Anomalies in Earth's mantle are remnants of collision with another planet, study concludes

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 906   +280
Staff
The big picture: Theia is a hypothetical ancient planet that orbited the Sun during the formation of the solar system. According to the giant-impact hypothesis, this protoplanet collided with Earth around 4.5 billion years ago, and some of the ejected remnants contributed to the formation of the Moon.

Theia, a name associated with the Greek goddess of sight and vision, is also known in mythology as one of the 12 Titan children of the Earth goddess Gaia and the sky god Uranus. Beyond mythology, Theia is the name of a planet long believed to have played a crucial role in shaping Earth's structure and in giving rise to the Moon.

A recent study has identified a new astronomical object, often referred to as a "buried planet," located within Earth's mantle, which could potentially be the remnants of Theia. Through computer simulations, Theia has been pinpointed in two distinctive rock formations within the Earth's mantle. These formations span thousands of kilometers and exhibit a slightly higher density compared to their surroundings.

The notion that these anomalies in the mantle could be remnants of the ancient protoplanet, Theia, is not entirely new. Planetary scientist Robin Canup notes that the new study represents the first serious investigation of this theory. The study's authors employed seismology to unveil two continent-sized anomalies characterized by low seismic velocities in Earth's lowermost mantle. When seismic waves encounter these "blobs," they slow down, suggesting a different composition than the surrounding mantle.

In 2021, researchers conducted computer simulations to model the interaction between Theia and Earth's mantles. These simulations illustrated how material from the external protoplanet, estimated to be approximately the size of Mars, would descend to the lowest region of Earth's mantle. As time passed, more remnants of Theia would accumulate at this location, eventually forming the denser blobs that are detectable today.

The recent study builds upon the earlier computer simulations and provides a more comprehensive explanation of how the collision between Theia and Earth led to the creation of a two-layered mantle structure. The remainder of the protoplanet was ejected and ultimately coalesced to form the Moon. The researchers used simulations to illustrate how materials from Theia could persist above the Earth's core throughout the planet's evolution, resulting in the formation of two isolated mantle blobs.

Qian Yuan, one of the study's authors, believes that these refined simulations will compel the scientific community to take the giant-impact hypothesis more seriously. The next phase of research aims to practically validate this simulated theory by directly comparing rock samples obtained from Earth's mantles with samples collected from the Moon.

Permalink to story.

 
This theory has been around for decades and I don't mean just a few ..... Sounds like the science geeks are having a slow week ......
 
Some of the mantle is denser... obviously it is from another planet crashing into ours and being swallowed up while also staying relatively intact...

Meet Occam's razor.
 
As mentioned the captured moon theory is decades old because the moon age has been dated as much younger than the Earth has been dated.

And we *know* that all of our dating methods couldn’t possibly be flawed because the scientists that built their careers on them tell us so. So neither date is wrong we just need to find the explanation that fits both. Like hey what if we caught the moon at some point as it was flying by?

(Sigh. Science would be so much better without the politics and everything else that flawed human scientists bring into it. Like how I envisioned it as a kid.)
 
As mentioned the captured moon theory is decades old because the moon age has been dated as much younger than the Earth has been dated.

Ages for both are about 4.5 BYO. How are those different?

And we *know* that all of our dating methods couldn’t possibly be flawed because the scientists that built their careers on them tell us so. So neither date is wrong we just need to find the explanation that fits both. Like hey what if we caught the moon at some point as it was flying by?

(Sigh. Science would be so much better without the politics and everything else that flawed human scientists bring into it. Like how I envisioned it as a kid.)

Government money pays for science and people do the science. You're complaining about water being wet.

Instead focus on what science actually is: a *process*, not a body of knowledge or the people who generate it. You generate testable hypotheses and then test them. If the ideas pass the tests, you do followups and then publish and let the rest of the community rip it apart if you effed up your tests. Lol which happens a lot. People don't like getting 1-upped but they also really appreciate when someone's done an actually great job in their design and testing.
 
As mentioned the captured moon theory is decades old because the moon age has been dated as much younger than the Earth has been dated.

And we *know* that all of our dating methods couldn’t possibly be flawed because the scientists that built their careers on them tell us so. So neither date is wrong we just need to find the explanation that fits both. Like hey what if we caught the moon at some point as it was flying by?

(Sigh. Science would be so much better without the politics and everything else that flawed human scientists bring into it. Like how I envisioned it as a kid.)
The age of the moon and earth are both said to be approximately 4.5 billion years old or do you know something different?

What politics are you referring to here?
 
What are the details about how this other protoplanet managed to get out of its own orbit and collide with earth
 
What are the details about how this other protoplanet managed to get out of its own orbit and collide with earth

This is still a moving target as all astronomers have is models that need to account for every type of star system so far observed. The Trappist system with 7 rocky worlds huddled up against it's red dwarf sun was apparently unexpected by many (all?) before it was found as there were so many rocky worlds still orbiting the star. This and other similar systems suggest that the Sun may have had quite a few more rocky worlds than just the 4 we have left and the orbits were likely close enough that gravitational resonances or other interactions would eventually pull one or more closer or farther away, eventually leading to crossing orbits and collisions over the course of those early 100s of millions of years. Some other models also suggest that Neptune and Uranus may have swapped orbit locations due to similar gravitational interactions but with more space in the outer solar system, they didn't collide.

But it's all just modeling done in computers where you tweak a model until it fits. It can't be tested in the field so it's the best we have, but it seems hand-wavy and guessy to me.
 
Or: The Flood, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, and Earth History
https://www.icr.org/article/flood-catastrophic-plate-tectonics/
Sorry but your source comes from a creationist apologetics institute, not a real scientific research group..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research

but have fun thinking the earth isn't even only a million years old. Science looks at the world around it and tries to make sense of it, not the other way around where you look for evidence for what is an already forgone conclusion
 
but have fun thinking the earth isn't even only a million years old. Science looks at the world around it and tries to make sense of it, not the other way around where you look for evidence for what is an already forgone conclusion

Exactly this. The point of science is to understand how the world works so you can make it work for you.

These places that come up with young earth creationism are telling stories and that's OK if you like stories, but there's no actionable information in there. Science delivers information about how all the little parts of the world function and importantly makes predictions about how it will work in the future. ie: Every time you make an ultrapure semiconductor wafer and apply your DUV lithographic mask technique, you'll get this % of usable processors out of it.

Seems useful.
 
Sorry but your source comes from a creationist apologetics institute, not a real scientific research group..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research

but have fun thinking the earth isn't even only a million years old. Science looks at the world around it and tries to make sense of it, not the other way around where you look for evidence for what is an already forgone conclusion
Your soul knows the truth. It takes more faith to to deny the order of creation than to confess His design as all the univers confirms it.
 
Back