❌

Normal view

Simulations of Turbulent Mixing Close One Gap but Open Another

6 May 2026 at 17:00

illustration of a white dwarf surrounded by rocky debris

Nature sometimes behaves in ways that are difficult to recreate in simulations. New research tackles the computational challenge of turbulent mixing and rules out a commonly assumed source of data–model disagreement.

Mixing Up Stellar Interiors

What do Earth’s oceans, red giant stars, and white dwarfs have in common? These are all sites of thermohaline mixing, a form of turbulent mixing that takes place when there is a vertical gradient in both temperature and chemical composition. For example, in Earth’s oceans, water near the surface is warmer and saltier than water in the depths below, setting up an unstable situation prone to mixing.

thermohaline mixing simulation results

Examples of simulated thermohaline convection. These snapshots show the vertical velocity across a slice through the simulation volume. Click to enlarge. [Fraser 2026]

Thermohaline mixing has been explored in simulations to explain the evolution of red giants’ surface abundances, as well as how quickly rocky debris that accretes onto a white dwarf is absorbed into the star. However, effectively modeling this process in the interiors of stars has proven difficult.

One of the most important parameters for modeling mixing is the Prandtl number, Pr, which is the ratio of viscosity to thermal diffusivity (in other words, a way of describing whether momentum or heat diffuses more quickly within a fluid). For stellar interiors, Pr is around 10−6, but computational limitations have prevented modelers from setting this value lower than around 10−2. When tensions between models and reality arise, this gap between simulated and realistic Pr values is often assumed to be the source of the mismatch.

Bridging the Prandtl Number Gap

In a recent research article, Adrian Fraser (University of Colorado Boulder) aimed to test this assumption. Fraser carried out 3D simulations of thermohaline mixing, using a semi-implicit modeling technique that lowered the computational cost and allowed the simulations to probe Pr values of 10−1, 10−2, 10−3, 10−6, and 0.

comparison of simulations from this work and the benchmark model of thermohaline convection

Turbulent compositional flux as a function of reduced density ratio for the simulations from this work (DNS) and the benchmark model of thermohaline convection (BGS13). Click to enlarge. [Adapted from Fraser 2026]

By comparing these results against a benchmark model of thermohaline mixing, this exploration showed that adopting a realistic value of Pr doesn’t dramatically change the dynamics of the system — meaning that data–model incompatibilities can’t be swept under a Prandtl number–shaped rug and must instead be resolved by including additional physics.

Recreating Reality

Where does this leave modelers attempting to recreate the reality of stellar interiors? First, a silver lining of this investigation: Fraser found that setting Pr = 0 delivered nearly identical results to Pr = 10−6. This suggests that valid results can be attained in a much less computationally intensive way, since setting Pr = 0 lowers the complexity of the simulation. While simulations with Pr = 0 may not be appropriate for all scenarios, including systems with strong magnetic fields, it may provide a way forward in certain situations.

For modeling of red giants and white dwarfs, Fraser suggested that incorporating magnetic fields, stellar rotation, or additional sources of mixing may resolve the current discrepancies. In fact, some modeling work has shown that magnetic fields could entirely close the gap between observations and models for red giant surface abundances — suggesting that bringing models and observations into agreement may be within reach.

Citation

“Bridging the Prandtl Number Gap: 3D Simulations of Thermohaline Convection in Astrophysical Regimes,” Adrian E. Fraser 2026 ApJL 1001 L22. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae5796

The post Simulations of Turbulent Mixing Close One Gap but Open Another appeared first on AAS Nova.

Standing on a Sub-Neptune

5 November 2025 at 17:00

A rendering of a blue planet in the foreground and a small bright star in the background.

Astronomers often assume that sub-Neptune exoplanets have magma oceans hiding beneath their atmospheres. New research suggests that this might not always be the case.

Puzzling Type of Planet

In the 30 years since the discovery of the first exoplanet, astronomers have come to appreciate that many of the most common planets in our galaxy look nothing like the worlds in our solar system. One type of planet in particular appears to be ubiquitous despite not appearing in our own cosmic neighborhood: sub-Neptunes. As their name suggests these planets are slightly smaller than Neptune, but still much larger than Earth or what we’d expect from a planet composed mostly of rock.

Four planets side by side ordered by increasing size. From left to right, they are Earth, TOI-421 b, GJ 1214 b, and Neptune.

An illustration of how two sub-Neptunes mentioned in this study (TOI-421b and GJ 1214b) compare with planets in our solar system. Click to enlarge. [NASA, ESA, CSA, Dani Player (STScI)]

What sub-Neptunes are made of and how they formed are still mysteries under active investigation by the research community. It is possible that these worlds are mostly rocky and sport puffy, light atmospheres over their surfaces; it’s also possible that these worlds are watery, and that most of their mass comes from heavy, steamy atmospheres. In most cases, though, it’s assumed that the high pressures and temperatures at the surfaces of these worlds foster a permanent, fiery magma ocean.

This key assumption that there’s no solid surface to stand on influences our models about how these planets cool and evolve over time. However, new research led by Bodie Breza (University of Maryland) suggests that this premise might not always be appropriate.

Solid Ground

To test the assumption that every sub-Neptune has a magma ocean, Breza and collaborators simulated hundreds of thousands of feasible exoplanet interiors and atmospheres. Each simulation slightly tweaked various characteristics, like the surface temperature or the planet’s total mass, then checked whether the temperature and pressure conditions at the planet’s surface would leave any rocks in solid or liquid form.

phase diagram for a common rocky material

A phase diagram for a common rocky material MgSiO3. The various lines show different model pressure–temperature profiles for the sub-Neptune GJ 1214b, while the circles indicate the location of the atmosphere/surface boundary. All circles fall into the “solid” part of the phase diagram, indicating that GJ 1214b likely has a solid surface. [Breza et al. 2025]

Somewhat surprisingly, the team found that about a third of the models they simulated had solid, not magma, surfaces. They found there were two distinct ways to solidify the magma and create a firm shell. First and most intuitively, if the surface temperature falls low enough, the magma will simply freeze. Second and more intriguingly, they found that a planet can also suppress a magma ocean if its atmosphere is heavy enough to drive up the surface pressure beyond the solid–liquid threshold.

This latter result is particularly insightful in light of recent JWST observations that suggest many sub-Neptunes have heavy atmospheres. These new models suggest that these worlds might have solid surfaces, and that models attempting to explain their compositions should be tweaked to account for this finding. In these early days where astronomers are still puzzling out the most basic properties of these strange worlds, research like this demonstrates the power of using advanced theoretical modeling to help interpret our cutting-edge observations.

Citation

“Not All Sub-Neptune Exoplanets Have Magma Oceans,” Bodie Breza et al 2025 ApJL 993 L46. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c07

The post Standing on a Sub-Neptune appeared first on AAS Nova.

The best fans to keep you cool in 2026 – tried and tested

3 September 2026 at 15:00

Missed out on a fan this summer? Chill your space with our pick of the best still in stock, including tower and misting models

• The best portable neck and handheld fans
•
Dyson HushJet Mini Cool fan review

Our world is getting hotter. Summer heatwaves are so frequent, they’re stretching the bounds of what we think of as summer. Hot-and-bothered home working and sweaty, sleepless nights are now alarmingly common.

Get a good fan and you can dodge the temptation of air conditioning. Aircon is incredibly effective, but it uses a lot of electricity … and burning fossil fuels is how we got into this mess in the first place. Save money and carbon by opting for a great fan instead.

Continue reading...

© Composite: PR Image

© Composite: PR Image

© Composite: PR Image

❌