Jovian satellite Callisto: Possibility and consequences of its explosion

Drobyshevski, E. M.

doi:10.1007/bf00054329

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is a risk of global catastrophe based on an unexpected phase transition of water into a new high‐triple‐point crystalline ice—the “ice‐9” of Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle . ( 22 ) The second is the hypothesis of Drobyshevski ( 23,24 ) that slow electrolysis could cause explosion of the ice crust on the Jovian moon Callisto, which would, in turn, cause a sufficient number of icy fragments (essentially comet‐like bodies) to impact the Earth, to cause an extinction‐level catastrophe. The third is the hypothesis that a high‐energy subatomic particle interaction, occuring either naturally or as a consequence of human experiments, could trigger a phase transition of our vacuum.…”

Section: Low‐probability “Risky” Theories: Some Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a series of papers, in both peer‐reviewed journals and in conference proceedings and web archives, maverick Russian astrophysicist Edward M. Drobyshevski has argued for almost three decades that the electromagnetic properties of ices—specifically volumetric electrolysis—in the outer solar system are the causes of many events that could only be termed catastrophic. ( 23, 24, 31‐33 ) In particular, the possibility of a chemical explosion of the entire ice crust of Jupiter's moon Callisto (a cryo‐analog of terrestrial supervolcanism) would ultimately be disastrous for Earth, since the fraction of the resulting stream of icy fragments likely to hit the Earth would cause multiple impact catastrophes comparable to the end‐Cretaceous mass extinction episode. According to Drobyshevski's calculations, such an explosion is likely in the near future, thus presenting a new form of global catastrophic—and indeed existential—risk.…”

Section: Low‐probability “Risky” Theories: Some Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Small Theories and Large Risks—Is Risk Analysis Relevant for Epistemology?

Ćirković

2012

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ought we to take seriously large risks predicted by "exotic" or improbable theories? We routinely assess risks on the basis or either common sense, or some developed theoretical framework based on the best available scientific explanations. Recently, there has been a substantial increase of interest in the low-probability "failure modes" of well-established theories, which can involve global catastrophic risks. However, here I wish to discuss a partially antithetical situation: alternative, low-probability ("small") scientific theories predicting catastrophic outcomes with large probability. I argue that there is an important methodological issue (determining what counts as the best available explanation in cases where the theories involved describe possibilities of extremely destructive global catastrophes), which has been neglected thus far. There is no simple answer to the correct method for dealing with high-probability high-stakes risks following from low-probability theories that still cannot be rejected outright, and much further work is required in this area. I further argue that cases like these are more numerous than usually assumed, for reasons including cognitive biases, sociological issues in science and the media image of science. If that is indeed so, it might lead to a greater weight of these cases in areas such as moral deliberation and policy making.

show abstract

Section: Low‐probability “Risky” Theories: Some Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Low‐probability “Risky” Theories: Some Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Small Theories and Large Risks—Is Risk Analysis Relevant for Epistemology?

Ćirković

2012

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…fragments of P/Shoemaker–Levy 9 discovered more than nine months after perijovian passage showed practically no gas production (West 1994)]. In addition, the much broader peak (0<Δ J <1 au) in the distribution of (faint) comets of the Jovian family together with the smaller size of Jupiter's sphere of influence as compared with that of Saturn may indicate two features: (1) a large age of the constituent objects [note that Jupiter's aphelion and perihelion distances differ by only 0.5 au at a rotation period of the semimajor axis of Jupiter's orbit of about 0.3 Myr (Brouwer & Clemence 1961)]; (2) the secondary nature of these comets, associated with their non‐simultaneous birth and manifestation via, e.g., capture (possibly with disintegration) of cometary nuclei from the reservoir between Jupiter and Saturn or from the Trojan reservoir, these reservoirs being initially formed by the very same explosion of Titan, or by much earlier explosions of ices of Galilean satellites (Agafonova & Drobyshevski 1985; Drobyshevski 1989).…”

