Paper detail

Icy or rocky? Convective or stable? New interior models of Uranus and Neptune

We present a new framework for constructing agnostic and yet physical models for planetary interiors and apply it to Uranus and Neptune. Unlike previous research that either impose rigid assumptions or rely on simplified empirical profiles, our approach bridges both paradigms. Starting from randomly generated density profiles, we applied an iterative algorithm that converges towards models that simultaneously satisfy hydrostatic equilibrium, match the observed gravitational moments, and remain thermodynamically and compositionally consistent. The inferred interior models for Uranus and Neptune span a wide range of possible interior structures, in particular encompassing both water-dominated and rock-dominated configurations (rock-to-water mass ratios between 0.04-3.92 for Uranus and 0.20-1.78 for Neptune). All models contain convective regions with ionic water and have temperature-pressure profiles that remain above the demixing curves for hydrogen-helium-water mixtures. This offers both a plausible explanation for the observed non-dipolar magnetic fields and indicates that no hydrogen-helium-water demixing occurs. We find a higher H-He mass fraction in the outermost convection zones for Uranus (0.62-0.73) compared to Neptune (0.25-0.49) and that Uranus' magnetic field is likely generated deeper in the interior compared to Neptune. We infer upper limits of 0.69-0.74 (Uranus) versus 0.78-0.92 (Neptune) for the outer edges of the dynamo regions in units of normalised radii. Overall, our findings challenge the conventional classification of Uranus and Neptune as 'ice giants' and underscore the need for improved observational data or formation constraints to break compositional degeneracy.

preprint2025arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.