Coupled atmospHere Interior modeL Intercomparison (CHILI). I. Evolutionary Modelling -- Primordial Magma Oceans of Earth and Venus

Earth and Venus represent two evolutionary outcomes arising from initially molten 'magma ocean' periods, followed by lifetimes of chemical and geophysical divergence. The new analysis still awaits peer review, but it already lays out the central claim clearly.

It matters because physics only takes a result seriously when the measurement chain remains robust under scrutiny. Experimental particle physics and precision metrology both operate in regimes where the signal sits far below the background noise, and where systematic uncertainties can mimic new physics if not controlled rigorously. The history of the field contains numerous anomalies that generated theoretical excitement before better data showed them to be artifacts, and it also contains genuine discoveries that were initially dismissed as noise. The difference is almost always resolved by independent replication with different instruments and different systematics. Their physics is common to all rocky planets and is accessible to simulations that adopt coupled interior-atmosphere modelling approaches. Our understanding of planet histories and interpretation of current states is dependent on this modelling, yet existing codes vary in their approximations.

Here, we present the first results from the Coupled atmospHere Interior modeL Intercomparison (CHILI) project. Benchmarking planetary evolution codes in the context of Earth and Venus to identify key model sensitivities.

Our 'nominal' Earth models predict magma ocean solidification timescales within 4 Myr of thermal evolution, and are consistent with empirical constraints on Earth's early history. Venus scenarios exhibit more diverse behaviours where prolonged magma ocean stages can be conditionally sustained for 50 Myr.

Cooling timescales correlate with initial hydrogen and carbon budgets, but model-specific treatments of volatile partitioning and vertical energy transport introduce substantial. Different parametrisations of mantle geodynamics, convection, melting curves, rheological properties, and radiative transfer give rise to divergent evolutionary behaviours.

The broader interest lies as much in the method as in the headline number, because a durable measurement procedure can travel farther than a single result. When experimental physicists develop a technique that achieves new sensitivity or controls a previously uncharacterized systematic, that methodological contribution persists even if the specific measurement is later revised. This is one reason why precision physics experiments often generate long-term value that is not immediately visible in the original publication.

Discrepancies in atmospheres generated by magma ocean outgassing underscore these differences, although C-H-O compositions with surface pressures exceeding 100 bar are favoured. This intercomparison identifies critical sensitivities in volatile partitioning, escape processes, mantle viscosity, and melting.

Because this is still a preprint, the result should be read with genuine interest and proportionate caution. Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is a process that forces authors to respond to technical criticism from specialists who have no stake in a particular outcome. Preprints that survive that process, often with substantive revisions, emerge with a stronger evidential base than the version that first appeared. Until that stage is complete, the responsible reading keeps uncertainty explicitly visible rather than treating the claims as established findings.

The next step is more measurement, tighter systematic control and scrutiny from groups whose experimental setups are genuinely independent. In experimental particle physics and precision metrology, the threshold for a discovery claim is a five-sigma excess surviving multiple analyses; an intriguing signal at lower significance is a reason to run more experiments, not a reason to revise the textbooks. Next-generation experiments currently under construction or commissioning will revisit several of the open questions that give the current result its context. Until peer review and independent follow-up address those open questions, skepticism is not a failure of appreciation for the work; it is part of how science decides what to keep.

Source