Search This Blog

Sunday, May 31, 2015

Pluto



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pluto Astronomical symbol of Pluto
Pluto viewed by New Horizons 08-12 May 2015.gif
Pluto photographed by the New Horizons spacecraft in May 2015
Discovery
Discovered by Clyde W. Tombaugh
Discovery date 18 February 1930
Designations
MPC designation 134340 Pluto
Pronunciation Listeni/ˈplt/
Named after
Pluto
Adjectives Plutonian
Orbital characteristics[4][a]
Epoch J2000
Aphelion
  • 48.871 AU
  • (7311000000 km)
Perihelion
  • 29.657 AU
  • (4437000000 km)
  • (5 September 1989)[5]
  • 39.264 AU
  • (5874000000 km)
Eccentricity 0.244671664 (J2000)
0.248 807 66 (mean)[6]
366.73 days[6]
Average orbital speed
4.7 km/s[6]
14.86012204°[8]
Inclination
  • 17.151394°
  • (11.88° to Sun's equator)
110.28683°
113.76349°
Known satellites 5
Physical characteristics
Mean radius
  • 1184±10 km[9]
  • 0.18 Earths
  • 1161 km[10] (solid)
  • 1.665×107 km2[b]
  • 0.033 Earths
Volume
  • 6.39×109 km3[c]
  • 0.0059 Earths
Mass
  • (1.305±0.007)×1022 kg[11]
  • 0.00218 Earths
  • 0.178 Moons
Mean density
2.03±0.06 g/cm3[11]
1.229 km/s[e]
Sidereal rotation period
Equatorial rotation velocity
47.18 km/h
119.591°±0.014° (to orbit)[11][f]
North pole right ascension
132.993°[12]
North pole declination
−6.163°[12]
Albedo 0.49 to 0.66 (geometric, varies by 35%)[6][13]
Surface temp. min mean max
Kelvin 33 K 44 K (−229 °C) 55 K
13.65[6] to 16.3[14]
(mean is 15.1)[6]
−0.7[15]
0.065″ to 0.115″[6][g]
Atmosphere
Surface pressure
0.30 Pa (summer maximum)
Composition by volume Nitrogen, methane, carbon monoxide[16]

Pluto (minor-planet designation: 134340 Pluto) is the second-most massive known dwarf planet, after Eris. It is the largest object in the Kuiper belt[h][i] and possibly the largest known trans-Neptunian object. It is the tenth-most-massive known body directly orbiting the Sun. Like other Kuiper belt objects, Pluto is primarily made of rock and ice,[17] and is relatively small, about 16 the mass of the Moon and 13 its volume. It has an eccentric and highly inclined orbit that takes it from 30 to 49 AU (4.4–7.4 billion km) from the Sun. Hence Pluto periodically comes closer to the Sun than Neptune, but an orbital resonance with Neptune prevents the bodies from colliding. In 2014 it was 32.6 AU from the Sun. Light from the Sun takes about 5.5 hours to reach Pluto at its average distance (39.4 AU).[18]

Discovered in 1930, Pluto was originally considered the ninth planet from the Sun. Its status as a major planet fell into question following further study of it and the outer Solar System over the next 75 years. Starting in 1977 with the discovery of the minor planet Chiron, numerous icy objects similar to Pluto with eccentric orbits were found.[19] The scattered disc object Eris, discovered in 2005, is 27% more massive than Pluto.[20] The understanding that Pluto is only one of several large icy bodies in the outer Solar System prompted the International Astronomical Union (IAU) to formally define "planet" in 2006. This definition excluded Pluto and reclassified it as a member of the new "dwarf planet" category (and specifically as a plutoid).[21] Astronomers who oppose this decision hold that Pluto should have remained classified as a planet, and that other dwarf planets and even moons should be added to the list of planets along with Pluto.[22][23][24]

Pluto has five known moons: Charon (the largest, with a diameter just over half that of Pluto), Nix, Hydra, Kerberos, and Styx.[25] Pluto and Charon are sometimes described as a binary system because the barycenter of their orbits does not lie within either body.[26] The IAU has yet to formalise a definition for binary dwarf planets, and Charon is officially classified as a moon of Pluto.[27]

On 14 July 2015, the Pluto system is due to be visited by spacecraft for the first time.[1] The New Horizons probe will perform a flyby during which it will attempt to take detailed measurements and images of Pluto and its moons.[28] Afterwards, the probe may visit several other objects in the Kuiper belt.[29]

Discovery

The same area of night sky with stars, shown twice, side by side. One of the bright points, located with an arrow, changes position between the two images.
Discovery photographs of Pluto

In the 1840s, using Newtonian mechanics, Urbain Le Verrier predicted the position of the then-undiscovered planet Neptune after analysing perturbations in the orbit of Uranus.[30] Subsequent observations of Neptune in the late 19th century caused astronomers to speculate that Uranus's orbit was being disturbed by another planet besides Neptune.
In 1906, Percival Lowell—a wealthy Bostonian who had founded the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, in 1894—started an extensive project in search of a possible ninth planet, which he termed "Planet X".[31] By 1909, Lowell and William H. Pickering had suggested several possible celestial coordinates for such a planet.[32] Lowell and his observatory conducted his search until his death in 1916, but to no avail. Unknown to Lowell, on 19 March 1915, surveys had captured two faint images of Pluto, but they were not recognized for what they were.[32][33] There are fifteen other known prediscoveries, with the oldest made by the Yerkes Observatory on 20 August 1909.[34]

Because of a ten-year legal battle with Constance Lowell, Percival's widow, who attempted to wrest the observatory's million-dollar portion of his legacy for herself, the search for Planet X did not resume until 1929,[35] when its director, Vesto Melvin Slipher, summarily handed the job of locating Planet X to Clyde Tombaugh, a 23-year-old Kansan who had just arrived at the Lowell Observatory after Slipher had been impressed by a sample of his astronomical drawings.[35]

Tombaugh's task was to systematically image the night sky in pairs of photographs, then examine each pair and determine whether any objects had shifted position. Using a machine called a blink comparator, he rapidly shifted back and forth between views of each of the plates to create the illusion of movement of any objects that had changed position or appearance between photographs. On 18 February 1930, after nearly a year of searching, Tombaugh discovered a possible moving object on photographic plates taken on 23 and 29 January of that year. A lesser-quality photograph taken on 21 January helped confirm the movement.[36] After the observatory obtained further confirmatory photographs, news of the discovery was telegraphed to the Harvard College Observatory on 13 March 1930.[32]

Name

The discovery made headlines across the globe. The Lowell Observatory, which had the right to name the new object, received over 1,000 suggestions from all over the world, ranging from Atlas to Zymal.[37] Tombaugh urged Slipher to suggest a name for the new object quickly before someone else did.[37] Constance Lowell proposed Zeus, then Percival and finally Constance. These suggestions were disregarded.[38]
The name Pluto, after the god of the underworld, was proposed by Venetia Burney (1918–2009), an eleven-year-old schoolgirl in Oxford, England, who was interested in classical mythology.[39] She suggested it in a conversation with her grandfather Falconer Madan, a former librarian at the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library, who passed the name to astronomy professor Herbert Hall Turner, who cabled it to colleagues in the United States.[39]

The object was officially named on 24 March 1930.[40][41] Each member of the Lowell Observatory was allowed to vote on a short-list of three: Minerva (which was already the name for an asteroid), Cronus (which had lost reputation through being proposed by the unpopular astronomer Thomas Jefferson Jackson See), and Pluto. Pluto received every vote.[42] The name was announced on 1 May 1930.[39] Upon the announcement, Madan gave Venetia GB£5 (£282 as of 2015),[43] as a reward.[39]

The choice of name was partly inspired by the fact that the first two letters of Pluto are the initials of Percival Lowell, and Pluto's astronomical symbol (♇, unicode U+2647, ♇) is a monogram constructed from the letters 'PL'.[44] Pluto's astrological symbol resembles that of Neptune (Neptune symbol.svg), but has a circle in place of the middle prong of the trident (Pluto's astrological symbol.svg).

The name was soon embraced by wider culture. In 1930, Walt Disney was apparently inspired by it when he introduced for Mickey Mouse a canine companion named Pluto, although Disney animator Ben Sharpsteen could not confirm why the name was given.[45] In 1941, Glenn T. Seaborg named the newly created element plutonium after Pluto, in keeping with the tradition of naming elements after newly discovered planets, following uranium, which was named after Uranus, and neptunium, which was named after Neptune.[46]

Most languages use the name "Pluto" in various transliterations.[j] In Japanese, Houei Nojiri suggested the translation Meiōsei (冥王星?, "Star of the King (God) of the Underworld"), and this was borrowed into Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese.[47][48][49] Some Indian languages use the name Pluto, but others, such as Hindi, use the name of Yama, the Guardian of Hell in Hindu and Buddhist mythology, as does Vietnamese.[48] Polynesian languages also tend to use the indigenous god of the underworld, as in Maori Whiro.[48]

Demise of Planet X

A young man in his mid-twenties, wearing glasses, a white shirt, tie and long trousers, stands in an open field, next to a Newtonian telescope resting on the ground and tilted towards the sky. The telescope is taller than him, and is about eight inches in diameter. His right hand is resting up on the barrel, and he looks slightly past the telescope, out to the left.
Clyde W. Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto
Mass estimates for Pluto
Year Mass Notes
1931 1 Earth Nicholson & Mayall[50][51][52]
1948 0.1 (1/10) Earth Kuiper[53]
1976 0.01 (1/100) Earth Cruikshank, Pilcher, & Morrison[54]
1978 0.002 (1/500) Earth Christy & Harrington[55]
2006 0.00218 (1/459) Earth Buie et al.[11]

Once found, Pluto's faintness and lack of a resolvable disc cast doubt on the idea that it was Lowell's Planet X. Estimates of Pluto's mass were revised downward throughout the 20th century.

