7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
1/31
Rosetta Stone
1
Appendix 3: Introduction to and history of paleomagnetism and rock magnetism.
Introduction
The studies of rock magnetism and paleomagnetism, which cover the magnetic
materials in rocks and the record of the magnetic fields they carry, have a surprisingly
long history, although the burst of activity at the middle of the C20th
and since dominates
the subject. As early as 1691, the chemist Boyle showed that bricks acquired a direction
of magnetization parallel to the ambient field in which they were fired. In the middle of
the C19th
, Melloni in Italy had shown that when a basaltic rock was heated and then
cooled in the geomagnetic field, it acquired a magnetization in the direction of the
ambient field, as had Boyles brick. At the end of the C19th
, Folgheraiter published a
series of papers in the proceedings of the Italian Accademia dei Lincei in which the work
by Melloni was cited and expanded to include results showing that the direction of
magnetization found in young basalts was parallel to the recent geomagnetic field. The
classical method of measuring the magnetism of a sample was to observe the effect of its
field on a suspended magnet in a torsion experiment.
Fortunately, rocks contain fine particles of various iron oxides such as magnetite,
titanomagnetite, maghemite, hematitie and sulphides such as pyrrhotite and greigite.
These fine particles are excellent magnetic memory elements and indeed just like those
used in magnetic tape. In this discussion we will not delve deeply into the origin of
magnetism. For example we will not worry about the differences between
ferromagnetism and ferrimagnetism, but simply recognize once again that magnets in the
general sense are aligned in magnetic fields. Once magnetized, the fine particle magnets
found in rocks need strong fields, or some other energetic process to reset their
- Mike Fuller
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
2/31
Rosetta Stone
2
magnetization. Given this, the reader may well ask how the weak geomagnetic field
manages to set their magnetism in the first place. Once again somewhat fortuitously, the
formation of the rock succeeds in setting this magnetization and recording the weak
geomagnetic field. One such process upon which much of the paleomagnetic record is
based is the magnetization that lavas acquire as they cool.
Neel theory.
The magnetization acquired when rocks cool in a magnetic field is often
misrepresented as the alignment of particles in molten magma that later becomes a rock.
Actually, the magnetization is usually acquired 100s of degrees below the temperature at
which basaltic rock solidifies. The properties of this thermal remanent magnetization, as
it is known in the trade, were established in the 1930s and 1940s by Koenigsberger in
Germany, Thellier in France and Nagata in Japan. Then, in the late 1940s, Neel
published a theory of TRM that has survived to this day and is the cornerstone of rock
magnetism theory.
Neels theory takes as a starting point the well-known fact that a magnetic particle
is in a lower energy state, if its magnetization is parallel to the ambient field, than if its
magnetization is in any other direction. The magnetic of energy a particle in a magnetic
field is the product of the magnetic moment of the particle and the field (-m.H), which in
turn is equal to the product of the saturation magnetization and volume and field (js.v. H)
Immediately below the Curie point when the particle has become magnetic, the
magnetization carried by the particles is in an unstable state subject to thermally driven
fluctuations in direction. Despite these fluctuations, there is a statistical bias at any instant
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
3/31
Rosetta Stone
3
in favor of magnetization close to the field direction because that is the lower energy
state. To be anthropomorphic, we may say that particles are happier in the lowest energy
state with their magnetization close to the field and therefore stay longer in this state than
in any other.
As temperature continues to fall, the energy driving the fluctuations decreases and
the bias in the directions of magnetization in the various particles is preserved as a record
of the field present during cooling. As Neels theory explains this change is very sudden,
so that the magnetization of particles changes from being unstable with changes in
direction in nanoseconds to stabilizing, so that the record is held for billions of years, in a
temperature drop of just a few degrees. We call this the blocking temperature of thermal
remanent magnetization for a particular particle.
Because the statistical bias was acquired at high temperature, the magnetic field
needed to achieve the bias was relatively small and the weak geomagnetic field was
sufficiently strong to be recorded. However, at room temperature the magnetization is
blocked and given the insignificant thermal fluctuations at this temperature they cannot
disturb the blocked magnetization. The weak geomagnetic field certainly cannot affect it
any more. For this reason, the particle retains its magnetization and is not affected by the
geomagnetic field any further. We can collect samples whose magnetization was acquired
millions, or even billions of years ago, measure it, and build up the history of the
geomagnetic field, Similarly the paleomagnetism of lunar samples and meteorites records
the fields in which they acquired their magnetization and allow us to glimpse of these
fields. As always there are complications and difficulties, but thermal remanent
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
4/31
Rosetta Stone
4
magnetization can demonstrably carry a high fidelity record of the field in which it is
acquired.
