You are now ready to help! We need creative ideas for how these rings might have formed naturally
that are consistent with key observations. Please consider if there is a way that the rings could have been made by a physical
process? Or are their various features diagnostic of a biological origin? If so, what sort of biotic activity could have formed
them? Remember, we are looking only for plausible, science-based explanations for the origin of the rings – i.e. those that are
based on phenomena known to occur or that could occur naturally. Write your explanations according to the format described below
and post them to Reddit for a chance to win that $500.
The competition will be launched on Monday February 16th at 13.00 hrs Greenwich Mean Time (i.e. 5.00am US Pacific Standard Time, 6.30pm Indian Standard Time, 7.00pm Bangladesh Standard Time, 9.00pm China Standard Time). It will close three weeks later at 4pm PST on Monday March 11th
The winner(s) will be person/team whose idea is most plausible in the eyes of the evaluation committee. The judges’s decision is final.
The evaluation committee will consist of Dr. Nigel Hughes, Dr. Eamonn Keogh, Ron Meyer, Jerry Gunderson, Mathew Knauss, and Ashlee Tyler. The evaluation committee reserves the right to consult with ad-hoc external members.
We reserve the right to spilt the prize(s) among two or more entries, if each we feel that each contributes a partial solution that makes more sense when combined with another solution.
Students and employees of UC-Riverside, and co-authors, friends and family members of the evaluation committee are not eligible for prizes (but are welcome to take part in the discussion).
The evaluation committee will judge the original idea posting, plus any amendments by the original proposer. They will guarantee to read up to the first 1,000 words of each idea submitted. They will read beyond this, or follow links to external images, videos or diagrams at their own discretion.
The reddit votes will not play any part in the evaluation.
Participants should not contact the evaluation committee directly before the contest ends. If you have a question that is not answered here, email mysteryringscontest@gmail.com
In the spirit of the competition we request should any professional paleontologists or geologists, such as faculty, graduate students or museum curators want to enter they do so via mentoring school students, undergraduates, or amateurs
Material
To help you help us, we list below 14 observations that will constrain your ideas.
Successful explanations must be consistent with these observations or, if not, provide ways in which they can be reconciled
with the observations:
Ring diameters vary from about 2 cm to 11 cm, and the distribution of sizes appears to be a normal distribution.
Cross sections through the rings (photos 3-5 above) suggest that if the rings formed at the seafloor (as opposed to within the sediment) they did so as grooves or ditches into the seafloor, rather than being upstanding circular structures such as the walls of a lunar crater. The grooves have apparently subsequently been infilled with sediment.
Ring walls are 2-4mm wide and width is not obviously dependent on ring diameter – rather, it is related to what material the wall is cast in: rings cast by mud are narrower than those cast by sand.
Rings extend down into the sediment as far as about 9 mm.
Ring walls may have several layers of mud and sand within them – they were not necessarily filled up with sediment in a single episode of deposition.
There is no indication of any structure preserved at the center of the rings.
Ring walls are sharply defined compared to other structures in these rocks that are clearly animal burrows – hence the rings might have formed after the burrowing activity took place.
Rings walls can be wider at the top of the ring than at the base, some even seem to have a slight bevel at the top. This is not the case in all rings.
It is possible that some rings were originally slightly tilted relative to the sediment bedding because in several cases sections cut across the rings suggest that one side is slightly “higher” in the sediment than the other. It is not clear that this pattern existed at the times the rings formed: it could be an artifact that happened as the sediment experienced compaction.
Ring distribution appears to be random on surfaces in which ring density is high. But where rings are distributed less densely, they tend to be dispersed, meaning their centers tend to be further apart from one another than chance would suggest. This may mean that rings forming at or near the same time were less likely to form in areas already occupied by other rings.
Rings are only observed on a small number of junctions between sand and mud layers in the quarry in which they are found – even though hundreds of similar junctions occur in the rocks exposed in the quarry.
The same rock unit is found commonly in the area, but these structures are only known at a single quarry. The rocks from this quarry are distinctive in the way they split well along bed partings so it is possible that the rings occur elsewhere but have not been recognized yet.
We do not know whether the rings formed at the seafloor, or whether they formed within the sediment after the layers containing them were buried.
When viewed in cross section there is nothing obvious either beneath or above the rings that throws any further light on their origins. The only structures associated with their formation are apparently the rings themselves.
Here are some links to vaguely similar phenomena, which we don’t think are related, but we include for the sake of elimination:
It should help to work trough the 14 observations in your head as you formulate your
idea. When submitting your ideas:
Please think of a short and distinctive title for your explanation. This is important as it will individualize the idea, and enable others easily to express their support for it.
When writing the explanation please balance the need to show how your explanation fits the data against the fact that others will be reading and voting on your idea so it should not be too long. We suggest one paragraph that presents a concise summary of your explanation, followed by a second paragraph that presents a little more detail on how the idea is consistent with the data. There is no need to discuss each of the 14 observations, but if your explanation contradicts one or more of them it would be well worth saying why.
In order to submit your idea, please go through the following steps: