PDA

View Full Version : Earth's Oldest Rock Dates Back 4.4 Billion Years, Crystal Study Confirms



seeker/reader
24th February 2014, 22:33
As a person who studied geology in school I find stories such as these fascinating. The key here is the zircon itself. Most crystals are recycled completely. But since zircons are highly resistant to these processes they can remain as solid crystals, since their creation and keep a time record of their formation in the earliest continental crust.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/24/earth-oldest-rock-crystal-study_n_4846410.html

LiveScience | by Becky Oskin
Posted: 02/24/2014 9:11 am EST Updated: 02/24/2014 1:59 pm EST

Ever heard this life advice? When solving a big problem seems impossible, break it into smaller steps.

Well, scientists just took one of geology's biggest controversies and shrunk it down to atomic size. By zapping single atoms of lead in a tiny zircon crystal from Australia, researchers have confirmed the crystal is the oldest rock fragment ever found on Earth — 4.375 billion years old, plus or minus 6 million years.

"We've proved that the chemical record inside these zircons is trustworthy," said John Valley, lead study author and a geochemist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The findings were published today (Feb. 23) in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Confirmation of the zircon age holds enormous implications for models of early Earth. Trace elements in the oldest zircons from Australia's Jack Hills range suggest they came from water-rich, granite-like rocks such as granodiorite or tonalite, other studies have reported. That means Earth cooled quickly enough for surface water and continental-type rocks just 100 million years after the moon impact, the massive collision that formed the Earth-moon system. [How Was The Moon Formed?]

"The zircons show us the earliest Earth was more like the Earth we know today," Valley said. "It wasn't an inhospitable place."

Dubious history

Zircons are one of the toughest minerals on the planet. The ancient Australian crystals date back to just 165 million years after Earth formed, and have survived tumbling trips down rivers, burial deep in the crust, heating, squeezing and a tectonic ride back to the surface. The Australian zircons, from the Jack Hills, aren't the oldest rocks on Earth — those are in Canada — but about 3 billion years ago, the minerals eroded out some of Earth's first continental crust and became part of a riverbed.

Geologists have carefully sorted out more than 100,000 microscopic Jack Hills zircons that date back to Earth's early epochs, from 3 billion to nearly 4.4 billion years ago. (The planet is 4.54 billion years old.) The crystals contain microscopic inclusions, such as gas bubbles, that provide a unique window into conditions on Earth as life arose and the first continents formed.

earth timeline
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1640490/thumbs/o-EARTH-TIMELINE-570.jpg?1
Timeline showing major events in Earth history.

Just three of the very oldest zircons have been found, ones that date back to almost 4.4 billion years ago. Their extreme age always makes the dates suspect, because of possible radiation damage. The radiation damage means the zircons could have been contaminated during their long lifetime.

Zircons hold minute amounts of two naturally occurring uranium isotopes — isotopes are atoms of the same element with different numbers of neutrons. Uranium radioactively decays to lead at a steady rate. Counting the number of lead isotopes is how scientists date the crystals. But as the uranium kicks out lead atoms, the radioactive decay releases alpha particles, which can damage the crystals, creating defects. These defects mean fluids and outside elements can infiltrate the crystals, casting doubt on any conclusions about early Earth based on the zircons.

More important, uranium and lead can move around within a crystal, or even escape or enter the zircon. This mobility can throw off the lead isotope count used to calculate the zircon ages, and is the source of the decades-long controversy over the Jack Hills zircons' Methuselah lifespan.

early earth
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1640494/thumbs/o-EARLY-EARTH-570.jpg?1
Jack Hills, Australia, where rocks were found to contain the oldest known minerals on Earth, a 4.4 billion-year-old zircon.

"If there's a process by where lead can move from one part of the crystal to another place, then the place where lead is concentrated will have an older apparent age and the place from where it moves will have a younger apparent age," Valley said.

