J.
Marvin Herndon's Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics
Introduction
For
more than a century, scientists have recognized that opposing margins of
continents fit together in certain ways and display geological and
paleobiological evidence of having been joined in the past [1], as illustrated
at left by the 1858 drawing of Antonio Snider-Pellegrini.
Early in the twentieth
century, Alfred Wegener, pictured at right, proposed that the continents at one
time had been united, but subsequently had separated and drifted through the
ocean floor to their present positions [2]. Wegener’s theory of continental
drift, vigorously opposed for half a century, was revived in the 1960s, and
modified to become plate tectonics theory. When plate tectonics theory was
originally proposed, there was much discussion and debate, but eventually, plate
tectonics became the stuff of textbooks, its potential problems and a
competitive theory rarely, if ever, mentioned.
The
popularity of plate tectonics arises from its seeming to explain major features of the
ocean floor, but popularity is not a measure of scientific correctness. Science
is a logical process, not a democratic process.
Plate tectonic theory is based upon the idea that ocean floor,
continuously produced at mid-oceanic ridges, as illustrated at left, moves like a conveyer belt,
ultimately being “subducted” and re-circulated by assumed convection currents in
the mantle, as illustrated at right [3-5].
Indeed, compelling evidence, e.g., seafloor
magnetic striations, exists to support the idea of seafloor being continuously
produced at mid-oceanic ridges and moving away from the ridges. The magnetic
stripes are symmetrical on each side of the ridge and are older in age the
greater distance from the ridge. Moreover, ocean floor is observed to plunge
downward into oceanic trenches.
In science, advances are made, not by
cataloging a theory's successes, but by revealing its short-comings. Too often
people think that mantle convection "must" exist because plate tectonics
seems
"correct", rather questioning whether there might be a problem with mantle
convection. J. Marvin Herndon, pictured at left, did in fact question mantle
convection and
found a serious problem
[6]. Indeed, the critical assumption of
mantle convection is truly the
Achilles heel of
plate tectonics.
When a fluid is heated from beneath, it expands becoming lighter, less dense,
than the fluid above it. This top-heavy arrangement is unstable, so fluid
motions result as the fluid attempts to restore stability. The top-heavy
arrangement
occurs because the temperature at the bottom is hotter than at the
top. This is convection. Not only is the Earth’s mantle not a fluid, but the
weight of over-burden rock causes compression within the mantle, which increases
with depth. Matter at the bottom of the mantle is about 62% more dense than at
the top, as shown in the figure at right. Heating bottom-rock causes a miniscule
increase in volume, hence miniscule decrease in density, much, much less than
1%. This is far, far too little to make the "parcel" of bottom-mantle light
enough to float to the top, not enough to make the mantle top-heavy; the result is no
mantle-convection at all.
Often
Earth-mantle convection is (wrongly) "justified" by calculating a high Rayleigh
Number. But, as discovered by J. Marvin Herndon, Lord Rayleigh's derivation was
based upon constant density and, thus, is not applicable to the Earth's mantle
[6].
So, unequivocally, plate
tectonics theory is not correct. Why? Because the crucial underlying part is
physically impossible, which means that plate tectonics theory is wrong. That
might not be surprising as plate tectonics is an incomplete theory, a theory
without an energy source to power geodynamic activity.
In 1933, Ott C. Hilgenberg, pictured at right, published his idea that in
the distant past for some unknown reason the Earth was smaller, without
ocean basins, and that subsequently the Earth expanded
[7,8]. The photo at left shows a series of globes made by Hilgenberg to
illustrate his idea. An
alternative to plate tectonics theory, Earth expansion theory, as espoused
by S. Warren Carey [9, 10] and others, has met with resistance because of the
lack of knowledge of an energy source of sufficient magnitude and because it
is based upon the idea that Earth expansion occurs mainly along mid-oceanic
ridges and thus occurred during the last 180 million years, as the oldest
ocean floor is no older than that [11].
