Given a planet without any relationship to Earth, what does it mean for the poles to be "north" or "south"? Is it something arbitrary that can be changed?

  • $\begingroup$ The polarity of the fields changes periodically. N becomes S, S becomes N. $\endgroup$ – Oldcat Jun 10 '15 at 23:40
  • $\begingroup$ @smithkm's answer is correct. You should mark it as accepted, to help distinguish it from other posts, even though it's a self-answer. The site lets you do that after a few days. $\endgroup$ – JDługosz Jul 25 '15 at 10:32
  • $\begingroup$ How about monopoles! $\endgroup$ – PyRulez Jul 25 '15 at 18:20
  • $\begingroup$ On the topic, what decides what the northern hemisphere of a planet is and what the southern hemisphere is? Isn't this a purely human concept? In addition, wasn't the Prime Meridian created by humans? There's no actual relationship to nature/earth there; the only reason we chose it to run through England was because they were the most powerful country when it was established. $\endgroup$ – fi12 Feb 24 '16 at 0:12
  • $\begingroup$ @fi12 That's really just another way of phrasing the same question. The plane of the equator dividing them is not arbitrary. It's just a matter of what we call them, which is the same issue as what we call the two poles. The prime meridian is a separate question. Roughly, it is arbitrary, but it's a decision that needs to be made and there are practical considerations which Greenwich does fit fairly well. $\endgroup$ – smithkm Feb 24 '16 at 20:54

tl;dr - North will be whichever pole is oriented most closely to Earth's north pole.

If the planet is "without any relationship to Earth" as in not in this universe, then it's completely arbitrary.

enter image description here

For planets in the solar system-

  • Geographic poles are decided thusly:

    The International Astronomical Union (IAU) defines the geographic north pole of a planet or any of its satellites in the solar system as the planetary pole that is in the same celestial hemisphere relative to the invariable plane of the solar system as Earth's North pole.

  • Magnetic poles, for planets/moons that have them, match those of Earth. See image above.

For planets in our galaxy-

  • Geographic north pole will likely be selected as which ever axis points mostly in the direction of galactic north.

  • Magnetic poles, for planets/moons that have them, will match those of Earth. See image above.

For the rest-

  • Geographic poles will follow the same rules as our galactic poles, the galactic north with either be that which is closest to ours or will be arbitrary.

  • Magnetic poles, for planets/moons that have them, will match those of Earth. See image above.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ So there's no basis for taking into account the direction of rotation (i.e. whichever pole rotates counterclockwise is north)? $\endgroup$ – Random832 May 7 '15 at 3:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Random832 No, there is no basis that the direction of rotation defines the north pole of a planet. This is clear because the IAU defines the north pole of Venus as the "same celestial hemisphere relative to the invariable plane of the solar system as Earth's North pole", yet Venus rotates in the opposite direction. $\endgroup$ – Samuel May 7 '15 at 3:39
  • $\begingroup$ Is there any chance, though, that human colonists to another solar system would define that solar system's plane relative to the prevailing rotation and revolution within the system, rather than with reference to Earth or indirectly via Galactic North? I am asking this because "east" is strongly culturally associated with the sunrise in most human cultures. For your claim about galactic north, you only say "likely" rather than citing any formal rule - is there a formal rule? $\endgroup$ – Random832 May 7 '15 at 3:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Random832 Sure, there is a chance, there is also a chance they could decide to call that pole west. If they're a space faring civilization there may not be a cultural association with sunrise in the East anymore. As I say, if it's not referenced to Earth it's entirely arbitrary, because without Earth there isn't the cultural association either. I know of no formal rule for exoplanet geographic pole naming, but with Venus as an excellent example, it won't be depend on rotation direction. $\endgroup$ – Samuel May 7 '15 at 3:49
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting: I've always heard the counterclockwise definition, and that's consistent with saying that its inclination is 177 degrees. I see the infobox in Wikipedia says 3 degrees and a negative rotation period, consistent with the ruke as you cited it. I leaned Astronomy in the pre-computer era. $\endgroup$ – JDługosz May 7 '15 at 6:27

First off, any of the cardinal directions can reasonably be taken to be the base one from which we start measuring the others. The modern world has largely settled on north. Medieval Europe used east, and China used South at one point. In Tolkien's middle earth west was the primary direction. The term "orient" to mean pointing something in the right direction derives from when European maps had east at the top.

I will mostly be addressing north, and to a lesser degree, east, but you could flip things and start with west or south just as easily for an alien culture.

