Did the moon once contain a dynamo?

Scientists have long debated the source of magnetized moon rocks in the absence of a lunar magnetic field. Now, a new study suggests that our natural satellite once had an active and complex interior.

This view of the Moon's north pole is a mosaic assembled from 18 images taken by Galileo's imaging system through a green filter as the spacecraft flew by on December 7, 1992.

From a terrestrial view, our moon often looks like an inert ball of listlessness. But there is a lot more going on under the surface – or at least there once was. New research suggests that, billions of years ago, the moon's core was home to circulating currents of electromagnetic energy.

Scientists have known for decades that the samples of lunar rock and crust retrieved by the Apollo missions show signs of having once been acted on by a magnetic field. But today, the moon doesn't have a magnetic field. A compass, for instance, would be of little use there. 

So scientists were puzzled. What magnetized the rocks? We know it wasn't the Earth, as our magnetic field extends only about a quarter of the way to the moon.

Some thought that the rocks were magnetized by plasma formed by tremendous meteor impacts. Others though that, long ago, churning electrically conductive material inside the moon created a lunar dynamo. 

Now, after decades of back and forth between the competing explanations, a duo of scientists have supplied strong evidence for the dynamo hypothesis.

Benjamin Weiss, MIT associate professor and co-author of the new study, told the Monitor that scientists investigating the issue in the past had no simple way of figuring out which one was right.

"How do you tell for the magnetic field, even if you know its strength, what produced it?" says Weiss.

One major problem was that the samples Apollo astronauts were bringing back were often fragmented. As a result, scientists were not always getting meaningful information because they didn't know the original orientation of the pieces in relation to each other.

So Weiss and Sonia Tikoo of University of California, Berkeley, looked at smaller, simpler rock samples. With modern analytical techniques, they could then more easily extract information like when the rocks formed, how slowly they cooled, and their relative orientations. And during their research, the team found that associations between cosmic impacts and lunar surface magnetism, instances that had formerly kept the dynamo model from winning the day, might instead be explained by contamination from a single impact.

If the lunar dynamo theory is true, scientists could more confidently classify the moon as a highly differentiated object, one that consists of a number of layers with distinct compositions and densities, similar to the planets in our solar system, as opposed to a ball of rubble that accreted over time and was captured by Earth.

But it also raises a slew of new questions. If there really was a lunar dynamo, how did it come to be? How did it work? How long did it last? And why did it stop?

Despite improvements in techniques for studying the age and origin of magnetic lunar rocks, answering these questions will not be simple. Weiss's team must determine what kind of mechanism could account for a number of findings: the vast range of magnetic intensities found in lunar rock samples, the dynamo's long life, and its abrupt and rapid decline in magnetic intensity at some point. There are models that can address some of these questions, but nothing fits perfectly yet.

"There are only a few sources that seem to be able to power the dynamo late in its history," Weiss says.

Those possibilities include what is known as core crystallization, where the core solidifies due to an abundance of sulfur, and a process called precession in which the mantle layer and core rotate about different axes, thereby producing energy. Similar to the initial debate over the origin of the moon's magnetic field, scientists have found evidence for both sources.

Weiss says pinning down the timing of one event in particular may provide some answers, and that is the end of the dynamo's life.

"The obvious next step is to figure out when the dynamo turned off," says Weiss. "And that's not so easy."

"The lunar dynamo"  appeared Thursday in the journal Science.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Did the moon once contain a dynamo?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today