Planetary Magnetic Fields

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Planetary Magnetic Fields Rep. Prog. Phys., Vol. 46, pp 555-620, 1983. Printed in Great Britain Planetary magnetic fields D J Stevenson Division of Geological and Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA Abstract As a consequence of the smallness of the electronic fine structure constant, the characteristic time scale for the free diffusive decay of a magnetic field in a planetary core is much less than the age of the Solar System, but the characteristic time scale for thermal diffusion is greater than the age of the Solar System. Consequently, primordial fields and permanent magnetism are small a;d the only means of providing a substantial planetary magnetic field is the dynamo process. This requires a large region which is fluid, electrically conducting and maintained in a non-uniform motion that includes a substantial RMS vertical component. The attributes of fluidity and conductivity are readily provided in the deep interiors of all planets and most satellites, either in the form of an Fe alloy with a low eutectic temperature (e.g. Fe-S-0 in terrestrial bodies and satellites) or by the occupation of conduction states in fluid hydrogen or ‘ice’ (H20-NH3-CH4) in giant planets. It is argued that planetary dynamos are almost certainly maintained by convection (compositional and/or ther- mal). If alternative mechanisms such as precessional torques work at all, they only work when they are not needed (i.e. when the core is neutrally or unstably stratified because of other larger energy sources). For any plausible convective vigour, it is possible to satisfy the sufficient conditions of dynamo onset (large magnetic Reynolds number, small Rossby number) for every planet and satellite. Estimates of convective vigour are obtained from estimates of likely energy fluxes and a consideration of the form of convective motions in a rotating fluid sphere. The reason that some planets and probably all satellites do not have dynamos is because the fluid regions of their cores are stably stratified and do not convect. Thermal evolution models indicate that any terrestrial body with an entirely fluid (iron alloy) core becomes stably stratified over geologic time and loses heat by conduction only at the present time. The core energy flux is then totally unavailable for dynamo generation. However, terrestrial bodies that nucleate an inner solid core (e.g. Earth) can usually continue to sustain a dynamo because of the resulting gravitational energy release and compositional buoyancy of convective motions. In contrast, giant planets can easily sustain a dynamo by gradual cooling alone. The field amplitudes of planetary dynamos are poorly understood. Existing attempts at ‘scaling laws’ are naive because they deny the diversity of planets, and @ 1983 The Institute of Physics 555 556 D J Stevenson poorly constrained because several ‘laws’ perform equally well. Nevertheless, it is possible to assess the likely presence or absence of a dynamo in each planet and satellite, primarily by an analysis of energetic considerations. An interpretation of each Solar-System body is offered and some testable predictions are given. This review was received in September 1982. Planetary magnetic fields 557 Contents Page 1. Introduction 559 2. The observations 561 2.1. Basic principles 561 2.2. Earth 563 2.3. Jupiter 564 2.4. Saturn 565 2.5. Mercury 566 2.6. Venus 566 2.7. Moon 567 2.8. Mars 567 2.9. Uranus, Neptune and outer Solar-System satellites 567 2.10. Small bodies and meteorites 568 3. Composition and evolution of planets 568 3.1. Basic principles 568 3.2. Evolution and structure of terrestrial planets 570 3.3. Evolution and structure of Jupiter and Saturn 581 3.4. Evolution and structure of Uranus and Neptune 583 4. The sources of planetary magnetism 5 84 4.1. Non-dynamo sources 5 84 4.2. The dynamo problem: kinematic preliminaries 587 4.3. Fluid motions in planets (H 0) 593 4.4. The onset of a convective dynamo (!ow-field limit) 598 4.5. Finite-field dynamos and scaling laws 601 4.6. Multipolarity and symmetry 605 4.7. Time variability and reversals 607 5. The synthesis 608 5.1. Mercury 608 5.2. Venus 609 5.3. Earth 61 1 5.4. Moon 612 5.5. Mars 613 5.6. Jupiter 613 5.7. Saturn 614 5.8. Uranus and Neptune 615 5.9. Pluto and giant planet satellites 616 6. The future 616 Acknowledgments 617 References 617 Planetary magnetic fields 559 1. Introduction Magnetic fields are ubiquitous in the Universe because of the abundance of free electric charges and the absence or relative scarcity of free magnetic monopoles. On the astrophysical scale, magnetic fields are a consequence of large-scale currents and the cause of complex motions of plasma. We are also familiar with magnetic fields on the human length scale, often associated with permanent magnetism