During the last two centuries, astronomers developed three different hypotheses for the origin of Earth’s moon, but these traditional ideas have failed to survive comparison with the evidence. A relatively new theory proposed in the 1970s may hold the answer. You can begin by testing the three unsuccessful theories against the evidence to see why they failed.
The first of the three traditional theories, the fission hypothesis, supposes that the moon formed by the fission of Earth. If the young Earth spun fast enough, tides raised by the sun might break into two parts. If this separation occurred after Earth differentiated, the moon would have formed from crust material, which would explain the moon’s low density. But the fission theory has problems. No one knows why the young Earth should have spun so fast, nearly ten times faster than today, nor where all that angular momentum went after the fission. In addition, the moon’s orbit is not in the plane of Earth’s equator, as it would be if it had formed by fission.
The second traditional theory is the condensation (or double-planet) hypothesis. It supposes that Earth and the moon condensed as a double planet from the same cloud of material. However, if they formed form the same material, they should have the same chemical composition and density, which they don’t. The moon is very poor in certain heavy elements like iron and titanium, and in volatiles such as water vapor and sodium. Yet the moon contains almost exactly the same rations of oxygen isotopes as does Earth’s mantle. The condensation theory cannot explain these compositional differences.
The third theory is the capture hypothesis. It supposes that the moon formed somewhere else and was later captured by Earth. If the moon formed inside the orbit of Mercury, the heat would have prevented the condensation of solid metallic grains, and only high-melting-point metal oxides could have solidified. According to the theory, a later encounter with Mercury could have “kicked” the moon out to Earth. The capture theory was never popular because it requires highly unlikely events involving interactions with Mercury and Earth to move the moon from place to place. Scientists are always suspicious of explanations that require a chain of unlikely coincidences. Also, on encountering Earth, the moon would have been moving so rapidly that Earth’s gravity would have unable to capture it without ripping the moon to fragments through tidal forces.
Until recently, astronomers were left with no acceptable theory to explain the origin of the moon, and they occasionally joked that the moon could not exist. But during the 1970s, planetary astronomers developed a new theory that combines the best aspect of the fission hypothesis and the capture hypothesis.
The large-impact theory supposes that the moon formed from debris ejected into a disk around Earth by the impact of a large body. The impacting body may have been twice as large as Mars. In fact, instead of saying that Earth was hit by a large body, it may be more nearly correct to say that Earth and the moon resulted from the collision and merger of two very large planetesimals. The resulting large body became Earth, and the ejected debris formed the moon. Such an impact would have melted the proto-Earth, and the material falling together to form the moon would have been heated hot enough to melt. This theory fits well with the evidence from moon rocks that show the moon formed as a sea of magma.
This theory would explain other things. The collision must have occurred at a steep angle to eject enough matter to make the moon. The objects could not have collided head-on. A glancing collision would have spun the material rapidly enough to explain the observed angular momentum in the Earth-moon system. And if the two colliding planetesimals had already differentiated, the ejected material would be mostly iron-poor mantles and crust. Calculations show that the iron core of the impacting body could have fallen into the larger body that became Earth. This would explain why the moon is so poor in iron and why the abundances of other elements are so similar to those in Earth’s mantle. Finally, the material that eventually became the moon would have remained in a disk long enough for volatile elements, which the moon lacks, to be lost to space.
The moon may be the result of a giant impact. Until recently, astronomers have been reluctant to consider such catastrophic events, but a number of lines of evidence suggest that some planes may have been affected by giant impacts.
Question: Where did the Moon come from?
The Fission Theory: This theory proposes that the Moon was once part of the Earth and somehow separated from the Earth early in the history of the solar system. The present Pacific Ocean basin is the most popular site for the part of the Earth from which the Moon came. This theory was thought possible since the Moon's composition resembles that of the Earth's mantle and a rapidly spinning Earth could have cast off the Moon from its outer layers. However, the present-day Earth-Moon system should contain "fossil evidence" of this rapid spin and it does not. Also, this hypothesis does not have a natural explanation for the extra baking the lunar material has received.
The Capture Theory: This theory proposes that the Moon was formed somewhere else in the solar system, and was later captured by the gravitational field of the Earth. The Moon's different chemical composition could be explained if it formed elsewhere in the solar system, however, capture into the Moon's present orbit is very improbable. Something would have to slow it down by just the right amount at just the right time, and scientists are reluctant to believe in such "fine tuning". Also, this hypothesis does not have a natural explanation for the extra baking the lunar material has received.
The Condensation Theory: This theory proposes that the Moon and the Earth condensed individually from the nebula that formed the solar system, with the Moon formed in orbit around the Earth. However, if the Moon formed in the vicinity of the Earth it should have nearly the same composition. Specifically, it should possess a significant iron core, and it does not. Also, this hypothesis does not have a natural explanation for the extra baking the lunar material has received.
There is one theory which remains to be discussed, and it is widely accepted today.
The Giant Impactor Theory (sometimes called The Ejected Ring Theory): This theory proposes that a planetesimal (or small planet) the size of Mars struck the Earth just after the formation of the solar system, ejecting large volumes of heated material from the outer layers of both objects. A disk of orbiting material was formed, and this matter eventually stuck together to form the Moon in orbit around the Earth. This theory can explain why the Moon is made mostly of rock and how the rock was excessively heated. Furthermore, we see evidence in many places in the solar system that such collisions were common late in the formative stages of the solar system. This theory is discussed further below.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
楼主
发表于 2012-12-14 09:27:57
