This Volcanic Island Suddenly Appeared In Japan. Where Did The Energy Come From?

This recently created volcanic island would be impossible without which of the following?

Image credit: Japanese Coast Guard
Wave energy Nuclear energy None of the rest Solar energy

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

3 solutions

Discussions for this problem are now closed

David Mattingly Staff
Jan 10, 2014

Volcanoes can create new land masses by depositing magma, or molten rock, from the interior of the earth onto the surface. Rocks have to get very hot in order to melt. The temperature at which common rocks melt is above 600 degrees Celsius, and usually higher. Hence, as most of you probably are aware, putting a rock into a common cooking oven, stove, or fire is not going to make it melt. The very existence of volcanoes therefore implies that the interior of the earth is very hot. Current models actually predict that the temperature is around 6,000 degrees Celsius in the center of the earth, which is very hot indeed.

Where does this heat come from? After all, the earth is just a big ball of rock in mostly empty space, and if you heat up a rock and then hold it up in the air the rock will cool off pretty quickly. The heat cannot be provided by solar radiation as the surface of the earth, where the radiation is received, would then be hotter than the interior. This is obviously incorrect. Another possibility is that the heat is leftover from when the earth formed. Rocks cool, but if the initial rock is hot enough and big enough, it would take a very long time to cool. The rate of earth cooling is a relatively straightforward calculation in thermodynamics, the study of heat and energy in physics. If you assume the earth is a large uniform sphere that started off very hot and eventually cooled to the current surface temperature of roughly 25 degrees Celsius, then you come up with an age of 30,000 years for the earth! ( Link ) Lord Kelvin, who originally did this type of calculation in 1862 with different assumptions, calculated an age of 100 million years. While both these calculations make somewhat incorrect assumptions about the earth, it is also clear that neither cooling time is at all comparable to the current age of the earth, currently measured to be approximately 4.5 billion years. We can therefore rule out the idea of leftover heat from the earth’s formation as the only heat source for magma.

If the heat is not from outside (solar radiation) and cannot be fully leftover heat, there is only one possibility left: there must be a source of heat that exists inside the earth! This is actually the case. Temperature is a macroscopic quantity we assign to a material in which the atoms of the material are moving around. Higher temperatures mean the atoms of the material are moving around faster. Inside the earth there are many radioactive atoms, uranium, thorium, potassium, etc. These atoms undergo nuclear fission and emit various types of subatomic particles at high speed, which in turn hit the other atoms in the earth, cause them to start moving around, and as a result generating heat. This radioactive heat is a major source of the heat needed to melt rock in the interior of the earth. In a sense, the earth is a big nuclear reactor. Hence the island shown, a pretty large piece of real estate, is in the end possible because of nuclear reactions that happen at tiny, subatomic distances.

Nice explanation. Well, now the earth is a nuclear reactor, & this volcano it's chimney. :)

A Brilliant Member - 7 years, 5 months ago

On the other hand, solar energy and nuclear energy are both correct, I believe. Because the Sun works by thermonuclear fusion and Earth would never happen without Sun. I know that's a bit like "if you don't start with the Big Bang, you're not telling the full story," but solar energy = nuclear energy, I believe.

Richard S. - 7 years, 1 month ago

You have a fair point about being able to trace the energy to sources beyond nuclear fission of unstable elements in Earth though. One can easily ask, where did the energy for the supernovae come from? I believe a detailed answer to this question would probably win a Nobel prize. Currently, there are a bunch of scientists that are trying to understand supernovae. E.g. I used to know a guy who wanted to "build" a supernovae in a computer. Unfortunately, this has yet to be done. Another scientist working on supernovae is Saul Perlmutter who won the Nobel prize in physics a few years ago for his work involving supernovae.

Anyway, energy is a conserved quantity; therefore, it is as you say: it is always possible to trace it back all the way to the Big Bang.

