1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2004 January 9
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19: \usepackage{natbib}
20: \citestyle{aa}
21: \bibliographystyle{apj}
22:
23: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
24:
25: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
26:
27: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
28:
29: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
30:
31: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
32: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
33: %% use the longabstract style option.
34:
35: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
36:
37: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
38: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
39: %% the \begin{document} command.
40: %%
41: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
42: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
43: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
44: %% for information.
45:
46: \newcommand{\myemail}{xavier.alvarez@uab.es}
47:
48: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
49:
50: %%\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
51:
52: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
53: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
54: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
55: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
56: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
57: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
58:
59: \shorttitle{Scaling Law Model for the Planetary Magnetism}
60: \shortauthors{F. X. Alvarez}
61:
62: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
63: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
64:
65: \begin{document}
66:
67: \title{Scaling Law for the Magnetic Field of the Planets
68: Based on a Thermodynamic Model}
69:
70: \author{F. X. Alvarez}
71: \email{Xavier.Alvarez@uab.es}
72: \affil{Departament de F\'isica, Universitat Aut\`onoma de
73: Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Catalonia, Spain}
74:
75:
76: %\date{\today}% It is always \today, today,
77: % but any date may be explicitly specified
78:
79: \begin{abstract}
80: A thermodynamic model for the generation of magnetic fields in the
81: planets is proposed, considering crossed effects between
82: gravitational and electric forces. The magnetic field of the Earth
83: is estimated and found to be in agreement with the actual field.
84: The ratio between the field of several planets and that of the
85: Earth is calculated in the model and compared with the same ratio
86: for the measured fields. These comparisons are found to be
87: qualitatively consistent. Once the value of the magnetic field is
88: calculated, the model is used to obtain the tilt of the magnetic
89: dipole with respect to the rotation axis. This model can explain
90: why Uranus and Neptune magnetic fields have higher quadrupole
91: moment than the other magnetic fields of the Solar System and why
92: Saturn, that has a highly axysymmetric field, has lower
93: quadrupolar component. The model also explains the double peak of
94: the magnetic field observed by Voyager 2 while recording the field
95: of Neptune. The Earth paleomagnetic data are analysed and found to
96: be consistent with the model, that predicts higher quadrupole
97: components for the more tilted dipoles. A field is predicted for
98: all the planets and satellites of the Solar System with enough
99: mass. Objections are made to the theories that predict that this
100: effect could not generate a field agreeing with the measured one.
101: \end{abstract}
102:
103: %\pacs{Valid PACS appear here}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy
104: % Classification Scheme.
105: \keywords{MHD, planets and satellites: general, magnetic fields}%Use showkeys class option if keyword
106: %display desired
107: \maketitle
108:
109: \include{ms.bib}
110:
111: \section{Introduction}
112:
113: One of the open fields in modern physics is to find the equations
114: that rule the origin and evolution of the magnetic field of the
115: planets and, specifically, that of the Earth. Some theories based
116: on the dynamo model have obtained a correct value for the magnetic
117: field for the Earth (\cite{GLATZ4,BUS}), and even some of the
118: proposed models describe a magnetic pole inversion as observed in
119: the Earth (\cite{GLATZ1, GLATZ3, PLUN}). The dynamo model has also
120: been applied to describe the magnetic field of the Sun
121: (\cite{GLATZ2}). Even though these theories seem to fit correctly
122: to the field of our planet, there is a question still unsolved.
123: Why all the objects of the Universe seem to be closely related
124: with magnetic fields?. Six of the nine planets of our solar
125: system, main sequence stars, neutron stars, galaxies, etc..., all
126: seem to have high magnetic fields.
127:
128: If we look in further detail to the Solar System, the presence of
129: significative magnetic fields seems to be the law rather than the
130: exception (\cite{RUSSELL1,RUSSELL2}). But this ubiquity in the
131: presence of magnetic fields does not seem to remain if we look at
132: the morphologies of such fields. Mercury and Jupiter show
133: Earth-like structure fields (\cite{NESS1}). Uranus
134: (\cite{CONNEREY1}) and Neptune very inclined fields and
135: quadrupolar moments. In the case of Neptune, the Voyager 2 probe
136: recorded a double peak in the mesured magnetic field
137: (\cite{CONNEREY2}). Saturn, in contrast, has a highly axisymmetric
138: magnetic dipolar field (\cite{CONNEREY3}).
139:
140: Although the geodynamo model explains so well the Earth magnetic
141: field, it must make nontrivial assumptions to incorporate subtle
142: details in the magnetic fields of other planets. For instance,
143: Uranus and Neptune's magnetic fields are more quadrupolar than the
144: one predicted by the outer core convective dynamo. In the same
145: manner paleomagnetic data in the Earth show an increment of the
146: relative intensity of the quadrupolar components of the magnetic
147: fields during the magnetic dipole reversals. Another problem is
148: that Saturn's strongly axisymmetric field contradicts Cowling's
149: theorem that no axisymmetric homogeneous magnetic field can be
150: self-sustained. There have been solutions for each of these
151: problems. The quadrupolar problem of Uranus and Neptune has been
152: solved by a change of the convection zone. In the modified model,
153: the convection is produced in a zone between \(0.75\) and \(0.8\)
154: times the radius of the planet (\cite{AUR, STAN}). The model
155: proposed uses a fluid electrically-conducting inner core, instead
156: of the solid electrically-conducting inner core of the standard
157: geodynamo models. The high axysimmetry of Saturn has been solved
158: in models like \cite{STEVENSONSAT}. All these solutions make the
159: theory not easily applicable to all different cases in the Solar
160: System with one simple model. Although dynamo theory is the best
161: accepted way to fit to the experimental data, the models used to
162: describe these facts are different for every object described.
163: This paper tries to solve this problem with the use of a model
164: that tries to explain all these features without the need
165: specificities.
166:
167: In this paper we propose a model of magnetic field generation
168: based on a thermodynamic point of view which uses the relation
169: between thermodynamic forces and fluxes as the starting point. In
170: the model, a redistribution of the charge is obtained from the
171: gravitational energy of the planet through the action of pressure.
172: From this charge distribution and the rotation of the planet, the
173: magnetic field is generated. Several advantages of this model are:
174: 1) Its ability to spontaneously break the spherical symmetry of
175: the system to yield a field with axial symmetry; 2) the
176: possibility to obtain a tilt of the dipole moment relative to the
177: axis of rotation; 3) a possible explanation of why Uranus and
178: Neptune, that have large tilts, have higher quadrupole moment than
179: the other planets; 4) an explanation of why Saturn, with a high
180: axisymmetric field, has a low quadrupole moment.
181:
182: The possibility of reversing the dipole is open, and predicts that
183: the field during a transition may become more quadrupolar than the
184: stable normal or reverse state (as observed in the past). The
185: detailed dynamics of the transition is out of the scope of this
186: paper that only pretends to present the main lines of the model.
187:
188: The inclusion of an analysis of the multipolarity of the fields
189: obtained is also out of the scope of this article, but this
190: feature is implicitily considered in the model because of its
191: geometry.
