Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 97 references

Different Inhomogeneous Evolutionary Histories for Uranus and Neptune

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Neptune's extra glow comes from a mixed-up envelope

desk verdict A capable, transparent modeling paper that shows convective mixing driven by a tuned initial entropy gap can reproduce the Uranus/Neptune dichotomy, but the gap itself is assumed, not derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13857 v3 pith:2VFNIVMP submitted 2025-06-16 astro-ph.EP

Roberto Tejada Arevalo This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP MSC 85A3085A35
keywords UranusNeptuneicegiantevolutionconvectivemixingcompositionalgradientLedouxcriterionluminosityplanetaryinteriormodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the long-standing puzzle of why Neptune radiates more internal heat than Uranus has an evolutionary answer rather than a compositional one. The author presents non-adiabatic evolution models in which both planets start with the same kind of layered, compositionally stable interior, but Neptune begins with a slightly higher internal entropy. That extra entropy makes Neptune's primordial outer composition gradient convectively unstable, so the outer 40% of the planet homogenizes and cools adiabatically, releasing stored internal energy and raising its luminosity. Uranus, with lower initial entropy, keeps its gradient intact and traps its interior heat. The preferred models match the observed radius, effective temperature, intrinsic flux, and gravity harmonics of both planets within about 0.8%.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Ledoux criterion for convection: a region is stable against overturn when the stabilizing compositional gradient outweighs the destabilizing entropy gradient. The paper uses this criterion within a planetary evolution code to decide when each mass zone mixes. The key input that tips the balance is the assumed initial entropy difference between the two planets, about 0.5–1 kB per baryon higher for Neptune in the preferred models; this difference sits just above the threshold at which the outer, steep heavy-element gradient becomes unstable, triggering a one-time convective mixing event around 0.5 Gyr followed by adiabatic cooling of the outer 40% of the envelope.

What would settle it

A measurement or calculation that shows Neptune's deep interior entropy at formation was not higher than Uranus's — for example, future seismological or gravity-based constraints on its thermal state, or formation simulations that yield nearly identical initial entropies for the two planets — would remove the load-bearing condition for the proposed mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the observed luminosity contrast between Uranus and Neptune is caused by the convective stability, or instability, of their outer envelopes, not by different bulk compositions or exotic heat sources. If Neptune's initial interior entropy is high enough, its primordial composition gradient breaks down, the outer envelope homogenizes to a higher heavy-element abundance, and the released energy powers Neptune's larger intrinsic flux. Uranus's preserved gradient acts as a lid that keeps primordial heat trapped below. The author reports that these are the first evolution models to match radius, effective temperature, intrinsic flux, J2, and J4 for both planets simultaneously within a few tenths of a percent, and that the same mechanism naturally predicts Neptune's higher atmospheric metallicity and favorable conditions for hydrogen-water phase separation.

