Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 17, 2024

Geology of the Moon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon
Geologic map of the Moon, with general features colored in by age, except in the case of maria (in blue), KREEP (red) and other special features. Oldest to youngest: Aitkenian (pink), Nectarian (brown), Imbrian (greens/turquoise), Eratosthenian (light orange) and Copernican (yellow).

The geology of the Moon (sometimes called selenology, although the latter term can refer more generally to "lunar science") is quite different from that of Earth. The Moon lacks a true atmosphere, and the absence of free oxygen and water eliminates erosion due to weather. Instead, the surface is eroded much more slowly through the bombardment of the lunar surface by micrometeorites. It does not have any known form of plate tectonics, it has a lower gravity, and because of its small size, it cooled faster. In addition to impacts, the geomorphology of the lunar surface has been shaped by volcanism, which is now thought to have ended less than 50 million years ago. The Moon is a differentiated body, with a crust, mantle, and core.

False-color image of the Moon taken by the Galileo orbiter showing geological features. NASA photo
The same image using different color filters

Geological studies of the Moon are based on a combination of Earth-based telescope observations, measurements from orbiting spacecraft, lunar samples, and geophysical data. Six locations were sampled directly during the crewed Apollo program landings from 1969 to 1972, which returned 382 kilograms (842 lb) of lunar rock and lunar soil to Earth In addition, three robotic Soviet Luna spacecraft returned another 301 grams (10.6 oz) of samples, and the Chinese robotic Chang'e 5 returned a sample of 1,731 g (61.1 oz) in 2020.

The Moon is the only extraterrestrial body for which we have samples with a known geologic context. A handful of lunar meteorites have been recognized on Earth, though their source craters on the Moon are unknown. A substantial portion of the lunar surface has not been explored, and a number of geological questions remain unanswered.

Elemental composition

Elements known to be present on the lunar surface include, among others, oxygen (O), silicon (Si), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), aluminium (Al), manganese (Mn) and titanium (Ti). Among the more abundant are oxygen, iron and silicon. The oxygen content is estimated at 45% (by weight). Carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) appear to be present only in trace quantities from deposition by solar wind.

Lunar surface chemical composition
Compound Formula Composition
Maria Highlands
silica SiO2 45.4% 45.5%
alumina Al2O3 14.9% 24.0%
lime CaO 11.8% 15.9%
iron(II) oxide FeO 14.1% 5.9%
magnesia MgO 9.2% 7.5%
titanium dioxide TiO2 3.9% 0.6%
sodium oxide Na2O 0.6% 0.6%
  99.9% 100.0%
Neutron spectrometry data from Lunar Prospector indicate the presence of hydrogen (H) concentrated at the poles.
Relative concentration of various elements on the lunar surface (in weight %)
Relative concentration (in weight %) of various elements on lunar highlands, lunar lowlands, and Earth
Relative concentration (in weight %) of various elements on lunar highlands, lunar lowlands, and Earth

Formation

For a long period of time, the fundamental question regarding the history of the Moon was of its origin. Early hypotheses included fission from Earth, capture, and co-accretion. Today, the giant-impact hypothesis is widely accepted by the scientific community.

Geologic history

The geological history of the Moon has been defined into six major epochs, called the lunar geologic timescale. Starting about 4.5 billion years ago, the newly formed Moon was in a molten state and was orbiting much closer to Earth resulting in tidal forces. These tidal forces deformed the molten body into an ellipsoid, with the major axis pointed towards Earth.

The first important event in the geologic evolution of the Moon was the crystallization of the near global magma ocean. It is not known with certainty what its depth was, but several studies imply a depth of about 500 km or greater. The first minerals to form in this ocean were the iron and magnesium silicates olivine and pyroxene. Because these minerals were denser than the molten material around them, they sank. After crystallization was about 75% complete, less dense anorthositic plagioclase feldspar crystallized and floated, forming an anorthositic crust about 50 km in thickness. The majority of the magma ocean crystallized quickly (within about 100 million years or less), though the final remaining KREEP-rich magmas, which are highly enriched in incompatible and heat-producing elements, could have remained partially molten for several hundred million (or perhaps 1 billion) years. It appears that the final KREEP-rich magmas of the magma ocean eventually became concentrated within the region of Oceanus Procellarum and the Imbrium basin, a unique geologic province that is now known as the Procellarum KREEP Terrane.

Quickly after the lunar crust formed, or even as it was forming, different types of magmas that would give rise to the Mg-suite norites and troctolites began to form, although the exact depths at which this occurred are not known precisely. Recent theories suggest that Mg-suite plutonism was largely confined to the region of the Procellarum KREEP Terrane, and that these magmas are genetically related to KREEP in some manner, though their origin is still highly debated in the scientific community. The oldest of the Mg-suite rocks have crystallization ages of about 3.85 Ga. However, the last large impact that could have been excavated deep into the crust (the Imbrium basin) also occurred at 3.85 Ga before present. Thus, it seems probable that Mg-suite plutonic activity continued for a much longer time, and that younger plutonic rocks exist deep below the surface.

Analysis of the samples from the Moon seems to show that a lot of the Moon's impact basins formed in a short amount of time between about 4 and 3.85 Ga ago. This hypothesis is referred to as the lunar cataclysm or late heavy bombardment. However, it is now recognized that ejecta from the Imbrium impact basin (one of the youngest large impact basins on the Moon) should be found at all of the Apollo landing sites. It is thus possible that ages for some impact basins (in particular Mare Nectaris) could have been mistakenly assigned the same age as Imbrium.

The lunar maria represent ancient flood basaltic eruptions. In comparison to terrestrial lavas, these contain higher iron abundances, have low viscosities, and some contain highly elevated abundances of the titanium-rich mineral ilmenite. The majority of basaltic eruptions occurred between about 3 and 3.5 Ga ago, though some mare samples have ages as old as 4.2 Ga. The youngest (based on the method of crater counting) was long thought to date to 1 billion years ago, but research in the 2010s has found evidence of eruptions from less than 50 million years in the past. Along with mare volcanism came pyroclastic eruptions, which launched molten basaltic materials hundreds of kilometers away from the volcano. A large portion of the mare formed, or flowed into, the low elevations associated with the nearside impact basins. However, Oceanus Procellarum does not correspond to any known impact structure, and the lowest elevations of the Moon within the farside South Pole-Aitken basin are only modestly covered by mare (see lunar mare for a more detailed discussion).

Moon – Oceanus Procellarum ("Ocean of Storms")
Ancient rift valleys – rectangular structure (visible – topography – GRAIL gravity gradients) (October 1, 2014)
Ancient rift valleys – context
Ancient rift valleys – closeup (artist's concept)

Impacts by meteorites and comets are the only abrupt geologic force acting on the Moon today, though the variation of Earth tides on the scale of the Lunar anomalistic month causes small variations in stresses.[20] Some of the most important craters used in lunar stratigraphy formed in this recent epoch. For example, the crater Copernicus, which has a depth of 3.76 km and a radius of 93 km, is estimated to have formed about 900 million years ago (though this is debatable). The Apollo 17 mission landed in an area in which the material coming from the crater Tycho might have been sampled. The study of these rocks seem to indicate that this crater could have formed 100 million years ago, though this is debatable as well. The surface has also experienced space weathering due to high energy particles, solar wind implantation, and micrometeorite impacts. This process causes the ray systems associated with young craters to darken until it matches the albedo of the surrounding surface. However, if the composition of the ray is different from the underlying crustal materials (as might occur when a "highland" ray is emplaced on the mare), the ray could be visible for much longer times.

After resumption of Lunar exploration in the 1990s, it was discovered there are scarps across the globe that are caused by the contraction due to cooling of the Moon.[21]

Strata and epochs

At the top of the Moon’s stratigraphy is the Copernican unit consisting of craters with a ray system. Below this is the Eratosthenian unit, defined by craters with established impact crater morphology, but lacking the ray system of the Copernican. These two units are present in smaller spots on the lunar surface. Further down the stratigraphy are the Mare units (previously known as the Procellarian unit), and the Imbrian unit which is related to ejecta and tectonics from the Imbrium basin. The bottom of the lunar stratigraphy is the pre-Nectarian unit, which consists of old crater plains.

