Cosmic Symplectite discovered in meteorite.

[sjastro]

Washington University were very kind in providing their opinion the spherical object found in one of my images of stony meteorite sample is of a 4.5 billion year old chondrule.
Meteorite has expert stumped.

​

In one of their own samples of the carbonaceous chondrite Acfer 094 they have announced the discovery of the first known cosmic symplectite.

​

This 4.6 billion year old cosmic symplectite is iron oxide/iron sulphide with heavy oxygen isotopes.
Until the discovery only light oxygen isotopes where found in samples dating back to the origin of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago.

Here lies a problem.
During the formation of the solar system the nascent Sun emitted considerable short wave UV radiation causing the disassociation of carbon monoxide into carbon and oxygen atoms.
These oxygen atoms were the source of both light and heavy isotopes.
The problem is with the sulphur isotopes.
The sulfur isotope measurements of Acfer 094’s cosmic symplectite were consistent with UV irradiation from a massive star, but did not fit the UV spectrum from the young Sun.

It appears a nearby massive star also played a role in the formation of the solar system.
Scientists are ecstatic over the discovery, creationists are spitting chips.

Full report here.
Massive Stars near Solar System’s Parent Molecular Cloud Affected Composition of Its Building Blocks | Planetary Science, Space Exploration | Sci-News.com

 

[Chesterton]

Why are scientists ecstatic?

 

[SelfSim]

Washington University were very kind in providing their opinion the spherical object found in one of my images of stony meteorite sample is of a 4.5 billion year old chondrule.
Meteorite has expert stumped.

​

In one of their own samples of the carbonaceous chondrite Acfer 094 they have announced the discovery of the first known cosmic symplectite.

​

This 4.6 billion year old cosmic symplectite is iron oxide/iron sulphide with heavy oxygen isotopes.
Until the discovery only light oxygen isotopes where found in samples dating back to the origin of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago.

Here lies a problem.
During the formation of the solar system the nascent Sun emitted considerable short wave UV radiation causing the disassociation of carbon monoxide into carbon and oxygen atoms.
These oxygen atoms were the source of both light and heavy isotopes.
The problem is with the sulphur isotopes.
The sulfur isotope measurements of Acfer 094’s cosmic symplectite were consistent with UV irradiation from a massive star, but did not fit the UV spectrum from the young Sun.

It appears a nearby massive star also played a role in the formation of the solar system.
Scientists are ecstatic over the discovery, creationists are spitting chips.

Full report here.
Massive Stars near Solar System’s Parent Molecular Cloud Affected Composition of Its Building Blocks | Planetary Science, Space Exploration | Sci-News.com

Very cool!
Do you think this also explains the UV fluorescence issues in your test setup?

 

[SelfSim]

Why are scientists ecstatic?

More to the point, why are Creationists spitting chips?

 

[Chesterton]

More to the point, why are Creationists spitting chips?

I would have asked that too, except I don't know what "spitting chips" means.

 

[SelfSim]

I would have asked that too, except I don't know what "spitting chips" means.

Google is your friend:

spit chips:
slang To be loudly or vehemently angry. Primarily heard in Australia. Everyone's spitting chips over the recent tax law now, but in a month's time, no one will even remember that it happened.

 

[Chesterton]

Google is your friend:

No, you are my friend. I think some citations are needed. The article didn't mention any ecstasy or chip spitting.

 

[Ophiolite]

It appears a nearby massive star also played a role in the formation of the solar system.

I'm just nit-picking, but that would likely be massive stars rather than massive star, if I am reading the abstract correctly.

Now, more interestingly, we know that meteorites often contain small grains that condensed around other stars and were carried, by one means or another, to that portion of the star forming cloud where the sun was born. To your knowledge could the composition of any of these grains potentially corroborate (or refute) the findings of this study?

 

[sjastro]

The comment on creationists spitting chips is a friendly dig at creationists in this forum, both young and old types, who believe science is not relevant, an atheist 'thing' or downright evil.
This thread is an example of how science operates.

Why shouldn't scientists be ecstatic.
The evidence for heavy oxygen isotopes in cosmic symplectites supports the formation of the solar system; without it leaves a serious hole in the theory.

 

[sjastro]

Very cool!
Do you think this also explains the UV fluorescence issues in your test setup?

Probably not.
Washington Uni have left the offer open for me to test the sample using X-ray spectroscopy (they would have preferred mass spectroscopy) and would analyse the results free of charge.

The other option is for me to send the sample to them for testing which opens up complications.
Victoria is the only state in Australia where one can legally own a found meteorite.
Once it leaves the borders it comes under federal laws where an export license is required (even if the rock is only a suspected meteorite).
It is simply not worth the complications.

 

[SelfSim]

Probably not.
Washington Uni have left the offer open for me to test the sample using X-ray spectroscopy (they would have preferred mass spectroscopy) and would analyse the results free of charge.

The other option is for me to send the sample to them for testing which opens up complications.
Victoria is the only state in Australia where one can legally own a found meteorite.
Once it leaves the borders it comes under federal laws where an export license is required (even if the rock is only a suspected meteorite).
It is simply not worth the complications.

