Deviation of Mercury's spin axis from an exact Cassini state induced by dissipation

MacPherson, Ian; Dumberry, Mathieu

doi:10.1002/essoar.10510041.3

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some figures were created using the GMT software (Wessel et al., 2013). The source codes, data files, and scripts to reproduce all figures are freely accessible at MacPherson and Dumberry (2022).…”

Section: Data Availability Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deviation of Mercury's Spin Axis From an Exact Cassini State Induced by Dissipation

MacPherson

Dumberry

2022

JGR Planets

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spin axis of Mercury is in a Cassini state (Figure 1). The latter describes a configuration in which the planet's spin axis and orbit normal remain coplanar to and precess about the normal to the Laplace plane (Colombo, 1966;Peale, 1969Peale, , 2006. The precession is retrograde, and the latest estimate of its period is 325, 513 ± 10, 713 years (Baland et al., 2017). Figure 2 shows the orientation in space of the spin axis reported in several recent studies, expressed at the J2000 epoch as is the usual convention. A visual inspection of Figure 2 reveals that within measurement errors, Mercury's spin axis aligns with the plane defined by the Laplace pole and orbit normal, a plane which we refer to as the Cassini plane, confirming that Mercury occupies a Cassini state.The retrograde precession of the Cassini plane implies that the line that depicts its location in Figure 2 is displaced toward the bottom left as a function of time. Hence, a spin pole located to the top right (bottom left) with respect to this line is behind (ahead of) the expected Cassini state orientation and corresponds to a phase lag (phase lead). We denote the offset from the Cassini plane by an angle ζ m , defined positive for a phase lag (see Figure 1b). Table 1 gives the spin pole orientations from the recent measurements that are plotted in Figure 2 as well as their phase lag angles ζ m , calculated by the method described in Appendix A. For all spin pole measurements, the 1σ error on the phase lag is either larger than the phase lag itself, or of similar magnitude. This confirms that within measurement errors, Mercury's spin pole indeed occupies a Cassini state. The magnitude of the phase lags in Table 1 provides a quantitative measure of the deviation from an exact Cassini state. For all spin pole

show abstract

Section: Data Availability Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deviation of Mercury's Spin Axis From an Exact Cassini State Induced by Dissipation

MacPherson

Dumberry

2022

JGR Planets

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We do not have direct observations of the orientation of the spin axis of the fluid core, nor that of the inner core if present. However, we expect that they should also be in a Cassini state, and their orientations should differ from that of the mantle (Dumberry, 2021a; MacPherson & Dumberry, 2022; Peale et al., 2014, 2016). Their misalignment angles depend on the elliptical shapes of the core‐mantle boundary (CMB) and inner core boundary (ICB)—which in turn depend on the interior structure, including the size of the inner core and its density contrast with the fluid core.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…They also depend on the strength of viscous and electromagnetic (EM) coupling at the CMB and ICB (Dumberry, 2021a; Peale et al., 2014, 2016). The dissipation associated with viscous and EM coupling also entrain a deviation of the fluid and solid cores' spin axes (and that of the mantle) away from the Cassini plane (MacPherson & Dumberry, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, if present, its size is not known. Several studies have attempted to place bounds on the inner core size, either by investigating its dynamical influence on the librations (Dumberry, 2011; Dumberry et al., 2013; Koning & Dumberry, 2013; Peale et al., 2002; Van Hoolst et al., 2012; Veasey & Dumberry, 2011; Yseboodt et al., 2013) and the mantle obliquity (Dumberry, 2021a; MacPherson & Dumberry, 2022; Peale et al., 2016), or by constructing interior models that are consistent with the observed amplitude of librations and mantle obliquity (Dumberry & Rivoldini, 2015; Genova et al., 2019; Hauck et al., 2013; Knibbe et al., 2021; Knibbe & Van Westrenen, 2015; Steinbrügge et al., 2021). While no general consensus has emerged from these, they all point to an inner core that cannot be too large.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The objective of our study is to present plausible predictions of the amplitude of this internal gravity signal in order to establish the observational precision that would be required to detect it. To do so, we use the rotational model of the Cassini state of Mercury presented in Dumberry (2021a) and further developed in MacPherson and Dumberry (2022), which are henceforth referred to as D21 and MD22, respectively. The presence and size of an inner core is an important diagnostic of the thermal evolution of a planetary body.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Gravity Signal of Mercury's Inner Core

Dumberry

2022

Earth and Space Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a reference frame rotating with Mercury's mantle and crust, the inner core and fluid core precess in a retrograde sense with a period of 58.646 days. The precession of a triaxial inner core with a different density than the fluid core induces a periodic gravity variation of degree 2, order 1. Elastic deformations from the pressure that the precessing fluid core exerts on the core‐mantle boundary also contribute to this gravity signal. We show that the periodic change in Stokes coefficients ΔC21 and ΔS21 for this signal of internal origin is of the order of 10−10, similar in magnitude to the signal from solar tides. The relative contribution from the inner core increases with inner core radius and with the amplitude of its tilt angle with respect to the mantle. The latter depends on the strength of electromagnetic coupling at the inner core boundary which in turn depends on the radial magnetic field Br; a larger Br generates a larger tilt. The inner core signal features a contrast between ΔC21 and ΔS21 due to its triaxial shape, discernible for an inner core radius >500 km if Br > 0.1 mT, or for an inner core radius >1100 km if Br < 0.01 mT. A detection of this contrast would confirm the presence of an inner core and place constraints on its size and the strength of the internal magnetic field. These would provide key constraints for the thermal evolution of Mercury and for its dynamo mechanism.

show abstract

Deviation of Mercury's spin axis from an exact Cassini state induced by dissipation

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Deviation of Mercury's Spin Axis From an Exact Cassini State Induced by Dissipation

Deviation of Mercury's Spin Axis From an Exact Cassini State Induced by Dissipation

The Gravity Signal of Mercury's Inner Core

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About