and caused by microscopic currents. In view of the existence of magnetic fields on length scales as diverse as centimetres and light years, one’s first inclination is to be unsurprised by the existence of substantial magnetic fields associated with planets, which have a size halfway between centimetres and light years on a logarithmic scale. In fact, the persistence of large planetary magnetic fields is far from obvious and their explanation provides insights into the structure and dynamics of a planetary interior. The existence of large planetary magnetic fields is not immediately obvious because planets are too large (and hence too warm internally) to preserve much of the microscopic magnetism of permanently magnetised material, yet too small to sustain primordial magnetic fields in the non-magnetic conducting materials for the age of the Solar System. A non-magnetic m’aterial is one in which there is no possibility of spontaneous magnetisation and the magnetic field is equal to the magnetic induction (except for a constant dependent on the choice of units). Ohm’s law, Ampbre’s circuit law and Faraday’s law of induction are then respectively j=ai E+-xH P> 41r VxH=-j C 1 aH VxE+--=0 (1.3) c at (Gaussian units) where j is the current density, CT is the electrical conductivity, E is the electric field, H is the magnetic field, V is the velocity field of the conductor relative to the frame in which the fields are measured, and c is the velocity of light. Displacement currents are neglected because we are interested in phenomena with characteristic time scales much longer than the light travel time. Deviations from Ohm’s law are potentially significant but are neglected for the moment. Elimination of E and j yields aH -= AV~H+V x (V x H) (1.4) at where A = c2/41ra (assumed constant) is called the magnetic diffusivity and V H = 0 has been assumed (i.e. no magnetic monopoles. If the recent tentative detection of a monopole by Cabrera (1982) is correct then the equations require modification.) Suppose that one formed an electrically conducting planet at time t = 0 with an initial permeating field -Ho, this field being derived from some ‘external’ source such 560 D J Stevenson as the interstellar medium or the primordial solar nebula. If the external source is removed and the body is subsequently internally inactive (V= 0) then equation (1.4) predicts a diffusive decay of the field H - Hoexp (-f/7), where T = R2/r2A and R is the planetary radius (also the characteristic length scale of the field: IV2H(- H/R2). The characteristic atomic unit of electrical conductivity is e2/aoh (e is the electron charge, a. is the first Bohr radius, h is Planck's constant divided by 27r) so that A - cuG2(h/m)- lo4 cm2 s-', where afs is the fine structure constant and m is the electron mass. It follows that the magnetic diffusion time 7mag- (3000 yr)(R/103 km)2, much less than 4.5 x lo9yr, the age of the Solar System. Even in the case of Jupiter, where A is somewhat smaller and R is large, T,,~ is at most a few hundred million years. Primordial fields are thus almost certainly unimportant in the non-magnetic constituents of planets. In contrast, the thermal diffusion time is long. Application of the Wiedemann- Franz relationship (discussed in any elementary solid-state physics text, e.g. Ashcroft and Mermin (1976)) leads to the estimate K - 10(aokBT/e2)(h/m)-0.1 cm2 s-' for the thermal diffusivity of a metal, where T is the temperature and kB is Roltzmann's constant. Notice that K<<A,primarily because the fine structure constant is small (but also because thermal energies are much less than atomic energies). The thermal diffusion equation aT/Jt = KV2T has an associated characteristic decay time 7th = R2/r2K- (3 x 10' yr)(R/103 km)2. The time scale is even longer if the thermal diffusivity of an insulator cm2 s-') is used. Since planets possess large internal heat sources (radiogenic in the terrestrial planets, gravitational in the giant planets), high internal temperatures are unavoidable. The temperature is stabilised by convec- tion (which occurs almost everywhere within most planets) but this stabilised value far exceeds the Curie point of ferromagnetic materials. Only the near-surface (crustal) materials of terrestrial planets possess permanent magnetism; the resulting magnetic field is orders of magnitude smaller than the 0.5 G surface field characterising the Earth but is important for bodies where the field is much smaller than the terrestrial field. However, equation (1.4) admits the possibility of sustaining a field indefinitely by virtue of the induction term V x (VX H). The ratio of this term to the diffusion term hV2H is of the order of the magnetic Reynolds number defined as RM= VL/A where V and L are characteristic magnitudes for the velocity field and the length scales of the magnetic-field variation, respectively.
