1200 views

Over 15,000 photos and growing!


  21 - July - 2023

This Month       Today's Picture       Select a Month

Submit a Picture

Where is My Picture?!

The Queue


Select by   Contributor

Met Name

Met Type

Thin Sections


Recent Comments

Pica Glass   contributed by Steve Brittenham, IMCA 2184   MetBul Link


Roll Overs:       1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14    


Click the Image for a Zoomable Photo

View all entries for   Meteorite (1)   Steve Brittenham (115)


Copyright (c) Steve Brittenham.
478 grams.   Impactite



Note from the MPOD Webmaster on 3-D Viewing:
I cannot fuse the stereo-pair images as presented. They are too large for my aged eyeballs to bring together. If you have the same problem, try this:

1) Click on the picture to view the full-resolution photo.

2) Click the 'Smaller' button 10-15 times to shrink the picture to the point where you can fuse the images.

3) Hold the mouse over the 'Bigger' button, fuse the pictures, and click the mouse while keeping the images fused to see how large you can go.

More Info on 3-D Viewing



Steve writes:
Pica Glass, like the 478-gram example shown in Photos 1 through 3, is a dark grey-green impact silicate; it’s found in several Late Pleistocene sediments along a 47-mile (75 km) strewn field near the town of Pica in northern Chile’s Atacama Desert. Thousands of pieces have been collected from five areas, each between one and three kilometers across (see Photo 4, modified slightly from an original graphic by Peter H. Schultz et al. – Pica is near the second circled area from the left).

Originally discovered in 2012, competing theories regarding Pica Glass’ formation occurred in 2016 and 2017. The first described a near-ground cometary explosion some 12,000 years ago (a time of rapid climate change in the Southern Hemisphere and just after the area became inhabited by proto-Archaic hunter-gatherers, who likely observed the event). The second theory, noting twigs and other plant material seen trapped in some pieces of Pica Glass, postulated that massive wildfires during exceptionally dry periods melted soil with accumulated plant material to create glass, similar to a 1961 Australian haystack blaze that produced 16 tons of hay-silica from 325 tons of pasture plants (unlike today, 12 millennia ago the Atacama Desert was populated with rivers and oases with trees and grassy wetlands).

But a 2021 paper described analyses of 70 thinly sliced Pica Glass samples that identified nickel-rich minerals, troilite, cubanite, and other exotic substances commonly found in meteorites but unrelated to the local rocks, as well as trapped extraterrestrial dust that strongly resembled carbon-rich particles like those seen in CI chondrites and the Comet 81P/Wild material collected during NASA's Stardust mission. Additionally, the team found embedded zircon crystals and baddeleyite (zirconium dioxide) that can only form when temperatures exceed 1670° C (3000° F) – typical of a meteorite impact, but twice that of the hottest terrestrial forest fires. These results confirmed the 2016 theory of Pica Glass’ origin, with Brown University professor Peter Schultz concluding “This is the first time we have clear evidence of glasses on Earth that were created by the thermal radiation and winds from a fireball exploding just above the surface”. (Like the 2016 paper, the 2021 researchers also describe a cometary airburst, but I’m not smart enough to understand how they decided on a comet versus a meteor as the near-impactor.)

As an interesting aside, the formation of Pica Glass occurred at a time not inconsistent with the Younger Dryas event – a suspected massive cosmic impact that caused major climate shift, megafaunal extinctions, and corresponding changes in human cultures (the Younger Dryas boundary layer is observed across Greenland, North America, Central America, parts of South America, most of Europe, and parts of the Middle East – it contains excess platinum, osmium, quench-melted glass, carbon spherules, high temperature minerals, nanodiamonds, and other materials consistent with an extraterrestrial impact event).

Often opaque but sometimes semi-translucent, Pica Glass is quite light, often frothy, and can exhibit folds, twists, rolls, sliding, shearing, and flowlines. Intense heat from the air-burst explosion and the supersonic winds accompanying it not only melted the surface soil and plants, but ejected melted material into the air that formed the myriad of shapes seen in typical examples. Rapid cooling forced hot gas bubbles to the surface to create the vesicles observed in most pieces. And the fact that there are five major, but separate accumulations of Pica Glass suggest the comet may have broken up into multiple pieces during its plunge through our atmosphere.

Photos 5 and 6 provide 3D crossed-eyes and red-cyan anaglyph views of the front of the piece in today’s post – in it, one can better see the complex features typical of this glass.

Photos 7 and 8 are 3D crossed-eyes and red-cyan anaglyph photomicrographs showing an area exhibiting an almost foamy texture (one can see in Photos 9 and 10 a frothy vesicle inside of a more traditionally glassier exterior).

Photos 11 and 12 are 3D crossed-eyes and red-cyan anaglyph photomicrographs of an area with a secondary kind of lighter material that is occasionally seen in small areas of this specimen.

And finally, Photos 13 and 14 are 3D crossed-eyes and red-cyan anaglyph photomicrographs of a tubular “tunnel” (right of center) that shows the material changing with depth (the bubbles within bubbles just under and to the left of center is kind of interesting too).

IMPORTANT NOTE: As Paul has pointed out in my prior posts with 3D images, it is easier to start with them scaled as small as possible, then increase the size while maintaining focus. This advice is most applicable to the crossed-eyes 3D images, but it also helps with the red-cyan anaglyphs having significant depth.
 