The discovery of Geomagnetic Field reversals
In 1903, Brunhes reported one of the most important discoveries that would ever
come from this paleomagnetic record of the ancient geomagnetic field carried by rocks.
He discovered the reversal of the geomagnetic field. He had heard of the work with
pottery by the Italians and knew that these fired clays gave excellent records of the field
in which they were fired. He decided that natural baked clays, such as those baked by
lava flows should also give a good record of the field. As related to me by Carlo Laj,
Brunhes had a friend in the department in charge of road construction in France and so he
asked this friend to let him know if any road cuts through lava flows with baked
sediments turned up. When his friend did come across one such site, he told Brunhes,
who collected from the fresh road cut. To Brunhes surprise, when he measured the
direction of magnetization of the baked clay he found that it was magnetized not in the
direction of the present geomagnetic field, but in exactly the opposite direction. Instead
of being magnetized to the north and down, as was appropriate for the region of France
where the road cut was, the clay was magnetized to the south and up. Brunhes also
chiseled out some of the basalt and found that this too was reversely magnetized. He
interpreted his results as evidence of a reversed geomagnetic field at the time the lava
initially cooled. The description of his work in his papers takes us back to a wonderful
era in science.
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
5/31
Rosetta Stone
5
Additional evidence for reversals accumulated during the first half of the C20th
.
Work by Matuyama in Japan demonstrated that all of the youngest lavas he investigated
were magnetized in a direction similar to the present geomagnetic field, but about half of
the clearly older flows were magnetized in the reversed direction. With the advent of the
new paleomagnetic efforts in the early 1950s, Roche working in the Massif Central of
France and Jan Hospers in Iceland produced convincing evidence of the geomagnetic
field reversal, as did members of Blacketts group at Imperial College. Hospers had even
suggested that in recent geological times the field had reversed roughly once every half
million years and took less than 10,000 years to do so. Both estimates were on the
money. Nevertheless, the topic of reversals was still controversial at mid-century. Much
of the reason was the discovery by Dr. Seiya Uyeda and Professor Nagata of Tokyo
University that some rocks when cooled in a magnetic field, acquired a magnetization in
exactly the opposite direction to that of the field. For some people, it was easier to accept
that the record in rocks was faulty than that the field could actually reverse, so field
reversals remained controversial.
The record of secular variation.
Meanwhile accurate records of the recent history of the geomagnetic field were
being built up. These studies established the history of what is termed secular variation.
Just one year after Boyle had shown that bricks could record the magnetic field in which
they were heated and allowed to cool, Halley had shown that this secular variation
involved a westward drift of the field. It was nearly another 200 years before Chevallier
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
6/31
Rosetta Stone
6
developed a secular curve using a series of flows from Mt. Etna that were historically
dated and could be used to show that Halleys observation persisted from earlier time.
In France, Emile Thellier and his wife had taken up the challenge of the recent
record of the geomagnetic field and laid the modern foundations of what is now called
archaeomagnetism. So far in this account we have only discussed the direction of
magnetization, but magnetization is a vector having direction and magnitude, as is the
geomagnetic field. The Thelliers were interested in the strength of the field, as well as its
direction and they found, like the Italians before them, that pottery was an ideal material
for these studies. That pottery contained very fine magnetic material, which was
magnetized during the firing of the clay and retained a faithful record of the field was
well known when they started work.
Koenigsberger, Thellier and Nagata had established that the intensity of thermal
remanent magnetization is proportional to the field in which it is acquired. One might
therefore think that it would be very easy to get the intensity of the field in which the
pottery was fired and acquired its magnetization. All that was needed would be to
measure the intensity of the magnetization of the pottery, give it a thermal remanent
magnetization in a known laboratory field and the ratios of the strength of the
magnetizations would give the ratio of the strengths of the fields. This did not turn out to
be quite so simple because the heating required to give the thermal remanent
magnetization in the laboratory sometimes destroyed the magnetic material in the pottery,
so that there was less material to acquire the laboratory thermal remanent magnetization
and the ratio no longer gave the correct ratio of fields.
