Paper detail

Thermodynamically Governed Interior Models of Uranus and Neptune

Interior models of Uranus and Neptune often assume discrete layers, but sharp interfaces are expected only if major constituents are immiscible. Diffuse interfaces could arise if accretion favored a central concentration of the least volatile constituents (also incidentally the most dense); compositional gradients arising in such a structure would likely inhibit convection. Currently, two lines of evidence suggest possible hydrogen-water immiscibility in ice giant interiors. The first arises from crude extrapolation of the experimental hydrogen-water critical curve to $\sim 3$ GPa (Bali et al. 2013). The data are obtained for an impure system containing silicates, though Uranus and Neptune could also be "dirty." Current ab initio models disagree (Soubiran & Militzer 2015), though hydrogen and water are difficult to model from first-principles quantum mechanics with the necessary precision. The second argument for hydrogen-water immiscibility in ice giants, outlined herein, invokes reasoning about the gravitational and magnetic fields. While consensus remains lacking, here we examine the immiscible case. Applying the resulting thermodynamic constraints, we find that Neptune models with envelopes containing a substantial water mole fraction, as much as $χ\gtrsim 0.1$ relative to hydrogen, can satisfy observations. In contrast, Uranus models appear to require $χ\lesssim 0.01$, potentially suggestive of fully demixed hydrogen and water. Enough gravitational potential energy would be available from gradual hydrogen-water demixing, to supply Neptune's present-day heatflow for roughly ten solar system lifetimes. Hydrogen-water demixing could slow Neptune's cooling rate by an order of magnitude; different hydrogen-water demixing states could account for the different heatflows of Uranus and Neptune.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.