

However if her reply doesn't really answer your question (as I suspect it might), try phrasing your question a little more explicitly.

In your question, try stating:

  • Whether or not you think the matter in the core is part of the standard model,
  • If not, does this matter couple normally to gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear force.

Just my 2 cents, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

I kinda of doubt you will get a meaningful answer, because you don't give a meaningful reason why the seed at the Earth's core need be ``non-baryonic''.

It could certainly be considerably more massive than the rest of the core (isn't that why she discovered it?)

*snip*

Regarding the assumption that the 'inner inner core' is more massive than the inner core, sepluchrave, I didn't read this interpretation from the article posted.

While it is possible that is what the 'packing difference' implies, it could also simply be that the lattice of iron crystals in the inner inner core are oriented differently to the rest of the inner core, rather than more closely packed. This would seem to be supported by the angle of incidence; 45o to the axis of rotation for the slower waves travelling through the inner inner core vs 90o (east-west) to the axis of rotation for the slower waves through the inner core.

This inner inner core might indeed be a fossil, perhaps of the planet before the impact which caused the formation of the Moon? As you suggest, however, I don't see any need to interpret this 'inner inner core' as having different fundamental properties (being 'non-baryonic') than the rest of the inner core.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave

Good point, Leonardo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatureBoff

I kinda of doubt you will get a meaningful answer, because you don't give a meaningful reason why the seed at the Earth's core need be ``non-baryonic''.

There's no meaningful reason to think that it isn't non-baryonic either though, is there? The possibility invalidates Newton's "law" as being correct. It's just one of a number of possble solutions. The other reason, which you should really know about by now, is that there's a chance that the 100,000 year ice age enigma can be solved by an increase in earth-tides with a change in Earth's inclination orbit. This then gives a respectable alternative to Milankovitch's insolation forcing hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatureBoff

Regarding the assumption that the 'inner inner core' is more massive than the inner core, sepluchrave, I didn't read this interpretation from the article posted.

While it is possible that is what the 'packing difference' implies, it could also simply be that the lattice of iron crystals in the inner inner core are oriented differently to the rest of the inner core, rather than more closely packed. This would seem to be supported by the angle of incidence; 45o to the axis of rotation for the slower waves travelling through the inner inner core vs 90o (east-west) to the axis of rotation for the slower waves through the inner core.

This inner inner core might indeed be a fossil, perhaps of the planet before the impact which caused the formation of the Moon? As you suggest, however, I don't see any need to interpret this 'inner inner core' as having different fundamental properties (being 'non-baryonic') than the rest of the inner core.

Thanks for making good sense of the packing and orientation aspect of the proposed innermost core. This is essential in understanding the concept of Earth's inclination earth-tides being increased due to a non-symmetrically shaped innermost core. It would have to be a rugby ball shape stood on it's end as waiting to be kicked. It could be that the protons and neutrons are arranged differently than in baryonic matter and therefore packed much more tightly as well as with orientation. (It's too complicated to explain in one go Leonardo, so I don't expect you to follow my meaning) Edited by Humblemun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Thanks for making good sense of the packing and orientation aspect of the proposed innermost core. This is essential in understanding the concept of Earth's inclination earth-tides being increased due to a non-symmetrically shaped innermost core. It would have to be a rugby ball shape stood on it's end as waiting to be kicked. It could be that the protons and neutrons are arranged differently than in baryonic matter and therefore packed much more tightly as well as with orientation. (It's too complicated to explain in one go Leonardo, so I don't expect you to follow my meaning)

I don't read from the article in question that the inner inner core has to be odd-shaped, humblemun, only that the crystalline lattice of iron atoms be oriented in a different direction than the surrounding inner core.

It is essentially a "ball within a ball" (as described), and may simply be the result of the melting and resetting of the inner core (down to the depth discovered) via some catastrophic event - such as the impact which caused the formation of our Moon.

