Explaining the low luminosity of Uranus: A self-consistent thermal and structural evolution

A. Vazan; R. Helled

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Explaining the low luminosity of Uranus: A self-consistent thermal and structural evolution

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Uranus's faint glow is explained by a stable composition gradient that keeps a hot interior insulated.

desk verdict A credible, self-consistent case that a gradual composition gradient can keep Uranus's interior hot while its surface stays dim; the case rests on a conduction-only treatment that the authors flag themselves, so treat the headline claim as an existence proof rather than a closed case. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10682 v2 pith:5FMSK3HH submitted 2019-08-28 astro-ph.EP

A. Vazan , R. Helled This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EP

keywords Uranusinteriorlowluminositycompositiongradientthermalevolutionnon-adiabaticstructureicegiantconvectivemixingformationenergy

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

Uranus radiates far less heat than a standard cooling planet should, and this paper tries to show that the deficit does not mean the planet is cold inside. The authors argue that a gradual change in composition between the deep, metal-rich interior and the hydrogen-rich envelope acts as a thermal blanket that suppresses convection and slows cooling, keeping a hot interior insulated behind a cool outer layer. They model the thermal and structural evolution together from formation to the present age and find that such gradients remain stable for billions of years while matching the measured radius, luminosity, and moment of inertia. If they are right, the faint glow of Uranus is evidence of a hot, nearly primordial interior, and the planet need not be separated into distinct ice and rock layers.

What carries the argument

The central object is the heavy-element mass fraction profile $Z(r)$, the gradual change in composition with radius. The load-bearing mechanism is the Ledoux convection criterion with its composition term: convection occurs only when the radiative temperature gradient exceeds the adiabatic gradient plus a stabilizing term set by the composition gradient, so a sufficiently steep gradient acts as a thermal boundary. In the model, stable gradient regions transport heat by conduction, convective mixing smooths composition only where the criterion is met, and the thermal and structural equations are solved together on an adaptive mass grid using equations of state for hydrogen-helium, water, and rock.

What would settle it

Shock-compression or first-principles measurements of the effective thermal conductivity of dense water-rock mixtures at pressures of roughly 1-10 Mbar and temperatures of 3000-30000 K, including any layered-convection enhancement, would settle the mechanism. If those measurements show heat escaping faster than the Earth-scaled conduction used in the paper, the several-hundred-kilometer gradient cannot keep the interior hot for 4.5 billion years and the model's luminosity curves would overshoot.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the low luminosity of Uranus is naturally explained by a stable composition gradient in the deep interior, without imposing artificial thermal boundaries or requiring a cold interior. Simulating hundreds of initial heavy-element distributions and energy budgets, the authors find several non-adiabatic structures that fit the measured radius, luminosity, and moment of inertia. Their common feature is a steep composition gradient that confines convection to roughly the outer 20 percent of the radius, while the gradient region conducts heat slowly and leaves the deep interior at temperatures from a few thousand to tens of thousands of kelvin. The paper also concludes that the primordial energy content cannot exceed about 20 percent of the accretion energy, and that a mixed ice-rock interior fits the data, suggesting Uranus may not be differentiated.

Load-bearing premise

The deep gradient region is treated as purely conductive with conductivity scaled to Earth values, and possible layered or double-diffusive convection is neglected; if that hidden convection carries heat much faster, the gradient may be too thin to insulate the interior for billions of years.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claim holds, Uranus's deep interior can be far hotter than adiabatic models allow, putting deep water and rock in plasma or superionic states rather than solid layers.
The measured luminosity no longer forces a cold planet; ignoring composition gradients in evolution models shifts Uranus's predicted radius by 5-10 percent.
A stable gradient implies the present deep structure is close to the primordial one, so the metal-rich atmosphere is likely primordial as well.
The upper bound of about 20 percent of accretion energy as initial heat gives formation and giant-impact scenarios a concrete constraint to meet.
Because the same reasoning applies to Neptune, an adiabatic-looking luminosity does not by itself prove that Neptune's interior is adiabatic.