Astronomers initially calculated its mass based on its presumed effect on Neptune and Uranus.
In 1931 Pluto was calculated to be roughly the mass of Earth, with further calculations in 1948 bringing the mass down to roughly that of Mars.[51][53] In 1976, Dale Cruikshank, Carl Pilcher and David Morrison of the University of Hawaii calculated Pluto's albedo for the first time, finding that it matched that for methane ice; this meant Pluto had to be exceptionally luminous for its size and therefore could not be more than 1 percent the mass of Earth.[54] (Pluto's albedo is 1.3–2.0 times greater than that of Earth.[6])

In 1978, the discovery of Pluto's moon Charon allowed the measurement of Pluto's mass for the first time. Its mass, roughly 0.2% that of Earth, was far too small to account for the discrepancies in the orbit of Uranus. Subsequent searches for an alternative Planet X, notably by Robert Sutton Harrington,[56] failed. In 1992, Myles Standish used data from Voyager 2's 1989 flyby of Neptune, which had revised the planet's total mass downward by 0.5%, to recalculate its gravitational effect on Uranus. With the new figures added in, the discrepancies, and with them the need for a Planet X, vanished.[57] Today, the majority of scientists agree that Planet X, as Lowell defined it, does not exist.[58] Lowell had made a prediction of Planet X's position in 1915 that was fairly close to Pluto's position at that time; Ernest W. Brown concluded soon after Pluto's discovery that this was a coincidence,[59] a view still held today.[57]

Orbit and rotation


Pluto's orbit and the ecliptic

Orbit of Pluto—ecliptic view. This "side view" of Pluto's orbit (in red) shows its large inclination to Earth's ecliptic orbital plane.

This diagram shows the relative positions of Pluto (red) and Neptune (blue) on selected dates. The size of Neptune and Pluto is depicted as inversely proportional to the distance between them to emphasize the closest approach in 1896.

Pluto's orbital period is 248 Earth years. Its orbital characteristics are substantially different from those of the planets, which follow nearly circular orbits around the Sun close to a flat reference plane called the ecliptic. In contrast, Pluto's orbit is highly inclined relative to the ecliptic (over 17°) and highly eccentric (elliptical). This high eccentricity means a small region of Pluto's orbit lies nearer the Sun than Neptune's. The Pluto–Charon barycenter came to perihelion on 5 September 1989,[5][k] and was last closer to the Sun than Neptune between 7 February 1979, and 11 February 1999.[60]

In the long term, Pluto's orbit is in fact chaotic. Although computer simulations can be used to predict its position for several million years (both forward and backward in time), after intervals longer than the Lyapunov time of 10–20 million years, calculations become speculative: Pluto is sensitive to unmeasurably small details of the Solar System, hard-to-predict factors that will gradually disrupt its orbit.[61][62]

Relationship with Neptune


Orbit of Pluto—polar view. This "view from above" shows how Pluto's orbit (in red) is less circular than Neptune's (in blue), and how Pluto is sometimes closer to the Sun than Neptune. The darker halves of both orbits show where they pass below the plane of the ecliptic.

Despite Pluto's orbit appearing to cross that of Neptune when viewed from directly above, the two objects' orbits are aligned so that they can never collide or even approach closely. There are several reasons why.

At the simplest level, one can examine the two orbits and see that they do not intersect. When Pluto is closest to the Sun, and hence closest to Neptune's orbit as viewed from above, it is also the farthest above Neptune's path. Pluto's orbit passes about 8 AU above that of Neptune, preventing a collision.[63][64][65] Pluto's ascending and descending nodes, the points at which its orbit crosses the ecliptic, are currently separated from Neptune's by over 21°.[66]

This alone is not enough to protect Pluto; perturbations from the planets (especially Neptune) could alter aspects of Pluto's orbit (such as its orbital precession) over millions of years so that a collision could be possible. Some other mechanism or mechanisms must therefore be at work. The most significant of these is that Pluto lies in the 2:3 mean-motion resonance with Neptune: for every two orbits that Pluto makes around the Sun, Neptune makes three. The two objects then return to their initial positions and the cycle repeats, each cycle lasting about 500 years. This pattern is such that, in each 500-year cycle, the first time Pluto is near perihelion Neptune is over 50° behind Pluto. By Pluto's second perihelion, Neptune will have completed a further one and a half of its own orbits, and so will be a similar distance ahead of Pluto. Pluto and Neptune's minimum separation is over 17 AU. Pluto comes closer to Uranus (11 AU) than it does to Neptune.[65]

The 2:3 resonance between the two bodies is highly stable, and is preserved over millions of years.[67] This prevents their orbits from changing relative to one another; the cycle always repeats in the same way, and so the two bodies can never pass near to each other. Thus, even if Pluto's orbit were not highly inclined the two bodies could never collide.[65]

Other factors

Numerical studies have shown that over periods of millions of years, the general nature of the alignment between Pluto and Neptune's orbits does not change.[63][68] There are several other resonances and interactions that govern the details of their relative motion, and enhance Pluto's stability. These arise principally from two additional mechanisms (besides the 2:3 mean-motion resonance).

First, Pluto's argument of perihelion, the angle between the point where it crosses the ecliptic and the point where it is closest to the Sun, librates around 90°.[68] This means that when Pluto is nearest the Sun, it is at its farthest above the plane of the Solar System, preventing encounters with Neptune. This is a direct consequence of the Kozai mechanism,[63] which relates the eccentricity of an orbit to its inclination to a larger perturbing body—in this case Neptune. Relative to Neptune, the amplitude of libration is 38°, and so the angular separation of Pluto's perihelion to the orbit of Neptune is always greater than 52° (90°–38°). The closest such angular separation occurs every 10,000 years.[67]

Second, the longitudes of ascending nodes of the two bodies—the points where they cross the ecliptic—are in near-resonance with the above libration. When the two longitudes are the same—that is, when one could draw a straight line through both nodes and the Sun—Pluto's perihelion lies exactly at 90°, and hence it comes closest to the Sun at its maximally above Neptune's orbit. This is known as the 1:1 superresonance. All the Jovian planets, particularly Jupiter, play a role in the creation of the superresonance.[63]

To understand the nature of the libration, imagine a polar point of view, looking down on the ecliptic from a distant vantage point where the planets orbit counterclockwise. After passing the ascending node, Pluto is interior to Neptune's orbit and moving faster, approaching Neptune from behind. The strong gravitational pull between the two causes angular momentum to be transferred to Pluto, at Neptune's expense. This moves Pluto into a slightly larger orbit, where it travels slightly slower, according to Kepler's third law. As its orbit changes, this has the gradual effect of changing the perihelion and longitude of Pluto's orbit (and, to a lesser degree, of Neptune). After many such repetitions, Pluto is sufficiently slowed, and Neptune sufficiently speeded up, that Neptune begins to catch up with Pluto at the opposite side of its orbit (near the opposing node to where we began). The process is then reversed, and Pluto loses angular momentum to Neptune, until Pluto is sufficiently speeded up that it begins to catch Neptune again at the original node. The whole process takes about 20,000 years to complete.[65][67]

Rotation


Images of nearly one orbit of Charon around Pluto, taken by New Horizons along the ecliptic on 19–24 July 2014, showing its sideways rotation.

Pluto's rotation period, its day, is equal to 6.39 Earth days.[69] Like Uranus, Pluto rotates on its "side" on its orbital plane, with an axial tilt of 120°, and so its seasonal variation is extreme; at its solstices, one-fourth of its surface is in continuous daylight, whereas another fourth is in continuous darkness.[70]

Physical characteristics


Map of Pluto's surface by NASA, ESA and Marc W. Buie

Hubble map of Pluto's surface, showing great variations in color and albedo

Three views of Pluto from different orientations

Pluto's distance from Earth makes in-depth investigation difficult. Many details about Pluto will remain unknown until 14 July 2015 and onwards, when the New Horizons spacecraft will fly through the Pluto system, sending data back to Earth for analysis.[1]

Appearance and surface

Pluto's visual apparent magnitude averages 15.1, brightening to 13.65 at perihelion.[6] To see it, a telescope is required; around 30 cm (12 in) aperture being desirable.[71] It looks star-like and without a visible disk even in large telescopes, because its angular diameter is only 0.11".

