4
$\begingroup$

I always understood that Population II stars were unlikely to have planets as they were virtually all H and He with very little else.

Have recent observations confirmed this, or have planets been discovered around Population II stars?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Do you mean Population III stars? Population II stars do have lower metallicity than Population I, but they are by no means devoid of heavier elements. $\endgroup$ – antispinwards Feb 26 at 18:24
4
$\begingroup$

Kapteyn's star has 14% the metallicity of the Sun and is about 11 billion years old and is in the galactic halo. It has two reported planets.

I don't know if 14% is low enough to count as Population II, but according to the NASA exoplanet archive it is the lowest metallicity star known to have planets.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I seem to recall that below $[Fe/H] \approx -0.3$ stars count as Pop II, so that would include Kapteyn's star. $\endgroup$ – AtmosphericPrisonEscape Feb 26 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ Its not particularly metal-poor. There is no strict definition, but this would be a borderline case. It is not in the halo, it is only 12 light years from Earth. $\endgroup$ – Rob Jeffries Feb 26 at 20:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ According to the article academic.oup.com/mnras/article/350/2/575/1117003 it is a halo star. $\endgroup$ – sno Feb 26 at 21:14
  • $\begingroup$ It's kinematically a halo star, but is isn't "in the halo". Pedantic possibly, but a lot of readers would misunderstand. The same reference also provides a lower metallicity than your value. $\endgroup$ – Rob Jeffries Feb 26 at 21:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.