Lunar landscape

The lunar landscape is characterized by impact craters, their ejecta, a few volcanoes, hills, lava flows and depressions filled by lava.

Highlands

The most distinctive aspect of the Moon is the contrast between its bright and dark zones. Lighter surfaces are the lunar highlands, which receive the name of terrae (singular terra, from the Latin for earth, land), and the darker plains are called maria (singular mare, from the Latin for sea), after Johannes Kepler who introduced the names in the 17th century. The highlands are anorthositic in composition, whereas the maria are basaltic. The maria often coincide with the "lowlands," but the lowlands (such as within the South Pole-Aitken basin) are not always covered by maria. The highlands are older than the visible maria, and hence are more heavily cratered.

Maria

The major products of volcanic processes on the Moon are evident to Earth-bound observers in the form of the lunar maria. These are large flows of basaltic lava that correspond to low-albedo surfaces covering nearly a third of the near side. Only a few percent of the farside has been affected by mare volcanism. Even before the Apollo missions confirmed it, most scientists already thought that the maria are lava-filled plains, because they have lava flow patterns and collapses attributed to lava tubes.

The ages of the mare basalts have been determined both by direct radiometric dating and by the technique of crater counting. The oldest radiometric ages are about 4.2 Ga (billion years), and ages of most of the youngest maria lavas have been determined from crater counting to be about 1 Ga. Due to better resolution of more recent imagery, about 70 small areas called irregular mare patches (each area only a few hundred meters or a few kilometers across) have been found in the maria that crater counting suggests were sites of volcanic activity in the geologically much more recent past (less than 50 million years). Volumetrically, most of the mare formed between about 3 and 3.5 Ga before present. The youngest lavas erupted within Oceanus Procellarum, whereas some of the oldest appear to be located on the farside. The maria are clearly younger than the surrounding highlands given their lower density of impact craters.

Moon – Evidence of young lunar volcanism (October 12, 2014)
Volcanic rilles near the crater Prinz
Volcanic domes within the Mons Rümker complex
Wrinkle ridges within the crater Letronne
Rima Ariadaeus is a graben. NASA photo taken during Apollo 10 mission.

A large portion of maria erupted within, or flowed into, the low-lying impact basins on the lunar nearside. However, it is unlikely that a causal relationship exists between the impact event and mare volcanism because the impact basins are much older (by about 500 million years) than the mare fill. Furthermore, Oceanus Procellarum, which is the largest expanse of mare volcanism on the Moon, does not correspond to any known impact basin. It is commonly suggested that the reason the mare only erupted on the nearside is that the nearside crust is thinner than the farside. Although variations in the crustal thickness might act to modulate the amount of magma that ultimately reaches the surface, this hypothesis does not explain why the farside South Pole-Aitken basin, whose crust is thinner than Oceanus Procellarum, was only modestly filled by volcanic products.

Another type of deposit associated with the maria, although it also covers the highland areas, are the "dark mantle" deposits. These deposits cannot be seen with the naked eye, but they can be seen in images taken from telescopes or orbiting spacecraft. Before the Apollo missions, scientists predicted that they were deposits produced by pyroclastic eruptions. Some deposits appear to be associated with dark elongated ash cones, reinforcing the idea of pyroclasts. The existence of pyroclastic eruptions was later confirmed by the discovery of glass spherules similar to those found in pyroclastic eruptions here on Earth.

Many of the lunar basalts contain small holes called vesicles, which were formed by gas bubbles exsolving from the magma at the vacuum conditions encountered at the surface. It is not known with certainty which gases escaped these rocks, but carbon monoxide is one candidate.

The samples of pyroclastic glasses are of green, yellow, and red tints. The difference in color indicates the concentration of titanium that the rock has, with the green particles having the lowest concentrations (about 1%), and red particles having the highest concentrations (up to 14%, much more than the basalts with the highest concentrations).

Rilles

Rilles on the Moon sometimes resulted from the formation of localized lava channels. These generally fall into three categories, consisting of sinuous, arcuate, or linear shapes. By following these meandering rilles back to their source, they often lead to an old volcanic vent. One of the most notable sinuous rilles is the Vallis Schröteri feature, located in the Aristarchus plateau along the eastern edge of Oceanus Procellarum. An example of a sinuous rille exists at the Apollo 15 landing site, Rima Hadley, located on the rim of the Imbrium Basin. Based on observations from the mission, it is generally thought that this rille was formed by volcanic processes, a topic long debated before the mission took place.

Domes

A variety of shield volcanoes can be found in selected locations on the lunar surface, such as on Mons Rümker. These are thought to be formed by relatively viscous, possibly silica-rich lava, erupting from localized vents. The resulting lunar domes are wide, rounded, circular features with a gentle slope rising in elevation a few hundred meters to the midpoint. They are typically 8–12 km in diameter, but can be up to 20 km across. Some of the domes contain a small pit at their peak.

Wrinkle ridges

Wrinkle ridges are features created by compressive tectonic forces within the maria. These features represent buckling of the surface and form long ridges across parts of the maria. Some of these ridges may outline buried craters or other features beneath the maria. A prime example of such an outlined feature is the crater Letronne.

Grabens

Grabens are tectonic features that form under extensional stresses. Structurally, they are composed of two normal faults, with a down-dropped block between them. Most grabens are found within the lunar maria near the edges of large impact basins.

Impact craters

Mare Imbrium and the crater Copernicus

The origin of the Moon's craters as impact features became widely accepted only in the 1960s. This realization allowed the impact history of the Moon to be gradually worked out by means of the geologic principle of superposition. That is, if a crater (or its ejecta) overlaid another, it must be the younger. The amount of erosion experienced by a crater was another clue to its age, though this is more subjective. Adopting this approach in the late 1950s, Gene Shoemaker took the systematic study of the Moon away from the astronomers and placed it firmly in the hands of the lunar geologists.[23]

Impact cratering is the most notable geological process on the Moon. The craters are formed when a solid body, such as an asteroid or comet, collides with the surface at a high velocity (mean impact velocities for the Moon are about 17 km per second). The kinetic energy of the impact creates a compression shock wave that radiates away from the point of entry. This is succeeded by a rarefaction wave, which is responsible for propelling most of the ejecta out of the crater. Finally there is a hydrodynamic rebound of the floor that can create a central peak.

These craters appear in a continuum of diameters across the surface of the Moon, ranging in size from tiny pits to the immense South Pole–Aitken basin with a diameter of nearly 2,500 km and a depth of 13 km. In a very general sense, the lunar history of impact cratering follows a trend of decreasing crater size with time. In particular, the largest impact basins were formed during the early periods, and these were successively overlaid by smaller craters. The size frequency distribution (SFD) of crater diameters on a given surface (that is, the number of craters as a function of diameter) approximately follows a power law with increasing number of craters with decreasing crater size. The vertical position of this curve can be used to estimate the age of the surface.

The lunar crater King displays the characteristic features of a large impact formation, with a raised rim, slumped edges, terraced inner walls, a relatively flat floor with some hills, and a central ridge. The Y-shaped central ridge is unusually complex in form.

The most recent impacts are distinguished by well-defined features, including a sharp-edged rim. Small craters tend to form a bowl shape, whereas larger impacts can have a central peak with flat floors. Larger craters generally display slumping features along the inner walls that can form terraces and ledges. The largest impact basins, the multiring basins, can even have secondary concentric rings of raised material.

The impact process excavates high albedo materials that initially gives the crater, ejecta, and ray system a bright appearance. The process of space weathering gradually decreases the albedo of this material such that the rays fade with time. Gradually the crater and its ejecta undergo impact erosion from micrometeorites and smaller impacts. This erosional process softens and rounds the features of the crater. The crater can also be covered in ejecta from other impacts, which can submerge features and even bury the central peak.

The ejecta from large impacts can include large blocks of material that reimpact the surface to form secondary impact craters. These craters are sometimes formed in clearly discernible radial patterns, and generally have shallower depths than primary craters of the same size. In some cases an entire line of these blocks can impact to form a valley. These are distinguished from catena, or crater chains, which are linear strings of craters that are formed when the impact body breaks up prior to impact.

