Article contents
Radioactivity and the Earth's Thermal History. Part IV: A Criticism of Parts I, II and III.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
Extract
Ten years ago I published two papers in this Magazine under the above title. They constituted a first attempt to attack the new problems suggested by the universal presence of the radioactive elements in rocks, the discovery of which by the present Lord Rayleigh made it immediately necessary to abandon Kelvin's classical theory of the cooling of the earth. In 1913 I had already pointed out the possibility that Kelvin's problem might profitably be reversed, and that instead of calculating the age of the earth from its thermal condition, the latter, that is to say the distribution of temperature in depth, might be deduced from the earth's age. Two years later the new problems were brought to a tentative solution on the general assumption that the earth had cooled down from a molten state, an assumption which, although traditional, was at that time less clearly justified than it is to-day. As a working hypothesis it was further assumed that the total amount of the radioactive elements in the earth was limited by the condition that the earth had in fact cooled down and was not, as seemed to-be a possibility, growing hotter. Taking the age of the earth as Holmesthe Rockies (60 kins.), have recently been considerably increased. For these reasons geologists have rejected the new thermal contraction theory as being by itself still inadequate. My own opinion was that the theory explained about a third or a quarter of all the folding and overthrusting that has demonstrably occurred during the earth's known history.
- Type
- Original Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1925
References
page 504 note 1 Geol. Mag., 1915, Pt. I, p. 60, and Pt. II, p. 102.Google Scholar
page 504 note 2 The Age of the Earth, 1913, p. 135.Google Scholar
page 505 note 1 Geol. Mag., 1916, Pt. III, p. 265.Google Scholar
page 505 note 2 Journ. Geol., vol. xxiii, 1915, p. 44.Google Scholar
page 506 note 3 Phil. Mag., vol. xxxii, 12., 1916, p. 575.Google Scholar
page 507 note 1 Geol. Mag., 1917, p. 88.Google Scholar
page 507 note 2 Geol. Mag., 1916, p. 272.Google Scholar
page 508 note 1 Am. Journ. Sci., vol. xi, 1925, pp. 403–4.Google Scholar
page 508 note 2 See also Nature, 6th 06, 1925, p. 876.Google Scholar
page 508 note 3 Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci., vol. xiv, 1924, p. 461.Google Scholar
page 511 note 1 These estimates are near enough for the purpose of the discussion, and consequently the effects of temperature and compressibility need not be considered.Google Scholar
page 511 note 2 Oceanic islands may represent foci of differentiation which, by producing columns of salic rock, have enabled them to stand high above the surrounding floor.Google Scholar
page 511 note 3 Geol. Mag., 1915, p. 111.Google Scholar
page 511 note 4 Ibid., Table II, p. 66.
page 511 note 5 Taking 96 km. as the depth of isostatic compensation would make no difference here, as the composition of the upper levels would not be affected. Tn the example considered the local level of compensation would be at a depth, of 45 km., the rocks in both columns below this level being ultrabasic.Google Scholar
page 512 note 1 Journ. Geol., vol. xxiii, 1915, pp. 438–9.Google Scholar
page 512 note 2 Geol. Mag., 1915, p. 111.Google Scholar
page 512 note 3 Ibid., Table II, p. 66.
- 6
- Cited by