Io leaves a magnetic footprint on Jupiter's upper atmosphere that appears as a spot of ultraviolet emission that remains fixed underneath Io as Jupiter rotates. The specific physical mechanisms responsible for generating those emissions are not well understood, but in general the spot seems to arise because of an electromagnetic interaction between Jupiter's magnetic field and the plasma surrounding Io, driving currents of around 1 million amperes down through Jupiter's ionosphere. The other galilean satellites may also leave footprints, and the presence or absence of such footprints should illuminate the underlying physical mechanism by revealing the strengths of the currents linking the satellites to Jupiter. Here we report persistent, faint, far-ultraviolet emission from the jovian footprints of Ganymede and Europa. We also show that Io's magnetic footprint extends well beyond the immediate vicinity of Io's flux-tube interaction with Jupiter, and much farther than predicted theoretically; the emission persists for several hours downstream. We infer from these data that Ganymede and Europa have persistent interactions with Jupiter's magnetic field despite their thin atmospheres.

No abstract

High-resolution (∼ 0.22 Å) spectra of the north jovian aurora were obtained in the 905-1180 Å window with the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) on October 28, 2000. The FUSE instrument resolves the rotational structure of the H 2 spectra and the spectral range allows the study of self-absorption. Below 1100 Å, transitions connecting to the v 2 levels of the H 2 ground state are partially or totally absorbed by the overlying H 2 molecules. The FUSE spectra provide information on the overlying H 2 column and on the vibrational distribution of H 2 . Transitions from high-energy H 2 Rydberg states and treatment of self-absorption are considered in our synthetic spectral generator. We show comparisons between synthetic and observed spectra in the 920-970, 1030-1080, and 1090-1180 Å spectral windows. In a first approach (single-layer model ), the synthetic spectra are generated in a thin emitting layer and the emerging photons are absorbed by a layer located above the source. It is found that the parameters of the single-layer model best fitting the three spectral windows are 850, 800, and 800 K respectively for the H 2 gas temperature and 1.3 × 10 18 , 1.5 × 10 20 , and 1.3 × 10 20 cm −2 for the H 2 self-absorbing vertical column respectively. Comparison between the H 2 column and a 1-D atmospheric model indicates that the short-wavelength FUV auroral emission originates from just above the homopause. This is confirmed by the high H 2 rovibrational temperatures, close to those deduced from spectral analyses of H + 3 auroral emission. In a second approach, the synthetic spectral generator is coupled with a vertically distributed energy degradation model, where the only input is the energy distribution of incoming electrons (multi-layer model ). The model that best fits globally the three FUSE spectra is a sum of Maxwellian functions, with characteristic energies ranging from 1 to 100 keV, giving rise to an emission peak located at 5 µbar, that is ∼ 100 km below the methane homopause. This multi-layer model is also applied to a re-analysis of the Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope (HUT) auroral spectrum and accounts for the H 2 self-absorption as well as the methane absorption. It is found that no additional discrete soft electron precipitation is necessary to fit either the FUSE or the HUT observations.

Models for fine magnetic particles are shortly reviewed. A method for the solution of the partial differential equation occurring in Brown's model is presented, which in the uniaxial case permits us to calculate numerical solutions for a large range of a values. An approximate formula for the relaxation time is given. The expression obtained is valid for 0 ~a ~60, which corresponds to all the physical cases (including geological scale). This formula is used to fit experimental results and good agreement is obtained. In addition, the question of the validity of Brown s treatment when the magnetization is not uniform, the meaning of the dissipation constant, and quantum effects are discussed.