Recommended publications
  • Exomoon Habitability Constrained by Illumination and Tidal Heating
    submitted to Astrobiology: April 6, 2012 accepted by Astrobiology: September 8, 2012 published in Astrobiology: January 24, 2013 this updated draft: October 30, 2013 doi:10.1089/ast.2012.0859 Exomoon habitability constrained by illumination and tidal heating René HellerI , Rory BarnesII,III I Leibniz-Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP), An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam, Germany, [email protected] II Astronomy Department, University of Washington, Box 951580, Seattle, WA 98195, [email protected] III NASA Astrobiology Institute – Virtual Planetary Laboratory Lead Team, USA Abstract The detection of moons orbiting extrasolar planets (“exomoons”) has now become feasible. Once they are discovered in the circumstellar habitable zone, questions about their habitability will emerge. Exomoons are likely to be tidally locked to their planet and hence experience days much shorter than their orbital period around the star and have seasons, all of which works in favor of habitability. These satellites can receive more illumination per area than their host planets, as the planet reflects stellar light and emits thermal photons. On the contrary, eclipses can significantly alter local climates on exomoons by reducing stellar illumination. In addition to radiative heating, tidal heating can be very large on exomoons, possibly even large enough for sterilization. We identify combinations of physical and orbital parameters for which radiative and tidal heating are strong enough to trigger a runaway greenhouse. By analogy with the circumstellar habitable zone, these constraints define a circumplanetary “habitable edge”. We apply our model to hypothetical moons around the recently discovered exoplanet Kepler-22b and the giant planet candidate KOI211.01 and describe, for the first time, the orbits of habitable exomoons.
    [Show full text]
  • Elliptical Instability in Terrestrial Planets and Moons
    A&A 539, A78 (2012) Astronomy DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117741 & c ESO 2012 Astrophysics Elliptical instability in terrestrial planets and moons D. Cebron1,M.LeBars1, C. Moutou2,andP.LeGal1 1 Institut de Recherche sur les Phénomènes Hors Equilibre, UMR 6594, CNRS and Aix-Marseille Université, 49 rue F. Joliot-Curie, BP 146, 13384 Marseille Cedex 13, France e-mail: [email protected] 2 Observatoire Astronomique de Marseille-Provence, Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille, 38 rue F. Joliot-Curie, 13388 Marseille Cedex 13, France Received 21 July 2011 / Accepted 16 January 2012 ABSTRACT Context. The presence of celestial companions means that any planet may be subject to three kinds of harmonic mechanical forcing: tides, precession/nutation, and libration. These forcings can generate flows in internal fluid layers, such as fluid cores and subsurface oceans, whose dynamics then significantly differ from solid body rotation. In particular, tides in non-synchronized bodies and libration in synchronized ones are known to be capable of exciting the so-called elliptical instability, i.e. a generic instability corresponding to the destabilization of two-dimensional flows with elliptical streamlines, leading to three-dimensional turbulence. Aims. We aim here at confirming the relevance of such an elliptical instability in terrestrial bodies by determining its growth rate, as well as its consequences on energy dissipation, on magnetic field induction, and on heat flux fluctuations on planetary scales. Methods. Previous studies and theoretical results for the elliptical instability are re-evaluated and extended to cope with an astro- physical context. In particular, generic analytical expressions of the elliptical instability growth rate are obtained using a local WKB approach, simultaneously considering for the first time (i) a local temperature gradient due to an imposed temperature contrast across the considered layer or to the presence of a volumic heat source and (ii) an imposed magnetic field along the rotation axis, coming from an external source.