192:
193: This paper doesn't attempt to replace the geodynamo model that
194: fits so well in the case of the Earth (\cite{GLATZ4, GLATZ5}), but
195: tries to propose a general mechanism for the different planets to
196: generate a magnetic field. Instead of it, the energy needed for
197: the generation of the field comes from the more universal
198: gravitational field, present all over the Universe. To describe in
199: an unified way the behaviors of such different planets, it is
200: logical to ask for a model relatively independent of the
201: microscopic details, this is the reason why we have turned here to
202: a global thermodynamic analysis, at a macroscopic level, rather
203: than directly going to the mechanistic details, which may be
204: different in different planets.
205:
206: The model could be used in posterior papers, as a generator of
207: magnetic fields in more general objects of the Universe like the
208: main sequence stars or the neutron stars.
209:
210: \section{Model}
211:
212: We start our discussion by calculating the conditions of pressure
213: in the core. The pressure inside the planet is given in the first
214: approximation by the hydrostatic equilibrium between gravitation,
215: that pushes inwards, and pressure, that pushes outwards. The
216: resulting value of the pressure distribution is
217: \begin{eqnarray}
218: \label{hydrostatic}
219: p(r)=\frac{9GM^2}{8\pi}\Bigg(\frac{1}{R^4}-\frac{r^2}{R^6}\Bigg),
220: \end{eqnarray}
221: where \(M\) and \(R\) are the total mass and external radius of
222: the planet and \(r\) is the radius at the position being
223: considered. In this relation it is assumed that the density is
224: constant and equal to the average density of the planet. This
225: prevents the gravitational collapse of the planet. We must take
226: into account that we don't pretend to have an exact value for this
227: parameter, but only an idea of its magnitude and we don't need a
228: more accurate value of it.
229:
230: The internal pressure of the Earth makes iron in the inner part of
231: the core to be more compact packed than iron in the outer part.
232: This increase in atomic packing makes the Fermi energy in the
233: inner part of the core to be higher than the one in the outer
234: part. This difference in the Fermi energy pushes the electrons in
235: the conduction band outside the center of the Earth. If the charge
236: of the materials were zero (conducting iron in the inner core and
237: electrons pushed outside), this tendency would continue until the
238: complete separation of both particles, but the particles are
239: charged and we face a problem of stratification with electrical
240: charge. In this scenario, there is no need of ionization of the
241: core's material, the only assumption made is its conductivity, and
242: the fact that the conduction electrons have complete mobility in
243: all the conductor. The property of conductivity is common to all
244: the planet because in the core all the planets have high enough
245: pressures to cause the constituent material to act as a metal even
246: though the material is hydrogen like in Jupiter and Saturn.
247:
248: Thermodynamically we could see the model as a gradient of chemical
249: potential due to a pressure gradient. Electrons in a material are
250: subject to the force exert by the gradient of the electrochemical
251: potential. This gradient has the form
252: \begin{eqnarray}
253: \nabla \mu_{el}= \mathbf{E}+\nabla \mu,
254: \end{eqnarray}
255: where \(\mathbf{E}\) is the external electric field and
256: \(\mu_{el}\) and \(\mu\) are respectively the electrochemical and
257: chemical potentials.
258:
259: A gradient of chemical potential could be caused by several
260: reasons. We could obtain a gradient by changing the concentration,
261: the pressure and the temperature. Thermodynamically, the cause of
262: an electric current is the electrochemical gradient. If there is
263: no current present in a material, the gradient of electrochemical
264: potential must be zero. If we take into account all these
265: generators in the last relation and impose the equilibrium
266: condition, we obtain
267: \begin{eqnarray}
268: \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial p} \nabla p+\frac{\partial
269: \mu}{\partial T} \nabla T+\frac{\partial \mu}{\partial c} \nabla
270: c=0,
271: \end{eqnarray}
272: where \(p\) is the pressure, \(T\) temperature and \(c\)
273: concentration.
274:
275: In the radial direction in the Earth core, the conservation of
276: charge grants that the net current over sufficient long periods of
277: time must be zero. This condition leave only the possibility that
278: the radial current is zero or oscillate around this value. We
279: start our discussion by taking the firs possibility. The main
280: cause of
281:
282: In this simple model we assume two concentric spherical shells
283: filled with some substance with electric permittivity \(\epsilon\)
284: , electric conductivity \(\sigma\) , and thermal conductivity
285: \(\kappa\) . These shells corresponds to the inner core boundary
286: (ICB) and the core mantle boundary (CMB).
287:
288: The energy balance equation of the material filling the system is,
289: if we consider electrical effects,
290: \begin{eqnarray}
291: \label{ener} \rho \dot{u}=- \nabla \cdot \mathbf{q} + \mathbf{i}
292: \cdot \mathbf{E},
293: \end{eqnarray}
294: where \(\rho\) is the mass density, \(u\) internal energy per unit
295: mass, \(\mathbf{i}\) electrical current density, \(\mathbf{q}\)
296: the energy flux and \(\mathbf{E}\) the electric field. The
297: conservation of mass of component \(k\) is expressed by
298: \begin{eqnarray}
299: \label{consma} \rho \dot{c_k}=- \nabla \cdot \mathbf{j_k},
300: \end{eqnarray}
301: with \(c_k=\rho_k/\rho\) the mass fraction and \(\mathbf{j_k}\)
302: the material current density.
303:
304: The classical entropy of the system is defined with the usual
305: Gibbs equation
306: \begin{eqnarray}\label{entro1}
307: ds = \frac{1}{T}du - \frac{p}{T} dv -
308: \sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{\mu_k}{T}dc_k.
309: \end{eqnarray}
310: By differentiating this equation with respect to time, and
311: substituting (\ref{ener}) and (\ref{consma}) in the subsequent
312: equation we obtain
313: \begin{eqnarray}\label{entro2}
314: \rho\dot{s} & = & \frac{1}{T}\Big(- \nabla \cdot \mathbf{q} +
315: \mathbf{i} \cdot \mathbf{E}\Big) - \frac{p\rho}{T} \dot{v} -
316: \sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{\mu_k}{T}\nabla \cdot \mathbf{j_k}.
