If water flowing over continents in rivers is what concentrates salt in our ocean, would a planet that has always been covered in water just be freshwater? The water is just sitting there, not eroding through salts.

  • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Water and salts are a package deal. If you have a planet with one, you’re going to have all the others as well, because they all come from an exploding star.

    When a star goes supernova, it creates oxygen, which can later combine with hydrogen to make water. That very same supernova also makes sodium, potassium, magnesium, chlorine, sulfur etc. so you end up with all the elements for making a bunch of different salts. Ask physicists why supernova does this sort of packaging.

    • HotDayBreeze@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      The presence of sodium and chlorine on the planet makes sense to me, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s dissolved in the water. I think the key understanding is if the water cycle is the key component of dissolving salt in water, or if the much less dramatic erosion on the bottom of the ocean is sufficient to make the water notably salty.

      So far the best answer I’ve got is that water in comets and otherwise outside the planet might actually be something like salty, so maybe freshwater is just a temporary aberration of the water cycle.

      At the same time, we know there are some processes that remove salt from oceans (e.g. the salt formations at the bottom of the Dead Sea), so in the end I think it would come down to where that balance of salt in vs salt out. It’s not totally clear to me that without the continental influx of salt from rivers, that that balance would result in something like freshwater or saltwater. This thread has highlighted several factors that come in on both sides, so it may be something we won’t know until we’ve explored more planets.

      • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        18 minutes ago

        According to NOAA, the ocean was originally not very salty but became saltier over time as rivers eroded the land and delivered the dissolved minerals to the ocean. At the same time, salts crystallize out of the water and are deposited on the ocean floor. This input and output are now more or less balanced so the ocean is not getting saltier. Apparently, this salt cycle involves about 4 billion tons of new dissolved salts being added to the ocean each year and about the same amount being deposited from the water to the ocean bottom.

        So, why aren’t rivers salty? Apparently, it is because rivers carry only a small amount of salt and are kept fresh by constant rainfall, whereas the ocean has been accumulating salt for the last 4 billion years.

        Lakes that don’t drain to the ocean, like the Dead Sea, can get salty over time, just like the ocean.

  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Even fresh water has stuff dissolved in it, just in lesser amounts. Pure water isn’t a naturally occurring thing that lasts long. There are two components, water’s polarity which grabs things that are available, and how water in a large system that is getting energy isn’t going to stay still and “sit there”.

    Something interesting I learned the other day in following the recent launch of the Europa Clipper. One of the things they want to explore is how as Europa moves through the huge magnetic field of Jupiter it induces a magnetic field of its own. Why is this relevant? It’s one bit of evidence that the waters under the ice have salts dissolved in them, giving them conductivity to produce this field. So even there water is not “fresh”.

  • somebodysomewhere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Enceladus, a moon of Saturn is actually mostly water, but salt has been found in volcanic emissions ejected into space.

    That said it’s not impossible that conditions exist somewhere in the universe where you have H2O and no NaCl since that is the salt we usually mean when we talk about salt water. Unfortunately it is not the only thing found to be mixing with water as on Jupiter, liquid water does exist but it mixes with amonia.

  • meco03211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    20 hours ago

    The reason water is concentrated in oceans isn’t specifically due to continents existing. Salt doesn’t evaporate so all rain is fresh water. That fresh water falls. When it falls over land it flows to the lowest point it can go. This leads to all flowing water flowing towards oceans and seas. Salt won’t travel upstream. Ergo salt simply stays in oceans and seas.

    Now consider a world with no land. This wouldn’t really differ from a single ocean on earth. Currents and waves will move in all directions at some point which should mix the salt all around. You could get some differences if there were ice caps or icebergs. Those could behave similarly to continents depending on size.

  • ctkatz@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    18 hours ago

    probably not.

    unless the planet is water all the way down, I don’t think it’s possible to have life or even submerged landmasses that don’t have the chemical elements that can create salts. dead things would dissolve in the water and chemicals in rocks will leach into water over time.

    now if this water planet is far enough away from the sun to freeze, sure. the frozen ice should be all fresh. I’m not aware of any salts that stay in frozen water ice. the stuff underneath the frozen stuff most definitely will be salty.

    not a chemist or chemistry major but I’m using the word “salts” deliberately. there’s more types of salt than NaCl.

    • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      If salts were present when the water froze, the salts would still be there. If the ice is pure water but you can’t microscopically brush away all the salts during thawing, can fresh water be extracted?

  • rowinxavier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    21 hours ago

    It depends on the composition of the planet. If it is just a massive ball of water floating in space then it will be whatever purity that is, plus whatever space dust and impactors bring in.

    If it is basically a terrestrial planet with water on top, say earth plus a lot of water, then it would be salty. The thing with salt water is contact between the water and rock. If there is sufficient heat it will circulate, so salty water from the bottom of the ocean may be heated by magma or similar and then it will be less dense, floating upwards to the surface. Along the way it will mix and cool, leading to dispersal of the dissolved salts.

