Talk:Hydridic Earth theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.	Physics Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Problems with this theory

There are some problems I can immediately see with this theory

1. Seismic measurements of the earth's core infer a metal composition; a metal-hydride density would be in the order of 20% less for a ferro-nickel alloy, which would also show up in the density of the Earth (hence, gravity)
2. Hydrogen from hydrothermal vents can be explained away by redox with ultramafic rocks or via chemical means; there is no evidence of hydrogen trapped in the mantle (though, yes, this could be tested with a mohole), nor of hydrocarbons, if you believe yet another weird Russian theorem which gains a lot of currency on Wikipedia, the theory of abiogenic petroleum origin or the one about the earth's core being a nclear reactor which produces ³He
3. The whole Earth accreting without melting part is essentially BS; lutetium-hafnium and tungsten isotopes which are only fractionated by metal phases, prove fairly conclusively that the earth's core segregated from the mantle within <100 Ma of the Earth's formation, implying a molten state of being right from the beginning.

While I like the idea of wacky and exciting new theories of the Earth, a lot of these are a little far-fetched. See the link in the article and read about the polar wandering creating plate tectonics; immediately you have to ask, how does it reconcile seismic reflections showing dipping of oceanic plates under subduction zones? How does the hydride theory reconcile with seismic density calculations?

While it is probably correct to take LArin's work on high-pressure proton (H+) influence on magma, for instance off the top of my head, even i can see that a) water in the mantle will be present as O2- and H+ ions, and these can alter metal and chemical activities substantially, hence, perhaps explaining some aspects of magma genesis and chemical differentiation. But a metallic lower mantle? Abundant free hydrogen? What about the fact the earth when molten and accreting in the primordial solar system would have degassed significantly, hence explaining the apparent lack of hydrogen?

So...should we just leave this as is, or should we do another abiogenic petroleum and have these theories as a claim-counterclaim style article? Thoughts? Rolinator 02:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I am not a geologist. I created the article because I think Larin's conjecture is notable enough to be mentioned here. I do not think I am qualified to judge its validity regarding the earth composition. The suggestion that primordial planetary composition is affected by the interaction of the solar wind with sun's magnetic field seems plausible through. So, I think the article could be improved if someone knowlegeable adds some criticism. --Gene s 17:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)