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
7/31
Rosetta Stone
7
In the 1930s Koenigsberger in Germany and independently Emile Thellier in
France developed an incremental heating method that took advantage of the way in which
thermal remanent magnetization is discretely blocked in certain temperature intervals.
The method was based on the three laws of partial TRMs (pTRM) that had been
demonstrated by Thellier. By partial TRM we mean TRM acquired in some restricted
temperature range below the Curie point. The first law was the law of reciprocity which
states that the pTRM acquired in a temperature range of T(1) to T(2) is demagnetized in
the same temperature range. The second law which is the law of independence states that
the pTRM acquired in a particular temperature range is independent of pTRM acquired in
any other temperature range. The third law, the law of additivity states that pTRM are
additive in the sense that the pTRM acquired between
pTRM T(1) to T(2) + pTRM (2) to T(3) ..+ pTRM T(n-1) to T(n)
= pTRM T(1) T(n)
Taking advantage of these relationships one can compare the ratio of thermal remanent
magnetization to the natural remanent magnetization that the rock, or pottery carried
incrementally. In this way one can detect the destruction of the magnetic phases and
hence has an idea of the fidelity of the intensity estimate. Without going further into the
details of how the method worked, it is worth noting that despite many attempts to
improve the method, including some by the author, the method is still the gold standard
of intensity determinations. It is usually referred to as the Thellier-Thellier method.
Following Nagatas example, lets call it the Koenigsberger-Thellier-Thellier method to
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
8/31
Rosetta Stone
8
acknowledge the contribution of Koenigsberger, without any disrespect for the work of
the Thelliers. As early as 1938, Koenigtsberger had worked out the basis of the method
and presented results in the form we use to day. This was the same year as Thellier
presented his famous paper on the baked clay.
The results obtained by the Thelliers after the war began the process of building
up the record of the intensity of the magnetic field. It soon became clear that the
remarkable decrease in intensity that had been established by observatory records of the
field since Gausss determination in 1837 continued back through the two millennia since
Christ. In 1958, only the first few intensity determinations were available.
The paleomagnetic test of continental drift.
In addition to the use of these techniques of modern paleomagnetism to
investigate the past history of the field, paleomagnetism had plunged into a second more
controversial area - Wegeners theory of continental drift. The theory had for a long time
had its advocates, but also its disparagers, among whom were many of the more
distinguished theoretically inclined geophysicists of the time, who quite reasonably did
not see how the relatively thin crust of the earth could move around independently of the
material below. Remember that on the grand scale of our planet, the crust, mantle and
core are in about he same ratio as the skin, main fruit that we eat, and core of an apple.
Some of the strongest advocates were southern hemisphere geologists, who were
familiar for example with the detailed similarity of the geological sections in parts of
South America and Africa. These suggested the two had been contiguous at some stage
and moved apart subsequently. This strengthened the notion of drift based upon a simple
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
9/31
Rosetta Stone
9
comparison of the west coast of Africa with the east coast of South America. Another
advocate was Arthur Holmes, who wrote a classic text entitled The Principles of
Physical Geology, much read by physicists, needing to brush up their geological
knowledge. Nevertheless for most people in 1950s, continental drift was not
satisfactorily demonstrated - given a room full of geologists, roughly half would argue
vehemently for continental drift, whereas the other half would argue equally strongly and
convincingly against it. Clearly, some new data was required to settle the question.
Probably, Mercanton, who worked between the World Wars in France, was one of
the first to see that magnetic record of the geomagnetic field in rocks might be used to
test the idea of continental drift. Later Blackett1 became interested in this possibility, after
reading the 1948 paper of Johnson, Torreson and Murphy entitled the Pre-History of the
Earths magnetic field. He too saw the possibility of using the paleomagnetic record to
test continental drift. The recorded ancient inclination of the site could be compared with
present inclination. Then, assuming that the earths magnetic field had the same simple
form, when the rocks formed as it does at present, the difference recorded a change in
latitude between the rock present location and where it was when it acquired its
magnetization Any departure of the magnetization from north recorded a change in
orientation of the site by rotation. The situation is analogous to a sailor navigating by
_____________
1
Blackett had been a graduate student of Rutherford in the 1920s and had won a Nobel
Prize for his beautiful work with cloud chambers that had revealed collision products of
atomic nuclei hit by alpha particles.
