A quarter of sunlike stars eat their own planets, according to new research

[Admin]

How rare is our solar system? In the 30 years or so since planets were first discovered orbiting stars other than our sun, we have found that planetary systems are common in the galaxy.

A quarter of sunlike stars eat their own planets, according to new research : Read more

 

[rod]

The article reports, "Our international team of astronomers has tackled this issue in research published in Nature Astronomy. We found that between 20% and 35% of sunlike stars eat their own planets, with the most likely figure being 27%. This suggests at least a quarter of planetary systems orbiting stars similar to the sun have had a very chaotic and dynamic past."

*a very chaotic and dynamic past* may be an understatement This report is out now showing 4512 confirmed exoplanets by NASA, How Many Exoplanets Are There? Scientists Discover Dozens of New Worlds,

How Many Exoplanets Are There? Scientists Discover Dozens of New Worlds

Using the NASA exoplanet archive site, https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/index.html there is currently 4512.

2314 listed, their radii <= 3 earth radii with distances ranging 0.0058 au to 1.046 au from the host star. Short orbital periods, average close to 19 days, the min is 0.18 days. Surviving the gas cloud collapse and accretion disk model phase for explaining the origin of exoplanets and solar systems, requires some very interesting catastrophism, including some stars where the new planets get pulled into the star and disappear from the universe Add to this catastrophic mix abiogenesis taking place in chaotic environments, and we have a very interesting origins science presented to the public today.

 

[Helio]

The science claim can be a bit misleading into thinking that Sun-like stars will have fewer planets as ~27% "eat their young". But even with this rate, we have more than average in number of exoplanets.

The table below shows the latest count of exoplanets by star class. The winner is the G-Class, which the Sun is a member.

B-Class.​	11	1%
A-Class.​	31	2%
F-Class.​	180	11%
G-Class.​	592	36%
K-Class.​	483	29%
M-Class.​	366	22%
Total:	1663	100%

[I did a cut and paste from Excel and, surprisingly, I think it works. Hooray!]

Therefore, perhaps we can conclude that Sun-like stars have a higher "fertility" rate than other stars, which offsets the number of planets that auger-in.

Strong and dynamic migration events are required to get close to a working model for our own solar system. So the results from this article aren't too surprising, but interesting.

 

[rod]

FYI Helio et al. I used MS SQL with query selecting host star masses between 0.95 solar and 1.05 solar masses. 851 exoplanets popped up. Min mass near 2 earth masses, max mass 52 Jupiter masses. Semi-major axis range 0.003 au out to 795 au. Quite a chaotic mix shows up. The Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia — Catalog Listing (exoplanet.eu)

My words are catastrophism and chaotic. Origins science today sees the catastrophism and chaos as creating you and I so we can read this report today

 

[Helio]

Yes, stellar mass may be the better approach. The number of stated masses and the number of star types are about equal to about 500 lyrs., but overall, there are 4352 masses stated for stars, but only 1877 star types.

I'm a little surprised at that given the importance of star types (i.e. temp.).

However, the number of stars with a given radius is about as extensive as the stellar mass. Thus, it shouldn't be that hard to get a reasonable luminosity result, thus eliminating reliance on the limited number of star types. Perhaps I should use star type first then the other two parameters secondarily for HZ determinations.

Is this what you do?

Of course, your result likely enhances my view that Sun-like stars are more prolific in having planets even if some fail to survive.

 

[Helio]

My words are catastrophism and chaotic. Origins science today sees the catastrophism and chaos as creating you and I so we can read this report today

Yep, temples come in all sizes.

 

[rod]

Yes, stellar mass may be the better approach. The number of stated masses and the number of star types are about equal to about 500 lyrs., but overall, there are 4352 masses stated for stars, but only 1877 star types.

I'm a little surprised at that given the importance of star types (i.e. temp.).

However, the number of stars with a given radius is about as extensive as the stellar mass. Thus, it shouldn't be that hard to get a reasonable luminosity result, thus eliminating reliance on the limited number of star types. Perhaps I should use star type first then the other two parameters secondarily for HZ determinations.

Is this what you do?

Of course, your result likely enhances my view that Sun-like stars are more prolific in having planets even if some fail to survive.

I use MS ACCESS DB and run MS SQL queries, reports and create charts when needed. The .eu site I refer to shows 4363 exoplanets where the host star has masses provided (thus I could select 0.95 to 1.05 range), quite a bit of the total population where more than 4800 are shown. The query form allows you in MS ACCESS to select other columns and values too or just run MS SQL query, export results to MS Excel

 

[Helio]

I use MS ACCESS DB and run MS SQL queries, reports and create charts when needed. The .eu site I refer to shows 4363 exoplanets where the host star has masses provided (thus I could select 0.95 to 1.05 range), quite a bit of the total population where more than 4800 are shown. The query form allows you in MS ACCESS to select other columns and values too or just run MS SQL query, export results to MS Excel

Right, that's easy enough. To display the exoplanets in the HZ, and allow fudge factors for radii, as well as count all those by star type all in one run is why I wrote the program.

My next trick is to present on a separate page, for any given date/long/lat, when each system will be visible for the observer. Getting all the steps necessary for that has been a larger enchilada than I've had time for, but I'm getting there.

 

[Pogo]

Makes sense that since most stars are binaries unlike the sun and that would indicate chaotic planetary orbits, so some may be eaten by one of the stars, or some may be ejected, creating rogue planets.

 

[Helio]

Makes sense that since most stars are binaries unlike the sun and that would indicate chaotic planetary orbits, so some may be eaten by one of the stars, or some may be ejected, creating rogue planets.

The binary story is important. Do planets or protoplanets spiral inward more often than tossed outward? I would guess the later for close binaries. Perhaps wider binaries would trigger more inward spiraling.