Assumptions seem to become dogma

[Michaelangelica]

A Google search for metallic hydrogen

metallic hydrogen - Google Scholar

 

Seems it may be a high temperature superconductor.

How would that go at the Earth's core I wonder?

[CharlieO]

At the request of BUFFY, I've moved this thread to Earth Science.

 

However, it remains a physical fact that spinning masses will separate elements contained within, despite the above illogical examples which are physically unrelated. After 40+ years one would think hot iron core believers could come up with better examples.

 

Not sure about metallic hydrogen being a high temperature superconductor; with the question as to what is "high." At Shell in the 1950s I was using an A. D. Little Cryostat for some experiments, which would operate at temperatures several hundred degrees below 0C. Never obtain hydrogen in a metallic form, but everything else certainly became superconductive at these relatively low temperatures; compared to ambient.

 

I must apologize for using the term 'self-serving scientists' albeit I've known many. I'll add 'serious scientists' if useful, of which I've known a few and greatly respected them. Hopefully, some will answer the question about why there isn't a gold core if Gravity is the dominate factor.

 

Regards, Charlie

[Boerseun]

Hopefully, some will answer the question about why there isn't a gold core if Gravity is the dominate factor.

Gold might very well be more abundant per cubic kilometer in the core than closer to the surface. But the very plain and simple truth is that there's not a lot of gold around, at all. So even if gold was more abundant at the core, there would still be very little of it.

 

Considering that if you chucked all the gold ever found on Earth since the beginning of human history, in both the Old World and the New, into one big pile, you'd end up with a cube of solid gold, only 36x36x36 meters in size. Now that, in comparison to the volume of the crust, is really not a lot of gold at all. If there was a tiny pocket of gold (relative to the size of the core), of say, 72x72x72 meters right in the core, it would be infinitely small and totally undetectable from the surface with seismic tools, but it would still be 8 times as much gold as was ever found on or close to the surface.

 

The simple reason we conjecture the core to be made of iron and nickel rather than gold, is because with our understanding of the stellar evolution of elements from hydrogen all the way up to the densest naturally-occuring elements, there simply ain't much gold around. Although there must be some gold and uranium and other heavy metals at the core, it will be a very small percentage of the total. And this conjecturing is supported by the spectroscopic analysis of distant stars, amongst others. We know through the formation of these stars that iron (which is much closer to the originating elements on the periodic table) are much more abundant, hence much more likely to dominate the makeup of inner planet's cores. A few stellar generations later and we might very well have more heavy elements to play around with, with gold being much more abundant. But right now, that's simply not the case. And I'm not saying this dogmatically, I'm saying this 'cause the evidence supports it.

[Michaelangelica]

I think I have lost the plot and will bow out.

 

You could always dig a VERY big hole and find out for sure

 

What is the maximum depth we have gone in sampling the earth's core?

[Symbology]

I think I have lost the plot and will bow out.

 

You could always dig a VERY big hole and find out for sure

 

What is the maximum depth we have gone in sampling the earth's core?

From Wiki:

The Kola Superdeep Borehole on the Kola peninsula of Russia reached 12.262 km (~7.62 mi) and is the deepest penetration of the Earth's solid surface. We have drilled down 1.7 km (~1 mi) into the seafloor. Because the continental crust is about 45 km thick on average, whereas oceanic crust is 6-7 km thick, we have penetrated only the upper 25% of both crusts.

 

Here is a link to Wiki's coverage of Earth's Core.

[Boerseun]

Not very deep, at all. We've never even penetrated the mantle, although in attempting to reach the Mohorovicic discontinuity, the Russians have got down to 12,262m with the Kola Superdeep Borehole in the Kola peninsula, in 1989. That's the deepest hole ever dug on Earth, and the deepest we got. Considering the thickness of the crust, we've still got a bit to go to get down to the mantle. I seriously doubt if humans would ever actually get to sample the core, even given a few thousand years.

[Michaelangelica]

From what I have read, there is life even at those depths?