Generally speaking, a lunar crater is roughly circular in form. Laboratory experiments at NASA's Ames Research Center have demonstrated that even very low-angle impacts tend to produce circular craters, and that elliptical craters start forming at impact angles below five degrees. However, a low angle impact can produce a central peak that is offset from the midpoint of the crater. Additionally, the ejecta from oblique impacts show distinctive patterns at different impact angles: asymmetry starting around 60˚ and a wedge-shaped "zone of avoidance" free of ejecta in the direction the projectile came from starting around 45˚.[24]

Dark-halo craters are formed when an impact excavates lower albedo material from beneath the surface, then deposits this darker ejecta around the main crater. This can occur when an area of darker basaltic material, such as that found on the maria, is later covered by lighter ejecta derived from more distant impacts in the highlands. This covering conceals the darker material below, which is later excavated by subsequent craters.

The largest impacts produced melt sheets of molten rock that covered portions of the surface that could be as thick as a kilometer. Examples of such impact melt can be seen in the northeastern part of the Mare Orientale impact basin.

Regolith

The surface of the Moon has been subject to billions of years of collisions with both small and large asteroidal and cometary materials. Over time, these impact processes have pulverized and "gardened" the surface materials, forming a fine-grained layer termed regolith. The thickness of the lunar regolith varies between 2 meters (6.6 ft) beneath the younger maria, to up to 20 meters (66 ft) beneath the oldest surfaces of the lunar highlands. The regolith is predominantly composed of materials found in the region, but also contains traces of materials ejected by distant impact craters. The term mega-regolith is often used to describe the heavily fractured bedrock directly beneath the near-surface regolith layer.

The regolith contains rocks, fragments of minerals from the original bedrock, and glassy particles formed during the impacts. In most of the lunar regolith, half of the particles are made of mineral fragments fused by the glassy particles; these objects are called agglutinates. The chemical composition of the regolith varies according to its location; the regolith in the highlands is rich in aluminium and silica, just as the rocks in those regions.[citation needed] The regolith in the maria is rich in iron and magnesium and is silica-poor, as are the basaltic rocks from which it is formed.

The lunar regolith is very important because it also stores information about the history of the Sun. The atoms that compose the solar wind – mostly hydrogen, helium, neon, carbon and nitrogen – hit the lunar surface and insert themselves into the mineral grains. Upon analyzing the composition of the regolith, particularly its isotopic composition, it is possible to determine if the activity of the Sun has changed with time. The gases of the solar wind could be useful for future lunar bases, because oxygen, hydrogen (water), carbon and nitrogen are not only essential to sustain life, but are also potentially very useful in the production of fuel. The composition of the lunar regolith can also be used to infer its source origin.

Lunar lava tubes

Lunar pit in Mare Tranquillitatis

Lunar lava tubes form a potentially important location for constructing a future lunar base, which may be used for local exploration and development, or as a human outpost to serve exploration beyond the Moon. A lunar lava cave potential has long been suggested and discussed in literature and thesis. Any intact lava tube on the Moon could serve as a shelter from the severe environment of the lunar surface, with its frequent meteorite impacts, high-energy ultraviolet radiation and energetic particles, and extreme diurnal temperature variations. Following the launch of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, many lunar lava tubes have been imaged. These lunar pits are found in several locations across the Moon, including Marius Hills, Mare Ingenii and Mare Tranquillitatis.

Lunar magma ocean

The first rocks brought back by Apollo 11 were basalts. Although the mission landed on Mare Tranquillitatis, a few millimetric fragments of rocks coming from the highlands were picked up. These are composed mainly of plagioclase feldspar; some fragments were composed exclusively of anorthite. The identification of these mineral fragments led to the bold hypothesis that a large portion of the Moon was once molten, and that the crust formed by fractional crystallization of this magma ocean.

A natural outcome of the hypothetical giant-impact event is that the materials that re-accreted to form the Moon must have been hot. Current models predict that a large portion of the Moon would have been molten shortly after the Moon formed, with estimates for the depth of this magma ocean ranging from about 500 km to complete melting. Crystallization of this magma ocean would have given rise to a differentiated body with a compositionally distinct crust and mantle and accounts for the major suites of lunar rocks.

As crystallization of the lunar magma ocean proceeded, minerals such as olivine and pyroxene would have precipitated and sank to form the lunar mantle. After crystallization was about three-quarters complete, anorthositic plagioclase would have begun to crystallize, and because of its low density, float, forming an anorthositic crust. Importantly, elements that are incompatible (i.e., those that partition preferentially into the liquid phase) would have been progressively concentrated into the magma as crystallization progressed, forming a KREEP-rich magma that initially should have been sandwiched between the crust and mantle. Evidence for this scenario comes from the highly anorthositic composition of the lunar highland crust, as well as the existence of KREEP-rich materials. Additionally, zircon analysis of Apollo 14 samples suggests the lunar crust differentiated 4.51±0.01 billion years ago.

Formation of the anorthosite crust

Lunar rocks

Surface materials

Olivine basalt collected by Apollo 15

The Apollo program brought back 380.05 kilograms (837.87 lb) of lunar surface material, most of which is stored at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory in Houston, Texas, and the uncrewed Soviet Luna programme returned 326 grams (11.5 oz) of lunar material. These rocks have proved to be invaluable in deciphering the geologic evolution of the Moon. Lunar rocks are in large part made of the same common rock forming minerals as found on Earth, such as olivine, pyroxene, and plagioclase feldspar (anorthite). Plagioclase feldspar is mostly found in the lunar crust, whereas pyroxene and olivine are typically seen in the lunar mantle. The mineral ilmenite is highly abundant in some mare basalts, and a new mineral named armalcolite (named for Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, the three members of the Apollo 11 crew) was first discovered in the lunar samples.

The maria are composed predominantly of basalt, whereas the highland regions are iron-poor and composed primarily of anorthosite, a rock composed primarily of calcium-rich plagioclase feldspar. Another significant component of the crust are the igneous Mg-suite rocks, such as the troctolites, norites, and KREEP-basalts. These rocks are thought to be related to the petrogenesis of KREEP.

Composite rocks on the lunar surface often appear in the form of breccias. Of these, the subcategories are called fragmental, granulitic, and impact-melt breccias, depending on how they were formed. The mafic impact melt breccias, which are typified by the low-K Fra Mauro composition, have a higher proportion of iron and magnesium than typical upper crust anorthositic rocks, as well as higher abundances of KREEP.

Composition of the maria

The main characteristics of the basaltic rocks with respect to the rocks of the lunar highlands is that the basalts contain higher abundances of olivine and pyroxene, and less plagioclase. They are richer in iron than terrestrial basalts, and also have lower viscosities. Some of them have high abundances of a ferro-titanic oxide called ilmenite. Because the first sampling of rocks contained a high content of ilmenite and other related minerals, they received the name of "high titanium" basalts. The Apollo 12 mission returned to Earth with basalts of lower titanium concentrations, and these were dubbed "low titanium" basalts. Subsequent missions, including the Soviet robotic probes, returned with basalts with even lower concentrations, now called "very low titanium" basalts. The Clementine space probe returned data showing that the mare basalts have a continuum in titanium concentrations, with the highest concentration rocks being the least abundant.

Internal structure

The temperature and pressure of the Moon's interior increase with depth

The current model of the interior of the Moon was derived using seismometers left behind during the crewed Apollo program missions, as well as investigations of the Moon's gravity field and rotation.

The mass of the Moon is sufficient to eliminate any voids within the interior, so it is estimated to be composed of solid rock throughout. Its low bulk density (~3346 kg m−3) indicates a low metal abundance. Mass and moment of inertia constraints indicate that the Moon likely has an iron core that is less than about 450 km in radius. Studies of the Moon's physical librations (small perturbations to its rotation) furthermore indicate that the core is still molten. Most planetary bodies and moons have iron cores that are about half the size of the body. The Moon is thus anomalous in having a core whose size is only about one quarter of its radius.