Load-bearing premise

Neptune starts with an interior entropy roughly 0.5–1 kB per baryon higher than Uranus's, high enough to make its outer composition gradient convectively unstable; this entropy difference is set by hand rather than derived from a formation model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Neptune's present-day luminosity can be explained without invoking exotic heat sources: the energy is primordial heat released during a past convective mixing event.
  • Neptune's outer envelope should be substantially more metal-rich than Uranus's, because mixing raises its heavy-element abundance from about 25% to roughly 80% by mass.
  • Neptune's cooler post-mixing envelope creates conditions for supercritical-to-ice phase transitions and for hydrogen-water immiscibility, which could shape its later evolution.
  • Any formation scenario must produce a systematically hotter initial interior for Neptune than for Uranus, and the paper suggests a giant impact as one plausible mechanism.
  • The predicted internal structures are testable: improved gravity and luminosity measurements of both planets would either support or contradict the timing and extent of the proposed mixing event.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mechanism is generic, similar luminosity spreads among ice-giant-sized exoplanets might trace back to differences in initial entropy rather than bulk composition, which would change how radii and fluxes are used to infer exoplanet interiors.
  • The imposed entropy difference could be tied to accretion history: a plausible, testable prediction is that Neptune formed via more energetic accretion or a giant impact, and that Uranus's low entropy reflects a quiescent formation; future formation models can make this quantitative.
  • A surviving stable layer in Uranus implies its deep interior is still very hot; a future probe that measures Uranus's deep thermal state, for example through gravity or seismic sounding, could confirm or falsify this picture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents updated non-adiabatic, inhomogeneous evolution models for Uranus and Neptune using the APPLE code, a 4:1:7 methane-ammonia-water ice mixture with rock, and formation-guided initial heavy-element profiles from Valletta & Helled (2022). The central proposal is that the observed luminosity difference between the two planets results from different convective stability of their primordial outer composition gradients: Uranus retains a stable outer gradient that traps interior heat and keeps it dim, while Neptune, if given a sufficiently high initial interior entropy, convectively mixes its outer envelope, undergoes adiabatic cooling of the outer ~40% of its mass, and thereby releases internal energy that explains its higher luminosity. The preferred models are shown to match the observed effective temperature, intrinsic flux, radius, J2, and J4 within about 0.1-0.8% (Table 3). The paper also predicts a higher outer metallicity for Neptune than for Uranus and favorable conditions for hydrogen-water immiscibility in Neptune's envelope.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism is correct, it would provide a single evolutionary framework that simultaneously explains the radius, luminosity, effective temperature, and gravitational harmonics of both ice giants, and it would connect the Uranus-Neptune luminosity dichotomy to measurable compositional differences. The work has clear strengths: it uses modern mixture equations of state, a fourth-order theory of figures, updated observational constraints (Jacobson 2025; Irwin et al. 2025), and includes useful sensitivity tests for the water EOS correction and for different ice-mixture ratios. The authors are transparent about many caveats, including the absence of semiconvection, the use of constant diffusion coefficients, and the atmospheric boundary-condition uncertainties. However, the central causal claim is currently contingent on an assumed initial entropy difference between Neptune and Uranus that is not derived from formation or impact physics, and that assumption is comparable in magnitude to the EOS-dependent shift in the convective stability threshold. The models therefore demonstrate an internally consistent scenario rather than an independent test of the formation history.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, first paragraph; Figure 3] The initial entropy difference between Neptune and Uranus is assigned, not derived: the paper states that Neptune's interior entropy profiles were chosen to be higher than Uranus's by 0.5-1 kB/baryon specifically to reduce the convective stability of Neptune's outer compositional gradient. Because the observed luminosity contrast is the quantity being explained, selecting the entropy difference to reproduce that contrast means the central mechanism is partly enforced by construction. The giant-impact scenario in Section 5 is qualitative and unquantified, so it does not close this gap. Please provide a formation or impact calculation that yields the entropy difference, or explicitly reframe the result as a proof-of-concept conditional on that difference, and state how the conclusions would change if the two initial entropy profiles were instead within ~0.5 kB/baryon of each other.
  2. [Section 3, end; Appendix B, Figure 9] The convective-mixing threshold is strongly EOS-dependent: the text notes that for pure water the destabilization entropy is about 3 kB/baryon versus about 3.8 kB/baryon for the 4:1:7 ice mixture, a shift of roughly 0.7 kB/baryon. The assumed Uranus-Neptune entropy difference of 0.5-1 kB/baryon is therefore comparable to the EOS uncertainty in the threshold itself. Please quantify whether the proposed Uranus/Neptune dichotomy survives across the plausible range of ice-mixture equations of state, or explicitly state that the main result is contingent on the 4:1:7 choice. Without such a test, the threshold argument is not robust enough to support the strong claim in the abstract that convective stability of the outer envelopes explains the luminosity difference.
  3. [Section 5, 'A possible scenario' paragraph] The only physical mechanism offered for Neptune's higher initial entropy is a giant impact, but no quantitative estimate is provided for the impact energy, angular momentum, or resulting thermal structure needed to raise Neptune's interior entropy by the assumed 0.5-1 kB/baryon. Since this assumption carries the causal weight of the paper's conclusion, the discussion of impacts must either be supported by a quantitative calculation (e.g., using existing impact simulations to estimate post-impact entropy profiles) or be explicitly labeled as speculation that does not yet connect to the model's initial conditions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] There is a typo in the first paragraph: 'Voayger 2' should be 'Voyager 2'.
  2. [Section 4, density-profile discussion] The text says the density range of Movshovitz & Fortney (2022) is 'from ~2-17 g cm^-2'; the units should presumably be g cm^-3, as these are mass densities.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says the bottom row shows evolution of 'J2, J4 (left)', but the J2/J4 panels are in the bottom-right; the label should be corrected to 'right'.
  4. [References] The reference list entry for Jacobson (2025) has the same DOI as Jacobson (2014); this appears to be a citation error and should be corrected to the actual 2025 article.
  5. [Section 4 versus Appendix B] The text in Section 4 states that initial envelope entropies at ~3.8 kB/baryon can destabilize the outer gradient, while Appendix B reports a threshold of ~3.7 kB/baryon for the same models; these numbers should be reconciled or explained.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Neptune's higher entropy is assigned because Neptune must be more luminous; the luminosity contrast is thereby an input, not an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, 'Evolution of Uranus and Neptune', first and third paragraphs]
    "To reduce the convective stability of Neptune's outer compositional gradient, we assigned interior entropy profiles higher than Uranus for a particular Z and rock mass fraction distribution. ... Recall from the previous section that higher initial interior entropies systematically yield higher internal fluxes and smaller radii. A Neptune model must show a higher luminosity and smaller radius relative to the Uranus model. As a result, higher initial entropies than Uranus were chosen for the Neptune models (motivated by the models in Figure 3)."