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Planet Effects on Terrestrial Planet Formation and System Architecture
    MNRAS 485, 541–549 (2019) doi:10.1093/mnras/stz385 Advance Access publication 2019 February 8 Giant planet effects on terrestrial planet formation and system architecture 1‹ 2 2,3 1 Anna C. Childs, Elisa Quintana, Thomas Barclay and Jason H. Steffen Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/485/1/541/5309996 by NASA Goddard Space Flight Ctr user on 15 April 2020 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA 2NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 8800 Greenbelt Road, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA 3University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Cir, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA Accepted 2019 February 4. Received 2019 January 16; in original form 2018 July 6 ABSTRACT Using an updated collision model, we conduct a suite of high-resolution N-body integrations to probe the relationship between giant planet mass and terrestrial planet formation and system architecture. We vary the mass of the planets that reside at Jupiter’s and Saturn’s orbit and examine the effects on the interior terrestrial system. We find that massive giant planets are more likely to eject material from the outer edge of the terrestrial disc and produce terrestrial planets that are on smaller, more circular orbits. We do not find a strong correlation between exterior giant planet mass and the number of Earth analogues (analogous in mass and semimajor axis) produced in the system. These results allow us to make predictions on the nature of terrestrial planets orbiting distant Sun-like star systems that harbour giant planet companions on long orbits – systems that will be a priority for NASA’s upcoming Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) mission.
    [Show full text]
  • Outer Planets: the Ice Giants
    Outer Planets: The Ice Giants A. P. Ingersoll, H. B. Hammel, T. R. Spilker, R. E. Young Exploring Uranus and Neptune satisfies NASA’s objectives, “investigation of the Earth, Moon, Mars and beyond with emphasis on understanding the history of the solar system” and “conduct robotic exploration across the solar system for scientific purposes.” The giant planet story is the story of the solar system (*). Earth and the other small objects are leftovers from the feast of giant planet formation. As they formed, the giant planets may have migrated inward or outward, ejecting some objects from the solar system and swallowing others. The giant planets most likely delivered water and other volatiles, in the form of icy planetesimals, to the inner solar system from the region around Neptune. The “gas giants” Jupiter and Saturn are mostly hydrogen and helium. These planets must have swallowed a portion of the solar nebula intact. The “ice giants” Uranus and Neptune are made primarily of heavier stuff, probably the next most abundant elements in the Sun – oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur. For each giant planet the core is the “seed” around which it accreted nebular gas. The ice giants may be more seed than gas. Giant planets are laboratories in which to test our theories about geophysics, plasma physics, meteorology, and even oceanography in a larger context. Their bottomless atmospheres, with 1000 mph winds and 100 year-old storms, teach us about weather on Earth. The giant planets’ enormous magnetic fields and intense radiation belts test our theories of terrestrial and solar electromagnetic phenomena.
