OK, here’s a thought. The current theory for formation of the Moon is for a Mars sized body to have crashed into the earth and ripped out a huge chunk of Earth’s mantle many billions of years ago. Thus it is possible that some of the Apollo lunar samples may exhibit some kind of atomic or nuclear ratios that would be influenced or explainable by your theory. Have you considered this possibility and have you found any lunar isotope ratios of particular interest?

Sorry to be somewhat offtopic (but then one so rarely gets to query iconoclastic geowhichevers of any ilk) – do you have any opinion on Tom Gold’s Deep Hot Biosphere theory?

As a related followup, does your theory alter the likelihood/probablity of comfy-and-warm mantles of extrasolar nongasseous planets, and thus the consequent likelihood/probability of more of Gold’s
it’s-slime-all-the-way-down biospheres?

Okay, here’s another thought. Your theory makes the blanket assumption that the tritium formed from triple product fission manages to clear the neutron reactor zone (in a period of months or a few years) before it decays so that it ends up ultimately as helium-3 and not helium-4. I can see how the uranium in a melt would sink DOWN in to accumulate at the core since it is the densest element. But what’s the physical mechanism that starts generated tritium moving back up towards the crust and surface? The reactor core is effectively a zero-gravity (really micro-gravity) zone, so density and bouyancy effects don’t come into play – or do they? If so, how?

You believe both Earth and Jupiter have fission cores. If this is a common component of planetary evolution, it seems feasible that the protoplanet / planet / whatever it was between Mars and Jupiter may also have had a fission core before it broke up to form the Asteroid Belt. If so, any thoughts about the possibility of finding an enriched uranium / thorium meteorite that came from the very core of the original Asteroid Belt body? Would we even recognize something of that composition as BEING a meteorite if we did find it? If a fission core is still out there in the Belt, any chance it could still be active, generating heat that would show up as an anomolously hot asteroid – possibly detectable by infrared telescope surveys?

Likewise, what becomes the limiting size for this fission core process? Can it happen on small planets like Mars and Mercury? On Jovian moons like Europa? Where maybe it’s providing heat to help keep a liquid ocean warm enough for life?

The total mass of the asteroids in the inner solar system is far less than any of the planets; roughly 1/30 that of Earth’s Moon. Unless we’ve lost a huge number of them, it’s very unlikely there was any significant predecessor planet that broke up – with the current crop the biggest it could have been was maybe 3 or 4 times the mass of Ceres. But one could ask whether the largest asteroids (like Ceres) are big enough themselves for this sort of differentiation to happen – it’s certainly well-accepted that iron differentiation happened in the largest asteroids.

Ok, question 1 from me: I skimmed a few of the papers and other documents on the web site, and it wasn’t clear to me what the actual original mechanism for diffusion of uranium and other actinides to the central core would be. Would this have had to happen while the entire core was still molten, 4 billion years ago? Have there been any calculations done on the way this diffusion would work, at the expected pressures and temperatures, and given the rather weak forcing gravitation would have so close to the Earth’s center?

And on a related point, wouldn’t some sort of differentiation still need to be occurring, to push fission products out of the core so the reaction can be sustained? Diffusion of atoms through solids tends to be very slow – or are you saved by the very high temperatures? If you have pointers to calculations on these things I’d be interested.

I’m no expert in reactor physics, but don’t reactors have to be rather carefully controlled to prevent runaway chain reactions while still leaving them running? I know the Oklo natural reactor somehow managed to run for a while – I seem to recall this was due to a particular balance of U-235 and U-238 that applied at that (ancient) time in the past. If this differentiation did happen at a time when the U-235 concentration was much higher – what prevented these planetary-size reactors from exploding? Or perhaps some of them did?

oops, that should naturally be comfy-and-warm-crusts, not mantles. It’s not slime THAT far down

Your 2001 PNAS paper says, “…gravitational separation by density at high pressure should cause lighter fission products to separate from the heavier actinides, thus helping to maintain a nuclear-reactor-critical configuration.” This process is indeed critical to keep the effective multiplication constant above 1.0 and keep the reactor going for billions of years thru today. Although you are not under the same time constraints with the heavy fission products you are with the tritium (which has to get away from neutrons in a time shorter than its 12 year halflife for your theory to be valid), you are still in a zero / microgravity zone at the precise center of the Earth. Since the relative atomic weight differences are nowhere near as great, diffusion of fission wastes from fuel would happen much more slowly than hydrogen percolation anyway, particulary in a microgravity gradient. Has any detailed diffusion modeling of this process been done? This is actually something I have a tiny amount of knowledge on; see this SFT story.

What was it like to work on The Core? What exactly were your duties? Did you eat catered lunches with the stars on location? Any Hollywood gossip to pass on? Is the pay good?

It’s obvious that a great many people within the scientific establishment rubbish your theories without examining them closely. In your opinion is this because you have posed a challenge to a world-view that many accept as true without even questioning the basis of that acceptance? You have said that scientists become frightened of controversy because it affects their funding. Do you feel that many researchers, drawing their funds from sources that are often indifferent to aspects of science outside of their own interests, would like to have a more open mind but – because their sponsors think that science is like building a wall (where the bricks already in place are sacred to the whole) rather than trying to find your way in a new town (which involves taking some wrong turns and doubling back on yourself) – they are unable to investigate ideas that require overturning theories previously accepted as facts? If so, do you have any ideas on how research could be conducted in a way more favourable to new ideas?