The earliest maps of Pluto, made in the late 1980s, were brightness maps created from close observations of eclipses by its largest moon, Charon. Observations were made of the change in the total average brightness of the Pluto–Charon system during the eclipses. For example, eclipsing a bright spot on Pluto makes a bigger total brightness change than eclipsing a dark spot. Computer processing of many such observations can be used to create a brightness map. This method can also track changes in brightness over time.[72][73]

Current maps have been produced from images from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), which offers the highest resolution currently available, and show considerably more detail,[74] resolving variations several hundred kilometres across, including polar regions and large bright spots.[75] The maps are produced by complex computer processing, which find the best-fit projected maps for the few pixels of the Hubble images.[76] The two cameras on the HST used for these maps are no longer in service, so these will likely remain the most detailed maps of Pluto until the 2015 flyby of New Horizons.[76]

These maps, together with Pluto's lightcurve and the periodic variations in its infrared spectra, reveal that Pluto's surface is remarkably varied, with large changes in both brightness and color.[77] Pluto is one of the most contrastive bodies in the Solar System, with as much contrast as Saturn's moon Iapetus.[74] The color varies between charcoal black, dark orange and white:[78] Buie et al. term it "significantly less red than Mars and much more similar to the hues seen on Io with a slightly more orange cast".[75]

Pluto's surface has changed between 1994 and 2002–3: the northern polar region has brightened and the southern hemisphere darkened.[78] Pluto's overall redness has also increased substantially between 2000 and 2002.[78] These rapid changes are probably related to seasonal condensation and sublimation of portions of Pluto's atmosphere, amplified by Pluto's extreme axial tilt and high orbital eccentricity.[78]

Spectroscopic analysis of Pluto's surface reveals it to be composed of more than 98 percent nitrogen ice, with traces of methane and carbon monoxide.[79] The face of Pluto oriented toward Charon contains more methane ice, whereas the opposite face contains more nitrogen and carbon monoxide ice.[80]

Surface feature nomenclature

In anticipation of the forthcoming mapping of Pluto's surface by New Horizons, the International Astronomical Union has decided that its surface features will be given names deriving from the following themes: historic explorers, space missions, spacecraft, scientists and engineers; fictional explorers, travellers, vessels, destinations and origins; authors and artists who have envisioned exploration; and underworlds, underworld beings, and travellers to the underworld. In collaboration with the New Horizons science team, the IAU has invited members of the public to propose names and vote on them before the spacecraft's arrival.[81]

Internal structure


Theoretical structure of Pluto[82]
1. Frozen nitrogen[79]
2. Water ice
3. Rock

Observations by the Hubble Space Telescope place Pluto's density at between 1.8 and 2.1 g/cm3, suggesting its internal composition consists of roughly 50–70 percent rock and 30–50 percent ice by mass.[83] Because the decay of radioactive elements would eventually heat the ices enough for the rock to separate from them, scientists expect that Pluto's internal structure is differentiated, with the rocky material having settled into a dense core surrounded by a mantle of ice. The diameter of the core is hypothesized to be approximately 1700 km, 70% of Pluto's diameter.[82] It is possible that such heating continues today, creating a subsurface ocean layer of liquid water some 100 to 180 km thick at the core–mantle boundary.[82][84] The DLR Institute of Planetary Research calculated that Pluto's density-to-radius ratio lies in a transition zone, along with Neptune's moon Triton, between icy satellites like the mid-sized moons of Uranus and Saturn, and rocky satellites such as Jupiter's Io.[85]

Mass and size


Size comparison of Earth, the Moon, and Pluto (bottom left). Pluto's volume is about 0.6% that of Earth.

Pluto and Charon compared to the United States

Pluto's mass is 1.31×1022 kg, less than 0.24 percent that of Earth,[86] and its diameter is 2306±20 km, or roughly 66% that of the Moon.[11] Its surface area (1.665×107 km2) is about 10% smaller than that of South America. Pluto's atmosphere complicates determining its true solid size within a certain margin.[10] Pluto's albedo varies from 0.49–0.66.

The discovery of Pluto's satellite Charon in 1978 enabled a determination of the mass of the Pluto–Charon system by application of Newton's formulation of Kepler's third law. Once Charon's gravitational effect was measured, Pluto's true mass could be determined. Observations of Pluto in occultation with Charon allowed scientists to establish Pluto's diameter more accurately, whereas the invention of adaptive optics allowed them to determine its shape more accurately.[87]
Selected size estimates for Pluto
Year Radius (diameter) Notes
1993 1195 (2390) km Millis, et al.[88] (If no haze)[89]
1993 1180 (2360) km Millis, et al. (surface & haze)[89]
1994 1164 (2328) km Young & Binzel[90]
2006 1153 (2306) km Buie, et al.[11]
2007 1161 (2322) km Young, Young, & Buie[10]
2011 1180 (2360) km Zalucha, et al.[91]
2014 1184 (2368) km Lellouch, et al.[9]

Among the objects of the Solar System, Pluto is much less massive than the terrestrial planets, and at less than 0.2 lunar masses, it is also less massive than seven moons: Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, Io, the Moon, Europa and Triton.

Pluto is more than twice the diameter and a dozen times the mass of the dwarf planet Ceres, the largest object in the asteroid belt. It is less massive than the dwarf planet Eris, a trans-Neptunian object discovered in 2005. Given the error bars in the different size estimates, it is currently unknown whether Eris or Pluto has the larger diameter.[89] Both Pluto and Eris are estimated to have solid-body diameters of about 2330 km.[89]

Determinations of Pluto's size are complicated by its atmosphere, and possible hydrocarbon haze.[89] In March 2014, Lellouch, de Bergh et al. published findings regarding methane mixing ratios in Pluto's atmosphere consistent with a Plutonian diameter greater than 2360 km, with a "best guess" of 2368 km, which would make it slightly larger than Eris.[9]

Atmosphere


CRIRES model-based computer-generated impression of the Plutonian surface, with atmospheric haze, and Charon and the Sun in the sky.

Pluto's atmosphere consists of a thin envelope of nitrogen (N2), methane (CH4), and carbon monoxide (CO) gases, which are derived from the ices of these substances on its surface.[92] Its surface pressure ranges from 6.5 to 24 μbar (0.65 to 2.4 Pa).[93] Pluto's elongated orbit is predicted to have a major effect on its atmosphere: as Pluto moves away from the Sun, its atmosphere should gradually freeze out, and fall to the ground. When Pluto is closer to the Sun, the temperature of Pluto's solid surface increases, causing the ices to sublimate into gas. This creates an anti-greenhouse effect; much as sweat cools the body as it evaporates from the surface of the skin, this sublimation cools the surface of Pluto. In 2006, scientists using the Submillimeter Array discovered that Pluto's temperature is about 43 K (−230 °C), 10 K colder than would otherwise be expected.[94]

The presence of methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas, in Pluto's atmosphere creates a temperature inversion, with average temperatures 36 K warmer 10 km above the surface.[95] The lower atmosphere contains a higher concentration of methane than its upper atmosphere.[95]

Evidence of Pluto's atmosphere was first suggested by Noah Brosch and Haim Mendelson of the Wise Observatory in Israel in 1985,[96] and then definitively detected by the Kuiper Airborne Observatory in 1988, from observations of occultations of stars by Pluto.[97] When an object with no atmosphere moves in front of a star, the star abruptly disappears; in the case of Pluto, the star dimmed out gradually.[96] From the rate of dimming, the atmospheric pressure was determined to be 0.15 Pa, roughly 1/700,000 that of Earth.[98]

In 2002, another occultation of a star by Pluto was observed and analysed by teams led by Bruno Sicardy of the Paris Observatory,[99] James L. Elliot of MIT,[100] and Jay Pasachoff of Williams College.[101] Surprisingly, the atmospheric pressure was estimated to be 0.3 pascal, even though Pluto was farther from the Sun than in 1988 and thus should have been colder and had a more rarefied atmosphere. One explanation for the discrepancy is that in 1987 the north (or positive) pole of Pluto came out of shadow for the first time in 120 years, causing extra nitrogen to sublimate from the polar cap. It will take decades for the excess nitrogen to condense out of the atmosphere as it freezes onto the south (or negative) pole's now continuously dark ice cap.[102] Spikes in the data from the same study revealed what may be the first evidence of wind in Pluto's atmosphere.[102] Another stellar occultation was observed by the MIT-Williams College team of James L. Elliot, Jay Pasachoff, and a Southwest Research Institute team led by Leslie A. Young on 12 June 2006, from sites in Australia.[103]

In October 2006, Dale Cruikshank of NASA/Ames Research Center (a New Horizons co-investigator) and his colleagues announced the spectroscopic discovery of ethane (C2H6) on Pluto's surface. This ethane is produced from the photolysis or radiolysis (i.e. the chemical conversion driven by sunlight and charged particles) of frozen methane on Pluto's surface and suspended in its atmosphere.[104]

Satellites

Pluto has five known natural satellites: Charon, first identified in 1978 by astronomer James Christy; Nix and Hydra, both discovered in 2005,[105] Kerberos, discovered in 2011,[106] and Styx, discovered in 2012.[107]
The Plutonian moons are unusually close to Pluto, compared to other observed systems. Moons could potentially orbit Pluto at up to 53% (or 69%, if retrograde) of the Hill radius, the stable gravitational zone of Pluto's influence. For example, Psamathe orbits Neptune at 40% of the Hill radius. In the case of Pluto, only the inner 3% of the zone is known to be occupied by satellites. In the discoverers' terms, the Plutonian system appears to be "highly compact and largely empty",[108] although others have pointed out the possibility of additional objects, including a small ring system.[109][110]

Charon


An oblique view of the Pluto–Charon system showing that Pluto orbits a point outside itself. Pluto's orbit is shown in red and Charon's orbit is shown in green.

