Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Gas giant oscillation modes are damped about 100 times faster than standard estimates, because differential rotation stretches convective eddies and boosts turbulent viscosity.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Differential rotation may greatly enhance convective viscosity in giant planets, making f-mode and p-mode damping times long enough that storms and impacts can excite detectable oscillation amplitudes.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection A coherent, honest framework for planetary mode excitation/damping with one genuinely new mechanism (shear-enhanced convective viscosity) that is plausible but unvalidated; worth refereeing, not desk-rejecting. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.12348 v2 pith:57FNUEFC submitted 2026-02-12 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Excitation and Damping of Oscillation Modes in Gaseous Planets

Jim Fuller , Marzia Parisi , Steve Markham , A. James Friedson , J. R. Fuentes This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords giant planet seismologyf modesp modesconvective viscositydifferential rotationmode excitationplanetary stormscometary impacts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the damping and excitation of oscillation modes in gas giants is dominated by two previously underappreciated effects: differential rotation stretches convective eddies, greatly enhancing the turbulent viscosity that damps f modes and low-order p modes; and episodic storms plus cometary impacts, not steady convection, drive the modes. As a result, it predicts that Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus should display detectable f-mode gravity perturbations, with the lowest-degree f modes of Jupiter and Uranus reaching fractional gravitational perturbations of about 10^-7, and p-mode surface velocities of several centimeters per second. These predictions are within an order of magnitude of Saturn's observed ring-seismology amplitudes, making them testable with current or upcoming radial-velocity and spacecraft Doppler measurements.

Core claim

The central claim is that differential rotation dramatically increases convective viscosity in gas giant planets. The paper estimates that, relative to a standard mixing-length estimate, mode damping times decrease by roughly a factor of 100, producing f-mode damping times between 10^4 and 10^7 years for solar-system giants. In this picture, convective viscosity sets the damping of f modes and low-order p modes, while radiative diffusion sets damping for higher-frequency p modes. The paper further argues that turbulent convection cannot excite these modes to observable levels; instead, water or silicate storms and cometary impacts are the most promising excitation mechanisms. Quantitatively,

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is a newly proposed shear-enhanced convective viscosity. In the rotational shear layer between a rigidly rotating interior and a differentially rotating envelope, convective eddies are stretched in the azimuthal direction, lengthening their correlation scale (or equivalently raising their effective turnover frequency to the shear frequency). The resulting viscosity scales as ν ∝ (ω_shear/ω)^2 h v_con rather than the usual (ω_con/ω)^2 h v_con, where ω_shear is the differential-rotation shear rate, ω the mode frequency, h the convective scale height, and v_con the convective velocity. Because ω_shear greatly exceeds the convective turnover frequency ω_con in giant planets, th

Load-bearing premise

The enhanced convective viscosity rests on a heuristic scaling—shear-stretched eddies interact with modes on a timescale set by the shear frequency, giving ν ∝ (ω_shear/ω)^2—plus an assumed shear-layer thickness of one quarter of its depth; if either the scaling or the layer geometry is wrong, all computed damping times and amplitudes shift by orders of magnitude.