From your papers, I gather that the only direct observational evidence for your theory is the He-3 to He-4 ratio observed in geological samples that have come from deep in the Earth. Please correct me if the following summary is wrong: Everybody agrees the He-4 comes from natural decay of uranium and thorium. You think the He-3 comes from a fission reactor in the Earth’s core that is producing tritium waste that quickly escapes from the core reactor’s neutrons and then decays into He-3. Everybody else thinks there’s no natural process forming He-3 on or in the Earth and it’s all left over from the formation of the solar system. Various geological samples have a He-3 / He-4 ratio that’s usually 5 to 10 times that found in the atmosphere and sometimes as high as 40 times atmospheric, ruling out sample-gathering contamination. Thus the “high” geological sample ratios do indeed have to be coming from SOMEWHERE. You offer you reactor theory as a source of observed He-3 enrichment. Fair enough.

Yet meteorite samples have been found that have ten times the He-3 to He-4 ratio exhibited even by geological samples. The prevailing wisdom is that uranium/thorium decay inside Earth dilutes primordial He-3 with newly-formed He-4 to the observed geological ratios, an explanation that does not require a core fission reactor but instead relies on uranium/thorium decay that everybody agrees is actually happening.

What is your response to criticism that your theory does not meet the claims of Occam’s Razor, that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one? Likewise, if a core-reactor source for additional He-3 production is true, an ADDITIONAL unknown factor is still required to explain the discrepancy between meteoric and geological helium ratios; what is your theory for this X factor? Finally, why does the emphasis in your analysis seem to be on having ALL waste tritium escape the core and produce He-3? Isn’t it more likely that in fact a large portion of the tritium will in fact decay WITHIN the core, ultimately becoming He-4 and actually CONTRIBUTING to the dilution process everybody already believes is going on?

Obviously you need more observational data to make a stronger case, which is where my other question on neon comes in…

It does not seem to me like your theory will every be accepted on the basis of helium-ratio data alone. The only other gelogical sample data which is available is neon-ratio data. Your problem is that the nuclear simulation data for neon is unavailable. So here comes a bunch of questions about neon.

First, how is it that we can be running experimental and power reactors for half a decade and not have good modeling data about fission production levels of neon isotopes? This sounds very odd to me; what’s the inside scoop here?

Second, what’s the comparison of meteorite-to-geological neon ratios? Are the meteorites still ten times more concentrated than the geological samples in neon, as they are in helium? It seems you would want the opposite to be true so you could ultimately find evidence of a unique nuclear isotope enrichment process in the Earth that doesn’t exist in space, right? Does neon offer this possibility of a clean, clear vindication of your theories?

Finally, what’s the timetable on obtaining neon results? Is anybody out there making the nuclear meassurements you need? Can there be sensitivity analysis computer runs with various possible neon production ratios to find the boundaries of what’s feasible, likely and impossible? Do you ultimately think you will find conclusive, irrefutable geological measurements that will lead to mainstream acceptance of your theory, or is it doomed to be an untestable hypothesis because of just how remote the Core actually is?

Dr. Herndon, it’s been a pleasure to read your PNAS papers and despite what may seem like a gauntlet of rough questions from me, I do indeed think you have a very good idea that deserves very serious investigation. I admire your tenacity in promoting it and hope you always do, until the evidence convinces you otherwise and not before. Best wishes, sir.

I said “every be accepted”. I meant “ever be accepted”. I said “half a decade”. I meant “half a century”. Rough week.

Regarding the premise of The Core, Jack Connerney, a planetary scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, told National Geographic, “I don’t want to diminish enthusiasm for the movie, but I don’t think anybody would notice if the magnetic field disappeared. The ionosphere and atmosphere would keep out much of the solar wind and radiation.” I’ve heard the same opinion by other scientists interviewed on the radio as well. Yet you seem to have a different opinion, having told National Geographic, “Its hard to know what the effects on life will be. They’ve got to be devastating. It will short-circuit satellites, we’ll have no ability to communicate with radio communications, and currents will be induced not only in electrical transmission lines…but railroad trains, bridges, gas pipelines.” Could you comment on the reason for this difference of opinion? I would expect that our satellites would experience trouble, having no significant atmosphere to protect them, but would our atmosphere protect us on the surface?

Dear Mr. J. Marvin Herndon,
I am a student who has studied your theories and debated over them in class. I am truly fascinated by your conclusions and frustrated that few people besides geophysicist Bruce Buffet have discussed your research. As an assignment, I have read a writing by Brad Lemley regarding your theory that there is a five mile wide ball of uranium 235 adn 238. However, while studying earthquakes., I learned that secondary waves are unable to travel through liquid and seismologists have proved this through seismographs. Supposedly, the secondary waves are attenuated as they travel through the “liquid core.” However, you theorized that the outer core is a solid ball of nickel silicide. Therefore, the diffusion or attentuation of S Waves that you described could not have occured. I am also intruiged by your information regarding enstatite chondrites and how 64 percent of the planet’s uranium sank 4.5 billion years ago. I would be interested in some elaboration on this topic. Please e-mail me at tbbaratta@aol.com
Sincerely,
Vanessa

Solar neutrinos are neutrinos, wheras the reactor
emits anti-neutrinos. The signatures are quite
different. So it is indeed possible to detect them,
and already there are experiments under-way to do
so.