    The paper's central claim is that the Uranus/Neptune luminosity difference is explained by whether the outer composition gradient is convectively mixed. But whether mixing occurs is set by the initial entropy difference, and that difference is chosen because Neptune must be more luminous: 'A Neptune model must show a higher luminosity ... As a result, higher initial entropies than Uranus were chosen.' Thus the luminosity contrast is an input constraint used to assign the initial entropy, not an output predicted from an independently determined thermal state. The Ledoux mixing threshold and post-mixing adiabatic cooling are emergent physics, but the placement of Neptune above the threshold and Uranus below it is a fit to the very observable being explained.

full rationale

The strongest circular step is in Section 4: Neptune's higher initial entropy is assigned specifically because Neptune must have a higher luminosity and smaller radius than Uranus. Since the higher entropy is what triggers convective mixing, and convective mixing is what produces the higher luminosity, the observed luminosity contrast is effectively encoded in the initial conditions rather than independently predicted. This is a case of a fitted input being presented as an explanation. The paper does contain genuine emergent content: the Ledoux stability threshold, the timing and extent of the mixing event, the adiabatic cooling of the outer 40% of Neptune's envelope, and the simultaneous evolution of radius, effective temperature, intrinsic flux, J2, and J4. A score of 6, rather than 8 or 10, reflects that partial circularity: the mechanism is physically simulated rather than defined to equal the output, but the key dichotomy between the two planets is forced by the chosen entropy offset. The self-citations to APPLE and prior gas-giant mixing work are not independently problematic: the code is published and the prior results are reproduced with independent calculations, so they provide real support. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own work, and no known result is merely renamed. The circularity is specifically that the paper assumes the thermal-state difference it then uses to explain the luminosity difference.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on a large number of free parameters, the most important being the initial interior entropy difference between Uranus and Neptune, which is chosen specifically to reproduce the observed luminosity contrast. In addition, the core mass, outer metallicity, envelope rock fraction, and moment of inertia factor are tuned within a parameter search. The formation-based initial profiles and the neglect of semiconvection are load-bearing domain assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Initial interior specific entropy, Uranus = ~3 kB/baryon
    Chosen so the outer Z gradient remains stable and the resulting radius matches Uranus (Section 3). Sets the low-luminosity outcome.
  • Initial interior specific entropy, Neptune = ~3.5-4 kB/baryon (0.5-1 kB higher than Uranus)
    Assigned specifically to destabilize Neptune's outer composition gradient and produce its higher observed luminosity (Section 4).
  • Compact rocky core mass = Uranus 0.5 M_Earth; Neptune 3.5 M_Earth
    Varied in parameter search from 0.5-4 M_Earth; selected to match J2/J4 and radius (Table 2, Section 4).
  • Initial outer heavy element mass fraction Z_out = Uranus 0.35; Neptune 0.25
    Within searched range 0.05-0.45; final Neptune Z_out rises to 0.78 after mixing (Section 4, Figure 5).
  • Envelope rock mass fraction = Uranus 0.35; Neptune 0.05
    Searched 0-0.35; rocks increase density and affect J2/J4 (Section 4, Appendix B).
  • Moment of inertia factor initial = Uranus 0.2222; Neptune 0.225
    Searched ranges in Table 2; chosen within past model values (Section 4).
  • Constant heavy-element self-diffusion coefficients = 1e-5 cm2/s deep, 1e-4 cm2/s outer regions
    Taken from Bethkenhagen et al. (2017) profiles; sensitivity tests found negligible differences (Section 2.3).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ledoux criterion with no semiconvection governs convective stability and heat transport in the planetary envelope
    Section 2.3: semiconvection is ignored; if double-diffusive convection transported heat across the outer gradient, Uranus's interior heat would escape and its low luminosity would not persist. Justified by French & Nettelmann (2019).
  • domain assumption Formation models of Valletta & Helled (2022) provide representative post-formation initial profiles with three convective zones and a steep outer Z gradient
    Section 3, Figure 2: the entire evolution calculation starts from these profiles; if real initial structures differ, the evolutionary scenarios change.
  • domain assumption Volume-addition law adequately represents CH4-NH3-H2O ice mixtures mixed with H-He
    Section 2.1: deviations up to 4% from direct mixture EOS calculations, considered acceptable; threshold entropies for mixing depend on EOS.
  • domain assumption Analytic atmosphere fits (Graboske et al. 1975; Hubbard 1977; Guillot et al. 1995) with fixed Bond albedos are adequate boundary conditions
    Section 2.2: acknowledged no up-to-date atmosphere models; clouds and irradiation could change cooling rates (Section 5).
  • domain assumption Hydrostatic, non-adiabatic evolution under solid-body rotation with Theory of Figures to fourth order is valid for both planets
    Section 2.3: ToF4 errors vs ToF7 < 1e-5; solid-body rotation assumed.
  • domain assumption Standard solar abundance ratios Y/(X+Y)=0.277 and ice ratio 4:1:7 methane:ammonia:water
    Section 2.1: from Bahcall et al. 2006 and Asplund et al. 2009, applied to both planets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Different Inhomogeneous Evolutionary Histories for Uranus and Neptune." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2VFNIVMP

@misc{pith2026250613857,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Different Inhomogeneous Evolutionary Histories for Uranus and Neptune},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2VFNIVMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13857}
}
read the original abstract

We present updated non-adiabatic and inhomogeneous evolution models for Uranus and Neptune, employing an interior composition of methane, ammonia, water, and rocks. Following formation trends of the gas giants, Uranus and Neptune formation models are applied, where both planets begin with layers stable to convection. Both planets are subject to convective mixing throughout their evolution. Consistent with past work on this subject, the interior heat of Uranus evolution models is preserved by the stability of an outer composition gradient at lower initial entropy, where convective mixing is inhibited over evolutionary timescales. In contrast, if Neptune's initial entropy is enough to convectively mix its envelope, it undergoes homogenization and adiabatic cooling of the outer 40\% of its envelope. The subsequent release of internal energy during Neptune's evolution, driven by the convective instability of its primordial outer compositional gradient, accounts for its higher luminosity relative to Uranus. This work proposes that the observed luminosity differences between Uranus and Neptune could be explained by the convective stability of their outer envelopes. The extensive convective mixing in Neptune can lead to a higher metallicity in its outer region compared to Uranus, a feature seen in atmospheric measurements and shown in past interior models of Neptune. Due to Neptune's more pronounced cooling, our models predict favorable conditions for hydrogen-water immiscibility in its envelope.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13857 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Isentropes of EOS mixtures compared at differ￾ent entropies, denoted by different colors, for Z = 0.8 and Y /(X + Y ) = 0.277 using the Chabrier & Debras (2021) H￾He EOS. The solid and dashed lines differentiate between H-He water mixtures and H-He-ices mixtures respectively, with the ice mixture being at the measured 4:1:7 solar ra￾tio of methane, water, and ammonia (Asplund et al. 2009; Bethkenhagen et al. 2017). … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of post-formation heavy element profiles (Z) of Uranus and Neptune from Valletta & Helled (2022, VH22), adapted to be shown as a function of the enclosed mass grid from their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of Uranus-mass models with initial interior entropies (Si) ranging between 3 and 3.9 kB baryon−1 . The top row shows the initial and present-age profiles of the entropy (left), heavy element abundance (center), and temperature (right). The bottom row shows the evolution of the effective temperature and intrinsic flux (left), radius, and outer Z (center), and J2, J4 (left). The magenta, blue, and green mode… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the temperature (top row) and density profiles (bottom row) of Uranus (left) and Neptune (right) as a function of pressure. Top: The outer regions of Uranus (≲ 1 kbar, 0.92 MP ) cool, while the interior maintains its initial heat. As a result, the interior…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of various quantities of the Uranus (left) and Neptune (right) models shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Present-age density profiles of the Uranus and Neptune models (thick black lines) presented in Section 4 compared with models from the literature (color lines; Net￾telmann et al. 2013; Vazan & Helled 2020; Neuenschwan￾der & Helled 2022; Neuenschwander et al. 2024; Mala…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the Uranus preferred model presented in Section 4 and in the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the evolutionary effects of different ice mixtures on the Uranus model presented in Section 4 (shown here in blue). The dashed lines in the bottom panel indicate the measured values to guide the eye. The interior entropy profiles are scaled so that all mo…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Present-age parameters as a function of the initial interior entropy for the models shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example fractional error mapping of present-age J2 (left panel) and J4 (right panel) of Uranus-mass models with respect to the amount of rocks in the envelope. These models are part of the parameter search described in Section 4. For simplicity, and for this example, …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    """"""""