There is no requirement for the matter comprising the inner inner core to be anything other than normal, baryonic matter - albeit at great pressure.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatureBoff

I don't read from the article in question that the inner inner core has to be odd-shaped, humblemun, only that the crystalline lattice of iron atoms be oriented in a different direction than the surrounding inner core.

It is essentially a "ball within a ball" (as described), and may simply be the result of the melting and resetting of the inner core (down to the depth discovered) via some catastrophic event - such as the impact which caused the formation of our Moon.

There is no requirement for the matter comprising the inner inner core to be anything other than normal, baryonic matter - albeit at great pressure.

It's not about requirement Leonardo, it's about possibility. There's a possiblity, and when this is explored a whole new door opens up in modern physics. See here for what I mean Is Inclination A Dirty Word?

This Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle: eccentricity or orbital inclination? paper claims to solve 4 of the 6 problems with Milankovitch cycles Wikipedia Milankovitch cycles. I was very impressed, but presumably their suggested mechanism for climate change, namely extraterrestrial accretion of dust or meteoroids, has not been supported by recent findings. Is it not worth considering another possible mechanism, when the inclination cycle solves so much?

1. 100,000-year problem

2. 400,000-year problem (Stage 11 problem)

3. Causality problem (Stage 5 problem)

4. The unsplit peak problem

The existence of the 100 kyr cycle of orbital inclination does not seem to have been previously noticed by climatologists. It may have been missed for two reasons. Ever since Milankovitch, the implicit assumption has been that insolation is the driving force for climate cycles, and insolation is not directly affected by orbital inclination. In addition, the 100 kyr cycle is not evident until one transforms to the invariable plane, or to a plane close to it.

The current explanation of the ice ages is due to insolation changes with Earth's orbital eccentricity, yet the inclination orbit giving rise to earth-tides which mix the cold deep oceans to the surface is a viable alternative which has been overlooked imo

2000px-Eccentricity_half.svg.png

2000px-Orbit1.svg.png

Also, check out this thread Dark Matter May Be Building Up Inside the Sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave

There's no meaningful reason to think that it isn't non-baryonic either though, is there?

Other than the fact that there is zero evidence for the existence of spatially and temporally stable accumulations of mesons, bosons, or leptons, and there is zero concrete experimental evidence of non-standard model matter, and there is zero evidence from observations of extrasolar planetary formation that anything other than common atomic elements participate in this process, then yes. There is no reason why the core couldn't be ``non-baryonic'' (again, I assume you mean ``non-standard model'').

By that logic there is no meaningful reason to think that the core isn't made of unicorns.

The possibility invalidates Newton's "law" as being correct.

No it doesn't. Newton formulated the law with absolutely no regard as to what the Earth is made of.

Newton's law is a specific form of a more general law (Gauss' law) which is completely true for Galilean motion of monopole charges in Euclidean space.

If you want to fight with this, you would probably get a lot further by suggesting that the mechanism for the Milankovitch cycles lies in General Relativity - i.e. the Earth is not in true Euclidean space, and does not undergo true Galilean motion, rather than insist that the mechanism lies in exotic matter in the cores of planets and stars.

It's just one of a number of possble solutions. The other reason, which you should really know about by now, is that there's a chance that the 100,000 year ice age enigma can be solved by an increase in earth-tides with a change in Earth's inclination orbit. This then gives a respectable alternative to Milankovitch's insolation forcing hypothesis.

You haven't solved the problem, you've only ``offset'' the solution.

Your solution to the mechanism behind the Milankovitch cycle is to suggest that the core of the Earth is made of up something that is responsible for the Milankovitch cycles.

You don't provide a clear explanation for how a ``non-baryonic'' core increases the Earth tides, nor how such an effect (coupled, I supposed, with an extrema in the orbital inclination?) would lead to an ocean temperature inversion, nor how this effect - if it could happen - would cause an ice age.

