3 ms·
> Smaller stars last longer, but they also emit less energy and so there is less likely to be higher life forms just because there isn't enough energy to suppor
by jdhwosnhw 2y ago
> Smaller stars last longer, but they also emit less energy and so there is less likely to be higher life forms just because there isn't enough energy to support life.
This isn’t really true. The energy density at a planet’s surface is a function of both the star’s luminosity and the planet’s distance. Most star’s (at least in the Milky Way) are small, and most stars have planets in orbits closer than is Earth’s.
The so called “Goldilocks zone” is expected to have at least one planet in it for a very large number of stars (again, at least in our galaxy).
- Teever 2y ago> most stars have planets in orbits closer than is Earth’s. I don't think that this is true. IIRC it's an artifact of the techniques we use to detect extrasolar planets -- our techniques are biased to detect planets that are closer to their stars than further away,
- jdhwosnhw 2y agoYes, we have several techniques for detecting exoplanets, and at least two of them have that bias. However, what I said still holds - our best estimates are that most stars with planets have (at least some) planets in orbits closer than is Earth’s, and therefore asserting that “planets with sufficient energy density at their surface to support complex life are rare” is unwarranted