Talk:Jupiter

Fringe theory inconsistent with modern analysis

The article says:

• Since Jupiter is made of the same elements as the Sun (hydrogen and helium) it has been suggested that the Solar System might have been a system of multiple protostars early in its formation, with Jupiter being the second but failed protostar. But the Solar System never developed into a system of multiple stars and Jupiter does not qualify as a protostar or brown dwarf since it does not have enough mass to fuse.

citing

• Bodenheimer, Peter; D'Angelo, Gennaro; Lissauer, Jack J.; Fortney, Jonathan J.; Saumon, Didier (June 3, 2013). "Deuterium Burning In Massive Giant Planets And Low-mass Brown Dwarfs Formed By Core-nucleated Accretion". The Astrophysical Journal. 770 (2): 120. arXiv:1305.0980. Bibcode:2013ApJ...770..120B. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/120. ISSN 0004-637X.

and

• Drobyshevski, E. M. (1974). "Was Jupiter the protosun's core?". Nature. 250 (5461). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 35–36. Bibcode:1974Natur.250...35D. doi:10.1038/250035a0. ISSN 0028-0836. S2CID 4290185.

The Bodenheimer is not about Jupiter and does not discuss it other than using the mass of Jupiter as unit. The Drobyshevski source is 50 years old and has only 28 citations, almost all by Drobyshevski.

The 2004 review

• Lunine, J. I., Coradini, A., Gautier, D., Owen, T. C., & Wuchterl, G. (2004). The origin of Jupiter. Jupiter. The planet, satellites and magnetosphere, 1, 19-34.

does not mention Drobyshevski or the concept outlined in the text above. On the contrary it says the Jupiter does not have the same elemental composition as the Sun. I will delete this content. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Needs improvement

I read thru the first half of this article and thought it fairly well written - with a few glaring exceptions. I'm gonna mention them and some subjects not (well) discussed. 1.It claims Jupiter has only 80% of Sol's He abundance. It also claims that its elemental composition is much like Sol's. This is a contradiction. The 80% claim is about its (upper) atmosphere and that should be made explicit. 2. The last paragraph on composition is about Saturn and the Ice Giants, should be removed (imho) as it doesn't seem of much relevance. 3. For some reason, the mass of Jupiter is compared to Sol's and H fusion is discussed. There *should* be mention of the mass increase necessary to push it into a brown dwarf category, and some discussion of what that would mean. I've read that lithium fusion has probably already taken place in Jupiter's core. That is to say that there's some more material to discuss than a simple Jupiter no fusion|Sun H fusion dichotomy.4.It claims that the "inner atmosphere" is transparent. Well, if it were pure H, then sure. Even if it were pure H & He. But it isn't. I'm very dubious that we know what the optical properties are of the "inner atmosphere".5. Speaking of inner atmosphere, it's claimed that there's two cloud layers of a total of 31 miles thickness. I don't think we know how many cloud layers there are nor how deep the atmosphere goes. 6.There's zero discussion about where the transition is between atmosphere and...not atmosphere?...metallic hydrogen? Worse, the article assumes surface depth is a meaningful term, LOL! It's common to define the "surface" as the depth at which gas pressure is 1 atm.(corresponding ~ sea level on Earth). Once this is explained, and NOT before, "surface" has some meaning. But not really. I don't think it's a useful concept here. My two bits.7. It's claimed that heat can only escape by convection. This is ludicrous! Heat escapes mostly by radiation from the planet's "surface" (ah! a use for the term "surface"!). I doubt much escapes as hot gas molecules, but I'm not familiar with the literature. I'd bet what is meant that below a certain depth (where emr has very short pathlength), convection is the principle (not "only") heat transport mechanism. 8. I'm confused: is the core liquid or solid? Surely it's obvious that the core contains heavy elements (Fe, etc.), so the question is are these distributed in a liquid or have they agglomerated at the planet's center (as a solid)? 9. It's my understanding that the planet's radiation is strong enough to damage electronics and to kill biological organisms in close orbit. Why isn't this mentioned (if true)?? I'm not sure what this 'radiation' is composed of emr? particles accelerated in its magnetic field? IDK. That's all I got.~2025-39446-09 (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)