I sincerely doubt that even if an ocean temperature inversion could occur via extreme Earth tides (and I sincerely doubt that this is possible), that this effect - which would have a yearly periodicity - could lead to 10 000 years of increased glaciation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatureBoff

sepulchrave, you don't have a mental image of gravity and matter. Nor does the standard model. Nor does any person living on the planet. Not one person understands quantum mechanics. It was announced only on the edition before last of Horizon on BBC2. Did you see it? I presume not. If not, then you shouldn't be even on this forum imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

sepulchrave, you don't have a mental image of gravity and matter. Nor does the standard model. Nor does any person living on the planet. Not one person understands quantum mechanics. It was announced only on the edition before last of Horizon on BBC2. Did you see it? I presume not. If not, then you shouldn't be even on this forum imo.

There is no need for such personal attacks, humblemun, especially as sepulchrave raises valid points.

Your requirement of a 'rugby-ball shaped inner inner core, standing on end (i.e. longer pole-to-pole)' does not jibe with the fact that the rotation of the mass around it's axis would, if anything, cause it to become slightly oblate and shorter pole-to-pole. Additionally, your requirement that this mass be 'ultra-massive non-baryonic matter' would actually exaggerate that effect.

I appreciate your desire to find a causative mechanism for this 'inclination solution', but you are overlooking some pretty basic physics in your enthusiasm to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatureBoff
I appreciate your desire to find a causative mechanism for this 'inclination solution', but you are overlooking some pretty basic physics in your enthusiasm to do so.

Wait just a second Leonardo. Take a look at the latest findings of 2010 with regard to Dark matter 'beach ball' unveiled
The giant halo of dark matter that surrounds our galaxy is shaped like a flattened beach ball, researchers say.

_47048007_beach-ball.jpg

Look at the diagram. All I'm saying is that this squashed beach-ball shape is also the shape of dark matter at the centre of the Earth, sun and moon. Science backs me up. I'm not having to stretch any basic physics at all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Wait just a second Leonardo. Take a look at the latest findings of 2010 with regard to Dark matter 'beach ball' unveiled

_47048007_beach-ball.jpg

Look at the diagram. All I'm saying is that this squashed beach-ball shape is also the shape of dark matter at the centre of the Earth, sun and moon. Science backs me up. I'm not having to stretch any basic physics at all!

The example you selected is not indicative of the situation you propose in the Earth's core, in that the proposed dark matter orbiting our galaxy is unconstrained by matter surrounding it.

The shape of the Earth's inner inner core cannot be theorised in isolation to the rest of the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatureBoff

The example you selected is not indicative of the situation you propose in the Earth's core, in that the proposed dark matter orbiting our galaxy is unconstrained by matter surrounding it.

The shape of the Earth's inner inner core cannot be theorised in isolation to the rest of the planet.

Do you concede that it's an ingenius possiblity? Albeit a small one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Do you concede that it's an ingenius possiblity? Albeit a small one.

No. The only way your 'non-baryonic matter' could be as you suggest, would be if it did not interact with the physics proposed in the standard model as other matter does. It is the equivalent of proposing some form of 'non-standard gravity' that has a differential effect across matter, and you will have to propose a new model to either supplant or modify the standard model before what you propose should be considered.

Within the standard model, what you are suggesting is not possible.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatureBoff

The standard model is fundamentally wrong because the gravity model is irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. A picture of matter and gravity is needed at the smallest scale for a complete understanding of the inner workings of the Earth. With all due respect, your knowledge of this discrepancy seems very limited. But thanks for taking the time in replying to the thread Leonardo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silus

It is true that science doesn't have every answer but it does have most and gives you a pretty good idea of what is left. I have to agree with Sepulchrave and Leonardo, it could be made of anything but the probability of it not being Iron atoms arranged differently or something else equally mundane is so small that it is as close to impossible as you can get without being there. If you are looking for something to rewrite what we understand to be physics then something like dark matter or M-theory are much better bets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatureBoff

It is true that science doesn't have every answer but it does have most and gives you a pretty good idea of what is left. I have to agree with Sepulchrave and Leonardo, it could be made of anything but the probability of it not being Iron atoms arranged differently or something else equally mundane is so small that it is as close to impossible as you can get without being there. If you are looking for something to rewrite what we understand to be physics then something like dark matter or M-theory are much better bets.

