Do you think Jovian gas planets can have solid cores?
It makes sense to me, they get hit with all sorts of asteroids and other solid bullshit. Unless all of that stuff gets dissolved in the atmosphere and floats around as dust forever, there should be a solid surface somewhere down there, right?
Ive often wondered that myself
Idk op
I think you might recognize the outer "solid" layers as a liquid under the gas, but beyond that the matter will be forced into weird exotic stuff that doesn't really conform to our neat tidy definitions.
>>7965087
Well, according to Arthur C. Clarke in Odyssey Three there's a diamond at the core of Jupiter. He also referred to a Nature article there.
So yes.
The real answer is that nobody knows but it's highly likely that the cores of gas giants are either solid or some highly compressed exotic material as >>7965131 suggest.
>>7965138
rocks getting stuck in the core of jovian worlds sounds cool as fuck
It might also be possible for a large enough asteroid to impact the atmosphere, get whirled around inside the planet and get deposited as a much smaller rock on the planet's accretion disk
if you know any cosmologists ask them to look for tiny rocks flying out of Saturn for me
>>7965144
in order for a solid asteroid to impact jupiter without breaking apart from tidal forces, it must satisfy the roche limit equation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit
The equation shows that the distance a body can be before breaking up only depends on its density (in relation to jupiter).
[eqn] d=1.26R_M( \frac{ \rho_M }{ \rho_m } )^{1/3} [/eqn]
So if we set the roche limit to be equal to jupiters radius, this is equivalent to saying that the asteroid can impact Jupiter without breaking apart. If we do this we find that the density of the body would have to be half of the density of jupiter.
Jupiters density is 1.33 g/cm^3. Considering most asteroids have a density of 2 g/cm^3 and most solids in fact have a density greater than 1 g/cm^3, no solid objects actually impact jupiter, they just break apart on their way down. This means that the answer to your question is that they do remain floating around as dust forever.
We also know this is true because we use computer models of Jupiters core to predict seismic activity on Jupiter, and the most accurate predictions come from a model with a molten Hydrogen core.
It's a cool idea but no
>>7965161
i'm not saying the asteroids don't break up, i'm just saying they might not get obliterated if they come almost parallel to the accretion disk and don't get too deep into the atmosphere
kind of like how comets don't hit the sun, but they melt for awhile before fucking off
High mass > High core pressure > Probably fluid metallic core
Just wait for JUNO this year and answers shall be given.
>>7965177
The direction of motion doesn't matter for the roche limit. That being said, I made a mistake in my calculations and the density of an orbiting body would have to be at least twice that of Jupiter (not half) which is totally possible for asteroids. Of course, as you go deeper down into jupiter you'll need a higher and higher density. If you're really interested in this you should play with the equation instead of drawing shitty useless pictures. Plug in a couple of densities for known metals and see how large the core of that material would have to be for it to impact without being destroyed by tidal forces.
As I understand it, it's basically a smooth transition from gas to solid as you go further down, without any well defined surface. Just gas getting denser and denser and denser under the extreme pressures.
>>7965205
>shitty useless pictures
are you that physicist who can just put the cart before the horse and write an equation and then draw it?
because i am not
>>7965218
All I'm saying is that your "picture" of the way this world works is wrong, and that shows in your art. I was suggesting you first play around with the numbers to get a more solid idea of how gravity works before you spend your time drawing something that doesn't even make physical sense. I was trying to insult you, but it was meant to help you see your flaws more than it was meant to hurt your feelings.
>>7965087
They do, but not because of asteroids
When stars form, they start spinning and suck all the shit around them in
The gas goes first, while the rocky shit is further out
Planets can only form further out or they'd just be eaten by the sun
We aren't exactly sure how some rocky planets manage to collect gas and become gas giants, but there are good theories
>>7965161
What evidence supports the idea that objects break apart inside the Roche limits?
I could see an object that resides in the Roche limit for a long time to be broken apart, or maybe objects won't form within that limit. I have a hard time believing an object falling towards Jupiter just breaks into tiny pieces really quickly.
Gas and ice giants start as large rockey planets that gobble up hydrogen/helium when a solar system forms.
Depending on when it was ejected, it is possible Planet Nine is mostly core.
>>7965347
The object in question is held together only by gravitational forces. Since we only need to take gravity into consideration the calculation becomes much simpler. "The idea that objects break apart inside the Roche limit" is literally the definition of the Roche limit. There is no evidence that supports it, what supports it is the math of tidal forces. Objects that are held together by electromagnetic forces will continue to stay together inside the Roche limit, but most asteroids are held together by gravity. It doesn't matter if you have a hard time believing this, because that's really how it works.
>>7965782
I guess my understanding of asteroids is wrong. I thought they were chunks of rock held together by chemical bonds. They're more like collections of rocks held by gravity?