The surface of Charon

The Pluto–Charon system is noteworthy for being one of the Solar System's few binary systems, defined as those whose barycenter lies above the primary's surface (617 Patroclus is a smaller example, the Sun and Jupiter the only larger one).[111] This and the large size of Charon relative to Pluto have led some astronomers to call it a dwarf double planet.[112] The system is also unusual among planetary systems in that each is tidally locked to the other: Charon always presents the same face to Pluto, and Pluto always presents the same face to Charon: from any position on either body, the other is always at the same position in the sky, or always obscured.[113] This also means that the rotation period of each is equal to the time it takes the entire system to rotate around its common center of gravity.[69] Just as Pluto revolves on its side relative to the orbital plane, so the Pluto–Charon system does also.[70]
In 2007, observations by the Gemini Observatory of patches of ammonia hydrates and water crystals on the surface of Charon suggested the presence of active cryo-geysers.[114]

Small moons


The Pluto system: Pluto, Charon, Nix, Hydra, Kerberos, and Styx, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope in July 2012

Two additional moons were imaged by astronomers working with the Hubble Space Telescope on 15 May 2005, and received provisional designations of S/2005 P 1 and S/2005 P 2. The International Astronomical Union officially named Pluto's newest moons Nix (or Pluto II, the inner of the two moons, formerly P 2) and Hydra (Pluto III, the outer moon, formerly P 1), on 21 June 2006.[115]

These small moons orbit Pluto at approximately two and three times the distance of Charon: Nix at 48,700 kilometres and Hydra at 64,800 kilometres from the barycenter of the system. They have nearly circular prograde orbits in the same orbital plane as Charon.

Observations of Nix and Hydra to determine individual characteristics are ongoing. Hydra is sometimes brighter than Nix, suggesting either that it is larger or that different parts of its surface may vary in brightness. Their sizes are estimated from albedos. If their albedo is similar to that of Charon (0.35), then their diameters are 46 kilometres for Nix and 61 kilometres for Hydra. Upper limits on their diameters can be estimated by using the albedo of the darkest Kuiper-belt objects (0.04); these bounds are 137 ± 11 km and 167 ± 10 km, respectively. At the larger end of this range, the inferred masses are less than 0.3% that of Charon, or 0.03% that of Pluto.[116]

The discovery of Nix and Hydra suggests that Pluto may possess a variable ring system. Small-body impacts can create debris that can form into a ring system. Data from a deep-optical survey by the Advanced Camera for Surveys on the Hubble Space Telescope suggest that no ring system is present. If such a system exists, it is either tenuous like the rings of Jupiter or is tightly confined to less than 1,000 km in width.[109] Similar conclusions have been made from occultation studies.[117]

A fourth moon, Kerberos, was announced on 20 July 2011. It was detected using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope during a survey searching for rings around Pluto. It has an estimated diameter of 13 to 34 km and is located between the orbits of Nix and Hydra.[106] Kerberos was first seen in a photo taken with Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3 on 28 June. It was confirmed in subsequent Hubble pictures taken on 3 and 18 July.[106]

A fifth moon, Styx, was announced on 7 July 2012, while looking for potential hazards for New Horizons.[118] Styx is believed to have a diameter of between 10 and 25 km and to orbit Pluto at a distance between Charon and Nix.[119]

Near resonances

Styx, Nix, Kerberos and Hydra are fairly close to 3:1, 4:1, 5:1 and 6:1 mean-motion orbital resonances with Charon, respectively[120][121] (the ratios approach integral commensurabilities more closely going outward from Pluto). Determining how near any of these orbital period ratios actually is to a true resonance requires accurate knowledge of the satellites' precessions.

Pluto and its satellites, with the Moon comparison[11][122]
Name
(Pronunciation)
Discovery
Year
Diameter
(km)
Mass
(kg)
Orbital radius (km)
(barycentric)
Orbital period (d) Period ratio Magnitude (mag)
Pluto /ˈplt/ 1930 2,306
(66% Moon)
1.305×1022
(18% Moon)
2,035 6.3872
(25% Moon)
1.000 15.1
Charon /ˈʃærən/,
/ˈkɛərən/
1978 1,205
(35% Moon)
1.52×1021
(2% Moon)
17,536
(5% Moon)
6.3872
(25% Moon)
1.000 16.8
Styx /ˈstɪks/ 2012 10–25  ? ~42,000 ± 2,000 20.2 ± 0.1 3.16 27
Nix /ˈnɪks/ 2005 91 4×1017 48,708 24.856 3.892 23.7
Kerberos /ˈkɛərbərəs/ 2011 13–34  ? ~59,000 32.1 5.03 26
Hydra /ˈhdrə/ 2005 114 8×1017 64,749 38.206 5.982 23.3
Mass of Nix and Hydra assumes icy/porous density of 1.0 g/cm3

Quasi-satellite

At least one minor body is trapped in the 1:1 commensurability with Pluto, (15810) 1994 JR1, specifically in the quasi-satellite dynamical state.[123] The object has been a quasi-satellite of Pluto for about 100,000 years and it will remain in that dynamical state for perhaps another 250,000 years. Its quasi-satellite behavior is recurrent with a periodicity of 2 million years.[123][124] There may be additional Pluto co-orbitals.

Origins


Plot of known Kuiper belt objects, set against the four gas giants.

Pluto's origin and identity had long puzzled astronomers. One early hypothesis was that Pluto was an escaped moon of Neptune, knocked out of orbit by its largest current moon, Triton. This notion has been heavily criticized because Pluto never comes near Neptune in its orbit.[125]

Pluto's true place in the Solar System began to reveal itself only in 1992, when astronomers began to find small icy objects beyond Neptune that were similar to Pluto not only in orbit but also in size and composition. This trans-Neptunian population is believed to be the source of many short-period comets. Astronomers now believe Pluto to be the largest[i] member of the Kuiper belt, a somewhat stable ring of objects located between 30 and 50 AU from the Sun. As of 2011, surveys of the Kuiper belt to magnitude 21 were nearly complete and any remaining Pluto-sized objects are expected to be beyond 100 AU from the Sun.[126] Like other Kuiper-belt objects (KBOs), Pluto shares features with comets; for example, the solar wind is gradually blowing Pluto's surface into space, in the manner of a comet.[127] It has been claimed that if Pluto were placed as near to the Sun as Earth, it would develop a tail, as comets do.[128] This claim has been disputed with the argument that Pluto's escape velocity is too high for this to happen.[129]

Though Pluto is the largest of the Kuiper belt objects discovered,[i] Neptune's moon Triton, which is slightly larger than Pluto, is similar to it both geologically and atmospherically, and is believed to be a captured Kuiper belt object.[130] Eris (see below) is about the same size as Pluto (though more massive) but is not strictly considered a member of the Kuiper belt population. Rather, it is considered a member of a linked population called the scattered disc.

A large number of Kuiper belt objects, like Pluto, possess a 2:3 orbital resonance with Neptune. KBOs with this orbital resonance are called "plutinos", after Pluto.[131]

Like other members of the Kuiper belt, Pluto is thought to be a residual planetesimal; a component of the original protoplanetary disc around the Sun that failed to fully coalesce into a full-fledged planet. Most astronomers agree that Pluto owes its current position to a sudden migration undergone by Neptune early in the Solar System's formation. As Neptune migrated outward, it approached the objects in the proto-Kuiper belt, setting one in orbit around itself (Triton), locking others into resonances, and knocking others into chaotic orbits. The objects in the scattered disc, a dynamically unstable region overlapping the Kuiper belt, are believed to have been placed in their current positions by interactions with Neptune's migrating resonances.[132] A computer model created in 2004 by Alessandro Morbidelli of the Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur in Nice suggested that the migration of Neptune into the Kuiper belt may have been triggered by the formation of a 1:2 resonance between Jupiter and Saturn, which created a gravitational push that propelled both Uranus and Neptune into higher orbits and caused them to switch places, ultimately doubling Neptune's distance from the Sun. The resultant expulsion of objects from the proto-Kuiper belt could also explain the Late Heavy Bombardment 600 million years after the Solar System's formation and the origin of the Jupiter trojans.[133] It is possible that Pluto had a near-circular orbit about 33 AU from the Sun before Neptune's migration perturbed it into a resonant capture.[134] The Nice model requires that there were about a thousand Pluto-sized bodies in the original planetesimal disk; these may have included the early Triton and Eris.[133]

Exploration


New Horizons, launched on 19 January 2006

First Pluto sighting from New Horizons

The first color image of Pluto and Charon made by New Horizons[135][136]