317: \end{eqnarray}
318: Arranging terms, we obtain four fluxes and four generalized forces
319: appearing in the entropy production, namely, the last four terms
320: in the right hand side of
321: \begin{eqnarray}\label{entro3b}
322: \rho\dot{s} & = & - \nabla \cdot \Big(\frac{\mathbf{q -
323: \sum_{k=1}^{n} \mu_k \mathbf{j_k}}}{T} \Big) + \Big(\mathbf{q -
324: \sum_{k=1}^{n} \mu_k \mathbf{j_k}}\Big)\cdot\nabla \Big(\frac{\mathbf{1}}{T}\Big)+ \\
325: \nonumber & & +\mathbf{i} \cdot \frac{\mathbf{E}}{T} - \frac{\rho
326: p}{T} \dot{v} - \sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{\nabla\mu_k}{T}\cdot
327: \mathbf{j_k}
328: \end{eqnarray}
329: \begin{table}[h] \centering
330: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline
331: \textbf{Flux} & \textbf{Generalized force} \\
332: \hline
333: \(\dot{v}\) & \(\rho p/T\) \\
334: \(\mathbf{j_k}\) & \(\nabla \mu_k/T\) \\
335: \(\mathbf{q -
336: \sum_{k=1}^{n} \mu_k \mathbf{j_k}}\) & \(\nabla(1/T)\) \\
337: \(\mathbf{i}\) & \(\mathbf{E}/T\) \\
338: \hline \end{tabular} \caption{table showing the fluxes and the
339: corresponding generalized forces appearing in the entropy
340: production in Eq (\ref{entro3b})}\label{tabflux}
341: \end{table}
342:
343: As it is known, a generalized force can produce not only its
344: associated flux, but also other fluxes, like in thermoelectricity
345: or thermodiffusion (\cite{GROOT, EIT1}). In our example, we
346: analyse the coupling between electric field and the gradient of
347: chemical potential. The constitutive equations of the
348: corresponding fluxes are
349: \begin{eqnarray}
350: \mathbf{i} = L_{ee} \frac{\mathbf{E}}{T} + L_{eg} \frac{\nabla \mu_k}{T}, \\
351: \mathbf{j_k} = L_{ge} \frac{\mathbf{E}}{T} + L_{gg} \frac{\nabla
352: \mu_k}{T},
353: \end{eqnarray}
354: where \(L_{ee}\) is related to the electrical conductivity of the
355: material (\(L_{ee}=\sigma T\)), \(L_{gg}\) is related to the
356: diffusion coefficient of component \(k\) and \(L_{eg}=L_{ge}\) is
357: the crossed coefficient that relates the electric and
358: gravitational effects. We use the \(g\) subscripts because, below,
359: this value will be related with the gravitational energy.
360:
361: The gradient of the chemical potential is related with the
362: pressure gradient as
363: \begin{eqnarray}
364: \nabla \mu_k = v_k \nabla p,
365: \end{eqnarray}
366: where \(v_k\) is the specific molar volume of species k. We
367: consider that the dependence of \(\mu_k\) on the temperature is
368: negligible as compared with that on the pressure. Using this
369: relation and an approximate value of the gradient of \(p\)
370: obtained from (\ref{hydrostatic}), we get the following relation
371: between the fluxes,
372: \begin{eqnarray}
373: \mathbf{i} = L_{ee} \frac{\vec{\mathbf{E}}}{T} + L_{eg} \frac{v_k}{T}\Bigg(\frac{9GM^2}{8\pi}\frac{1}{R^5}\Bigg)\mathbf{\hat{r}}, \\
374: \mathbf{j_k} = L_{ge} \frac{\vec{\mathbf{E}}}{T} + L_{gg}
375: \frac{v_k}{T}\Bigg(\frac{9GM^2}{8\pi}\frac{1}{R^5}\Bigg)\mathbf{\hat{r}},
376: \end{eqnarray}
377: with \(\mathbf{\hat{r}}\) the unit vector in the radial direction.
378:
379: If we consider that the planet interior is in equilibrium, the
380: radial electrical and material currents must vanish, in such a way
381: that there must be an electrical field that opposes to the
382: gravitational effects on the charged fluid
383: \begin{eqnarray}
384: L_{ee} \frac{\vec{\mathbf{E}}}{T} + L_{eg}
385: \frac{v_k}{T}\Bigg(\frac{9GM^2}{8\pi}\frac{1}{R^5}\Bigg)\mathbf{\hat{r}}=0,
386: \end{eqnarray}
387: which yields
388: \begin{eqnarray}\label{magneticfield}
389: \vec{\mathbf{E}}=- \frac{L_{eg}}{L_{ee}}\nabla \mu= -
390: \frac{L_{eg}}{L_{ee}}
391: v_k\Bigg(\frac{9GM^2}{8\pi}\frac{1}{R^5}\Bigg)\mathbf{\hat{r}}.
392: \end{eqnarray}
393:
394: \begin{figure}
395: \label{plotone}
396: \includegraphics{f1.eps}
397: \caption{Sketch of the interior of a planet with the symbols being
398: used in the text}
399: \end{figure}
400:
401: \begin{figure}
402: \label{plottwo}
403: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{f2.eps}
404: \caption{Image of the magnetic field created by each one of the
405: different shells and the total magnetic field.}
406: \end{figure}
407:
408: Now it is time to examine the effect of this electrical field on
409: the electrons of the core. Figure \ref{plotone} shows the model we
410: use. We can see it like a condenser composed of two spherical
411: plates of radius \(r_a=\alpha R\) (inner sphere) and \(r_b=\beta
412: R\) (outer sphere), where \(R\) is the planet radius and
413: \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\) are numerical coefficients which take a
414: value between \(0\) and \(1\). We suppose that the planet stores
415: electrical charge until the field created by this charge cancels
416: the one created by gravitational effects.
417:
418: To calculate the charge we need the value of the capacity of the
419: condenser (\cite{WANGSNESS}). This value is
420:
421: \begin{eqnarray}
422: \frac{1}{C} = \frac{1}{4\pi
423: \epsilon}\Big(\frac{1}{r_a}-\frac{1}{r_b}\Big)=\frac{1}{4\pi
424: \epsilon}\frac{1}{R}\Big(\frac{\beta - \alpha}{\beta \alpha}\Big)
425: \end{eqnarray}
426:
427: The value of the electrical field created by this condenser is
428: related with the charge stored in it. If we suppose that the value
429: of the electric field is approximately constant inside the plates
430: and it is given by (\ref{magneticfield}) we obtain for the charge
431:
432: \begin{eqnarray}\label{CARREGA}
433: Q & = & C \Delta V = C \mathbf{E} (r_b - r_a) = \\ \nonumber & =
434: & 4\pi \epsilon R \Big(\frac{\beta \alpha}{\beta - \alpha}\Big)
435: \frac{L_{eg}}{L_{ee}}\Big(\nabla \mu \Big)R\big(\beta - \alpha\big)=\\
436: \nonumber & = & 4\pi \beta \alpha
437: \frac{L_{eg}\epsilon}{L_{ee}}\Big(\nabla \mu \Big) R^2 = C_g C_m
438: \Big(\nabla \mu \Big) R^2
439: \end{eqnarray}
440:
441: where \(C_g=4\pi \beta \alpha\) is a value that only depends on
442: the geometry of the system and is independent of the values of the
443: material coefficients, whereas, in contrast,\(C_m=
444: L_{eg}\epsilon/L_{ee}\) is related only with the values of the
445: conductivities of the material contained between the plates.
446:
447: If we distribute the charge \(Q\) uniformly all over the plates we
448: find the values of the respective charge density \(\sigma_a\) and
449: \(\sigma_b\) of the inner and outer spheres
450: \begin{eqnarray}
451: \sigma_a = \frac{C_g C_m \nabla \mu R^2}{4\pi \alpha^2 R^2}=\frac{C_g C_m \nabla \mu}{4\pi \alpha^2},\\
452: \sigma_b
453: = -\frac{C_g C_m \nabla \mu R^2}{4\pi \beta^2 R^2}=\frac{C_g C_m
454: \nabla \mu}{4\pi \beta^2}.