What would settle it

Measure Jupiter's lowest-degree f-mode gravitational perturbations with spacecraft Doppler tracking or ring seismology: the paper predicts fractional perturbations δΦ/Φ ~ 10^-7, so an upper limit firmly below 10^-9 would contradict the predicted amplitudes. Alternatively, a direct numerical simulation of stratified convection with a shear layer can test whether the dissipation indeed scales as (ω_shear/ω)^2; if a different scaling emerges, the central damping enhancement fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Mode damping times for f modes and low-order p modes in Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus are predicted to be 10^4–10^7 years—much shorter than earlier estimates—so observed modes should be quasi-permanent over human timescales.
  • Convective turbulence is ruled out as the driver of detectable giant-planet oscillations; storms (water and rock) and cometary impacts are the viable excitation channels.
  • Jupiter and Uranus are predicted to have low-degree f modes with fractional gravitational perturbations up to ~10^-7, within reach of spacecraft Doppler tracking or ring seismology.
  • The highest-amplitude p modes in Jupiter and Saturn should have surface velocities of about 5–10 cm/s at periods of 10–30 minutes, just below current radial-velocity detection limits.
  • Saturn's observed f-mode energy distribution can be explained by a combination of rock storms, water storms, and impacts, with ring damping dominating only the lowest-degree prograde modes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If shear-enhanced convective viscosity is real, tidal dissipation in close-in giant exoplanets—governed by the same f-mode damping physics—could be far stronger than mixing-length estimates imply, affecting predicted tidal circularization and spin-orbit alignment rates.
  • Because the predicted damping rates scale inversely with the radial width of the shear layer, seismology could be used inversely to measure how deep differential rotation penetrates in Uranus and Jupiter, complementing gravity-field determinations.
  • Impact excitation deposits momentum and couples most strongly to high-frequency p modes, while storms excite f modes via Reynolds stresses; measuring the p-mode-to-f-mode amplitude ratio on Jupiter would observationally discriminate between these two channels.
  • The predicted mode lifetimes exceed 10^4 years, meaning stochastic amplitude fluctuations will not be observable on human timescales; a single detected mode would therefore imply a stable, repeatable signal, making long-baseline radial-velocity monitoring a promising strategy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops comprehensive models for the excitation and damping of f modes and p modes in Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. Its central new mechanism is that differential rotation strongly enhances convective viscosity by stretching convective eddies, leading to the scaling ν_con,ef ~ h v_con (ω_shear/ω)^2 (ω_con/Ω)^{4/5} (Eq. 12). This yields f-mode and low-order p-mode damping times of ~10^4–10^7 yr, much shorter than standard mixing-length estimates, and makes convective viscosity the dominant damping agent for most modes. The paper then studies radiative diffusion, acoustic leakage, ring damping, storm-driven excitation, and cometary impact excitation, calibrating the models against Saturn's ring-seismology f-mode amplitudes and using them to predict mode energies and surface velocities for Jupiter and Uranus. The concluding predictions are that detectable radial-velocity amplitudes (~5–10 cm/s) and gravitational perturbations (δΦ/Φ ~ 10^-10 to 10^-7) may be present, with impacts dominating p-mode excitation and storms contributing to f-mode excitation.