Pluto presents significant challenges for spacecraft because of its small mass and large distance from Earth. Voyager 1 could have visited Pluto, but controllers opted instead for a close flyby of Saturn's moon Titan, resulting in a trajectory incompatible with a Pluto flyby. Voyager 2 never had a plausible trajectory for reaching Pluto.[137] No serious attempt to explore Pluto by spacecraft occurred until the last decade of the 20th century. In August 1992, JPL scientist Robert Staehle telephoned Pluto's discoverer, Clyde Tombaugh, requesting permission to visit his planet. "I told him he was welcome to it," Tombaugh later remembered, "though he's got to go one long, cold trip."[138] Despite this early momentum, in 2000, NASA cancelled the Pluto Kuiper Express mission, citing increasing costs and launch vehicle delays.[139]

After an intense political battle, a revised mission to Pluto, dubbed New Horizons, was granted funding from the US government in 2003.[140] New Horizons was launched successfully on 19 January 2006. The mission leader, S. Alan Stern, confirmed that some of the ashes of Clyde Tombaugh, who died in 1997, had been placed aboard the spacecraft.[141]

In early 2007 the craft made use of a gravity assist from Jupiter. Its closest approach to Pluto will be on 14 July 2015; scientific observations of Pluto will begin 5 months before closest approach and will continue for at least a month after the encounter. New Horizons captured its first (distant) images of Pluto in late September 2006, during a test of the Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI).[142] The images, taken from a distance of approximately 4.2 billion kilometres, confirm the spacecraft's ability to track distant targets, critical for maneuvering toward Pluto and other Kuiper Belt objects.

New Horizons will use a remote sensing package that includes imaging instruments and a radio science investigation tool, as well as spectroscopic and other experiments, to characterise the global geology and morphology of Pluto and its moon Charon, map their surface composition and analyse Pluto's neutral atmosphere and its escape rate. New Horizons will also photograph the surfaces of Pluto and Charon.

Pluto's small moons, discovered shortly before or after the probes's launch, may present it with unforeseen challenges. Debris from collisions between Kuiper belt objects and the smaller moons, with their relatively low escape velocities, may produce a tenuous dusty ring. Were New Horizons to fly through such a ring system, there would be an increased potential for micrometeoroid damage that could disable the probe.[109]
Timeline of New Horizons Approach to Pluto.[1]

On 4 February 2015, NASA released new images of Pluto (taken on 25 and 27 January) from the approaching probe.[143] New Horizons was more than 203,000,000 km (126,000,000 mi) away from Pluto when it began taking the photos, which showed Pluto and its largest moon, Charon.

On 20 March 2015, NASA invited the general public to suggest names to surface features that will be discovered on Pluto and Charon.[144]

On 15 April 2015, Pluto was imaged showing a possible polar cap.[2]
January 2015: New Horizons takes images of Pluto and its largest moon, Charon. 
April 2015: Pluto and its moon Charon. Possible polar cap on Pluto detected.[2] 
May 2015:latest images of pluto.[145] 

Concepts

A Pluto orbiter/lander/sample return mission was proposed in 2003. The plan included a twelve-year trip from Earth to Pluto, mapping from orbit, multiple landings, a warm water probe, and possible in situ propellant production for another twelve-year trip back to Earth with samples. Power and propulsion would come from the bimodal MITEE nuclear reactor system.[146]

Classification


Artistic comparison of Eris, Pluto, Makemake, Haumea, Sedna, 2007 OR10, Quaoar, Orcus, and Earth.
After Pluto's place within the Kuiper belt was determined, its official status as a planet became controversial, with many questioning whether Pluto should be considered together with or separately from its surrounding population.
Museum and planetarium directors occasionally created controversy by omitting Pluto from planetary models of the Solar System. The Hayden Planetarium reopened after renovation in 2000 with a model of only eight planets. The controversy made headlines at the time.[147]

In 2002, the KBO 50000 Quaoar was discovered, with a diameter then thought to be roughly 1280 kilometres, about half that of Pluto.[148] In 2004, the discoverers of 90377 Sedna placed an upper limit of 1800 km on its diameter, nearer to Pluto's diameter of 2320 km,[149] although Sedna's diameter was revised downward to less than 1600 km by 2007.[150] Just as Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta eventually lost their planet status after the discovery of many other asteroids, so, it was argued, Pluto should be reclassified as one of the Kuiper belt objects.

On 29 July 2005, the discovery of a new trans-Neptunian object was announced. Named Eris, it is now known to be approximately the same size as Pluto.[89] This was the largest object discovered in the Solar System since Triton in 1846. Its discoverers and the press initially called it the tenth planet, although there was no official consensus at the time on whether to call it a planet.[151] Others in the astronomical community considered the discovery the strongest argument for reclassifying Pluto as a minor planet.[152]

2006: IAU classification

The debate came to a head in 2006 with an IAU resolution that created an official definition for the term "planet". According to this resolution, there are three main conditions for an object to be considered a 'planet':
  1. The object must be in orbit around the Sun.
  2. The object must be massive enough to be a sphere by its own gravitational force. More specifically, its own gravity should pull it into a shape of hydrostatic equilibrium.
  3. It must have cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.[153][154]
Pluto fails to meet the third condition, because its mass is only 0.07 times that of the mass of the other objects in its orbit (Earth's mass, by contrast, is 1.7 million times the remaining mass in its own orbit).[152][154] The IAU further resolved that Pluto be classified in the simultaneously created dwarf planet category, and that it act as the prototype for the plutoid category of trans-Neptunian objects, in which it would be separately, but concurrently, classified.[155]

On 13 September 2006, the IAU included Pluto, Eris, and the Eridian moon Dysnomia in their Minor Planet Catalogue, giving them the official minor planet designations "(134340) Pluto", "(136199) Eris", and "(136199) Eris I Dysnomia".[156] If Pluto had been given a minor planet name upon its discovery, the number would have been about 1,164 rather than 134,340.

There has been some resistance within the astronomical community toward the reclassification.[157][158][159] S. Alan Stern, principal investigator with NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto, publicly derided the IAU resolution, stating that "the definition stinks, for technical reasons".[160] Stern's contention was that by the terms of the new definition Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Neptune, all of which share their orbits with asteroids, would be excluded.[161] His other claim was that because less than five percent of astronomers voted for it, the decision was not representative of the entire astronomical community.[161] Marc W. Buie, then at Lowell Observatory, voiced his opinion on the new definition on his website and petitioned against the definition.[162] Others have supported the IAU. Mike Brown, the astronomer who discovered Eris, said "through this whole crazy circus-like procedure, somehow the right answer was stumbled on. It's been a long time coming. Science is self-correcting eventually, even when strong emotions are involved."[163]

Researchers on both sides of the debate gathered on 14–16 August 2008, at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory for a conference that included back-to-back talks on the current IAU definition of a planet.[164] Entitled "The Great Planet Debate",[165] the conference published a post-conference press release indicating that scientists could not come to a consensus about the definition of planet.[166] Just before the conference, on 11 June 2008, the IAU announced in a press release that the term "plutoid" would henceforth be used to describe Pluto and other objects similar to Pluto which have an orbital semimajor axis greater than that of Neptune and enough mass to be of near-spherical shape.[155][167][168]

Reaction


A promotional event with a staged Pluto "protest". Members playing protesters of the reclassification of Pluto on the left, with those playing counter-protesters on the right

Reception to the IAU decision was mixed. Although many accepted the reclassification, some sought to overturn the decision with online petitions urging the IAU to consider reinstatement. A resolution introduced by some members of the California State Assembly light-heartedly denounced the IAU for "scientific heresy", among other crimes.[169] The U.S. state of New Mexico's House of Representatives passed a resolution in honor of Tombaugh, a longtime resident of that state, which declared that Pluto will always be considered a planet while in New Mexican skies and that 13 March 2007, was Pluto Planet Day.[170][171] The Illinois State Senate passed a similar resolution in 2009, on the basis that Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto, was born in Illinois. The resolution asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a 'dwarf' planet" by the IAU.[172]

Some members of the public have also rejected the change, citing the disagreement within the scientific community on the issue, or for sentimental reasons, maintaining that they have always known Pluto as a planet and will continue to do so regardless of the IAU decision.[173]

In 2006 in its 17th annual words of the year vote, the American Dialect Society voted plutoed as the word of the year. To "pluto" is to "demote or devalue someone or something".[174]

Saturday, May 30, 2015

Cosmic ray


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Cosmic ray flux versus particle energy

Cosmic rays are immensely high-energy radiation, mainly originating outside the Solar System.[1] They may produce showers of secondary particles that penetrate and impact the Earth's atmosphere and sometimes even reach the surface. Composed primarily of high-energy protons and atomic nuclei, they are of mysterious origin. Data from the Fermi space telescope (2013)[2] have been interpreted as evidence that a significant fraction of primary cosmic rays originate from the supernovae of massive stars.[3] However, this is not thought to be their only source. Active galactic nuclei probably also produce cosmic rays.

The term ray is a historical accident, as cosmic rays were at first, and wrongly, thought to be mostly electromagnetic radiation. In common scientific usage[4] high-energy particles with intrinsic mass are known as "cosmic" rays, and photons, which are quanta of electromagnetic radiation (and so have no intrinsic mass) are known by their common names, such as "gamma rays" or "X-rays", depending on their origin.