Reading between the lines

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

If layered or double-diffusive convection moves heat faster than the conduction assumed here, the insulating power of any given gradient would be weaker; direct measurements of heat transport in water-rock mixtures at megabar pressures would decide whether the gradient can still hold for 4.5 billion years.
The predicted hot interiors place water in the plasma phase in the deep interior, so future shock-compression experiments on H2O-SiO2 mixtures could discriminate between hot-gradient and cold two-layer structures.
A future Uranus orbiter measuring higher-order gravity harmonics and the magnetic field geometry could test the models, because the predicted dynamo region is the outer convective metal-rich layer at a different depth than in adiabatic structures.
By analogy, weakly radiating ice-giant exoplanets may hide hot interiors behind composition gradients, making observed luminosity a poor direct measure of internal heat content and age.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague—

This paper is worth your attention: it makes a real, quantitative case that a stable composition gradient in Uranus can keep the deep interior hot while the surface stays dim, which would resolve the long-standing luminosity puzzle without invoking an artificially cold interior. What's new is not the idea—Podolak, Marley, and others suggested composition gradients before—but the self-consistent application of Vazan's non-adiabatic evolution code with convective mixing to the ice giants, and the concrete population of models that fit radius, luminosity, and MoI. The paper also derives an interesting upper bound on primordial energy content (20% of accretion energy) and finds that a mixed ice/rock interior is consistent with the data, suggesting Uranus may not be differentiated.

The paper does several things well. It is explicit about its parameter space and about the observational constraints it uses. The sanity check in Fig. 4—showing that removing the composition-gradient effect makes the planet cool too fast and shine too bright—is clean and helpful. The recognition that a hot, non-adiabatic interior broadens the allowed temperature range and affects water phase and magnetic field generation is a useful contribution. The citation pattern is also fair: it builds on the earlier gradient proposals and acknowledges the relevant modern work.

The soft spots are real, and the paper itself names most of them in Appendix B. The load-bearing assumption is that the Ledoux-stable gradient region transfers heat only by conduction, with conductivity scaled from Earth values and no layered/double-diffusive convection. The authors correctly state this gives an upper bound on the thermal boundary effect—and thus on the maximum role of the composition gradient. That is honest, but it cuts against the conclusion's phrasing: claiming a gradient 'naturally explains' the luminosity is stronger than what the model actually shows, which is that a purely conductive gradient can explain it. If layered convection transports heat even a few times faster, some or all of the successful families may cease to fit. Relatedly, luminosity is a fitted quantity, not an independent prediction, so the result is a sufficiency proof, not a uniqueness argument. The use of MoI rather than J2/J4 is a reasonable compromise, but it does soften the connection to the gravitational field.

For a modeler or an ice-giant mission scientist, this is a useful paper with clear limitations. I'd bring it to a reading group. It deserves serious peer review; I'd send it out, with the request that the authors add a sensitivity test for layered convection (e.g., boosted effective conductivity) and soften the conclusions to match the acknowledged upper-bound nature of the mechanism. The core idea may well be right, but the paper currently overstates its certainty.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents non-adiabatic thermal and structural evolution models of Uranus with composition gradients. The authors vary the initial heavy-element distribution, heavy-element composition, initial energy budget, mixing-length parameter, and atmospheric opacity, then select models that reproduce the measured radius, luminosity, and moment of inertia. They find several families of valid models, including distinct-layer, steep-gradient, shallow-gradient, and rock-rich-gradient structures. In the gradual models, a stable composition gradient suppresses convection and acts as a thermal boundary, preserving a hot deep interior while yielding the low observed luminosity. The paper also derives an upper bound on the initial energy content (about 20% of the accretion energy), argues that a mixed ice–rock interior is consistent with the data, and finds that the outer convective envelope is metal-rich. The central claim is that a composition gradient naturally explains Uranus's low luminosity without artificial thermal boundaries.

