SL107: What's Inside the Earth and planets?
David Noel
<davidn@aoi.com.au>
Ben Franklin Centre for Theoretical Research
PO Box 27, Subiaco, WA 6008, Australia.
Solid bodies in space
The Universe is mostly empty, but also contains stars, planets, moons, asteroids, and other solid bodies. This article is about how these solid bodies formed, and how they have evolved over time.
The conventional wisdom is that stars formed by gravitational aggregation of interstellar dust and gases. This is very probably true, although the nature of the "dust" referred to here is little specified, and its amount may be negligible. Also, while most would accept that the major gas involved here is hydrogen, "gas" probably includes water vapour and its condensed form, ice.
In "SL106: How are Solar Systems formed?" [B], it is shown that the gravitational aggregation route is also followed by bodies later classified as planets, moons, asteroids, and other solid small stuff met with in the Universe, although of course any of these may be involved in later merger or (less frequently) splitting apart. The present treatment differs from the standard picture in that it assumes any of these bodies may form anywhere in space -- stars not sharing a combined origin event with smaller stuff.
Compressed Neutrons at the Core: The Concore Model
A major difference here from the standard assumptions of solid body formation in space is that in this model all bodies, stars as well as planets, undergo the same process, differing only in scale. This is explained in [C] as follows.
"The CONCORE Model: In 2012, I presented a new model for the origin of bodies in space [A]. Basically, the model assumes that all single bodies in space, from stars down to planets and planetesimals, started by aggregating gases and dust -- this is fairly standard. The more matter accumulated by a body, the greater the pressure at its core (also standard).
What is different in the new model, is that it assumes that once the mass accumulated reaches a certain threshold, the core matter is compressed down to neutrons by the great pressure (CONCORE Model -- COmpressed Neutrons at CORE). These compressed neutrons remain with the body for its whole life, except that some neutrons at the outside surface of the core decay into a proton and an electron (hydrogen atom), with the release of energy.
This hydrogen atom is enormously larger than the neutron from which it came, which forces changes to the shape of the rest of the body around the core, and the energy release is the source of the heat noted on a planetary surface. Compressed neutrons have a virtually infinite lifetime, while free neutrons decay in about 11 minutes -- decay of core-surface neutrons will be very slow, but persistent.
The mass threshold at which neutron compression starts in a planet is a bit below that of Mars. This explains why Mars apparently had an active tectonic history for the first billion years of its life, but then ceased activity -- it had only a small Concore, which became all used up.
The model also provides a credible source for the energy of earthquakes, which is far greater than the background level of heat reaching the surface generally (over 7000 BL units per day, compared to about 213 BL units). This is described in 'Finally, the True Origin of Earthquakes?' [D].
The CONCORE Model gives a logical explanation of how the neutrons in a neutron star formed. They were always at the core of the star which exploded, and all the mass lost by the star in the explosion was ordinary Stuff2 matter lying outside the core. The core remaining is in Stuff3 form, as in a neutron star."
The Concore Model applies to stars, too
This simple (and possibly new) model of solid-body accumulation in space applies to all bodies, stars as well as planets. Implications of the model in the understanding of star formation and evolution are quite major. They are dealt with in a companion article in this series, "SL116: How do Stars Form and Develop?" [E].
Heat from a planet's centre
The origin of the heat coming up from the centre of Earth and other planets has been a subject of dispute since it was first discovered, and till now no entirely satisfactory explanation has been put forward.
The conventional view is that "The Earth's core is heated by a combination of factors, primarily the decay of radioactive isotopes and residual heat from the planet's formation. A smaller amount of heat is generated by frictional heating as the Earth's core materials move and settle".
The big defect in the suggested main sources is they involve one-off, diminishing processes. Residual heat from formation would have to fall off with time, and, after 4.7 billion years, it is not feasible that formational heat would still be pouring out.
The same applies to radioactive sources, which would have to have diminished effects with time, even with elements with long half-lives such as uranium, while studies of long-term geology tell us that temperature regimes, while variable, have not generally lowered with time. Also, no models have been put forward on how a young Earth would have the element mix, including heavy elements, which it possesses.
The Concore Model does give plausible and logical answers to these problems. In this model, at a planet's very centre there lies a volume of compressed neutrons, a volume which we will call its nucleus.
Structure of a planet
Figure F1 shows a conventional picture of the layers thought to exist within the Earth. This picture, derived principally from seismic studies (earthquake waves), is explained in more detail in "Inside The Earth -- The Heartfire Model" [A].
Fig. SL107-F1. Notional cross-section through the Earth. From [A].
