The Scientific Monthly, October to December, 1915

by Various

8. The phenomena of terrestrial magnetism indicate that the distribution of magnetic materials in the Earth is far from uniform or symmetrical; the magnetic poles are distant from the Earth's poles of rotation; the magnetic poles are not opposite each other; the lines of equal intensity as to all the magnetic components involved run very irregularly over the Earth's surface. There is reason to believe that iron in the deep interior of the Earth, in view of its high temperature, is devoid of magnetic properties, but we must not state this as a fact. We know that iron is very widely, but very irregularly spread throughout the Earth's outer strata. Whatever may be the main factors in making the Earth a great magnet, to whatever extent the rotation factor may be important, the Earth's magnetic properties point strongly to a very irregular distribution of magnetic materials in the outer strata where the temperatures are below that at which magnetic materials commonly lose their polarity.

9. Irregularities in the direction of the plumb-line and in the force of gravity as observed widely and accurately over the Earth's surface indicate that the surface strata are very irregular as to density. To harmonize the observed facts Hayford has shown the need of assuming that the heterogeneous conditions extend down to a depth of 122 km. from the surface. Below that level the Earth's concentric strata seem to be of approximately uniform densities.

10. The radio active elements have been found by Strutt and others in practically all kinds of rock accessible to the geologists, but they are not found in significant quantities in the so-called metals which exist in a pure state. These radioactive elements are liberating heat. Strutt has shown that if they existed down to the Earth's center in the same proportion that he finds in the surface strata they would liberate a great deal more heat than the body of the Earth is now radiating to outer space. The conclusion is that they are restricted to the strata relatively near the Earth's surface, and are not in combination with the materials composing the Earth's core. They have apparently found some way of coming to the higher levels. Chamberlin suggests that as they liberate heat they would raise surrounding materials to temperatures above the normals for their strata, and that these expanded materials would embrace every opportunity to approach the surface of the Earth, carrying the radioactive substances with them.

The evidence is exceedingly strong, and perhaps irresistible, to the effect that the Earth is now solid, or acts like a solid, from surface to center, with possibly local, but on the whole negligible, pockets of molten matter here and there; and further, that the Earth existed in a molten, or at the least a thickly plastic, state throughout a long part of its life. The nucleus, whether gaseous or meteoric, from which I believe it has grown, may have been fairly hot or quite cold, and the materials which were successively drawn into the nucleus may have been hot or cold: heat would be generated by the impacts of the incoming materials; and as the attraction toward the center of the mass became strong, additional heat would be generated in the contraction process. The denser materials have been able, on the whole, to gravitate to the center of the structure, and the lighter elements have been able, on the whole, to rise to and float upon the surface very much as the lighter impurities in an iron furnace find their way to the surface and form the slag upon the molten metal. The lighter materials which in general form the surface strata are solid under the conditions of solids known to us in every-day life. The interior is solid or at least acts as a solid, because the materials, though at high temperatures, are under stupendous pressures. If the pressures were removed the deep-lying materials would quickly liquefy, and probably even vaporize.

If the Earth grew from a small nucleus to its present size by the extremely gradual drawing-in of innumerable small masses in its neighborhood, the process would always be slow; much slower at first when the small nucleus had low gravitating powers, more rapid when the body was of good size and the store of materials to draw upon plentiful,and gradually slower and slower as the supply of building materials was depleted. Meteoric matter still falls upon and builds up the Earth, but at so slow a rate as to increase the Earth's diameter an inch only after the passage of hundreds of millions of years. If the Earth grew in this manner, the growth may now be said to be essentially complete, through the substantial exhaustion of the supply of materials.

Whether the Earth of its present size was ever completely liquefied, that is, from center to surface, at one and the same time, is doubtful. The lack of homogeneity, as indicated by the plumb-line, gravity, terrestrial magnetism and radiaoctive matter, extending in a perceptible degree down to 122 km., and quite probably in lesser and imperceptible degree to a much greater depth, is opposed to the idea.

Solidification would respond to the fall of temperature down to the point required under the existing high pressures, and it is probable that the solidification began at the center and proceeded outwards. It is natural that the plastic state should have developed and existed especially during the age of most rapid growth, for this would be the age of most rapid generation of heat. Later, while the rate of growth was declining, the body could probably have solidified slowly and successively from center out to surface. In later slow depositions of materials, the denser substance would not be able to sink down to the deepest strata: they must lie within a limited depth and horizontal distance from where they fell, and the outer stratum of the Earth would be heterogeneous in density.

The simplest hypothesis we can make concerning the Earth's deep interior is that the chief ingredient is iron; perhaps a full half of the volume is iron. The normal density of iron is 7.8, and of rock formations about 2.8. If these are mixed, half and half, the average density is 5.3. Pressures in the Earth should increase the density and the heat in the Earth should decrease the density. The known density of the Earth is 5.5. We know that iron is plentiful in the Earth's crust, and that iron is still falling upon the Earth in the form of meteorites. The composition of the Earth as a whole, on this assumption, is very similar to the composition of the meteorites in general. They include many of the metals, but especially iron, and they include a large proportion of stony matter. Iron is plentiful in the Sun and throughout the stellar universe. Why should it not be equally plentiful in the materials which have coalesced to form the Earth? It is difficult to explain the Earth's constitution on any other hypothesis.

The Earth's form is that which its rotation period demands. Undoubtedly if the period has changed, the form has changed. Given a little time, solids under great pressure flow quite readily into new forms. Now any great slowing-down of the Earth's rotation period within geological times would be expected to show in the surface features. The strata should have wrinkled, so to speak, in the equatorial regions and stretched in the polar regions, if the Earth changed from a spheroid that was considerably flatter than it now is, to its present form. Mountains, as evidence of the folding of the rock strata, should exist in profusion in the torrid zone, and be scarce in or absent from the higher latitudes of the Earth. Such differential effects do not exist, and it seems to follow that changes in the Earth's rotation period and in its form could have been only slight while the stratification of our rocks was in progress.

Geologists estimate from the deposition of salt in the oceans, and from the rates of denudation and sedimentation, that the formation of the rock strata has consumed from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 years. If the Earth had substantially its present form 80,000,000 years ago we are safe in saying that the period of time represented in the building up of the Earth from a small nucleus to its present dimensions has been vastly longer, probably reckoned in the thousands of millions of years.