Concept

Planet composition — where it appears

The bulk make-up of a planet — the proportions of iron, rock, water and gas — inferred from its mass and radius. A single density allows many interiors, so composition estimates lean on the host star's abundances and on formation models.

Named by 2 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Also named here as stellar abundances — the same set of essays touches all of them, so they are one junction rather than several.

$The radius a rocky planet would have, by core fraction: at 5 M⊕ an Earth-like and a Mercury-like planet differ by 8%. Radius against mass for rocky planets of one to eight Earth masses, from Zeng and collaborators' interior models, for core mass fractions of 0, 0.33, 0.5, 0.7, 1 — from a planet with no iron core to one that is all iron. The shaded band is the range of core fractions planets would have if they kept their host stars' iron, magnesium and silicon in the stars' own proportions, for stars whose iron-to-magnesium ratio is within 0.15 dex of the Sun's: 0.26 to 0.41. The Earth, at 0.325, sits in it. At five Earth masses an Earth-like planet and one with a core fraction of 0.7, like Mercury, differ in radius by 8 per cent — a difference that transit and radial-velocity measurements can now resolve.$

More iron than the star could give

A rocky planet is made of what its star was made of, minus the gases: iron, magnesium and silicon in the star's proportions, which for the Sun predict an iron core of a third of the planet's mass — and the Earth's core is 32.5 per cent. A handful of small exoplanets are so dense that their cores must hold seven-tenths of their mass, more iron than any star known to host planets could have supplied. Either something removed most of their rock after they formed, or the rock and the metal were separated before they did.

exoplanets · Planet composition $A second peak, seen through three precisions. The distribution of measured core fractions for a population in which 90 per cent of planets sit at their stars' prediction (0.32, with an intrinsic scatter of 0.03) and 10 per cent at 0.65 (scatter 0.08), each planet compared with its own star, observed with measurement errors of 0.04, 0.08, 0.15 in core fraction. At 0.04 the dense group is a separate hump; at 0.08 it is a shoulder; at 0.15 it has become a long upper tail on a single peak, indistinguishable by eye from a population that is simply broad. The current measurements sit between the second and third curves.$

A second peak the errors have to let through

Whether the densest small planets are a population of their own or the far edge of the ordinary one is not a question about any single planet. It is a question about the shape of a histogram seen through measurement errors as wide as the gap it is looking for, and the number of planets it needs rises fifteen-fold for every factor of three in lost precision — which puts the answer a few dozen planets beyond the samples that first suggested it.

exoplanets · Planet composition

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Core mass fraction Stellar abundances Giant impact Giant impacts Likelihood ratio Mass radius relation Measurement error Mixture model Planet formation Population inference Super-Earth Super-mercury

All concepts