    [Show full text]
  • Activity 16: Planets and Their Features Mercury Mercury Is an Extreme Planet
    Activity 16: Planets And Their Features Mercury Mercury.is.an.extreme.planet..It.is.the.fastest.of.all.the.planets..It.is.one.of.the.hottest. planets,.and.it.is.also.one.of.the.coldest!.It.may.be.the.site.of.the.largest.crash.in.the. history.of.the.solar.system..Mercury.may.also.have.the.strangest.view.of.the.sun.in.the. whole.universe! Mercury.zooms.around.the.sun.at.a.speed.of.48.kilometres.per.second,.or.half.as.fast. again.as.the.Earth.travels. At.certain.times.and.places,.Mercury’s.surface.temperature.can.rise.to.twice.the. temperature.inside.an.oven.when.you.are.baking.a.cake..On.the.other.hand,.in.the. shadow.of.its.North.Pole.craters,.Mercury.has.ice.like.our.North.Pole.does. Since.Mercury.is.so.close.to.the.sun,.we.have.never.been.able.to.see.it.in.any.detail..Even. with.the.most.powerful.telescope,.Mercury.looks.like.a.blurry.white.ball..It.wasn’t.until.1974. that.we.really.began.to.learn.about.Mercury..In.1974.and.1975,.Mariner.10.flew.by.Mercury.three.times.and.sent.back. about.12,000.images. These.pictures.combined.to.give.a.map.of.about.45%.of.Mercury’s.surface,.and.what.they.show.us.is.a.planet.covered. with.craters,.much.like.our.moon..Mercury’s.largest.land.feature.is.the.Caloris.Basin,.a.crater.formed.by.a.collision.with.a. meteorite.long.ago..The.size.of.the.Caloris.Basin,.about.1350.kilometres.in.diameter,.suggests.that.this.may.have.been.
    [Show full text]
  • The Composition of Planetary Atmospheres 1
    The Composition of Planetary Atmospheres 1 All of the planets in our solar system, and some of its smaller bodies too, have an outer layer of gas we call the atmosphere. The atmosphere usually sits atop a denser, rocky crust or planetary core. Atmospheres can extend thousands of kilometers into space. The table below gives the name of the kind of gas found in each object’s atmosphere, and the total mass of the atmosphere in kilograms. The table also gives the percentage of the atmosphere composed of the gas. Object Mass Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Argon Methane Sodium Hydrogen Helium Other (kilograms) Dioxide Sun 3.0x1030 71% 26% 3% Mercury 1000 42% 22% 22% 6% 8% Venus 4.8x1020 96% 4% Earth 1.4x1021 78% 21% 1% <1% Moon 100,000 70% 1% 29% Mars 2.5x1016 95% 2.7% 1.6% 0.7% Jupiter 1.9x1027 89.8% 10.2% Saturn 5.4x1026 96.3% 3.2% 0.5% Titan 9.1x1018 97% 2% 1% Uranus 8.6x1025 2.3% 82.5% 15.2% Neptune 1.0x1026 1.0% 80% 19% Pluto 1.3x1014 8% 90% 2% Problem 1 – Draw a pie graph (circle graph) that shows the atmosphere constituents for Mars and Earth. Problem 2 – Draw a pie graph that shows the percentage of Nitrogen for Venus, Earth, Mars, Titan and Pluto. Problem 3 – Which planet has the atmosphere with the greatest percentage of Oxygen? Problem 4 – Which planet has the atmosphere with the greatest number of kilograms of oxygen? Problem 5 – Compare and contrast the objects with the greatest percentage of hydrogen, and the least percentage of hydrogen.
    [Show full text]
  • Internal Constitution of Mars
    Journalof GeophysicalResearch VOLUME 77 FEBRUARY 10., 1972 NUMBER 15 Internal Constitution of Mars Do• L. ANDERSON SeismologicalLaboratory, California Institute o/ Technology Pasadena, California 91109 Models for the internal structure of Mars that are consistentwith its mass, radius, and moment of inertia have been constructed.Mars cannot be homogeneousbut must have a core, the size of which dependson its density and, therefore, on its composition.A meteorite model for Mars implies an Fe-S-Ni core (12% by massof the planet) and an Fe- or FeO-rich mantle with a zero-pressuredensity of approximately 3.54 g/cm•. Mars has an iron content of 25 wt %, which is significantly less than the iron content of the earth, Mercury, or Venus but is close to the total iron content of ordinary and carbonaceouschondrites. A satisfactory model for Mars can be obtained by exposing ordinary chondrites to relatively modest temperatures. Core formation will start when temperaturesexceed the cutecftc temperature in the system Fe-FeS (•990øC) but will not go to completionunless temperatures exceed the liquidus through- out most of the planet. No high-temperature reduction stage is required. The size and density of the core and the density of the mantle indicate that approximately63% of the potential core-forming material (Fe-S-Ni) has entered the core. Therefore, Mars, in contrast to the earth, is an incompletely differentiated planet, and its core is substantially richer in sulfur than the earth's core. The thermal energy associated with core formation in Mars is negligible. The absenceof a magnetic field can be explained by lack of lunar precessional torques and by the small size and high resistivity of the Martian core.