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
10/31
Rosetta Stone
10
sextant, he can tell the latitude he is at and he can keep a record of the heading of the
boat, but he does not know his longitude without a clock. Blackett also had a sensitive
magnetometer capable of measuring the weak magnetism of sedimentary rocks. Although
the lavas had played a central role in the discovery of reversals, the record from
sediments was needed to build up the paleomagnetic record to test continental drift.
Unlike the lavas and baked clays that acquired a thermo-remanent magnetization (TRM)
during cooling, sediments acquired their magnetization during formation at essentially
room temperature.
The process whereby sediments acquired their magnetization is in principle
simpler than TRM, but is still not completely understood in detail. Certainly, particles
falling through water in the oceans, or in lakes experience a torque due to the
geomagnetic field and tend to align like compass needles. Eventually they reach the
bottom of the water column and become a part of the accumulating sediment. Initially,
they are still free to rotate in the water logged sediments and so in their new environment
they show a statistical bias towards the direction of the geomagnetic field.
However, the process of sedimentation, including, such indignities as bioturbation
produce a good deal of randomization. As the rock loses water and solidifies, the particles
are less and less free to rotate and eventually they are locked in place and their
magnetization is locked in with them. A magnetic record of the field is then retained.
become a part of the accumulating sediment. Initially, they are still free to rotate in the
water logged sediments and so in their new environment they show a statistical bias
towards the direction of the geomagnetic field. However, the process of sedimentation,
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
11/31
Rosetta Stone
11
including, such indignities as bioturbation produce a good deal of randomization. As the
rock loses water and solidifies, the particles are less and less free to rotate and eventually
they are locked in place and their magnetization is locked in with them. A magnetic
record of the field is then retained.
This depositional, or detrital remanent magnetization (DRM) tends to be about a
thousand times weaker than the saturation remanent magnetization that the rock carries
after being exposed to a very strong magnetic field, say from an electromagnet. This is
about a factor of ten less efficient than the TRM process. Because sediments often have
less magnetic material in them than do basaltic flows, their magnetization may be very
weak indeed and require very sensitive magnetometers to read the record.
The reason that Blackett had a sensitive magnetometer was because he had
wanted to test a theory of his about magnetic fields and the rotation of massive bodies.
The idea was that the origin of the magnetization of stars was a fundamental property of
their rotation. To check this idea, he built an astatic magnetometer underneath which the
magnetism of a gold cube was to be measured, so that the field predicted by the theory
could be detected. The work developing this system and the negative result were
described in a famous paper by Blackett entitled A negative experiment relating to
magnetism and the earths rotation and published in the Transactions of the Royal
Society.
Paleomagnetic techniques.
This is perhaps a good place to introduce the nuts and bolts of paleomagnetic
studies from sample collection to measurement and analysis.
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
12/31
Rosetta Stone
12
Fieldwork and collecting samples
Initially of course the sample has to be oriented and this was done by the simple
geological technique of finding and marking a dip and strike on a convenient flat surface.
The strike was found with what is essentially a spirit level in a Brunton compass. The
magnitude of the dip was found by aligning an inclinometer (also in a Brunton compass)
perpendicular to the strike, and measuring the angle by which the surface dips down from
the horizontal. The samples were then cut, or chiseled out of the face, avoiding
destroying the orientation marking. The large (about 6 x 6 x 6 inches) sample was then
lugged back to the vehicle used for collecting and transported it back to the laboratory for
preparation and measurements. The next stage was messy and slow. The samples were
set in plaster of Paris with the original dip and strike directions now horizontal. Finally,
small inch sized cylinders were drilled and cut for measurement.
It was soon found that taking a portable drill into the field was a much better
method and so we all converted chain saws to rock drills and lugged water and drills
around. The orientation was done after the core had been drilled but before it was broken
out. The great advantages are not lugging the samples back and the fact that the
cylindrical drill samples only have to be trimmed for measurement on returning in to the
laboratory.
All of us who have collected samples for paleomagnetism around the world have
had our share of adventures that this sort of behavior in remote parts of the world is heir
to and I have related some of mine in this text.
