About the SA Blog Network



Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Magnetoastrocoolness: How Cosmic Magnetic Fields Shape Planetary Systems

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

AUSTIN, Texas—Astrophysicists have a funny attitude toward magnetic fields. You might say they feel both repelled and attracted. Gravitation is assumed to rule the cosmos, so models typically neglect magnetism, which for most researchers is just as well, because the theory of magnetism has a forbidding reputation. The basic equations are simple enough, solving them less so. Electromagnetism is a standard weeder course in graduate school, and magnetohydrodynamics ranks up there with quantum field theory as the hardest subject known to mortal minds. That said, when astrophysicists don’t understand something, they often invoke the m-word. “When all else fails, introduce a magnetic field,” exoplanet theorist Dimitar Sasselov of Harvard University told an audience at the American Astronomical Society meeting this week.

Judging from his and others’ talks, all else has been failing a lot lately. One of the many mysteries about the Jupiter-like planets being found around other stars is why their density is so low—some are as fluffy as styrofoam or balsa wood. Orbiting so close to their stars, these planets are baked by stellar radiation, but even that’s not enough to puff them up, at least not directly. Sasselov described a new model by Konstantin Batygin of Caltech and his colleagues in which the planet acts like a giant induction stove. Magnetic fields set up electric currents in the ionized gases of the planet, further heating and bloating it (see above diagram).

Magnetic fields also muck up planet and star formation, as Susana Lizano of the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México in Morelia explained. The interstellar clouds of gas and dust out of which planets and stars coalesce are threaded with magnetic fields—weak ones, a thousandth as strong as Earth’s. (Astronomers gauge the field strength by looking at how light from the dust is polarized.) As these clouds collapse, basic theory predicts the field should intensify a billionfold. But if that happened, the field would become powerful enough to stop the collapse. Even leaving this problem aside, as the cloud settles into a swirling disk, the field should bring the swirling motion in the inner part of the disk to a halt. Somehow the fields must dissipate, perhaps through a variant of induction-stove effect.

Even when the magnetic field weakens, it sculpts the nascent planetary system. It causes gas to revolve around the star more slowly than freely orbiting objects do. Embryonic planets thus experience a drag force and and spiral inward. The field also stabilizes the disk, keeping it from fragmenting—further evidence that planets form by step-by-step agglomeration rather than gravitational breakup of the disk. All in all, Lizano built a persuasive case that astrophysicists ignore magnetism at their peril.

Finally, a reminder of the unexpected usefulness of magnetic fields came in a talk by Bill Atwood of the University of California at Santa Cruz, co-leader of the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope. Last fall Fermi confirmed earlier findings that positrons are peppering our planet; these cosmic particles, the antimatter twin of electrons, might originate in the self-destruction of dark-matter particles. The peculiar thing about this discovery is that Fermi isn’t even an antimatter detector. Unlike other instruments such as the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, it lacks an onboard magnet, which, by bending the paths of electrons one way and positrons the other, can tell the two apart. But the Fermi team exploited the fact that the instrument is embedded in a magnetic field—Earth’s.

Image courtesy of Konstantin Batygin

George Musser About the Author: is a contributing editor at Scientific American. He focuses on space science and fundamental physics, ranging from particles to planets to parallel universes. He is the author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to String Theory. Musser has won numerous awards in his career, including the 2011 American Institute of Physics's Science Writing Award. Follow on Twitter @gmusser.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Rights & Permissions

Comments 4 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. jtdwyer 1:41 pm 01/13/2012

    The article states:
    “Last fall Fermi confirmed earlier findings that positrons are peppering our planet; these cosmic particles, the antimatter twin of electrons, might originate in the self-destruction of dark-matter particles.”

    However, the only occurrence of the term ‘dark matter’ in the referenced research report is:
    “The origin of the rising positron fraction at high energy is unknown and has been ascribed to a variety of mechanisms including pulsars, CRs interacting with giant molecular clouds, and dark matter.”

    There is no further discussion of the detected positron source.

    Attributing the production of positrons to the annihilation of dark matter particles would require that its specific particle characteristics be known (which, of course, it is not) – otherwise the association is purely speculative.

    Perhaps the author should have also mentioned the Pulsar and cosmic ray guesses.

    Link to this
  2. 2. bewertow 11:30 pm 01/13/2012

    My thesis work is in Astrophysical Magnetohydrodynamics. It’s a really interesting field. The partial differential equations are pretty tough to solve in general, but certain situations are too bad.

    Link to this
  3. 3. jtdwyer 8:14 am 01/14/2012

    I do agree with the author’s assessment that astrophysicists too often ignore the effects of magnetic fields in evaluating large scale effects, preferring to attribute everything to gravity.

    That being said, there are some who prefer to attribute all large scale cosmological effects to magnetic fields and plasmas, ignoring gravity – I certainly can’t agree with that view, although they must contribute to the final product… While magnetic field effects are generally localized, much more so than gravitation, they are pervasive, especially in the early universe.

    Very interesting subject and article, though – I wish I understood more.

    Link to this
  4. 4. DSchultz 11:47 pm 01/19/2012

    “Magnetic fields are to astrophysics as sex is to psychology.” —HC van de Hulst, 1989.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article