It has such a massive hydrogen atmosphere that the temperatures and pressures turn it into a metallic plasma below a certain depth (in literature referred to as the "Plasma Phase Transition"), and that plasma dissolved/ate the planet.
This metallic hydrogen plasma is basically indistinguishable from that found in stars. In fact, Jupiter is a Y-class brown dwarf star because of this morphology.
This doesn't seem to be the case, at least according to the brown dwarf wikipedia page which seems to use Jupiter as the yardstick for what isn't a brown dwarf.
Not by my ctrl-f "Jupiter" on that page.
Jupiter is, however, the top of the list on wikipedia's page for Y-type brown dwarfs.
So you're saying that the solar system actually only has seven planets?
That's a fuzzy number based on perspective.
Geologists usually argue for a morphology-based definition of planet over the current IAU dynamics-based one. The definitions that I'm presenting are an extension of the geological/morphological framing. This reflects my background as a planetary scientist vs an astrophysicist.
Dynamicists and astrophysicists still tend to prefer the existing definitions. They are concerned about angular momentum budgets, orbital dynamics, and interstellar consequences. To them, Jupiter isn't a star because it isn't hot enough to impact interstellar space and it isn't massive enough to cause the sun to do much more than wobble. On a galactic scale, Jupiter doesn't matter compared to the sun. To them, Pluto isn't a planet because it's too tiny and part of a larger debris cloud that damps its dynamical influence on the solar system. They are concerned with bigger things, and prefer to downgrade classifications to justify neglecting the influences of smaller bodies to make their math easier and less compute intensive. I want to be clear that this is still a valid and justifiable approach.
Geologists tend to prefer classifying objects based on what they are on the inside. Astrophysicists tend to prefer classifying objects based on their interactions in a larger system. As a result, geologists still usually refer to Pluto as a planet, and astrophysicists still usually refer to Jupiter as a planet.
"How many planets are in the solar system" is a question with a subjective answer based on your perspective, the story you're trying to tell, and the problem you are trying to solve.
So there is a solid-ish core it's just liquid plasma?
For all my youth I fantasized about what is under Jupiter's clouds and always imagined it was a very dense metal.
Ah article answered me in another thread. This is what they wrote:
It's more of a diffuse sludgeball of a core getting dissolved within the plasma. See figure 2 in this paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/PSJ/ac7ec8
These are current best fit models to the data which are still coming in from Juno. This new paradigm is our best understanding yet, but like anything in science, is capable of being overturned by later experiments and new data.
There is a lot more that we don't know about Jupiter than we do know.
I've heard a theory that there's solid metallic hydrogen at the core from the absolutely immense pressure, but it hasn't been confirmed.
did you know that cashews come from a fruit
TIL gymnosperms are a thing.
Massive, passive ball
Or-Or-Orbital
So what would happen if you fell
ded