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
13/31
Rosetta Stone
13
Magnetometers
The initial workhorse of the subject was the astatic magnetometer based on
Blacketts approach. The principle of an astatic magnetometer is simple, but hard to
realize experimentally. Two magnets of equal strength and opposite polarity are mounted
on an assembly that also supports a mirror. This assembly is then mounted on a torsion
fiber and its deflection can be observed with a lamp and scale. In theory, such an astatic
system will not respond to a homogenous magnetic field because the torque that is
experienced by the upper magnet is opposed by an equal torque in the opposite sense
from the lower magnet. It therefore will not respond to the main geomagnetic field,
which does not vary significantly on the scale of the distance between the two magnets.
The tricky part is of course to get the two magnets very well balanced and aligned. When
this is achieved a sample can be placed below the bottom magnet and its field is stronger
at the lower magnet than at the upper, so that it unbalances the astatic system. The system
will then rotate and the field from the sample can be sensed. This is a classical torque
experiment used for generations by physicists. With multiple readings the magnetization
direction and intensity can be determined.
These astatic magnetometers are unfortunately tricky instruments to use, as well
as to make. One of the problems is that to make the system more sensitive, the torsion
fiber has made weaker, so that it responds to weaker torques. One type of fiber used was
finely drawn quartz, whose preparation was a very delicate art. As a consequence of
making the fiber weaker, the period of the instrument increases, so measurements take
longer and instrument drift problems become serious. Drift of an instrument may occur
due to any number of small changes in the equipment in response most often to minor
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
14/31
Rosetta Stone
14
temperature changes. Many a graduate student of my vintage has cursed these
instruments, as hours were spent watching minute deflections of a spot on a scale to
measure weak samples.
We have already seen what an important role the astatic magnetometer had played
in measuring the weak magnetization of sediments. Initially the Jodrell Bank
magnetometer was used by both Blacketts and Runcorns groups. In a recent talk at an
American Geophysical meeting, Ken Creer acknowledged what an important role
Blackett played, not only in providing the equipment, but in lending his considerable
reputation to the whole endeavor of paleomagnetism.
There were other instruments that measured the remanent magnetization of rocks
by spinning them near to a pick up coil hooked up to sensitive amplifiers. As Michael
Faradays celebrated law of induction formalizes, an electromotive force is induced in the
coil and a current flows proportional to the magnetization perpendicular to the spin axis.
To cut down noise the pick up coil is placed in a -metal shield. By spinning the sample
successively about three mutually perpendicular axes, the total remanent magnetization
of the sample can be found with some statistical redundancy. Eventually with advent of
modern electronic techniques, these became very sensitive and replaced the astatic
magnetometers. Nevertheless most of the classic paleomagnetic studies related to the
movement of landmasses were made using astatic magnetometers
It had also been realized from the early work that rock samples often carried a
magnetic record that consisted of a signal plus noise. The signal could be related to the
field that the rock had initially recorded during its formation. The later magnetizations
acquired by the rock could be of interest, or could be noise picked up by as mundane a
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
15/31
Rosetta Stone
15
problem as being exposed to a magnetic field during collection, or processing. Evidently
a procedure was needed to separate the signal from the noise to improve our
paleomagnetic records of the ancient field.
In our discussion of the Koenigsberger-Thellier-Thellier method of intensity
determination we saw that the original magnetization in the pottery, or rock was
incrementally replaced. Thus for example, the magnetization up to 100C was
demagnetized by heating the sample to 100 C, which unblocks that fraction of the
magnetization. The rock was then cooled down in a laboratory field to give a
thermoremanence in the same temperature range. Now, if instead of cooling the sample
in the laboratory field, it is cooled in zero field, or as near as we can get to zero field, then
the magnetization blocked below 100C will be largely randomized and eliminated. We
would have preferentially eliminated the magnetization blocked at low temperature and
we can then remeasure the sample. We can repeat the process going to progressively
higher temperatures. Often the noise is blocked in a lower temperature range compared
with the signal, so we improve the signal to noise ratio. If we are lucky, we may totally
eliminate the noise leaving our signal untouched.
