[math-fun] Planet Mercury Is Looking Less Boring
FYI -- 'A third idea is that a giant impact early in MercuryÂs history knocked off a large fraction of the planet. ÂThis is the model that is still in the running, Dr. Nittler said.' [Why does such an impact necessarily have to be "early" in Mercury's history?] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/science/space/17mercury.html June 16, 2011 Close Up, Mercury Is Looking Less Boring By KENNETH CHANG For years, many planetary scientists did not express much curiosity about Mercury, which looked gray and cratered  a slightly larger version of the Moon. But data released Thursday from NASAÂs Mercury Messenger spacecraft, which entered orbit around Mercury in March, is painting a more vibrant picture of the solar systemÂs innermost planet. ÂMercury ainÂt the Moon, Ralph L. McNutt Jr., the missionÂs project scientist, said at a NASA news conference on Thursday. Among the new findings: Some of MercuryÂs topography is not seen anywhere else in the solar system  rimless pits, for instance  and its mineralogy is vastly different from the MoonÂs, whose rocks have much less potassium. Scientists already knew that Mercury has a magnetic field, while the Moon does not. The latest batch of data includes the clearest pictures yet of MercuryÂs polar regions, plus readings of the elements in its crust, which have helped scientists rule out some theories about the planetÂs origins. Mercury Messenger has also discovered that the planetÂs magnetic field is stronger in its northern hemisphere than in its southern, which hints at something odd in the structure of its molten core. The new information could reveal how Mercury formed and changed over the 4.5-billion-year history of the solar system, which in turn could help astronomers understand the panoply of Earth-size planets around other stars and the possibility of conditions friendly for life on them. NASAÂs Kepler telescope has discovered dozens of possible Earth-size planets, but its observations can determine little beyond their size. ÂWe have in our solar system four experiments in how four Earthlike planets evolve once they form under slightly different conditions, said Sean C. Solomon, the principal investigator for Mercury Messenger, referring to Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, the four rocky planets of the inner solar system. ÂWhat weÂre learning is that each of those experiments had an extraordinarily different outcome, Dr. Solomon said. ÂAnd one of those experiments we live on. So it really behooves us, in a very general way, to understand how Earthlike planets form and evolve and operate. One of the mysteries is why the iron core of Mercury is unusually large, extending out three-quarters of the way to the surface. EarthÂs core, by contrast, extends a little more than halfway. One idea was that Mercury was originally larger, and the young Sun was so intense that the radiation stripped away the outer layers, leaving behind the Mercury seen today. But that theory predicted low abundances of certain elements like potassium that would have easily evaporated in the intense heat. Mercury Messenger measured ample amounts of potassium. ÂWe can rule out this kind of model, said Larry R. Nittler, a staff scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington and a member of the science team. Another theory is that Mercury formed out of metal-rich meteorites. By and large, the observed composition of the surface rocks does not fit with that theory either, although a variation could still prove the correct explanation, Dr. Nittler said. A third idea is that a giant impact early in MercuryÂs history knocked off a large fraction of the planet. ÂThis is the model that is still in the running, Dr. Nittler said. ÂThere are probably going to be many more models devised before we have an answer on this. High-resolution images of craters revealed irregular pits, ranging in width from several hundred feet to a few miles. The pits do not have rims like craters produced by impacts, leading the scientists to speculate that they were etched by some unstable material that evaporated quickly when exposed at the surface. Mercury MessengerÂs one-year mission around the planet is only one-quarter done, so more information about the planet will be forthcoming. Already, Dr. Solomon said, the orbiter has dispelled the misconception that Mercury is a boring place, and that what NASAÂs Mariner 10 spacecraft saw in 1974 and 1975 during three flybys was all that was to be seen. ÂSome even in the planetary community, after the Mariner 10 mission, placed a low priority on returning a spacecraft to Mercury on the grounds that it was very much like the Moon, weÂd been to the Moon, Dr. Solomon said. ÂIt was an example, to use a phrase coined by a very famous space scientist, of Âone of the burnt-out cinders of the solar system. And it is anything but that.Â
And the astronomer's model of surface cratering is more accurate than the astronomer's model of orbital dynamics & planet formation? Since I was alive during the period when plate techtonics was finally acknowledged, even after every schoolboy/schoolgirl for hundreds of years had pointed out the obvious jigsaw puzzle pieces, I've been amazed by the ability of scientists self delude. Prior to the 1960's, engineers & scientists studied "steady state" behavior because "transient" analysis was too hard. Similarly, they studied "smooth" functions, because chaotic/fractal functions were too scary. As a result, they were (are) constantly blindsided because nature wasn't smooth & steady. Financial engineers continue to marvel that "100 year" and "1000 year" events keep happening with decade-like regularity. Just because rare things are rare doesn't mean that they never happen. And rare things of great magnitude can quickly compensate for their rarity by their magnitude. At 08:00 AM 6/17/2011, Hans Havermann wrote:
Henry Baker:
Why does such an impact necessarily have to be "early" in Mercury's history?
Presumably so as not to disturb the existing chronology of the planet's surface cratering.
Henry Baker:
Since I was alive during the period when plate techtonics was finally acknowledged, even after every schoolboy/schoolgirl for hundreds of years had pointed out the obvious jigsaw puzzle pieces, I've been amazed by the ability of scientists self delude.
The idea of continental drift was first suggested by cartographer Abraham Ortelius in 1587. Since then, a few people have espoused the notion (in print) with a variety of mechanisms, culminating with Alfred Wegener's combination of "pole-fleeing force and tidal attraction". Continental drift was finally (i.e., generally) acknowledged with the *advent* of plate tectonics. I'll point out that even with Wegener's inadequate mechanism, he had a number of prominent scientists supporting him. This is how science works. It's all good!
participants (2)
-
Hans Havermann -
Henry Baker