I’m not going to write about the NIH cuts, devasting though they will be (to researchers, universities, and all of America). I’m not even going to touch on healthcare, or even technology per se, as I usually do. Instead, I want to write about some really cool Science, emphasis on the capital “S.”
Earth’s inner
core, it seems, is not always the same shape.
The inner core was previously considered to be solid. (USC Graphic/Edward Sotelo)
Now, in
case you forget your high school geology, we live on the Earth’s surface, which
rests on the crust, followed by the mantle (which accounts for 84% of the
earth), and then, some three thousand miles down, is the core. Think about that
carefully: three thousand miles down. By comparison, Mt. Everest is less
than 30,000 feet high. The deepest point in the ocean is 36,000 feet down. The deepest
hole we’ve ever bored into the earth is 40,000 feet. Three thousand miles is a looong way
down. So, no, we’re never going to get to the core (despite what movies you might have seen).
We may get to Mars or even the stars, but not the core.
And it’s
big. It’s about 70% of the size of the moon. As one expert put
it, “it’s like a planet within a planet.” It is about a third of the Earth’s
mass, since it is primarily made of metals (mostly iron and nickel). It’s incredibly
hot, close to 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit at its surface, which is about the temperature
of the surface of the sun. There’s the inner core, which is basically solid,
and the outer core, which is molten. The inner core is only solid, despite the temperature,
due to the high pressure it is under.
Now
researchers from USC are telling us that the inner core is not quite as solid
as we’d thought; it changes shape. John
Vidale, Dean’s Professor of Earth Sciences at the USC Dornsife College of
Letters, Arts and Sciences and principal investigator of the study, says:
“What we ended up discovering is evidence that the near surface of Earth’s
inner core undergoes structural change.”
Scientists
studying the core had previously found that the core didn’t spin at the same
speed or even
in the same direction as the rest of the earth, both of which are
mind-blowing in themselves. (It’s that spinning, by the way, that generates the
magnetic fields which prevents life on earth from being scorched by radiation.)
Pretty cool stuff, but the researchers now state: “Previous research has
proposed that the inner core has undergone either rotational or shape changes
through time, but not both simultaneously.”
If you’re
wondering how we can possibly know anything about the core, researchers analyze
seismic waves, using them kind of like a form of radar. In this case, USC
researchers analyzed what are called “earthquake pairs” – earthquakes that
happen in the same place and at about the same magnitude but at different times.
“But as I was analyzing multiple decades’ worth of seismograms, one dataset of
seismic waves curiously stood out from the rest,” Professor Vidale said. “Later
on, I’d realize I was staring at evidence the inner core is not solid.”
“Basically,
the wiggles are different,” Dr. Vidale told
The New York Times.
“This is
kind of the first time we’ve seen the evidence for this kind of motion,” he told
The Washington Post. “The surface of the inner core is moving around
in ways we hadn’t detected and still don’t understand very well.”
The
hypothesis is that, though it may be solid, the edge of the inner core isn’t solid
enough to withstand the gravitation pressures from the outer core and the
mantle. “Even though that inner core part is really solid, [this boundary] is
really soft,” Guanning Pang, a co-author and geophysicist at Cornell University,
explained
to WaPo. “Maybe as soft as jelly.”
They call
these changes “viscous deformation.” Dr. Vidale told
Live Science: "We sort of expect that the motion could be on
the order of hundreds of meters, maybe a kilometer or two, and we don't know
how broad. It could be hundreds of kilometers across."
Wow.
No
everyone is convinced. “The offered interpretation is sound,” Hrvoje Tkalcic, a
professor of geophysics at the Australian National University who was not
involved with the research, told
The New York Times, “although it is not the only possible
explanation, as the authors acknowledge.” Dr. Vidale acknowledged
that the paper is not the final word: “We’re pretty sure we were right, but
this isn’t a bulletproof paper. How sure? I sort of put it at 90 percent.”
Bruce
Buffett, a geoscientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who was
not involved in the work, told
Live Science: "Maybe everyone's a little bit right."
That’s how
science words; theories are only as good as the next set of facts.
"We'll
need to keep accumulating the data and keep searching for the inner core
behaviors," Xiaodong Song, a geophysicist at Peking University who
coauthored important earlier work on the inner core, told
Live Science. "I won't be surprised by future surprises about
the inner core behaviors as we keep searching." Dr. Tkalcic believes
we should build “seismological infrastructure in remote areas of the planet,
including the ocean floor” to help accumulate such data.
In case
you’re wondering, the results don’t offer any immediate practical benefits. The researchers think they may help improve our
understanding of Earth’s thermal and magnetic fields, but we’re a long way off
from being able to do anything with that understanding. Again, that’s how
science works. History suggests that this kind of knowledge will end up being
useful someday.
I think it’s
great. A part of the Earth that is crucial to our existence yet can’t be
directly experienced can be indirectly measured, detecting what are relatively
minuscule variations. We still don’t fully understand it, but we understand it
better today than we did yesterday.
Gotta love
scientists!