Have you forgotten the idea w.r.t an explanation for the ice ages already?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silus

The idea is not integral to ice ages, admittedly it isn't something I've looked into but it seems sensible that it would be an effect of the earth's orbit varying over time. Nothing new is needed to explain ice ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

The standard model is fundamentally wrong because the gravity model is irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. A picture of matter and gravity is needed at the smallest scale for a complete understanding of the inner workings of the Earth. With all due respect, your knowledge of this discrepancy seems very limited. But thanks for taking the time in replying to the thread Leonardo.

You describe the problem the wrong way around, humblemun.

The standard model is not "fundamentally wrong" and the Newtonian (or relativistic, if you wish to update it) model of gravity describes classical systems perfectly well.

The 'gravity model' is not "irreconcilable with quantum mechanics", because there is no quantum theory describing gravity so, more accurately, quantum mechanics is not yet reconciled with gravity.

Theories describe observations, humblemun. Gravity is observed, and so a quantum theory of gravity must be found to flesh out quantum physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave

Just to jump in:

Have you forgotten the idea w.r.t an explanation for the ice ages already?!

I haven't heard you actually explain a mechanism behind the Milankovitch cycle.

From all your posts, all I have gathered is that you think:

  • The anomalous 100 000 year cycle, gathered from a limited selection of arctic and antarctic ice cores, is complete proof of a definite 100 000 year cycle in ice age intensity.
  • This anomalous cycle is a huge problem for physics.
  • To resolve this problem, we need to rewrite a whole lot of physics.
  • Assume that the core of the Earth is made of some hitherto unexplained particle.
  • These particles affect the intensity of Earth-tides (all the time? or just once every 100 000 years?) through an as-yet-unspecified mechanism.
  • The intensity of the Earth-tides somehow causes ocean temperature inversion through an as-yet-unspecified mechanism.
  • Ocean temperature inversion causes a global ice age through an as-yet-unspecified mechanism.

If you can clarify what these ``non-baryonic'' (again, you mean ``non-Standard Model'', right?) particles are, and how they affect Earth tides on a 100 000 year cycle, and how an Earth tide can cause ocean temperature inversion, and how that can cause an ice age, then maybe I will entertain doubts on the Standard Model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatureBoff

Just to jump in:

I haven't heard you actually explain a mechanism behind the Milankovitch cycle.

From all your posts, all I have gathered is that you think:

  • The anomalous 100 000 year cycle, gathered from a limited selection of arctic and antarctic ice cores, is complete proof of a definite 100 000 year cycle in ice age intensity.
  • This anomalous cycle is a huge problem for physics.
  • To resolve this problem, we need to rewrite a whole lot of physics.
  • Assume that the core of the Earth is made of some hitherto unexplained particle.
  • These particles affect the intensity of Earth-tides (all the time? or just once every 100 000 years?) through an as-yet-unspecified mechanism.
  • The intensity of the Earth-tides somehow causes ocean temperature inversion through an as-yet-unspecified mechanism.
  • Ocean temperature inversion causes a global ice age through an as-yet-unspecified mechanism.

If you can clarify what these ``non-baryonic'' (again, you mean ``non-Standard Model'', right?) particles are, and how they affect Earth tides on a 100 000 year cycle, and how an Earth tide can cause ocean temperature inversion, and how that can cause an ice age, then maybe I will entertain doubts on the Standard Model.

Okay, thanks sepulchrave, you're starting to understand what I'm getting at. The main point you're missing is the up and down motion of the Earth as it orbits the sun. This is called the Earth's inclination cycle. Please read this scientific report carefully Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity. All I have done is give an alternative to their proposed 'interplanetary dust' mechanism of causation and replaced it with a non-standard model of the core of the Earth and sun. The main point is that the inclination cycle is a much better fit than the eccentricity cycle for the 100ky cycle. Edited by Humblemun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.