Origin of Tidal Dissipation in Jupiter. II. The Value of<i>Q</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of tidal dissipation inside Jupiter is not yet understood. Its tidal quality factor ( Q ) is inferred to lie between 10 5 and 10 6 . Having studied the structure and properties of inertial modes in a neutrally buoyant, coreless, uniformly rotating sphere in a companion paper, we examine here their effects on tidal dissipation. The rate of dissipation caused by resonantly excited inertial modes depends on the following three parameters: how well they are coupled to the tidal potential, how strongly they are dissipated (by the turbulent viscosity), and how densely distributed they are in frequency. We find that as a function of tidal frequency, the Q -value exhibits large fluctuations, with its maximum value set by the group of inertial modes that satisfy δω ~ γ, where δω is the group's typical offset from an exact resonance and γ are the modes' turbulent damping rates. These are intermediate-order inertial modes with wavenumber λ ~ 60, and they are excited to a small surface displacement amplitude of order 10 3 cm. The Q -value drops much below the maximum value whenever a lower order mode happens to be in resonance. In our model, inertial modes shed their tidally acquired energy very close to the surface within a narrow latitudinal zone (the "singularity belt"), and the tidal luminosity escapes freely out of the planet. The strength of coupling between the tidal potential and inertial modes is sensitive to the presence of density discontinuities inside Jupiter. In the case of a discreet density jump, as may be caused by the transition between metallic and molecular hydrogen, we find a time-averaged Q ~ 10 7 , with a small but nonnegligible chance (~10%) that the current Q -value falls within the empirically determined range. But when such a jump does not exist, Q ~ 10 9 . Even though it remains unclear whether tidal dissipation due to resonant inertial modes is the correct answer to the problem, it is impressive that even our simple treatment taking planetary rotation into account already leads to a 3-5 orders of magnitude stronger damping than when rotation is ignored. Moreover, our conclusions are not affected by the presence of a small solid core, a different prescription for the turbulent viscosity, or nonlinear mode coupling, but they depend critically on the static stability in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter. This is currently uncertain. Lastly, we compare our results with those from a competing work by Ogilvie & Lin and discuss the prospect of extending this theory to exo-Jupiters, which appear to possess Q -values similar to that of Jupiter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".