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    C., Nettelmann, N., Tosi, N., Baumeister, P., & Rauer, H

    Amoros, M. C., Nettelmann, N., Tosi, N., Baumeister, P., & Rauer, H. 2024, A & A, 152, 1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452148

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452148 2024

  5. [5]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 481, 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    N., Serenelli, A

    Bahcall, J. N., Serenelli, A. M., & Basu, S. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 165, 400, 10.1086/504043

    doi:10.1086/504043 2006

  7. [7]

    Bailey, E., & Stevenson, D. J. 2021, Planetary Science Journal, 2, 64, 10.3847/PSJ/abd1e0

    doi:10.3847/psj/abd1e0 2021

  8. [8]

    R., Hamel, S., et al

    Bethkenhagen, M., Meyer, E. R., Hamel, S., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b14

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b14 2017

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    1997, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 55, 14800, 10.1103/PhysRevB.55.14800

    Bini, R., & Pratesi, G. 1997, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 55, 14800, 10.1103/PhysRevB.55.14800

    1997 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Lunine, J., Stevenson, D., et al

    Bolton, S. J., Lunine, J., Stevenson, D., et al. 2017, Space Science Reviews, 213, 5, 10.1007/s11214-017-0429-6

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    2014, Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 10.1073/pnas.1304208111/-/DCSupplemental

    Burrows, A. 2014, Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 10.1073/pnas.1304208111/-/DCSupplemental

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    2017, Icarus, 291, 1, 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.03.015

    Cavali \' e , T., Venot, O., Selsis, F., et al. 2017, Icarus, 291, 1, 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.03.015

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, ApJ, 917, 6pp, 10.3847/1538-4357/abfc48

    Chabrier, G., & Debras, F. 2021, ApJ, 917, 6pp, 10.3847/1538-4357/abfc48

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 27pp, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf99f

    Chabrier, G., Mazevet, S., & Soubiran, F. 2019, ApJ, 872, 27pp, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf99f

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Chen, Y.-X., Burrows, A., Sur, A., & Arevalo, R. T. 2023, ApJ, 957, 8, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf456

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    J., & Hamel, S

    Cheng, B., Bethkenhagen, M., Pickard, C. J., & Hamel, S. 2021, Nature Physics, 17, 1228, 10.1038/s41567-021-01334-9

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, Nature Communications, 14, 1, 10.1038/s41467-023-36841-1

    Cheng, B., Hamel, S., & Bethkenhagen, M. 2023, Nature Communications, 14, 1, 10.1038/s41467-023-36841-1

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    L., Zink, J

    Christiansen, J. L., Zink, J. K., Hardegree-Ullman, K. K., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 248, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf9f9

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    D., Connerney, J

    Desch, M. D., Connerney, J. E., & Kaiser, M. L. 1986, Nature, 322, 42, 10.1038/322042a0

    1986 doi

  12. [20]

    D., & Charbonneau, D

    Dressing, C. D., & Charbonneau, D. 2015, Astrophysical Journal, 807, 45, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/45

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Ikoma, M., Nettelmann, N., Guillot, T., & Marley, M

    Fortney, J. J., Ikoma, M., Nettelmann, N., Guillot, T., & Marley, M. S. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 729, 32, 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/32

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 81, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2d21