Cosmic rays attract great interest practically, due to the damage they inflict on microelectronics and life outside the protection of an atmosphere and magnetic field, and scientifically, because the energies of the most energetic ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) have been observed to approach 3 × 1020 eV,[5] about 40 million times the energy of particles accelerated by the Large Hadron Collider.[6] At 50 J,[7] the highest-energy ultra-high-energy cosmic rays have energies comparable to the kinetic energy of a 90-kilometre-per-hour (56 mph) baseball. As a result of these discoveries, there has been interest in investigating cosmic rays of even greater energies.[8] Most cosmic rays, however, do not have such extreme energies; the energy distribution of cosmic rays peaks at 0.3 gigaelectronvolts (4.8×10−11 J).[9]

Of primary cosmic rays, which originate outside of Earth's atmosphere, about 99% are the nuclei (stripped of their electron shells) of well-known atoms, and about 1% are solitary electrons (similar to beta particles). Of the nuclei, about 90% are simple protons, i. e. hydrogen nuclei; 9% are alpha particles, and 1% are the nuclei of heavier elements, called HZE ions.[10] A very small fraction are stable particles of antimatter, such as positrons or antiprotons. The precise nature of this remaining fraction is an area of active research. An active search from Earth orbit for anti-alpha particles has failed to detect them.

History

After the discovery of radioactivity by Henri Becquerel and Marie Curie in 1896, it was generally believed that atmospheric electricity, ionization of the air, was caused only by radiation from radioactive elements in the ground or the radioactive gases or isotopes of radon they produce.[11] Measurements of ionization rates at increasing heights above the ground during the decade from 1900 to 1910 showed a decrease that could be explained as due to absorption of the ionizing radiation by the intervening air.[12]

Discovery

In 1909 Theodor Wulf developed an electrometer, a device to measure the rate of ion production inside a hermetically sealed container, and used it to show higher levels of radiation at the top of the Eiffel Tower than at its base. However, his paper published in Physikalische Zeitschrift was not widely accepted. In 1911 Domenico Pacini observed simultaneous variations of the rate of ionization over a lake, over the sea, and at a depth of 3 meters from the surface. Pacini concluded from the decrease of radioactivity underwater that a certain part of the ionization must be due to sources other than the radioactivity of the Earth.[13]

Pacini makes a measurement in 1910.

In 1912, Victor Hess carried three enhanced-accuracy Wulf electrometers[14] to an altitude of 5300 meters in a free balloon flight. He found the ionization rate increased approximately fourfold over the rate at ground level.[14] Hess ruled out the Sun as the radiation's source by making a balloon ascent during a near-total eclipse. With the moon blocking much of the Sun's visible radiation, Hess still measured rising radiation at rising altitudes.[14] He concluded "The results of my observation are best explained by the assumption that a radiation of very great penetrating power enters our atmosphere from above." In 1913–1914, Werner Kolhörster confirmed Victor Hess' earlier results by measuring the increased ionization rate at an altitude of 9 km.

Increase of ionization with altitude as measured by Hess in 1912 (left) and by Kolhörster (right)

Hess received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1936 for his discovery.[15][16]

The Hess balloon flight took place on 7 August 1912. By sheer coincidence, exactly 100 years later on 7 August 2012, the Mars Science Laboratory rover used its Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) instrument to begin measuring the radiation levels on another planet for the first time. On 31 May 2013, NASA scientists reported that a possible manned mission to Mars may involve a greater radiation risk than previously believed, based on the amount of energetic particle radiation detected by the RAD on the Mars Science Laboratory while traveling from the Earth to Mars in 2011–2012.[17][18][19]

Hess lands after his balloon flight in 1912.

Identification

In the 1920s the term "cosmic rays" was coined by Robert Millikan who made measurements of ionization due to cosmic rays from deep under water to high altitudes and around the globe. Millikan believed that his measurements proved that the primary cosmic rays were gamma rays, i.e., energetic photons. And he proposed a theory that they were produced in interstellar space as by-products of the fusion of hydrogen atoms into the heavier elements, and that secondary electrons were produced in the atmosphere by Compton scattering of gamma rays. But then, in 1927, J. Clay found evidence,[20] later confirmed in many experiments, of a variation of cosmic ray intensity with latitude, which indicated that the primary cosmic rays are deflected by the geomagnetic field and must therefore be charged particles, not photons. In 1929, Bothe and Kolhörster discovered charged cosmic-ray particles that could penetrate 4.1 cm of gold.[21] Charged particles of such high energy could not possibly be produced by photons from Millikan's proposed interstellar fusion process.[citation needed]

In 1930, Bruno Rossi predicted a difference between the intensities of cosmic rays arriving from the east and the west that depends upon the charge of the primary particles – the so-called "east-west effect."[22] Three independent experiments[23][24][25] found that the intensity is, in fact, greater from the west, proving that most primaries are positive. During the years from 1930 to 1945, a wide variety of investigations confirmed that the primary cosmic rays are mostly protons, and the secondary radiation produced in the atmosphere is primarily electrons, photons and muons. In 1948, observations with nuclear emulsions carried by balloons to near the top of the atmosphere showed that approximately 10% of the primaries are helium nuclei (alpha particles) and 1% are heavier nuclei of the elements such as carbon, iron, and lead.[26][27]

During a test of his equipment for measuring the east-west effect, Rossi observed that the rate of near-simultaneous discharges of two widely separated Geiger counters was larger than the expected accidental rate. In his report on the experiment, Rossi wrote "... it seems that once in a while the recording equipment is struck by very extensive showers of particles, which causes coincidences between the counters, even placed at large distances from one another."[25] In 1937 Pierre Auger, unaware of Rossi's earlier report, detected the same phenomenon and investigated it in some detail. He concluded that high-energy primary cosmic-ray particles interact with air nuclei high in the atmosphere, initiating a cascade of secondary interactions that ultimately yield a shower of electrons, and photons that reach ground level.[28]

Soviet physicist Sergey Vernov was the first to use radiosondes to perform cosmic ray readings with an instrument carried to high altitude by a balloon. On 1 April 1935, he took measurements at heights up to 13.6 kilometers using a pair of Geiger counters in an anti-coincidence circuit to avoid counting secondary ray showers.[29][30]

Homi J. Bhabha derived an expression for the probability of scattering positrons by electrons, a process now known as Bhabha scattering. His classic paper, jointly with Walter Heitler, published in 1937 described how primary cosmic rays from space interact with the upper atmosphere to produce particles observed at the ground level. Bhabha and Heitler explained the cosmic ray shower formation by the cascade production of gamma rays and positive and negative electron pairs.[citation needed]

Energy distribution

Measurements of the energy and arrival directions of the ultra-high energy primary cosmic rays by the techniques of "density sampling" and "fast timing" of extensive air showers were first carried out in 1954 by members of the Rossi Cosmic Ray Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[31] The experiment employed eleven scintillation detectors arranged within a circle 460 meters in diameter on the grounds of the Agassiz Station of the Harvard College Observatory. From that work, and from many other experiments carried out all over the world, the energy spectrum of the primary cosmic rays is now known to extend beyond 1020 eV. A huge air shower experiment called the Auger Project is currently operated at a site on the pampas of Argentina by an international consortium of physicists, led by James Cronin, winner of the 1980 Nobel Prize in Physics from the University of Chicago, and Alan Watson of the University of Leeds. Their aim is to explore the properties and arrival directions of the very highest-energy primary cosmic rays.[32] The results are expected to have important implications for particle physics and cosmology, due to a theoretical Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin limit to the energies of cosmic rays from long distances (about 160 million light years) which occurs above 1020 eV because of interactions with the remnant photons from the big bang origin of the universe.

High-energy gamma rays (>50 MeV photons) were finally discovered in the primary cosmic radiation by an MIT experiment carried on the OSO-3 satellite in 1967.[33] Components of both galactic and extra-galactic origins were separately identified at intensities much less than 1% of the primary charged particles. Since then, numerous satellite gamma-ray observatories have mapped the gamma-ray sky. The most recent is the Fermi Observatory, which has produced a map showing a narrow band of gamma ray intensity produced in discrete and diffuse sources in our galaxy, and numerous point-like extra-galactic sources distributed over the celestial sphere.

Sources of cosmic rays

Early speculation on the sources of cosmic rays included a 1934 proposal by Baade and Zwicky suggesting cosmic rays originating from supernovae.[34] A 1948 proposal by Horace W. Babcock suggested that magnetic variable stars could be a source of cosmic rays.[35] Subsequently in 1951, Y. Sekido et al. identified the Crab Nebula as a source of cosmic rays.[36] Since then, a wide variety of potential sources for cosmic rays began to surface, including supernovae, active galactic nuclei, quasars, and gamma-ray bursts.[37]

Sources of Ionizing Radiation in Interplanetary Space.