Section: Conclusion: the Genuine Youth Of Konopleva's Peak Cometsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As applied to the Galilean satellites, such a hypothesis provides an explanation for many facts that were poorly understood earlier, including distinctions and specific features of the structure and relief of the Galilean satellites, and the origin and properties of the Jovian irregular satellites and Trojans, some short‐period (SP) comets, etc. (Drobyshevski 1980a, 1989; Agafonova & Drobyshevski 1985). For a comprehensive consideration of the cometary origin associated with the explosion of the electrolysed icy envelopes of moon‐like bodies, and of the cometary properties related to the presence of inner sources of chemical energy in the form of the electrolysis products 2H 2 +O 2 dissolved in their ices, see e.g.…”

Section: Introduction: Konopleva's Effect and Cometary Cosmogonymentioning

confidence: 99%

The young long-period comet family of Saturn

Drobyshevski¹

2000

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The distributions of long‐period comets with respect to the minimum distance Δ between their orbits and the orbit of Saturn or Jupiter, constructed by Konopleva using data up to 1972, exhibit a sharp peak at Δ<0.5 au for the Saturnian family, while being fairly monotonic for Jupiter. Hence, in view of the appreciable eccentricity of Saturn's orbit and the rotation of its perihelion longitude with a period of 47 kyr, the conclusion was drawn by Drobyshevski that the objects belonging to this peak are young (10 kyr). Similar distributions constructed using more recent data show less pronounced differences between one another. Analysis of the distributions for various epochs shows that the initially noted difference is due to observational selection, being inherent to brighter comets. Since on average the cometary activity fades with age, the conclusion that the Saturnian family comets, forming the peak at Δ<0.5 au, are young is all the more substantiated. The question concerning the origin of these comets, which in all likelihood were ejected over a period of a decade from deep inside the Saturnian sphere of influence, is still open. The only self‐consistent hypothesis that we see now is that of their appearance as a result of an explosion of the electrolysed ice envelope of Titan. We encourage the development of other explanations.

show abstract

“…), and in offering numerous predictions many of which were confirmed later (Titan's atmospheric composition and the population of the Saturn rings, burning and distant outbursts of the SP comets, etc.) or are awaiting their verification (an excessive thermal flux from Titan due to freezing its water ocean after recent envelope explosion, -1 km thickness of icy crust on its surface, and so on) (see Drobyshevski, 1989 and references therein). The New Explosive Cosmogony (NEC) of minor bodies does not encounter any substatial criticism (Drobyshevski, 1995a).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The origin of the asteroid main belt: Synthesis of mutually exclusive paradigms

Drobyshevski

1997

Astronomical & Astrophysical Transactions

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An origin of the asteroid main belt (MB) is usually considered in the framework of either (1) Olbers hypothesis on breaking of a small planet Phaethon, or (2) a hypothesis on a planet which failed to be accumulated in the protoplanetary cloud due to the Jovian perturbations with subsequent collisional evolution of its embryos. Both hypotheses have their own shortcomings. The possibility of explosion of the ice electrolysis products dissolved in icy envelopes of distant planets, which was suggested recently, apparently poses the Olbers hypothesis on a firm basis and explains a variety of the asteroid MB features especially if one takes into account a success of this approach in explaining and predicting properties of other minor body groups. However, gasdynamic calculations revealed that a non-central explosion of the envelope of a M = 0.2MmOon planet produces numerous not very big (up to -50 km) icy fragments -the future C-asteroids, but does not destroy its rocky core. To overcome this difficulty, we call attention to a high probability for Phaethon to have a satellite which was lost in the explosion. Its subsequent hypervelocity collision with the rocky core 'left led to the appearance of large (> 100 km) and numerous rocky bodies. Thus, as is often the case, the truth appears to lie between the extremes and such a synthesis combines the benefits of the both approaches.

show abstract

Jovian satellite Callisto: Possibility and consequences of its explosion

Cited by 8 publications

References 39 publications

Small Theories and Large Risks—Is Risk Analysis Relevant for Epistemology?

Small Theories and Large Risks—Is Risk Analysis Relevant for Epistemology?

The young long-period comet family of Saturn

The origin of the asteroid main belt: Synthesis of mutually exclusive paradigms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About