455: \end{eqnarray}
456:
457: These densities will rotate with the planet with a frequency
458: \(\nu=(1/\tau)\) where \(\tau\) is the corresponding rotation
459: period. These charges, rotating with this angular velocity will
460: generate a dipolar magnetic field. In the case of the internal
461: plate this magnetic dipole moment is
462: \begin{eqnarray}\label{campint1}
463: \nonumber d_a = \int \mathbf{S} d\mathbf{i_a}=\int \mathbf{S}
464: \sigma_a \nu d\mathbf{A_a}=\\ \nonumber =\int_{0}^{\pi} \pi (R
465: \alpha \sin{\theta})^2\sigma_a \nu (2 \pi \alpha R \sin{\theta}) R d\theta=\\
466: = \frac{2 \pi \alpha^2 C_g C_m}{3} \frac{R^4}{\tau}\nabla \mu_k
467: \end{eqnarray}
468: while in the case of the outer plate we obtain
469: \begin{eqnarray}\label{campint2}
470: d_b = -\frac{2 \pi \beta^2 C_g C_m}{3} \frac{R^4}{\tau}\nabla
471: \mu.
472: \end{eqnarray}
473:
474: The total magnetic moment will be the sum of (\ref{campint1}) and
475: (\ref{campint2}) values. Thus the final dipole moment of the
476: planet is
477: \begin{eqnarray}\label{magfi1}
478: d_t & = & d_b +d_a= -\frac{2 \pi (\beta^2-\alpha^2) C_g C_m}{3}
479: \frac{\nabla \mu R^4}{\tau}.
480: \end{eqnarray}
481:
482: The only remaining thing is to return to the value of the gradient
483: of the chemical potential in terms of the mass and radius of the
484: planet, given by (\ref{magneticfield}), i.e.
485: \begin{eqnarray}
486: \nabla \mu_k = v_k\Bigg(\frac{9GM^2}{8\pi}\frac{1}{R^5}\Bigg).
487: \end{eqnarray}
488:
489: If we substitute this value in (\ref{magfi1}) we obtain finally
490: \begin{eqnarray}\label{campmagneticfinal}
491: \mathbf{d}_t = C'_g C'_m G \frac{M^2}{R\tau},
492: \end{eqnarray}
493: where we have redefined the geometrical and material factors as
494: \(C'_g=-3 \pi (\beta^2-\alpha^2) \beta \alpha\), and \(C'_m=
495: \frac{L_{eg}v_k\epsilon}{L_{ee}}\).
496:
497: Equation (\ref{campmagneticfinal}) gives the total magnetic field
498: generated by an object of mass M, radius R and that rotates with a
499: period \(\tau\).
500:
501: The resulting magnetic field is a linear combination of two
502: dipoles: the one produced by the positive charge in the inner
503: shell and the one produced by the negative charge in the outer
504: shell. Both shells rotate in the same direction and, as a
505: consequence, the magnetic fields generated by them are in opposite
506: directions as they have opposed electric charges. The resulting
507: dipole is in the direction of the bigger one, in this case in the
508: direction of that generated by the negative charges because their
509: linear velocity is higher than that of the positive charges.
510:
511: At this point we must solve the possibility of the model to
512: predict a change in the orientation of the generated magnetic
513: field in order to fit to the experimental data recorded in
514: basaltic rocks.
515:
516: For this purpose we have to come back to the thermodynamic
517: relationship and observe the behavior of the fluxes in the
518: toroidal component. In this case we have to take on consideration
519: that forces due to the magnetic field appear in the formulas.
520: Expressed in tensorial form, constitutive equations are
521:
522: \begin{eqnarray}
523: \mathbf{E}=\mathbf{i}/\sigma + \alpha \mathbf{\nabla}T+
524: R\mathbf{H}\times \mathbf{i}+ N\mathbf{H}\times \mathbf{\nabla}T,
525: \end{eqnarray}
526: where \(\mathbf{E}\) and \(\mathbf{H}\) are the electric and
527: magnetic field, \(\mathbf{i}\) is the electric current density,
528: \(T\) is temperature and \(\alpha, \sigma, R, N\) are respectively
529: the thermal and electrical conductivity and Hall and Nernst
530: conductivity. In this section we are only interested in the
531: behavior of this relation in the toroidal component. We could make
532: some simplifications. Since the system has radial symmetry, the
533: gradient of temperature and the electric field in this direction
534: are 0, (\(E_\theta=0, (\nabla T)_\theta=0\)). In the previous
535: section we considered that the electric current in the radial
536: direction is 0,(\(j_r=0\)). The magnetic field is in the poloidal
537: component, (\(\mathbf{H}_r=H_\phi\)). Making these assumptions in
538: the previous relation we obtain
539:
540: \begin{eqnarray}
541: 0=j_\theta/\sigma + N H_\phi \nabla T,
542: \end{eqnarray}
543: this relation tells us that in the presence of the magnetic field
544: coming from the radial separation of charges in the core, a
545: current appears in the azimutal direction due to the gradient of
546: temperatures. This current is in the opposite direction to that of
547: the rotation of the planet. As a consequence, the outer shell
548: "frena" respect to the motion of the planet and this makes the
549: global magnetic field change in magnitude. If this current is high
550: enough, the orientation of the magnetic field could change.
551:
552: \begin{figure}
553: \label{plotfour}
554: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f4.eps}
555: \caption{Graph for actual vs. predicted magnetic fields for the
556: planets and satellites with detected global magnetic field. The
557: actual and predicted field for the Earth is 1 to show that the
558: scaling predicted by the model agrees with experimental scaling.}
559: \end{figure}
560:
561: The process of magnetic field generation by a pressure gradient is
562: not new. In 1955, \cite{INGLIS} consider this process and
563: calculated the order of magnitude of the magnetic field. He stated
564: that the generated field was eighteen orders of magnitude lower
565: than the actual magnetic field. In the same direction,
566: \cite{MERRILL1} indicate that this conclusion was predictable
567: since the pressure gradient effect would not exhibit inversions.
568: But there are some objections about these conclusions, and we try
569: to expose them in this section.
570:
571: The first argument to be objected is that this effect could not
572: exhibit polarity reversals. In the previous section we propose a
573: mechanism with which the polarity could be achieved. The mechanism
574: is the equilibrium between the loss of energy by Joule heating and
575: the gain in energy due to the orientation of the outer shell
576: respect to the inner shell.
