Planets Orbit 75 Percent of All Stars in the Universe

[n2doc]

By James A. Foley Mar 04, 2014 11:32 AM EST
Astronomers suggest that all of the universe's red dwarf stars have at least one planet in orbit around them, and one-quarter of those planets are within the star's habitable zone, where liquid water and life as we know it could exist.

This revelation comes after astronomers observed eight new planets around red dwarfs, including three potentially life-sustaining super-Earths. Red dwarfs are small, relatively cool stars that make up at least three-quarters of the stars in the universe.

Combined data obtained by HARPS and UVES, two high-precision European Southern Observatory planet surveys, led the team of UK and Chilean astronomers to their conclusions, which will appear in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Installed on the ESO's 3.6 meter telescope at the La Silla Observatory in Chile, HARPS, or High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet Searcher, is one of the most precise instruments of its kind. Its powers have been used to find dozens of unique planets.

more
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6235/20140304/planets-orbit-75-percent-of-all-stars-in-the-universe-astronomers-report.htm

[ladjf]

1. Planets are the "flotsam" that was captured by newborn stars. nt

[longship]

4. Nope. Not true.

The planets form from the same interstellar "dust" that forms the star.

How do we know that? The Kepler data for these red dwarfs -- the easiest for Kepler to detect -- shows multiple planets in the same plain is the rule. Because planetary systems seem to all form a disk shape, with planets orbiting in the same direction -- captured "flotsam" could have any orientation and would not necessarily orbit the same way as other planets -- so the flotsam hypothesis is busted.

This is not to say that it could not happen. However, the data say that if it does, it is at best very rare.

[ladjf]

5. Apparently my use of the word "flotsam" created an ambiguous statement.

The planets that form close enough to a star to be captured by the gravity will react according to the laws of motion. I was trying to point out that the conditions for forming a planetary system are usually present which is why the percentages in the study were 75%.

Obviously the planets were formed by the "dust" as were the were stars.

[longship]

6. I would bet that planets form with close to 100% of stars.

And multiple planets per star system. You cannot make a star without making planets. At least not in second generation and later stars.

That's just how nature works, I suspect. We do not yet have the data for that yet. Scientists have to be circumspect and do not go beyond the data. But they are all thinking that,"Yup! Make a star; make planets, too."

You are right. The "flotsam" through me.

[ladjf]

7. I thought it was a colorful word, but, it was the wrong choice.

There was a great science show on TV last week that showed how stars were born and what happened throughout the life of the star.

I think it would be good for all people on Earth to have a clear understanding of our Sun's future. By knowing that no matter what, the Sun will run out of fuel and that's going to be it for Earth, they could stop playing games about our real future. Further, they might gain some insight into how the Universe of formed and will likely do so again.

I agree with you about most stars probably collected some planets. Some escaped, others crashed into the Sun and the remainder fell into regular orbits. It's a fascinating and beautiful Universe. We are lucky that we had a life.

[tridim]

2. And there are three red dwarf stars for every Sun-like star in the sky.

Killer show on Discovery (or was it Science?) last night about this very subject.

[longship]

3. Why is anybody surprised about this?

When you make a star, you're going to make planets, too. It's inevitable by basic physics. They are going to orbit in a basically flat plain, all the same direction (conservation of angular momentum).

The only exceptions are the largest stars whose energetic emissions would likely blow a planet away. But those are by far a tiny minority of stars. The number of stars is skewed towards small sizes. The smaller the star, the more like it there are.

I know that science doesn't like to make statements beyond the data, but I would love to hear one say, "Hey! This is a rule of stellar birth. So all our projections are likely way under estimated."

Planets are the rule. We should drop the other shoe and admit it.