SUMMARY: A survey of stars in our neighbourhood has revealed those rich in metals, such as iron and titanium, are five times more likely to have planets orbiting them. The survey of 61 stars with planets and 693 stars without, revealed a distinct difference in the 'metalicity' of stars. Debra Fisher from the University of California, Berkley, says, "If you look at the metal-rich stars, 20 percent have planets. That's stunning." (contributed by Darren Osborne)

View full article
What do you think about this story? post your comments below.

This one makes sense but they don't distinguish gas giants from rocky ones or did I miss something here? They were dwelling in metals and I suppose they mean terrestial planets but these metals could also form the core of gas giants so they could mean both. In any case, I noticed that in this article, the type of stars are not considered. This is very important in stellar evolution and could very much influence planet formation. Hence, I find this article incomplete if not inconclusive unless the original article discusses this aspect as well.

[QUOTE=from linked story]The 29 most metal-poor stars in the sample, all with less than 1/3 the sun's metal abundance, had no planets. [QUOTE]Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. It seems plausible that planets are more easily formed around stars with higher levels of metallicity but our detection technology is not sufficiently robust to be sure there are no planets orbiting the low metallicity stars. The assertions made in the article should have been more cautious.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?