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

TL;DR

This study revises the internal structure models of Uranus and Neptune using improved gravity, shape, and rotation data, revealing significant differences in their composition and moments of inertia, with implications for their thermal evolution.

Contribution

It introduces a comprehensive modeling approach incorporating modified shape and rotation data, highlighting notable differences in internal structure parameters of Uranus and Neptune.

Findings

Uranus has a lower atmospheric heavy element fraction (Z1<8%) compared to Neptune (Z1<65%).

Modified data suggest different moments of inertia for Uranus and Neptune.

Neptune's luminosity can be explained by an adiabatic interior, unlike Uranus.

Abstract

Since the Voyager fly-bys of Uranus and Neptune, improved gravity field data have been derived from long-term observations of the planets' satellite motions, and modified shape and solid-body rotation periods were suggested. A faster rotation period (-40 min) for Uranus and a slower rotation period (+1h20) of Neptune compared to the Voyager data were found to minimize the dynamical heights and wind speeds. We apply the improved gravity data, the modified shape and rotation data, and the physical LM-R equation of state to compute adiabatic three-layer structure models, where rocks are confined to the core, and homogeneous thermal evolution models of Uranus and Neptune. We present the full range of structure models for both the Voyager and the modified shape and rotation data. In contrast to previous studies based solely on the Voyager data or on empirical EOS, we find that Uranus and Neptune may differ to an observationally significant level in their atmospheric heavy element mass fraction Z1 and nondimensional moment of inertia, nI. For Uranus, we find Z1 < 8% and nI=0.2224(1), while for Neptune Z1 < 65% and nI=0.2555(2) when applying the modified shape and rotation data, while for the unmodified data we compute Z1 < 17% and nI=0.230(1) for Uranus and Z1 < 54% and nI=0.2410(8) for Neptune. In each of these cases, solar metallicity models (Z1=0.015) are still possible. The cooling times obtained for each planet are similar to recent calculations with the Voyager rotation periods: Neptune's luminosity can be explained by assuming an adiabatic interior while Uranus cools far too slowly. More accurate determinations of these planets' gravity fields, shapes, rotation periods, atmospheric heavy element abundances, and intrinsic luminosities are essential for improving our understanding of the internal structure and evolution of icy planets.