577:
578: The second argument needs a more extensive explanation. Inglis, in
579: his considerations, used statistical mechanics to estimate the
580: voltage difference between the external and the internal parts of
581: the Earth's core. He obtained that the pressure in the inner core
582: would raise the Fermi energy of the iron in \(2 eV\) in relation
583: to the outer part of the core. The effect in the electrons would
584: be that these ones tend to accumulate in the outer core because
585: their energy is lower. The change in the charge density creates an
586: electric field that pulls the electrons back to the inner core
587: until equilibrium is reached. At this point, Inglis considered
588: that an electron needs a voltage difference of \(2 V\) between the
589: inner and outer part of the core. Although this would be correct
590: in vacuum, he doesn't considered the fact that these electrons are
591: in a material medium. As is well known from Sommerfeld theory of
592: metals, the Fermi energy increase in a metallic wire subjected to
593: an electric field is (\cite{ASHCROFT, KITTEL}),
594: \begin{eqnarray}
595: \delta k = \frac{q}{\hbar}E \tau
596: \end{eqnarray}
597: where \(k\) is the Fermi momentum, \(q\) the charge of the
598: particle (electrons in our model), \(E\) the modulus of the
599: applied electric field, and \(\tau\) the time between collisions
600: of the particle in the medium. The time between collisions is
601: related to the mean free path through the Fermi velocity \(\tau =
602: \lambda/v_F\), where \(v_F\) is the Fermi velocity. If we use
603: these relations in the opposite direction, we obtain the value of
604: the field generated by a shift in the Fermi energy,
605:
606: \begin{eqnarray}\label{CampFermi}
607: E=\frac{2 \Delta E_F}{q\lambda}.
608: \end{eqnarray}
609:
610: The final result is that the applied field has to be high enough
611: to give \(\Delta E_F\) of energy in a distance of the order of the
612: mean free path and not on the complete core thickness. The
613: difference between both sizes is 14 to 16 orders of magnitude.
614: Considering that in his discussion he obtained that the field
615: created was 18 orders of magnitude lower than the actual one, we
616: can view that this effect could give a considerable field. In the
617: next section we refine these calculations and obtain the correct
618: value for the magnetic field.
619:
620: \cite{STEVENSONPM} also stated that the Ohmic dissipation would be
621: too large to mantain this effect. In fact there are no currents in
622: the process of charge separation and so there is not dissipation.
623: The thermal velocity distribution is isotropic so the amount of
624: electrons that go inward is the same as the amount of electrons
625: pointing outward. The electrons going into the core are
626: accelerated and when they impact with an ion they give the excess
627: of energy to it by thermalization; in contrast, the electrons
628: going outward, are deaccelerated and when they impact with an ion
629: they have less energy than the medium and by the thermalization
630: process they gain energy. The resulting effect is the absence of
631: an energy release. The only process that generate heat dissipation
632: is the one that makes the outer shell tilt respect to the inner
633: shell, but in this process the velocities are small and the
634: dissipation is low. In the numerical results section we try to
635: make an approach to compute this value.
636:
637: \section{Numerical Results}
638:
639: Using a similar statistical mechanic approach like the one used by
640: Inglis we compute the predicted magnetic field for the Earth. We
641: start by calculating the mean energy for the electrons of the core
642: under a pressure \(p\). For the pressure we use the value obtained
643: from hydrostatic equilibrium (\ref{hydrostatic})
644: \begin{eqnarray}\label{FermiEnergy1}
645: E_F=\frac{p}{n}=\frac{3 G M^2}{8 \pi R^4}\frac{1}{n},
646: \end{eqnarray}
647: were \(n\) is the numerical free electron density of iron in the
648: core. We use this relation in the Sommerfeld relation obtained in
649: (\ref{CampFermi}) and substitute the result in the relation
650: (\ref{CARREGA}) to obtain the amount of charge separated in the
651: core.
652:
653: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Q1}
654: Q=C\Delta R E=4\pi \alpha \beta \epsilon \frac{3 G M^2}{8 \pi
655: R^2}\frac{\Delta n}{n^2}\frac{1}{q\lambda},
656: \end{eqnarray}
657: where q is the fundamental charge and \(\lambda\) the mean free
658: path for electrons in the core. Instead of the value of the mean
659: free path, we use the more usual value of the conductivity. With
660: this objective we use the Drude-Sommerfeld relation between
661: conductivity and mean free path, to write
662: \begin{eqnarray}\label{lambda1}
663: \lambda = \frac{\sigma m_e v_F}{n
664: q^2}=\frac{\sigma}{2nq^2}\sqrt{\frac{3Gm_e}{\pi n}}\frac{M}{R^2},
665: \end{eqnarray}
666: where \(\sigma\) is the conductivity, \(v_F\) the Fermi velocity,
667: and \(m_e\) the electron mass. By substitution of (\ref{Q1}) and
668: (\ref{lambda1}) on the magnetic dipole moment we obtain,
669: \begin{eqnarray}\label{CampF}
670: d =
671: \frac{2\pi}{3}\frac{R^2}{\tau}Q=\Bigg(q\epsilon\sqrt{\frac{4\pi^3
672: G}{3m_e}}\Bigg) \alpha \beta \frac{\Delta n}{
673: n}\frac{\sqrt{n}}{\sigma}\frac{MR^2}{\tau}
674: \end{eqnarray}
675:
676: The values we use in the last relation for the conductivity and
677: the permittivity are,\(sigma = 10^5 \ S/m\) and
678: \(\epsilon=\epsilon_0 = 8,85\cdot 10^{-12} \ F/m\).
679:
680: For the value of the increment in the numerical density we assume
681: that the difference in the numerical density of electrons in the
682: core is proportional to the difference in the numerical density of
683: iron atoms so is proportional to the difference in the mass
684: density
685: \begin{eqnarray}
686: \frac{\Delta n}{n} =\frac{\Delta \rho}{\rho}=\frac{(12,8 - 9,9)
687: \ g/cm^3}{12,8 \ g/cm^3}=0,22.
688: \end{eqnarray}
689:
690: The free electron density at the center of the Earth core will be
691: \begin{eqnarray}
692: n_i =\frac{\rho_i}{\rho_o}n_o=\frac{12,8 / g/cm^3}{7,85 \
693: g/cm^3}\cdot 1,7\cdot 10^{29}=2,77 \cdot 10^{29} \ m^{-3}
694: \end{eqnarray}
695: where \(n_i\) and \(n_o\) are respectively the free electron
696: density in the core and at the surface of the Earth and \(\rho_i\)
697: and \(\rho_o\) the corresponding mass densities. Using these
698: values and the values for the mass, radius and period of rotation
699: of the Earth we obtain the predicted value for the dipole moment
700: of the Earth,
701: \begin{eqnarray}\label{CampF}
702: d = 3,03 \cdot10^{22} A \ m^2.
703: \end{eqnarray}
704:
705: The actual value of the Earth dipole moment is \(7 \cdot 10^{22}
706: Am^2\). We can see that the value predicted by the model is of the
707: same order of magnitude as the actual value. This is in
708: contradiction with the previous results that stated that this
709: mechanism couldn't give a value close to the experiment.
710:
711: A remarkable thing that must be noted is that the model obtains
712: directly the wide known relation about magnetic dipole moment and
713: the moment of inertia of the object \(d \propto I=MR^2/\tau\).
