Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper computes a quantitative budget for the deep interior of Jupiter from published spacecraft values, using a deliberately transparent calculation whose every step can be checked from the deposited script. The headline results are: heavy_element_earth_masses = 18 to 42; heavy_mass_fraction_percent = 5.66 to 13.2; enrichment_over_solar = 3.78 to 8.81; hydrogen_helium_earth_masses = 275.8 to 299.8; envelope_heavy_earth_masses = 8 to 40. Even the low end of the band corresponds to a mass fraction several times the solar value, and the high end exceeds a tenth of the planet by mass, a share that would have been considered implausibly large before the gravity data forced distributed heavy material into the models. The enrichment factor is the formation-relevant number: Jupiter is not a solar mixture with a core added, but a body whose bulk composition is enriched by a factor of a few throughout. The envelope share is large under every combination of endpoints, which is the quantitative content of the dilute-core picture: most of the heavy material cannot be in a compact centre. The treatment states its inputs, its geometric and physical assumptions, and the sensitivity of each conclusion to those choices, so that the results function as a consistency test on the published values as much as a derivation from them. Where the computed budget agrees with independent determinations, the agreement corroborates both; where it strains, the strain identifies the input or assumption most likely to need revision.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
William Alexander Aldred (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: