arxiv.org
Super-Earth masses and stellar abundances from NIRPS reveal tentative evidence for water-rich formation around M dwarfs
Tracing the compositional link between terrestrial super-Earths and their host stars provides clues to their dominant formation pathway. By constraining the stellar abundances of refractory elements, we can predict the core mass fractions (CMFs) of their super-Earths. The level of agreement between this prediction and the planetary CMF derived from their masses and radii can reveal past formation processes, like mantle stripping and water-rich formation plus sequestration in the planet's core. Here, we present the first results from the Near Infrared Planet Searcher (NIRPS) GTO CMF subprogram: an intensive radial velocity campaign to refine masses and compute host stellar abundances of three hot super- Earths around M dwarfs (GJ 1132 b, GJ 1252 b, and LTT 3780 b), calculating masses of $1.69 \pm 0.15M_\oplus$, $1.54 \pm 0.18M_\oplus$, and $2.34 \pm 0.10M_\oplus$ respectively. We measure the CMFs of these and six further hot super-Earths with precise masses already available in the literature to 10-15% precision. We compare these to CMF predictions made from measuring the Fe, Mg, and Si abundances of their host stars measured from the NIRPS spectra. We find that the CMFs of these planets are smaller than expected from their host stellar abundances, to a statistically significant degree. This discrepancy is suggestive of significant reservoirs of water, and while these planets are too hot to harbor surface water, they likely have interior water mass fractions of $\sim$1%.
![The majority’s contention that I reject “ ‘pure textualism’ [a]s insuf
ficiently pliable to secure the result [I] seek,” ante, at 10, stems from an
unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role. Our interpretative
task is not to seek our own desired results (whatever they may be). And,
indeed, it is precisely because of this solemn duty that, in my view, it is
imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia
of what Congress wanted, as best we can ascertain its intent. A method
ology that includes consideration of Congress’s aims does exactly that—
and no more. By contrast, pure textualism’s refusal to try to understand
the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to
achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing
judicial policy preferences. By “finding” answers in ambiguous text, and
not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources
of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own pref
erences as “textual” inevitabilities. So, really, far from being “insuffi
ciently pliable,” I think pure textualism is incessantly malleable—that’s
its primary problem—and, indeed, it is certainly somehow always flexi
ble enough to secure the majority’s desired outcome.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:f4d76fjna5nxqsy2fu6cgmp3/bafkreicg7mx5lddzyvnoguvadwnojtm7xcu2sf34hhizuapfesk46w7kli)