714:
715: Returning to the subject of ohmic dissipation we could make an
716: approach to the value of the power dissipated by a shell moving
717: respect to the Earth. The less favorable case would be the one in
718: which the outer shell rotates in opposite sense of the Earth
719: rotation. In this case the heat generated by ohmic dissipation
720: would be
721: \begin{eqnarray}\label{pomega}
722: P_{\Omega}=\frac{\mathbf{j}}{\sigma}V=\frac{3Q}{(\beta R)^2\tau}.
723: \end{eqnarray}
724: where \(\mathbf{j}\) is the current density. In the last relation
725: we assumed a constant distribution of a charge \(Q\) over a sphere
726: of radius \(\beta R\) spinning at an angular velocity of \(4 \pi
727: R/\tau\) respect to the Earth. Substituting \ref{Q1} and
728: \ref{lambda1} into \ref{pomega} we obtain
729: \begin{eqnarray}\label{pomega}
730: P_{\Omega}=144\pi^2 \alpha^2 \beta
731: \frac{G}{m_e}\frac{\epsilon^2q^2\Delta
732: n}{\sigma^3}\frac{M^2}{R\tau^2}.
733: \end{eqnarray}
734:
735: In the case of the Earth, this value is \(129 \ MW\). This value
736: is far lower than the values of actual heat dissipation of the
737: Earth that are of the order of \(TW\).
738:
739: For the extension of this result to the rest of the planets we
740: need the values of the conductivity and the free electron density
741: for all of them. Even though there has been progresses in
742: calculating the thermodynamical properties of the Earth core and
743: mantle (\cite{STEVE,LIDUNKA, ALFE1,ALFE2, SHAN, XU}), we have not
744: yet the detailed values of the transport coefficients of the
745: objects of the Solar System. In order to obtain such values for
746: the Solar System, we must make some assumptions about the value of
747: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Transport}
748: \frac{\Delta n}{\sigma \sqrt{n}} \simeq
749: \frac{\sqrt{n}}{\sigma}\simeq \sqrt{n}.
750: \end{eqnarray}
751: were we assumed that in the Drude-Sommerfeld model for metals, the
752: conductivity is directly proportional to the numerical density.
753: This value is not very different in different planets.
754: \begin{table}\label{tabplanet1} \centering
755: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
756: \hline
757: \textbf{Object} & \(R/R_E\) & \(M/M_E\) & \(\tau/\tau_E\) & \(d/d_E\) \\
758: \hline
759: Sun & \(110\) & \(3,33\cdot10^{5}\) & \(28\) & \(10^{7}-10^{8}\)\\
760: Mercury & \(0.383\) & \(0.0553\) & \(58.8\) & \(3.85 \cdot 10^{-4}\)\\
761: Venus & \(0.949\) & \(0.815\) & \(243.7\) & \(0 ?\)\\
762: Earth & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\) & \(1\)\\
763: Moon & \(0.273\) & \(0.0123\) & \(27.4\) & \(0 ?\)\\
764: Mars & \(0.533\) & \(0.107\) & \(1.03\) & \(0 ?\)\\
765: Jupiter & \(11.21\) & \(317.7\) & \(0.415\) & \(2\cdot 10^4\)\\
766: Io & \(0.286\) & \(0.0150\) & \(1.77\) & \(1.03\cdot 10^{-3}\)\\
767: Europa & \(0.245\) & \(0.0080\) & \(3.56\) & \(8.97\cdot 10^{-5}\)\\
768: Ganymede & \(0.413\) & \(0.0248\) & \(7.17\) & \(1.79\cdot 10^{-3}\)\\
769: Callisto& \(0.378\) & \(0.0180\) & \(16.73\) & \(?\)\\
770: Saturn & \(9.45\) & \(95.2\) & \(0.445\) & \(605\)\\
771: Titan& \(0.403\) & \(0.0225\) & \(15.99\) & \(?\)\\
772: Uranus & \(4.01\) & \(14.5\) & \(0.720\) & \(49.1\)\\
773: Neptune & \(3.88\) & \(17.1\) & \(0.673\) & \(27.7\)\\
774: Trito & \(0.212\) & \(0.0036\) & \(5.89\) & \(?\)\\
775: Pluto & \(0.187\) & \(0.0020\) & \(6.40\) & \(?\)\\
776: Caronte & \(0.0465\) & \(0.00027\) & \(6.40\) & \(?\)\\
777: \hline
778: \end{tabular}
779: \caption{Table with the values of the radii, mass, rotation period
780: and magnetic dipole moment of some celestial objects relative to
781: the Earth.}
782: \end{table}
783:
784: From these values we can calculate the ratio (\(d/d_e\)) of the
785: predicted magnetic dipole moment for the planet \(d\) with the
786: predicted dipole moment for the Earth \(d_e\), that is, how much
787: stronger is the field predicted for the object than that predicted
788: for the Earth.
789:
790: \begin{table}\label{tabplanet2}
791: \centering
792: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
793: \hline
794: \textbf{Object} & \(d_p/d_{pE}\)& \(d_r/d_{rE}\) & \(A\) \\
795: \hline
796: Sun & \(3.60\cdot 10^{7}\) & \(10^{7}-10^{8}\)& \(3.6 - 0.36\) \\
797: Mercury & \(1.35\cdot 10^{-4}\) & \(4 \cdot 10^{-4}\)& \(0.34\) \\
798: Venus & \(3.01\cdot 10^{-3}\) & \(0 ?\)& \(?\) \\
799: Earth & \(1\) & \(1\)& \(1\) \\
800: Moon & \(1.98\cdot 10^{-5}\) & \(0 ?\)& \(?\) \\
801: Mars & \(2.97\cdot 10^{-2}\) & \(0 ?\)& \(?\) \\
802: Jupiter & \(2.42\cdot 10^{5}\) & \(2\cdot 10^4\)& \(1.21\) \\
803: Io & \(4.41\cdot 10^{-4}\) & \(1.03\cdot 10^{-3}\)& \(0.43\)\\
804: Europa & \(7.41\cdot 10^{-5}\) & \(8.97\cdot 10^{-5}\)& \(0.83\)\\
805: Ganymede & \(2.08\cdot 10^{-4}\) & \(1.79\cdot 10^{-3}\)& \(0.12\)\\
806: Callisto & \(5.13\cdot 10^{-5}\) & \(?\)& \(?\)\\
807: Saturn & \(2281\) & \(600\)& \(3.80\) \\
808: Titan & \(7.86\cdot 10^{-5}\) & \(?\)& \(?\)\\
809: Uranus & \(113\) & \(50\)& \(2.26\) \\
810: Neptune & \(115\) & \(25\)& \(4.6\) \\
811: Trito & \(1.03\cdot 10^{-5}\) & \(?\)& \(?\)\\
812: Pluto & \(3.65\cdot 10^{-6}\) & \(?\)& \(?\)\\
813: Pluto & \(2.47\cdot 10^{-7}\) & \(?\)& \(?\)\\
814: \hline
815: \end{tabular}
816: \caption{Table that shows the predicted value of the magnetic
817: dipole moment respect the one predicted for the Earth, the
818: actually observed dipole, and the ratio of both columns, that
819: shows the correlation between the predicted and the real magnetic
820: fields. The values for the Earth are 1 to show the agreement of
821: the actual scaling with the predicted one.}
822: \end{table}
823:
824: In table \ref{tabplanet1} are listed the values for the radii,
825: masses and revolution periods (\(R, M\) and \(\tau\)) of different
826: objects of the Solar System, relative to the values of the Earth
827: (\(R_e, M_ e\) and \(\tau_e\)).