Significance. If the central result holds, it offers a physically motivated resolution of the long-standing Uranus luminosity problem without requiring a cold interior, and it connects the planet's current state to formation scenarios with gradual composition distributions. The work is valuable because it couples thermal and structural evolution self-consistently, explores a wide parameter space, and confronts the models with radius, luminosity, and moment-of-inertia constraints. The emergent stability of the composition gradient and the hot deep interior are nontrivial outcomes that strengthen the plausibility of the scenario. However, the main conclusion is conditional on treating the Ledoux-stable gradient region as purely conductive; the paper itself notes that layered convection is neglected and that the models provide an upper bound on the thermal-boundary effect. The paper's wording in the abstract and conclusions is stronger than this caveat warrants, so the robustness of the central claim depends on how the authors address the heat-transport uncertainty.

major comments (3)

[Appendix B; Sec. 2.4] The central claim that a composition gradient 'naturally explains' the low luminosity (Abstract; Conclusion 1) rests on treating the Ledoux-stable composition-gradient region as purely conductive. Appendix B states that layered convection is not considered and that the models therefore provide an upper bound on the possible thermal boundary effect. Given the Sec. 2.4 diffusive-timescale estimate (τ_cond = D²ρC_p/κ with κ = 2–6 W/m/K), an effective conductivity only a factor of a few higher, as expected for layered or double-diffusive convection, would increase the required boundary thickness D substantially and could make the valid models inconsistent with the measured luminosity. The authors should either quantify the sensitivity of the valid-model family to the effective conductivity of the gradient region, or explicitly qualify the conclusion that a realistic composition gradient is sufficient. As written, the abstract and Conclusion 1 overstate the robustness of the explanation.
[Sec. 2.3; Appendix B] The conductive opacity of the deep ice–rock interior is scaled to terrestrial values (Vazan et al. 2018c), yet the models reach central temperatures of several tens of thousands of Kelvin (Sec. 3.3), where electronic contributions can enhance the conductivity substantially, as the paper itself notes in Appendix B. Because the thermal boundary's effectiveness is the physical mechanism behind the low luminosity, the authors should test the sensitivity of the valid models to a range of deep-interior conductivities (e.g., factors of 3–10 above the nominal values). Without such a test, the conclusion that the gradient is sufficient to insulate the interior for 4.5 Gyr is not robust to a material-property uncertainty that the paper identifies as critical.
[Sec. 2.5; Conclusion 1] The models are selected by fitting the measured luminosity (Sec. 2.5), so the statement that the composition gradient 'explains' the low luminosity is a consistency demonstration rather than a posterior prediction. The emergent facts—the gradient's stability and the hot deep interior—are independent of the luminosity fit and are the strongest evidence for the scenario. Nevertheless, the wording in the abstract and Conclusion 1 ('naturally explains') is too strong; it should acknowledge that the luminosity is a fitted constraint of the model selection, and that the paper demonstrates consistency rather than a unique explanation.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 3.3] The phrase 'several tens of thousand Kelvin' should be corrected to 'several tens of thousands of Kelvin'.
[Table 2] The table caption should define E_acc explicitly; currently the definition (E_acc = 3GM²/5R) appears only in Sec. 2.2 and not in the table itself.
[Fig. 4 caption] The sentence 'The gray models are unphysical' is ambiguous; the caption should clearly specify that the light-gray (no mixing) and dark-gray (no composition effect) models are shown for comparison and are not intended as physical models.
[Sec. 2.4] The symbol D is used both for the thermal boundary layer thickness in the diffusive-timescale estimate and for the convective diffusion coefficient in Sec. 2.3; using distinct symbols would improve clarity.
[Sec. 4.1] The sentence listing needed improvements ('we need to improve our understanding of ...') could be tightened, but the specific items listed are useful and should be kept.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The low-luminosity 'explanation' is partly a fit to the observed luminosity, but the gradient stability and hot interior are emergent; score 4/10.

fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Sec. 2.5 ('Fit to observations'); Table 1; Sec. 5, conclusion 1]
"We varied the primordial composition distribution and the initial energy budget of the planet, and chose the models that fit the currently measured properties (radius, luminosity, and moment of inertia) of Uranus... A composition gradient in the Uranus interior naturally explains its low luminosity, without the need of artificial thermal boundaries."

The luminosity is one of the explicit fit targets (Table 1 lists L as an output constrained by the observed range), so the statement that a composition gradient 'explains the low luminosity' is a statement about which models were retained after filtering on luminosity, not an independent prediction. A successful fit shows the gradient model is consistent with the measured luminosity; it does not by itself establish that the gradient is the cause. The paper is transparent about this fitting procedure, and the stability of the gradient and the hot deep interior are emergent properties of the retained models, which is why this is partial rather than complete circularity.
fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.2 ('Link to the initial energy budget')]
"The initial energy content is therefore a free parameter that was varied to fit Uranus current measurements. This allowed us to limit the maximum energy content from the perspective of the current stage of Uranus... We found that if the primordial energy content is higher than 20% of the gravitational binding energy, the measured properties of Uranus cannot be reproduced."

