Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 52 references

Ice Giants

T0 review · 0 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A review of Uranus and Neptune finds the label 'ice giants' may be a misnomer: current data cannot determine whether the planets are mostly water or mostly rock.

desk verdict A competent, current review that honestly maps the uncertainty in Uranus/Neptune compositions; the 'rock giants' idea is not new, but the review deserves citation and a referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18219 v1 pith:GEAVYT6D submitted 2025-04-25 astro-ph.EP

Ravit Helled This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords UranusNeptuneicegiantsrockinteriorstructuremodelsbulkcompositionempiricalrotationperiods
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 review tries to establish that the internal compositions of Uranus and Neptune are genuinely not known: existing data allow both a water-dominated ('ice giant') interior and a rock-dominated ('rock giant') interior. The usual label 'ice giant' rests on formation expectations and on the presence of magnetic fields, but neither argument is decisive. If the review is right, the two planets should not be treated as established icy worlds, and future measurements of gravity, rotation, and composition could overturn the textbook picture. Because intermediate-mass planets of this kind appear to be common around other stars, the ambiguity matters beyond the solar system.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two competing model families. 'Physical' models assume a layered, adiabatic interior with a rocky core, a water-rich envelope, and an H-He atmosphere; 'empirical' models parameterize the density profile and fit only mass, radius, and the gravitational moments J2 and J4, without assuming distinct layers or an adiabatic temperature profile. When the empirical density solutions are interpreted with equations of state and non-adiabatic temperature profiles, they admit rock-rich compositions, central temperatures of a few times $10^{4}$ K, and H-He mixed into the deep interior. The assumed rotation period is a controlling parameter: switching from Voyager periods to wind-minimized periods (16.58 h for Uranus, 17.46 h for Neptune) changes the inferred water-to-rock ratio and makes the two planets look less like twins.

What would settle it

A spacecraft in orbit around Uranus or Neptune that measures the higher gravitational moments J6 and J8, determines the deep rotation period independently, and constrains the moment of inertia would settle the question: the adiabatic water-rich and non-adiabatic rock-rich model families predict different values for these observables.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that no current data pin down the rock-to-water ratio in Uranus or Neptune. Traditional three-layer adiabatic models return water-rich envelopes over small rocky cores, while empirical models that let the density profile be free, and allow composition gradients, boundary layers, and hydrogen-helium in the deep interior, produce rock-dominated solutions—for example, a Uranus model with a water mass fraction near 30% and a water-to-rock ratio near 0.6. The paper presents both scenarios as plausible and explicitly concludes that the name 'ice giants' may not reflect the planets' true bulk compositions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Uranus and Neptune may have non-adiabatic deep interiors with composition gradients or boundary layers, and that their true rotation periods may differ from those inferred by Voyager 2; if the interiors are simply adiabatic and the Voyager periods are correct, the rock-dominated scenarios mostly disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the ambiguity is real, the name 'ice giants' should be read as provisional, not as a measured fact about bulk composition.
  • Formation models cannot be validated by matching a required icy composition; they must also reproduce planets whose heavy elements are mostly silicates, including cases with hydrogen mixed into the deep interior.
  • Neptune's measured CO and D/H are consistent with a water-dominated interior only if the planet is not fully mixed; otherwise they favor a rock-dominated interior with externally supplied CO, so atmospheric chemistry alone will not settle the question.
  • A future orbiter that measures J6, J8, the moment of inertia, and the deep rotation period can break the degeneracy between the adiabatic water-rich and non-adiabatic rock-rich families.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same water/rock degeneracy almost certainly afflicts the growing sample of sub-Neptune exoplanets, where radius and mass alone leave composition highly ambiguous; if the solar system's ice giants can be rock-dominated, exoplanet classification schemes that assume volatile-rich interiors should be revisited.
  • The two planets may not share one answer: if the wind-minimized rotation periods are right, Uranus and Neptune could end up on opposite sides of the composition split, with the dichotomy noted by the paper's cited interior models.
  • A decisive test could come from laboratory measurements of rock-water miscibility at pressures near 100-1000 GPa and temperatures near 10^4 K: if rock and water remain immiscible, layered models gain support, while miscibility or hydrogen-bearing silicates favor the mixed rock-rich solutions.
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.