Planets generally
consist of concentric shells of matter, except Earth with its unique,
two-component surface, comprised of about 41% continental rock with the balance
being quite different ocean floor basalt. To date there has been no satisfactory
explanation for the partial, crustal continental rock layer, except by assuming
that the Earth in the distant past was smaller and subsequently expanded [7, 8].
The principal impediment to the idea of Earth expansion has been the lack of
knowledge of a mechanism that could provide the necessary energy [13, 14]without departing
from the known physical laws of nature [15]. In 1982, Adrian E. Scheidegger [16] stated concisely the
prevailing view: "Thus, if expansion on the postulated scale occurred at
all, a completely unknown energy source must be found."
Recognizing that neither plate tectonics theory nor Earth expansion theory is an
adequate description of the dynamics of the Earth as a whole, J. Marvin Herndon
proposed a new geodynamic theory, called Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics
[12], which reconciles certain elements of those two seemingly divergent
theories into one unified theory of Earth dynamics. Moreover, Herndon disclosed
a completely unknown energy source, which follows from fundamental
considerations related to planetary formation [17-20], that is
sufficient to power geodynamics.
Protoplanetary
Origin of Herndon's Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics
In
1944, Arnold Eucken, pictured at left, made thermodynamic calculations
related to Earth raining out in the central regions of a hot, gaseous protoplanet
[22]. Subsequently, J. Marvin Herndon, pictures at right,
demonstrated the consistency of Eucken's calculations and suggested that
the Earth formed originally as a gas-giant planet quite similar to
Jupiter [17], pictured at right.
The idea of Earth having been a
Jupiter-like gas-giant follows from observations. Close-to-star
gas-giant planets are observed in other planetary systems [23].
Moreover, Earth, together with its complement of lost primordial gases,
comprises a protoplanetary mass remarkably similar to the mass of
Jupiter. Significantly, Herndon has shown the rock-plus-alloy kernel that is
now Earth, being crushed by about 300 Earth-masses of primordial gases,
would be compressed to about 64 percent of its current radius, the same
compression required to yield a closed, contiguous continental shell
[18-20].
Upon the subsequent removal of its protoplanetary gaseous shell,
the Earth would begin to decompress [18], driven by the stored energy of protoplanetary compression [12].
Early during the formation of the Solar System, the
primordial gasses were stripped from the inner planets, Mercury, Venus,
Earth, and Mars. J. Marvin Herndon has suggested a mechanism, observed in nature,
namely, the so-called T-Tauri stage super-intense solar wind, presumably
associated with the onset of stellar thermonuclear fusion reactions.
There is evidence from nature to indicate the feasibility of such a great T-Tauri
event. The photo at right shows an outburst from the binary XZ-Tauri as observed by the
Hubble Space Telescope over a period of five years. The white crescent shows the
leading edge of the plume five years before time of the present image. The
distance the leading edge had progressed in five years is about 130 times the
distance from Earth to the Sun. Had our young Sun experienced a T-Tauri outburst
of this magnitude, it would have stripped the gaseous envelopes, not only from
the inner planets, but from the gas giants as well [20].
Principles of Herndon's
Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics
Decompression of the Earth may be seen as a direct consequence of the subsequent
removal of hydrogen and other volatile constituents from the compressed kernel,
presumably during the thermonuclear ignition of the Sun, as illustrated at left. After being stripped of
such a great overburden, the Earth would rebound, tending toward a new
hydrostatic equilibrium. Gravitational energy of compression, stored during the
Jupiter-like proto-planetary stage, may be seen as the primary energy source for
driving geotectonic activity, augmented to a much lesser extent by nuclear
fission and radioactive decay energy [24, 25].
After being stripped of its massive Jupiter-like shell of gases, by the T-Tauri
super plumes, the initial whole-Earth decompression is expected to result in a
global system of major primary decompression cracks appearing in the rigid crust
which persist as the basalt feeders for the global, mid-oceanic ridge system, as
illustrated at right. But here the similarity with Earth expansion theory ends.