828:
829: The values presented in table (\ref{tabplanet2}) show that the
830: theory predicts significative intense fields to that objects that
831: in fact have a significative measured field, while those objects
832: that have not strong observed fields have a small predicted value.
833: Moreover, the theory predicts a field strength for the Sun. The
834: model also predicts global magnetic fields for objects like Venus
835: and the Moon. If we calculate the magnetic field produced by these
836: dipoles over the surface we obtain magnetic fields of \(100 \ nT\)
837: in the surface of Venus and \(19 \ nT\) over the Moon (see table
838: \ref{tabplanet3}). This values are compatible with the
839: experimental data from Pioneer Venus Orbiter and Apollo
840: expeditions. In the case of Venus, the effect of the magnetic
841: dipole moment could be in superposition with the magnetic effects
842: coming from ionosphere since the observations of magnetic fields
843: of several tens of \(nT\) made by the probe are at the same
844: altitude as the ionosphere. As a final point we can view that the
845: model predicts a magnetic field for the great satellites of the
846: Solar System like the galilean satellites of Jupiter. The fields
847: predicted also agree with the observed magnetic field
848: (\cite{OLSON}). Similar magnetic fields are obtained for other
849: satellites like Titan. Cassini-Huygens mission to Saturn will
850: measure the magnetic field of Saturn and Titan for which we lack
851: experimental values from Voyager missions. We also see in figure
852: \ref{plotfour} the great correlation between the predicted and the
853: actual value of the magnetic field. In the plot (\ref{plotfour}),
854: the value for the predicted and existing field for the Earth is
855: set to 1 to show the agreement between the scaling in the model
856: and the experimental one.
857:
858: A final indication must be made about the multipolarity and the
859: dynamic of the model. A spherical shell has higher order
860: multipoles that are not computed here because it is out of the
861: scope of an introductory paper, numerical calculations with the
862: multipole distribution will be obtained shortly by the aid of
863: computer models. Once multipolarity will be obtained, dynamics
864: will be added by the introduction of magnetic interaction between
865: both shells and with an outer field (planetary field in the case
866: of a satellites or solar field in the case of a planet) and
867: variability of pressure and temperature in the core of the object.
868:
869: \begin{table}\label{tabplanet3}
870: \centering
871: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
872: \hline
873: \textbf{Object} & \(B_s \ (nT)\)\\
874: \hline
875: Sun & \(923000\)\\
876: Mercury & \(72\)\\
877: Venus & \(101\)\\
878: Earth & \(30000\)\\
879: Moon & \(30\)\\
880: Mars & \(4200\)\\
881: Jupiter & \(465000\)\\
882: Io & \(9100\)\\
883: Europa & \(2400\)\\
884: Ganymede & \(1400\)\\
885: Callisto & \(460\)\\
886: Saturn & \(76000\)\\
887: Titan & \(570\)\\
888: Uranus & \(34000\)\\
889: Neptune & \(57000\)\\
890: Trito & \(520\)\\
891: Pluto & \(17\)\\
892: Caronte & \(73\)\\
893: \hline
894: \end{tabular}
895: \caption{Table that shows the predicted value of the magnetic
896: field over the surface of the planet. This value is calculated
897: from table (\ref{tabplanet2}) with (\(d_r=A d_{rE}\)) and using a
898: value of \(d_{rE}=7\cdot 10^{22} Am^2\) for the Earth}
899: \end{table}
900:
901:
902: \section{Conclusions}
903:
904: The model presented in this paper describes, in a single theory,
905: the magnetic field detected in several objects of the Solar
906: System. The values obtained are close to the experimental ones.
907: The model proposed could be used to break the initial symmetry of
908: the system in the numerical geodynamo models. These models
909: predict, also, a tilt of the magnetic dipole moment respect to the
910: axis of rotation. This tilt could depend on the properties of the
911: materials that fill the shell, like conductivity. Moreover, we can
912: see that following this proposal, the planets with higher tilts of
913: the magnetic dipole have higher quadrupole moments, because the
914: total field would be generated by two crossed dipole magnets. This
915: feature of the field agrees with the observed magnetic field of
916: Uranus and Neptune (\cite{CONNEREY1, CONNEREY2}) and with the fact
917: that the magnetic field of Saturn has a lower quadrupole moment
918: (\cite{CONNEREY3}). The model can also explain the observation
919: that the quadrupolar component in the Earth magnetic field becomes
920: more important in the transition between normal and reversed
921: polarity of the field (\cite{SCHNEIDER}). As the field is
922: generated by the effect of two concentric spherical shells,
923: higher-order multipoles are predicted by the theory (a rotating
924: sphere is not only dipolar or quadrupolar). The calculation of
925: these higher orders is left because it is out of the scope of an
926: introductory paper. The only planet unexplained by this model is
927: Mars, but notice that the zero field could be an extreme case
928: where the outer and the inner shell have opposite magnetic dipole
929: values.
930:
931: Magnetic fields for the galilean satellites are also predicted.
932: Some theories say that the fields for these satellites are
933: explained by the Jupiter magnetic field induction, and the reason
934: for this hypothesis is that the fields of the satellites change of
935: direction following the changes of Jupiter's field. This reason is
936: not enough to think that the field is induced. The field could be
937: created as is explained in the model and, once created, it moves
938: like a compass near a magnet.
939:
940: The article also calculates the composition dependence of the
941: model. The result is that the field depends of the inverse of the
942: root of the numerical density. This dependence shows that the
943: influence of the composition is not too high because increasing 10
944: times the numerical density only generates a multiplication of 0.3
945: of the magnetic field. Even though the composition of the nuclei
946: of the several planets could be very different, its numerical
947: densities couldn't variate enough to change the order of magnitude
948: of the generated fields.
949:
950: The model could be generalized to other objects in the Universe
951: like the main sequence stars and the neutron stars, objects where
952: the gravitational effects are higher than in the planets. Even
953: though these objects are surely not metallic in its core, charged
954: particles could be found like electrons that could behave like the
955: electrons in the model. In objects like neutron stars, geodynamo
956: is surely less probable due to the ultra high density of the
957: entire object.
958:
959: In conclusion, the theory achieves with a thermodynamic model a
960: scaling law that agrees with the values of the Solar System
961: magnetic fields. Even though the accepted theory for the
962: generation of the magnetic fields is the geodynamo, this
963: thermodynamic model could be used to explain the order of
964: magnitude and the scaling of the actual fields, fact that couldn't
965: be explained with the current theory.
