The Theory of Nemesis and Reoccurring Mass Extinctions

For several decades, the topic of periodical mass extinctions has been one of much debate and speculation by the scientific community as well as the media and public. Throughout the past few decades many theories have been researched, but a constant struggle for acceptance and recognition between each theory prevents one from standing out among the others. However, in the 1980’s one particular theory began to make headlines in literature throughout the science world as well as in more widely recognized media such as Time and the New York Times. The theory states that the Sun, which was long thought to be a single star, may actually have a companion star. As this proposed star orbits the sun, it is possible that certain comets may have been thrown out of their orbit by its gravitational field. (Goldsmith 1985) These comets were then directed at Earth, thus causing catastrophic events upon impact such as the extinction of the dinosaurs sixty-five million years ago. In 1984 this theory came to be known as the Nemesis Theory. Research has given much support to this theory, but there as also been substantial opposition with many questions left unanswered. Because this t

Among all the supporting evidence are many arguments against the Nemesis Theory. Some argue that such an elliptical orbit as the one Nemesis is said to have, would not be able to be maintained and Nemesis would have traveled out of our solar system long ago. In return, supporters of the theory say that the star’s orbit was once closer to the sun and has since been altered by the gravitational pull of other objects such as a passing star. This could also be the cause for the variations in time between each periodic mass extinction. Realistically, their intervals of occurrence range from twenty-six to thirty million years.

Supporters of the Nemesis Theory will most likely be facing a long term struggle to gain acceptance for their theory. The testing of iridium and osmium are both strong supporters of the theory. However, the arguments against Nemesis do not seem to be challenged very well by supporters. There are too many questions left unanswered or answered poorly. When I first read of the Nemesis Theory, I was very interested and it seemed logical. I was a believer before doing more reading. However, now after writing this paper, I am more skeptical and there are questions that I would want answered more clearly before giving my support to the theory. I don’t think that the existence of Nemesis is impossible or even improbable, but I feel that just isn’t enough support for the theory as of yet.

One of the main pieces of support for the Nemesis Theory is proof of periodic extinctions. Records of marine fossils were studied by Dave Raup and Jack Sepkoski in 1983. Their findings showed that the extinctions around the K-T boundary were not the only of their kind. They found that other mass extinctions were occurring on intervals of roughly twenty-six million years. The public acceptance of periodic mass extinctions would be one of the first steps in gaining acceptance for the Nemesis Theory.

Details of the Nemesis Theory were first documented in Nature by Marc Davis, Piet Hut, and Richard A. Muller in 1984. However, speculation on this topic began in 1980. The article “Extraterrestrial Cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction” published in Science by Luis Alvarez, Walter Alvarez, Frank Asaro, and Helen Michel was one of the first pieces published on the idea of an extraterrestrial impact

Some topics in this essay:
Nemesis Theory, Oort Cloud, Snowbird Conference, Gubbio Italy, Theory Research, Helen Michel, Mass Extinctions, York Times, Jack Sepkoski, Tertiary Period, mass extinctions, nemesis theory, magnetic field, raup 1986, support theory, earth’s magnetic, periodic mass, k-t boundary, earth’s magnetic field, roughly twenty-six, extinctions k-t boundary, extinctions k-t, periodic mass extinctions, support nemesis theory, asaro helen michel,