The crust of the Moon is on average about 50 km thick (though this is uncertain by about ±15 km). It is estimated that the far-side crust is on average thicker than the near side by about 15 km. Seismology has constrained the thickness of the crust only near the Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 landing sites. Although the initial Apollo-era analyses suggested a crustal thickness of about 60 km at this site, recent reanalyses of this data suggest that it is thinner, somewhere between about 30 and 45 km.

Magnetic field

Compared with that of Earth, the Moon has only a very weak external magnetic field. Other major differences are that the Moon does not currently have a dipolar magnetic field (as would be generated by a geodynamo in its core), and the magnetizations that are present are almost entirely crustal in origin. One hypothesis holds that the crustal magnetizations were acquired early in lunar history when a geodynamo was still operating. The small size of the lunar core, however, is a potential obstacle to this hypothesis. Alternatively, it is possible that on airless bodies such as the Moon, transient magnetic fields could be generated during impact processes. In support of this, it has been noted that the largest crustal magnetizations appear to be located near the antipodes of the largest impact basins. Although the Moon does not have a dipolar magnetic field like Earth's, some of the returned rocks do have strong magnetizations. Furthermore, measurements from orbit show that some portions of the lunar surface are associated with strong magnetic fields.

Eradication of suffering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The eradication or abolition of suffering is the concept of using biotechnology to create a permanent absence of involuntary pain and suffering in all sentient beings.

Biology and medicine

The discovery of modern anesthesia in the 19th century was an early breakthrough in the elimination of pain during surgery, but acceptance was not universal. Some medical practitioners at the time believed that anesthesia was an artificial and harmful intervention in the body's natural response to injury. Opposition to anesthesia has since dissipated; however, the prospect of eradicating pain raises similar concerns about interfering with life's natural functions.

People who are naturally incapable of feeling pain or unpleasant sensations due to rare conditions like pain asymbolia or congenital insensitivity to pain have been studied to discover the biological and genetic reasons for their pain-free lives. A Scottish woman with a previously unreported genetic mutation in a FAAH pseudogene (dubbed FAAH-OUT) with resultant elevated anandamide levels was reported in 2019 to be immune to anxiety, unable to experience fear, and insensitive to pain. The frequent burns and cuts she had due to her full hypoalgesia healed quicker than average.

In 1990, Medical Hypotheses published an article by L. S. Mancini on the "genetic engineering of a world without pain":

A hypothesis is presented to the effect that everything adaptive which is achievable with a mind capable of experiencing varying degrees of both pleasure and pain (the human condition as we know it) could be achieved with a mind capable of experiencing only varying degrees of pleasure.

The development of gene editing techniques like CRISPR has raised the prospect that "scientists can identify the causes of certain unusual people's physical superpowers and use gene editing to grant them to others." Geneticist George Church has commented on the potential future of replacing pain with a painless sensory system:

I imagine what this would be like on another planet and in the future, and... given that imagined future, whether we would be willing to come back to where we are now. Rather than saying whether we're willing to go forward... ask whether you're willing to come back.

Ethics and philosophy

Ethicists and philosophers in the schools of hedonism and utilitarianism, especially negative utilitarianism, have debated the merits of eradicating suffering. Transhumanist philosopher David Pearce, in The Hedonistic Imperative (1995), argues that the abolition of suffering is both technically feasible and an issue of moral urgency, stating that: "It is predicted that the world's last unpleasant experience will be a precisely dateable event."

The philosopher Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute, advises a more cautious approach due to pain's function in protecting individuals from harm. However, Bostrom supports the core idea of using biotechnology to get rid of "a huge amount of unnecessary and undeserved suffering." It has also been argued that the eradication of suffering through biotechnology may bring about unwanted consequences, and arguments have been made that transhumanism is not the only philosophy worthy of consideration regarding the question of suffering — many people view suffering as one aspect in a dualist understanding of psychological and physical functioning, without which pleasure could not exist.

Animal welfare

In 2009, Adam Shriver suggested replacing animals in factory farming with genetically engineered animals with a reduced or absent capacity to suffer and feel pain. Shriver and McConnachie argued that people who wish to improve animal welfare should support gene editing in addition to plant-based diets and cultured meat.

Katrien Devolder and Matthias Eggel proposed gene editing research animals to remove pain and suffering. This would be an intermediate step towards eventually stopping all experimentation on animals and adopting alternatives.

Concerning wild-animal suffering, CRISPR-based gene drives have been suggested as a cost-effective way of spreading benign alleles in sexually reproducing species. To limit gene drives spreading indefinitely (for test programmes, for example), the Sculpting Evolution group at the MIT Media Lab developed a self-exhausting form of CRISPR-based gene drive called a "daisy-chain drive." For potential adverse effects of a gene drive, "[s]everal genetic mechanisms for limiting or eliminating gene drives have been proposed and/or developed, including synthetic resistance, reversal drives, and immunizing reversal drives."

Recapitulation theory

Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) attempted to synthesize the ideas of Lamarckism and Goethe's Naturphilosophie with Charles Darwin's concepts. While often seen as rejecting Darwin's theory of branching evolution for a more linear Lamarckian view of progressive evolution, this is not accurate: Haeckel used the Lamarckian picture to describe the ontogenetic and phylogenetic history of individual species, but agreed with Darwin about the branching of all species from one, or a few, original ancestors. Since early in the twentieth century, Haeckel's "biogenetic law" has been refuted on many fronts.

Haeckel formulated his theory as "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". The notion later became simply known as the recapitulation theory. Ontogeny is the growth (size change) and development (structure change) of an individual organism; phylogeny is the evolutionary history of a species. Haeckel claimed that the development of advanced species passes through stages represented by adult organisms of more primitive species. Otherwise put, each successive stage in the development of an individual represents one of the adult forms that appeared in its evolutionary history.

For example, Haeckel proposed that the pharyngeal grooves between the pharyngeal arches in the neck of the human embryo not only roughly resembled gill slits of fish, but directly represented an adult "fishlike" developmental stage, signifying a fishlike ancestor. Embryonic pharyngeal slits, which form in many animals when the thin branchial plates separating pharyngeal pouches and pharyngeal grooves perforate, open the pharynx to the outside. Pharyngeal arches appear in all tetrapod embryos: in mammals, the first pharyngeal arch develops into the lower jaw (Meckel's cartilage), the malleus and the stapes.

Haeckel produced several embryo drawings that often overemphasized similarities between embryos of related species. Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory, such as its possible application to behavioural ontogeny, i.e. the psychomotor development of young animals and human children.

Contemporary criticism

Drawing by Wilhelm His of chick brain compared to folded rubber tube, 1874. Ag (Anlage) = Optic lobes, matching bulges in rubber tube.

Haeckel's theory and drawings were criticised by his contemporary, the anatomist Wilhelm His Sr. (1831–1904), who had developed a rival "causal-mechanical theory" of human embryonic development. His's work specifically criticised Haeckel's methodology, arguing that the shapes of embryos were caused most immediately by mechanical pressures resulting from local differences in growth. These differences were, in turn, caused by "heredity". He compared the shapes of embryonic structures to those of rubber tubes that could be slit and bent, illustrating these comparisons with accurate drawings. Stephen Jay Gould noted in his 1977 book Ontogeny and Phylogeny that His's attack on Haeckel's recapitulation theory was far more fundamental than that of any empirical critic, as it effectively stated that Haeckel's "biogenetic law" was irrelevant.

Embryology theories of Ernst Haeckel and Karl Ernst von Baer compared

Darwin proposed that embryos resembled each other since they shared a common ancestor, which presumably had a similar embryo, but that development did not necessarily recapitulate phylogeny: he saw no reason to suppose that an embryo at any stage resembled an adult of any ancestor. Darwin supposed further that embryos were subject to less intense selection pressure than adults, and had therefore changed less.

Modern status

Modern evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) follows von Baer, rather than Darwin, in pointing to active evolution of embryonic development as a significant means of changing the morphology of adult bodies. Two of the key principles of evo-devo, namely that changes in the timing (heterochrony) and positioning (heterotopy) within the body of aspects of embryonic development would change the shape of a descendant's body compared to an ancestor's, were first formulated by Haeckel in the 1870s. These elements of his thinking about development have thus survived, whereas his theory of recapitulation has not.