There are other methods of demagnetization, such as alternating field
demagnetization and chemical demagnetization. All of them depend on somehow
separating the signal from the noise and eliminating the latter. The most commonly used
is alternating field demagnetization. Figure A3.5 (A) illustrates a situation in which the
signal and noise are carried by particles whose magnetization can be reset, or switched,
by different fields. In alternating field demagnetization, we take advantage of these
distributed switching fields of the particles carrying the magnetization. Figure A3.5(A)
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
16/31
Rosetta Stone
16
could also be plotted against temperature to illustrate the principle of thermal
demagnetization, in which case it would be the distribution of blocking temperatures that
would be used to separate signal and noise as described In the previous paragraph.
If an alternating field is applied in the absence of any ambient field, for example
when the sample is being shielded from the geomagnetic field. All particles whose
magnetization can be switched by the field are in equal numbers in each direction of the
alternating field. This field is then decreased to zero leaving the particles equally
magnetized up and down as shown in figure A3.5 (B). Those particles not switched by
the field are untouched. If we apply a field in between the switching fields of the signal
and noise, as shown in figure A3.5(A), then we will eliminate the noise and leave the
signal untouched. The application of the technique is rarely quite as simple as the
textbook example, but it is a very powerful technique universally used. It was pioneered
by the Dutch workers and in particular Hans Zijderveld, who also invented a clever
diagram to help interpret the results. In this technique, magnetization, which can be
randomized by a small alternating field is first eliminated and then the sample is
remeasured. The procedure is repeated with the field strength is progressively increased
thereby increasing the signal to noise ratio and again if we are lucky we may isolate the
signal from the field the rock was formed in.
The new results bearing on Wegeners continental drift.
One of the earliest papers to provide convincing evidence that the magnetization
of sediments required movement of at least parts of the crust relative to the magnetic field
was by Clegg, Almond and Stubbs in 1954. They recorded their results in the form of
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
17/31
Rosetta Stone
17
radial frequency plots (fig.A3.6). These clearly showed that the declination was rotated
clockwise from north, which was interpreted as indicating that the site had been rotated
by this amount since the rock had been magnetized. The inclination results were a little
more complicated in that they were not antipodal. Presumably, they had not been entirely
successful in cleaning out all of the noise. However, it was clear that the rocks must have
become magnetized at lower latitudes than those at which they were now found.
The authors were able to apply two tests of stability on a geological time scale
that had been published by John Graham in America in 1949. The first of John Grahams
tests is called the fold test. For this, the magnetization is observed across fold, which are
the rumples one sees in sedimentary sections, like those in a carpet that has been buckled
up. If the magnetization is constant when observed with the sedimentary layers folded, it
must have been acquired after the folding. On the other hand, if the magnetization is
constant when the fold is flattened out and the bedding planes returned to their original
configuration, then themagnetization must have been acquired before the folding. The
results from the New Red Sandstone passed this test.
A second test that is not quite so directly useful, but still can be a helpful indicator
is the conglomerate test. Conglomerates are sediments made up of fragments of earlier
sediments including coarse material that can reach boulder size. If the magnetization of
boulders of the sediment of interest are found to be randomly magnetized in the
conglomerate, this is good evidence that their earlier magnetization has survived and not
been reset by the processes of transportation and formation of the conglomerate. On this
count too, the remanent magnetization of the New Red Sandstone passed muster as a
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
18/31
Rosetta Stone
18
stable magnetization, probably acquired when the sediment formed some 150 million
years ago.
Another remarkable aspect of this study was that the rocks gave two sets of results
one group was magnetized with an easterly declination and a downward dip shallower
than the present field. The other was magnetized to the south an upward with again a
smaller dip than the present field and a direction rotated clockwise from due south. If one
assumed that the Triassic geomagnetic field was dominantly a dipolar field aligned close
to the rotation axis as is the present field, then it appeared that these sediments must have
been nearer to the equator when they formed and had subsequently rotated clockwise.
Moreover, the two directions were nearly exactly the reverse of each other, so that the
results were also consistent with the field reversing during the Triassic.
Meanwhile the group led by Professor Runcorn, first at Cambridge and later at
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, had made major progress. Ted Irving, who was to play a pivotal
role in the vindication of continental drift by paleomagnetic methods, carried out a study
of the Pre-Cambrian Torridonian sandstone from Scotland and published it as a Masters
thesis in the same year as the Clegg, Almond, Stubbs paper came out in 1954. He too had
found that sites at which he had collected from the Torridonian had moved far from their
location when the sediment acquired its magnetization. The results also fell into what
appeared to be normal and reversed groups, so Irvings results also argued for reversals.