Significance. If the shear-enhanced convective viscosity mechanism is correct, the paper would resolve a major gap in planetary seismology: it would explain why Saturn's f modes have the observed amplitudes and predict that Jupiter and Uranus may host detectable oscillations. The work is valuable as a systematic, transparent survey of excitation and damping channels, with explicit formulas, model construction details, and candid uncertainty statements. It also makes falsifiable predictions—specific radial-velocity amplitudes, mode frequencies, and gravitational perturbations—that can be tested with ongoing Doppler and ring-seismology observations. The paper does not ship machine-checked proofs or a public code, but the model descriptions are sufficiently detailed to be reproduced. Its main limitation is that the central damping enhancement is heuristic and has not been validated numerically or experimentally, and the paper itself repeatedly acknowledges this.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3 and Appendix A, Eq. (12)] The central quantitative claim—that differential rotation enhances convective viscosity by ~100 and sets damping times of 10^4–10^7 yr—rests entirely on Eq. (12), whose derivation is heuristic. The two arguments in §3.3 (stretched eddy coherence versus effective turnover frequency ω_shear) lead to the same (ω_shear/ω)^2 scaling, but neither is tested against simulations of mode damping. Appendix A shows only that convective eddies are stretched in a simulation with ω_shear ~ ω_con; it does not measure the dissipation rate or verify the frequency scaling. Section 6.6 explicitly acknowledges that this is a new idea needing confirmation. Because all later damping times, equilibrium amplitudes, and detectability predictions scale with this formula, an incorrect exponent or coefficient shifts the results by orders of magnitude. This is load-bearing and needs either independent numerical valid
  2. [§3.3 and §6.6, shear-layer thickness] The assumed shear-layer thickness ΔR = 1/4 of the layer depth is arbitrary and is not derived from observations or simulations. Section 6.6 states that the damping rate scales approximately as ΔR^{-1}; since the relevant damping occurs in this layer, changing ΔR by a factor of a few changes damping times and all impact-driven mode energies (which scale as t_damp^3 via Eq. 42) by orders of magnitude. The paper should either constrain ΔR from observed wind profiles, or present results as a function of ΔR. As written, the quoted central numbers (e.g., 'decreases mode damping times by a factor of ~100') are not robust to a parameter that is currently a free input.
  3. [§5.1, Solar calibration] The solar calibration overestimates p-mode damping rates by about a factor of 10. The authors attribute this to cancellation between convective entropy and turbulent pressure perturbations, which they argue may not apply in rotating, sheared convection. This is plausible but speculative, and it means that the convective viscosity prescription of Eqs. (3)–(11) has no successful quantitative test where it is reliably known. Given that the enhanced-viscosity mechanism is already unvalidated, the factor-of-10 solar discrepancy does not lend independent support to the planetary damping rates. The paper should either improve the solar comparison or explicitly state that the planetary damping rates inherit a factor-of-several systematic uncertainty from this discrepancy.
  4. [§6.6, systematic uncertainties] The paper is admirably candid that the shaded regions in the amplitude figures represent only stochastic fluctuations, not systematic physics uncertainties. However, the main conclusions in Section 7 are stated without carrying these uncertainties forward. For example, the predicted p-mode velocities of ~5–10 cm/s and δΦ/Φ ~ 10^-7 for low-ℓ f modes are presented as benchmark numbers, while the text acknowledges that the underlying mechanisms are uncertain by orders of magnitude. The abstract and conclusion should state more prominently that the quantitative predictions are conditional on an unvalidated damping scaling, an arbitrary shear-layer thickness, and uncertain storm/impact parameters. This is not a fatal flaw, but it should be reflected in the paper's framing and in any observational claims.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract uses 't damp ∼10 5' and '10 4 −10 7' without proper superscript formatting; this should be corrected.
  2. [§3.4, Eq. (15)] The ring-damping fitting formula t_damp,ring = 10^4 e^{2ℓ/3} yr is presented without an uncertainty estimate. Since it is used to set the damping for Saturn's low-ℓ f modes, a brief justification or reference to the scatter in Wu & Lithwick's table would be helpful.
  3. [§3.7, Eqs. (17)–(19)] The symbol E_st is used for both the storm kinetic energy (Eq. 18) and the dissipation rate (Eq. 17). This is confusing; use a distinct symbol for the time-averaged dissipation rate.
  4. [§5.1] The text says the solar model matches observed power input 'within a factor of ~2' and then states the damping is overestimated by a factor of ~10. These two calibration checks should be summarized in one place, since the latter weakens the confidence in the viscosity model but the former supports the excitation model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction found; central predictions rest on unvalidated but independent heuristics and benchmark comparisons.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The central convective-viscosity result, Eq. 12, is constructed from analytic scalings for rotating convection (Eqs. 6-7) and a shear-stretching argument (Eqs. 10-11), with wind speeds and shear-layer depths taken from independent observations (Guillot et al. 2023; Dewberry et al. 2021; Galanti & Kaspi 2021). No parameter in the damping model is fitted to the target mode amplitudes. Excitation rates from storms and impacts use independent inputs: observed storm velocities, latent heats, assumed mass fractions, and impact rates from Nesvorny et al. (2023). Saturn's observed f-mode energies (Afigbo et al. 2025) are used as a benchmark for comparison (Figures 7-10), not as a fit; the rock-storm model 'can account for' some modes but overestimates others, which is a posteriori agreement rather than a constructed match. No equation reduces to another by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper contains several self-citations (Fuller 2014; Mankovich & Fuller 2021; Dewberry et al. 2021; Fuentes et al. 2025) used as supporting evidence for interior models and eddy stretching, but these are not load-bearing in a circular way: the quoted interior models are stated to have little effect on the f/p modes of interest, and the shear-viscosity scaling is derived analytically in Section 3.3 and Appendix A rather than imported solely from the simulation. The paper is candid that the enhanced convective viscosity 'needs to be confirmed/calibrated with numerical experiments' (Section 6.6) and that 'both the damping and excitation physics are uncertain by orders of magnitude' (Abstract). These are correctness risks, not circularity. Score 2 reflects the presence of minor self-citations and the unvalidated central heuristic, not a circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central predictions depend on several free parameters chosen from observations or ad hoc assumptions, especially the shear layer geometry and storm efficiencies. These parameters are not fitted to the target mode amplitudes, but their uncertainties dominate the error budget.