Referee Report

0 major / 7 minor

Summary. This review chapter summarizes the current state of knowledge on the interiors, magnetic fields, winds, rotation rates, and formation of Uranus and Neptune. The author emphasizes that the bulk rock-to-water ratios and internal layering of both planets remain poorly constrained, and that both water-dominated ("ice giant") and rock-dominated ("rock giant") compositions are viable in current models. The review contrasts traditional three-layer adiabatic models with empirical (agnostic) density-profile models, discusses the influence of uncertain rotation periods on inferred structure, and surveys formation scenarios including pebble accretion and giant impacts. It concludes that the "ice giant" label may be a misnomer and that future observations are needed to determine the true compositions of these planets.

Significance. The review is a useful and timely synthesis of a rapidly evolving field. Its main strength is that it clearly separates well-measured quantities (masses, radii, J2, J4) from model-dependent inferences and integrates interior modeling with atmospheric, magnetic, and formation constraints. The central claim that the bulk compositions of Uranus and Neptune are uncertain, with both water-dominated and rock-dominated interiors plausible, is a fair representation of the current literature and is supported by independent studies (e.g., Movshovitz and Fortney 2022; Teanby et al. 2020; Bailey and Stevenson 2021). The review also explicitly acknowledges in Section 2.2 that empirical models may yield nonphysical density profiles, which mitigates the main caveat about rock-rich solutions. The manuscript would benefit from minor editorial corrections, but it contains no scientific error that undermines its conclusions.

minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2.2] The cross-reference "see section 3.1" at the end of Section 2.2 appears to be broken; the discussion of rock-to-water ratios and composition uncertainty appears in Section 2.3, not Section 3.1.
  2. [Table 1] The rotation periods listed with footnote d as "Calculated values from (Neuenschwander and Helled, 2022)" are in fact the Voyager 2 values (17.24 h and 16.11 h) that are also quoted in Section 4; the modified periods of Helled et al. (2010b) (16.58 h and 17.46 h) should be distinguished, or the footnote should be corrected.
  3. [Section 5.1] The parenthetical "see (Reinhardt et al., 2020) and Fig. 5 for details" refers to the wrong figure; the relevant figure is Fig. 7, which illustrates the oblique versus head-on impact scenario.
  4. [References] The entries Helled et al. (2010a) and Helled et al. (2010b) are duplicate references to the same paper (Icarus 210, 446); the duplicate should be removed and the citations in Section 4 and the Figure 5 caption should be unified.
  5. [Figure 2 caption] The caption states that the shaded areas show solutions from "Morf et al. (2024)" for Uranus and "Neuenschwander and Helled (2022)" for Neptune, while the text in Section 2.2 says the shaded areas show "the range of solutions from the empirical models presented by Neuenschwander and Helled (2022)"; these descriptions should be made consistent.
  6. [Section 2.3] Given the caveat in Section 2.2 that empirical models may yield nonphysical density profiles, the sentence "Interior models of Uranus and Neptune clearly show that the planets could actually be 'rock giants'" is stronger than warranted; a more hedged phrasing such as "some interior models allow rock-dominated solutions" would be more consistent with the review's own caution.
  7. [Throughout] There are minor typographical errors, e.g., "immicibilities" should be "immiscibilities" in Section 2.1, and "cirumplanetary" should be "circumplanetary" in Section 5.1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's uncertainty conclusion is a synthesis of independent and self-consistent modeling results, not a derivation from its own inputs.

full rationale

The central claim (Section 2.3) is that Uranus and Neptune's bulk compositions may be water-dominated or rock-dominated and remain uncertain. This is not a derived prediction from a fitted parameter; it is an assessment of the current modeling literature. The rock-rich scenarios come from empirical interior models (e.g., Neuenschwander et al. 2024; Morf et al. 2024) that parameterize density to match measured mass, radius, and gravity, and then interpret composition under explicit assumptions about temperature profiles and mixing. The paper explicitly discloses the main limitation of this approach: the inferred density profile may be nonphysical (Section 2.2). The modified rotation periods from Helled et al. (2010b) are presented as an assumption that affects structure models, not as an output derived from the composition conclusion; the review repeatedly stresses that the rotation periods are uncertain and that composition depends on them. Independent work (Movshovitz and Fortney 2022; Bailey and Stevenson 2021) also supports non-adiabatic or non-standard interiors, so the uncertainty claim does not rest solely on the author's own self-citations. The review does not invoke a uniqueness theorem, does not rename a known result as a new prediction, and contains no equation where the input is defined in terms of the output. Heavy self-citation is expected in a review and is not load-bearing here because the cited models are published, reproducible computations whose assumptions are stated. Therefore, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on the accuracy of published measurements and on the plausibility of various interior model assumptions, which are all drawn from prior literature.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The measured gravitational moments J2 and J4 and their quoted uncertainties are accurate.
    The review's conclusion that interior models are degenerate relies on the large uncertainties in the only two measured gravity harmonics (Table 1).
  • domain assumption The equations of state and temperature profiles used in the surveyed interior models span a plausible range of planetary conditions.
    The 'rock giant' scenario is enabled by non-adiabatic profiles and EOSs that allow silicates and H-He mixtures to be conductive (Sections 2.2 and 2.3).
  • domain assumption The modified rotation periods for Uranus (16.58 h) and Neptune (17.46 h) proposed by Helled et al. (2010b) are as plausible as the Voyager 2 periods.
    The inferred compositions and the breadth of the solution space depend on the assumed rotation period (Section 4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ice Giants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GEAVYT6D

@misc{pith2026250418219,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ice Giants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GEAVYT6D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18219}
}
read the original abstract

Uranus and Neptune, the so-called "ice giants", represent a fascinating class of planets. They are the outermost planets in the solar system with intermediate masses/sizes, complex non-polar magnetic fields, strong atmospheric winds, and not well-understood internal structures. Studying the interiors of Uranus and Neptune is vital for advancing our understanding of planetary formation and evolution as well as for the characterization of planets around other stars. In this review, we summarize our current knowledge of the interior and formation of Uranus and Neptune. Both planets are expected to be composed of rocks and ices and have H-He atmospheres of the order of 10% of their total masses. The rock-to-water ratios in Uranus and Neptune, however, are very uncertain. It is also unclear how the different materials are distributed within the interiors and whether distinct layers exist. While often Uranus and Neptune are viewed as being "twin planets" it is in fact unclear how different the two planets are from each other, and whether they are indeed "icy" (water-dominated) planets. After summarizing the current-knowledge of the interiors of Uranus and Neptune, we briefly discuss their magnetic fields and atmosphere dynamics. We next introduce the challenges in constraining the formation paths of Uranus and Neptune: it is still unclear whether the planets formed at their current locations, and what the dominating processes that led to their formation (accretion rates, size of solids, etc.) were. We also mention the possible role of giant impacts shortly after their formation. Finally, we suggest that advanced modeling, future observations from space and the ground, lab experiments, and links with exoplanetary science can improve our understanding of Uranus and Neptune as a class of astronomical objects which seems to be very common in our galaxy.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Thermodynamically Governed Interior Models of Uranus and Neptune

    author Bailey E and author Stevenson DJ ( year 2021 ), month Apr. title Thermodynamically Governed Interior Models of Uranus and Neptune volume 2 ( number 2 ), eid 64 . doi doi:10.3847/PSJ/abd1e0 . 2012.04166 . Article

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    title A Collisionless Scenario for Uranus Tilting

    author Bou \'e G and author Laskar J ( year 2010 ), month Mar. title A Collisionless Scenario for Uranus Tilting . journal volume 712 ( number 1 ): pages L44--L47 . doi doi:10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L44 . 0912.0181 . Article

    arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    title Could Uranus and Neptune form by collisions of planetary embryos? journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society volume 502 ( number 2 ): pages 1647--1660

    author Chau A , author Reinhardt C , author Izidoro A , author Stadel J and author Helled R ( year 2021 ), month Apr. title Could Uranus and Neptune form by collisions of planetary embryos? journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society volume 502 ( number 2 ): pages 1647--1660 . doi doi:10.1093/mnras/staa4021 . 2009.10100 . Article

