ANZAC Day
Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Astronomy and Amateur Science
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 22-03-2011, 07:45 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Magnetic Fields May not Hold Atmospheres

Aha !
The idea that a planetary magnetic field being responsible for retention of atmospheres, is something I have always felt uncomfortable about.

So here's some good news about research which probes into this hypothesis ..

The importance of being magnetized

Quote:
Despite its magnetic field, Earth is losing its atmosphere to space at about the same rate as planets that lack this protective barrier against the solar wind. Scientists now are beginning to question whether magnetic fields really are vital to helping a planet hold on to its atmosphere.

"My opinion is that the magnetic shield hypothesis is unproven," says Robert Strangeway from UCLA. "There's nothing in the contemporary data to warrant invoking magnetic fields."

Each of the three planets is losing roughly a ton of atmosphere to space every hour. Some of this lost material was originally in the form of water, so this begs the question: how did the planets end up with vastly different quantities of water if they are all "leaking" to space at similar rates?
They go onto to compare the cases for Mars, Venus and Earth.

Its only my opinion (I have no evidence) but I have always felt the planetary field explanation to have been a 'weak' one.

Great to see scientists questioning the hypothesis, rather than blindly moving on assuming it is so !

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 22-03-2011, 09:48 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Strangeway goes on to hypothesise about 'neutral' atom loss form the atmosphere may be one explanation:

Quote:
This neutral loss might help explain why Mars is dry, but it can't explain why Venus is also without water. The escape velocity on Venus and Earth is too high for neutral loss to be significant.

"Venus is trickier," says Strangeway. Something must have been different in the past to explain why Venus has 100,000 times less water than Earth.
He concludes with:
Quote:
For Mars, the upcoming Maven mission from NASA will study ion and neutral losses and test whether these rates change during disturbances in solar activity and the solar wind.

If Strangeway had to guess, he would say the data will show that the difference between magnetized and non-magnetized planets will be slight. But he doesn't have any alternative mechanism for guarding our planet's water supply.

"We have to go back to square one," he says.
Re-examine the geological evidence of liquid water on Mars, I say.

In my opinion, in the case of Mars, perhaps the erosion there was primarily caused by ablation/sublimation of CO2 and H2O ices, and Mars never had any liquid water to begin with .. that's going back to square one !

So far, we seem to skip through the quantum leap from observing formations on Mars, to immediately concluding that because they look like those we've seen on Earth, they must have been caused by the same process - ie: liquid water erosion. Hence large volumes of liquid water must have been present in Mars' past. Then we go pursuing the catastrophy theories centred around where did it all go ?

(IMHO, of course - but based on observation and reading).

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 22-03-2011, 10:25 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
I can see a big issue at the bottom of all this:

If the planetary formation process is purely Chaotic, then the process is highly sensitive to the initial conditions. These conditions may end up determining the outcomes, which we observe today. And today, the outcome most obvious, across the Solar System, is the diversity of planetary environments within a comparatively tiny volume of space.

Monitoring the buildup of the extraordinary diversity of the environments we observe amongst the Solar System planets and then beyond to exo-environments, would then become a key scientific focus area.

If the count of planetary environment diversity starts to look like a bottomless pit, then our perspective on what it takes to get life started, (perhaps also a Chaotic process), may also be hugely broadened (ie: well beyond those we presently have).

If it takes way more environmental diversity than we currently imagine to get life started, then perhaps the common view that because the universe is so big, the chances of exo-life must be enormous, is vastly moderated. The rationale would be that maybe it takes a universe of the size we see, for one instance of life bearing environments to occur. And the alignment of diverse conditions, may just happen to occur rarely, in a given large volume of space. The particular alignment of the right initial conditions for life has happened at least once. Our problem is in trying to extrapolate from this instance without fully understanding the scale of numbers of non-life bearing environments, and then, the scale of of numbers of life-bearing environments. The parent population (the sum of the two) may just add up to what we presently see in our observable universe.

The more instances we see where things like planetary magnetic fields, perhaps not being the sole driver behind the presence of an atmosphere, the more we may start to emerge from what I feel may turn out to be a very narrow, myopic perspective of how life bearing environments may actually come into existence.

The perspective provided by Chaos Theory, suggests that many initially complex processes and elements spontaneously result in emergence of self-organisation, and that this emergence is sensitively dependent on the initial conditions, from amongst what might be a huge array of diverse environments.

The above thinking, (I believe), also fits in nicely with all the known Laws of Physics and Biological/Evolutionary processes. The only thing I can think of at the moment which stands in the way of this, is our present classical, fully deterministic thinking, inherited from our education systems and, perhaps, the classical physics eras.

At this is all in my humble, speculative opinion, of course - and discussion is most welcome.

Cheers

Last edited by CraigS; 22-03-2011 at 04:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 22-03-2011, 10:33 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Oh yes .. we also need to be very careful in our thinking about exactly which parts of our own planetary environment may or may not be sensitive to anthropogenic influence.

This is particularly important, if we are in the midst of an invisible (to us), long-term Chaotic process, sensitive only to the initial conditions.


Cheers
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 03:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement