New calculations suggest Jupiter's core may be liquefying
December 21, 2011 by Bob Yirka
Jupiter. Photo courtesy of NASA
(PhysOrg.com) -- Jupiter, the largest planet in our solar system, may be causing its own core to liquefy, at least according to Hugh Wilson and colleague Burkhard Militzer of UC, Berkeley. They’ve come to this conclusion after making quantum mechanical calculations on the conditions that exist within the big planet. In a paper published on the preprint server arXiv, and submitted to Physical Review Letters, the two explain that because the gas giant has a relatively small core made of mostly iron, rock (partly magnesium oxide) and ice, and sits embedded in fluid hydrogen and helium all under great pressure from the planet’s gravity (which has created very high temperatures (16,000 K)), there is a likelihood that the core is liquefying due to the heat and pressure exerted on the magnesium oxide.
Calculating the possibility of the magnesium oxide liquefying had to be done to predict the outcome because recreating the environment that exists inside of Jupiter for experimentation purposes isn’t feasible. They have in essence shown that magnesium oxide, when exposed to such high temperatures and pressure, has high solubility, which of course means a high probability of dissolving into a liquid. In a previous study, the team also made calculations showing that the core ice would likely be dissolving as well.
The findings suggest that Jupiter’s core might not be as big as it once was, though it currently weights about as much as ten Earth’s (the whole planet weighs as much as 318 Earth’s). This implies that the core could eventually be reduced down to nothing at all. And if that’s the case, than those who study exoplanets, particularly the giant gas variety, will have to do some rethinking, because those others might not have a core at all, contrary to conventional wisdom.
Unfortunately, the calculations the two performed can’t give a rate of erosion, thus a timeline for how long it’s taken for the core to come to its current size can’t be made, nor can predictions be made on how long it might take for the core to disappear altogether; both of which would be useful in helping to predict the ages of other gas giants out beyond our solar system. Luckily, NASA has a space probe on the way to measure Jupiter’s gravitational field more accurately, though it won’t get there till 2016; that should give scientists plenty of time to consider the impact these new findings might have on their current models regarding giant gas planets.
More information: Rocky core solubility in Jupiter and giant exoplanets, arXiv:1111.6309v1 [astro-ph.EP] http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.6309
Abstract
Gas giants are believed to form by the accretion of hydrogen-helium gas around an initial protocore of rock and ice. The question of whether the rocky parts of the core dissolve into the fluid H-He layers following formation has significant implications for planetary structure and evolution. Here we use ab initio calculations to study rock solubility in fluid hydrogen, choosing MgO as a representative example of planetary rocky materials, and find MgO to be highly soluble in H for temperatures in excess of approximately 10000 K, implying significant redistribution of rocky core material in Jupiter and larger exoplanets.
via Wired
Journal reference:
Physical Review Letters
© 2011 PhysOrg.com
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
4 comments
-
Distance of planets from stars and revolution
5 hours ago
-
revamping general concept and cosmological principle
May 25, 2012
-
Transiting Exoplanet Light Curve
May 25, 2012
-
Math behind Theoretical Physics
May 24, 2012
-
Do we know whats at the center of galaxies yet?
May 23, 2012
-
Structure of the Milky Way?
May 20, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - General Astronomy
More news stories
Land and sea species differ in climate change response: study
(Phys.org) -- Marine and terrestrial species will likely differ in their responses to climate warming, new research by Simon Fraser University and Australia’s University of Tasmania has found.
3 hours ago |
3.7 / 5 (3) |
2
|
Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy
Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don't understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match ...
5 hours ago |
4.8 / 5 (4) |
11
|
10 million years needed to recover from mass extinction
It took some 10 million years for Earth to recover from the greatest mass extinction of all time, latest research has revealed.
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
5 hours ago |
5 / 5 (3) |
1
|
Sophisticated simulations predict future warming
The chances of our planet being hit by a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as likely as it being hit by an increase of 1.4 degrees, new research shows. Presented in the journal Nature Geoscience, the British study ...
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
May 22, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (9) |
51
Aliens don't want to eat us, says former SETI director
Alien life probably isnt interested in having us for dinner, enslaving us or laying eggs in our bellies, according to a recent statement by former SETI director Jill Tarter.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 25, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (14) |
40
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidias competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if it will be an expensive undertaking.