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    title The magnetic field of Uranus

    author Connerney JEP , author Acuna MH and author Ness NF ( year 1987 ), month Dec. title The magnetic field of Uranus . journal Journal of Geophysics Research volume 92 ( number A13 ): pages 15329--15336 . doi doi:10.1029/JA092iA13p15329 . Article

    doi:10.1029/ja092ia13p15329 1987

  5. [5]

    title The magnetic field of Neptune

    author Connerney JEP , author Acuna MH and author Ness NF ( year 1991 ), month Oct. title The magnetic field of Neptune . journal Journal of Geophysics Research volume 96 : pages 19023--19042 . doi doi:10.1029/91JA01165 . Article

    doi:10.1029/91ja01165 1991

  6. [6]

    title The linear mixing approximation in silica–water mixtures at planetary conditions

    author Darafeyeu V , author Rimle S , author Mazzola G and author Helled R ( year 2024 ), month nov . title The linear mixing approximation in silica–water mixtures at planetary conditions . journal The Astrophysical Journal volume 975 ( number 2 ): pages 255 . doi doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e29 . url https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e29 . Article

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e29 2024

  7. [7]

    Can Uranus and Neptune form concurrently via pebble, gas and planetesimal accretion?

    author Eriksson LEJ , author Mol Lous MAS , author Shibata S and author Helled R ( year 2023 ), month Dec. title Can Uranus and Neptune form concurrently via pebble, gas, and planetesimal accretion? journal volume 526 ( number 4 ): pages 4860--4876 . doi doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3007 . 2310.00075 . Article

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    title Neptune's stratospheric winds from three central flash occultations

    author French RG , author McGhee CA and author Sicardy B ( year 1998 ). title Neptune's stratospheric winds from three central flash occultations . journal Icarus volume 136 ( number 1 ): pages 27 -- 49 . ISSN issn 0019-1035 . doi doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1998.6001 . url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103598960018 . Article

    arXiv 1998

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    title Planet Formation by Coagulation: A Focus on Uranus and Neptune

    author Goldreich P , author Lithwick Y and author Sari R ( year 2004 ), month Sep. title Planet Formation by Coagulation: A Focus on Uranus and Neptune . journal Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics volume 42 ( number 1 ): pages 549--601 . doi doi:10.1146/annurev.astro....

    2004

  2. [10]

    title The mass of gas giant planets: Is Saturn a failed gas giant? journal volume 675 , eid L8

    author Helled R ( year 2023 ), month Jul. title The mass of gas giant planets: Is Saturn a failed gas giant? journal volume 675 , eid L8 . doi doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346850 . 2306.14740 . Article

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    title The interiors of Uranus and Neptune: current understanding and open questions

    author Helled R and author Fortney JJ ( year 2020 ), month Dec. title The interiors of Uranus and Neptune: current understanding and open questions . journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A volume 378 ( number 2187 ), eid 20190474 . doi doi:1...

    2020

  4. [12]

    title Giant planet interiors and atmospheres

    author Helled R and author Howard S ( year 2024 ), month Jul. title Giant planet interiors and atmospheres . journal arXiv e-prints , eid arXiv:2407.05853 doi doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.05853 . 2407.05853 . Article

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    title The Fuzziness of Giant Planets Cores

    author Helled R and author Stevenson D ( year 2017 ), month May . title The Fuzziness of Giant Planets Cores . journal volume 840 ( number 1 ), eid L4 . doi doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa6d08 . 1704.01299 . Article

    2017 arXiv

  6. [15]

    title Uranus and Neptune: Shape and rotation

    author Helled R , author Anderson JD and author Schubert G ( year 2010 b ), month Nov. title Uranus and Neptune: Shape and rotation . journal volume 210 ( number 1 ): pages 446--454 . doi doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.06.037 . 1006.3840 . Article

    2010 arXiv

  7. [16]

    title Interior Models of Uranus and Neptune

    author Helled R , author Anderson JD , author Podolak M and author Schubert G ( year 2011 ), month Jan. title Interior Models of Uranus and Neptune . journal volume 726 ( number 1 ), eid 15 . doi doi:10.1088/0004-637X/726/1/15 . 1010.5546 . Article

    2011 arXiv

  8. [17]

    title Uranus and Neptune: Origin, Evolution and Internal Structure

    author Helled R , author Nettelmann N and author Guillot T ( year 2020 ), month Mar. title Uranus and Neptune: Origin, Evolution and Internal Structure . journal volume 216 ( number 3 ), eid 38 . doi doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00660-3 . 1909.04891 . Article

    2020 arXiv

  9. [18]

    title The magnetic fields of uranus and neptune: Methods and models

    author Holme R and author Bloxham J ( year 1996 ). title The magnetic fields of uranus and neptune: Methods and models . journal Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets volume 101 ( number E1 ): pages 2177--2200 . doi doi:10.1029/95JE03437 . https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wile...