The 20% initial-energy bound is the feasible region of the fitting procedure: initial energy was scanned and models with higher energy were rejected because they did not reproduce the measured radius and luminosity. Reporting this as a derived constraint on formation ('cannot be greater than 20%') is an inverse statement of the fitting criterion rather than an independent prediction. The paper explicitly labels the quantity as a free parameter varied to fit observations, so the circularity is acknowledged and moderate.

full rationale

The main circular element is that the paper's central 'explanation' of Uranus's low luminosity is tied to models selected specifically to match the measured luminosity. The abstract and Sec. 2.5/Table 1 state that radius, luminosity, and MoI are fit targets; the conclusion that a composition gradient 'naturally explains' the low luminosity therefore describes the retained model family rather than a prediction made before comparison with data. The initial-energy budget upper bound (Sec. 4.2) is likewise the feasible region of the fit, and the paper does not hide this. However, substantial content is not circular: the long-term stability of the composition gradient, the restriction of convective mixing to the outer region, the hot deep interior, and the diversity of acceptable structures all emerge from the evolution calculation (Ledoux criterion, convective mixing, conductive transport) and are not themselves imposed as fit targets. The Appendix B limitation that layered convection is neglected and that the models give an upper bound on the thermal-boundary effect is an acknowledged caveat rather than a circular step, but it should be weighed when assessing the strength of the central claim. The self-citations to the authors' prior evolution code are routine model provenance and are not load-bearing uniqueness arguments. Overall, the luminosity 'explanation' reduces partly to the fitting target, but the structural findings are independent enough that this is a moderate, not total, circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several uncertain material properties and modeling assumptions, most notably the conductivity of the deep interior, the atmospheric opacity, and the neglect of layered convection. The initial composition profile and energy content are free parameters fit to the observed radius, luminosity, and MoI.

free parameters (6)

Initial energy content fraction = 0.09-0.17 for valid models; upper bound <0.20
Free parameter varied to fit current radius, luminosity, and MoI; the paper derives an upper limit of 20% of the accretion energy (Sec. 2.2, 4.2).
Mixing length parameter alpha = 5e-3 to 0.5
Unknown; varied over a range to assess convective mixing efficiency (Sec. 2.3).
Convective diffusion coefficient factor a0 = 0.1
Set to 0.1 for convective mixing flux, based on previous work (Sec. 2.3).
Ice-to-rock ratio = 2:1 standard; 1:2 and pure ice considered
Unknown; varied to explore composition (Sec. 2.1).
Initial heavy-element distribution Z(r) = Various slopes from distinct core-envelope to shallow gradients
Initial structure varied; models that survive evolution and fit observations are selected (Sec. 2.1, 3.1).
Atmospheric opacity model = Valencia et al. (2013) standard; others tested
Uncertain; different opacity tables tested, with grain opacity excluded for valid models (Sec. 2.3, Appendix B).

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Ledoux convection criterion with composition gradient is the correct stability criterion.
Used to determine convective regions; Sec. 2.3 cites Ledoux (1947).
domain assumption Additive volume law for the H/He and heavy-element mixture.
Assumed for the EOS mixture; Appendix A.
domain assumption Conductivity scaled to Earth values.
Conductive opacity fitted to terrestrial conductivities; Appendix B.
domain assumption Gray atmosphere approximation with albedo 0.3 and equilibrium temperature 59.1 K.
Assumed for outer boundary; Sec. 2.3.
domain assumption Ice and rock remain mixed and chemically non-interacting.
Chemical interactions ignored for simplicity; Appendix A.
ad hoc to paper Non-convective regions transport heat only by conduction/radiation; layered convection is neglected.
Modeling choice; the paper acknowledges it bounds heat transport, Appendix B.
domain assumption The initial composition gradient is primordial (set at formation or shortly after a giant impact).
Initial Z(r) distributions are imposed based on formation expectations; Sec. 2.1, 4.2.
domain assumption Formation energy approximated by E_binding = 3GM^2/5R.
Simplified binding energy estimate used as the reference for initial energy; Sec. 2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Explaining the low luminosity of Uranus: A self-consistent thermal and structural evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5FMSK3HH

