Every Star Has Atleast One Planet.

[ghostmaker650]

http://www.themarknews.com/news/?open=7994

A new study suggests that every star in our galaxy has at least one planet. This means that in the Milky Way alone, there's at least 100 billion planets, and likely closer to 160 billion. So far, about 700 exoplanets, or planets outside of our solar system, have been confirmed to exist, but these findings send that figure, well, to the stars. Astrophysicists from the U.K. and France used a new technique, known as microlensing, to determine that number.

This is certainly a bit surprising for me. I've thought planets could be a bit common, but not nearly that common

Could this really be the case? Every star having an average of 1.6 planets?

 

[TheLastOne36]

The way it is written is misleading. From what I understand, the galaxy average is 1.6 planets, but there are stars with no planets, right?

 

[Monsterzuma]

that would make the first sentence in the article plainly wrong.

then again, it's a rather extreme claim to make that not one star out there is without a planet.

 

[Berzerker]

and that wouldn't count all the planets out there without a star

 

[LucyDuke]

Alien planets are incredibly common in our Milky Way galaxy, outnumbering stars by a large margin, a new study suggests.

On average, each of the 100 billion or so stars in our galaxy hosts at least 1.6 planets, according to the study, bringing the number of likely alien worlds to more than 160 billion. And large numbers of these exoplanets are likely to be small and rocky — roughly Earth-like — since low-mass planets appear to be much more abundant than large ones.

source

Corrected headline:

Planets outnumber stars in the Milky Way

 

[ghostmaker650]

I would think that it would be statistically improbable for there to be NO planet free stars, But It seems that is indeed the claim.

This statistical study tells us that planets around stars are the rule, rather than the exception, said study lead author Arnaud Cassan of the Paris Institute of Astrophysics.

 

[ZeletDude]

I saw this on yahoo news, I think it's great, and very interesting

 

[Berzerker]

he's saying they're common, but there are exceptions

 

[ghostmaker650]

he's saying they're common, but there are exceptions

Indeed.
Every Star with a planet would have been a very radical claim.

 

[Berzerker]

I wonder if planets are more common among certain stars

like maybe the speed and force with which nebulae collapse determines how much matl is left over to form planets or something

 

[ghostmaker650]

Hmmm, This would also pose another interesting new question for scientists to figure out.

How could planets be so common?

 

[Joecoolyo]

How could planets be so common?

The galaxy is very dusty?

 

[ghostmaker650]

The galaxy is very dusty?

Something along those lines most likely, Though I think scientists like to get a bit more detailed than that

 

[History_Buff]

Well, they could, but I that really is the answer. Dust coalesces into planets. End of story mostly.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

I'm fairly certain that stars aren't the only ones being formed in nebulae, meaning that, IMO, it is likely that rogue planets can form independent of a star, if conditions are right.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Hmmm, This would also pose another interesting new question for scientists to figure out.

How could planets be so common?

Why wouldn't they be common? It's unrealistic to say that EVERY star has a planet, as some stars are too old, too young, too massive, or not massive enough. But I think it's safe to say that MANY stars have at least one planet.

The galaxy is very dusty?

Isn't it a good thing that nobody took a cosmic Swiffer duster to our solar system?

 

[Winner]

As others have said - we don't know, and if a stupid journalist writes this in an article it won't change anything.

Our planet hunting methods are still in their infancy, mind you. We can barely detect them. It's way, waaaaaaaaay too early to start generalizing.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Well, they could, but I that really is the answer. Dust coalesces into planets. End of story mostly.

Probably is the case. The leftovers from the creation of the star leads to planets, the vast majority of the time.

Though this makes sense, I am still a little surprised. I always thought planets were a little rarer and that the galaxy was littered with planetless stars.

 

[Cutlass]

I wonder if planets are more common among certain stars

like maybe the speed and force with which nebulae collapse determines how much matl is left over to form planets or something

I would think the really massive stars might not have a planet. Though it's possible they may have a gas giant, it's very unlikely for them to have a hard planet. And they may cannibalize their gas giants very early in their lives.

 

[Shaihulud]

If thats the case, our solar system is over the quota on planets.