Letter | Published:

A complex dynamo inferred from the hemispheric dichotomy of Jupiter’s magnetic field

Naturevolume 561pages7678 (2018) | Download Citation

Abstract

The Juno spacecraft, which is in a polar orbit around Jupiter, is providing direct measurements of the planet’s magnetic field close to its surface1. A recent analysis of observations of Jupiter’s magnetic field from eight (of the first nine) Juno orbits has provided a spherical-harmonic reference model (JRM09)2 of Jupiter’s magnetic field outside the planet. This model is of particular interest for understanding processes in Jupiter’s magnetosphere, but to study the field within the planet and thus the dynamo mechanism that is responsible for generating Jupiter’s main magnetic field, alternative models are preferred. Here we report maps of the magnetic field at a range of depths within Jupiter. We find that Jupiter’s magnetic field is different from all other known planetary magnetic fields. Within Jupiter, most of the flux emerges from the dynamo region in a narrow band in the northern hemisphere, some of which returns through an intense, isolated flux patch near the equator. Elsewhere, the field is much weaker. The non-dipolar part of the field is confined almost entirely to the northern hemisphere, so there the field is strongly non-dipolar and in the southern hemisphere it is predominantly dipolar. We suggest that Jupiter’s dynamo, unlike Earth’s, does not operate in a thick, homogeneous shell, and we propose that this unexpected field morphology arises from radial variations, possibly including layering, in density or electrical conductivity, or both.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Connerney, J. E. P. et al. The Juno magnetic field investigation. Space Sci. Rev. 213, 39–138 (2017).

  2. 2.

    Connerney, J. E. P. et al. A new model of Jupiter’s magnetic field from Juno’s first nine orbits. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 2590–2596 (2018).

  3. 3.

    Liu, J., Goldreich, P. M. & Stevenson, D. J. Constraints on deep-seated zonal winds inside Jupiter and Saturn. Icarus 196, 653–664 (2008).

  4. 4.

    Gastine, T., Wicht, J., Duarte, L., Heimpel, M. & Becker, A. Explaining Jupiter’s magnetic field and equatorial jet dynamics. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 5410–5419 (2014).

  5. 5.

    Cao, H. & Stevenson, D. J. Zonal flow magnetic field interaction in the semi-conducting region of giant planets. Icarus 296, 59–72 (2017).

  6. 6.

    Nellis, W. J., Weir, S. T. & Mitchell, A. C. Metallization and electrical conductivity of hydrogen in Jupiter. Science 273, 936–938 (1996).

  7. 7.

    French, M. et al. Ab initio simulations for material properties along the Jupiter adiabat. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 202, 5 (2012).

  8. 8.

    Shure, L., Parker, R. L. & Backus, G. E. Harmonic splines for geomagnetic modelling. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 28, 215–229 (1982).

  9. 9.

    Moore, K. M., Bloxham, J., Connerney, J. E. P., Jørgensen, J. L. & Merayo, J. M. G. The analysis of initial Juno magnetometer data using a sparse magnetic field representation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 4687–4693 (2017).

  10. 10.

    Christensen, U. R. & Aubert, J. Scaling properties of convection-driven dynamos in rotating spherical shells and application to planetary magnetic fields. Geophys. J. Int. 166, 97–114 (2006).

  11. 11.

    Jones, C. A. A dynamo model of Jupiter’s magnetic field. Icarus 241, 148–159 (2014).

  12. 12.

    Ridley, V. A. & Holme, R. Modeling the Jovian magnetic field and its secular variation using all available magnetic field observations. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 121, 309–337 (2016).

  13. 13.

    Jones, C. A. Planetary magnetic fields and fluid dynamos. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 43, 583–614 (2011).

  14. 14.

    Duarte, L. D. V., Wicht, J. & Gastine, T. Physical conditions for Jupiter-like dynamo models. Icarus 299, 206–221 (2018).

  15. 15.

    Grote, E. & Busse, F. H. Hemispherical dynamos generated by convection in rotating spherical shells. Phys. Rev. E 62, 4457–4460 (2000).

  16. 16.

    Salpeter, E. E. On convection and gravitational layering in Jupiter and in stars of low mass. Astrophys. J. 181, L83–L86 (1973).

  17. 17.