Atom by atom

Valley and his co-authors hope to end the debate by showing that even though one of the oldest Jack Hills zircons suffered radiation damage, the lead atoms stayed in place. The researchers painstakingly counted individual lead atoms within the oldest-known zircon with a recently developed technique called atom-probe tomography. Inside the zircon, lead atoms clustered together in damage zones just a few nanometers wide. Imagine cliques of teens during high school lunch — like teenagers, no lead atoms had left their zones.

"We've demonstrated this zircon is a closed geochemical system, and we've never been able to do that before," Valley said. "There's no question that many zircons do suffer radiation damage, but I think relative to these zircons, this should settle it once and for all," Valley told Live Science's Our Amazing Planet.

zircon
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1640501/thumbs/o-ZIRCON-570.jpg?1
Cathodoluminescence image of a 400-micrometer zircon and the 3-D map made by atom-probe tomography of a group of ~10-nanometer clusters of radiogenic atoms of lead.

The key finding, that lead atoms stick close to home inside this primeval zircon, means age estimates based on uranium-lead dating techniques are accurate, the researchers report. The lead hasn't wiggled around enough to throw off the ages. A typical age measurement, made with a machine called an ion probe, zaps zircon segments that are thousands of times larger than the damage clusters.

"This careful piece of work should settle the debate because it shows that indeed there is some mobility of lead, which was hypothesized to result in dates that were too old, but the scale of mobility is nanometers," said Samuel Bowring, a geochemist at MIT, who was not involved in the study. "Even the smallest volumes analyzed with the ion probe average out the heterogeneities," or variations within the zircon.

The new atom-probe technique, while extremely laborious, can also be used to address questions of reliability at other sites where extremely old rocks have been found, the researchers said. [Have There Always Been Continents?]

"Good zircons are forever, and what this does is help us separate the wheat from the chaff in a way we could never do before," Valley said.

Koyaanisqatsi
24th February 2014, 23:40
Not qualified to comment really but i found this quite interesting. The Earth is a much much older organism than we've been led to believe (my intuition has held) and human beings have a much more fantastical and impressive resume here on Earth than our Anthropologists/Archaeologists can even begin to entertain. Well, the mainstream ones at least, Michael Cremo has written some nice books on controversial dig finds etc. Thanks for sharing seeker

seeker/reader
25th February 2014, 00:36
Not qualified to comment really but i found this quite interesting. The Earth is a much much older organism than we've been led to believe (my intuition has held) and human beings have a much more fantastical and impressive resume here on Earth than our Anthropologists/Archaeologists can even begin to entertain. Well, the mainstream ones at least, Michael Cremo has written some nice books on controversial dig finds etc. Thanks for sharing seeker

I agree. As a geology student I took some Anthropology courses as it was a somewhat related field. Now that I look back with a broader perspective I think that they may be hiding alot of our true history from us. I also have read some of Cremo's work. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't an earlier highly advanced humanity, that we currently represent humanity 2.0 and they are succeeding at keeping most of us in the dark about it.

LivioRazlo
25th February 2014, 02:25
From the timeline, I see that something impacted the Earth and formed the Moon; am I interpreting this correctly? If so, I never knew this.

markpierre
25th February 2014, 04:18
Oh boy. Now they're going to have to pick up every dang rock on the planet to find the real oldest one.
'This one trumps yours by 6o million years!' It used to be a doorstop.
They can start at the mines, and fill the bloody holes back up while they're at it.

Atlas
25th February 2014, 10:26
----------



The study reinforces our conclusion that Earth had a hydrosphere before 4.3 billion years ago, and possibly life not long after.

seeker/reader
25th February 2014, 13:52
From the timeline, I see that something impacted the Earth and formed the Moon; am I interpreting this correctly? If so, I never knew this.

