Roughly half of all planetary systems have planets much closer to their stars than Mercury is to our Sun. Can a system’s magnetic field during the stage of planet formation explain why half of all systems (including our own) do not have these planets when the other half do?
It seems that Tabby’s star has more tricks up in its sleeve than previously thought: today’s pre-print shows evidence that the WTF star has actually dimmed during the 4-year long Kepler mission, throwing more fuel into the fire. But do not expect aliens. Just saying.
Earlier than one billion years ago, Earth’s magnetic field had to be driven differently than today. But how? And what can we learn from this about magnetic fields on exoplanets?
Stars at later stages of their evolution lack planets at small orbits, which is believed to be a consequence of disruption. However, the authors of the featured article found a large planet around a star at a late stage of its evolution.
What can we learn from the lack of giant planets found at wide separations?
A gravitational tug-of-war between three stars has this planet living on the edge.