How on Earth did the moon come into being? If you subscribe to the latest theory, the moon was born out of a nuclear explosion on Earth that sent a chunk of mass flying from the planet’s core into orbit, where it finally became the moon. But cool as that sounds, some killjoy scientists are pooh-poohing the hypothesis, calling it “unnecessary,” “nonsensical,” and “not physically sensible.”

The standard theory of the moon’s origin holds that a giant space object, possibly an asteroid, banged into Earth and sent a large piece of the planet flying into space. That piece eventually became the moon. But the composition of the moon doesn’t seem to support this theory. Researchers say if an asteroid or some such object smashed away part of the Earth, the Moon ought to be composed of about 80 percent of that object’s constituent material and about 20 percent of the Earth’s. But the makeup of moon rock closely mirrors that of the Earth [Popular Science].

An alternate theory, known as the fission theory, suggests that the moon spun out of the rapidly spinning blob of molten rock that would later become Earth [Popular Science]. But no one has been able to explain what caused a huge chunk of earth to spin away and become the moon. Now, researchers Rob de Meijer and Wim van Westrenem have proposed in an online paper that centrifugal forces may have concentrated heavy, radioactive elements like uranium and thorium at the boundary between the Earth’s mantle and its core. Then, they propose, a massive nuclear explosion occurred at the edge of Earth’s core, flinging red-hot, liquid rock into space. The orbiting detritus gradually congealed into what is now our planet’s lone satellite [Discovery News].

Such “georeactors” have existed on Earth before, albeit on a smaller scale than these researchers propose. But de Meijer and van Westrenem have gotten little support for their hypothesis, and plenty of scorn.

Geophysicist Marvin Herndon, who has previously espoused the controversial idea that uranium once sunk to the earth’s core and formed a georeactor there, isn’t buying into the new theory. He says he’s skeptical of a georeactor’s existence at the earth’s core-mantle boundary, explaining that uranium is so heavy that when it liquefies in a nuclear reaction, it should fall to the Earth’s core [New Scientist].

Other scientists asked how the researchers had modeled this kind of explosion, as Princeton University astrophysicist Richard Gott pointed out: “How do they really know it would produce a thin jet of matter?” [New Scientist]. Gott adds that if indeed the georeactor hypothesis was right, then Venus, which is similar in mass and composition to Earth, should have formed its own moon in a similar process–but it didn’t. For further evidence, points out to Pluto, asking “how do you explain Charon, the big icy moon of Pluto? That would require an ‘ice-reactor’, which is a nonsensical idea!”[New Scientist]. David Stevenson, a planetary physicist at Caltech, blew the whole theory right back into space, saying: “The whole idea is not physically sensible,” he says. “Life is too short to spend on things like this” [New Scientist].

The researchers, however, aren’t backing down. They say the best way to test this idea is to look for isotopic signatures on the Moon left over from when the “georeactor” exploded. If they’re there, it’s a good chance that Earth once went critical in a huge way, and our ghostly galleon was tossed into the heavens by the world’s first nuclear detonation [Discovery News].

Related Content:

80beats: Scientist Smackdowns
80beats: Obama’s NASA Budget: So Long, Moon Missions; Hello, Private Spaceflight
Bad Astronomy: NASA Finds Reservoir of Water Ice on the Moon!
80beats: Lunar Impact! NASA Probe Slams into Moon to Search for Water
80beats: So What Exactly Happened with that Crashing Moon Probe?
80beats: Moon Plume Detected! NASA’s Lunar Crash Wasn’t a Flop, After All

Image: NASA

"Tennessee high schools will be getting guidelines from the state next fall on teaching the Bible as part of a secular curriculum".

Yes, it’s a comparative literature class. Yes, it’s legal. Yes, I would even approve of this… in theory. In practice?

Right. Read the title of this post again.

Still, in better news, you may remember the Mississippi anti-evolution bill I wrote about, submitted to the legislature there as an obvious wedge for creationism. Well, it died in committee, so the Magnolia State gets itself a reprieve. I’m glad; I didn’t have a "Mississippi: Doomed" graphic ready yet. But I’ll keep the draft waiting just in case.

Tip o’ the coming ACLU lawsuit to Fark.