Yes, that is one of the theories put forth as the origin of the Earth-Moon system. It has become the most accepted and the one most commonly taught to students in school. I took a planetary geology course in graduate school and the professor, who was my adviser, discussed the moon rocks he studied for one of his theses. I think this may be a published version of it. http://nix.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19790055128&qs=N%3D4294956368%2B4294840315%2B4294714678

He said the rocks were basalts. I know that many people here postulate that the moon is an artificial body however basalts are a rock type that is commonly found here on Earth. It is the rock type that makes up the oceanic crust, which makes up a majority of the Earth's crust. So this rock type in my opinion would indicate a natural geologic origin for the moon. However that does not mean that the moon couldn't have been hollowed out and used as some type of large base. Or that the Moon couldn't have been moved from elsewhere and placed in a particular orbit around the Earth to use as a base of operations for some technologically advanced group of ETs.

CarnageCandy
25th February 2014, 14:46
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26324968

Love this kinda stuff :-) apologies if already posted. Please remove if so.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73182000/jpg/_73182374_73182373.jpg
A tiny 4.4-billion-year-old crystal has been confirmed as the oldest fragment of Earth's crust.

The zircon was found in sandstone in the Jack Hills region of Western Australia.

Scientists dated the crystal by studying its uranium and lead atoms. The former decays into the latter very slowly over time and can be used like a clock.

The finding has been reported in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Its implication is that Earth had formed a solid crust much sooner after its formation 4.6 billion years ago than was previously thought, and very quickly following the great collision with a Mars-sized body that is thought to have produced the Moon just a few tens of millions of years after that. Before this time, Earth would have been a seething ball of molten magma.

But knowledge that its surface hardened so early raises the tantalising prospect that our world became ready to host life very early in its history.

"This confirms our view of how the Earth cooled and became habitable," said lead author Prof John Valley, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, US.

"We have no evidence that life existed then. We have no evidence that it didn't. But there is no reason why life could not have existed on Earth 4.3 billion years ago," he told the Reuters news agency.

Plate tectonics and weathering have ensured that very little of the Earth's early surface remains to be studied.

Some rock formations that are upwards of 3.5 billion years old persist in select places such as Canada, but the vast majority of Earth's surface rock is modern, less than a few hundred million years old.

The zircons found at Jack Hills are tough pieces of old rock that have been incorporated into the newer, reworked material.

But, barely visible to the naked eye, they still retain insights on the conditions under which they originally solidified.

Previous research had indicated the Jack Hills zircon in Prof Valley's publication to be very ancient, but scientists had concerns that some of its lead atoms might have been lost or even migrated inside the crystal over time.

This would have given the impression the zircon was older than it really is.

However, using two sensitive analytical techniques, Prof Valley and colleagues were able to show the zircon's internal uranium-lead clock was showing a true age.

In doing so, their study suggests strongly a continental crust was present on Earth about 100 million years after the planet formed. And by implication, it tells us that if temperatures were low enough, it could have perhaps even sustained liquid water at its surface.

seeker/reader
25th February 2014, 14:48
Hello Carnage Candy,

I posted that yesterday here
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?68797-Earth-s-Oldest-Rock-Dates-Back-4.4-Billion-Years-Crystal-Study-Confirms&p=801317&viewfull=1#post801317

CarnageCandy
25th February 2014, 15:21
sorry seeker/reader, the search engine isnt the best on here.
xx

CarnageCandy
25th February 2014, 15:26
love it :-) Nothing intelligent to add, i just love it when we prove ourselves wrong, we know so little :-)

Imagine what kind of life could have been on earth back then...

Hervé
25th February 2014, 15:49
From the timeline, I see that something impacted the Earth and formed the Moon; am I interpreting this correctly? If so, I never knew this.

Yes, that is one of the theories put forth as the origin of the Earth-Moon system.

[...]

Arrggghhh!

Going down to nanoscale and missing the woolly Mammoth in the room:

How do they know said zircon originated on Earth since "they" presuppose the latter is a hybrid generated by interplanetary collision?

This implies that there are inherited materials from the impactor especially if the latter was already "solid."