    French, M., & Nettelmann, N. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 81, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2d21

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 10.1063/1.4998753

    French, M., & Redmer, R. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 10.1063/1.4998753

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    G., Hedman, M

    French, R. G., Hedman, M. M., Nicholson, P. D., Longaretti, P. Y., & McGhee-French, C. A. 2024, Icarus, 411, 115957, 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.115957

    2024

  17. [25]

    H., Harvey, A

    Gao, K., Wu, J., Bell, I. H., Harvey, A. H., & Lemmon, E. W. 2023, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 52, 10.1063/5.0128269

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Owen, T., de Pater, I., & Atreya, S

    Gautier, D., Conrath, B. J., Owen, T., de Pater, I., & Atreya, S. K. 1995, The Troposphere of Neptune , 1st edn. (University of Arizona Press), 547--611

    1995

  19. [27]

    C., Pollack, J

    Graboske, H. C., Pollack, J. B., Grossman, A. S., & Olnessi, R. J. 1975, The Astrophysical Journal, 199, 265. https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1975ApJ...199..265G

    1975

  20. [28]

    1995, ApJ, 11, 1

    Guillot, T., Chabrier, G., Gautier, D., & Morel, P. 1995, ApJ, 11, 1. https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1995ApJ...450..463G

    1995

  21. [29]

    N., Helled, R., et al

    Guillot, T., Fletcher, L. N., Helled, R., et al. 2023, Protostars ad Planets VII, 9, 10.26624/BHFW2605

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    2015, Giant Planets , Vol

    Guillot, T., & Gautier, D. 2015, Giant Planets , Vol. 10 (Elsevier B.V.), 529--557, 10.1016/B978-0-444-53802-4.00176-7

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    Gupta, A., Stixrude, L., & Schlichting, H. E. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 982, 0, 10.3847/2041-8213/adb631

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    2020, Astrophysics A & A, 643, 105, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038367

    Haldemann, J., Alibert, Y., Mordasini, C., & Benz, W. 2020, Astrophysics A & A, 643, 105, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038367

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

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

    Helled, R., Anderson, J. D., Podolak, M., & Schubert, G. 2011, Astrophysical Journal, 726, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/1/15

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    D., & Schubert, G

    Helled, R., Anderson, J. D., & Schubert, G. 2010, Icarus, 210, 446, 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.06.037

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, preprint

    Helled, R., & Howard, S. 2024, preprint. https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/phys_par.html

    2024

  28. [36]

    1964, Astrophysical Journal, 139, 306

    Henyey, L., Forbes, J., & Gould, N. 1964, Astrophysical Journal, 139, 306

    1964

  29. [37]

    1995, The interior of Neptune , 1st edn

    Hubbard, W., PodolakM , & Stevenson, D. 1995, The interior of Neptune , 1st edn. (University of Arizona Press), 109--138

    1995

  30. [38]

    Hubbard, W. B. 1968, The Astrophysical Journal, 152. https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1968ApJ...152..745H

    1968

  31. [39]

    1977, Icarus, 30, 305, 10.1016/0019-1035(77)90164-6

    ---. 1977, Icarus, 30, 305, 10.1016/0019-1035(77)90164-6

    1977 doi

  32. [40]

    1978, Icarus, 35, 177, 10.1016/0019-1035(78)90002-7

    ---. 1978, Icarus, 35, 177, 10.1016/0019-1035(78)90002-7

    1978 doi

  33. [41]

    B., & Macfarlane, J

    Hubbard, W. B., & Macfarlane, J. J. 1980, Journal of Geophysical Research, 85

    1980

  34. [42]

    Irwin, P. G. J., Wenkert, D. D., Simon, A. A., Dahl, E., & Hammel, H. B. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 540, 1719, 10.1093/mnras/staf800

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    Jacobson, R. A. 2009, Astronomical Journal, 137, 4322, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4322

    2009 doi

  36. [45]

    2025, Astronomical Journal, 148, 10.1088/0004-6256/148/5/76

    ---. 2025, Astronomical Journal, 148, 10.1088/0004-6256/148/5/76

    2025 doi

  37. [46]

    1994, Spectrophotometry of the Jovian Planets and Titan at 300- to 1000-nm Wavelength: The Methane Spectrum , 10.1006/icar.1994.1139