The Haeckelian form of recapitulation theory is considered defunct. Embryos do undergo a period or phylotypic stage where their morphology is strongly shaped by their phylogenetic position, rather than selective pressures, but that means only that they resemble other embryos at that stage, not ancestral adults as Haeckel had claimed. The modern view is summarised by the University of California Museum of Paleontology:

Embryos do reflect the course of evolution, but that course is far more intricate and quirky than Haeckel claimed. Different parts of the same embryo can even evolve in different directions. As a result, the Biogenetic Law was abandoned, and its fall freed scientists to appreciate the full range of embryonic changes that evolution can produce—an appreciation that has yielded spectacular results in recent years as scientists have discovered some of the specific genes that control development.

Applications to other areas

The idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has been applied to some other areas.

Cognitive development

English philosopher Herbert Spencer was one of the most energetic proponents of evolutionary ideas to explain many phenomena. In 1861, five years before Haeckel first published on the subject, Spencer proposed a possible basis for a cultural recapitulation theory of education with the following claim:

If there be an order in which the human race has mastered its various kinds of knowledge, there will arise in every child an aptitude to acquire these kinds of knowledge in the same order... Education is a repetition of civilization in little.

— Herbert Spencer

G. Stanley Hall used Haeckel's theories as the basis for his theories of child development. His most influential work, "Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion and Education" in 1904 suggested that each individual's life course recapitulated humanity's evolution from "savagery" to "civilization". Though he has influenced later childhood development theories, Hall's conception is now generally considered racist.

Developmental psychologist Jean Piaget favored a weaker version of the formula, according to which ontogeny parallels phylogeny because the two are subject to similar external constraints.

The Austrian pioneer of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, also favored Haeckel's doctrine. He was trained as a biologist under the influence of recapitulation theory during its heyday, and retained a Lamarckian outlook with justification from the recapitulation theory. Freud also distinguished between physical and mental recapitulation, in which the differences would become an essential argument for his theory of neuroses.

In the late 20th century, studies of symbolism and learning in the field of cultural anthropology suggested that "both biological evolution and the stages in the child's cognitive development follow much the same progression of evolutionary stages as that suggested in the archaeological record".

Music criticism

The musicologist Richard Taruskin in 2005 applied the phrase "ontogeny becomes phylogeny" to the process of creating and recasting music history, often to assert a perspective or argument. For example, the peculiar development of the works by modernist composer Arnold Schoenberg (here an "ontogeny") is generalized in many histories into a "phylogeny" – a historical development ("evolution") of Western music toward atonal styles of which Schoenberg is a representative. Such historiographies of the "collapse of traditional tonality" are faulted by music historians as asserting a rhetorical rather than historical point about tonality's "collapse".

Taruskin also developed a variation of the motto into the pun "ontogeny recapitulates ontology" to refute the concept of "absolute music" advancing the socio-artistic theories of the musicologist Carl Dahlhaus. Ontology is the investigation of what exactly something is, and Taruskin asserts that an art object becomes that which society and succeeding generations made of it. For example, Johann Sebastian Bach's St. John Passion, composed in the 1720s, was appropriated by the Nazi regime in the 1930s for propaganda. Taruskin claims the historical development of the St John Passion (its ontogeny) as a work with an anti-Semitic message does, in fact, inform the work's identity (its ontology), even though that was an unlikely concern of the composer. Music or even an abstract visual artwork can not be truly autonomous ("absolute") because it is defined by its historical and social reception.

Giant-impact hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Artist's depiction of a collision between two planetary bodies. Such an impact between Earth and a Mars-sized object likely formed the Moon.

The giant-impact hypothesis, sometimes called the Big Splash, or the Theia Impact, is an astrogeology hypothesis for the formation of the Moon first proposed in 1946 by Canadian geologist Reginald Daly. The hypothesis suggests that the Early Earth collided with a Mars-sized dwarf planet of the same orbit approximately 4.5 billion years ago in the early Hadean eon (about 20 to 100 million years after the Solar System coalesced), and the ejecta of the impact event later accreted to form the Moon. The impactor planet is sometimes called Theia, named after the mythical Greek Titan who was the mother of Selene, the goddess of the Moon.

Analysis of lunar rocks published in a 2016 report suggests that the impact might have been a direct hit, causing a fragmentation and thorough mixing of both parent bodies. The giant-impact hypothesis is currently the favored hypothesis for lunar formation among astronomers. Evidence that supports this hypothesis include:

  • The Moon's orbit has a similar orientation to Earth's rotation.
  • The stable isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.
  • The Earth–Moon system contains an anomalously high angular momentum, meaning the momentum contained in Earth's rotation, the Moon's rotation and the Moon revolving around Earth is significantly higher than the other terrestrial planets. A giant impact might have supplied this excess momentum.
  • Moon samples indicate that the Moon was once molten to a substantial, but unknown, depth. This might have required much more energy than predicted to be available from the accretion of a celestial body of the Moon's size and mass. An extremely energetic process, such as a giant impact, could provide this energy.
  • The Moon has a relatively small iron core, which gives it a lower density than Earth. Computer models of a giant impact of a Mars-sized body with Earth indicate the impactor's core would likely penetrate deep into Earth and fuse with its own core. This would leave the Moon, which was formed from the ejecta of lighter crust and mantle fragments that went beyond the Roche limit and were not pulled back by gravity to re-fuse with proto-Earth, with less remaining metallic iron than other planetary bodies.
  • The Moon is depleted in volatile elements compared to Earth. Vaporizing at comparably lower temperatures, they could be lost in a high-energy event, with the Moon's smaller gravity unable to recapture them while Earth did.
  • There is evidence in other star systems of similar collisions, resulting in debris discs.
  • Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theory of the formation of the Solar System.

However, there remain several questions concerning the best current models of the giant-impact hypothesis. The energy of such a giant impact is predicted to have heated Earth to produce a global magma ocean, and evidence of the resultant planetary differentiation of the heavier material sinking into Earth's mantle has been documented. However, there is no self-consistent model that starts with the giant-impact event and follows the evolution of the debris into a single moon. Other remaining questions include when the Moon lost its share of volatile elements and why Venus – which experienced giant impacts during its formation – does not host a similar moon.

History

In 1898, George Darwin made the suggestion that Earth and the Moon were once a single body. Darwin's hypothesis was that a molten Moon had been spun from Earth because of centrifugal forces, and this became the dominant academic explanation. Using Newtonian mechanics, he calculated that the Moon had orbited much more closely in the past and was drifting away from Earth. This drifting was later confirmed by American and Soviet experiments, using laser ranging targets placed on the Moon.

Nonetheless, Darwin's calculations could not resolve the mechanics required to trace the Moon back to the surface of Earth. In 1946, Reginald Aldworth Daly of Harvard University challenged Darwin's explanation, adjusting it to postulate that the creation of the Moon was caused by an impact rather than centrifugal forces. Little attention was paid to Professor Daly's challenge until a conference on satellites in 1974, during which the idea was reintroduced and later published and discussed in Icarus in 1975 by William K. Hartmann and Donald R. Davis. Their models suggested that, at the end of the planet formation period, several satellite-sized bodies had formed that could collide with the planets or be captured. They proposed that one of these objects might have collided with Earth, ejecting refractory, volatile-poor dust that could coalesce to form the Moon. This collision could potentially explain the unique geological and geochemical properties of the Moon.

A similar approach was taken by Canadian astronomer Alastair G. W. Cameron and American astronomer William R. Ward, who suggested that the Moon was formed by the tangential impact upon Earth of a body the size of Mars. It is hypothesized that most of the outer silicates of the colliding body would be vaporized, whereas a metallic core would not. Hence, most of the collisional material sent into orbit would consist of silicates, leaving the coalescing Moon deficient in iron. The more volatile materials that were emitted during the collision probably would escape the Solar System, whereas silicates would tend to coalesce.

Eighteen months prior to an October 1969 conference on lunar origins, Bill Hartmann, Roger Phillips, and Jeff Taylor challenged fellow lunar scientists: "You have eighteen months. Go back to your Apollo data, go back to your computer, and do whatever you have to, but make up your mind. Don't come to our conference unless you have something to say about the Moon's birth." At the 1969 conference at Kona, Hawaii, the giant-impact hypothesis emerged as the most favored hypothesis.