This leads to consider that Earth might also have been "solid" prior to impact and "re-melted" upon impact....

Etc...

seeker/reader
25th February 2014, 17:08
From the timeline, I see that something impacted the Earth and formed the Moon; am I interpreting this correctly? If so, I never knew this.

Yes, that is one of the theories put forth as the origin of the Earth-Moon system.

[...]

Arrggghhh!

Going down to nanoscale and missing the woolly Mammoth in the room:

How do they know said zircon originated on Earth since "they" presuppose the latter is a hybrid generated by interplanetary collision?

This implies that there are inherited materials from the impactor especially if the latter was already "solid."

This leads to consider that Earth might also have been "solid" prior to impact and "re-melted" upon impact....

Etc...

The article says, "Trace elements in the oldest zircons from Australia's Jack Hills range suggest they came from water-rich, granite-like rocks such as granodiorite or tonalite."

The moon contains mostly mafic rocks such as basalts/gabbros and ultramafic rocks like dunites. Mars rocks are mostly mafic (basalts) to intermediate (andesites) in composition. Granitoids are considered rare on both the moon and mars. Granites are felsic in composition and make up the bulk of the continental crust here on Earth. On Earth, Zircons are most commonly found in granites and rarely found in basalts.

Hervé
25th February 2014, 17:16
[...]

Arrggghhh!

Going down to nanoscale and missing the woolly Mammoth in the room:

How do they know said zircon originated on Earth since "they" presuppose the latter is a hybrid generated by interplanetary collision?

This implies that there are inherited materials from the impactor especially if the latter was already "solid."

This leads to consider that Earth might also have been "solid" prior to impact and "re-melted" upon impact....

Etc...

The article says, "Trace elements in the oldest zircons from Australia's Jack Hills range suggest they came from water-rich, granite-like rocks such as granodiorite or tonalite."

The moon contains mostly mafic rocks such as basalts/gabbros and ultramafic rocks like dunites. Mars rocks are mostly mafic (basalts) to intermediate (andesites) in composition. Granitoids are considered rare on both the moon and mars. Granites are felsic in composition and make up the bulk of the continental crust here on Earth. On Earth, Zircons are most commonly found in granites and rarely found in basalts.


... "MOSTLY"...

Anyway, it's still sidestepping the premise of inherited material from a stipulated collision :)

seeker/reader
25th February 2014, 17:46
[...]

Arrggghhh!

Going down to nanoscale and missing the woolly Mammoth in the room:

How do they know said zircon originated on Earth since "they" presuppose the latter is a hybrid generated by interplanetary collision?

This implies that there are inherited materials from the impactor especially if the latter was already "solid."

This leads to consider that Earth might also have been "solid" prior to impact and "re-melted" upon impact....

Etc...

The article says, "Trace elements in the oldest zircons from Australia's Jack Hills range suggest they came from water-rich, granite-like rocks such as granodiorite or tonalite."

The moon contains mostly mafic rocks such as basalts/gabbros and ultramafic rocks like dunites. Mars rocks are mostly mafic (basalts) to intermediate (andesites) in composition. Granitoids are considered rare on both the moon and mars. Granites are felsic in composition and make up the bulk of the continental crust here on Earth. On Earth, Zircons are most commonly found in granites and rarely found in basalts.


... "MOSTLY"...

Anyway, it's still sidestepping the premise of inherited material from a stipulated collision :)

How much heat would stipulated collision produce? Was it hot enough to melt the crustal rocks of the Earth proto-planet and the collider and any pre-existing Zircon? The collider is speculated as being the size of Mars.

Anything is possible. ;)

ThePythonicCow
26th February 2014, 04:21
Hello Carnage Candy,

I posted that yesterday here
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?68797-Earth-s-Oldest-Rock-Dates-Back-4.4-Billion-Years-Crystal-Study-Confirms&p=801317&viewfull=1#post801317


sorry seeker/reader, the search engine isnt the best on here.
xx

Threads merged :).