@misc{pith2026190810682,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Explaining the low luminosity of Uranus: A self-consistent thermal and structural evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5FMSK3HH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10682}
}

read the original abstract

The low luminosity of Uranus is a long-standing challenge in planetary science. Simple adiabatic models are inconsistent with the measured luminosity, which indicates that Uranus is non-adiabatic because it has thermal boundary layers and/or conductive regions. A gradual composition distribution acts as a thermal boundary to suppress convection and slow down the internal cooling. Here we investigate whether composition gradients in the deep interior of Uranus can explain its low luminosity, the required composition gradient, and whether it is stable for convective mixing on a timescale of some billion years. We varied the primordial composition distribution and the initial energy budget of the planet, and chose the models that fit the currently measured properties (radius, luminosity, and moment of inertia) of Uranus. We present several alternative non-adiabatic internal structures that fit the Uranus measurements. We found that convective mixing is limited to the interior of Uranus, and a composition gradient is stable and sufficient to explain its current luminosity. As a result, the interior of Uranus might still be very hot, in spite of its low luminosity. The stable composition gradient also indicates that the current internal structure of Uranus is similar to its primordial structure. Moreover, we suggest that the initial energy content of Uranus cannot be greater than 20% of its formation (accretion) energy. We also find that an interior with a mixture of ice and rock, rather than separated ice and rock shells, is consistent with measurements, suggesting that Uranus might not be "differentiated". Our models can explain the luminosity of Uranus, and they are also consistent with its metal-rich atmosphere and with the predictions for the location where its magnetic field is generated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10682 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Thermal and structural evolution of Uranus (color) as a function of the radius layer (y-axis) and age (x-axis). Upper panel: Heavy-element mass fraction. Bottom panel: Temperature profile. The four cases are of valid Uranus models of different types: distinct layers (left), steep gradient (second), shallow gradient (third), and metal-rich shallow gradient (right). Model number Rp [ R⊕ ] L [erg/s] MoI [MR2 ] Zenv Z c… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Temperature (left) and density (right) profiles of the models of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Radius (left) and luminosity (right) evolution for the four Uranus models presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Radius (left) and luminosity (right) of planets with identical structures. The standard model (red) is for the Ledoux convection criterion and mixing in convective regions. Models without mixing (light gray) and without the composition effect on heat transport (dark g…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Ice Giants
astro-ph.EP 2025-04 unverdicted

Uranus and Neptune may be rock giants rather than ice giants, and their internal structures remain poorly constrained.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

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

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....
[3]

2013, Nature, 495, 220

Bali , E., Audétat , A., & Keppler , H. 2013, Nature, 495, 220

work page 2013
[4]

J., Lissauer , J

Bodenheimer , P., Stevenson , D. J., Lissauer , J. J., & D'Angelo , G. 2018, , 868, 138

work page 2018
[5]

G., Vazan , A., & Ormel , C

Brouwers , M. G., Vazan , A., & Ormel , C. W. 2018, , 611, A65

work page 2018
[6]

& Chen , H

Chatterjee , S. & Chen , H. 2018, , 852, 58

work page 2018
[7]

2018, , 477, 4817

Cumming , A., Helled , R., & Venturini , J. 2018, , 477, 4817

work page 2018
[8]

J., Baraffe , I., & Militzer , B

Fortney , J. J., Baraffe , I., & Militzer , B. 2011, Giant Planet Interior Structure and Thermal Evolution , ed. S. Seager , 397--418

work page 2011

Show all 65 references

[9]

S., Marley , M

Freedman , R. S., Marley , M. S., & Lodders , K. 2008, , 174, 504

2008
[10]

& Nettelmann , N

French , M. & Nettelmann , N. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 81

2019
[11]

& Gautier , D

Guillot , T. & Gautier , D. 2014, ArXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1405.3752 ]

2014 arXiv
[12]

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

Helled , R., Anderson , J. D., Podolak , M., & Schubert , G. 2011, , 726, 15

2011
[13]

D., & Schubert , G

Helled , R., Anderson , J. D., & Schubert , G. 2010, , 210, 446

2010
[14]

