Why does mercury have a magnetic field?

[llivinglarge]

A tiny metal spheroid such as Mercury cannot possibly create any measureable flow of electrons.

 

[drwayne]

I have seen speculation regarding residual ferromagnetism.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[llivinglarge]

Doesn't that require a spinning molten core?

 

[drwayne]

Not now.<br /><br />the ferromagnetism is the imprint of a previously existing magnetic field from an earlier stage in the planets development - a time at which it might have been more molten.<br /><br />Is that truelly what's going on here, I really don't have the knowlege to say - this is just wwhat I stumbled across while searching the web for guitar tabs.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[siriusmre]

Not only does Mercury mysteriously have a magnetic field, but it may also have...polar ice!?! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[cygnus1]

It does have a magnetic field? Yeh, I heard something like that it and the moon are simular in size but different in composition. The story goes that when an object that formed the earth collided with the earth it left much of its iron core inside the earth. Mercury did not form this way as far as we know. And so it has an iron nickel interior. Remember manny meteorites are magnetic.

 

[chew_on_this]

Begs the question of He3 also.

 

[robnissen]

Isn't the article you cited just flat wrong. Isn't Mercury titally locked, so one side is always in sunlight and the other side always dark. If that is the case, then there would be no reason to look for shadows at the poles, the dark side would always be cold enough for water. Am I missing something here?

 

[dragon04]

Not quite tidally locked. It has a 3:2 resonance. It rotates 1.5 times every orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[dragon04]

We've discovered "hot jupiters" orbiting other stars. I wonder if it's possible that Mercury was such a world in the early solar system and eventually was stripped of all the gases down to its core. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Axis isn't inclined much either, deep craters at either pole will remain dark at their bottoms in perpetuity.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Contrast that with Hyperion, which, should Cassini confirm, has chaotic rotation and apparently all craters, at one time or another, have the distant sun directly overhead.<br /><br />Weird, huh?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

There's so much speculation about Mercury. It's a curious world. Once, it was a puzzle for celestial mechanics, a puzzle not solved until Einstein came along. (That was one of the first big triumphs for relativity, and a major factor in its acceptance.) It's been visited only twice by spacecraft: flybys performed by the Mariner 10 spacecraft (if memory serves). These flybys revealed that Mercury looks a lot like our Moon, but is much denser. BY rights, it should be the densest object in the solar system; the Earth only beats it by virtue of its larger mass. (Earth's gravity applies additional compression.) But there are still large areas of Mercury which have not been imaged.<br /><br />Fortunately, that will be fixed. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> The MESSENGER spacecraft is on its way to Mercury. If all goes well, it will become the first artificial satellite of Mercury in 2011. Because Mercury orbits so much closer to the Sun and because it is so small (and therefore has a weaker gravity field than the other three inner planets), MESSENGER has to work its way down to Mercury. It flew past Earth last August, and will encounter Venus in October. A second Venus gravity assist in 2007 will be followed by three Mercury flybys before it can enter Mercury orbit. It should be an exciting mission, although alas we've got quite a while to wait.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Well, this is the ideal place to build lots of solar power farms and beam it all over the solar system.

 

[robnissen]

Thx. I was missing something.

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">Well, this is the ideal place to build lots of solar power farms and beam it all over the solar system. </font><br /><br />The beam would lose too much energy being beamed to other planets due to the distance (inverse squared laws). If the beam were a laser, that would help some. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

The standard method of beaming power is by maser (microwave laser).

 

[mlorrey]

No. Mars precesses up to 45 degrees, at which point water ice belt would form around the equator while CO2 ice would migrated from pole to pole with the seasons.

 

[cosmictalk]

I'm very fascinated with this substance metallic hydrogen! <br /><br />

 

[cosmictalk]

Earth-based radar imaging of Mercury has revealed areas of high radar reflectivity near the north and south poles, which could be indicative of the presence of ice in these regions (1-3). There appear to be dozens of these areas with generally circular shapes. Presumably, the ice is located within permanently shadowed craters near the poles, where it may be cold enough for ice to exist over long periods of time. The discovery of ice on the Earth's moon <ice_moon.html> can only serve to strengthen the arguments for ice on Mercury. <br /><br /><br />http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_mercury.html<br /><br />There are only two significant sources for ice on Mercury: meteorite bombardment and planetary outgassing. <br /><br /><br />reminds me I've a while back came across something on the behaviors of polar ice very entresting perhaps I'll be able to find it and share. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[cosmictalk]

hmmm. who knows! maybe we will find some kind of bacteria in the right environments that have managed to survive. <br /><br />it would be a good idea to use caution when poking around though, would hate to see circuits fried from a blast of something unexpected. <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" />

 

[thepiper]

I believe the current magnetic of Mercury is the "lost" magnetic field of Mars, but I won't even bother trying to explain that on this board.<br /><br />Those familiar with the Saturn Model (if there are any) will know where I'm coming from.

 

[CalliArcale]

If you'd like to discuss it, you are welcome to do so. Just do it in its own thread. (Phenomena might be best; here in SS&A, you will be obliged to adhere to scientific principles. Phenomena is less rigid.) I do know what you are talking about, and it is much too large a topic to discuss within another thread; it would supplant the existing conversation, and that's not really fair. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[thepiper]

I completely agree and am pleasantly surprised that you are familiar with that view. I may start up a thread at some point in Phenomenon (one of many I am considering) but did not want to derail this thread with such a large topic, as you put it.<br /><br />And so I stated my view for posterity and left it at that. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[nexium]

According to some theories, our Sun was hotter (for perhaps a million years) as proto star before hydrogen fusion began.<br />The interior of Mercury has likely been hotter than the curri temperature for 4.6 billion years, so residual magnetism is unlikely. Neil