    1996 doi

  10. [19]

    title Convective storms and atmospheric vertical structure in Uranus and Neptune

    author Hueso R , author Guillot T and author S \'a nchez-Lavega A ( year 2020 ), month Dec. title Convective storms and atmospheric vertical structure in Uranus and Neptune . journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A volume 378 ( number 2187 ),...

    2020

  11. [20]

    title Accretion of Uranus and Neptune from inward-migrating planetary embryos blocked by Jupiter and Saturn

    author Izidoro A , author Morbidelli A , author Raymond SN , author Hersant F and author Pierens A ( year 2015 ), month Oct. title Accretion of Uranus and Neptune from inward-migrating planetary embryos blocked by Jupiter and Saturn . journal Astronomy and Astrophysics volume ...

    2015 arXiv

  12. [21]

    title Atmospheric confinement of jet streams on Uranus and Neptune

    author Kaspi Y , author Showman AP , author Hubbard WB , author Aharonson O and author Helled R ( year 2013 ), month May . title Atmospheric confinement of jet streams on Uranus and Neptune . journal Nature Astronomy Letters volume 497 ( number 7449 ): pages 344--347 . doi doi...

    2013 doi

  13. [22]

    title Consequences of Giant Impacts on Early Uranus for Rotation, Internal Structure, Debris, and Atmospheric Erosion

    author Kegerreis JA , author Teodoro LFA , author Eke VR , author Massey RJ , author Catling DC , author Fryer CL , author Korycansky DG , author Warren MS and author Zahnle KJ ( year 2018 ), month Jul. title Consequences of Giant Impacts on Early Uranus for Rotation, Internal...

    2018 arXiv

  14. [23]

    title Miscibility of rock and ice in the interiors of water worlds

    author Kova c evi \'c T , author Gonz \'a lez-Cataldo F , author Stewart ST and author Militzer B ( year 2022 ), month Jul. title Miscibility of rock and ice in the interiors of water worlds . journal Scientific Reports volume 12 , eid 13055 . doi doi:10.1038/s41598-022-16816-...

    2022 doi

  15. [24]

    title Forming the cores of giant planets from the radial pebble flux in protoplanetary discs

    author Lambrechts M and author Johansen A ( year 2014 ), month Dec. title Forming the cores of giant planets from the radial pebble flux in protoplanetary discs . journal volume 572 , eid A107 . doi doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424343 . 1408.6094 . Article

    2014 arXiv

  16. [25]

    title Uranus and Neptune as methane planets: Producing icy giants from refractory planetesimals

    author Malamud U , author Podolak M , author Podolak JI and author Bodenheimer PH ( year 2024 ), month Oct. title Uranus and Neptune as methane planets: Producing icy giants from refractory planetesimals . journal volume 421 , eid 116217 . doi doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116217 ...

    2024

  17. [26]

    title Monte Carlo interior models for Uranus and Neptune

    author Marley MS , author G \'o mez P and author Podolak M ( year 1995 ), month Nov. title Monte Carlo interior models for Uranus and Neptune . journal volume 100 ( number E11 ): pages 23349--23354 . doi doi:10.1029/95JE02362 . Article

    1995 doi

  18. [27]

    title A More Viscous-Like Solar Wind Interaction With All the Giant Planets

    author Masters A ( year 2018 ), month Aug. title A More Viscous-Like Solar Wind Interaction With All the Giant Planets . journal volume 45 ( number 15 ): pages 7320--7329 . doi doi:10.1029/2018GL078416 . Article

    2018 doi

  19. [28]

    title The interior of Uranus: Thermal profile, bulk composition, and the distribution of rock, water, and hydrogen and helium

    author Morf L , author M \"u ller S and author Helled R ( year 2024 ), month Oct. title The interior of Uranus: Thermal profile, bulk composition, and the distribution of rock, water, and hydrogen and helium . journal volume 690 , eid A105 . doi doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450698...