Later experiments have helped to identify the sources of cosmic rays with greater certainty. In 2009, a paper presented at the International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC) by scientists at the Pierre Auger Observatory showed ultra-high energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) originating from a location in the sky very close to the radio galaxy Centaurus A, although the authors specifically stated that further investigation would be required to confirm Cen A as a source of cosmic rays.[38] However, no correlation was found between the incidence of gamma-ray bursts and cosmic rays, causing the authors to set upper limits as low as 3.4 × 10−6 erg cm−2 on the flux of 1 GeV-1 TeV cosmic rays from gamma-ray bursts.[39]

In 2009, supernovae were said to have been "pinned down" as a source of cosmic rays, a discovery made by a group using data from the Very Large Telescope.[40] This analysis, however, was disputed in 2011 with data from PAMELA, which revealed that "spectral shapes of [hydrogen and helium nuclei] are different and cannot be described well by a single power law", suggesting a more complex process of cosmic ray formation.[41] In February 2013, though, research analyzing data from Fermi revealed through an observation of neutral pion decay that supernovae were indeed a source of cosmic rays, with each explosion producing roughly 3 × 1042 - 3 × 1043 J of cosmic rays.[2][3] However, supernovae do not produce all cosmic rays, and the proportion of cosmic rays that they do produce is a question which cannot be answered without further study.[42]

Types


Primary cosmic particle collides with a molecule of atmosphere.

Cosmic rays originate as primary cosmic rays, which are those originally produced in various astrophysical processes. Primary cosmic rays are composed primarily of protons and alpha particles (99%), with a small amount of heavier nuclei (~1%) and an extremely minute proportion of positrons and antiprotons.[10] Secondary cosmic rays, caused by a decay of primary cosmic rays as they impact an atmosphere, include neutrons, pions, positrons, and muons. Of these four, the latter three were first detected in cosmic rays.

Primary cosmic rays

Primary cosmic rays primarily originate from outside the Solar System and sometimes even the Milky Way. When they interact with Earth's atmosphere, they are converted to secondary particles. The mass ratio of helium to hydrogen nuclei, 28%, is similar to the primordial elemental abundance ratio of these elements, 24%.[43] The remaining fraction is made up of the other heavier nuclei that are nuclear synthesis end products, products of the Big Bang,[citation needed] primarily lithium, beryllium, and boron. These nuclei appear in cosmic rays in much greater abundance (~1%) than in the solar atmosphere, where they are only about 10−11 as abundant as helium. Cosmic rays made up of charged nuclei heavier than helium are called HZE ions. Due to the high charge and heavy nature of HZE ions, their contribution to an astronaut's radiation dose in space is significant even though they are relatively scarce.

This abundance difference is a result of the way secondary cosmic rays are formed. Carbon and oxygen nuclei collide with interstellar matter to form lithium, beryllium and boron in a process termed cosmic ray spallation. Spallation is also responsible for the abundances of scandium, titanium, vanadium, and manganese ions in cosmic rays produced by collisions of iron and nickel nuclei with interstellar matter.[44]

Primary cosmic ray antimatter

Satellite experiments have found evidence of positrons and a few antiprotons in primary cosmic rays, amounting to less than 1% of the particles in primary cosmic rays. These do not appear to be the products of large amounts of antimatter from the Big Bang, or indeed complex antimatter in the universe. Rather, they appear to consist of only these two elementary particles, newly made in energetic processes.
Preliminary results from the presently operating Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS-02) on board the International Space Station show that positrons in the cosmic rays arrive with no directionality, and with energies that range from 10 GeV to 250 GeV. In September, 2014, new results with almost twice as much data were presented in a talk at CERN and published in Physical Review Letters.[45][46] A new measurement of positron fraction up to 500 GeV was reported, showing that positron fraction peaks at a maximum of about 16% of total electron+positron events, around an energy of 275 ± 32 GeV. At higher energies, up to 500 GeV, the ratio of positrons to electrons begins to fall again. The absolute flux of positrons also begins to fall before 500 GeV, but peaks at energies far higher than electron energies, which peak about 10 GeV.[47] These results on interpretation have been suggested to be due to positron production in annihilation events of massive dark matter particles.[48]

Cosmic ray antiprotons also have a much higher energy than their normal-matter counterparts (protons). They arrive at Earth with a characteristic energy maximum of 2 GeV, indicating their production in a fundamentally different process from cosmic ray protons, which on average have only one-sixth of the energy.[49]

There is no evidence of complex antimatter atomic nuclei, such as antihelium nuclei (i.e., anti-alpha particles), in cosmic rays. These are actively being searched for. A prototype of the AMS-02 designated AMS-01, was flown into space aboard the Space Shuttle Discovery on STS-91 in June 1998. By not detecting any antihelium at all, the AMS-01 established an upper limit of 1.1×10−6 for the antihelium to helium flux ratio.[50]

The moon in cosmic rays
The moon's muon shadow
The Moon's cosmic ray shadow, as seen in secondary muons detected 700 m below ground, at the Soudan 2 detector
The moon as seen in gamma rays
The moon as seen by the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, in gamma rays with energies greater than 20 MeV. These are produced by cosmic ray bombardment on its surface.[51]

Secondary cosmic rays

When cosmic rays enter the Earth's atmosphere they collide with atoms and molecules, mainly oxygen and nitrogen. The interaction produces a cascade of lighter particles, a so-called air shower secondary radiation that rains down, including x-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and neutrons.[52] All of the produced particles stay within about one degree of the primary particle's path.

Typical particles produced in such collisions are neutrons and charged mesons such as positive or negative pions and kaons. Some of these subsequently decay into muons, which are able to reach the surface of the Earth, and even penetrate for some distance into shallow mines. The muons can be easily detected by many types of particle detectors, such as cloud chambers, bubble chambers or scintillation detectors. The observation of a secondary shower of particles in multiple detectors at the same time is an indication that all of the particles came from that event.

Cosmic rays impacting other planetary bodies in the Solar System are detected indirectly by observing high energy gamma ray emissions by gamma-ray telescope. These are distinguished from radioactive decay processes by their higher energies above  about 10 MeV.

Cosmic-ray flux


An overview of the space environment shows the relationship between the solar activity and galactic cosmic rays.[53]

The flux of incoming cosmic rays at the upper atmosphere is dependent on the solar wind, the Earth's magnetic field, and the energy of the cosmic rays. At distances of ~94 AU from the Sun, the solar wind undergoes a transition, called the termination shock, from supersonic to subsonic speeds. The region between the termination shock and the heliopause acts as a barrier to cosmic rays, decreasing the flux at lower energies (≤ 1 GeV) by about 90%. However, the strength of the solar wind is not constant, and hence it has been observed that cosmic ray flux is correlated with solar activity.

In addition, the Earth's magnetic field acts to deflect cosmic rays from its surface, giving rise to the observation that the flux is apparently dependent on latitude, longitude, and azimuth angle. The magnetic field lines deflect the cosmic rays towards the poles, giving rise to the aurorae.

The combined effects of all of the factors mentioned contribute to the flux of cosmic rays at Earth's surface. For 1 GeV particles, the rate of arrival is about 10,000 per square meter per second. At 1 TeV the rate is 1 particle per square meter per second. At 10 PeV there are only a few particles per square meter per year. Particles above 10 EeV arrive only at a rate of about one particle per square kilometer per year, and above 100 EeV at a rate of about one particle per square kilometer per century.[54]

In the past, it was believed that the cosmic ray flux remained fairly constant over time. However, recent research suggests 1.5 to 2-fold millennium-timescale changes in the cosmic ray flux in the past forty thousand years.[55]

The magnitude of the energy of cosmic ray flux in interstellar space is very comparable to that of other deep space energies: cosmic ray energy density averages about one electron-volt per cubic centimeter of interstellar space, or ~1 eV/cm3, which is comparable to the energy density of visible starlight at 0.3 eV/cm3, the galactic magnetic field energy density (assumed 3 microgauss) which is ~0.25 eV/cm3, or the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation energy density at ~ 0.25 eV/cm3.[56]

Detection methods


The VERITAS array of air Cherenkov telescopes.

There are several ground-based methods of detecting cosmic rays currently in use. The first detection method is called the air Cherenkov telescope, designed to detect low-energy (< 200 GeV) cosmic rays by means of analyzing their Cherenkov radiation, which for cosmic rays are gamma rays emitted as they travel faster than the speed of light in their medium, the atmosphere.[57] While these telescopes are extremely good at distinguishing between background radiation and that of cosmic-ray origin, they can only function well on clear nights without the Moon shining, and have very small fields of view and are only active for a few percent of the time. Another Cherenkov telescope uses water as a medium through which particles pass and produce Cherenkov radiation to make them detectable.[58]

Comparison of Radiation Doses - includes the amount detected on the trip from Earth to Mars by the RAD on the MSL (2011 - 2013).[17][18][19]

Extensive air shower (EAS) arrays, a second detection method, measure the charged particles which pass through them. EAS arrays measure much higher-energy cosmic rays than air Cherenkov telescopes, and can observe a broad area of the sky and can be active about 90% of the time. However, they are less able to segregate background effects from cosmic rays than can air Cherenkov telescopes. EAS arrays employ plastic scintillators in order to detect particles.