    [Show full text]
  • Simon Porter , Will Grundy
    Post-Capture Evolution of Potentially Habitable Exomoons Simon Porter1,2, Will Grundy1 1Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Arizona 2School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University [email protected] and spin vector were initially pointed at random di- Table 1: Relative fraction of end states for fully Abstract !"# $%& " '(" !"# $%& # '(# rections on the sky. The exoplanets had a ran- evolved exomoon systems dom obliquity < 5 deg and was at a stellarcentric The satellites of extrasolar planets (exomoons) Star Planet Moon Survived Retrograde Separated Impacted distance such that the equilibrium temperature was have been recently proposed as astrobiological tar- Earth 43% 52% 21% 35% equal to Earth. The simulations were run until they Jupiter Mars 44% 45% 18% 37% gets. Triton has been proposed to have been cap- 5 either reached an eccentricity below 10 or the pe- Titan 42% 47% 21% 36% tured through a momentum-exchange reaction [1], − Sun Earth 52% 44% 17% 30% riapse went below the Roche limit (impact) or the and it is possible that a similar event could allow Neptune Mars 44% 45% 18% 36% apoapse exceeded the Hill radius. Stars used were Titan 45% 47% 19% 35% a giant planet to capture a formerly binary terres- Earth 65% 47% 3% 31% the Sun (G2), a main-sequence F0 (1.7 MSun), trial planet or planetesimal. We therefore attempt to Jupiter Mars 59% 46% 4% 35% and a main-sequence M0 (0.47 MSun). Exoplan- Titan 61% 48% 3% 34% model the dynamical evolution of a terrestrial planet !"# $%& " !"# $%& " ' F0 ets used had the mass of either Jupiter or Neptune, Earth 77% 44% 4% 18% captured into orbit around a giant planet in the hab- and exomoons with the mass of Earth, Mars, and Neptune Mars 67% 44% 4% 28% itable zone of a star.
    [Show full text]
  • Pplanetary Materials Research At
    N. L. CHABOT ET AL . Planetary Materials Research at APL Nancy L. Chabot, Catherine M. Corrigan, Charles A. Hibbitts, and Jeffrey B. Plescia lanetary materials research offers a unique approach to understanding our solar system, one that enables numerous studies and provides insights that are not pos- sible from remote observations alone. APL scientists are actively involved in many aspects of planetary materials research, from the study of Martian meteorites, to field work on hot springs and craters on Earth, to examining compositional analogs for asteroids. Planetary materials research at APL also involves understanding the icy moons of the outer solar system using analog materials, conducting experiments to mimic the conditions of planetary evolution, and testing instruments for future space missions. The diversity of these research projects clearly illustrates the abundant and valuable scientific contributions that the study of planetary materials can make to Pspace science. INTRODUCTION In most space science and astronomy fields, one is When people think of planetary materials, they com- limited to remote observations, either from telescopes monly think of samples returned by space missions. Plan- or spacecraft, to gather data about celestial objects and etary materials available for study do include samples unravel their origins. However, for studying our solar returned by space missions, such as samples of the Moon system, we are less limited. We have samples of plan- returned by the Apollo and Luna missions, comet dust etary materials from multiple bodies in our solar system. collected by the Stardust mission, and implanted solar We can inspect these samples, examine them in detail wind ions collected by the Genesis mission.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of the Giant Exomoon Candidate Kepler-1625 B-I René Heller
    A&A 610, A39 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201731760 Astronomy & © ESO 2018 Astrophysics The nature of the giant exomoon candidate Kepler-1625 b-i René Heller Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Justus-von-Liebig-Weg 3, 37077 Göttingen, Germany e-mail: [email protected] Received 11 August 2017 / Accepted 21 November 2017 ABSTRACT The recent announcement of a Neptune-sized exomoon candidate around the transiting Jupiter-sized object Kepler-1625 b could indi- cate the presence of a hitherto unknown kind of gas giant moon, if confirmed. Three transits of Kepler-1625 b have been observed, allowing estimates of the radii of both