Slashdot Mirror


Findings Cast Doubt On Moon Origins

sciencehabit writes "A new analysis of isotopes found in lunar minerals challenges the prevailing view of how Earth's nearest neighbor formed. Geochemists looked at titanium isotopes in 24 separate samples of lunar rock and soil, and found that the moon's proportion was effectively the same as Earth's and different from elsewhere in the solar system. This contradicts the so-called Giant Impact Hypothesis, which posits that Earth collided with a hypothetical, Mars-sized planet called Theia early in its existence, and the resulting smash-up produced a disc of magma orbiting our planet that later coalesced to form the moon."

38 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's no moon!

    1. Re:In other words... by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pink Floyd owns the rights to the Dark Side of the Moon.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:In other words... by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 4, Funny

      OT14 teaches us that "The Moon" was actually put here to hold any thetans left over after the volcanoes became full.

      Just sayin'.

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

  2. Where is it ? (my keys) by fluffythedestroyer · · Score: 5, Funny

    We have the technology to find and look very deep or far where isotopes are or where the fartest solar system is. But yet, I can't find my damn keys in my house sometimes.

    1. Re:Where is it ? (my keys) by stoofa · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's because you look for your keys with sight. 'Fartest' solar systems are detected with smell.

    2. Re:Where is it ? (my keys) by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have the technology to find and look very deep or far where isotopes are or where the fartest solar system is. But yet, I can't find my damn keys in my house sometimes.

      If technology isn't solving your problem, you aren't using enough: Put an RFID tag on your key chain. While you are at it, you should tag the TV remote too.

    3. Re:Where is it ? (my keys) by fleeped · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obviously using the Smell-O-Scope

    4. Re:Where is it ? (my keys) by holmedog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I started to mod this insightful. Then, I thought "Wow, that's so cool I'm going to go actually buy that system and put chips in all my stuff". Then I did the research and realized it's $400 (source: http://www.dpl-surveillance-equipment.com/1000066086.html) .

      I'll just keep putting the keys on my nightstand and the remote on the end table.

    5. Re:Where is it ? (my keys) by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Funny

      I tried this but then I lost the RFID detector. Once I found it again, I tagged it and now have an RFID Detector Detector. And just to make sure that isn't lost, I tagged that device and have an RFID Detector Detector Detector. What was I looking for again?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:Where is it ? (my keys) by Livius · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait, you moved, and the teens *still* managed to find you and get their hands on the remote?

  3. Re:What are the implications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anthropogenic global warming.

  4. Not a contradiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It doesn't contradict it at all. The current version of the impactor theory pre-supposes that Theia was formed at Earth's L4 or L5 point. There, the fractional distillation effect in the solar nebula would give the same Ti isotope ratios as in Earth, since Theia would be orbiting at the same distance. Formation at L4 or L5 also gives a nicely low impact energy, agreeing with what is needed to form the moon.

    1. Re:Not a contradiction by Quaoar · · Score: 4, Informative

      This doesn't work. The fractional element abundances depend not only on the location in the protoplantery disk, but on the timescales of accretion, which depend on the mass of the object accreting. Thus, even if you formed Theia in L4/L5, the isotopic ratios should be different, as the two objects will have different masses.

      --
      I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
    2. Re:Not a contradiction by icebike · · Score: 5, Informative

      The location of Theia's formation at 4 or L5 would be close enough to earth that the accretion would of the same material. Further if Theia were at L4 it would lead earth in the orbital path, 60 degrees ahead, and would tend to preferentially sweep the protoplanetary disk, before earth's mass rendered any advantage. Any differences in ratios would be small at the time of impact.

      Bear in mind that anything at the the Lagrange points must necessarily be insignificantly small relative to the earth. As soon as it stops being so, the likelihood of it staying at the Lagrange point becomes nil. I remain unconvinced that a planet could form at L4 or L5 and become large enough such that any impact would eject a mass as large as the moon. Drift should occur long before it acquired enough mass. (Earths orbit is not circular, rather it is elliptical, and as such the Lagrange points are really unstable Lagrange "areas").

      Disregarding my doubts, when a body formed at L4 or L5 does drift, and impact earth, that impact would scatter its content over the surface of the earth such that we would, after all these billions of years, be hard pressed to distinguish it from earth's original composition. Similarly, the moon would be composed of the same material sources, a combination of both Theia and Earth materials.

      Any subtle differences in accretion would be completely masked by impact mixing.

      However, the same could be said about any body impacting the earth. The likelihood of such a body remaining intact (bottling up any difference in isotopic ratios) is virtually nil, and both earth and moon are going to be covered with the same relative ratios in any method which postulates the moon being formed from ejecta from an earth impact.

      At best this finding puts to rest the long discredited "captured moon" theory.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Not a contradiction by Quaoar · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is that the ratio of Earth's mantle to Theia's mantle matters in the combination, even if mixing is efficient. The Earth's mantle is fully convective, and around 6 times the mass of the impactor's mantle, which means that you have to really fine-tune the conditions to achieve the exact right mixture. A good analogy would be trying to mix milk and water in a glass such that the fluid that splashes out of the glass has the same fraction of milk to water as the fluid remaining in the glass. With the original Oxygen isotope constraint, 95%+ of the lunar mantle needed to originate from the Earth, which is in direct conflict with the giant impact simulations that have been performed (which find 80% coming from the *impactor*), even for iron-rich impactors that preferentially remove Earth's mantle. This new constraint, if I am reading the paper correctly, is even stronger than the Oxygen isotope constraint, being at the part per million level rather than the part per ten thousand level.

      --
      I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
    4. Re:Not a contradiction by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Earth's mantle is fully convective, and around 6 times the mass of the impactor's mantle,

      Wait, what? Where did you get 6 times? And where did the impactor get a mantle? That number is sheer conjecture, and the existence of a mantle makes so sense until you have an impactor large enough to have a differentiated body. That hasn't been proven.

      Moon's core is different from earth's by our best guesses. But the surface accretion in the eons after any impact is going to accumulate the same combination of protoplanetary disk material and ejecta material.

      We've barely scratches the surface of earth, let alone the moon. These isotope measurements are akin to determining the structure of a large building by examining a paint chip scraped off of each.

      And using hind sight, doesn't ANY outcome appear to be the result of "fine tuning"? Isn't any such argument just another form of intelligent creation dogma?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:Not a contradiction by Quaoar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The preferred giant impact model has a Mars-sized impactor with a core-to-mantle ratio equal to the Earth's, with approximately 30% of its mass being in an iron core (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Icar..168..433C). Mars is ~1/6th the Earth's mass. In this impact, the material liberated that eventually forms the moon is iron poor, as the iron core of the impactor sinks into the Earth. That has been the interpretation as to why the Moon's iron core is so small (no more than 3% its total mass), so in this sense the giant impact model produces a satisfactory outcome. Some fraction of the lunar surface is accumulated over the 4 billion years since the Moon formed, but this layer is thought to be very thin, and the meteorites + Apollo samples we use to measure the moon's isotopic ratios come from a range of depths that probe significantly deeper than this surface layer. The fine-tuning argument comes from the fact that for an arbitrary combination of impactor + Earth mass, impact angle, velocity, etc, you'd expect a scatter in the isotope ratios consistent with the typical scatter measured between other bodies in the solar system (say that between Mars and the Earth). Fine-tuning is often employed in intelligent design arguments as they rely on the anthropic principle, but as there's no reason to require the Earth and Moon to have identical isotopic compositions to explain the existence of life, there is no particular reason to favor any particular outcome over the myriad of other outcomes for this particular measurement.

      --
      I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
    6. Re:Not a contradiction by Coppit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is why I read Slashdot. I don't know what any of it means, but I do know I wouldn't read it elsewhere. :)

  5. Huh? by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Geochemists looked at titanium isotopes in 24 separate samples of lunar rock and soil, and found that the moon's proportion was effectively the same as Earth's and different from elsewhere in the solar system"

    and

    " This contradicts the so-called Giant Impact Hypothesis, which posits that Earth collided with a hypothetical, Mars-sized planet called Theia early in its existence, and the resulting smash-up produced a disc of magma orbiting our planet that later coalesced to form the moon."

    SO discovering that the Moon's and Earths isotopes match means it could NOT have formed from a splash of magma from the earth?

    This whole thing contradicts it's self. How do they know that the other body was not a twin of the earth and formed from the same disc of dust and debris? do they have samples of this other planet?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Huh? by canajin56 · · Score: 3

      You could RTFA instead of calling bullshit based on your understanding of the summary, but that would be work. The problem is that it's highly unlikely that in such a scenario, any less than 40% of the moon would be made up of magma from Theia.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    2. Re:Huh? by demonbug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're asserting that 40% of the Moon's mass must have come from the impactor, and thus would have a different isotope balance.

      That's clear, but why would the impactor necessarily have a significantly different isotopic ratio than the Earth? Yes it theoretically had a significantly different mass, but the distance from the sun was similar. How much understanding do we have of the variation in these isotopes on other planetary bodies? We have samples from what, the Earth, the Moon, and probably asteroids (very small mass so not too surprising if their isotope ratio is very different)? Possibly Mars? That doesn't seem like a whole lot of data to base models of isotope variation on, so it seems like a weak argument to say that Theia should have had a substantially different isotopic ratio for oxygen and titanium than the Earth. It would be nice if this was discussed in the article, but it isn't (and the link to the original journal article is broken so I can't check for myself).

  6. Good conclusion bad logic (or writing) by vlm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Conclusion sounds good, written logic is horrible.

    found that the moon's proportion was effectively the same as Earth's

    This contradicts the so-called Giant Impact Hypothesis, which posits that Earth collided with a hypothetical, Mars-sized planet called Theia early in its existence, and the resulting smash-up produced a disc of magma orbiting our planet that later coalesced to form the moon.