free parameters (7)
  • Differential rotation wind amplitude Δu_wind = Saturn: 350 m/s; Jupiter: 200 m/s; Uranus: 300 m/s
    Chosen from measured surface wind speeds; sets ω_shear and hence the enhanced convective viscosity.
  • Angular width Δθ of wind jets = Saturn: 0.7 rad; Jupiter: 0.35 rad; Uranus: 0.96 rad
    Together with Δu sets the latitudinal shear.
  • Shear layer thickness as fraction of depth = 1/4
    Ad hoc; damping rate scales ~ΔR^-1, so this strongly affects results.
  • Storm kinetic energy efficiency η_storm = 0.3
    Chosen to match observed storm velocities; excitation rate scales as v_storm^4.
  • Water mass fraction = Jupiter 4%, Saturn 8%, Uranus 16%
    Taken from abundance estimates; storm energy and recurrence scale with f_v.
  • Silicate mass fraction = Jupiter 0.5%, Saturn 1%, Uranus 2%
    Same as above.
  • Ring damping fitting formula parameters = t_damp = 10^4 exp(2ℓ/3) yr
    Empirical fit to Wu & Lithwick's table; used for Saturn low-ℓ f modes.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Kolmogorov turbulence cascade for convective eddies
    Used to derive the (ω_con/ω_α)^(15/2) suppression for mode excitation (Section 4.1.1).
  • domain assumption Rotating mixing length theory of Stevenson (1979)
    Provides reduced convective velocities and length scales in eqs. 6-8.
  • ad hoc to paper Differential rotation confined to outer non-conducting layers with a shear layer of thickness 1/4 depth
    Central to the enhanced viscosity; not derived from first principles (Section 3.3).
  • ad hoc to paper Convective eddies are stretched by shear and remain coherent for interaction times
    Underpins eqs. 10-12; Appendix A shows stretching but not the dissipation scaling.
  • domain assumption Impact energy distribution models from Zahnle et al. (2003) and Nesvorny et al. (2023)
    Used for impact excitation rates (eqs. 36-37).
  • domain assumption Storms can be modeled as single convective elements with energy from latent heat
    Used to estimate storm excitation (Section 4.2).

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Excitation and Damping of Oscillation Modes in Gaseous Planets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/57FNUEFC

@misc{pith2026260212348,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Excitation and Damping of Oscillation Modes in Gaseous Planets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/57FNUEFC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.12348}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

The excitation and damping mechanisms for oscillation modes of gas giant planets are undetermined. We show that differential rotation may greatly enhance convective viscosity in giant planets, resulting in damping times of $t_{\rm damp} \sim 10^5-10^6 \, {\rm years}$ for f~modes and low-order p~modes. Radiative diffusion damps p~modes on time scales of $t_{\rm damp} \sim 10^3-10^7 \, {\rm years}$. While the lethargic convective motions cannot effectively excite f~mode or p~modes, storms driven by condensation of water and/or silicates may play a role. High-order p~modes are most effectively excited by cometary/asteroid impacts. Applying these calculations to solar system planets, water storms, rock storms, and impacts may all contribute to exciting the observed f~modes amplitudes of Saturn via ring seismology. Similar f~mode amplitudes with fractional gravitational perturbations of $\delta \Phi/\Phi \sim 10^{-10}-10^{-9}$ are expected for Jupiter and Uranus, apart from their lowest $\ell$ f~modes which could have larger gravitational perturbations of $\delta \Phi/\Phi \sim 10^{-7}$. Rock storms may contribute to mode driving in Jupiter, while water storms are more important for Uranus. The highest-amplitude p~modes are predicted to have periods of $\sim$10-30 minutes, with surface velocities of $\sim$10 {\rm cm/s} for Jupiter and Saturn, and $\sim$1 {\rm cm/s} for Uranus. These oscillation modes may be detectable with radial velocity measurements, ring seismology, or spacecraft Doppler tracking. However, both the damping and excitation physics are uncertain by orders of magnitude, so more careful examination of the relevant physics is required for robust estimates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.12348 by A. James Friedson, Jim Fuller, J. R. Fuentes, Marzia Parisi, Steve Markham.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Oscillation mode frequencies of our Uranus model as a function of angular number ℓ. Symbol sizes indi￾cate surface gravitational potential perturbations, while sym￾bol colors indicate surface radial velocities, for modes nor￾malized to have equal energies. The f modes typically have larger gravitational perturbations than low-order p modes by a factor of ∼100, but smaller radial velocity perturbations by a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Damping time of ℓ = m f modes in Saturn, as a function of angular number ℓ, due to different models of convective viscosity. The blue line shows the simple estimate of equation 4, while the green line accounts for enhancement due to zonal winds (equation 12). where aα is the dimensionless mode amplitude. This corresponds to a mode damping rate t −1 damp,con = E˙ con Eα ∼ ω 2 α Ebind Z R 0 4πr2 ρνcon,ef|∇⃗ … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The damping time of ℓ = 2 p modes of Saturn, as a function of mode frequency. The green line shows damp￾ing due to convective viscosity (equation 14), the orange line accounts for damping due to radiative diffusion, and the pur￾ple line accounts for wave damping above the acoustic cutoff frequency (equation 16). Modes with frequencies larger than f ≳ fac ∼ 1.5 mHz are strongly damped due to the latter effe… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows predicted mode damping times in Jupiter. They are similar to those for Saturn in most re￾spects. An important difference is that the low-ℓ f modes cannot be damped by rings for Jupiter, greatly increas￾ing the predicted value of tdamp. Another difference is that Jupiter’s shear layer lies closer to the surface, at r/R ≃ 0.97 rather than r/R ≃ 0.88, changing where the convective viscosity peaks. The w… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: Energies of Saturn’s ℓ ∼ m f modes as a function of angular wavenumber ℓ. Black dots are observed modes from Afigbo et al. 2025. The curves show predicted energies for rotating and non-rotating convective excitation, and the damping rates shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: Energies of Saturn’s ℓ ∼ m f modes as a function of angular wavenumber ℓ. Black dots are ob￾served modes from Afigbo et al. 2025, the gray region is the predicted energy range due to stochastic excitation by rock storms, the blue region is the predicted energy range from water storms, and the red region is the energy range due to cometary impacts. Mode damping times are taken from Figures 3 and 4. Bot… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Correlation Cr of radial velocity variations in a simulation of convection in a spherical shell. Cr is plotted as a function of distance in the ϕ and θ directions, for both a non-rotating case (left) and a differentially rotating case (right). The differential rotation clearly stretches convective eddies in the ϕ-direction. As described in the text, the mode loses energy at a rate E˙ w ∼ ωconρ|∆vw| 2 , gi… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Are Thalassa and Despina in Resonance Lock with Neptune's Oscillations?