    2024

  20. [29]

    title The Promise and Limitations of Precision Gravity: Application to the Interior Structure of Uranus and Neptune

    author Movshovitz N and author Fortney J ( year 2022 ). title The Promise and Limitations of Precision Gravity: Application to the Interior Structure of Uranus and Neptune . journal PSJ volume 3 : pages 88 . Book

    2022

  21. [30]

    title Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032 , publisher The National Academies Press

    author National Research Council ( year 2022 ). title Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032 , publisher The National Academies Press . doi doi:10.17226/26522 . Article

    2022 doi

  22. [31]

    title New indication for a dichotomy in the interior structure of Uranus and Neptune from the application of modified shape and rotation data

    author Nettelmann N , author Helled R , author Fortney JJ and author Redmer R ( year 2013 ), month Mar. title New indication for a dichotomy in the interior structure of Uranus and Neptune from the application of modified shape and rotation data . journal volume 77 : pages 143...

    2013 arXiv

  23. [32]

    title Empirical structure models of Uranus and Neptune

    author Neuenschwander BA and author Helled R ( year 2022 ), month May . title Empirical structure models of Uranus and Neptune . journal volume 512 ( number 3 ): pages 3124--3136 . doi doi:10.1093/mnras/stac628 . 2203.02233 . Article

    2022 arXiv

  24. [33]

    title Uranus' Complex Internal Structure

    author Neuenschwander BA , author M \"u ller S and author Helled R ( year 2024 ), month Jan. title Uranus' Complex Internal Structure . journal arXiv e-prints , eid arXiv:2401.11769 doi doi:10.48550/arXiv.2401.11769 . 2401.11769 . Article

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [34]

    title What Do We Really Know about Uranus and Neptune? journal volume 759 ( number 2 ), eid L32

    author Podolak M and author Helled R ( year 2012 ), month Nov. title What Do We Really Know about Uranus and Neptune? journal volume 759 ( number 2 ), eid L32 . doi doi:10.1088/2041-8205/759/2/L32 . 1208.5551 . Article

    2012 arXiv

  26. [35]

    title Comparative models of Uranus and Neptune

    author Podolak M , author Weizman A and author Marley M ( year 1995 ), month Dec. title Comparative models of Uranus and Neptune . journal volume 43 ( number 12 ): pages 1517--1522 . doi doi:10.1016/0032-0633(95)00061-5 . Article

    1995 doi

  27. [36]

    title Formation of the Giant Planets by Concurrent Accretion of Solids and Gas

    author Pollack JB , author Hubickyj O , author Bodenheimer P , author Lissauer JJ , author Podolak M and author Greenzweig Y ( year 1996 ), month Nov. title Formation of the Giant Planets by Concurrent Accretion of Solids and Gas . journal volume 124 ( number 1 ): pages 62--85...

    1996

  28. [37]

    title The phase diagram of water and the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune

    author Redmer R , author Mattsson TR , author Nettelmann N and author French M ( year 2011 ), month Jan. title The phase diagram of water and the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune . journal volume 211 ( number 1 ): pages 798--803 . doi doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.08.008 . Article

    2011 doi

  29. [38]

    title Bifurcation in the history of Uranus and Neptune: the role of giant impacts

    author Reinhardt C , author Chau A , author Stadel J and author Helled R ( year 2020 ), month Mar. title Bifurcation in the history of Uranus and Neptune: the role of giant impacts . journal volume 492 ( number 4 ): pages 5336--5353 . doi doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3271 . 1907.09809...

    2020 arXiv

  30. [39]

    title Models of Uranus and Neptune

    author Reynolds RT and author Summers AL ( year 1965 ), month Jan. title Models of Uranus and Neptune . journal volume 70 ( number 1 ): pages 199--208 . doi doi:10.1029/JZ070i001p00199 . Article

    1965 doi

  31. [41]

    title Tilting Uranus via the migration of an ancient satellite

    author Saillenfest M , author Rogoszinski Z , author Lari G , author Bailli \'e K , author Bou \'e G , author Crida A and author Lainey V ( year 2022 ), month Dec. title Tilting Uranus via the migration of an ancient satellite . journal volume 668 , eid A108 . doi doi:10.1051/...