The divisions seen in Figure F1 are standard, but the nomenclature used there differs slightly from the usual. Conventionally, the two innermost divisions are labelled the Inner Core and the Outer Core. In my nomenclature they are called the Core and the Mesolayer ("middle layer").
In some earlier Concore treatments, it notes that it is unclear whether the compressed neutrons involved are distributed throughout the Core or are concentrated at its centre. It now seems that the latter case best fits the circumstances, and that the compressed neutrons all exist as a tiny ball at the centre of the Core, in what will be called the Earth Nucleus.
The Nucleus is very small, less than 1 kilometre across, in this model. In "EP314: How and why the Earth is Expanding" [F] it is calculated that if the Earth was made up entirely of neutrons (a possibility at the finish of the accumulation and compression phase), it would be only about 360 metres across.
For simplicity, let us assume this radical suggestion actually applies in Earth's early history, and that it once existed entirely as a ball of neutrons less than a kilometre across. The neutrons within the Earth Nucleus would be constrained by their surroundings to remain as such (as is conventionally assumed to be the case with neutron stars).
On the surface of the Earth Nucleus, however, the constraint would be one-sided, and it would be reasonable to suggest that neutrons on the very surface might have a small tendency to decay (to a proton and an electron), with the release of a small packet of energy. In the current model, this neutron-decay energy is the source of most of the energy coming up from the interior of the planet,
Solar-System planets
Assuming a similar mechanism applies in other planets give a good explanation of the surface temperatures of the other planets in the Solar System.
Figure F2 shows a table of data on the planets of the Solar System. Some of the figures quoted (radius, distance from Sun) are well-defined. Mean density is given, but has a different meaning for the rocky planets and for the outer planets (which include their thick atmospheres).
Fig. SL107-F2. Temperatures of the Planets.
The planet-surface temperatures given apply to the edge of their optical surfaces. This means, to the solid surfaces of Mercury and Mars, and to the tops of the thick clouds for Venus and the outer four (gas giant) planets, with the latter believed to possess solid cores of unknown size. These figures are rather unreliable, from a variety of sources.
The last column is the "effective temperature" -- this is a calculated value, working from the Solar Constant (the amount of radiation known to emitted by the Sun) and the planet's average distance from the Sun -- so, the temperature of an inert body in the planet's orbit.
It can be seen that for the inner four planets, closest to the Sun, the effective and surface temperatures are roughly similar. This is because their solar-radiation inputs are much greater than any heat coming up from their cores. But for the outer four planets, with much less influence from solar radiation, the heat generated from their cores is enough to raise their surface temperatures by 30-40 degrees above that expected from solar radiation alone.
In the current model, this core-origin heat energy is derived from the decay of compressed neutrons at the surfaces of each planet's Planet-Nucleus. The fact that our planets have internal heat sources is well accepted, but until now, credible mechanisms for their production have been lacking.
Expansion of the Earth
Although the concept that our Earth has expanded greatly over geological time was put forward back in the 1850s, and supported by all sorts of well-founded studies in the first half of the 20th century, the totally conclusive proof came during the 1960s, in what was called the International Geophysical Year.
Among the projects was DSDP, the Deep Sea Drilling Project. This was an American initiative with later international support and involvement, and involved the construction and deployment of a specialized drill ship, the "Glomar Challenger", able to drill ocean floors lying deep below the sea surface.
Fig. SL107-F3. Ages of different parts of the beds of oceans. From [G].
The DSDP project showed that all the world's deep oceans were younger than around 200 million years. It gave the ages of all Earth's sea-bed rocks, giving an exact chronicle of how the planet had expanded (doubled in diameter) over this period. The detailed history can be found in "EP302: The Earth-Expansion Model Part A: The Death of Plate Tectonics" [G] and "EP303: The Earth-Expansion Model Part B: Answers to A Hundred Puzzles" [H].
But although these studies proved the existence of Earth expansion well beyond reasonable doubt, acceptance of the concept has not occurred, in either the wider scientific community or by the general public. This is almost certainly because no credible mechanism for such expansion had been available.
The Concore Model does provide this credible mechanism. We know that as a neutron decays, as well as an energy packet, it produces a proton and an electron. These two particles can unite to form a hydrogen atom.
The important point is, that a hydrogen atom is enormously greater in size than the neutron it could have formed from. In "EP314: How and why the Earth is Expanding" [F], it is shown that the expansion factor is about 2.875 x 1014, or almost 300 million million times.
This means that as neutrons at the Earth-Nucleus surface change, they lead to an astoundingly large change in volume. This may not express itself at the neutron site, but will inevitably cause rearrangement of the Earth substance-- ultimately showing up as earthquakes.