Before the conference, there were partisans of the three "traditional" theories, plus a few people who were starting to take the giant impact seriously, and there was a huge apathetic middle who didn't think the debate would ever be resolved. Afterward, there were essentially only two groups: the giant impact camp and the agnostics.

Theia

The name of the hypothesised protoplanet is derived from the mythical Greek titan Theia /ˈθə/, who gave birth to the Moon goddess Selene. This designation was proposed initially by the English geochemist Alex N. Halliday in 2000 and has become accepted in the scientific community. According to modern theories of planet formation, Theia was part of a population of Mars-sized bodies that existed in the Solar System 4.5 billion years ago. One of the attractive features of the giant-impact hypothesis is that the formation of the Moon and Earth align; during the course of its formation, Earth is thought to have experienced dozens of collisions with planet-sized bodies. The Moon-forming collision would have been only one such "giant impact" but certainly the last significant impactor event. The Late Heavy Bombardment by much smaller asteroids may have occurred later – approximately 3.9 billion years ago.

Basic model

Simplistic representation of the giant-impact hypothesis.

Astronomers think the collision between Earth and Theia happened at about 4.4 to 4.45 bya; about 0.1 billion years after the Solar System began to form. In astronomical terms, the impact would have been of moderate velocity. Theia is thought to have struck Earth at an oblique angle when Earth was nearly fully formed. Computer simulations of this "late-impact" scenario suggest an initial impactor velocity below 4 kilometres per second (2.5 mi/s) at "infinity" (far enough that gravitational attraction is not a factor), increasing as it approached to over 9.3 km/s (5.8 mi/s) at impact, and an impact angle of about 45°. However, oxygen isotope abundance in lunar rock suggests "vigorous mixing" of Theia and Earth, indicating a steep impact angle. Theia's iron core would have sunk into the young Earth's core, and most of Theia's mantle accreted onto Earth's mantle. However, a significant portion of the mantle material from both Theia and Earth would have been ejected into orbit around Earth (if ejected with velocities between orbital velocity and escape velocity) or into individual orbits around the Sun (if ejected at higher velocities).

Modelling has hypothesised that material in orbit around Earth may have accreted to form the Moon in three consecutive phases; accreting first from the bodies initially present outside Earth's Roche limit, which acted to confine the inner disk material within the Roche limit. The inner disk slowly and viscously spread back out to Earth's Roche limit, pushing along outer bodies via resonant interactions. After several tens of years, the disk spread beyond the Roche limit, and started producing new objects that continued the growth of the Moon, until the inner disk was depleted in mass after several hundreds of years. Material in stable Kepler orbits was thus likely to hit the Earth–Moon system sometime later (because the Earth–Moon system's Kepler orbit around the Sun also remains stable). Estimates based on computer simulations of such an event suggest that some twenty percent of the original mass of Theia would have ended up as an orbiting ring of debris around Earth, and about half of this matter coalesced into the Moon. Earth would have gained significant amounts of angular momentum and mass from such a collision. Regardless of the speed and tilt of Earth's rotation before the impact, it would have experienced a day some five hours long after the impact, and Earth's equator and the Moon's orbit would have become coplanar.

Not all of the ring material need have been swept up right away: the thickened crust of the Moon's far side suggests the possibility that a second moon about 1,000 km (620 mi) in diameter formed in a Lagrange point of the Moon. The smaller moon may have remained in orbit for tens of millions of years. As the two moons migrated outward from Earth, solar tidal effects would have made the Lagrange orbit unstable, resulting in a slow-velocity collision that "pancaked" the smaller moon onto what is now the far side of the Moon, adding material to its crust. Lunar magma cannot pierce through the thick crust of the far side, causing fewer lunar maria, while the near side has a thin crust displaying the large maria visible from Earth.

Above a high resolution threshold for simulations, a study published in 2022 finds that giant impacts can immediately place a satellite with similar mass and iron content to the Moon into orbit far outside Earth's Roche limit. Even satellites that initially pass within the Roche limit can reliably and predictably survive, by being partially stripped and then torqued onto wider, stable orbits. Furthermore, the outer layers of these directly formed satellites are molten over cooler interiors and are composed of around 60% proto-Earth material. This could alleviate the tension between the Moon's Earth-like isotopic composition and the different signature expected for the impactor. Immediate formation opens up new options for the Moon's early orbit and evolution, including the possibility of a highly tilted orbit to explain the lunar inclination, and offers a simpler, single-stage scenario for the origin of the Moon.

Composition

In 2001, a team at the Carnegie Institution of Washington reported that the rocks from the Apollo program carried an isotopic signature that was identical with rocks from Earth, and were different from almost all other bodies in the Solar System. In 2014, a team in Germany reported that the Apollo samples had a slightly different isotopic signature from Earth rocks. The difference was slight, but statistically significant. One possible explanation is that Theia formed near Earth.

This empirical data showing close similarity of composition can be explained only by the standard giant-impact hypothesis, as it is extremely unlikely that two bodies prior to collision had such similar composition.

Equilibration hypothesis

In 2007, researchers from the California Institute of Technology showed that the likelihood of Theia having an identical isotopic signature as Earth was very small (less than 1 percent). They proposed that in the aftermath of the giant impact, while Earth and the proto-lunar disc were molten and vaporised, the two reservoirs were connected by a common silicate vapor atmosphere and that the Earth–Moon system became homogenised by convective stirring while the system existed in the form of a continuous fluid. Such an "equilibration" between the post-impact Earth and the proto-lunar disc is the only proposed scenario that explains the isotopic similarities of the Apollo rocks with rocks from Earth's interior. For this scenario to be viable, however, the proto-lunar disc would have to endure for about 100 years. Work is ongoing to determine whether or not this is possible.

Direct collision hypothesis

According to research (2012) to explain similar compositions of the Earth and the Moon based on simulations at the University of Bern by physicist Andreas Reufer and his colleagues, Theia collided directly with Earth instead of barely swiping it. The collision speed may have been higher than originally assumed, and this higher velocity may have totally destroyed Theia. According to this modification, the composition of Theia is not so restricted, making a composition of up to 50% water ice possible.

Synestia hypothesis

One effort, in 2018, to homogenise the products of the collision was to energise the primary body by way of a greater pre-collision rotational speed. This way, more material from the primary body would be spun off to form the Moon. Further computer modelling determined that the observed result could be obtained by having the pre-Earth body spinning very rapidly, so much so that it formed a new celestial object which was given the name 'synestia'. This is an unstable state that could have been generated by yet another collision to get the rotation spinning fast enough. Further modelling of this transient structure has shown that the primary body spinning as a doughnut-shaped object (the synestia) existed for about a century (a very short time) before it cooled down and gave birth to Earth and the Moon.

Terrestrial magma ocean hypothesis

Another model, in 2019, to explain the similarity of Earth and the Moon's compositions posits that shortly after Earth formed, it was covered by a sea of hot magma, while the impacting object was likely made of solid material. Modelling suggests that this would lead to the impact heating the magma much more than solids from the impacting object, leading to more material being ejected from the proto-Earth, so that about 80% of the Moon-forming debris originated from the proto-Earth. Many prior models had suggested 80% of the Moon coming from the impactor.

Evidence

Indirect evidence for the giant impact scenario comes from rocks collected during the Apollo Moon landings, which show oxygen isotope ratios nearly identical to those of Earth. The highly anorthositic composition of the lunar crust, as well as the existence of KREEP-rich samples, suggest that a large portion of the Moon once was molten; and a giant impact scenario could easily have supplied the energy needed to form such a magma ocean. Several lines of evidence show that if the Moon has an iron-rich core, it must be a small one. In particular, the mean density, moment of inertia, rotational signature, and magnetic induction response of the Moon all suggest that the radius of its core is less than about 25% the radius of the Moon, in contrast to about 50% for most of the other terrestrial bodies. Appropriate impact conditions satisfying the angular momentum constraints of the Earth–Moon system yield a Moon formed mostly from the mantles of Earth and the impactor, while the core of the impactor accretes to Earth. Earth has the highest density of all the planets in the Solar System; the absorption of the core of the impactor body explains this observation, given the proposed properties of the early Earth and Theia.

