The Influence of a Fluid Core and a Solid Inner Core on the Cassini State of Mercury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a model of the Cassini state of Mercury that comprises an inner core, a fluid core, and a mantle. Our model includes inertial and gravitational torques between interior regions, and viscous and electromagnetic (EM) coupling at the boundaries of the fluid core. We show that the coupling between Mercury's interior regions is sufficiently strong that the obliquity of the mantle spin axis deviates from that of a rigid planet by no more than 0.01 arcmin. The mantle obliquity decreases with increasing inner core size, but the change between a large and no inner core is limited to 0.015 arcmin. EM coupling is stronger than viscous coupling at the inner core boundary and, if the core magnetic field strength is above 0.3 mT, locks the fluid and solid cores into a common precession motion. Because of the strong gravitational coupling between the mantle and inner core, the larger the inner core is, the more this coprecessing core is brought into an alignment with the mantle, and the more the obliquity of the polar moment of inertia approaches that expected for a rigid planet. The misalignment between the polar moment of inertia and mantle spin axis increases with inner core size, but is limited to 0.007 arcmin. Our results imply that the measured obliquities of the mantle spin axis and polar moment of inertia should coincide at the present‐day level of measurement errors, and cannot be distinguished from the obliquity of a rigid planet.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".