Daniel Wong - 7 years, 1 month ago

The Sun did not provide the energy released by fissile material in Earth. That energy was provided by supernovae that occurred before the Sun's formation in a process known as supernovae nucleosynthesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_nucleosynthesis

The Sun is not expected to supernovae (sadly); therefore, it won't be supplying energy for fissile material in the interior of future planets :(

Daniel Wong - 7 years, 1 month ago

QUESTION:

I was under the impression that the rotation of the earth combined with it's asymmetry and the gravity of the sun resulted in a 'heat pump' effect that contributed to earth's internal temperature. Or perhaps it may be better described as the result of internal friction from several sources including the earth's motion and gravitational effects.

Obviously I am no expert on geological science, and I haven't done the math to verify if this is possible, but now I am curious as to whether or not this gravitational 'heat pump' or internal friction mechanism actually exists. If so, is it's contribution to the earth's internal temperature significant (>5%), minor (1% -> 5%), or negligible (<1%)?

If anyone happens to know the answer to this, my curiosity would thank you greatly for a reply.

Kaden Bea - 7 years, 1 month ago

For how much longer will this heat last? :O

A Former Brilliant Member - 7 years, 5 months ago

Not sure, but the half-life of U^238 is 4.5 billion years. If Earth's core is largely powered by U^238 decay, then this means that it will take 4.5 billion years for the power output to be reduced by half.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

Not sure how long it would take to cool if the power were suddenly turned off. The crust seems to be keeping most of the energy in. If it weren't, the ground would be hot or warm.

So, I think the short answer is: a long time :P

To put that in perspective, the Sun is expected to become a red giant in roughly 5.5 billion years. When that happens, Earth is expected to be uninhabitable.

http://openhighschoolcourses.org/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=7202#ch3069

Daniel Wong - 7 years, 1 month ago

If the earth's core is radioactive, can it propagate to the earth's crust? If not, what prevents it from doing so?

Olivier Sheik Amamuddy - 7 years, 3 months ago

I believe the nuclear reactions happen mostly near the center of the Earth. In that case, there's thousands of miles of rock shielding us from the radiation. I believe the main types of radiation from nuclear fission are alpha, beta, and gamma. Not sure how much rock you need to shield from these, but alpha and beta radiation don't make it past your skin, so I think it's safe to say that there's enough rock to block alpha and beta rays. I would guess that thousands of miles of rock would be enough to mostly block gamma rays too. Otherwise, it would cause lots of health problems.

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma ray#History of_discovery

Daniel Wong - 7 years, 1 month ago

Lord Kelvin once estimated the age of the Earth from heat transfer equations. How long would a molten ball of lava take to harden into a solid sphere? He badly underestimated the age of the Earth because he did not know about how nuclear reactions in the Earth's core form a heat source. Good explanation, David!

Joseph Fitzpatrick - 7 years, 3 months ago

Why than surface of the earth is not hot always??

Rudhra Abhishek - 7 years, 1 month ago

I believe it is also because of the massive amount of heat energy that leaves the surface of the earth in the form of radiation. This would result in cooling the planet's surface temperature.

Kaden Bea - 7 years, 1 month ago

Basically the energy causing it, is geothermal energy. But recalling that several thermonuclear reactions occur in the earth's interior, which are exothermic the first answer is an admissible option.

Prashant Chauhan
Jan 11, 2014

Most of the energy for the activities happening inside the earth comes from fission reaction of radioactive substances found inside the core of the earth. Due to pressure created inside the earth because to nuclear activities such incident happen.

The pressure in Earth did not create the fissile material; there isn't enough pressure and/or heat for that in Earth's interior. The fissile material in Earth was created in a supernova (or possibly several supernovae) in a process known as supernovae nucleosynthesis.

Daniel Wong - 7 years, 1 month ago

I think he means that the pressure towards the center of the earth is sufficient to allow fission to take place, not to allow for the creation fissionable/fissile material. That being said, entropy must make 1 or 2 such elements down there from time to time :)

Kaden Bea - 7 years, 1 month ago

Very nice explaination... thnks a lot... :)

Fahad Usman - 7 years, 4 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...