- #1
pixel01
- 688
- 1
At first, scientists found stars with planets and think that there are suns with planetary system. But it seems now that every sun has planets. My questiion is are there any suns without a planet.
LURCH said:I suppose a good place to start exploring this question would be to ask, " do we currently have the technology to look at a star and say, with any degree of certainty, that it does not have a planet orbiting it?" Until we can do that, we cannot say for certain that there is any star without a planet.
I think this is an exceedingly bold claim.negitron said:... it seems likely that most, if not all, stars form with planets around them...
pixel01 said:My questiion is are there any suns without a planet.
I'm going to guess that the OP wasn't looking for 'only one in the universe', but was looking for 'is it rare'.elect_eng said:I'm going to say yes. Given the vast number of galaxies, and the vast number of stars within a galaxy, surely at least one sun in the universe has no planets. The problem is, you need to find an example to really prove the answer. I don't think we have the technology to prove that a star has no planets. It's often difficult to prove a negative.
DaveC426913 said:I think this is an exceedingly bold claim.
DaveC426913 said:I'm going to guess that the OP wasn't looking for 'only one in the universe', but was looking for 'is it rare'.
Because I think even the OP knows that the answer to his question - if taken literally - is trivial.elect_eng said:Why make a guess that changes the clear meaning of the stated question?
DaveC426913 said:Because I think even the OP knows that the answer to his question - if taken literally - is trivial.
Of course, there is at least one planet somewhere in the entire universe, for one reason or another, that has no planets. End of thread.
Only looser interpretations of the question lead to further discussion.
Integral said:I thought that it was nearly impossible for a binary star system to have planets. Binary star systems are very common.
Integral said:I thought that it was nearly impossible for a binary star system to have planets. Binary star systems are very common.
In my opinion planetary systems are formed namely in binary systems. Our solar system is no exception to this rule. The role of the second component in it make an underdeveloped Star - the Jupiter, which is formed by special way. Then Jupiter promotes formation of other planets. http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=15901&start=0Integral said:I thought that it was nearly impossible for a binary star system to have planets. Binary star systems are very common.
Yes, of course, it is tiny to start the fusion reaction. But this does not prevent it to form in the same way as stars (ie, compression of gas-dust cloud).negitron said:Jupiter isn't anywhere near big enough to be called a star, underdeveloped or otherwise.
negitron said:Um, ALL celestial bodies form in that manner. Including the one you're sitting on.
I'm not sure that what Jupiter and Saturn have is what's called an accretion disc. In fact, I think they're the opposite.pixel01 said:In this case, size does matter doesn't it?. A star should have an accretion disk. Bodies like Jupiter and Satturn have rings while the inner planets do not.
Within our planetary system, there are at least 3 «planetary» systems - systems of satellites of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus. By size, these systems differ from each other radically. However, between them there is a huge similarity. In all systems there are 2 commensurabilities, which show, that they are created in accordance to single scenario.DaveC426913 said:I suspect that the biggest factor differentiating the two is the distance from the central body.
DaveC426913 said:I'm not sure that what Jupiter and Saturn have is what's called an accretion disc. In fact, I think they're the opposite.
QUOTE]
I read in some articles that the rings around Jupiter or at least Saturn have been proved recently formed as long as the planets itself
Yes, there are stars that do not have a planetary system. These are known as "failed stars" or brown dwarfs. They are too small to sustain nuclear fusion and therefore do not have planets orbiting around them.
It is estimated that up to 25% of stars do not have a planetary system. This number may vary depending on the method used to detect planets and the sensitivity of the instruments.
It is possible for a star to lose its planetary system. This can happen due to various reasons such as gravitational interactions with other stars, collisions with other objects, or the star's own evolution. However, it is not a common occurrence.
Yes, it is possible for a star to have multiple planetary systems. In fact, our own Sun is a part of a planetary system known as the "Solar System". There are also multiple star systems, where two or more stars have their own planetary systems.
There have been some stars that have been confirmed to not have a planetary system. These include the brown dwarfs and some very young or very old stars that may not have had enough time to form planets. However, as technology and our understanding of the universe improves, this number may change.