Abstract:Water has been proposed to be one of the main compositions of icy giant planets like Neptune and Uranus. Its thermodynamic states and transport properties at extremes are of interest not only to constrain the interior models but also to understand abnormal magnetic fields of planets. The electronic bandgap of water, which significantly influences the ionization ratio and the conductivity, however, is still under debate. In this work, we revisit the shock reflectivity data reported in the literature. By applying a Drude model, the electronic bandgap of water in the superionic and plasma phases is determined to be 4.4 ± 0.2 eV, in contrast to the threshold of 1.25 ± 0.04 eV for free ion generation in the molecular and ionic fluid phases. Interestingly, the bandgap of water does not show a significant tendency of “closure” with the increase in pressure or temperature in the investigated regime, and the bandgap value is consistent with the predicted value of 4–6 eV by the density functional theory assuming a hybrid Heyd-Scuseria-Ernzerhof functional [Millot et al., Nat. Phys. 14, 297–302 (2018)]. The electronic bandgap and the energy threshold determined in this work provide essential parameters for estimating the conductivity along the radius of Neptune and Uranus and will promote our understanding of the origin of the abnormal magnetic fields.Water has been proposed to be one of the main compositions of icy giant planets like Neptune and Uranus. Its thermodynamic states and transport properties at extremes are of interest not only to constrain the interior models but also to understand abnormal magnetic fields of planets. The electronic bandgap of water, which significantly influences the ionization ratio and the conductivity, however, is still under debate. In this work, we revisit the shock reflectivity data reported in the literature. By applying a Drude model, the electronic bandgap of water in the superionic and plasma phases is determined to be 4.4 ± 0.2 eV, in contrast to the threshold of 1.25 ± 0.04 eV for free ion generation in the molecular and ionic fluid phases. Interestingly, the bandgap of water does not show a significant tendency of “closure” with the increase in pressure or temperature in the investigated regime, and the bandgap value is consistent with the predicted value of 4–6 eV by the density functional theory assuming a ...

Predicting the phase behaviors of superionic water at planetary conditions

Quantum-mechanical exploration of the phase diagram of water

Polymorphism of superionic ice

Superionic to superionic phase change in water: consequences for the interiors of Uranus and Neptune

Phase Transition Between Crystalline Variants of Ordinary Ice.

Phase behavior of metastable water from large-scale simulations of a quantitatively accurate model near ambient conditions: The liquid-liquid critical point

Phase behavior of metastable water from large-scale simulations of a quantitative accurate model: The liquid-liquid critical point

Discriminating High-Pressure Water Phases Using Rare-Event Determined Ionic Dynamical Properties*

Plastic deformation of superionic water ices

Rich proton dynamics and phase behaviours of nanoconfined ices

Realistic phase diagram of water from "first principles" data-driven quantum simulations

Ab initio thermodynamics of liquid and solid water

Phase Transition of Supercooled Water Confined in Cooperative Two-State Domain

Atomistic View of Homogeneous Nucleation of Water into Polymorphic Ices

Corresponding states for mesostructure and dynamics of supercooled water

Electronic bandgap of water in the superionic and plasma phases

Computational Prediction of Novel Ice Phases: A Perspective

Extracting ice phases from liquid water: why a machine-learning water model generalizes so well

Mysteries of supercooled water elucidated by studies of aqueous solutions

Phase Transition of Ice at High Pressures and Low Temperatures

Multiple Superionic States in Helium–water Compounds