Shock Compression of Deuterium and the Interiors of Jupiter and Saturn

By D. Saumon, T. Guillot. 2004

289 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Recently, deuterium has been the focus of a high level of experimental and theoretical activity, sparked by a disagreement on the experimental value of the maximum compression along the principal Hugoniot. The behavior of deuterium at megabar pressures is not well understood. It is of great interest to understand how the current uncertainty on the hydrogen/deuterium equation of state (EOS) affects the inferred structures of Jupiter and Saturn. In particular, the mass of a core of heavy elements (other than H and He) and the total mass of those heavy elements in these two planets are quite sensitive to the EOS of hydrogen and constitute important clues to their formation process. We present a study of the range of structures allowed for Jupiter and Saturn by the current uncertainty in the hydrogen EOS and astrophysical observations of the two planets. An improved experimental understanding of hydrogen at megabar pressures and better determinations of the gravitational moments of both planets are necessary to put tight bounds on their internal structure.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Geochemistry and Petrology, Geophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/41510a22931724644438268278ff49d0d42692be

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Geochemistry and Petrology

In Geophysics

Citations in the corpus

THE IMPRINT OF EXOPLANET FORMATION HISTORY ON OBSERVABLE PRESENT-DAY SPECTRA OF HOT JUPITERS (2016, methodology): “A similar decrease of eZ,rel,int with increasing mass is found for the bulk metal content of Solar System giants (Saumon & Guillot 2004; Helled et al. 2011), where the mass where eZ,rel,int reaches 1 is extrapolated to be at about 11 MJup.”
A FRAMEWORK FOR QUANTIFYING THE DEGENERACIES OF EXOPLANET INTERIOR COMPOSITIONS (2009, background): “39 M⊕ of heavy elements; and that between 0 and 11 M⊕ of the heavy elements could be concentrated in a core (Saumon & Guillot 2004).”
Models of Jupiter's growth incorporating thermal and hydrodynamic constraints (2008, result): “The value that we find for MZ at crossover, 16 M⊕, is consistent with recent calculations of the mass of Jupiter’s core based upon Galileo data (Militzer et al. 2008); however other models yield smaller or no cores (Saumon and Guillot 2004).”
INTERIOR MODELS OF URANUS AND NEPTUNE (2010, background): “In the case of Jupiter and Saturn, the gravitational moments are not sensitive to the presence of a “core,” so core mass and composition are not well constrained (Podolak & Hubbard 1998; Saumon & Guillot 2004).”
Characterization of exoplanets from their formation - I. Models of combined planet formation and evolution (2012, background): “There are, however, several situations where the assumption of an adiabatic interior may break down (Saumon & Guillot 2004).”
Planet Formation around Stars of Various Masses: The Snow Line and the Frequency of Giant Planets (2007, background): “If δ = 1 and η = 1 , then Miso ≈ 5 (13)M⊕ at 5 (10)AU, which are similar to the inferred core masses for Jupiter and Saturn (Saumon & Guillot 2004).”
THE MASS OF KOI-94d AND A RELATION FOR PLANET RADIUS, MASS, AND INCIDENT FLUX (2013, result): “This is supported by observations in our own solar system; Uranus, Neptune and Saturn have a larger fraction of volatiles than Earth and Venus.”
Atmosphere, Interior, and Evolution of the Metal-rich Transiting Planet HD 149026b (2005, background): “Given Jupiter and Saturn’s large bulk inventory of heavy elements—as much as 6 times and 14 times solar, respectively (Saumon & Guillot 2004)—and the fact that most calculations on the radii of transiting planets have assumed metallicities lower than that of Jupiter (e.g. Chabrier et al. 2004;…”
Possible Solutions to the Radius Anomalies of Transiting Giant Planets (2006, background): “Moreover, the core masses we find for EGPs transiting near-solar-metallicity stars are close to those estimated for Jupiter and Saturn.”
New Models of Jupiter in the Context of Juno and Galileo (2019, background): “…or 3-layer models, namely a homogeneous, convective gas rich envelope, generally split in a molecular/atomic outer part and an ionized/metallic inner one, and a supposedly solid core (e.g., Chabrier et al. (1992); Saumon and Guillot (2004)), as first intuited by Stevenson and Salpeter (1977b,a).”
Formation of Giant Planets (2004, background): “Estimates of the condensed core mass of Jupiter range from ≈ 0 to ≈ 18M⊕ (e.g., Saumon and Guillot 2004; Militzer et al. 2008; Nettelmann et al. 2012).”
A Unified Theory for the Atmospheres of the Hot and Very Hot Jupiters: Two Classes of Irradiated Atmospheres (2007, methodology): “For these profiles the temperature of the adiabatic deep atmosphere at tens to hundred of bars (the top of the inte- rior adiabat) has been chosen to be consistent with the measured planetary radius, assuming a Jupiter/Saturn like interiorabundance of ice/rock (25M⊕, see Saumon & Guillot 2004).”
Heat Transport in Giant (Exo)planets: A New Perspective (2007, background): “Observational constraints of Jupiter and Saturn show that these planets do have a significantly enhanced Z-abundance compared with the Sun, with a global mean mass fraction Z=MZ/Mp ≈ 10-20% (Saumon & Guillot 2004).”
Synthetic Spectra and Colors of Young Giant Planet Atmospheres: Effects of Initial Conditions and Atmospheric Metallicity (2008, background): “These heavy elements are partitioned between a dense core and an enrichment within the H/He envelope (Hubbard & Marley 1989; Guillot 1999; Saumon & Guillot 2004).”