In this article, a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMCMC) exploration of the possible interior density profiles of a giant planet is presented, which is not tied to assumed composition, thermal state, or material equations of state.
Abstract:
The gravity field of a giant planet is typically our best window into its interior structure and composition. Through comparison of a model planet's calculated gravitational potential with the observed potential, inferences can be made about interior quantities, including possible composition and the existence of a core. Necessarily, a host of assumptions go into such calculations, making every inference about a giant planet's structure strongly model dependent. In this work, we present a more general picture by setting Saturn's gravity field, as measured during the Cassini Grand Finale, as a likelihood function driving a Markov Chain Monte Carlo exploration of the possible interior density profiles. The result is a posterior distribution of the interior structure that is not tied to assumed composition, thermal state, or material equations of state. Constraints on interior structure derived in this Bayesian framework are necessarily less informative, but are also less biased and more general. These empirical and probabilistic constraints on the density structure are our main data product, which we archive for continued analysis. We find that the outer half of Saturn's radius is relatively well constrained, and we interpret our findings as suggesting a significant metal enrichment, in line with atmospheric abundances from remote sensing. As expected, the inner half of Saturn's radius is less well constrained by gravity, but we generally find solutions that include a significant density enhancement, which can be interpreted as a core, although this core is often lower in density and larger in radial extent than typically found by standard models. This is consistent with a dilute core and/or composition gradients.
TL;DR: A review of the current understanding of the solar system for the exoplanetary science community can be found in this paper, with a focus on the processes thought to have shaped the system we see today.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors compare structural models with gravity and seismic measurements from Cassini to show that the data can only be explained by a diffuse, stably stratified core-envelope transition region in Saturn extending to approximately 60% of the planet's radius and containing approximately 17 Earth masses of ice and rock.
TL;DR: In this article , the authors discuss potential formation and evolution paths that can lead to an internal structure model consistent with Juno data, and the constraints they provide, including the heavy-element enrichment during planetary growth.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors focus on the things we do not know about the interiors of Uranus and Neptune with a focus on why the planets may be different, rather than the same.
TL;DR: In this paper, a near-infrared transmission spectrum of the exo-Saturn WASP-117b was analyzed with two independent pipelines, and the authors reported the robust detection of a water spectral feature.
TL;DR: In this article, an empirical model of the interior pressure and density profiles of Uranus and Neptune is presented, and the empirical pressure-density profiles are interpreted in terms of physical equations of state of hydrogen, helium, ice (H2O), and rock (SiO2).
TL;DR: In this paper, phase diagrams for both molecular and metallic hydrogen-helium mixtures were analyzed in detail, and it was concluded that at the temperatures and pressures of interest (T ≈ 10^4 K, P ≈ 1-10 Mbar), both phases are fluid, but the transition between them might nevertheless be first-order.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present QMD simulations of water in the ultra-high-pressure regime up to conditions typical for the deep interior of Jupiter and Saturn and find a continuous transition in the protonic structure.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors developed an analytical approach of layered double-diffusive convection and applied this formalism to Solar System gaseous giant planet interiors. But the results showed that the inner thermal profile of these giant planets departs from the traditionally assumed adiabatic interior, affecting these planet heat content and cooling history.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a new equation of state data table, LM-REOS, generated by large-scale quantum molecular dynamics simulations for hydrogen, helium, and water in the warm dense matter regime, for megabar pressures and temperatures of several thousand kelvins.
Q1. What contributions have the authors mentioned in the paper "Saturn’s probable interior: an exploration of saturn’s potential interior density structures" ?
In this work, the authors present a more general picture by setting Saturn ’ s gravity field, as measured during the Cassini Grand Finale, as a likelihood function driving a Markov Chain Monte Carlo exploration of the possible interior density profiles. Constraints on interior structure derived in this Bayesian framework are necessarily less informative, but are also less biased and more general. The authors find that the outer half of Saturn ’ s radius is relatively well constrained, and they interpret their findings as suggesting a significant metal enrichment, in line with atmospheric abundances from remote sensing. As expected, the inner half of Saturn ’ s radius is less well constrained by gravity, but the authors generally find solutions that include a significant density enhancement, which can be interpreted as a core, although this core is often lower in density and larger in radial extent than typically found by standard models.
Q2. What are the future works mentioned in the paper "Saturn’s probable interior: an exploration of saturn’s potential interior density structures" ?
In this paper, the authors presented an empirical approach to using gravity data to explore the interior structures of fluid planets and applied it to Saturn using data from Cassiniʼs Grand Finale orbits. Here the authors wish to summarize their findings for Saturn, and about planetary interior modeling in general, and to consider the strengths and weaknesses of their “ density first ” approach, versus traditional, composition-based modeling. The great variety of density profiles included in their sample may seem surprising and counterintuitive, but it is an unavoidable consequence of using an integrated quantity, in this case the external potential, to study the spatial distribution of local quantities, in this case the interior density and all properties of the planet that derive from it. As a result, the main finding the authors can report on, with respect to Saturn, is to confirm the well-known but often underappreciated suspicion that solutions to Saturn ’ s gravitational potential field exist that do not conform to a simple model of a few compositionally homogeneous and thermally adiabatic layers.