Comparison of the zinc isotopic composition of lunar samples with that of Earth and Mars rocks provides further evidence for the impact hypothesis. Zinc is strongly fractionated when volatilised in planetary rocks, but not during normal igneous processes, so zinc abundance and isotopic composition can distinguish the two geological processes. Moon rocks contain more heavy isotopes of zinc, and overall less zinc, than corresponding igneous Earth or Mars rocks, which is consistent with zinc being depleted from the Moon through evaporation, as expected for the giant impact origin.

Collisions between ejecta escaping Earth's gravity and asteroids would have left impact heating signatures in stony meteorites; analysis based on assuming the existence of this effect has been used to date the impact event to 4.47 billion years ago, in agreement with the date obtained by other means.

Warm silica-rich dust and abundant SiO gas, products of high velocity impacts – over 10 km/s (6.2 mi/s) – between rocky bodies, have been detected by the Spitzer Space Telescope around the nearby (29 pc distant) young (~12 My old) star HD 172555 in the Beta Pictoris moving group. A belt of warm dust in a zone between 0.25AU and 2AU from the young star HD 23514 in the Pleiades cluster appears similar to the predicted results of Theia's collision with the embryonic Earth, and has been interpreted as the result of planet-sized objects colliding with each other. A similar belt of warm dust was detected around the star BD+20°307 (HIP 8920, SAO 75016).

On 1 November 2023, scientists reported that, according to computer simulations, remnants of Theia could be still visible inside the Earth as two giant anomalies of the Earth's mantle.

Difficulties

This lunar origin hypothesis has some difficulties that have yet to be resolved. For example, the giant-impact hypothesis implies that a surface magma ocean would have formed following the impact. Yet there is no evidence that Earth ever had such a magma ocean and it is likely there exists material that has never been processed in a magma ocean.

Composition

A number of compositional inconsistencies need to be addressed.

  • The ratios of the Moon's volatile elements are not explained by the giant-impact hypothesis. If the giant-impact hypothesis is correct, these ratios must be due to some other cause.
  • The presence of volatiles such as water trapped in lunar basalts and carbon emissions from the lunar surface is more difficult to explain if the Moon was caused by a high-temperature impact.
  • The iron oxide (FeO) content (13%) of the Moon, intermediate between that of Mars (18%) and the terrestrial mantle (8%), rules out most of the source of the proto-lunar material from Earth's mantle.
  • If the bulk of the proto-lunar material had come from an impactor, the Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements, when, in fact, it is deficient in them.
  • The Moon's oxygen isotopic ratios are essentially identical to those of Earth. Oxygen isotopic ratios, which may be measured very precisely, yield a unique and distinct signature for each Solar System body. If a separate proto-planet Theia had existed, it probably would have had a different oxygen isotopic signature than Earth, as would the ejected mixed material.
  • The Moon's titanium isotope ratio (50Ti/47Ti) appears so close to Earth's (within 4 ppm), that little if any of the colliding body's mass could likely have been part of the Moon.

Lack of a Venusian moon

If the Moon was formed by such an impact, it is possible that other inner planets also may have been subjected to comparable impacts. A moon that formed around Venus by this process would have been unlikely to escape. If such a moon-forming event had occurred there, a possible explanation of why the planet does not have such a moon might be that a second collision occurred that countered the angular momentum from the first impact. Another possibility is that the strong tidal forces from the Sun would tend to destabilise the orbits of moons around close-in planets. For this reason, if Venus's slow rotation rate began early in its history, any satellites larger than a few kilometers in diameter would likely have spiraled inwards and collided with Venus.

Simulations of the chaotic period of terrestrial planet formation suggest that impacts like those hypothesised to have formed the Moon were common. For typical terrestrial planets with a mass of 0.5 to 1 Earth masses, such an impact typically results in a single moon containing 4% of the host planet's mass. The inclination of the resulting moon's orbit is random, but this tilt affects the subsequent dynamic evolution of the system. For example, some orbits may cause the moon to spiral back into the planet. Likewise, the proximity of the planet to the star will also affect the orbital evolution. The net effect is that it is more likely for impact-generated moons to survive when they orbit more distant terrestrial planets and are aligned with the planetary orbit.

Possible origin of Theia

One suggested pathway for the impact as viewed from the direction of Earth's south pole (not to scale).

In 2004, Princeton University mathematician Edward Belbruno and astrophysicist J. Richard Gott III proposed that Theia coalesced at the L4 or L5 Lagrangian point relative to Earth (in about the same orbit and about 60° ahead or behind), similar to a trojan asteroid. Two-dimensional computer models suggest that the stability of Theia's proposed trojan orbit would have been affected when its growing mass exceeded a threshold of approximately 10% of Earth's mass (the mass of Mars). In this scenario, gravitational perturbations by planetesimals caused Theia to depart from its stable Lagrangian location, and subsequent interactions with proto-Earth led to a collision between the two bodies.

In 2008, evidence was presented that suggests that the collision might have occurred later than the accepted value of 4.53 Gya, at approximately 4.48 Gya. A 2014 comparison of computer simulations with elemental abundance measurements in Earth's mantle indicated that the collision occurred approximately 95 My after the formation of the Solar System.

It has been suggested that other significant objects might have been created by the impact, which could have remained in orbit between Earth and the Moon, stuck in Lagrangian points. Such objects might have stayed within the Earth–Moon system for as long as 100 million years, until the gravitational tugs of other planets destabilised the system enough to free the objects. A study published in 2011 suggested that a subsequent collision between the Moon and one of these smaller bodies caused the notable differences in physical characteristics between the two hemispheres of the Moon. This collision, simulations have supported, would have been at a low enough velocity so as not to form a crater; instead, the material from the smaller body would have spread out across the Moon (in what would become its far side), adding a thick layer of highlands crust. The resulting mass irregularities would subsequently produce a gravity gradient that resulted in tidal locking of the Moon so that today, only the near side remains visible from Earth. However, mapping by the GRAIL mission has ruled out this scenario.

In 2019, a team at the University of Münster reported that the molybdenum isotopic composition in Earth's primitive mantle originates from the outer Solar System, hinting at the source of water on Earth. One possible explanation is that Theia originated in the outer Solar System.

Alternative hypotheses

Other mechanisms that have been suggested at various times for the Moon's origin are that the Moon was spun off from Earth's molten surface by centrifugal force; that it was formed elsewhere and was subsequently captured by Earth's gravitational field; or that Earth and the Moon formed at the same time and place from the same accretion disk. None of these hypotheses can account for the high angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system.

Another hypothesis attributes the formation of the Moon to the impact of a large asteroid with Earth much later than previously thought, creating the satellite primarily from debris from Earth. In this hypothesis, the formation of the Moon occurs 60–140 million years after the formation of the Solar System (as compared to hypothesized Theia impact at 4.527 ± 0.010 billion years). The asteroid impact in this scenario would have created a magma ocean on Earth and the proto-Moon with both bodies sharing a common plasma metal vapor atmosphere. The shared metal vapor bridge would have allowed material from Earth and the proto-Moon to exchange and equilibrate into a more common composition.

Yet another hypothesis proposes that the Moon and Earth formed together, not from the collision of once-distant bodies. This model, published in 2012 by Robin M. Canup, suggests that the Moon and Earth formed from a massive collision of two planetary bodies, each larger than Mars, which then re-collided to form what is now called Earth. After the re-collision, Earth was surrounded by a disk of material which accreted to form the Moon. This hypothesis could explain evidence that others do not.

Recapitulation theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism—often expressed using Ernst Haeckel's phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"—is an historical hypothesis that the development of the embryo of an animal, from fertilization to gestation or hatching (ontogeny), goes through stages resembling or representing successive adult stages in the evolution of the animal's remote ancestors (phylogeny). It was formulated in the 1820s by Étienne Serres based on the work of Johann Friedrich Meckel, after whom it is also known as Meckel–Serres law.