    2022 arXiv

  32. [42]

    title Thermal evolution of Uranus and Neptune

    author Scheibe L , author Nettelmann N and author Redmer R ( year 2021 ), month Jun. title Thermal evolution of Uranus and Neptune. II. Deep thermal boundary layer . journal volume 650 , eid A200 . doi doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140663 . 2105.01359 . Article

    2021 arXiv

  33. [43]

    title The underexplored frontier of ice giant dynamos

    author Soderlund KM and author Stanley S ( year 2020 ). title The underexplored frontier of ice giant dynamos . journal Earth and Space Science Open Archive : pages 17 doi doi:10.1002/essoar.10503671.1 . Article

    2020 doi

  34. [44]

    title Constraining the depth of the winds on Uranus and Neptune via Ohmic dissipation

    author Soyuer D , author Soubiran F and author Helled R ( year 2020 ), month Aug. title Constraining the depth of the winds on Uranus and Neptune via Ohmic dissipation . journal MNRAS volume 498 ( number 1 ): pages 621--638 . doi doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2461 . 2008.05291 . Article

    2020 arXiv

  35. [45]

    title Zonal Winds of Uranus and Neptune: Gravitational Harmonics, Dynamic Self-gravity, Shape, and Rotation

    author Soyuer D , author Neuenschwander B and author Helled R ( year 2023 ), month Jan. title Zonal Winds of Uranus and Neptune: Gravitational Harmonics, Dynamic Self-gravity, Shape, and Rotation . journal Astronomical Journal volume 165 ( number 1 ), eid 27 . doi doi:10.3847/...

    2023 arXiv

  36. [46]

    title Dynamics of cloud features on uranus

    author Sromovsky L and author Fry P ( year 2005 ). title Dynamics of cloud features on uranus . journal Icarus volume 179 ( number 2 ): pages 459 -- 484 . ISSN issn 0019-1035 . doi doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2005.07.022 . url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

    2005 doi

  37. [47]

    title Thermal and Tidal Evolution of Uranus with a Growing Frozen Core

    author Stixrude L , author Baroni S and author Grasselli F ( year 2021 ), month Dec. title Thermal and Tidal Evolution of Uranus with a Growing Frozen Core . journal volume 2 ( number 6 ), eid 222 . doi doi:10.3847/PSJ/ac2a47 . Article

    2021 doi

  38. [48]

    title Neptune and Uranus: ice or rock giants? journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A volume 378 ( number 2187 ), eid 20190489

    author Teanby NA , author Irwin PGJ , author Moses JI and author Helled R ( year 2020 ), month Dec. title Neptune and Uranus: ice or rock giants? journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A volume 378 ( number 2187 ), eid 20190489 . doi doi:10.10...

    2020

  39. [49]

    author Tian Y ( year 2015 ), title Planetary dynamos: Magnetic constraints on the interior structure and evolution of a planet , url https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:123751568 . Article

    2015

  40. [50]

    title Origin of the orbital architecture of the giant planets of the Solar System

    author Tsiganis K , author Gomes R , author Morbidelli A and author Levison HF ( year 2005 ), month May . title Origin of the orbital architecture of the giant planets of the Solar System . journal volume 435 ( number 7041 ): pages 459--461 . doi doi:10.1038/nature03539 . Article

    2005 doi

  41. [51]

    title Possible In Situ Formation of Uranus and Neptune via Pebble Accretion

    author Valletta C and author Helled R ( year 2022 ), month May . title Possible In Situ Formation of Uranus and Neptune via Pebble Accretion . journal volume 931 ( number 1 ), eid 21 . doi doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f52 . 2203.06545 . Article

    2022 arXiv

  42. [52]

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

    author Vazan A and author Helled R ( year 2020 ), month Jan. title Explaining the low luminosity of Uranus: a self-consistent thermal and structural evolution . journal volume 633 , eid A50 . doi doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936588 . 1908.10682 . Article

    2020 arXiv

  43. [53]

    ice giants

    author Zlimen E , author Bailey E and author Murray-Clay R ( year 2024 ), month Aug. title Extensive Pollution of Uranus and Neptune's Atmospheres by Upsweep of Icy Material during the Nice Model Migration . journal volume 168 ( number 2 ), eid 64 . doi doi:10.3847/1538-3881/a...

    2024 arXiv

  44. [54]

    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 gl...

    1998 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.