The next time you look up at the night sky and find yourself marveling at the number of stars overhead, know that you are only seeing part of the magnificent bounty that our galaxy holds. Most of those Milky Way stars are not isolated orbs. Rather an average star has at least one planetary companion, invisible to the naked eye and in most cases as yet unseen by telescopes, according to a new analysis.

That extrasolar planets should be even more common than stars, which themselves seem innumerable, lends support to the hope that somewhere up in the night sky, circling one of those stars, is a world like Earth where life may have had a chance to take root, and maybe even have evolved into an intelligent form.

The analysis of planetary frequency in the Milky Way appeared in the January 12 issue of Nature. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) The researchers, led by astronomer Arnaud Cassan of the Paris Institute of Astrophysics at University Pierre and Marie Curie, used a small sample of planetary discoveries to infer the size of the overall planetary population. Extrapolating from a few known planets and the relatively low probability that each of those planets should be detectable from Earth, the researchers found that each star is home to an average of 1.6 planets.

The process is a bit like estimating the average number of children in a typical family by peering into a handful of random homes, counting the number of children in view, and estimating how many more are at school or otherwise out of sight. As such, the planetary demographics are still rudimentary; given the small-number of statistics, the actual average could be closer to one planet per star, or it could be well over two planets per star. But the general ubiquity of extrasolar planets, which other astronomical campaigns have also suggested in recent years, seems unassailable.

"This is not a surprise, but it's a really interesting thing to know," says astronomer Scott Gaudi of The Ohio State University, who did not contribute to the new research. Perhaps most encouraging is the finding by Cassan and his colleagues that the frequency of planets rises as the mass of those planets decreases. Large planets akin to Jupiter are relatively rare, midsize planets such as Neptune are present around roughly 50 percent of stars, and small planets just five to 10 times the mass of Earth are even more numerous than that. "Planets are common, and low-mass planets are as common as dirt in some sense," Gaudi says.

Cassan based the galactic census on a planet-finding method called gravitational microlensing. Using the Warsaw University Telescope in Chile, astronomers monitor roughly 200 million stars to look for the sudden and anomalous amplification in the light from any one of them. That brightening can be caused by another star passing in front of the background star, with the gravitational field of the intervening star acting like a lens to focus the light of the background star toward Earth. Such alignments are rare, but by monitoring so many stars for years on end, the campaign, known as the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE), has recorded thousands of microlensing events.

8 Comments

1. 1. jtdwyer 07:04 PM 1/11/12

   I understand that binary star systems are thought to be more common than single stars, and that planets are less likely to achieve stable orbit in a binary star system.
   
   Also, Earth's single, relatively large moon is thought to provide rotational stability that is thought to be crucial to the development of complex life forms.
   
   Of course, water is the ideal solvent for biological chemistry - much more accommodating than other liquids.
   
   Exoplanets (or moons) that do not have stable orbits and rotational alignments or abundant liquid water may not provide conditions favorable for the development of complex life.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. jtdwyer 07:47 PM 1/11/12

   The referenced Nature research report costs $35, but its 22 page supplementary information is freely available and contains a weath of information. Please see:
   http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/extref/nature10684-s1.pdf

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. SpottedMarley in reply to Vendicar Decarian 06:57 AM 1/12/12

   ooga booga!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. z537815 07:25 AM 1/12/12

   Hmm. I have my doubts as to the scientific quality of this analysis (is it supposed to have any?). However, I must admit that it does sound hopeful.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. amici 12:04 PM 1/12/12

   Am I the only one here who finds this 'findings' just plain silly?
   So we have 2 main premises from this:
   1) There are probably more planets then stars
   2) There are less huge planets then normal and small planets
   ???
   That's it? Really guys, you didn't need to spend all those billions to watching sky, orbiting telescopes, getting shuttles safely up & down etc just to come up with this.
   Any reasonable thinking man could have told you this, few 1000s years ago.
   I suppose next big breakthrough is - in Milky way there are more smaller meteorites then really big ones?
   
   Almost feels like someone's trying to make scientists look bad.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. gmartfin 04:22 PM 1/12/12

   While it is dangerous to extrapolate from small statistical quantities I must admit that this really does seem like a "duhhh" announcement.
   
   @vendicar
   
   I have to take your comments as a joke as it is difficult for me to believe anyone could really believe that line of garbage.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. ZekoJunior 08:20 PM 1/15/12

   This one is really interesting for reading , I enjoyed it but I want to know something and I would like to ask you who read this 1 question and the question is:
   1)According to this theory that exoplanets are more commonplace than stars ,do all those exoplanets have their natural satellites like Earth has got the Moon ?
   
   and I know that the researchers and scientists are working hard and wishing to discover and to answer to the big question Are We Alone ?
   
   My Opinion and my answer for this question is that I don't believe that we're alone is all this Giant Universe who comes and goes getting bigger and bigger .
   A big thanks to the Author John Matson.
   
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. mir.lodro@gmail.com 02:13 PM 1/20/12

   Everything outside our earth is fuzzy.Come on! find the exo-planets if they are certain to be found. I'm waiting anxiously to hunt oil and hence the blood!!!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this