As viewed from the surface in idealized representation, Whole-Earth
Decompression Dynamics is characterized primarily by the following two distinct,
but related, processes: (i) the
formation of secondary decompression cracks (often near continental margins),
and (ii) the in-filling of those cracks with basalt (produced by volume
decompression in the mantle), which is extruded mainly at mid-oceanic ridges,
solidifies and traverses the ocean floor by gravitational creep to regions of
lower gravitational potential energy, ultimately plunging downward into and
in-filling distant decompression cracks.
As
the Earth subsequently decompresses, the area of the Earth’s surface
increases by the formation of secondary decompression cracks, often
located near the continental margins, presently identified as oceanic
trenches. These secondary decompression cracks are subsequently
in-filled with basalt, extruded from the mid-oceanic ridges, which
traverses the ocean floor by gravitational creep, ultimately plunging
into and in-filling secondary decompression cracks, as illustrated
schematically at left.
Note that, in Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics, no
mantle convection is required to explain, in a logical, causally related
way, the features of ocean floor that previously have been attributed to
plate tectonics and to seafloor spreading.
.
Geological Features of
Herndon's Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics
The principal surface manifestation of the Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics is
the in-filling of secondary decompression cracks, located mainly near
continents, with basalt extruded from mid-oceanic ridges. Many of the surface
observations of oceanic features and the consequences of down-plunging slabs,
usually arrayed as supporting plate tectonics theory, according to Herndon [12],
are consequences of Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics.
There are, however,
global, fundamental differences between Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics and
plate tectonics, especially as pertains to the growth of ocean floor, to the
origin of oceanic trenches, to the fate of down-plunging slabs, and to the
displacement of continents.
The mid-oceanic ridge system spans the Earth and appears like stitching on a
baseball, as shown at left. In Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics, mid-oceanic
ridges are thought to be the sites of the original, global system of primary
decompression cracks which serve as persistent extrusion-basalt feeder-channels.
In
Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics, oceanic trenches, such as the
Mariana Trench and others that rim the pacific basin, shown at right,
are thought to be surface manifestations of secondary decompression
cracks, more or less continuously being formed as the Earth decompresses
and, notably, continuously being in-filled.
In Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics, oceanic troughs are thought to
be partially in-filled decompression cracks; oceanic troughs are inexplicable in
plate tectonics.
Since the work of Eduard Suess [1], understanding the process of mountain building has
been hampered by conflicting evidence in a complex geological framework [26] and
by limitations imposed through incorrect theories. For example, plate tectonics,
while allowing for the development of lateral stress, is capable of admitting
only asymmetric uplift by plate underthrust. Similarly, Earth expansion theory
allows for symmetric uplift, but not lateral stress. In Whole-Earth
Decompression Dynamics, on the other hand, both processes are possible. Lateral
stress occurs for the same reasons as in plate tectonics and, additionally,
occurs as a consequence of the formation of secondary decompression cracks.
Symmetric uplift may also occur during decompression and asymmetric uplift by
plate underthrust.
Timescale for Herndon's
Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics
The timescale for whole-Earth decompression is not yet known with certainty. One
might think that whole-Earth decompression should have commenced promptly upon
removal of protoplanetary hydrogen and other volatile constituents, but even the
time of the initial primary crack formation is not known. The timescale for
decompression may be related to the pre-degasification protoplanetary thermal
state, to the dynamics of degasification, especially the cooling that might have
been involved, to mantle properties, to the cooling that results from
decompression, and to the time required to replace heat lost by decompression
cooling. Further, the energy required for initiating a crack is generally
considerably greater than the energy required for crack propagation.
The timescale for the Earth’s full rebounding from protoplanetary compression
may be long, even extending into the present; witness, for example, the
relatively minor rebounding of northern land masses, following post-Pleistocene
deglaciation, being measured in thousands of years [27]. A much, much longer
time may be expected for rebounding from compression due to protoplanetary-scale
loading by approximately 300 Earth-masses of volatile constituents.