Comment on this MPOD                      
Name
Comment

980 max length

  Please - NO Dealer Ads in the comments
but pictures from dealers are gladly accepted

Tomorrow

Ysleta
Anne Black

This Month

Steve Brittenham
 7/22/2023 12:29:11 AM
Thanks, Jason. I'll take a look at the reference you described. As a rank amateur in all of this, I try to find as much info in a reasonable amount of time as I can (I usually spend at least a couple of days on each), then do my best to summarize everything to add to my posts. So I really appreciate feedback like that from you and Eric, as it really helps all of us learn much more about things (and correct any mistakes I might inadvertently make). Again, thanks!
John L
 7/21/2023 9:59:02 PM
I can honestly say that I know 100% more about Pica Glass than I did yesterday. Along with several avenues of reference, the conversation was most informative for me. And yes, I second what that French lady said --very interesting Indeed, (oh mec je vois problemes). And the Big thanks go to Paul for this daily outreach venue. Outreach -- this MPOD is It. Good stuff, goodnight.
Anne Black
 7/21/2023 8:56:26 PM
Thank you Jason, Steve, Eric, John L. ..... everybody. Very interesting.
Jason Utas
 7/21/2023 8:17:42 PM
Steve - there is no convincing evidence for airbursts ever producing substantial terrestrial melts at this point in time. Mark Boslough originally proposed that Libyan Desert Glass formed via an airburst; he gave a talk at UCLA a few years ago with an update to his research, ~recanting that theory. Eric Christensen pointed out a paper and some problematic facts, and I would also direct you to Roperch et al.'s 2022 comment on Schultz et al.'s 2021 paper: hal.science/hal-03654939/document I believe that comment answers most of your questions - including why 'multiple airbursts' doesn't work. Anne - Pica Glass is similar to Dakhleh and Edeowie glasses, both of which also formed in paleo-wetlands. The above link / comment addresses why these environmental controls are important and do not support the theory that these glasses are impact or airburst-related.
Steve Brittenham
 7/21/2023 5:44:30 PM
Thanks, everyone, for your comments (and sorry Jason - I was doing too much at once and mistakenly put Peter down when replying to you). I need to review my various notes about different ages of trapped organics, as I thought I remembered (maybe wrongly) some discussion of that in the airburst theory. I'm not vested in either and still personally have some questions about both. As an example, for a terrestrial melt scenario, are multiple fires over time required to explain the different ages (which of course is possible with recurring periods of drought)? And does anyone know if the organic ages are similar in time at each site but differ across the five sites, or are they mixed in each of the five? Also, I thought one paper proposed separate airbursts from the comet breaking up to create the isolated locations (though again, that's for clarification - I'm not arguing for that theory). Anyway, I appreciate the discussions guys - I learn a lot from it!
Eric Christensen
 7/21/2023 4:19:23 PM
Pica glass is highly unlikely to have anything to do with an airburst impact. The Roperch 2017 paper does a good job of explaining why, and subsequent authors haven't explained why trapped organic material has a spread of hundreds or thousands of years in 14C ages (implying separate thermal events were responsible for Pica glass formation). Requiring a comet to airburst and selectively melt five small areas of desert spread over ~50km (all situated at similar elevation, oriented along the N-S topography of the Cordillera) while leaving the remaining desert untouched is extremely contrived.
John Lutzon
 7/21/2023 2:44:32 PM
Since you asked, let me clarify this query. To wit: my studies, without doubt, indicate ........................, furthermore, ..........and verified by............. In conclusion; reVision in any field will always equal Vision. A heavier than air flying machine, really. And, the famous quote from the Patent office "everything that can be invented has been invented", debunked, but applicable. I am so grateful, in my lifetime, to have petted the nose of a twice a week horse drawn vegetable wagon to typing on a worldwide piece of plastic discussing subjects such as this. The answer to many of our questions is hopefully within our present day reach. Oh, are Iridium signatures the key?
Steve Brittenham
 7/21/2023 1:02:58 PM
Peter, thanks for the insight. That*s what I like about science * lots of great (and often evolving) ideas regarding interpretation of past and new data, peer reviews that lead to better explanations, and (hopefully) an eventual explanation that most find acceptable. Sometimes the once craziest ideas prevail, other times the most simple and straightforward hypotheses are correct. Sounds like the jury*s still out on Pica glass! And Anne, that*s a great question, but I don*t know the answer * hopefully someone with knowledge can reply. Superficially, I*m intrigued by things like some Wabar impactites being attracted to magnets, and the differences in typical shapes of various impactites and tektites. But from a compositional standpoint, we*d need an expert to comment.
Anne Black
 7/21/2023 11:23:39 AM
Thank you Steve, thank you Jason, very interesting. One question: how does it compare with other known impact glasses, Wabar, Ivory Coast, and others, as far as composition and shapes.
Jason Utas
 7/21/2023 11:03:30 AM
The exotic phases described in Pica Glass could easily have formed in a high temperature, reducing fire, in the same way that forest fires have been shown to produce fullerenes / buckyballs and nanodiamonds. Troilite / Cubanite has been naturally produced in burning coal waste piles; it does not prove an extraterrestrial origin. It proves that some iron and sulfur - both common elements - were present in a reducing fire. Elevated levels of PGEs in Pica Glass have not been well-documented and should be compared to the Younger Dryas *iridium anomalies,* which were not reproducible in later studies. There is also no reason to believe that the zircon crystals and badellyite observed in Pica Glass formed in-situ, and at the assumed low H2O contents. And you wouldn*t expect zircon to crystallize in a quenched impact glass, anyway. I don*t understand why, but it looks like a few scientists have set out to *prove* something that may not be true.
 

Hosted by
Tucson Meteorites
Server date and time
9/20/2024 3:31:53 AM
Last revised
09/14/24
Terms of Use Unsubscribe