The Point of Inquiry podcast would be nothing without its founder and host, D.J. Grothe, who has now moved on to serve as the president of the James Randi Educational Foundation. I’m pleased that DJ has commented on the new hosts, including yours truly:

All three of the new hosts are perfect for their new roles. I first met Chris Mooney in the late ’90s when I was just getting involved with CFI while in grad school. Over the years, I have really enjoyed seeing him succeed at bringing the public’s attention to important issues of science education and public science policy, both through his best-selling books and his national media appearances. And I’ve enjoyed interviewing him a number of times on Point of Inquiry. Bob Price, an engaging thinker on matters of historical Biblical criticism and popular nonsense claims, will be an excellent host for episodes dealing with religious skepticism. I have known Bob and have admired his work for many years, and recently had the pleasure of spending a weekend with him in the middle of Missouri at a skepticism conference. He is one of the best conversationalists I know, and one of the most popular guests we’ve had on Point of Inquiry. Karen Stollznow is a rising star in the skeptical movement, and an active paranormal investigator. She has experience with podcasts and I think she will bring a fresh perspective to discussions of the paranormal and pseudoscience. I sincerely wish all three new hosts well, and look forward to seeing what Point of Inquiry becomes going forward.

You can read D.J.’s whole post here. And I want to personally thank him for his vote of confidence. I know I have shoes to fill….

“Spooky action at a distance” is, of course, a quote from Albert Einstein to describe quantum entanglements.

Wait – wait, don’t run!  Come back!

I know “quantum entanglement” sounds like a really difficult concept on which to get a handle.  It is, indeed, very difficult; however, I’ve no doubt it’s a concept you are fully capable of understanding.  Remember, I read your comments and emails.  We’re not getting into the deep water here (and it does get very deep and murky), we’re just going to wade in and splash around a bit.

Albert Einstein, 1905, Swiss Patent Office Image: Historical Museum of Berne by Lucien Chaven (1868-1942) Einstein is 26 years old in this photograph

To start off, look at the word “quantum”.  You may as well, you know… you run across it everywhere.  I sat and quickly counted 38 terms using the word “quantum”… that’s just what hit me off the top of my head, I have no idea how many such terms are in use.  The word springs out at you in some surprising combinations, from the immediately recognizable (quantum physics), to the “not so much” (quantum suicide).  We’ll be dealing with the word only as it applies in physics.  You can read a dictionary as well as I, but in physics “quantum” basically indicates the smallest possible state of being, without alteration, that can be achieved.  This is matter and energy in its most basic form; elementary particles.  An atom would be an example of an elementary particle, although as far as particles go, an atom is pretty bulky.  Knowing that, you can see immediately that the phrase “quantum entanglement” is going to be about the entanglement of objects at their most basic level.  This is not the same thing as the bonds which exist between two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen to make a molecule of water.

With quantum entanglements, two or more objects are linked (joined) at their quantum (smallest possible) level so that you cannot fully describe the one without the other, no matter how far apart they are.  In a water molecule, you can describe the oxygen atom quite nicely without ever describing the hydrogen atoms.  Interested?  Here’s where it gets spooky.

The Scream by Edvard Munch 1893 Image: The National Gallery, Oslo, Norway

If you separate the objects which are entangled, even by as far as a million light years, they still act as one object.  No matter how far apart they are.  If you have one of the objects on the Earth and the other object on Pluto, and you move the Earth object two feet, then the object on Pluto will move two feet… at exactly the same time, in exactly the same manner, in exactly the same direction.  Anything that happens to the first object will happen to the second, immediately.  Anything.  The Sun and the Earth are about 93 million miles apart, and it takes light a little over 8 minutes to travel that distance through space.  Two objects which are entangled but separated by the same distance, 93 million miles, will still react identically and immediately.  Notice that I’m not saying “about”, “nearly”, “approximately”, or “quickly”.  I’m saying “exactly”, “identically”, and “immediately”.  That is so cool.

Quantum entanglement is not science fiction or science theory; this is science fact.  It’s also our future.  Just imagine if you had a “quantum entanglement communicator” and wanted to talk with someone living on a planet 10 billion light years away.  Communication would be instant, it would NOT take billions of years.  You could sit in your living room and safely drive a vehicle located on Mars.  Or Neptune.  Can you imagine the speed of a quantum entanglement computer?  No matter how many million terabytes you’re processing, it processes instantly.  Not within seconds or nanoseconds… instantly.  And get this; not only are scientists looking at quantum entanglement for instant information transfer, they’re also looking at it for instant matter transfer.

Several people have told me through the years that the sciences are boring, and I needed to be doing something interesting and exciting with my life.

Right.