The Earth appears to be approaching the terminus of its decompression. If the
Earth is presently decompressing, length of day measurements should show
progressive lengthening. Such measurements, made with increasing precision over
the last several decades, show virtually no current lengthening [28], implying
no current secondary decompression crack formation. The formation of secondary
decompression cracks might be episodic, though, like the release of stress by
major earthquakes, or secondary crack formation may have ended forever. But
major secondary decompression cracks are still conspicuously evident, for
example, circum-pacific trenches. And, the complementary Whole-Earth
Decompression Dynamicsprocess of basalt extrusion and crack in-filling
continues at present.
Secondary crack formation and the in-filling of those cracks are complementary
elements of the same Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics process. Even in the
absence of current secondary decompression crack formation, an estimate may be
obtained of recent-period whole-Earth decompression by considering the amount of
in-filling basalt presently being produced. The value obtained is consistent
with length of day measurements [12]. Much higher basalt extrusion rates
undoubtedly have occurred in the past, as the present estimated annual percent
increase in radius, if constant over the lifetime of the Earth, would have only
resulted in a 2 percent increase in radius.
Heat Transport in
Herndon's Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics
Previously in geophysics, only three heat transport processes have been
considered: conduction, radiation, and convection or, more generally,
buoyancy-driven mass transport. As a consequence of Whole-Earth Decompression
Dynamics, J. Marvin Herndon added a fourth, called mantle decompression
thermal-tsunami [29].
As illustrated at right, heat generated within the core from actinide decay and/or fission [19,
20] or
from actinide decay within the mantle may enhance mantle decompression by
replacing the lost heat of protoplanetary compression. The resulting
decompression, beginning at the bottom of the mantle, will tend to propagate
throughout the mantle, like a tsunami, until it reaches the impediment posed by
the base of the crust. There, crustal rigidity opposes continued decompression,
pressure builds and compresses matter at the mantle-crust-interface, resulting
in compression heating. Ultimately, pressure is released at the surface through
volcanism and through secondary decompression crack formation and/or
enlargement.
Mantle decompression thermal-tsunami poses a mechanism for emplacing heat at the
base of the crust, which may explain the geothermal gradient, temperature
becoming greater with depth within the crust. Moreover, it may prove to be a
significant energy source for earthquakes and volcanism, as these geodynamic
processes appear concentrated along secondary decompression cracks. The nature
of heat transport in the Earth is described in detail by Herndon [30].
In
J. Marvin Herndon’s view, virtually all major geological activity is the consequence of
a single process: Earth-crust fragmentation – splitting the Earth’s crust to
form new surface area to accommodate decompression-increased planetary volume.
Crustal fragmentation, called rifting, provides all of the crucial components
for petroleum-deposit formation: basin, reservoir, source, and seal. Rifting
causes the formation of deep basins, as presently occurring in the Afar triangle
of Northeastern Africa. Augmented by heat channeled upwards from deep within the
Earth, uplift from sub-surface swelling can sequester sea-flooded lands to form
halite evaporate deposits, lead to dome formation, and can make elevated land
susceptible to erosion processes, thus providing sedimentary material for
reservoir rock in-filling of basins. Moreover, crustal fragmentation potentially
exposes deep basins to sources of abiotic mantle methane and, although still
controversial, methane-derived hydrocarbons [31].
YouTube Video: No
Mantle Convection!!! (click here)
Plate tectonics theory is incomplete, providing no energy source for
geodynamics and depends critically on the assumption of mantle
convection. This video shows the reason that mantle convection is
physically impossible.
Suess, E., Das Antlitz der Erde. 1885, Prague and Vienna: F.
Tempky.
2.
Wegener, A. L., Die Entstehung der Kontinente. Geol. Rundschau,
1912. 3, 276-292.
3.
Davies, G. F., Whole-mantle convection and plate tectonics.
Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1977. 49,
459-486.
4.
Peltier, W. B., Mantle Convection. 1989, New York: Gordon and
Breach.
5.
Runcorn, S. K., XX. Changes in the convection pattern in the Earth's
mantle and continental drift: evidence for a cold origin of the Earth.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1965. A258,
228-251.
6.
Herndon, J. M.,
Uniqueness of Herndon's georeactor: Energy source and production
mechanism for Earth's magnetic field. arXiv:0901.4509 28 Jan 2009. (click here for pdf)
7.