    Karkoschka, E. 1994, Spectrophotometry of the Jovian Planets and Titan at 300- to 1000-nm Wavelength: The Methane Spectrum , 10.1006/icar.1994.1139

    1994

  38. [47]

    1998, Icarus, 133, 134, 10.1006/icar.1998.5913

    ---. 1998, Icarus, 133, 134, 10.1006/icar.1998.5913

    1998

  39. [48]

    1954, Australian Journal of Physics, 7, 322

    Keane, A. 1954, Australian Journal of Physics, 7, 322. https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1954AuJPh...7..322K

    1954

  40. [49]

    2024, ApJ, 227, 13

    Knierim, H., & Helled, R. 2024, ApJ, 227, 13. http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.09341

    2024 arXiv

  41. [50]

    2025, A & A, 698, 1

    ---. 2025, A & A, 698, 1. http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.12118

    2025 arXiv

  42. [51]

    M., & Mazurek, T

    Lattimer, J. M., & Mazurek, T. J. 1981, ApJ, 246, 955

    1981

  43. [52]

    2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 598, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629140

    Leconte, J., Selsis, F., Hersant, F., & Guillot, T. 2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 598, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629140

    2017 doi

  44. [53]

    1947, ApJ, 105

    Ledoux, P. 1947, ApJ, 105

    1947

  45. [54]

    Lin, Z., Seager, S., & Weiss, B. P. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 6, 0, 10.3847/PSJ/ada124

    2024 doi

  46. [55]

    2012, Astrophysical Journal, 747, 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/25

    Madhusudhan, N., & Burrows, A. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, 747, 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/25

    2012 doi

  47. [56]

    I., & Bodenheimer, P

    Malamud, U., Podolak, M., Podolak, J. I., & Bodenheimer, P. H. 2024, Icarus, 421, 116217, 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116217

    2024

  48. [57]

    R., & Fortney, J

    Mankovich, C. R., & Fortney, J. J. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 51, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6210

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    S., Gomez, P., & Podolak, M

    Marley, M. S., Gomez, P., & Podolak, M. 1995, Journal of Geophysical Research, 100, 349, 10.1029/95je02362

    1995 doi

  50. [59]

    L., Spilker, L

    Matson, D. L., Spilker, L. J., & Lebreton, J.-P. 2003, Space Science Reviews, 104, 1

    2003

  51. [60]

    Mazevet, S., Licari, A., Chabrier, G., & Potekhin, A. Y. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 621, 1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833963

    2019 doi

  52. [61]

    2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121, 1, 10.1073/pnas.2403981121

    Militzer, B. 2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121, 1, 10.1073/pnas.2403981121

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    Militzer, B., & Hubbard, W. B. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 774, 148, 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/148

    2013 doi

  54. [63]

    R., et al

    Millot, M., Hamel, S., Rygg, J. R., et al. 2018, Nature Physics, 14, 297, 10.1038/s41567-017-0017-4

    2018 doi

  55. [64]

    Movshovitz, N., & Fortney, J. J. 2022, Planetary Science Journal, 3, 10.3847/PSJ/ac60ff

    2022 doi

  56. [65]

    2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 606, 1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731550

    Nettelmann, N. 2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 606, 1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731550

    2017 doi

  57. [66]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 750, 52, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/52

    Nettelmann, N., Becker, A., & Redmer, R. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 750, 52, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/52

    2012 doi

  58. [67]

    J., & Redmer, R

    Nettelmann, N., Helled, R., Fortney, J. J., & Redmer, R. 2013, Planetary and Space Science, 77, 143, 10.1016/j.pss.2012.06.019

    2013 doi

  59. [68]

    J., et al

    Nettelmann, N., Wang, K., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2016, Icarus, 275, 107, 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.04.008

    2016 doi

  60. [69]

    2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 18pp, 10.3847/PSJ/ac390a

    Nettelmann, N., Movshovitz, N., Ni, D., et al. 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 18pp, 10.3847/PSJ/ac390a

    2021 doi

  61. [70]

    2008, Journal of Chemical Physics, 128, 10.1063/1.2903491

    Ninet, S., & Datchi, F. 2008, Journal of Chemical Physics, 128, 10.1063/1.2903491

    2008 doi

  62. [71]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 688, 1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449911

    Parc, L., Bouchy, F., Venturini, J., Dorn, C., & Helled, R. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 688, 1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449911

