Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31:
Line 31: + + + + + Line 59:
Line 64: − + + + + + + + + + Line 72:
Line 85: − <references/>+
no edit summary
|composition=Iron, Silicate
|composition=Iron, Silicate
|color=Reddish
|color=Reddish
|mfd=0.033 G (3.3 * 10<sup>-6</sup> T)<ref name=mercuryfact>Williams, David R. "[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mercuryfact.html Mercury Fact Sheet]." National Space Science Data Center, [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], November 30, 2007. Accessed May 29, 2008.</ref>
|pmdm=3.8 * 10<sup>19</sup> N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys2>Humphreys, D. R. "[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5976/ Mercury's Magnetic Field is Young]!" [[Creation Ministries International]], August 26, 2008. Accessed October 2, 2008.</ref>
|cmdm=7.5 * 10<sup>22</sup> N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys>Humphreys, D. R. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields]." ''[[Creation Research Society Quarterly]]'' 21(3), December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008.</ref>
|mdt=812.6 a<ref name=calc>Calculated from observed present magnetic dipole moment and expected magnetic dipole moment at creation.</ref>
|mhl=563.3 a<ref name=calc/>
}}
}}
:''This article is about the planet Mercury. For information about the chemical element see [[Mercury (element)]].''
:''This article is about the planet Mercury. For information about the chemical element see [[Mercury (element)]].''
A curiosity of the planet is its magnetic field, which is about 1% that of Earth's. Scientists were perplexed to discover its existence, speculating that planet's outer core consisted of liquid iron. However, because it is relatively small and hot, such an outer core would long ago have expired. That Mercury is so intensely cratered would also suggest that Mercury should long ago have given up its magnetic field because of its extreme apparent age.
A curiosity of the planet is its magnetic field, which is about 1% that of Earth's. Scientists were perplexed to discover its existence, speculating that planet's outer core consisted of liquid iron. However, because it is relatively small and hot, such an outer core would long ago have expired. That Mercury is so intensely cratered would also suggest that Mercury should long ago have given up its magnetic field because of its extreme apparent age.
Thus, according to current scientific understandings, the existence of Mercury's magnetic field presents a serious theoretical problem for [[uniformitarian]] models of the creation of the Solar System.<ref name=Psarris>Psarris, Spike, ''Our Solar System: Evidence for Design'', Seattle Creation Conference, 2006.</ref><ref>Franco, Lucia M. "[http://astro.uchicago.edu/home/web/lucia/a100/lectures/mercury.html Lecture 10.1: Mercury]." ''Astronomy 100 at Indiana University Northwest'', [[Indiana University]], 1996. Accessed April 17, 2008.</ref>
Thus, according to current scientific understandings, the existence of Mercury's magnetic field presents a serious theoretical problem for [[uniformitarian]] models of the creation of the Solar System.<ref name=Psarris>Psarris, Spike, ''Our Solar System: Evidence for Design'', Seattle Creation Conference, 2006.</ref><ref>Franco, Lucia M. "[http://astro.uchicago.edu/home/web/lucia/a100/lectures/mercury.html Lecture 10.1: Mercury]." ''Astronomy 100 at Indiana University Northwest'', [[Indiana University]], 1996. Accessed April 17, 2008.</ref> The problem of Mercury's magnetic field is more acute when one considers that Mars, which is slightly larger than Mercury and spins much faster, has a much weaker magnetic field.
[[Creationist]] [[Russell Humphreys]] has an alternative theory: that planetary magnetic fields do not form by dynamo action, and Mercury's relatively wide and conductive core has preserved its magnetic field. The cores of Mars and Venus are smaller, and thus the magnetic fields have decayed more rapidly.<ref name=Humphreys/> Nevertheless, the decay of Mercury's magnetic field, according to Humphreys, is quite rapid.
Accordingly, in 1984 Humphreys boldly declared:{{cquote|Mercury's decay rate is so rapid that some future probe could detect it fairly soon. In 1990 the planet's magnetic moment should be 1.8 percent smaller than its 1975 value.<ref name=Humphreys/>}}
In fact, according to Humphreys' extrapolations of the decay time and half-life of the magnetic field of Mercury, the [[magnetic dipole moment]] in 2008 should be ''four'' percent smaller than that measured in 1975 by Mariner 10. Specifically, this should be (4.5 +/- 0.25) * 10<sup>19</sup> N-m/T.
On January 14, 2008, [[MESSENGER]] made rendezvous with Mercury and measured its magnetic field. This rocket probe's measurements are consistent with a magnetic dipole moment of (3.8 +/- 0.7) * 10<sup>19</sup> N-m/T. This represents a significant decline from the Mariner 10 measurement, because the two measurements differ by more than the sum of their respective tolerances. More to the point, the higher tolerance range of the current measurement lies well within the predicted magnetic dipole moment that Mercury should have at present. If, on the other hand, the true measurement is ''less'' than predicted, that would pose an even greater problem for uniformitarian astrophysics, because such a rapid decay would be utterly inconsistent with an age for Mercury of 4.6 billion years. It would present no problem with the Humphreys model, but would suggest that the core conductivity and/or conductive mass of Mercury is less than Humphreys initially supposed.<ref name=Humphreys2/>
== Gallery ==
== Gallery ==
==Notes==
==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}
* [http://solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Mercury&Display=Overview NASA "Mercury"]
* [http://solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Mercury&Display=Overview NASA "Mercury"]