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (12)
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (10)
It makes no sense within the "standard model" of SS formation.
After all, supposedly the planets accreted billions of years ago,and lost most of their heat since then.
Indeed, Jupiter is allegedly radiating away more heat than it receives from the Sun, therefore, if anything Jupiter "should" be solidifying and becoming more dense, not the other way around.
Additionally, according to NASA, Jupiter is supposedly shrinking in radius right now at a rate of a few centimeters per year.
Point being, if something has allegedly been cooling for billions of years, it should not suddenly start re-heating it's core. That's absurd and as they say, "Something's Gotta Give".
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
Jupiter's mass is too low for that.
Where do you get the indication that this is staring just now?
Shrinkage means more density. More density means more gravitational effect closer to the core.
Remember that AT the core of any planet gravity is zero. gravity at a set distance outside, however, is the same if the mass stays the same. So the gravity magnitude can shift within a planet if the surface recedes (i.e. the distribution magnitude of gravity as a function of depth can vary if parts of it shrink not uniformely)
Higher gravity (i.e. pressure) at some depth can lead to heating and hence melting of volatile substances.
Just my knee-jerk analysis....
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 4.8 / 5 (5)
Nothing implied that it is starting now. If the core does dissolve, it could have started a billion years ago, or it might not start for another billion years.
What is happening now is that better calculations of material properties at those densities are becoming available, and soon there will be a better measurement of Jupiter's density profile.
Combined those will place restrictions on what materials can be were inside Jupiter, and if any core dissolution has taken place.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
What of them? They'll contimue on exactly as before.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 2.4 / 5 (5)
Would this re-ignite what I believe to be our Sun's sister star? What would the solar system be like with two active stars?
If it reignites, would that destabilize the system? How would it affect life on the Earth?
I'm not saying this is what's happening; but it deserves some consideration; and would make for a great new premise for a rousting good Sci Fi Thriller.
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (8)
No, it's Bush's fault. :)
Dec 21, 2011
Rank: 0.9 / 5 (56)
Dec 22, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Dec 22, 2011
Rank: 3.2 / 5 (6)
Dec 22, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Jupiter is one of those 'stars that never made it'. It doesn't even have enough mass to be a brown dwarf.
Brown dwarfs are themselves substellar objects - i.e. no fusion going on - with between 13 to 80 times the mass of Jupiter.
So you can see: Jupiter has less than 10% of the mass it takes to even classify for the next higher (non-stellar) category. No. It never will be a sun and never has been.
Dec 22, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Dec 22, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
lol i had the same thing cross my mind...ah watch this thing convert into a star and really screw up our cozy orbit
Don't defend Bush, you only help to vindicate the morons who supported him as a presidential candidate...his track record speaks for itself...
Dec 23, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (3)
How would that screw up our orbit? The mass stays the same so the gravity stays the same.*
That's one of the things people don't understand (especially about black holes). These things don't suddenly have a bigger gravitational attraction after a star turns into a black hole (or after a ball of hydrogen initiates fusion and becomes a star). At the disteance equivalent to the radius of the former star's surface and beyond the gravity stays EXACTLY the same.
Only (very much) closer to the center of a black hole things get crazy.
*We'd just have a (tiny) bit more ligh. Jupiter has one thousandth of the mass of the sun and is 5 times as far away from us as the sun is. So even if it could turn into a sun it would only be marginally more visible than it is now.
Dec 26, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
Dec 26, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Doubtful. Jupiter doesn't have enough mass to support nuclear fusion. It's not even large enough to be a Brown Dwarf.
Jan 08, 2012
Rank: not rated yet
Jan 08, 2012
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
The sun loses a bit of mass due to ejection of mass in solar flares. But we're talking thermonuclear fires and massive magnetic fields here - none of which are part of what Jupiter can do.
Of course the solar radiation equates to a loss of mass (IIRC about 4 million tonnes per second)..but that is small fry compared to the size of the sun.
Jan 09, 2012
Rank: not rated yet
Ummm, no.
By which I actually mean "yeah, maybe", but this is the sort of statement that should NOT be stated as a fact since we flat don't know if it is true. It certainly MAY be, but we have no evidence to support that statement, and "evidence" is kind of "the big important thing" in science. Or at least it is supposed to be.
Since this study apparently takes this statement as a true factual given, the conclusion shouldn't be taken seriously. Even if their math is otherwise correct.