966: \begin{thebibliography}{32}
967: \expandafter\ifx\csname
968: natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
969:
970: \bibitem[{Acuņa {et~al.}(1983)Acuņa, Connerey, \& Ness}]{CONNEREY3}
971: Acuņa, M.~H., Connerey, J. E.~P., \& Ness, N.~F. 1983, J. Geo.
972: Res., 88, A11,
973: 8771
974:
975: \bibitem[{Alfe {et~al.}(2001)Alfe, Price, \& Gillan}]{ALFE2}
976: Alfe, D., Price, D., \& Gillan, M.~J. 2001, Phys. Rev. D, 64,
977: 045123
978:
979: \bibitem[{Alfe {et~al.}(2002)Alfe, Price, \& Gillan}]{ALFE1}
980: ---. 2002, Phys. Rev. B, 65, 165118
981:
982: \bibitem[{Ashcroft \& Mermin(1976)}]{ASHCROFT}
983: Ashcroft, N.~W. \& Mermin, N.~D. 1976, Solid State Physics
984: (Philadelphia:
985: Saunders College)
986:
987: \bibitem[{Aurnou(2004)}]{AUR}
988: Aurnou, J. 2004, Nature, 428, 134
989:
990: \bibitem[{Busse(2000)}]{BUS}
991: Busse, F.~H. 2000, Annu. Rev. Fluid. Mech., 32, 383
992:
993: \bibitem[{Connerey \& Acuņa(1987)}]{CONNEREY1}
994: Connerey, J. E.~P. \& Acuņa, M.~H. 1987, J. Geo. Res., 92, A13,
995: 15329
996:
997: \bibitem[{Connerey \& Acuņa(1991)}]{CONNEREY2}
998: ---. 1991, J. Geo. Res., 96, Suppl., 19023
999:
1000: \bibitem[{de~Groot \& Mazur(1962)}]{GROOT}
1001: de~Groot, S.~R. \& Mazur, P. 1962, Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics
1002: (Amsterdam:
1003: North-Holland)
1004:
1005: \bibitem[{Glatzmaier(1985)}]{GLATZ2}
1006: Glatzmaier, G.~A. 1985, Astrophys. J., 291, 300
1007:
1008: \bibitem[{Glatzmaier \& Roberts(1995{\natexlab{a}})}]{GLATZ3}
1009: Glatzmaier, G.~A. \& Roberts, P.~H. 1995{\natexlab{a}}, Nature,
1010: 377, 203
1011:
1012: \bibitem[{Glatzmaier \& Roberts(1995{\natexlab{b}})}]{GLATZ1}
1013: ---. 1995{\natexlab{b}}, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 91, 63
1014:
1015: \bibitem[{Glatzmaier \& Roberts(1996)}]{GLATZ5}
1016: ---. 1996, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 98, 207
1017:
1018: \bibitem[{Glatzmaier \& Roberts(2000)}]{GLATZ4}
1019: ---. 2000, Rev. Mod. Phys., 72, 1081
1020:
1021: \bibitem[{Inglis(1955)}]{INGLIS}
1022: Inglis, D.~R. 1955, Rev. Mod. Phys., 27, 212
1023:
1024: \bibitem[{Jou {et~al.}(2001)Jou, Casas-V\'azquez, \& Lebon}]{EIT1}
1025: Jou, D., Casas-V\'azquez, J., \& Lebon, G. 2001, Extended
1026: Irreversible
1027: Thermodynamics, 3rd Edition (Berlin: Springer)
1028:
1029: \bibitem[{Kittel(1996)}]{KITTEL}
1030: Kittel, C. 1996, Introduction to Solid State Physics (New York:
1031: Wiley)
1032:
1033: \bibitem[{Merrill \& McElhinny(1983)}]{MERRILL1}
1034: Merrill, R.~T. \& McElhinny, M.~W. 1983, The Earth's Magnetic
1035: Field (London:
1036: Academic Press)
1037:
1038: \bibitem[{Ness {et~al.}(1979)Ness, Acuna, Lepping, Burlaga, Behannon, \&
1039: Neubauer}]{NESS1}
1040: Ness, N.~F., Acuna, M.~H., Lepping, R.~P., Burlaga, L.~F.,
1041: Behannon, K.~W., \&
1042: Neubauer, F.~M. 1979, Science, 204, 982
1043:
1044: \bibitem[{Olson(1997)}]{OLSON}
1045: Olson, P. 1997, Nature, 389, 337
1046:
1047: \bibitem[{Plunian {et~al.}(1998)Plunian, Marthy, \& Alemany}]{PLUN}
1048: Plunian, F., Marthy, P., \& Alemany, A. 1998, Proc. of the Royal
1049: Soc. of
1050: London, Math., 454, 1835
1051:
1052: \bibitem[{Russell(1993{\natexlab{a}})}]{RUSSELL1}
1053: Russell, C.~T. 1993{\natexlab{a}}, J. Geo. Res., 98, E10, 18681
1054:
1055: \bibitem[{Russell(1993{\natexlab{b}})}]{RUSSELL2}
1056: ---. 1993{\natexlab{b}}, J. Geo. Res., 98, E10, 18659
1057:
1058: \bibitem[{Schneider \& Kent(1988)}]{SCHNEIDER}
1059: Schneider, D.~A. \& Kent, D.~V. 1988, Science, 242, 252
1060:
1061: \bibitem[{Shankland {et~al.}(1993)Shankland, Peyronneau, \& Poirier}]{SHAN}
1062: Shankland, T.~J., Peyronneau, J., \& Poirier, J.-P. 1993, Nature,
1063: 366, 453
1064:
1065: \bibitem[{Stanley \& Bloxham(2004)}]{STAN}
1066: Stanley, S. \& Bloxham, J. 2004, Nature, 428, 151
1067:
1068: \bibitem[{Stevenson(1974)}]{STEVENSONPM}
1069: Stevenson, D.~J. 1974, Icarus, 22, 403
1070:
1071: \bibitem[{Stevenson(1981)}]{STEVE}
1072: ---. 1981, Science, 214, 611
1073:
1074: \bibitem[{Stevenson(1982)}]{STEVENSONSAT}
1075: ---. 1982, Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., 21, 113
1076:
1077: \bibitem[{Vocadlo \& Dobson(1999)}]{LIDUNKA}
1078: Vocadlo, L. \& Dobson, D. 1999, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 357,
1079: 3335
1080:
1081: \bibitem[{Wangsness(1992)}]{WANGSNESS}
1082: Wangsness, R.~K. 1992, Electromagnetic Fields (L: John Willey \&
1083: Sons Inc.)
1084:
1085: \bibitem[{Xu {et~al.}(1993)Xu, Poe, Shankland, \& Rubie}]{XU}
1086: Xu, Y., Poe, B.~T., Shankland, T.~J., \& Rubie, D.~C. 1993,
1087: Nature, 280, 1415
1088:
1089: \end{thebibliography}
1090:
1091: %%\bibliography{ms}
1092:
1093: \end{document}
1094: