Talk:Magnetosphere of Jupiter

Orphaned references in Magnetosphere of Jupiter

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Magnetosphere of Jupiter's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

• From Waves (Juno): [1]
• From Heliosphere: Cole, Steve. "NASA Satellite Provides First View of the Solar System's Tail" NASA News Release 12-211, July 10, 2013
• From Hydrogen peroxide: Shaw, A; Cooperman, A; Fusco, J (1967). "Gas embolism produced by hydrogen peroxide". N Engl J Med. 277 (5): 238–41. doi:10.1056/nejm196708032770504. PMID 6029311.
• From Magnetometer (Juno): Juno Magnetometer Observations in the Earth's Magnetosphere

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Magnetosphere of Jupiter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225131107/http://icymoons.com/europaclass/Cooper_gllsat_irrad.pdf to http://icymoons.com/europaclass/Cooper_gllsat_irrad.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719204111/http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/11661/1/02-0220.pdf to http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/11661/1/02-0220.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Plasma originating from Io

The article currently claims:

• "Strong volcanic eruptions on Io emit huge amounts of sulfur dioxide, a major part of which is dissociated into atoms and ionized by the solar ultraviolet radiation, producing ions of sulfur and oxygen: S⁺, O⁺, S²⁺ and O²⁺."

But the only relevant statements that the cited source provides on pp. 3–4 are:

• "The materials are mostly in the form of SO2 gas and of ions, electrons and neutral atoms derived from SO2 constituents. ... The neutral gases are removed in part by being ionized (primarily by electron impact; photoionization is mostly negligible) and thus added to the plasma and in part by undergoing charge-exchange collisions with the ions (Lagg et al. 1998)"

From that, I can see no support for the presence of each of S⁺, O⁺, S²⁺ and O²⁺; is that WP:SYNTH?. Also, the source seems to imply that solar ultraviolet radiation is a negligible mechanism for the ionisation; in fact the principal agent seems to be high velocity electrons. I think that this section of our article needs to be changed to reflect the source cited, or additional sources should be provided to support the text as it stands. --RexxS (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Revising the Dynamics section

A colleague complained to me over dinner (we're at the Magnetosphere of the Outer Planets conference) about the Wikipedia article on Jupiter's magnetosphere. He felt that it reads as if it were written by people from a particular research group, whose interpretation isn't widely agreed on by the community. Looking over the article, it looks like he was right about the Dynamics section. It's not wrong, but it's written with a spin which favors a particular interpretation and theory. Would anyone mind if I heavily rewrite it to be more balanced? Fcrary (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Equatorial field strength

I have rolled back the equatorial field strength to the 4.2 Gauss figure from the Khurana chapter in the Jupiter book by Bagenal, et al. The 7.76 G figure recorded by Juno at perijove was not an equatorial figure, since Juno's perijove is not equatorial. Figure 2 in Connerney 2018 is a surface map of the equatorial field strength, and the equator averages out to 4 Gauss with a sharp peak at low northerly latitudes. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That's certainly much better than 7.76. But isn't four significant figures a bit much? I'd be more comfortable trimming 4.264 to approximately 4.2 or 4.3. Fcrary (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I've tracked down Jack Connerney's post-Juno model value (4.170 G) and inserted it with a reference. Four sig figs is still overkill IMO, but at least now it has a firmer basis. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That should be fine. I just run Jack's JRM09 model for zero degrees latitude and one value per degree of longitude (geographic). I got 4.4 +- 1.7, with 7.3 as the maximum. But I suspect I'd be accused of independent research if I put that in the article. 4.17 is fine with me. It's about right and well within the range seen at different latitudes. Fcrary (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Radiation environment near Jupiter

The radiation environment near Jupiter is of particular importance to visiting spacecraft, as they must be designed to handle it. Citing a source for the article's current description, "...producing intense belts of radiation similar to Earth's Van Allen belts, but thousands of times stronger," would be useful in this article and elsewhere, e.g. the main Jupiter article and the articles for the various visiting spacecraft. Thanks! (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Moons section a little too optimistic?

Kind of similar to the above section (and this would be relevant to stick in other articles), but I think the current "Interaction with rings and moons" is a little too... blase, and burying the lede. Or worse, portraying the Magnetosphere as no big deal. See this paragraph:

The icy Galilean moons, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto, all generate induced magnetic moments in response to changes in Jupiter's magnetic field. These varying magnetic moments create dipole magnetic fields around them, which act to compensate for changes in the ambient field. The induction is thought to take place in subsurface layers of salty water, which are likely to exist in all of Jupiter's large icy moons. These underground oceans can potentially harbor life, and evidence for their presence was one of the most important discoveries made in the 1990s by spacecraft.

A casual reader might think that the magnetic moments are somehow connected to the hypothetical life in salty water, and thus the radiation is helping out? Or at least not a problem for life. But this isn't the Fallout video games. My understanding is that any sci-fi image of astronauts on Europa or Io is a lie and they're already super dead from radiation. Callisto is safe-ish but OSHA is unhappy if you somehow spend years on end there. I think this should be included in the article, or at least the above paragraph rephrased to make more clear that the radiation is more likely a threat to this hypothetical underground oceanic life. SnowFire (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)