From the description it seems like this is an artificial projection onto a sphere, with added depth effect. Now to be clear, I don't want to say that this makes it "fake" - the input data is still real. The curvature of the planet and the depth is likely to be exaggerated compared to reality though (at least I'll assume it is until proven otherwise).
I assume that you mean a photo as-taken from the camera? No, it's modified. But not in a way that is intended to mislead, or should be labeled as "fake" in my opinion.
You can compare it to when you zoom in far enough on Google Maps to reveal the 3D map: most of those 3D models are based on 2D satellite images taken from multiple angles, combined with height information extracted from those angles through machine learning. So the original images are flat, but the 3D projection of them is still more-or-less representative of the real shapes in our world.
To me, that post and going through each step like the OP did with the timeline was scary as fuck. Imagine sitting in that space suit, 25 minutes into the fall, completely dark, you're getting hotter and you are now SWIMMING in nitrogen. Holy fuck that is horrific.
It's one of the things I love most about it. You always have to keep an open mind that any part of your hypothesis can be wrong. Even the smartest scientists are wrong all the time, and the best scientists understand this. That's why I tend to distrust the arrogant scientists.
Someone did a rendering of a probe going into the atmosphere on some Science/Discovery space show and it was astonishingly brutal. Obviously all interpretation, but the probe descended into progressively more violent layers of hell with an acid rain storm and insane winds at the “bottom” where it kinda just disintegrates.
Meteors burn up in the atmospheres of planets. The heat is USUALLY taught/understood to be created by friction between the gases in the atmosphere and the surface of the meteor. In actuality, most of the heat is created by the compression of the gas. As the meteor streaks into the atmosphere, it creates a “bow shock” of compressed gas that heats up to the point where the rock in the meteor vaporizes!
I would think it would have a somewhat rocky core, if for no other reason than all the comets, asteroids, and debris it’s pulled in from the solar system, no?
(not an expert in any way) If anything survived the entry burn would eventually pass into the region about 1/4 of the way in, which happens to be where we would experience nuetral boyancy, but which is also about 5000k. This is above the boiling point (gas transition) of all common elements in comets and asteroids (only a handful of the periodic table nudges over this). So essentially everything is turning to gas in here. What happens as it sink lower- does it cool and coalesce?- I do not know.
I always assumed that something as massive as Jupiter (despite its low density) would be heavy enough that its gravity would crush whatever is at its core into a solid. Is that not the case? Is it possible for some gas to be that heavily condensed and still be gaseous?
An interesting thought about at what temperature(s) matter, even under heavy pressure, becomes a molten superfluid (or something) rather than being compressed into a solid.
Metals are characterized by free movement of electrons throughout the substance. That is why metals conduct. Hydrogen is also in group 1 of the periodic table due to a single unpaired electron but on Earth, shares little with the other metals in that column such as sodium.
Hydrogen is also in group 1 of the periodic table due to a single unpaired electron but on Earth, shares little with the other metals in that column such as sodium.
Under 2 million atmospheres of pressure, a mass of hydrogen will become degenerate matter, packing in electrons so tight that violation of the Pauli exclusion principle starts coming into play. As more mass is added and pressure increases, the electrons are forced to move further and further out in velocity space to avoid overlapping in physical space.
The result is a cloud of electron "gas" moving freely through a solid crystal matrix of hydrogen nuclei (bare protons, really). That's exactly the same structure as any other metal, and matches what we've created in the lab with diamond anvil experiments - under extreme pressures, we see hydrogen transition to a grey and lustrous material that's a good conductor of heat and electricity.
As I said...on Earth it shares little with anything else. And so far as I know, has not been generated, and is all based on theory. I mean, I have a doctorate in analytical chemistry, so my inorganic and physical chemistry knowledge is not extremely deep. But the few very general statements have I made are correct so far as I know.
Metals characterized by non localized electrons.
Hydrogen is in group 1.
Has a single unpaired electron.
Shares little with other group 1 metals.
I took it as understood that if metallic hydrogen has non-localized electrons, then you have a bunch of bare protons. That is why it behaves in ways similar to a metal.
Cool, I have a doctorate in astrophysics, specializing in giant planet atmospheres. We are very, very closely watching the lab work on metallic hydrogen come out, as we're fairly sure literally no other substance can fit all the Jupiter observations, notably density and magnetic field shape. For example, Jupiter's strong quadrapole moment and toroidal component of its magnetic field help us constrain the upper and lower depth of the dynamo annulus. Probably more than a coincidence it seems to starts somewhere around the million-atmosphere level, extending down to the edge of the rocky core. All our equations-of-state tell us hydrogen should be a liquid metal in that range.
And so far as I know, has not been generated, and is all based on theory.
Researchers have been making metallic hydrogen in the lab for over 20 years now, usually creating it for a split-second with some kind of shocked implosion, though diamond anvils are now approaching the necessary pressure range. Citations start with Weir, et al (1996), conductivities were measured by Ternovoi, et al (1999), deuterium was made metallic by Celliers, et al (2000), claims of atomic metallic hydrogen were made by Badiei, Holmlid (2004), and so on.
on Earth it shares little with anything else.
Sure, lots of substances are like that at high-pressure. Water at STP is a liquid; keep it room temperature but increase the pressure to 10,000 bar and it becomes an ice. Keep adding pressure and you get superionic water, a metalloid slush. Keep going and eventually it dissociates, oxygen becomes a red crystal, until eventually it too turns metallic.
Shares little with other group 1 metals.
Right, I think this is our point of contention, and probably due to the difference in our fields: chemistry defines metals as specific groups on the periodic table. Physics defines metals as solid / liquid materials with an imaginary index of refraction and a negative permittivity, usually due to an electron gas, though other diffuse ions can work (e.g. superionic water as the dynamo source for Uranus and Neptune).
To be clear, I'm in no way saying that high-pressure hydrogen is a metal because it's in the same group with the alkalis. Again, at even higher pressures, oxygen becomes a metal...and eventually so would every other element as it goes electron-degenerate. At that point the only phases available are either metallic (cold enough that the crystal hasn't vaporized) or plasma (hot enough that it has).
it behaves in ways similar to a metal.
Yeah, I guess that's my point. From a physics standpoint, metallic hydrogen is not similar to a metal, it is a metal by any measure. Just because it doesn't behave like a metal at STP doesn't make it any less of a "true metal" at high pressure.
"Metals are characterized by free movement of electrons throughout the substance. That is why metals conduct. Hydrogen is also in group 1 of the periodic table due to a single unpaired electron but on Earth, shares little with the other metals in that column such as sodium."
Can you please explain what about this is a problem exactly? Also, I am not disputing the existence of metallic hydrogen, I just said it hadn't been observed to my knowledge, which I admit, is limited in the realm of physics, and certainly astrophysics. I also would be very surprised to find things like superionic water and red crystal oxygen occurring on Earth, outside of a lab, and for brief moments.
I have no idea what got panties in a wad about my original post, or second for that matter but its all literally first semester gen chem. So I guess kudos, you have informed me that we can make it for brief instants in a lab. Now I remember why a post I saw on the front page makes sense.
"Don't waste time arguing with strangers on Reddit."
And then find that the rocky core is made of millions of other interplanetary tourists that got there before you, and yes, there’s a beer can littering the rest area lot and that one RV we’re all afraid to go near
I really wonder what it looks like going 'in', is it like sinking into a dense fog that slowly turns absolutely dark or will you see the core eventually?
According to u/SupermAndrew1's post, you would not. I won't spoil it entirely, but eventually you find a sort of equilibrium, and stay bobbing at that level.
Obviously it gets dark... Sorry but how are you confused about that? It's hundreds of thousands of kilometers of dense "fog". You wouldn't have to go that deep in to be in complete darkness.
It has to somewhere. It's been swallowing millions of asteroids for billions of years. All that rock and metal is in there...unless it all just completely vaporizes in it's atmosphere and turns into dust that swirls around in the thousand km/hr winds until it's basically atomized.
But what happens when it atomizes, wouldn't the heavy elements eventually, after millions of years, sink to the core? Or would the radiation keep them afloat?
Definitely beyond my knowledge here for sure but I'd have to imagine that at those wind speeds, that atmospheric density and that temperature... atomized heavy elements could easily just stay afloat forever.
I was juuuust about to internally scoff that someone didn’t know that, but again remembered that I complained loudly in front of my family on the 24th of December that Santa had ONCE AGAIN started in the Far East with his present delivery on the NORAD Santa tracker.
What, are we not good enough for you here in the west to start your present deliveries here?
286
u/[deleted] Dec 29 '20 edited Feb 12 '21
[deleted]