& Bodenheimer , P

Helled , R. & Bodenheimer , P. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 789, 69

2014
[15]

& Guillot , T

Helled , R. & Guillot , T. 2018, Internal Structure of Giant and Icy Planets: Importance of Heavy Elements and Mixing , 44

2018
[16]

& Stevenson , D

Helled , R. & Stevenson , D. 2017, , 840, L4

2017
[17]

B., Podolak , M., & Stevenson , D

Hubbard , W. B., Podolak , M., & Stevenson , D. J. 1995, in Neptune and Triton, ed. D. P. Cruikshank , M. S. Matthews , & A. M. Schumann , 109--138

1995
[18]

& Audetat , A

Keppler , H. & Audetat , A. 2005, Fluid mineral interaction in high pressure , Vol. 7, 225--251

2005
[19]

W., & Thompson , A

Kessel , R., Ulmer , P., Pettke , T., Schmidt , M. W., & Thompson , A. B. 2005, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 237, 873

2005
[20]

& Ikoma , M

Kurosaki , K. & Ikoma , M. 2017, , 153, 260

2017
[21]

& Chabrier , G

Leconte , J. & Chabrier , G. 2012, , 540, A20

2012
[22]

1947, , 105, 305

Ledoux , P. 1947, , 105, 305

1947
[23]

2019, Nature, 572, 355

Liu, S.-F., Hori, Y., M \"u ller, S., et al. 2019, Nature, 572, 355

2019
[24]

D., & Bodenheimer , P

Lozovsky , M., Helled , R., Rosenberg , E. D., & Bodenheimer , P. 2017, , 836, 227

2017
[25]

Lyon, S. P. & Johnson, J. D. 1992, S E S A M E : THE L OS A LAMOS N ATIONAL L ABORATORY EQUATION OF STATE DATABASE, website, http://t1web.lanl.gov/doc/SESAME-3Ddatabase-1992.html

1992
[26]

Marley, M., Gomez, P., & Podolak, M. 1995, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 23349

1995
[27]

S., Fortney , J

Marley , M. S., Fortney , J. J., Hubickyj , O., Bodenheimer , P., & Lissauer , J. J. 2007, , 655, 541

2007
[28]

Mazevet , S., Licari , A., Chabrier , G., & Potekhin , A. Y. 2019, , 621, A128

2019
[29]

Melosh , H. J. 2007, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 42, 2079

2007
[30]

R., et al

Millot , M., Hamel , S., Rygg , J. R., et al. 2018, Nature Physics, 14, 297

2018
[31]

D., & Molli \`e re , P

Mordasini , C., Marleau , G. D., & Molli \`e re , P. 2017, , 608, A72

2017
[32]

M., Warren , K

More , R. M., Warren , K. H., Young , D. A., & Zimmerman , G. B. 1988, Physics of Fluids, 31, 3059

1988
[33]

J., Kramm , U., & Redmer , R

Nettelmann , N., Fortney , J. J., Kramm , U., & Redmer , R. 2011, , 733, 2

2011
[34]

2013, , 225, 548

Nettelmann , N., P \"u stow , R., & Redmer , R. 2013, , 225, 548

2013
[35]

J., et al

Nettelmann , N., Wang , K., Fortney , J. J., et al. 2016, , 275, 107

2016
[36]

& Helled , R

Podolak , M. & Helled , R. 2012, , 759, L32

2012
[37]

2019, , 487, 2653

Podolak , M., Helled , R., & Schubert , G. 2019, , 487, 2653

2019
[38]

B., & Stevenson , D

Podolak , M., Hubbard , W. B., & Stevenson , D. J. 1991, Models of Uranus' interior and magnetic field. , 29--61

1991
[39]

I., & Marley , M

Podolak , M., Podolak , J. I., & Marley , M. S. 2000, , 48, 143

2000
[40]

1995, Planet

Podolak, M., Weizman, A., & Marley, M. 1995, Planet. & Space Sci., 43, 1517

1995
[41]

B., McKay, C

Pollack, J. B., McKay, C. P., & Christofferson, B. M. 1985, Icarus, 64, 471

1985
[42]

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

Redmer , R., Mattsson , T. R., Nettelmann , N., & French , M. 2011, , 211, 798

2011
[43]

2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09809

Reinhardt , C., Chau , A., Stadel , J., & Helled , R. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09809

2019 arXiv
[44]

2011, , 742, 132

Rosenblum , E., Garaud , P., Traxler , A., & Stellmach , S. 2011, , 742, 132

2011
[45]

Saumon , D., Chabrier , G., & van Horn , H. M. 1995, , 99, 713

1995
[46]

o niglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G \

Schwarzschild , K. 1906, Nachrichten von der K \"o niglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G \"o ttingen. Math.-phys. Klasse, 195, p. 41-53, 195, 41

1906
[47]

Sharp , C. M. & Burrows , A. 2007, , 168, 140

2007
[48]

P., & Zhang , S

Soubiran , F., Militzer , B., Driver , K. P., & Zhang , S. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 041401

2017
[49]

& Bloxham , J

Stanley , S. & Bloxham , J. 2004, , 428, 151

2004
[50]

& Bloxham , J

Stanley , S. & Bloxham , J. 2006, , 184, 556

2006
[51]

Stevenson , D. J. 1986, in Lunar and Planetary Inst. Technical Report, Vol. 17, Lunar and Planetary Institute Science Conference Abstracts, 1011--1012

1986
[52]

J., Spohn , T., & Schubert , G

Stevenson , D. J., Spohn , T., & Schubert , G. 1983, , 54, 466

1983
[53]

Thompson , S. L. & Lauson , H. S. 1972, Improvements in the Chart D Radiation-Hydrodynamic Code. III: Revised Analytic Equations of State , Tech. rep

1972
[54]

M., & Allen , P

Umemoto , K., Wentzcovitch , R. M., & Allen , P. B. 2006, Science, 311, 983

2006
[55]

Valencia , D., Guillot , T., Parmentier , V., & Freedman , R. S. 2013, , 775, 10

2013
[56]

& Helled , R

Valletta , C. & Helled , R. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1811.10904

2018 arXiv
[57]

P., Yuen , D

van den Berg , A. P., Yuen , D. A., Beebe , G. L., & Christiansen , M. D. 2010, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 178, 136

2010
[58]

2018 a , , 610, L14

Vazan , A., Helled , R., & Guillot , T. 2018 a , , 610, L14

2018
[59]

2015, , 803, 32

Vazan , A., Helled , R., Kovetz , A., & Podolak , M. 2015, , 803, 32

2015
[60]

2016, , 829, 118

Vazan , A., Helled , R., Podolak , M., & Kovetz , A. 2016, , 829, 118

2016
[61]

2013, , 434, 3283

Vazan , A., Kovetz , A., Podolak , M., & Helled , R. 2013, , 434, 3283

2013
[62]

W., & Dominik , C

Vazan , A., Ormel , C. W., & Dominik , C. 2018 b , , 610, L1

2018
[63]

W., Noack , L., & Dominik , C

Vazan , A., Ormel , C. W., Noack , L., & Dominik , C. 2018 c , , 869, 163

2018
[64]

F., Wong , M

Wilson , H. F., Wong , M. L., & Militzer , B. 2013, Physical Review Letters, 110, 151102

2013
[65]

S., Garaud , P., & Stellmach , S

Wood , T. S., Garaud , P., & Stellmach , S. 2013, , 768, 157

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

[3] [3]

2013, Nature, 495, 220

Bali , E., Audétat , A., & Keppler , H. 2013, Nature, 495, 220

work page 2013

[4] [4]

J., Lissauer , J

Bodenheimer , P., Stevenson , D. J., Lissauer , J. J., & D'Angelo , G. 2018, , 868, 138

work page 2018

[5] [5]

G., Vazan , A., & Ormel , C

Brouwers , M. G., Vazan , A., & Ormel , C. W. 2018, , 611, A65

work page 2018

[6] [6]

& Chen , H

Chatterjee , S. & Chen , H. 2018, , 852, 58

work page 2018

[7] [7]

2018, , 477, 4817

Cumming , A., Helled , R., & Venturini , J. 2018, , 477, 4817

work page 2018

[8] [8]

J., Baraffe , I., & Militzer , B

Fortney , J. J., Baraffe , I., & Militzer , B. 2011, Giant Planet Interior Structure and Thermal Evolution , ed. S. Seager , 397--418

work page 2011