Indeed Irving had plotted his results in a way that suggested the use of the patterns of the
sequence of reversals to correlate different geological sections within the Torridonian.
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
19/31
Rosetta Stone
19
Controversies in paleomagnetism.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that by 1958 there were plenty of data
from paleomagnetism consistent with reversals of the earths magnetic field and
continental drift. Why then were these ideas not accepted?
The controversy over reversals continued for another decade. The principal
reason, as we noted above, was the discovery of self-reversal - the process of acquiring
magnetism in a direction to the ambient field. If rocks could acquire thermo-remanent
magnetization in the laboratory opposite to the field in the laboratory, why shouldnt this
happen in nature. There was also a suggestion that there was a correlation between the
more highly oxidized lavas and those that were reversely magnetized. This strengthened
the case for self-reversal because self-reversing magnetization had initially been found in
more oxidized lavas. Yet these ideas neglected the good work of so many people
demonstrating the reality of reversals that it was relatively easy for me to accept the
reversal of the geomagnetic field. Perhaps this was also because of my early experience
of the fieldwork in Arran. John Leng had demonstrated that where the dykes were
reversely magnetized, so was the magnetization of the Old Red Sandstone that had been
heated and reset when the dykes were intruded. Conversely where the dykes were
normally magnetized, so were the baked sediments. This was a convincing argument that
the field had sometimes been reversed and sometimes normal during the period when the
dykes were intruded. Both the dyke and its baked contact had acquired the magnetization
of the field when they cooled.
The demonstration of field reversals was eventually to come much later when it
was found that rocks younger than about 780,000 years were all normally magnetized,
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
20/31
Rosetta Stone
20
that before that there was period of some 200,000 when the rocks were reversed. This
pattern was repeated back through geological time with rocks of the same age having the
same polarity. Clearly it was very unlikely that all rocks of a particular age were self-
reversing and much more likely that the geomagnetic field spends time in the normal
state and some in the reversed state. However, the general acceptance of field reversal
came still later when reversals played a key role in establishing the grand unifying theory
of the earth sciences.
The continental drift controversy continued on for years. The possibility of
explaining the results by polar wander was suggested. For some it was easier to accept
the motion of the pole of rotation with respect to the mantle. Tommy Gold had pointed
out in a characteristically amusing way that if a beetle moved on the surface of the earth,
the distribution of the earths mass changes. The moment of inertia of the earth changes
and the rotation pole will adjust or tilt to give rotation about the axis of the maximum
moment of inertia.
In 1957, Runcorns group published work that took the view that polar wander
could explain the observations. They described their results in a paper authored by Creer
Irving and Runcorn in the form of Apparent Polar Wander curves. This was possible
because one could always calculate the magnetic pole that accounted for the
magnetization direction observed providing one made the assumption that the field of the
earth always had the same simple form as the field of a sphere. The horizontal component
through the angle of declination from the meridian gave the direction to the pole. The
inclination, the angle by which the field direction deviates from the horizontal, gave the
distance to the pole through a simple relationship. The curves for the succession of poles
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
21/31
Rosetta Stone
21
for Europe and North America are shown.While they were aware that continental driftcould explain the results they preferred the recognized possibility of polar wander. This
hypothesis required fewer assumptions to be made and did not involve the difficulty of
continental crust plowing through the mantle, which was highly implausible.
Within Runcorns group the recognition of continental drift occurred at different
times for the various members. Ted Irving says that he had always been sympathetic to
the idea of continental drift, having been taught it in school. Ken Creer, who took the
crucial step of plotting the first polar wander curves based upon the paleomagnetic
results, must have recognized drift by the late 1950s. Neil Opdyke claims to have been at
Keith Runcorns Damascus Road like enlightenment. He tells of a lunch in the spring of
1956 with Westoll, a distinguished Professor of Geology at Durham University, who was
a strong supporter of drift. At that lunch Runcorn accepted continental drift. Although
there are always difficulties in tracing the development of ideas and temptations for
revisionist history, it is clear that although Runcorn eventually argued very strongly and
correctly for continental drift, he took a lot of persuading initially.