Hilgenberg, O. C., Vom wachsenden Erdball. 1933, Berlin:
Giessmann and Bartsch. 56.
8.
Hilgenberg, O. C., Palaopollagen der Erde.Neues Jahrb. Geol.
Palaont. Abh., 1962. 116, 1-56.
9.
Carey, S. W., The Expanding Earth. 1976, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
488.
10.
Carey, S. W., Theories of the Earth and Universe - A History of Dogma
in the Earth Sciences. 1988, Stanford: Stanford University Press. 413.
11.
Khramov, A. N., Paleomagnetology. 1982, Heidleberg:
Springer-Verlag. 308.
12.
Herndon, J. M., Whole-Earth decompression dynamics.Current
Science, 2005. 89(10), 1937-1941.
(click here for pdf)
13.
Beck, A. E., Energy changes in an expanding Earth, in
The
Application of Modern Physics to the Earth and Planetary Interiors, S.K.
Runcorn, Editor. 1969, Wiley: London, 77-83.
14.
Cook, M. A. and Eardley, A. J., Energy requirements
in terrestrial expansion.Journal of Geophysical Research, 1961.
66, 3907-3912.
15.
Jordan, P., The Expanding Earth: Some Consequences of Dirac's
Gravitation Hypothesis, in International Series of Monographs in Natural
Philosophy. 1971, Pergamon, Oxford, 202.
16.
Scheidegger, A. E., Principles of Geodynamics. 1982, Heidelberg,
Springer-Verlag.
17.
Herndon, J. M., Solar System formation deduced from
observations of matter. arXiv:astro-ph/0408151 9 Aug 2004.
(click here for pdf)
18.
Herndon, J. M., Protoplanetary Earth formation:
further evidence and geophysical implications. arXiv:astro-ph/0408539 30 Aug 2004, 2004.
(click here for pdf)
19.
Herndon, J. M., Solar System processes underlying
planetary formation, geodynamics, and the georeactor.Earth, Moon and Planets, 2006.
99, 53-99. (click here for pdf)
20.
Herndon, J. M., Maverick's Earth and Universe. 2008, Vancouver:
Trafford Publishing, ISBN 978-1-4251-4132-5.
21.
Herndon, J. M., Nature of
planetary matter and magnetic field generation in the Solar System.Current Science, 2009, 96, 1033-1039. (click here for pdf)
22.
Eucken, A.,Physikalisch-chemische Betrachtungen ueber die frueheste
Entwicklungsgeschichte der Erde.Nachr. Akad. Wiss. Goettingen, Math.-Kl.,
1944: p. 1-25.
23.
Beer, M. E., et al., How special is the Solar System? arXiv:astro-ph/0407476
22July 2004, 2004.
24.
Herndon, J. M., Feasibility of a nuclear fission
reactor at the center of the Earth as the energy source for the
geomagnetic field.Journal of
Geomagnetism and Geoelectricity, 1993. 45, 423-437.
(click here for pdf)
25.
Herndon, J. M.,
Nuclear
georeactor origin of oceanic basalt 3He/4He,
evidence, and implications.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 2003,
100(6),
3047-3050. (click here for pdf)
26.
Ollier, C. D. and Pain, C. F., The Origin of Mountains. 2000,
London: Routeledge. 345.
27.
Mc Connell, R. K., Isostatic adjustment in a layered Earth.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 1965. 70, 5171-5188.
28.
Chao, B. F., The
geoid and Earth rotation, in
The Geoid and Its
Geophysical Interpretation, P.V.a.N. Christou, Editor. 1994, CRC Press: Boca
Raton, Florida, 285-298.
29.
Herndon, J. M., Energy for geodynamics: Mantle
decompression thermal tsunami.Current Science, 2006. 90, 1605-1606.
(click here for pdf)
30.
Herndon, J. M., Heat transport within the Earth. 2011, arXiv: 1101.4871
(click here for pdf)
31.
Herndon, J. M., Impact of recent discoveries on petroleum and natural
gas exploration: Emphasis on India. Current Science, 2010,
98, 772-779. (click here for pdf)