Say the Nucleus is a ball only about 350 metres across. It is shown in [F] that the doubling in diameter of the Earth over the last 200 million years (volume increased 8-fold) can be accounted for by conversion of a layer of only 8.325 metres of neutrons from the surface of the Earth-Nucleus, leaving it still well over 300 metres across.
If the Earth-Nucleus exists, why hasn't it been found?
Almost everything we know about the Earth's interior comes from seismology, the study of earthquake waves. These studies allow us to define various layers of the Earth, and indicate their physical state -- they may appear as liquids, or solids, for example.
Fig. SL107-F4. Ray-Path plots for seismic waves. From [A].
Figure F4 shows hows reflection and refraction of these waves helps define various layers. If there is an Earth-Nucleus at the very centre, why does it not show up in these patterns?
The answer may be, because it is so small. A nucleus only a few hundred metres across, in a sphere about 1200 kilometres in diameter, could easily be missed. Also, tiny deviations from expected results may have been noticed in the past, but dismissed as experimental error. If this is so, measurements specially designed to pick up a tiny point may be successful.
There have been recent indications that an Earth-Nucleus may exist. In "Scientists Spotted Signs of a Hidden Structure Inside Earth's Core" [1], Australian National University geophysicist Joanne Stephenson said "Traditionally we've been taught the Earth has four main layers: the crust, the mantle, the outer core and the inner core. Scientists have calculated that the scorchingly hot inner core, with temperatures surpassing 5,000 degrees Celsius), makes up only 1 percent of Earth's total volume. [But we have] found evidence Earth's inner core may actually have two distinct layers."
How and Where Expansion Forces show up
Earlier theories of the origin of heat coming to the surface assume that it originated at the core. One suggestion was that there was a giant ball of uranium at the centre -- radioactive decay from this would cause heat to flow from the centre.
Calculations of actual temperatures at various depths in the Earth show that this picture does not match with reality. Figure F5 show two curves, of temperature versus depth within our planet.
Fig. SL107-F5. Temperatures within the Earth. From [F]..
The upper (green) line connects measured values of temperature at seven points (worked out from seismic-wave velocities). This curve shows clearly that heat expression close to the Core is quite small, most of the energy release occurs quite close to the surface. This is exactly what we might expect from what we know of the energy released by earthquakes -- deeper earthquake focuses are rarer than ones closer to the surface. The Earth is being contorted by the expansion forces, which are more constrained deeper in the Earth.
In Figure F5, the lower (red) curve shows the sort of pattern which might be expected if energy was released at the Core. This is clearly not the case in reality.
What are the materials in the various layers of the Earth?
Here is an area where conventional theories have gone quite haywire. Google says "The Earth's core is thought to be primarily iron and nickel due to a combination of geological evidence, physical properties, and theoretical models. The heavier, denser materials like iron and nickel sank to the Earth's center during its formation, while lighter materials rose to form the crust and mantle. Seismic data also supports a core composed of a dense, metallic material.
Denser materials sink towards a planet's core due to the force of gravity. Gravity pulls denser materials closer to the center of the planet, while less dense materials are pushed outwards, forming layers. This process, known as differentiation, is a key factor in shaping a planet's internal structure."
These apparently reasonable ideas simply fall apart when logic and known facts are applied. Suggestions that the Core is made up largely of Iron (and some nickel) are widespread -- why should Iron figure? The main arguments seem to involve the facts that Iron is quite dense, and that it has magnetic properties, and so could be the source of the Earth's magnetic fields.
First, density of the inner core is believed to be between 12.6 and 13.0 (g/cm3), while the density of iron is about 7.9. There is no way that Iron could be compressed to 60% of its volume without a complete change in its nature.
Secondly, Iron loses its magnetic properties as it is heated, and at around 770 deg C its magnetism is completely gone. With a Core at 3000 deg C, it could not be magnetic.
The idea of "differentiation" of Iron in an early Earth is quite untenable. There is no evidence for, or physical reason for, an early Earth being partly liquid, nor any evidence of any of the hundreds of exoplanets discovered being liquid. Where we do know of liquid rock, as in volcanic lava flows, there is no evidence that this separates into layers of different density.
Finally, where differentiation does occur, as when a glass marble is placed at the top of a glass of water and sinks to the bottom, the marble moves Down, that is to a region of higher gravity. If the gravitational force at the Earth's surface is 1G, what is it at the centre? Perhaps surprisingly, it is 0G, no net gravity. So in an Earth made up of liquid rock containing solid iron balls, the Iron would move Up from the centre, rather than down.