    The only way I can imagine a planet with a solid subsurface completely coated in freshwater would be if the planet snowballed hard, no radioactive materials left in the core making heat, no significant tidal pull on the core, and then after reaching a very cold temperature having slow addition of clean water from comets. That said, comets are dirty, they have lots of stuff, so you would need somehow clean comets. Still, at that point once sufficient water has hit the surface it could form a thick enough layer over the salty ocean below and start to melt, maybe from greenhouse effects. As soon as it runs away and keeps heating enough it will start to melt the core ice though, so you could have a short lived window in that freak occurrence but it will be very temporary and not at all likely.

    • HotDayBreeze@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Thanks for all the detail! Your observation about comets is really pertinent. Saltwater is probably itself a purer form of water than comets. Maybe an ocean planet is actually more like a muddy swamp of nasty dirty water than a lake.

      • rowinxavier@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Well it depends too on how long things take to settle out. Salt is easily suspended in water, but silt is not, so the water would be salty but not muddy. The water would also probably have lots of photosynthetic bacteria/algae in it, so you would probably have blooms of green, blue, red, and brown all over. Those blooms would uptake light and carbon through that process then as they died drop the content down the long water column. All sorts of feeding below that would create a full eecological web. If there were deep sea vents, volcanic activity breaking through the sea floor, you would have a second source of energy and chemistry at the bottom. That said, the over level of life at the surface would be limited by things like iron, phosphorus, copper, and so on. Any heavier ions would be less available at the surface because there is no surface erosion bringing them in at the top so as they are bound up in dead algae they will drop to the floor.

        The rate limiting at the sea floor will be based on energy but not too bad, you would likely see a lot of diverse life around vents and it would have a fairly large complexity over time. That said, the depth would make for less complex life due to the lack of light and associated vision. Some things would make light but it would be dangerous to make and would not be super common.

        Another interesting consideration is the geography of the sea floor. Would there be fault lines? If there are continental plates but way under the ocean they would still have movement, so subduction and so on would play out, so you would probably have chains of vents along the diverging or merging plate boundaries. Life would spread along these lines, so life would be closely related at nearby vents but distant over the surface of the planet. I would anticipate a fairly heterogeneous population over the surface of the planet in the deep, but far less so at the surface.

  • over_clox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Disclaimer: Not an expert.

    Thoughts: I think this would largely depend on multiple factors, such as the overall composition of the planet, a hypothetically almost perfectly spherical core underneath the water, and not having a moon to shift the water tides around.

    And even then, solar gravitational tides are a thing, so the water would most likely still move. Also, I’m pretty sure there’s no perfectly spherical planet, so I assume there would still be some sort of underwater erosion going on.

    All speculation though.

    • HotDayBreeze@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I was trying to figure out how much underwater erosion there is but if you compare the sandy and silty bottom of the ocean to like, Utah, it seems like continental erosion is orders of magnitude more significant.

      Conversely, we know oceans deposit all sorts of stuff at their bottoms, which makes me think there is a small amount of salt being deposited. Would that cancel out significant underwater erosion?

      Similarly, if underwater erosion was a big deal, wouldn’t old lakes (in geological time) be notably saltier than young lakes? But the only salty lakes we have primarily lose all their water through evaporation, basically ultra concentrated river water.

  • Chozo@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    I think it would largely depend on whether or not there are any moons causing tidal forces.

  • shonn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Fresh water is because of rain and snow. You get fresh lakes and rivers because rain and snow melt washes any salt and minerals out into the ocean. If you didn’t have land as a buffer, the rain would just fall into the salty ocean.

    • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Very true, but I think the root of their question is: if there was no land above the surface, would the oceans be salty to begin with?

      • HotDayBreeze@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Exactly. If a planet ever had a salty ocean, adding more water probably wouldn’t dilute it in any meaningful way, so it would need to be a planet that never had continents.

        • meco03211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Overall composition of a planet is what would matter, not whether there is land. If there is salt on the planet, it would almost assuredly have salty oceans. Salt diffuses in water. If you put salt into a glass of water and leave it sit, eventually the salt would dissolve and mix completely. Salt water has a different density than water. The act of dissolving involves energy changes. These create small eddies and currents that would mix the water until it was in equilibrium. If there is salt in any form on your waterworld, the only way it wouldn’t be salty is if the salt was permanently separated from the water physically.

        • PunnyName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Continents and the surface are just areas of the planet that don’t have water covering them up.

          If Earth’s oceans rose only a few miles up, it would be a water planet, but these things would still exist. Including plate tectonics and the circulation of magma / molten core.

          Water circulates due to pressure, temperature, and impurities, each having their own positive feedback loop into the system before it finds a balance.

          • HotDayBreeze@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            19 hours ago

            Sure but once a continental plate is flooded, isn’t it by definition an oceanic plate at that point? A continent only exists if it isn’t flooded.

            • PunnyName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              18 hours ago

              I mean, it’s basically arguing semantics, which was my point. Temperature, sediment, etc. transfer will still occur, and erosion will happen. It would just happen at different time scales.