Another method was developed by Robert Fleischer, P. Buford Price, and Robert M. Walker for use in high-altitude balloons.[59] In this method, sheets of clear plastic, like 0.25 mm Lexan polycarbonate, are stacked together and exposed directly to cosmic rays in space or high altitude. The nuclear charge causes chemical bond breaking or ionization in the plastic. At the top of the plastic stack the ionization is less, due to the high cosmic ray speed. As the cosmic ray speed decreases due to deceleration in the stack, the ionization increases along the path. The resulting plastic sheets are "etched" or slowly dissolved in warm caustic sodium hydroxide solution, that removes the surface material at a slow, known rate. The caustic sodium hydroxide dissolves the plastic at a faster rate along the path of the ionized plastic. The net result is a conical etch pit in the plastic. The etch pits are measured under a high-power microscope (typically 1600x oil-immersion), and the etch rate is plotted as a function of the depth in the stacked plastic.

This technique yields a unique curve for each atomic nucleus from 1 to 92, allowing identification of both the charge and energy of the cosmic ray that traverses the plastic stack. The more extensive the ionization along the path, the higher the charge. In addition to its uses for cosmic-ray detection, the technique is also used to detect nuclei created as products of nuclear fission.

A fourth method involves the use of cloud chambers[60] to detect the secondary muons created when a pion decays.
Cloud chambers in particular can be built from widely available materials and can be constructed even in a high-school laboratory. A fifth method, involving bubble chambers, can be used to detect cosmic ray particles.[61]

Another method detects the light from nitrogen fluorescence caused by the excitation of nitrogen in the atmosphere by the shower of particles moving through the atmosphere. This method allows for accurate detection of the direction from which the cosmic ray came.[62]

Finally, the CMOS devices in pervasive smartphone cameras have been proposed as a practical distributed network to detect air showers from ultra-high energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) which is at least comparable with that of conventional cosmic ray detectors.[63] The app, which is currently in beta and accepting applications, is CRAYFIS (Cosmic RAYs Found In Smartphones).[64][65]

Effects

Changes in atmospheric chemistry

Cosmic rays ionize the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, which leads to a number of chemical reactions. One of the reactions results in ozone depletion. Cosmic rays are also responsible for the continuous production of a number of unstable isotopes in the Earth's atmosphere, such as carbon-14, via the reaction:
n + 14N → p + 14C
Cosmic rays kept the level of carbon-14[66] in the atmosphere roughly constant (70 tons) for at least the past 100,000 years, until the beginning of above-ground nuclear weapons testing in the early 1950s. This is an important fact used in radiocarbon dating used in archaeology.
Reaction products of primary cosmic rays, radioisotope half-lifetime, and production reaction.[67]
  • Tritium (12.3 years): 14N(n, 3H)12C (Spallation)
  • Beryllium-7 (53.3 days)
  • Beryllium-10 (1.39 million years): 14N(n,p α)10Be (Spallation)
  • Carbon-14 (5730 years): 14N(n, p)14C (Neutron activation)
  • Sodium-22 (2.6 years)
  • Sodium-24 (15 hours)
  • Magnesium-28 (20.9 hours)
  • Silicon-31 (2.6 hours)
  • Silicon-32 (101 years)
  • Phosphorus-32 (14.3 days)
  • Sulfur-35 (87.5 days)
  • Sulfur-38 (2.84 hours)
  • Chlorine-34 m (32 minutes)
  • Chlorine-36 (300,000 years)
  • Chlorine-38 (37.2 minutes)
  • Chlorine-39 (56 minutes)
  • Argon-39 (269 years)
  • Krypton-85 (10.7 years)

Role in ambient radiation

Cosmic rays constitute a fraction of the annual radiation exposure of human beings on the Earth, averaging 0.39 mSv out of a total of 3 mSv per year (13% of total background) for the Earth's population. However, the background radiation from cosmic rays increases with altitude, from 0.3 mSv per year for sea-level areas to 1.0 mSv per year for higher-altitude cities, raising cosmic radiation exposure to a quarter of total background radiation exposure for populations of said cities. Airline crews flying long distance high-altitude routes can be exposed to 2.2 mSv of extra radiation each year due to cosmic rays, nearly doubling their total ionizing radiation exposure.

Average annual radiation exposure (millisieverts)
Radiation UNSCEAR[68][69] Princeton[70] Wa State[71] MEXT[72]
Type Source World
average
Typical range USA USA Japan Remark
Natural Air 1.26 0.2-10.0a 2.29 2.00 0.40 Primarily from Radon, (a)depends on indoor accumulation of radon gas.
Internal 0.29 0.2-1.0b 0.16 0.40 0.40 Mainly from radioisotopes in food (40K, 14C, etc.) (b)depends on diet.
Terrestrial 0.48 0.3-1.0c 0.19 0.29 0.40 (c)Depends on soil composition and building material of structures.
Cosmic 0.39 0.3-1.0d 0.31 0.26 0.30 (d)Generally increases with elevation.
Subtotal 2.40 1.0-13.0 2.95 2.95 1.50
Artificial Medical 0.60 0.03-2.0 3.00 0.53 2.30
Fallout 0.007 0 - 1+ - - 0.01 Peaked in 1963 with a spike in 1986; still high near nuclear test and accident sites.
For the United States, fallout is incorporated into other categories.
others 0.0052 0-20 0.25 0.13 0.001 Average annual occupational exposure is 0.7 mSv; mining workers have higher exposure.
Populations near nuclear plants have an additional ~0.02 mSv of exposure annually.
Subtotal 0.6 0 to tens 3.25 0.66 2.311
Total 3.00 0 to tens 6.20 3.61 3.81
Figures are for the time before the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Human-made values by UNSCEAR are from the Japanese National Institute of Radiological Sciences, which summarized the UNSCEAR data.

Effect on electronics

Cosmic rays have sufficient energy to alter the states of circuit components in electronic integrated circuits, causing transient errors to occur, such as corrupted data in electronic memory devices, or incorrect performance of CPUs, often referred to as "soft errors" (not to be confused with software errors caused by programming mistakes/bugs).
This has been a problem in electronics at extremely high-altitude, such as in satellites, but with transistors becoming smaller and smaller, this is becoming an increasing concern in ground-level electronics as well.[73] Studies by IBM in the 1990s suggest that computers typically experience about one cosmic-ray-induced error per 256 megabytes of RAM per month.[74] To alleviate this problem, the Intel Corporation has proposed a cosmic ray detector that could be integrated into future high-density microprocessors, allowing the processor to repeat the last command following a cosmic-ray event.[75]

Cosmic rays are suspected as a possible cause of an in-flight incident in 2008 where an Airbus A330 airliner of Qantas twice plunged hundreds of feet after an unexplained malfunction in its flight control system. Many passengers and crew members were injured, some seriously. After this incident, the accident investigators determined that the airliner's flight control system had received a data spike that could not be explained, and that all systems were in perfect working order. This has prompted a software upgrade to all A330 and A340 airliners, worldwide, so that any data spikes in this system are filtered out electronically.[76]

Significance to space travel

Galactic cosmic rays are one of the most important barriers standing in the way of plans for interplanetary travel by crewed spacecraft. Cosmic rays also pose a threat to electronics placed aboard outgoing probes. In 2010, a malfunction aboard the Voyager 2 space probe was credited to a single flipped bit, probably caused by a cosmic ray. Strategies such as physical or magnetic shielding for spacecraft have been considered in order to minimize the damage to electronics and human beings caused by cosmic rays.[77][78]

Role in lightning

Cosmic rays have been implicated in the triggering of electrical breakdown in lightning. It has been proposed that essentially all lightning is triggered through a relativistic process, "runaway breakdown", seeded by cosmic ray secondaries. Subsequent development of the lightning discharge then occurs through "conventional breakdown" mechanisms.[79]

Postulated role in climate change

A role of cosmic rays directly or via solar-induced modulations in climate change was suggested by Edward P. Ney in 1959[80] and by Robert E. Dickinson in 1975.[81] Despite the opinion of over 97% of climate scientists against this notion,[82] the idea has been revived in recent years, most notably by Henrik Svensmark, who has argued that because solar variations modulate the cosmic ray flux on Earth, they would consequently affect the rate of cloud formation and hence the climate.[83] Nevertheless, it has been noted by climate scientists actively publishing in the field[who?] that Svensmark has inconsistently altered data on most of his published work on the subject, an example being adjustment of cloud data that understates error in lower cloud data, but not in high cloud data.[84]

The 2007 IPCC synthesis report, however, strongly attributes a major role in the ongoing global warming to human-produced gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons, and has stated that models including natural forcings only (including aerosol forcings, which cosmic rays are considered by some to contribute to) would result in far less warming than has actually been observed or predicted in models including anthropogenic forcings.[85]
Svensmark, being one of several scientists outspokenly opposed to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, has found eminence among the popular culture movement that denies the scientific consensus. Despite this, Svensmark's work exaggerating the magnitude of the effect of GCR on global warming continues to be refuted in the mainstream science.[86] For instance, a November 2013 study showed that less than 14 percent of global warming since the 1950s could be attributed to cosmic ray rate, and while the models showed a small correlation every 22 years, the cosmic ray rate did not match the changes in temperature, indicating that it was not a causal relationship.[87]

Research and experiments

There are a number of cosmic-ray research initiatives.

Ground-based

Satellite

Balloon-borne

Right to property

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property The right to property , or the right to own property ...