objects. Mass estimates, however, have not been backed up by radial velocity measurements of the host star. Here we investigate possible mass regimes of the transiting system that could produce the observed signatures and study them in the context of moon formation in the solar system, i.e., via impacts, capture, or in-situ accretion. The radius of Kepler-1625 b suggests it could be anything from a gas giant planet somewhat more massive than Saturn (0:4 MJup) to a brown dwarf (BD; up to 75 MJup) or even a very-low-mass star (VLMS; 112 MJup ≈ 0:11 M ). The proposed companion would certainly have a planetary mass. Possible extreme scenarios range from a highly inflated Earth-mass gas satellite to an atmosphere-free water–rock companion of about +19:2 180 M⊕. Furthermore, the planet–moon dynamics during the transits suggest a total system mass of 17:6−12:6 MJup.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Detection of Exomoons in Photometric Time Series
    On the Detection of Exomoons in Photometric Time Series Dissertation zur Erlangung des mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Doktorgrades “Doctor rerum naturalium” der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen im Promotionsprogramm PROPHYS der Georg-August University School of Science (GAUSS) vorgelegt von Kai Oliver Rodenbeck aus Göttingen, Deutschland Göttingen, 2019 Betreuungsausschuss Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Göttingen, Deutschland und Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Deutschland Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Deutschland Dr. Warrick H. Ball School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, UK vormals Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Deutschland Mitglieder der Prüfungskommision Referent: Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Göttingen, Deutschland und Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Deutschland Korreferent: Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Deutschland Weitere Mitglieder der Prüfungskommission: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Christensen Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Göttingen, Deutschland Dr.ir. Saskia Hekker Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Göttingen, Deutschland Dr. René Heller Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Göttingen, Deutschland Prof. Dr. Wolfram Kollatschny Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen,
    [Show full text]
  • Accretion and Differentiation of the Terrestrial Planets with Implications for the Compositions of Early-Formed Solar
    Accretion and differentiation of the terrestrial planets with implications for the compositions of early-formed Solar System bodies and accretion of water D.C. Rubie1*, S.A. Jacobson1,2, A. Morbidelli2, D.P. O’Brien3, E.D. Young4, J. de Vries1, F. Nimmo5, H. Palme6, D.J. Frost1 1Bayerisches Geoinstitut, University of Bayreuth, D-95490 Bayreuth, Germany ([email protected]) 2Observatoire de la Cote d’Azur, Nice, France 3Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, Arizona, USA 4Dept. of Earth and Space Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, USA 5 Dept. of Earth & Planetary Sciences, UC Santa Cruz, USA 6 Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany * Corresponding author Submitted to Icarus 8 April 2014; revised 19 August 2014; accepted 9 October 2014 Abstract. In order to test accretion simulations as well as planetary differentiation scenarios, we have integrated a multistage core-mantle differentiation model with N-body accretion simulations. Impacts between embryos and planetesimals are considered to result in magma ocean formation and episodes of core formation. The core formation model combines rigorous chemical mass balance with metal-silicate element partitioning data and requires that the bulk compositions of all starting embryos and planetesimals are defined as a function of their heliocentric distances of origin. To do this, we assume that non-volatile elements are present in Solar System (CI) relative abundances in all bodies and that oxygen and H2O contents are the main compositional variables. The primary constraint on the combined model is the composition of the Earth’s primitive mantle. In 1 addition, we aim to reproduce the composition of the Martian mantle and the mass fractions of the metallic cores of Earth and Mars.
    [Show full text]