    astro-ph.EP 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Neptune's inner moons may maintain long-term resonance stability by locking to the planet's internal oscillation modes rather than evolving solely through mutual tides.

  2. Dynamical Tides during High-Eccentricity Migration produces the Hot Jupiter Pile-up, Neptune Ridge, and Neptune Desert

    astro-ph.EP 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Dynamical tides exciting f-modes during high-eccentricity migration produce the hot Jupiter pile-up, Neptune ridge, and Neptune desert via orbital circularization and selective atmospheric mass loss.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Unveiling What Makes Saturn Ring: Quantifying the Amplitudes of Saturn's Planetary Normal-Mode Oscillations and Trends in C-Ring Properties Using Kronoseismology (VII)

    Afigbo, V. M., Hedman, M. M., Nicholson, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.19265, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.19265 A’Hearn, J. A., Hedman, M. M., Mankovich, C. R.,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.19265 2025

  2. [2]

    Aramona, H., & Marley, M. S. 2022, PSJ, 3, 194, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac82bb

    doi:10.3847/psj/ac82bb 2022

  3. [3]

    H., Lecoanet, D., Cantiello, M., et al

    Anders, E. H., Lecoanet, D., Cantiello, M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1228, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02040-7

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02040-7 2023

  4. [4]

    J., & Astoul, A

    Barker, A. J., & Astoul, A. A. V. 2021, MNRAS, 506, L69, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab077

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slab077 2021

  5. [5]

    J., Dempsey, A

    Barker, A. J., Dempsey, A. M., & Lithwick, Y. 2014, ApJ, 791, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/13

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/1/13 2014

  6. [6]

    2013, JFM, 719, 47, doi: 10.1017/jfm.2012.605

    Baruteau, C., & Rieutord, M. 2013, JFM, 719, 47, doi: 10.1017/jfm.2012.605

    doi:10.1017/jfm.2012.605 2013

  7. [7]

    2016, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 13, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41116-016-0003-4

    Basu, S. 2016, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 13, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41116-016-0003-4

    doi:10.1007/s41116-016-0003-4 2016

  8. [8]

    J., et al

    Baudin, F., Samadi, R., Goupil, M. J., et al. 2005, A&A, 433, 349, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041229