Since embryos also evolve in different ways, the shortcomings of the theory had been recognized by the early 20th century, and it had been relegated to "biological mythology" by the mid-20th century.

Analogies to recapitulation theory have been formulated in other fields, including cognitive development and music criticism.

Embryology

Meckel, Serres, Geoffroy

The idea of recapitulation was first formulated in biology from the 1790s onwards by the German natural philosophers Johann Friedrich Meckel and Carl Friedrich Kielmeyer, and by Étienne Serres after which, Marcel Danesi states, it soon gained the status of a supposed biogenetic law.

The embryological theory was formalised by Serres in 1824–1826, based on Meckel's work, in what became known as the "Meckel-Serres Law". This attempted to link comparative embryology with a "pattern of unification" in the organic world. It was supported by Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, and became a prominent part of his ideas. It suggested that past transformations of life could have been through environmental causes working on the embryo, rather than on the adult as in Lamarckism. These naturalistic ideas led to disagreements with Georges Cuvier. The theory was widely supported in the Edinburgh and London schools of higher anatomy around 1830, notably by Robert Edmond Grant, but was opposed by Karl Ernst von Baer's ideas of divergence, and attacked by Richard Owen in the 1830s.

George Romanes's 1892 copy of Ernst Haeckel's controversial embryo drawings

Haeckel

Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) attempted to synthesize the ideas of Lamarckism and Goethe's Naturphilosophie with Charles Darwin's concepts. While often seen as rejecting Darwin's theory of branching evolution for a more linear Lamarckian view of progressive evolution, this is not accurate: Haeckel used the Lamarckian picture to describe the ontogenetic and phylogenetic history of individual species, but agreed with Darwin about the branching of all species from one, or a few, original ancestors. Since early in the twentieth century, Haeckel's "biogenetic law" has been refuted on many fronts.

Haeckel formulated his theory as "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". The notion later became simply known as the recapitulation theory. Ontogeny is the growth (size change) and development (structure change) of an individual organism; phylogeny is the evolutionary history of a species. Haeckel claimed that the development of advanced species passes through stages represented by adult organisms of more primitive species. Otherwise put, each successive stage in the development of an individual represents one of the adult forms that appeared in its evolutionary history.

For example, Haeckel proposed that the pharyngeal grooves between the pharyngeal arches in the neck of the human embryo not only roughly resembled gill slits of fish, but directly represented an adult "fishlike" developmental stage, signifying a fishlike ancestor. Embryonic pharyngeal slits, which form in many animals when the thin branchial plates separating pharyngeal pouches and pharyngeal grooves perforate, open the pharynx to the outside. Pharyngeal arches appear in all tetrapod embryos: in mammals, the first pharyngeal arch develops into the lower jaw (Meckel's cartilage), the malleus and the stapes.

Haeckel produced several embryo drawings that often overemphasized similarities between embryos of related species. Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory, such as its possible application to behavioural ontogeny, i.e. the psychomotor development of young animals and human children.

Contemporary criticism

Drawing by Wilhelm His of chick brain compared to folded rubber tube, 1874. Ag (Anlage) = Optic lobes, matching bulges in rubber tube.

Haeckel's theory and drawings were criticised by his contemporary, the anatomist Wilhelm His Sr. (1831–1904), who had developed a rival "causal-mechanical theory" of human embryonic development. His's work specifically criticised Haeckel's methodology, arguing that the shapes of embryos were caused most immediately by mechanical pressures resulting from local differences in growth. These differences were, in turn, caused by "heredity". He compared the shapes of embryonic structures to those of rubber tubes that could be slit and bent, illustrating these comparisons with accurate drawings. Stephen Jay Gould noted in his 1977 book Ontogeny and Phylogeny that His's attack on Haeckel's recapitulation theory was far more fundamental than that of any empirical critic, as it effectively stated that Haeckel's "biogenetic law" was irrelevant.

Embryology theories of Ernst Haeckel and Karl Ernst von Baer compared

Darwin proposed that embryos resembled each other since they shared a common ancestor, which presumably had a similar embryo, but that development did not necessarily recapitulate phylogeny: he saw no reason to suppose that an embryo at any stage resembled an adult of any ancestor. Darwin supposed further that embryos were subject to less intense selection pressure than adults, and had therefore changed less.

Modern status

Modern evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) follows von Baer, rather than Darwin, in pointing to active evolution of embryonic development as a significant means of changing the morphology of adult bodies. Two of the key principles of evo-devo, namely that changes in the timing (heterochrony) and positioning (heterotopy) within the body of aspects of embryonic development would change the shape of a descendant's body compared to an ancestor's, were first formulated by Haeckel in the 1870s. These elements of his thinking about development have thus survived, whereas his theory of recapitulation has not.

The Haeckelian form of recapitulation theory is considered defunct. Embryos do undergo a period or phylotypic stage where their morphology is strongly shaped by their phylogenetic position, rather than selective pressures, but that means only that they resemble other embryos at that stage, not ancestral adults as Haeckel had claimed. The modern view is summarised by the University of California Museum of Paleontology:

Embryos do reflect the course of evolution, but that course is far more intricate and quirky than Haeckel claimed. Different parts of the same embryo can even evolve in different directions. As a result, the Biogenetic Law was abandoned, and its fall freed scientists to appreciate the full range of embryonic changes that evolution can produce—an appreciation that has yielded spectacular results in recent years as scientists have discovered some of the specific genes that control development.

Applications to other areas

The idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has been applied to some other areas.

Cognitive development

English philosopher Herbert Spencer was one of the most energetic proponents of evolutionary ideas to explain many phenomena. In 1861, five years before Haeckel first published on the subject, Spencer proposed a possible basis for a cultural recapitulation theory of education with the following claim:

If there be an order in which the human race has mastered its various kinds of knowledge, there will arise in every child an aptitude to acquire these kinds of knowledge in the same order... Education is a repetition of civilization in little.

— Herbert Spencer

G. Stanley Hall used Haeckel's theories as the basis for his theories of child development. His most influential work, "Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion and Education" in 1904 suggested that each individual's life course recapitulated humanity's evolution from "savagery" to "civilization". Though he has influenced later childhood development theories, Hall's conception is now generally considered racist. Developmental psychologist Jean Piaget favored a weaker version of the formula, according to which ontogeny parallels phylogeny because the two are subject to similar external constraints.

The Austrian pioneer of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, also favored Haeckel's doctrine. He was trained as a biologist under the influence of recapitulation theory during its heyday, and retained a Lamarckian outlook with justification from the recapitulation theory. Freud also distinguished between physical and mental recapitulation, in which the differences would become an essential argument for his theory of neuroses.

In the late 20th century, studies of symbolism and learning in the field of cultural anthropology suggested that "both biological evolution and the stages in the child's cognitive development follow much the same progression of evolutionary stages as that suggested in the archaeological record".

Music criticism

The musicologist Richard Taruskin in 2005 applied the phrase "ontogeny becomes phylogeny" to the process of creating and recasting music history, often to assert a perspective or argument. For example, the peculiar development of the works by modernist composer Arnold Schoenberg (here an "ontogeny") is generalized in many histories into a "phylogeny" – a historical development ("evolution") of Western music toward atonal styles of which Schoenberg is a representative. Such historiographies of the "collapse of traditional tonality" are faulted by music historians as asserting a rhetorical rather than historical point about tonality's "collapse".

Taruskin also developed a variation of the motto into the pun "ontogeny recapitulates ontology" to refute the concept of "absolute music" advancing the socio-artistic theories of the musicologist Carl Dahlhaus. Ontology is the investigation of what exactly something is, and Taruskin asserts that an art object becomes that which society and succeeding generations made of it. For example, Johann Sebastian Bach's St. John Passion, composed in the 1720s, was appropriated by the Nazi regime in the 1930s for propaganda. Taruskin claims the historical development of the St John Passion (its ontogeny) as a work with an anti-Semitic message does, in fact, inform the work's identity (its ontology), even though that was an unlikely concern of the composer. Music or even an abstract visual artwork can not be truly autonomous ("absolute") because it is defined by its historical and social reception.

Educational technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_technology   Educational technology (...