Wow!
Can you use their offer to try and twist the arm of any Australian (Vic) institutes who might have the right equipment?

 

[SelfSim]

Now, more interestingly, we know that meteorites often contain small grains that condensed around other stars and were carried, by one means or another, to that portion of the star forming cloud where the sun was born. To your knowledge could the composition of any of these grains potentially corroborate (or refute) the findings of this study?

Don't supernovae explosions transform existing dust particles within their vicinity?

 

[sjastro]

I'm just nit-picking, but that would likely be massive stars rather than massive star, if I am reading the abstract correctly.

Now, more interestingly, we know that meteorites often contain small grains that condensed around other stars and were carried, by one means or another, to that portion of the star forming cloud where the sun was born. To your knowledge could the composition of any of these grains potentially corroborate (or refute) the findings of this study?

Given that presolar grains such as 7.5 billion year old silicon carbide were found in the Murchison meteorite, I think the impact is more on the composition of the molecular cloud rather than on the formation of the solar system itself.
However I'm no expert on the subject, if you want to frame the question I will happily forward it to Washington Uni for their comments.

 

[sjastro]

Wow!
Can you use their offer to try and twist the arm of any Australian (Vic) institutes who might have the right equipment?

What is frustrating is when I worked for Toyota I organized the commissioning of an X-ray spectrometer for measuring lead, cadmium, chromium and mercury in plastics including most important of all the analysis of a baby tooth of mine which had radioactive thorium in it.
When I left the company they were generous enough to allow me to test some rock samples after hours.

As fate would have it by the time I found the suspect meteorite the automotive industry had disappeared from Australia along the X-ray spectrometer (and the data on my baby tooth)!
While Washington Uni were lenient on the test equipment I could use they were very specific I could not use them as leverage for testing or give any information on the sample being tested.
They wanted a blind test where the testing laboratory knew absolutely nothing about the background to avoid potential bias.
Their function was to simply report the results and nothing else.
Unfortunately the cost for testing is so ridiculously high and even without analysis of the results.
Currently things are in limbo.

Incidentally geologists use point and shoot X-ray spectrometers in the field which only take minutes to analyze rock samples.

 

[SelfSim]

Coincidentally, and as a bit of an aside, some news just published today on the carbonaceous Winchcombe meteorite, which recently fell in the UK, also contains a bit of a saga about how they sought and obtained funding for its testing, here: Rare meteorite could hold secrets to life on Earth

The difficulty in getting these things tested seems to world-wide.

 

[Ophiolite]

However I'm no expert on the subject, if you want to frame the question I will happily forward it to Washington Uni for their comments.

Thank you for the offer. I'll do some background literature searches to assure myself that my question would be a sensible oneand can be clearly and concisely expressed. [Contrary to popular opinion I'm of the view that there are stupid questions.]

 

[sjastro]

Don't supernovae explosions transform existing dust particles within their vicinity?

Supernovae may have shaped the chemical composition of the molecular cloud before the formation of the Sun and solar system, the evidence of which is the presence of iron in the Sun.

Iron could not have been formed by fusion in the solar core due to gravitational collapse of the core.
The composition of the molecular cloud could have been affected by supernova remnants where stars that had iron in their cores underwent gravitational collapse and exploded.

 

[SelfSim]

Not entirely sure, but I think this might a fragment of the Winchcombe meteorite in mentioned in post #15 although, it seems to be being analysed separately from 'the Winchcombe' meteorite. I'm not sure why. Press release was made today (Jul 20).

Some nice electron microscope images attached:

 

[sjastro]

Probably not.
Washington Uni have left the offer open for me to test the sample using X-ray spectroscopy (they would have preferred mass spectroscopy) and would analyse the results free of charge.

The other option is for me to send the sample to them for testing which opens up complications.
Victoria is the only state in Australia where one can legally own a found meteorite.
Once it leaves the borders it comes under federal laws where an export license is required (even if the rock is only a suspected meteorite).
It is simply not worth the complications.

The latest saga with Washington Uni with regards to my suspect meteorite sample which should not be fluorescent under long wave UV light....

.... is that they have shifted from a hard line absolutely no way it can be a meteorite, to a possible maybe.
The shift in opinion is my acquisition of a certified meteorite sample from Bassikounou in Mauritania.

I sent microscopic images of the Bassikounou and suspect samples for comment noting the similarities between the two.

Surprisingly the feedback from Washington Uni is that they still doubt the suspect sample is a meteorite as the surface does not resemble a fusion crust of a meteorite despite both samples exhibiting the same mottled type appearance.
They feel the stronger evidence is the bright particles in the samples indicating the possibility of metallic flecks which is a characteristic of stony type meteorites.
They still want the sample tested as I think they are more interested in why it is fluorescent under UV light.

 

[SelfSim]

They want to eliminate the possibility that it might be (earth) volcanic in origin, then?
(Ie: it sure looks like a lot of heat was involved in its history .. so what other process other than volcanism could give it that appearance?)