Frozen core of a planet?

Question

Theoretically, if the core of a planet was frozen (cold rather than hot), could it support life? If not, what if the planet orbited a very, very hot sun (Much more so than earth's sun). Would this offset the frozen core of the planet and essentially make it the opposite of earth - warmer the further away from the equator?

Answer 1

One of the other answerers was right; it violates the laws of thermodynamics.  Unless there was an energy supply constantly cooling down the core, it would just heat up.  Also, even if it were cold to begin with, the convection from the sun through the empty space would heat the planet less than the contact with the core would cool it.  it would be a very cold planet.

But lets put that rule aside.  Let's say we did have a cold core, hot sun, and they canceled each other out.

Yes, it could support life.

No, if couldn't support life.

They're both right.  As of yet, the only life we know of is on Earth.  To us, there are the 5 (or 6, depending on how exact you want to get) kingdoms of living thing, and nothing else.  (Animalia, Eubacteria, Archaebacteria, Fungi, Plantae, Protista).  However, on foreign planets, we have no idea what their life could be like.  It could have blue plants as the leading sentience, for all we know.  Or maybe plants don't grow there at all.  Maybe there, life has evolved or become metaphyscial.  We really don't know. So basically, it's your opinion.

Now, ignoring pretty much all science and going straight for the brain-games:  If the universe is infinite, then there HAS to be at least one of everything.  In fact, there has to be an infinite amount of everything.  You name it, there has to be one.  Because if there wasn't, then um...    Well........

~J

Answer 2

the poles are the same distance from the core as the equator is.

Therefore, if the core affected temps at the poles, it would have the same effect on the equator regions.

The effect would therefore cancel out, and not have any influence on the differences in temps at the poles vs equator.

Answer 3

My first impulse was to say no, then I found this information.

Astronomers think the best environment for life around any star lies in a "habitable zone" – the zone in which a planet's surface temperature means liquid water can exist. Previous work has shown this belt widens and expands outward as stars like the Sun heat up and become bloated with age.

Now, a trio of astronomers in France and the US has calculated how long the habitable zone remains at various distances from the star. They compared that with the time it took for life to emerge on Earth - an estimated 700 million years - to see if the expanding "heat wave" could kick-start life on once-frozen planets.

They found stars like our Sun go through three stages that could foster life. The first lasts for about 10 billion years while the star burns hydrogen in its core. Our Sun is currently in such a period, called the "main sequence", and the Earth lies within this stage’s habitable zone. The zone extends from just within Earth's orbit to nearly the orbit of Mars (or 0.95 to 1.37 astronomical units, with 1 AU being the distance between the Earth and Sun).

Growing core

Then, when the star begins to burn its hydrogen in a shell around a growing helium core, it brightens and expands and becomes a "sub-giant". The habitable zone sweeps outward, extending from 2 to 9 AU. The inner edge of this zone remains habitable for several billion years while the outer extreme, where Saturn currently orbits, is habitable for a few hundred million years.

The star then fluctuates in brightness for about 20 million years as it switches to burning helium almost exclusively, before becoming a red giant and swelling to 10 times the diameter of the Sun. For about a billion years afterwards, the habitable zone around the red giant extends from 7 to 22 AU, the outer edge of which lies beyond the orbit of Uranus.

"So planets that are currently very cold and icy can warm up and become potentially habitable," says William Danchi, a team member and astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, US. "The analysis shows the time period over which these conditions change is very long - long enough for life to form."

Answer 4

I was all set to write a lot about this, and then I read Shawn P's answer.  It says it well.  I'll just let it stand, and give him a thumbs up.

Answer 5

the motlen iron in the core of the earth is what causes the magnetic fields that protect ALL life from solar radiation that would otherwise fry them in minutes, even seconds.

i don't think any type of icy substance could replicate this field, thus we'd have no shield from radiation nor would the planets atmosphere have protection from solar winds blowing it away.... so even if the planet had an atmosphere, it would be on a very limited life-time... thus no life could develope, atleast as we know it....

scientist believe at one point, mars had a much more hospitable atmosphere becuase it too had a core, that has since cooled down some, and the magnetic field lessned, allowing the planets atmoshpere to be blown away....

that's what eventually in store for the earth if the sun doesn't 'eat' us first.... at some point our core will begin to cool and freeze up, and then our atmosphere and protection from solar radiation will be gone as well... and earth will turn into what mars is now.

Answer 6

If a planet rotated a hot sun, its core would never be frozen. That breaks the laws of thermodynamics.

Answer 7

The temperature of a planet's core has nothing to do with the surface temperature of the planet.

A molten planetary core is necessary to generate a global magnetic field around the planet (by the dynamo effect) - the magnetic field protects the planet's surface from UV and cosmic radiation.

On Earth, the molten interior also drives plate tectonics to reshape the continents, it drives volcanoes and earthquakes which resurface the planet and "recycle" materials.  Gases such as carbon dioxide and water from the interior are released by the geological activity, replenishing those gases that may have been lost to space.

A planet orbiting too close to its star would not be habitable for humans due to the heat - we need a temperature range that is relatively narrow, that allows liquid water to exist on the surface.  And if the planet is too close to its star, it will be tidally locked (like the moon is to the Earth) and would always face one side to its star - that would not be habitable for us.