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041229 2005

  9. [9]

    H., & Gizon, L

    Bekki, Y., Cameron, R. H., & Gizon, L. 2022, A&A, 662, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243164

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243164 2022

  10. [10]

    A., Baudin, F., et al

    Belkacem, K., Dupret, M. A., Baudin, F., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218890

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201218890 2012

  11. [11]

    P., Goupil, M

    Belkacem, K., Marques, J. P., Goupil, M. J., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526043

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526043 2015

  12. [12]

    1987, Icarus, 69, 557, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(87)90024-8

    Bercovici, D., & Schubert, G. 1987, Icarus, 69, 557, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(87)90024-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(87)90024-8 1987

  13. [13]

    2021, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 906, A26, doi: 10.1017/jfm.2020.797

    Krug, D. 2021, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 906, A26, doi: 10.1017/jfm.2020.797

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2020.797 2021

  14. [14]

    C., Hindman, B

    Blume, C. C., Hindman, B. W., & Matilsky, L. I. 2024, ApJ, 966, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad27d1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad27d1 2024

  15. [15]

    W., & Werner, S

    Brasser, R., Wong, E. W., & Werner, S. C. 2025, A&A, 695, A276, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453433

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453433 2025

  16. [16]

    J., & Miglio, A

    Chaplin, W. J., & Miglio, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 353, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140938

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140938 2013

  17. [17]

    2018, Phys

    Couston, L.-A., Lecoanet, D., Favier, B., & Le Bars, M. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 244505, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.244505

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.244505 2018

  18. [18]

    2023, A&A, 673, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243586

    Dandoy, V., Park, J., Augustson, K., Astoul, A., & Mathis, S. 2023, A&A, 673, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243586

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243586 2023

  19. [19]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa61a8

    Dederick, E., & Jackiewicz, J. 2017, ApJ, 837, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa61a8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa61a8 2017

  20. [20]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaafd3

    Dederick, E., Jackiewicz, J., & Guillot, T. 2018, ApJ, 856, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaafd3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaafd3 2018

  21. [21]

    W., Mankovich, C

    Dewberry, J. W., Mankovich, C. R., & Fuller, J. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 358, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1957

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1957 2022

  22. [22]

    2021, Planetary Science Journal, 2, 198, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac0e2a

    Xu, W. 2021, Planetary Science Journal, 2, 198, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac0e2a

    doi:10.3847/psj/ac0e2a 2021

  23. [23]

    J., & Boughn, S

    Dombard, A. J., & Boughn, S. P. 1995, ApJ, 443, L89, doi: 10.1086/187843

    work page doi:10.1086/187843 1995

  24. [24]

    D., Barker, A

    Duguid, C. D., Barker, A. J., & Jones, C. A. 2020a, MNRAS, 491, 923, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2899 —. 2020b, MNRAS, 497, 3400, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2216

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2899

  25. [25]

    2022, Nature Communications, 13, 4632, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-32299-9

    Durante, D., Guillot, T., Iess, L., et al. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 4632, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-32299-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32299-9 2022

  26. [26]

    Edelmann, P. V. F., Ratnasingam, R. P., Pedersen, M. G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12df

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab12df 2019

  27. [27]

    S., Gurnett, D

    Fischer, G., Kurth, W. S., Gurnett, D. A., et al. 2011, Nature, 475, 75, doi: 10.1038/nature10205

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10205 2011

  28. [28]

    G., Bridges, B., Hedman, M

    French, R. G., Bridges, B., Hedman, M. M., et al. 2021, Icarus, 370, 114660, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114660

    arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Hedman, M. M. 2019, Icarus, 319, 599, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.10.013

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.10.013 2019

  30. [30]

    G., Nicholson, P

    French, R. G., Nicholson, P. D., Hedman, M. M., et al. 2016, Icarus, 279, 62, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.08.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.08.020 2016

  31. [31]

    J., & Gonzales, E

    Friedson, A. J., & Gonzales, E. J. 2017, Icarus, 297, 160, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.06.029

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.06.029 2017

  32. [32]

    J., Parisi, M., Cao, L., et al

    Friedson, A. J., Parisi, M., Cao, L., et al. 2023, Icarus, 405, 115711, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115711

    arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    R., Barik, A., & Fuller, J