    Does not explain why that doesn't work. The summary makes it sound very likely that something "smooshed off" the earth and became the moon, because both have the same ratios. Also does a poor job of explaining the more likely alternative explanation, by not discussing it at all. Fail.

    I think part of the fail is assuming:

    different from elsewhere in the solar system

    That means we've sampled everything in the entire solar system both now and infinitely in the past? ha ha I think not.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  7. Occam's Razor by Iniamyen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is there evidence to suggest that the simplest explanation (accretion disk formed the earth and the moon at roughly the same time, along with all the other rocky planets) is not the correct one? I honestly can't remember, it would be nice for someone more knowledgeable than I to set me straight. We seem to be obsessed with "fantastic" explanations, maybe because we are trying to get folks interested in science. The simple explanation is still pretty friggin' interesting to me.

    1. Re:Occam's Razor by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is there evidence to suggest that the simplest explanation (accretion disk formed the earth and the moon at roughly the same time, along with all the other rocky planets) is not the correct one?

      Computer simulations have shown that the accretion disk theory is unlikely. The moon is HUGE. Compared to the size of the mother planet, it is by far the biggest in the solar system. It is also really far from the earth, nearly 400,000km. By comparison, the distance from Mars to Phobos is less than 10,000km. Most of the mass in an accretion disk should have fallen to earth, with a small amount forming a few very small moons, orbiting closely.

    2. Re:Occam's Razor by Pope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Learning is still fun. The trick is to ignore internet comments.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  8. Genesis 1:16 by Kojow777 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's times like this that I'm happy to be a creationist.

    1. Re:Genesis 1:16 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nothing in the verse that he mentioned actually implies that the moon is its own source of light. It is simply referred to as a luminous body. Which is is, when it's being illuminated by the sun.

  9. Headline vs. Article by Sean_Inconsequential · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article: "[...]and the researchers aren't claiming to have refuted the giant impact hypothesis."

  10. This is Real Science by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know how you can tell astronomy is a real science? The people doing it are willing to look at new evidence... even if it casts doubt on their current beliefs.

    • They do not insist that the "science is all settled".
    • They do not belittle those who come up with hypothesis or evidence that contradicts their current views. (notice that they didn't call this new researcher a "Denier")
    • They do not take polls amongst themselves and form a concensus, and then insist they're right on the strength of the fact that they have formed a concensus.

    If you see people in a field of "science" doing any of the above, it's not science but something else entirely.

  11. Working Article Link by Quaoar · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
  12. Re:What are the implications? by jdgeorge · · Score: 5, Informative

    So, if it wasn't a big impact, what was it? What's the next best theory?

    Well, according to TFA:
    "One possibility is that a glancing blow from a passing body left Earth spinning so rapidly that it threw some of itself off into space like a shot put, forming the disk that coalesced into the moon. This would explain why the moon seems to be made entirely of Earth material. But there are problems with this model, too, such as the difficulty of explaining where all the extra angular momentum went after the moon formed, and the researchers aren't claiming to have refuted the giant impact hypothesis."

  13. Re:An alternate hypothesis. by idbeholda · · Score: 3, Informative

    The joke goes back a little bit further than 1991.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Moon_Theory

  14. Re:An alternate hypothesis. by elgeeko.com · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's the silliest thing I've ever read. Anyone with half a mind knows it wasn't built by Aliens, it was built by a previously advanced civilization on Earth that now controls our governments from the safety of their Lunar Habitat. Geesh, get an education or at least watch the History Channel!

  15. Re:What are the implications? by VernonNemitz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The giant impact scenario can still make sense. All we need to do is assume both the Earth and the other object formed in the same zone (distance from sun). That's the most critical thing, since we can expect any one zone, all around the sun, to be fairly consistent in its isotopic composition. So, each gathered up lots of debris while forming, and their collision constituted one of the last events that made the Earth a planet (per modern definition: a planet has to clear its zone of all large debris).

  16. Re:What are the implications? by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

    We should demand to see its birth certificate.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  17. The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth by Ultra64 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

    Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

    Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

    Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

  18. Re:An alternate hypothesis. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bah what nonsense.

    The mice obviously commissioned the moon at the same time as they had the earth built.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_races_and_species_in_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Mice

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  19. Re:What are the implications? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was thinking this. However, now you require two planetary bodies to occupy the same orbital zone for long enough for them to form without colliding, and yet to collide later on. This is tricky, but perhaps not impossible. They might initially form in some orbital resonance (probably one of the Trojan points) and then some other body comes by and destabilizes the orbits. (I don't know if Trojan points are stable in a still-accreting-planets disk.)

    Another possibility is there were two collisions: Theia itself was formed from proto-Earth in a collision, and then later caused the moon-formation event.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.