Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Astronomy and Amateur Science

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 07-05-2007, 05:41 AM
glenc's Avatar
glenc (Glen)
star-hopper

glenc is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Terranora
Posts: 4,383
Mercury’s outer core partially molten.

By William Atkins
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/11837/1066/

After being sent to the planet Mercury, radio waves bounced off its surface and then traveled back to two ground-based telescopes, one in California, and another in West Virginia. The resulting measurements found a surprise in the interior of the planet.
The time difference in the oscillations of the radio waves when they reached the two Earth telescopes showed that Mercury’s outer core is, at least, in a partially molten state.
Led by Jean-Luc Margot, of Cornell University (Ithaca, New York), a team of U.S. and Russian researchers used measurements from radar speckle patterns to find the spin rate of Mercury. They discovered that Mercury wobbles too much to have a solid core.
In such a molten state, Mercury wobbles as it revolves on its axis to such a degree that would prevent it from having a completely solid core. Consequently, scientists now contend that Mercury has only a 5 to 10% chance of having a solid core.
Their conclusions, under the authorship of Margot, S.J. Peale, R.F. Jurgens, M.A. Slade, and I.V. Holin—titled “Large Longitude Libration of Mercury Reveals a Molten Core”—are found in the Friday, May 4, 2007 issue of Science (volume 316. number 5825, pages 710–714).
Scientists prior to 1974 thought that the closest planet to the Sun and the smallest planet in our solar system had a solid iron core. However, in that year, NASA’s Mariner 10 space probe found that Mercury has a weak magnetic field after measuring Mercury’s atmosphere, surface, and environment. At that time, scientists conjectured that such a weakened magnetic field should be associated with planets with molten cores.
For 33 years, scientists could not prove that Mercury had a molten core. However, the results of the Margot team in 2007 have found that the oscillatory measurements of the radar waves were twice what should be expected for a completely solid body.
The planet Mercury is similar in appearance to the Earth’s Moon—being heavily cratered on its surface. It has only a tenuous atmosphere and a large iron core (possibly as much as 75 to 80% of the radius of the planet), which generates a magnetic field about 1/100th as strong as the magnetic field of the Earth. Still, the planet is the second densest planet in the solar system—a property that makes its evolution still a mystery to scientists.
The conclusions from the Margaot team will help to form the developing theory behind the planet’s history and the origin of its magnetic field. Knowledge about the internal properties and thermal evolution of Mercury and other such planets should help scientists as they research and develop their theories on how habitable worlds, such as the Earth, would form and evolve.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-05-2007, 01:33 PM
Gargoyle_Steve's Avatar
Gargoyle_Steve (Steve)
Space Explorer

Gargoyle_Steve is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Caloundra, Sunshine Coast, Australia
Posts: 1,571
That's an interesting bit of information Glen, thanks for posting that. It's great to see that what was a reasonable theory 33 years ago has now garnered further scientific facts in support.

"the planet is the second densest planet in the solar system..." interesting for such a tiny world, in fact now technically the smallest planet in the solar system.

Hands up those who know without looking which is the densest planet.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-05-2007, 03:37 PM
Kal's Avatar
Kal (Andrew)
1¼" ñì®våñá

Kal is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,845
I will hazard a guess and say Venus - because it has a runaway greenhouse effect which I will guess if from a strong magnetic field from it's huge molten core? (I'm off to google now to see if I am wrong)
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-05-2007, 03:38 PM
Kal's Avatar
Kal (Andrew)
1¼" ñì®våñá

Kal is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,845
aaah crap - I am wrong!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-05-2007, 05:42 PM
duncan's Avatar
duncan
Duncan

duncan is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Weipa FNQld
Posts: 1,091
one would assume the Earth because of it's molten core.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-05-2007, 05:48 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,108
It is Earth, 5.52 g/cm3 :-)

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-05-2007, 07:48 PM
mickoking's Avatar
mickoking
Vagabond

mickoking is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: China
Posts: 1,477
I say Earth too. Am I right
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-05-2007, 06:28 AM
Gargoyle_Steve's Avatar
Gargoyle_Steve (Steve)
Space Explorer

Gargoyle_Steve is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Caloundra, Sunshine Coast, Australia
Posts: 1,571
Earth IS the densest planet, but it is surprisingly close between Earth, Mercury and Venus - there's a great little bar graph that shows the relative densities down the left hand side of this page (as well as lots of other great planetary info and comparisons):

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...onomy/planets/
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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 03:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement