Rather than being created solely during supernova explosions, chemical elements could also be produced deep within the Earth’s lower mantle.
It has long been theorized that hydrogen, helium, and lithium were the only chemical elements in existence during the Big Bang when the universe formed, and that supernova explosions, stars exploding at the end of their lifetime, are responsible for transmuting these elements into heavier ones and distributing them throughout our universe.
Researchers in Japan and Canada are now challenging a piece of the Big Bang puzzle. Do all of the elements heavier than iron really originate from stars exploding, or are some created deep within the Earth’s mantle, thanks to convection dynamics driven by plate tectonics?
In AIP Advances, by AIP Publishing, the group proposes an alternative model for the formation of nitrogen, oxygen, and water based on the history of the Earth’s atmosphere.
They postulate that the 25 elements with atomic numbers smaller than iron (26) were created via an endothermic nuclear transmutation of two nuclei, carbon and oxygen. These nuclei could be confined within the natural aragonite lattice core of the Earth’s lower mantle at high temperatures and pressures during lithosphere subduction, which occurs when two tectonic plates converge.
The group describes the endothermic nuclear transformation process as being “aided by the physical catalysis of excited electrons generated by the stick-slipping movement of mineral compounds of geoneutrinos produced deep within the Earth’s mantle by nuclear fusion of deuterons or radioactive decay of elements.”
“Our study suggests that the Earth itself has been able to create lighter elements by nuclear transmutation,” said Mikio Fukuhara, a co-author from Tohoku University’s New Industry Creation Hatchery Center in Japan.
If accurate, this is a revolutionary discovery because “it was previously theorized that all of these elements were sourced from supernova explosions, whereas we postulate a supplementary theory,” Fukuhara said.
This work will have a considerable impact on the field of geophysics and may, as a result, “indicate possible research directions for the potential to create the elements required for future space development,” said Fukuhara.
Reference: “Earth factories: Creation of the elements from nuclear transmutation in Earth’s lower mantle” by Mikio Fukuhara, Alexander Yoshino and Nobuhisa Fujima, 12 October 2021, AIP Advances.
Babu G. Ranganathan*
HUGE PROBLEMS WITH BIG BANG THEORY
Big Bang scientists extrapolate a hypothetical scenario from a few facts. Yes, some galaxies are expanding, moving further away (Red shift), but this is not the case with the entire universe. There are galaxies in the universe running perpendicular to the rest of the galaxies, and there are galaxies even running towards us (Blue shift). All this is contrary to Big Bang. Also, if Big Bang really occurred, there should be a uniform distribution of gasses.
The uniform distribution of gasses throughout the universe would have made sure that the gasses didn’t have enough gravitational attraction to form into planets and stars. The hypothesis of dark matter providing enough gravitational force has been increasingly discredited.
Big Bang scientists have never proved the existence of dark matter. They only assume that it exists. The latest technologies to detect dark matter have come up empty. Big Bang scientists must hope that dark matter exists so that it would provide enough gravitational force for planets, stars, and galaxies to form.
Big Bang scientists believe that dark matter can be the only gravitational explanation for how galaxies behave. However, other scientists have successfully shown an alternative explanation to dark matter known as MOND, which stands for Modified Newtonian Dynamics. In other words, it is not necessary to believe that 80% of the universe must be made up of dark matter in order to explain certain behavior and movement of galaxies.
“The (galactic) structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM (Cold Dark Matter) did exist, it could not account for their formation” (Dr. Duane T. Gish, “The Big Bang Theory Collapses.” Furthermore, an explosion cannot explain the precise orbits and courses of thousands of billions of stars in billions of galaxies. Gravity may explain how that order is maintained, but mere gravity alone cannot explain the origin of that order!
The disorder in the universe can be explained because of chance and random processes, but the order can be explained only because of intelligence and design.
Some evolutionary astronomers believe that trillions of stars crashed into each other leaving surviving stars to find precise orderly orbits in space. Not only is this irrational, but if there was such a mass collision of stars then there would be a super mass residue of gas clouds in space to support this hypothesis. The present level of residue of gas clouds in space doesn’t support the magnitude of star deaths required for such a hypothesis. And, as already stated, the origin of stars cannot be explained by the Big Bang because of the reasons mentioned above. It’s one thing to say that stars may decay and die into random gas clouds, but it is totally different to say that gas clouds form into stars.
Read the Internet article, ‘SMOKING GUN’ PROOF OF BIG BANG ALREADY IN DOUBT by creationist and scientist Dr. Jake Hebert. Most people don’t realize how much disagreement there is among evolutionary scientists concerning their own theories. The media doesn’t report those details, at least not to any substantial extent.
Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION
Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS
*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I’ve been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who in The East” for my writings on religion and science.
Perhaps your oeuvre might be better off posted on sites intended for science deniers like you?
Everything point you attempt to make it nothing but the ramblings of a mindless person, desperate to convince himself his religion must be true despite no iota of evidence, by making futile attempts at discrediting the most intelligent minds, who are simply trying to best explain what they can with what evidence and tools they have available. Religion on the other hand does nothing but tell tall tales with sensational yet nonsensical allure. In other words stfu
“When γ-orthopyroxene is compressed at a high pressure of 32 GPa, the shortest Mg–Fe distance (d1) on the (400) plane can be calculated as 0.272 nm. The shrinkage ratio η1 is 0.9096 (= 0.272/0.299). However, the distance d1 exceeded the distance required for a dynamic nuclear reaction (∼0.094 nm).”
It is as though this research article was written by a climatologist. Despite numerical values with up to 3 and 4 significant figures being presented throughout the article, there is not a single instance of a formal uncertainty (x.xx +/-0.0x, 1 sigma) being associated with the values provided!
They postulate that the 25 elements with atomic numbers smaller than iron (26) were created via an endothermic nuclear transmutation of two nuclei, carbon and oxygen.
lets start from the beginning will we
earth core was magnesium oxide
can a magnesium oxide core produce as postulated the 25 elements
if so then bingo
if not then
approximately 600,000,000 years ago
the event of the 14th billenium
the core of the earth transmuted through a magical abracadra moment to iron as we all know there is no effect without a cause and there is no cause without an effect hence u and me and 26 elements as postulated 3,900,000,000 years later that was an awful long time to be postulating i say when we want 26 its elementary my dear watson said inspector sherlock
These are definitely things that make me go hmmmm!
The laws and order we see came from somewhere. Random acts stay that way. It takes life to make life.
To a novice the article makes sense – where conditions are the same products might be the same. Going deeper, I haven’t heard why if every galaxy contains a black hole that, instead of a supermassive star in the early universe collapsing inwards to form a black hole of enormous lingering gravity, why did not that collapse produce a nuclear powered outward explosion from that point source and from which the elements of the galaxy are formed, leaving behind a void (nature abhors a vacuum)