    Fuentes, J. R., Barik, A., & Fuller, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.16630, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.16630

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.16630 2025

  34. [34]

    2014, Icarus, 242, 283, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.08.006

    Fuller, J. 2014, Icarus, 242, 283, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.08.006

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.08.006 2014

  35. [35]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 2352, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3722 Garc ´ ıa-Melendo, E., Hueso, R., S´ anchez-Lavega, A., et al

    Galanti, E., & Kaspi, Y. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2352, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3722 Garc ´ ıa-Melendo, E., Hueso, R., S´ anchez-Lavega, A., et al. 2013, Nature Geoscience, 6, 525, doi: 10.1038/ngeo1860 Garc ´ ıa-Melendo, E., & S´ anchez-Lavega, A. 2017, Icarus, 286, 241, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.10.006

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3722 2021

  36. [36]

    X., Gay, J., Guillot, T., & Jacob, C

    Gaulme, P., Schmider, F. X., Gay, J., Guillot, T., & Jacob, C. 2011, A&A, 531, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116903

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116903 2011

  37. [37]

    1988, ApJ, 326, 462, doi: 10.1086/166108

    Goldreich, P., & Kumar, P. 1988, ApJ, 326, 462, doi: 10.1086/166108

    doi:10.1086/166108 1988

  38. [38]

    1990, ApJL, 363, 694, doi: 10.1086/169376

    Goldreich, P., & Kumar, P. 1990, ApJL, 363, 694, doi: 10.1086/169376

    doi:10.1086/169376 1990

  39. [39]

    1994, ApJ, 424, 466, doi: 10.1086/173904

    Goldreich, P., Murray, N., & Kumar, P. 1994, ApJ, 424, 466, doi: 10.1086/173904

    doi:10.1086/173904 1994

  40. [40]

    Goldreich, P., & Nicholson, P. D. 1977, Icarus, 30, 301, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(77)90163-4 24

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(77)90163-4 1977

  41. [41]

    Goodman, J., & Oh, S. P. 1997, ApJ, 486, 403, doi: 10.1086/304505 Grigahc` ene, A., Dupret, M.-A., Gabriel, M., Garrido, R., &

    doi:10.1086/304505 1997

  42. [42]

    2005, A&A, 434, 1055

    Scuflaire, R. 2005, A&A, 434, 1055

    2005

  43. [43]

    1995, Science, 269, 1697, doi: 10.1126/science.7569896 —

    Guillot, T. 1995, Science, 269, 1697, doi: 10.1126/science.7569896 —. 2005, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 33, 493, doi: 10.1146/annurev.earth.32.101802.120325

    arXiv 1995

  44. [44]

    N., Helled, R., et al

    Guillot, T., Fletcher, L. N., Helled, R., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 947, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2205.04100

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.04100 2023

  45. [45]

    M., & Nicholson, P

    Hedman, M. M., & Nicholson, P. D. 2013, AJ, 146, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/1/12 —. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1369, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1503

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/1/12 2013

  46. [46]

    2022, PSJ, 3, 61, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac4df8

    Smotherman, S. 2022, PSJ, 3, 61, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac4df8

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac4df8 2022

  47. [47]

    M., Nicholson, P

    Hedman, M. M., Nicholson, P. D., & French, R. G. 2019, AJ, 157, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf0a6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaf0a6 2019

  48. [48]

    D., Podolak, M., & Schubert, G

    Helled, R., Anderson, J. D., Podolak, M., & Schubert, G. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 726, 15

    2010

  49. [49]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.23678, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.23678

    Helled, R., M¨ uller, S., & Knierim, H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.23678, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.23678

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.23678 2025

  50. [50]

    R., Mao, H., et al

    Herwig, F., Woodward, P. R., Mao, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1601, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2157

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2157 2023

  51. [51]

    Horst, L., Edelmann, P. V. F., Andr´ assy, R., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037531

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037531 2020

  52. [52]

    2001, Icarus, 151, 257, doi: 10.1006/icar.2000.6606

    Hueso, R., & S´ anchez-Lavega, A. 2001, Icarus, 151, 257, doi: 10.1006/icar.2000.6606

    arXiv 2001

  53. [53]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d 2023

  54. [54]

    1993, Geophys

    Kanamori, H. 1993, Geophys. Res. Lett., 20, 2921, doi: 10.1029/93GL03187

    work page doi:10.1029/93gl03187 1993

  55. [55]

