Posted: 04 Jan 2010 02:30 AM PST
<< previous image | next image >>
We love space, and so do you. This is a fact, well established by our Christmas-morning-level anticipation every time Hubble or Cassini or Spitzer release a new image, and your happy, clicky, tweetyresponses to virtually anything we post that has to do with space.
Sowe were surprised to find that there was just one space story among our most popular stories for 2009. Our "Earth from space" galleries and posts did well, but we don't think those qualify as space stories.The sole celestial finalistwas just a simple reminder that the annual perseids meteor shower was peaking, with some viewing tips.
The perseids are great and all, but we couldn't let space bethis underrepresented in our 2009 roundups, so here are the rest of our most popular spacy offerings of the year.
10 Saturn's MysteriousHexagon
Space + mystery = awesome. And we think this is the coolest mystery in the solar system.(Take that, Jupiter. Youand your red spot.)
Why?Why would the jet stream around Saturn's north pole turn sharp corners in the shape of a hexagon? Why?
Scientists have been unable to answer this since the strange, persistentweather pattern was first discovered by the Voyager spacecraft in the early 1980's. Now, thanks to our favorite spacecraft, Cassini, we have the best view yet of this crazy planetary puzzle.The Cassini imaging teamalso assembled a series of images into a movie so you can see the motion.
Posted: 03 Jan 2010 09:01 PM PST
A trusted equation for calculating the age of the solar system may need rewriting. New measurements show that one of the equation's assumptions — that certain kinds of uranium always appear in the same relative quantities in meteorites — is wrong.
"Since the 1950s, or even before that, no one had been able to detect any differences" in the quantities of uranium, says Gregory Brennecka of Arizona State University, coauthor of a paper describing the work published online December 31 in Science. "Now we're able to measure slight differences."
Those differences could mean that current estimates of the age of the solar system overshoot that age by 1 million years or more. Historical estimates place the age at about 4.5 billion years—a number that is not precise enough to show a difference of one million—but more finely honed recent calculations place the age at more like 4.5672 billion years. One million years is still an eyeblink at this scale, representing the difference between 4.566 and 4.567, but this difference is important in understanding the infant solar system.
"The building blocks of planets all formed within the span of 10 million years at most," says coauthor Meenakshi Wadhwa, also of Arizona State. "When you start to try to unravel the sequence of events within that 10 million years, it becomes important to resolve the time scales within a million years or less."
The study also finds evidence bolstering the idea that a low-mass supernova exploded nearby shortly before the solar system was born, providing heavy elements to build planets.
Geochemists measure the ages of rocks by measuring the abundance of radioactive isotopes — versions of the same element that have different atomic masses — in parts of meteorites called calcium-aluminum–rich inclusions. These inclusions are thought to be the first solids to have condensed from the cooling cloud of gas that gave birth to the sun and planets.
Because a radioactive element decays from a parent isotope to a daughter isotope at a specific rate, scientists can infer the age of a rock by comparing the amounts of each isotope.
The currently accepted calculation of the solar system's age is derived from comparing lead-206, a daughter isotope of uranium-238, to lead-207, a daughter isotope of uranium-235.
That comparison relies on knowing the ratio of uranium-238 to uranium-235. Earlier calculations of the ratio all came up with the same number, 137.88. The assumption that the ratio was constant simplified calculations greatly — it allowed scientists to combine both uranium values into a single number, eliminating one variable from the equation. Lead isotopes are easier to measure with high precision than uranium isotopes, so an age-estimation system based only on lead values was thought to be extremely precise.
"Everybody was sitting on this two-legged stool claiming it was very stable," comments Gerald Wasserburg, emeritus professor of geology at Caltech who was involved in much of the early work in measuring uranium ratios. "But it turns out it's not."
There were reasons to doubt that the uranium ratio was constant. For one thing, no theoretical reasoning supports the assumption. What's more, measurements that relied on other, less precise radioisotopes disagreed with the age derived from lead — but agreed with each other.
"It's kind of been a black eye for a few people in geochronology," Brennecka says. "To really say we know the age of the solar system based on the age of the rock, it's essential that they all agree."
To test whether the uranium ratio really was constant, Brennecka and colleagues took samples from calcium-aluminum–rich inclusions in the well-studied Allende meteorite and measured how much uranium-235 and uranium-238 they held. Technological innovations made their measurements more precise than previous efforts.
Measurements at Brennecka's lab and at a collaborator's lab in Frankfurt, Germany, both showed an excess of uranium-235. This excess means that future geochemists will have to first measure the quantities of uranium-235 and uranium-238 in early solar system materials before determining their ages.
"It's not as if this age dating process doesn't work anymore," says coauthor Ariel Anbar, also of Arizona State. "But if you want to push this isotope system to get ages that are really precise, suddenly we realize that there's this variation you need to take into account."
The team also determined that the extra uranium-235 comes from trace amounts of a radioactive element called curium present in the early solar system and formed only in certain types of supernova explosions.
"It's an important step forward," comments Andrew Davis of the University of Chicago. "There have been so many unsuccessful experiments in the past, but this one succeeded. I think it will be an important piece of the puzzle."
|You are subscribed to email updates from Johnus Morphopalus's Facebook notes |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|