In 1958, the London group favored continental drift and in 1960, they published a
landmark paper An analysis of rock magnetic data by Blackett, Clegg, and Stubbs. In
this paper they presented the data by reducing the results to a standard city for each
continent and recorded its ancient latitude and rotation given through geological time by
the rocks to give figure A3.9. As we can see the different landmasses have moved with
different velocities, with Indian being the fastest. The landmasses also had different
histories of rotation. In the initial tabulation of the results they used the difference in
inclination between the ancient and present latitude, and the rotation, which they defined
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
22/31
Rosetta Stone
22
as the difference between the observed declination transformed to a positive or negative
quantity depending upon whether it was clockwise or anticlockwise. Here they
anticipated methods to be used decades later for determining the rotational history of
small regions with respect to the continental mass, of which they were a part. Without
wishing to reopen old battles, this paper has not, in my opinion, really received its due.
Of course, I may be prejudiced by my relationship with the London group through my
family. Be that as it may, I will quote in detail from the abstract of the paper as follows.
The results of this analysis strongly support the supposition that the
observed wide divergence between the directions of the remanent magnetic vectors of
older rocks and that of the present field is systematic and not a result of purely random
processes occurring through geological time. The most reasonable explanations of the
phenomenon appear to be that (a) the directions of earlier rocks have been changed by
some widespread physical or geological process since the time of their formation, (b) the
earths magnetic field has had strong multipolar components in past geological ages, (c)
a relative drift of the continents across the earths mantle has occurred. Of these
hypotheses, (c) appears to be the most plausible. On the tentative assumption that the
rock magnetic results can be explained by continental drift, it is possible to estimate the
ancient latitude and the orientation relative to the earths rotational axis of each
continent although by paleomagnetic measurement alone changes in it relative longitude
cannot be revealed.
By 1962 it was clear that the polar wander paths for America and Europe,
deviated systematically from each other when the paths were plotted in the configuration
of the landmasses today. However, when the masses were moved into the hypothesized
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
23/31
Rosetta Stone
23
drift positions the paths agreed. This was pretty convincing evidence of continental drift.
Yet, continental drift was still not generally accepted until like reversals of the field, it
came along as part of plate tectonics - the grand unifying theory of the earth sciences that
we keep anticipating.
This then gives some idea of the state of development of paleomagnetism that had
taken place up to about the end of the 1950s when I started my research.
23 6532
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
24/31
Rosetta Stone
Figure A3.1 Illustration of energy in a magnetic field H
- Mike Fuller
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
25/31
Rosetta Stone
Normal magnetization in France Reverse magnetization in France
Towards the North and Down. Towards the south and Up.
N Present Field S
Figure A3.2 Cartoon illustrating the discovery of reversely magnetized
rocks in France by Brunhes.
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
26/31
Rosetta Stone
Figure A3.3 Cartoon of depositional remanent magnetization process.
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
27/31
Rosetta Stone
(a) torsion head
(b) remote configuration to cut down noise.
Figure A3.4 Astatic magnetometer and (b) remote configuration to cut
down noise.
Figure A3.5 Spinner magnetometer.
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
28/31
Rosetta Stone
Fig. A3.4 Equipment for thermal demagnetization (a) Use of field
Helmholtz coils within a shielded room to minimize ambient field by
Bob Dunn and (b) Use of nested mu-metal magnetic shields to minimizeambient field by Schonstedt Co.
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
29/31
Rosetta Stone
(A) (B)
Figure A3.5 Alternating field demagnetization. (A) distribution of
switching fields of particles carrying noise (JA) and signal (JB), (B)
process of demagnetization.
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
30/31
Rosetta Stone
Figure A3.6. The remanent magnetization in the New Red Sandstone
from various sites in England presented as frequency polygons. Upper
plot declination, Lower plote inclination.
Figure A3.7 Fold, Conglomerate and baked contact tests.
Figure A3.7 Stability tests (a) the fold test, (b) the conglomerate test and
(c ) the baked contact test.
7/27/2019 ZApp.03.HistPmag History Paleomagnetism
31/31
Rosetta Stone
Figure A3.8 Apparent polar wander curves for Europe and North
America.
Figure A3.9 Paleomagnetic results compiled for different continents.
Top Related