    2024 doi

  63. [72]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  64. [73]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  65. [74]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 234, 50pp, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  66. [75]

    C., & Conrath, B

    Pearl, J. C., & Conrath, B. J. 1991, Icarus, 96, 18921, 10.1016/0019-1035(90)90155-3

    1991 doi

  67. [76]

    1991, Uranus, 1, 29

    Podolak, M., Hubbard, W., & Stevenson, D. 1991, Uranus, 1, 29

    1991

  68. [77]

    Podolak, M., & Reynolds, R. T. 1981, Icarus, 46, 40, 10.1016/0019-1035(81)90073-7

    1981 doi

  69. [78]

    1995, Planetary and Space Science, 43, 1517, 10.1016/0032-0633(95)00061-5

    Podolak, M., Weizman, A., & Marley, M. 1995, Planetary and Space Science, 43, 1517, 10.1016/0032-0633(95)00061-5

    1995 doi

  70. [79]

    A., Ninet, S., Weck, G., et al

    Queyroux, J. A., Ninet, S., Weck, G., et al. 2019, Physical Review B, 99, 134107, 10.1103/PhysRevB.99.134107

    2019 doi

  71. [80]

    R., Nettelmann, N., & French, M

    Redmer, R., Mattsson, T. R., Nettelmann, N., & French, M. 2011, Icarus, 211, 798, 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.08.008

    2011 doi

  72. [81]

    Saumon, D., Chabrier, G., & Van Horn, H. M. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 99, 713

    1995

  73. [82]

    2019, A & A, 632, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936378

    Scheibe, L., Nettelmann, N., & Redmer, R. 2019, A & A, 632, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936378

    2019 doi

  74. [83]

    2021, Astrophysics A & A, 650, 200, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140663

    ---. 2021, Astrophysics A & A, 650, 200, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140663

    2021 doi

  75. [84]

    1991, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 20, 1061, 10.1063/1.555898

    Setzmann, U., & Wagner, W. 1991, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 20, 1061, 10.1063/1.555898

    1991 doi

  76. [85]

    S., Finger, L

    Somayazulu, M. S., Finger, L. W., Hemley, R. J., & Mao, H. K. 1996, Science, 271, 1400. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2890267

    1996

  77. [86]

    2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 222, 10.3847/PSJ/ac2a47

    Stixrude, L., Baroni, S., & Grasselli, F. 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 222, 10.3847/PSJ/ac2a47

    2021 doi

  78. [87]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 538, 885, 10.1086/309160

    Sudarsky, D., Burrows, A., & Pinto, P. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 538, 885, 10.1086/309160

    2000 doi

  79. [88]

    T., Su, Y., & Burrows, A

    Sur, A., Arevalo, R. T., Su, Y., & Burrows, A. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 980, 0, 10.3847/2041-8213/adad62

    2025 doi

  80. [89]

    T., Chen, Y.-X., & Burrows, A

    Sur, A., Su, Y., Arevalo, R. T., Chen, Y.-X., & Burrows, A. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad57c3

    2024 doi

  81. [90]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 274, 34, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6cd7

    Tejada Arevalo, R., Su, Y., Sur, A., & Burrows, A. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 274, 34, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6cd7

    2024 doi

  82. [91]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 0, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada030

    Tejada Arevalo, R., Sur, A., Su, Y., & Burrows, A. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 0, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada030

    2025 doi

  83. [92]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 21, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f52

    Valletta, C., & Helled, R. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 21, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f52

    2022 doi

  84. [93]

    2020, A & A, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936588

    Vazan, A., & Helled, R. 2020, A & A, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936588

    2020 doi

  85. [94]

    2025, preprint, 1

    Wang, X., Li, L., Roman, M., et al. 2025, preprint, 1

    2025

  86. [95]

    W., Evans, D

    Warwick, J. W., Evans, D. R., Romig, J. H., et al. 1986, Science, 233, 2

    1986

  87. [96]

    W., Evans, D

    Warwick, J. W., Evans, D. R., Peltzer, G. R., et al. 1989, Science, 246, 1498, 10.1126/science.246.4936.1498

    1989

  88. [97]

    N., & Fabrycky, D

    Winn, J. N., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2015, The Occurrence and Architecture of Exoplanetary Systems , Tech. rep., MIT

    2015

  89. [98]

    Zhang, J., & Rogers, L. A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e65

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.