Skip to main content
Astronomy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

9
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As you note, all our planet detection methods are biased towards finding large planets in close orbits around small stars. Solar system like ours, with a medium-sized star, smallish planets in ~ 1 year orbits and large planets in distant orbits, are much harder to identify (impossible on the timescales we have been observing so far). We know that solar systems unlike ours are reasonably common, but AFAIK we can't really say that solar systems like ours aren't even more common. $\endgroup$
    – antlersoft
    Commented Nov 14, 2018 at 17:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RobJeffries Thanks for the heads up. Most of the question marks are in an effort to explain what type of information I'm hoping for, they are not intended to be separate questions in and of themselves. I've re-arranged the post, and added a final summary with an attempt at wording the actual single question. If you have suggestions for additional improvement to the question, please let me know. $\endgroup$
    – Harthag
    Commented Nov 14, 2018 at 21:21
  • $\begingroup$ RobJeffries is right. You might not be aware of this, but this is an extremely wide range of topics. Every detection methods has other biases to discuss those would take a whole lecture. Better google "exoplanet detection bias correction". For example, to derive and correct the transit bias is relatively simple, while already for radial velocity planets it's not. $\endgroup$
    – AtmosphericPrisonEscape
    Commented Nov 14, 2018 at 21:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It always bothers me that only positive results are published. Sometimes "null results" where we could have detected something can be helpful to the understanding also. $\endgroup$
    – Jack R. Woods
    Commented Nov 22, 2018 at 5:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JackR.Woods: You have to distinguish between scientific and journalistic publication. In the scientific literature null results are published, even the comparison of detection biases to what theory would say would be impossible without those. $\endgroup$
    – AtmosphericPrisonEscape
    Commented Nov 26, 2018 at 19:17