There are different kinds of north (and the other cardinal directions as a result).

Geodetic and celestial directions are based on how the planet spins. The difference between them is tiny and relates to differences in what the 'centre of the planet' means. The geodetic poles are where the axis of rotation of the earth meats the surface while the celestial poles are where it meets the notional 'celestial sphere'. The celestial poles trace out large circles over tens of thousands of years as its axis 'wobbles'. The land or sea at the poles varies with tectonic drift over millions of years.

The grid poles are where the meridians of longitude meet. Because of the slight lumpiness of the Earth we have many different coordinate systems. fictional worlds really don't need that level of detail so you can merge the grid poles with the geodetic and celestial poles.

That leaves the magnetic and geomagnetic poles.The difference here has to do with the shape of the surface of the earth, and the unevenness of its magnetic field. For conworld purposes it's possibly worth thinking about having magnetic poles distinct from the geodetic ones, but the distinction between magnetic and geomagnetic probably isn't worth the trouble.

So, if we now have a pair of geodetic poles, and maybe a pair of magnetic poles, that leaves the question of which is the north pole vs the south pole.

If you look at Earth from above its north pole, the planet rotates counterclockwise. Since this is tied to the rotation which defines the axis which defines the poles, this is a good candidate for "northness" such that we can apply the word beyond Earth. Venus is rotating the opposite direction so Venusian north is pointing in roughly the opposite direction to Terrestrial north. Uranus has its axis roughly in the plane of the ecliptic, but we can still easily identify one pole as north using this in a way that is meaningful for the planet. Magnetic fields change (Earth itself), may not align with the rotation (Uranus), and may be patchy or negligible (Mars, most moons).

Equivalently, you can look at the stars. The north pole is the point where the stars rotate clockwise directly overhead, and east is the direction where stars move straight up.

Treating the direction from which a rotation appears to be counterclockwise as positive(Or conversely, treating counterclockwise rotation as positive) is called the "right hand rule" and is a common convention in mathematics, many sciences, and engineering. Left handed coordinates are also possible (And are used in computer graphics), but it's important to keep things consistent.

This is how the IAU defines north for dwarf planets, asteroids, and other sub-planetary bodies. The IAU has a different, older definition of north for anything that's planet sized or bigger. The solar system rotates, and so it has poles, and the pole closer to earth's north is system north, and for all the planets in the system, north is whichever pole is closer to that. To go outside of the solar system, you do the same trick with the rotation of the galaxy, and then pick the pole closer to the pole of the galaxy that's closer to Earth's North. Since the axes of rotation wobble, this can cause IAU north and south to flip as an axis crosses an imaginary plane dividing the universe in half. Smaller things tend to wobble more, which is why the IAU switched to the right hand rule north for dwarf planets.

  • "planets" (the 8 specific named large bodies) in the solar system and their sattelites use the pole in the celestrial hemesphere
  • dwarf planets, minor planets, their satellites, and comets use "right hand rule", and to avoid further confusion calls it positive rather than north.

By the IAU definition, north is undefined and meaningless without Earth, the solar system, and the milky way. So, you could say a fictional world in an Earthless universe has no north; the poles need some other words to identify them that can not be translated to "north" and "south". You could also assign the real world words to poles arbitrarily. Finally, you could use the

On Earth everything rises in the east and sets in the west. Assuming you use right handed north, the same tends to be true of other worlds, but not necessarily.

Except in the situation like Mercury that a planet is both rotating even more slowly than if it were tide-locked to its sun and rotating the same direction as its orbit the sun will rise with the background stars in the east and set in the west. whereas on mercury the sun rises in the west. If it's tide locked, the sun will not rise and set on opposite sides of the sky like on earth but will instead follow a figure 8 path through the sky over the course of a year. So for a sunrise in the west, you need to have a day that's longer than a year like Mercury.

Moons above synchronous orbit will go east to west (like ours), below synchronous will go west to east (like Mars's moons) and at a synchronous orbit they will trace a figure 8 over the course of a month.

"North" and "south" are also used to describe magnetic polarities. The north pole of a magnet is attracted to the magnetic pole near the geographic north pole. This means that the north magnetic pole, is a south pole in terms of magnetic polarity because magnetic fields attract the opposite polarity. When the next pole reversal occurs, the north pole will be a north pole, and will attract south poles, making all magnetic compasses backwards.

There are other ways to create cardinal directions although it's a bad idea to call them "north", "south", "east", or "west": you can treat some other point as a pole such as a holy city and have toward, away from, to the left of, and to the right of that pole as directions. Another option is seaward, landward, along the cast with the sea on your left, along the coast with the sea on your right which are defined in terms of an area.

