Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T12:14:44.860Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Solar and planetary dynamos: comparison and recent developments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2008

K. Petrovay
K. Petrovay*
Affiliation:
Eötvös University, Department of Astronomy H-1518 Budapest, Pf. 32., Hungary email: K.Petrovay@astro.elte.hu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

While obviously having a common root, solar and planetary dynamo theory have taken increasingly divergent routes in the last two or three decades, and there are probably few experts now who can claim to be equally versed in both. Characteristically, even in the fine and comprehensive book “The magnetic Universe” (Rudiger & Hollerbach 2004), the chapters on planets and on the Sun were written by different authors. Separate reviews written on the two topics include Petrovay (2000), Charbonneau (2005), Choudhuri (2008) on the solar dynamo and Glatzmaier (2002), Stevenson (2003) on the planetary dynamo. In the following I will try to make a systematic comparison between solar and planetary dynamos, presenting analogies and differences, and highlighting some interesting recent results.

Keywords

magnetic fieldsMHDplasmasturbulenceSun: magnetic fieldsSun: interiorEarthplanets and satellites: general

References

Aubert, J., Aurnou, J., & Wicht, J. 2008, Geophys. J. Intern. 172, 945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boldyrev, S. & Cattaneo, F. 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (14), 144501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browning, M. K., Miesch, M. S., Brun, A. S., & Toomre, J. 2006, ApJ Lett. 648, L157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brun, A. S. & Toomre, J. 2002, ApJ 570, 865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, R. & Schüssler, M. 2007, ApJ 659, 801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charbonneau, P. 2005, Living Rev. Sol. Phys. 2, 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, P., Nandy, D., & Choudhuri, A. R. 2004, A&A 427, 1019Google Scholar
Choudhuri, A. R. 2008, Adv. Space Res. 41, 868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choudhuri, A. R., Chatterjee, P., & Jiang, J. 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (13), 131103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, U. R. & Aubert, J. 2006, Geophys. J. Intern. 166, 97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikpati, M. & Gilman, P. A. 2006, ApJ 649, 498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forgács-Dajka, E. 2003, A&A 413, 1143Google Scholar
Forgács-Dajka, E. & Petrovay, K. 2002 A&A 389, 629Google Scholar
Glatzmaier, G. 2002, Ann. Rev. Earth Pl. Sci. 30, 237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gubbins, D. 2008, Geophys. J. Intern. 173, 79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollerbach, R. & Jones, C. A. 1993, Nature 365, 541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margot, J. L., Peale, S. J., Jurgens, R. F., Slade, M. A., & Holin, I. V. 2007, Science 316, 710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miesch, M. S., Brun, A. S., DeRosa, M. L., & Toomre, J. 2008, ApJ 673, 557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nataf, H.-C. & Gagnière, N. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 805Google Scholar
Olson, P. & Christensen, U. R. 2006, Earth Plan. Sci. Lett. 250, 561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrovay, K. 1994, in Rutten, R. J., Schrijver, C. J. (eds.), Solar Surface Magnetism, NATO ASI Series C433, Kluwer, Dordrecht, p. 415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrovay, K. 2000, in The Solar Cycle and Terrestrial Climate, ESA Publ. SP-463, p. 3Google Scholar
Rüdiger, G. & Hollerbach, R. 2004, The Magnetic Universe, Wiley-VCH, WeinheimCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, G., Chan, K. H., Liao, X., & Zhang, K. 2004, Icarus 172, 305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starchenko, S. V. & Jones, C. A. 2002, Icarus 157, 426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, D. J. 2003, Earth Pl. Sci. Lett., 208, 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stixrude, L. & Jeanloz, R. 2008, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 11071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, N. R., & Nash, A. G. 1991, ApJ 383, 431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whaler, K. A. 1980, Nature, 287, 528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, K. & Schubert, 2000, Ann. Rev. Earth Pl. Sci. 32, 409Google Scholar