A Comprehensive Guide to The Formation of The Moon - How It Came To Be!

Have you ever looked up at the night sky and wondered how the Moon came to be? It is a fascinating and mysterious phenomenon that has captivated the human race for centuries, and has been the subject of much scientific study and debate. In this comprehensive guide to the formation of the Moon, we will explore the theories and evidence behind the creation of our celestial neighbor. We will look at the different models of the Moon’s formation, and how they explain the Moon’s unique features.

We will investigate the most current research, and delve into the unanswered questions that still remain. Finally, we will discuss the implications of the Moon’s formation on our planet and its inhabitants. So, if you’ve ever wanted to know more about the Moon’s origins, keep reading to explore the fascinating history of our celestial companion!

Overview of Theories of the Moon's Formation

The formation of the Moon has been the subject of much debate, with many different theories having been proposed. The first attempt at explaining the Moon’s formation was made by Sir Isaac Newton in 1780, when he suggested the Moon was formed by the gravitational attraction of the Earth pulling matter out of the Solar System to form a cloud of debris. This cloud of debris then collapsed and formed the Moon, which was then pulled into orbit and stabilized by Earth’s gravity. This theory was discarded because it was too similar to the modern theory of the formation of the Solar System.

The next theory was proposed by English astronomer James Jeans in 1931, and suggested that the Moon was formed by the same cloud of gas that formed the Earth. The theory proposed that these gases condensed and formed a disc-shaped object that rotated at an angle to the Sun, with the Earth and the Moon forming at opposite points on the disc. This disc then collapsed to form the Earth and the Moon. The theory was later modified to state that the disc formed between the Earth and Sun, which then collapsed to form the Earth and the Moon. This theory was discarded because it did not explain the differences in composition between the Earth and Moon, nor the lack of iron on the Moon’s surface.

Evidence Supporting the Giant Impact Theory

The major evidence supporting the Giant Impact Theory is the composition of the Moon. This evidence is the fact that oxygen isotopes are in different proportions in the Earth and Moon. The Giant Impact Theory suggests that the Moon formed from the debris created when a protoplanet called Theia collided with the Earth. The theory states that the debris formed a ring around the Earth that coalesced to form the Moon.

In this scenario, the Earth was made of rocks rich in iron, while the rocks in the ring were rich in lighter elements, like oxygen. When these two types of rocks collided, the lighter rocks were completely vaporized, but the iron remained solid. The iron from the Earth then mixed with the lighter elements from the ring and created a new isotopic composition. When the Moon was formed, the lighter elements were again vaporized, but the iron remained solid. This resulted in the Moon having a different isotopic composition to the Earth.

Similarly, different elements like titanium and chromium are found in different concentrations in the Moon and Earth. The Giant Impact Theory explains these anomalies by stating that these elements were formed in the extreme heat of the collision. This resulted in the elements being ejected into space and forming the Lunar mantle. The impact of the collision would also explain the lack of iron found on the surface of the Moon. As the iron vaporized, it was trapped by the lunar rocks and is still present today.

Evidence Supporting the Fission Theory

The major evidence supporting the Fission Theory is the presence of isotopic anomalies in the Moon. The Fission Theory suggests that the Moon formed from a disc of gas and dust that formed around the Earth. This disc then collapsed to form the Earth and the Moon. In this scenario, the isotopic composition of the Moon would be the same as the Earth.

However, the chemical composition of the Moon does not match that of the Earth. Instead, it is similar to that of the outer layers of the Earth. This is due to the fact that the Moon is made up of the outer layers that would have been flung into space after the disc collapsed. This is different to the Giant Impact Theory, which suggests the Moon was formed from the remnants of the disc that formed around the Earth.

Evidence Supporting the Capture Theory

The major evidence supporting the Capture Theory is the lack of an iron core on the Moon. This theory suggests that the Moon was formed and initially orbited the Earth at a distance of 200 times its current distance. This would explain why the Moon currently has no iron core and is only 1/50th the size of the Earth. It would also explain why the Moon has no magnetic field as it is too small to sustain one.

As the Moon traveled further away from the Earth, it cooled and contracted, eventually forming an iron core and gaining enough mass to create a magnetic field. The Capture Theory would also explain why the Moon is made up of the same rocks that are found at the Earth’s surface. This is because the rocks from the surface of the Earth would have been flung into space and captured by the gravitational forces of the Moon. The rocks would have then cooled and condensed to form the surface of the Moon.

Unanswered Questions Regarding the Moon's Formation

- Why is the Moon’s Core so Small? - The Giant Impact Theory proposes that the Moon was created when a protoplanet called Theia collided with the Earth. However, the theory does not explain why the Moon’s core is only 1/50th the size of the Earth’s core, or how the Moon managed to sustain its orbit. The model suggests that Theia collided with the Earth at a very shallow angle, with the force of the impact being distributed throughout the core of the Earth. This would have created a ring of debris and molten rock around the Earth.

This ring then coalesced and formed the Moon, which had a core composed of the molten rock from the collision. The Moon then moved away from the Earth, and over time its core cooled and solidified. However, this model does not explain why the Moon is orbiting the Earth at the same distance as the disc of debris that formed around the Earth. This does not make sense as the Earth would have moved, and the debris would have formed a ring around the Earth at a distance of 200 times its current distance.

Why are the Rocks on the Surface of the Moon different to those Found on Earth? - The Giant Impact Theory suggests that the rocks on the surface of the Moon are the remnants of the impact and were thrown into space and then re-condensed. However, scientific research has revealed that the rocks are completely different to those found on Earth.

This would suggest that the rocks found on the surface of the Moon originally came from the Earth, and were flung into space when the impact occurred. This would explain why the rocks are similar to the rocks found on the Earth’s surface. It would also explain why there is no iron on the surface of the Moon, as the iron would have been trapped in the Earth’s core.

Implications of the Moon's Formation

The formation of the Moon has had a significant impact on Earth’s history. Based on the current models of the formation of the Moon, it is likely that Earth’s orbit was significantly wider before the Moon formed. This would explain why the Earth’s oceans are salty, as the water that formed the oceans came from the water in the Earth’s crust. It would also explain why the Earth’s core is currently hotter.