    Stevenson, D. J. Reducing the non-axisymmetry of a planetary dynamo and an application to Saturn. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 21, 113–127 (1982).

  18. 18.

    Stanley, S. & Mohammadi, A. Effects of an outer thin stably stratified layer on planetary dynamos. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 168, 179–190 (2008).

  19. 19.

    Dietrich, W. & Jones, C. A. Anelastic spherical dynamos with radially variable electrical conductivity. Icarus 305, 15–32 (2018).

  20. 20.

    Glatzmaier, G. A. Computer simulations of Jupiter’s deep internal dynamics help interpret what Juno sees. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6896–6904 (2018).

  21. 21.

    Stevenson, D. J. Cosmochemistry and structure of the giant planets and their satellites. Icarus 62, 4–15 (1985).

  22. 22.

    Wilson, H. F. & Militzer, B. Rocky core solubility in Jupiter and giant exoplanets. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 111101 (2012).

  23. 23.

    Wilson, H. F. & Militzer, B. Solubility of water ice in metallic hydrogen: consequences for core erosion in gas giant planets. Astrophys. J. 745, 54 (2012).

  24. 24.

    Wahl, S. M., Wilson, H. F. & Militzer, B. Solubility of iron in metallic hydrogen and stability of dense cores in giant planets. Astrophys. J. 773, 95 (2013).

  25. 25.

    González-Cataldo, F., Wilson, H. F. & Militzer, B. Ab initio free energy calculations of the solubility of silica in metallic hydrogen and application to giant planet cores. Astrophys. J. 787, 79 (2014).

  26. 26.

    Helled, R. & Stevenson, D. The fuzziness of giant planets’ cores. Astrophys. J. Lett. 840, L4 (2017).

  27. 27.

    Vazan, A., Helled, R. & Guillot, T. Jupiter’s evolution with primordial composition gradients. Astron. Astrophys. 610, L14 (2018).

  28. 28.

    Wahl, S. M. et al. Comparing Jupiter interior structure models to Juno gravity measurements and the role of a dilute core. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 4649–4659 (2017).

  29. 29.

    Stanley, S. & Bloxham, J. Numerical dynamo models of Uranus’ and Neptune’s magnetic fields. Icarus 184, 556–572 (2006).

  30. 30.

    Bolton, S. J. et al. The Juno mission. Space Sci. Rev. 213, 5–37 (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors acknowledge support from the Juno project. K.M.M. is supported by the US Department of Defense (DoD) through the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship (NDSEG) programme and L.K. through a US National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship.

Reviewer information

Nature thanks C. Jones and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    • Kimberly M. Moore
    • , Rakesh K. Yadav
    • , Laura Kulowski
    • , Hao Cao
    •  & Jeremy Bloxham
  2. NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, USA

    • John E. P. Connerney
    •  & Stavros Kotsiaros
  3. Space Research Corporation, Annapolis, MD, USA

    • John E. P. Connerney
  4. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    • Stavros Kotsiaros
  5. National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark

    • John L. Jørgensen
    •  & José M. G. Merayo
  6. Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA

    • David J. Stevenson
  7. Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, USA

    • Scott J. Bolton
  8. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA

    • Steven M. Levin

Authors

  1. Search for Kimberly M. Moore in:

  2. Search for Rakesh K. Yadav in:

  3. Search for Laura Kulowski in:

  4. Search for Hao Cao in:

  5. Search for Jeremy Bloxham in:

  6. Search for John E. P. Connerney in:

  7. Search for Stavros Kotsiaros in:

  8. Search for John L. Jørgensen in:

  9. Search for José M. G. Merayo in:

  10. Search for David J. Stevenson in:

  11. Search for Scott J. Bolton in:

  12. Search for Steven M. Levin in:

Contributions

K.M.M. and J.B. wrote the manuscript and performed the data analysis. K.M.M., J.B., J.E.P.C., S.K., J.L.J. and J.M.G.M. contributed to discussions of the data analysis, and K.M.M., R.K.Y., L.K., H.C., J.B. and D.J.S. contributed to discussions of the dynamo implications. All authors contributed to editing and revising the manuscript. J.E.P.C. is principal investigator of the Juno magnetometer investigation, S.J.B. is principal investigator of the mission and S.M.L. is project scientist of the mission.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Bloxham.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0468-5

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.