Live data from Hacker News

Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

phys.org

41–50 of 78 posts

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#41

I've always wondered about the core of these gas giants. I assume it is some liquid form of light elements. What is puzzling is the presence of the gas giants in the middle of solar system's planetary line up: why are they in the middle and the ones closer or further away from the central star are not like them? Is it the temperature gradient?

In an Arthur C Clarke story (I forget which one) the core of jupiter is a planet sized diamond.

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#42

    > Because Amalthea and Thebe have slightly tilted orbits, Batygin and Adams analyzed these small orbital discrepancies to calculate Jupiter's original size…
This seems like a non-sequitur. What do tilted orbits have to do with size?

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#43
post #14
post #10

How is the size defined for a gas planet? The gas density just keeps dropping, where do you draw the line (isosurface, rather)? Earth's radius is always the one without earth's atmosphere.

It's a matter of definitions, so we skip them and just choose something that makes sense to humans.

The most important thing about definitions is that we apply them consistently. A different definition might give different answers, but it's fine as long as it does so uniformly.

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#44

I've always wondered about the core of these gas giants. I assume it is some liquid form of light elements. What is puzzling is the presence of the gas giants in the middle of solar system's planetary line up: why are they in the middle and the ones closer or further away from the central star are not like them? Is it the temperature gradient?

In an Arthur C Clarke story (I forget which one) the core of jupiter is a planet sized diamond.

Space Odyssey one of the sequels.

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#45
post #21
post #10

How is the size defined for a gas planet? The gas density just keeps dropping, where do you draw the line (isosurface, rather)? Earth's radius is always the one without earth's atmosphere.

The density falls off pretty steeply at the “edge”, so the exact definition only makes little difference for the radius: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Density-vs-radius-for-a-...

This is because of Newtonian gravity being inversely proportional to the square of the radius, right?

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#46

I've always wondered about the core of these gas giants. I assume it is some liquid form of light elements. What is puzzling is the presence of the gas giants in the middle of solar system's planetary line up: why are they in the middle and the ones closer or further away from the central star are not like them? Is it the temperature gradient?

The core of Jupiter is thought to contain metallic hydrogen .

Found this on the wiki for metalic hydrogen. Apprently there is a liquid phase as well. Apparently there is debate as to whether there is a solid core besides the hydrogen (thought shown in the pic):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Jupiter_...

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#47
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the interior of the planet, the atmosphere is overwhelmingly hydrogen and helium. And helium is liquid even at 0 temperature unless under pressure, so presumably (?) would be liquid on the surface. These materials are mechanically very different than the silcates and metals dominating the Earth’s crust, and I don’t think we even have well measured bulk properties? Not sure what erosion processes would look like.

That's wild to think about. My mind is struggling to picture 'liquids on the surface' of Jupiter. No idea what that would look like.

I am deeply looking forward to the dragonfly mission to Titan, since we'll finally get high-resolution color images from the surface, which has liquid seas of hydrocarbons like methane and ethane at -290 F.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(Titan_space_probe)

The single image from the surface by the Huygens probe leaves a lot to be desired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)#/media/File:Huyge...

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#48

I am deeply skeptical of any "research" that concludes something in the past. The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, and replication, but these aren't possible with past events, so we can't directly test or falsify historical claims. Instead, researchers infer conclusions based on indirect evidence like documents, artifacts, or statistical patterns—often without being able to isolate variables…

So I guess you’re skeptical about continental drift theory and universal common descent ?

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#49
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The density falls off pretty steeply at the “edge”, so the exact definition only makes little difference for the radius: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Density-vs-radius-for-a-...

This is because of Newtonian gravity being inversely proportional to the square of the radius, right?

Gravity changes little over that distance - it's more because of the compounding effect of atmospheric pressure (the deeper you go, the more air you have above you which raises the pressure, raising the density and meaning that pressure increases exponentially faster).

Re: Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

#50

I am deeply skeptical of any "research" that concludes something in the past. The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, and replication, but these aren't possible with past events, so we can't directly test or falsify historical claims. Instead, researchers infer conclusions based on indirect evidence like documents, artifacts, or statistical patterns—often without being able to isolate variables…

This is how young earth type misunderstandings begin. Thanks for bringing us inside the mind.

parent commenter invokes Popperian epistemology. Your comment aligns Popper with flat-earth thinking. One of you is engaging in pseudoscience.
Post reply on HN