    Kurtz, D. W. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 31, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-094232

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-094232 2022

  56. [56]

    Lecoanet, D., & Edelmann, P. V. F. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 89, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11040089

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies11040089 2023

  57. [57]

    2017, A&A, 598, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629140

    Leconte, J., Selsis, F., Hersant, F., & Guillot, T. 2017, A&A, 598, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629140

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629140 2017

  58. [58]

    Lee, M., & Moser, R. D. 2018, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 842, 128, doi: 10.1017/jfm.2018.131

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2018.131 2018

  59. [59]

    Li, C., & Ingersoll, A. P. 2015, Nature Geoscience, 8, 398, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2405

    doi:10.1038/ngeo2405 2015

  60. [60]

    Libbrecht, K. G. 1988, ApJ, 334, 510, doi: 10.1086/166855

    doi:10.1086/166855 1988

  61. [61]

    M., & Stevenson, D

    Liu, J., Goldreich, P. M., & Stevenson, D. J. 2008, Icarus, 196, 653, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.11.036

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.11.036 2008

  62. [62]

    Lognonne, P., Mosser, B., & Dahlen, F. A. 1994, Icarus, 110, 180, doi: 10.1006/icar.1994.1115 Lognonn´ e, P., Banerdt, W., Clinton, J., et al. 2023, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 51, 643, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-031621-073318

    arXiv 1994

  63. [63]

    S., Fortney, J

    Mankovich, C., Marley, M. S., Fortney, J. J., & Movshovitz, N. 2019, ApJ, 871, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf798

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf798 2019

  64. [64]

    R., & Fuller, J

    Mankovich, C. R., & Fuller, J. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1103, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01448-3

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01448-3 2021

  65. [65]

    R., Friedson, A

    Mankovich, C. R., Friedson, A. J., Parisi, M., et al. 2025, PSJ, 6, 70, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/adb8eb

    doi:10.3847/psj/adb8eb 2025

  66. [66]

    2020, PSJ, 1, 27, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ab9f21

    Markham, S., Durante, D., Iess, L., & Stevenson, D. 2020, PSJ, 1, 27, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ab9f21

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ab9f21 2020

  67. [67]

    2018, Icarus, 306, 200, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.02.015

    Markham, S., & Stevenson, D. 2018, Icarus, 306, 200, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.02.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.02.015 2018

  68. [68]

    S., & Porco, C

    Marley, M. S., & Porco, C. C. 1993, Icarus, 106, 508, doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1189

    arXiv 1993

  69. [69]

    1995, A&A, 293, 586 M¨ uller, S., Ben-Yami, M., & Helled, R

    Mosser, B. 1995, A&A, 293, 586 M¨ uller, S., Ben-Yami, M., & Helled, R. 2020, ApJ, 903, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abba19 M¨ uller, S., & Helled, R. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2250 National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. 2023, Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-20...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abba19 1995

  70. [70]

    Zahnle, K. J. 2023, PSJ, 4, 139, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ace8ff

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ace8ff 2023

  71. [71]

    I., & Lesur, G

    Ogilvie, G. I., & Lesur, G. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1975, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20630.x

    arXiv 2012

  72. [72]

    2025, PSJ, 6, 303, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ae271e

    Parisi, M., Kim, S., Mankovich, C., et al. 2025, PSJ, 6, 303, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ae271e

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ae271e 2025

  73. [73]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2011

  74. [74]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2013

  75. [75]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 2015

  76. [76]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 2018

  77. [77]

    2019, arXiv e-prints

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Gautschy, A., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.01426

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    2010, Seismology and Structure of the Earth: Treatise on Geophysics, Treatise on Geophysics (Elsevier)

    Romanowicz, B., & Dziewonski, A. 2010, Seismology and Structure of the Earth: Treatise on Geophysics, Treatise on Geophysics (Elsevier). https://books.google.ch/books?id=5DEBDsisDEQC

    2010

  79. [79]

    2014, PASJ, 66, 58, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psu027 25

    Saio, H., & Takata, M. 2014, PASJ, 66, 58, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psu027 25

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psu027 2014

  80. [80]

    2011, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed

    Samadi, R. 2011, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. J.-P. Rozelot & C. Neiner, Vol. 832, 305, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19928-8 11

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19928-8 2011

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.