A culture might consider toward/away from the equator more significant than north and south although that seems unlikely. Some real cultures consider 'centre' or 'not going anywhere' a 5th direction equivalent to the other 4. You can also treat four cardinal directions as 2 just directions with positive and negative polarities. Up and down (elevation) can also be added for the three spatial dimensions. Time is another physical dimension with past and future as cardinal directions. A culture might consider other opposed concepts as being akin to a dimension that can be moved along such as good and evil.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ A tidally locked body with different conditions on the side facing the orbit has 6 poles: north, south, facing, opposing, leading, trailing. I'd like to point out that Mercury has a sidereal day that's shorter than it's year, meaning the sun rises in the West while using the stars motion to conventionally define North. (Did you mistype your paragraph where you said the sul will (still) rise with the stars in the east if it rotates slower than if it were locked?) $\endgroup$ – JDługosz May 7 '15 at 3:20
  • $\begingroup$ @JDługosz Yes, I should have mentioned mercury. The paragraph is correct, but maybe could be a bit clearer, note at the beginning I'm saying 'Except when' It also looks like the definition I've been using is different from what the IAU uses for planets, although it is what the IAU uses for dwarf planets. So I need to update my answer there as well. $\endgroup$ – smithkm May 7 '15 at 4:20
  • $\begingroup$ Venus is also rotating slower than its year. But the N is pointing the other way, which means the direction of the solar orbit is reversed. That is, the movement of the sun across the sky due to its orbital motion is in the opposite direction as that due to its rotation, and innthis case the orbital speed is greater. $\endgroup$ – JDługosz May 7 '15 at 6:16
  • $\begingroup$ Definition: for this purpose, it applies to any body with a stable axis of rotation. Comets and asteroids may be irregular enough to "tumble", but just because it's not nicely round doesn't mean it must tumble. $\endgroup$ – JDługosz May 7 '15 at 6:19

Edited 7/25/2015: based upon discussion in the comments section, I've updated this answer to reflect the IAU standards

Ultimately the selection of label for geographic North and South pole is arbitrary. However, as in many things related to science and engineering that are arbitrary, the field has adopted a convention which should be used to ensure that there's less confusion when referring to the poles.

International Astronomical Union (IAU) has adopted two separate conventions to determine which rotational pole will be called the North Pole for Solar System bodies.

Planets and their moons

The IAU has adopted a standard in which planets and their moons North Pole is defined as:

as the planetary pole that is in the same celestial hemisphere relative to the invariable plane of the Solar System as Earth's North pole. This definition means that an object's direction of rotation may be negative (retrograde rotation)

Other Solar System Bodies

The IAU uses a different standard for the "minor" bodies of the Solar System. This standard or convention is called the Right Hand Rule to determine which pole is the North vs. South pole.

With the Right Hand Rule, you make a fist. Observe the direction your fingers curl. Align your hand so the fingers point in the direction of rotation and then your thumb points in the direction of the North Pole.

Right Hand Rule shows direction of North Pole
Right Hand Rule shows direction of North Pole

Rotation of Earth using the right hand rule
Rotation of Earth

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ It's not the convention of the IAU, so where does it come from and what authority does it have? $\endgroup$ – Samuel May 7 '15 at 3:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So the rotation vector is not a synonym for North. I suspect they ratified convention used by plantary geologists and mappings? @jamesqf: there is no sensible definition that lers Pluto be a "planet" without re-admitting Ceres. Whatever you call it, a belt of small bodies is a different class of thing than a single (large) body that expells anything else except at trojan points. $\endgroup$ – JDługosz May 7 '15 at 6:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @jim2b: the first is dominant as the angular momentum is all shared frommthe same pool; the latter is a coincidence since stars point every which way and any bias to match the galactic orbit has been too small to detect. $\endgroup$ – JDługosz May 7 '15 at 6:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hmm, Jim2b 's comment "does ... since 2009" would retract the Answer, so why not edit it? But from my reading it seems clearly stated that the North pole is the one in the notrh celestial plane, and the Positive pole is the physics' s rotation vector (right-hand rule). $\endgroup$ – JDługosz May 7 '15 at 6:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @jim2b the IAU uses the celestrial pole correspondence for the 8 "true" planets, and the right-hand rule for dwarf planets and asteroids. So, the illustration for Venus and Uranus is wrong. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/… $\endgroup$ – JDługosz Jul 25 '15 at 10:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.