So the concept of the Earth starting off as a ball of neutrons, with some changing to hydrogen at the surface, does fit the facts quite well. We will move on now to what happens next, and to how Earth acquired its elements, compounds, and minerals.
The Element Kitchen and Heavy Elements
In the hypothetical situation that the early Earth had similar to its current mass, but this was made up solely of a ball of neutrons a few hundred metres across, we can ask how the situation would evolve if the outermost layer of neutrons could slowly decay (into protons and electrons).
We know that a proton and an electron combine to form a hydrogen atom. Continual decay of surface neutrons would therefore lead to an increasing "atmosphere" of hydrogen around the Earth-nucleus. With time, a substantial atmosphere of hydrogen would be built up.
This hydrogen would be under enormous gravitational pressure, and would also exist in close contact with neutrons. Under these circumstances, some of the hydrogen could be expected to undergo fusion into heavier nuclei, staring with helium. This is the conventional concept for nuclear fusion in stars.
Here then is a situation which can explain the early development of larger planets, and of stars (the latter case is looked at in "SL116: How do Stars Form and Develop?" [E] ). We know that in our Solar-System gas-giant planets, the main gas found is hydrogen. The inner planets have lower masses and escape velocities, and could be expected to lose their hydrogen.
In the Concore Model, the assumption is made that at the innards of our planet, fusion of lighter nuclei into heavier ones would take place, building up heavier and heavier elements. The heaviest of these would be unstable, breaking down to lighter ones with emission of particles, which would collide with other nuclei. The result would be a churning mass of nuclear transmutations, which is here called the Element Kitchen. The make-up of the final mix would be determined by relative stabilities of participating nuclei.
Fig. SL107-F6. Nuclear binding energies. From [F]..
Figure F6 shows a plot of nuclear binding energies of atoms. from the lightest (hydrogen), up to the heaviest (uranium). The highest stabilities are for Iron (Fe) and its close companion Nickel (Ni). Here then is the reason why the Iron content of the Earth is quite high.
Clearly this is a totally new situation compared to current ideas of the Earth's matter coming from an accumulation of existing elements from space. When looked at closely, such a situation turns out to lack all credibility. Details will not be dwelt on here, but can be found in "Inside The Earth -- The Heartfire Model" [A].
My earlier explanations of the situation have suggested that the Element Kitchen exists just outside the Core, in the Mesolayer. If the Earth does contain a tiny Earth-Nucleus at its very centre, then the Element Kitchen could be operating just outside this, in the Core.
Putting figures to Earth energy flows
Conventional descriptions of earthquakes and heat flows from within the Earth generally lack any detail as to their size and origins. An attempt is made in "Finally, the True Origin of Earthquakes?" [D] to cover these points.
This article uses BL energy units, where 1 million BLs is the average daily energy the Earth receives from the Sun. On this scale, energy used by Man each day is a small number, about 77 Bls per day. The regular heat energy coming up to the surface from below, is rather higher, about 213 BLs.
But a much bigger source of energy coming up from within the Earth is that due to earthquakes, at around 7110 BLs. Because earthquakes are highly localized and erratic events, they are harder to measure than local heat flow. The present model does give a basis for earthquake energy origins, which is notably lacking in existing science explanation.
A good mathematician will be able to cross-check the magnitude of Earth-energies using factors noted here. The amount of Earth-Nucleus neutron decay is estimated, and the energy emitted in this decay is well-known. Sources of energy from within the Earth have also been flagged.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AOI articles with relevant evidence
[A]. Inside The Earth -- The Heartfire Model.
[B]. SL106: How are Solar Systems formed?.
[C]. XT807: The Concore Model of planet and star interiors.
[D]. Finally, the True Origin of Earthquakes?.
[E]. SL116: How do Stars Form and Develop?.
[F]. EP314: How and why the Earth is Expanding.
[G]. EP302: The Earth-Expansion Model Part A: The Death of Plate Tectonics.
[H]. EP303: The Earth-Expansion Model Part B: Answers to A Hundred Puzzles.
References and links
[1]. Tessa Koumoundoros. Scientists Spotted Signs of a Hidden Structure Inside Earth's Core. https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-spotted-signs-of-a-hidden-structure-inside-earths-core .
[2] Earth's inner core. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_inner_core
[3]. How much do you know about Planets? https://knowledgezone.co.in/posts/How-much-do-you-know-about-Planets-5b17693f204d5c000743048a.
[4]. Planetary Atmospheres. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226941301_Planetary_Atmospheres/figures .
Go to the Solutions Home Page
SL105 Commenced writing 2025 Apr 24. First version 1.0 on Web 2025 May 3.
