Respect all members: no insults, harassment, or hate speech.
Be tolerant of different viewpoints, cultures, and beliefs. If you do not agree with others, just create separate note, article or collection.
Clearly distinguish between personal opinion and fact.
Verify facts before posting, especially when writing about history, science, or statistics.
Promotional content must be published on the “Related Services and Products” page—no more than one paragraph per service. You can also create subpages under the “Related Services and Products” page and publish longer promotional text there.
Do not post materials that infringe on copyright without permission.
Always credit sources when sharing information, quotes, or media.
Be respectful of the work of others when making changes.
Discuss major edits instead of removing others' contributions without reason.
If you notice rule-breaking, notify community about it in talks.
Do not share personal data of others without their consent.
Four exoplanets of the HR 8799 system imaged by the W. M. Keck Observatory over the course of seven years. Motion is interpolated from annual observations.Comparison of the size of exoplanets orbiting Kepler-37 to Mercury, Mars and Earth
An exoplanet or extrasolar planet is a planet outside of the Solar System. The first confirmed detection of an exoplanet was in 1992 around a pulsar, and the first detection around a main-sequence star was in 1995. A different planet, first detected in 1988, was confirmed in 2003. In 2016, it was recognized that the first possible evidence of an exoplanet had been noted in 1917. As of 30 October 2025, there are 6,042 confirmed exoplanets in 4,501 planetary systems, with 1,020 systems having more than one planet.[1][2]
There are many methods of detecting exoplanets. Transit photometry and Doppler spectroscopy have found the most, but these methods suffer from a clear observational bias favoring the detection of planets near the star; thus, 85% of the exoplanets detected are inside the tidal locking zone.[3] About 1 in 5 Sun-like stars[a] are estimated to have an "Earth-sized"[b] planet in the habitable zone.[c][4][5] Assuming there are 200 billion stars in the Milky Way,[d] it can be hypothesized that there are 11 billion potentially habitable Earth-sized planets in the Milky Way, rising to 40 billion if planets orbiting the numerous red dwarfs are included.[6]
The least massive exoplanet known is Draugr, which is about twice the mass of the Moon. The most massive exoplanet listed on the NASA Exoplanet Archive is HR 2562 b,[7][8][9] about 30 times the mass of Jupiter. However, according to some definitions of a planet (based on the nuclear fusion of deuterium[10]), it is too massive to be a planet and might be a brown dwarf. Known orbital times for exoplanets vary from less than an hour (for those closest to their star) to thousands of years. Some exoplanets are so far away from the star that it is difficult to tell whether they are gravitationally bound to it.
The discovery of exoplanets has intensified interest in the search for extraterrestrial life. There is special interest in planets that orbit in a star's habitable zone (sometimes called "goldilocks zone"), where it is possible for liquid water, a prerequisite for life as we know it, to exist on the surface. However, the study of planetary habitability also considers a wide range of other factors in determining the suitability of a planet for hosting life.[14]
In collaboration with ground-based and other space-based observatories, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is expected to give more insight into exoplanet traits, such as their composition, environmental conditions, and habitability.[15]
Rogue planets are those that are not in planetary systems. Such objects are generally considered in a separate category from planets, especially if they are gas giants, often counted as sub-brown dwarfs.[16] The rogue planets in the Milky Way possibly number in the billions or more.[17][18]
The official definition of the term planet used by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) only covers the Solar System and thus does not apply to exoplanets.[19][20] The IAU Working Group on Extrasolar Planets issued a position statement containing a working definition of "planet" in 2001 and which was modified in 2003.[21] An exoplanet was defined by the following criteria:
Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 Jupiter masses for objects of solar metallicity) that orbit stars or stellar remnants are "planets" (no matter how they formed). The minimum mass/size required for an extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be the same as that used in the Solar System.
Substellar objects with true masses above the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are "brown dwarfs", no matter how they formed or where they are located.
Free-floating objects in young star clusters with masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are not "planets", but are "sub-brown dwarfs" (or whatever name is most appropriate).
This working definition was amended by the IAU's Commission F2: Exoplanets and the Solar System in August 2018.[22][23] The official working definition of an exoplanet is now as follows:
Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 Jupiter masses for objects of solar metallicity) that orbit stars, brown dwarfs or stellar remnants and that have a mass ratio with the central object below the L4/L5 instability (M/Mcentral < 2/(25+√621)) are "planets" (no matter how they formed).
The minimum mass/size required for an extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be the same as that used in our Solar System.
The IAU's working definition is not always used. One alternate suggestion is that planets should be distinguished from brown dwarfs on the basis of their formation. It is widely thought that giant planets form through core accretion, which may sometimes produce planets with masses above the deuterium fusion threshold;[24][25][10] massive planets of that sort may have already been observed.[26] Brown dwarfs form like stars from the direct gravitational collapse of clouds of gas, and this formation mechanism also produces objects that are below the 13MJup limit and can be as low as 1MJup.[27] Objects in this mass range that orbit their stars with wide separations of hundreds or thousands of astronomical units (AU) and have large star/object mass ratios likely formed as brown dwarfs; their atmospheres would likely have a composition more similar to their host star than accretion-formed planets, which would contain increased abundances of heavier elements. Most directly imaged planets as of April 2014 are massive and have wide orbits so probably represent the low-mass end of a brown dwarf formation.[28] One study suggests that objects above 10MJup formed through gravitational instability and should not be thought of as planets.[29]
Also, the 13-Jupiter-mass cutoff does not have a precise physical significance. Deuterium fusion can occur in some objects with a mass below that cutoff.[10] The amount of deuterium fused depends to some extent on the composition of the object.[30] In 2011, the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia included objects up to 25 Jupiter masses, saying, "The fact that there is no special feature around 13MJup in the observed mass spectrum reinforces the choice to forget this mass limit".[31] As of 2016, this limit was increased to 60 Jupiter masses[32] based on a study of mass–density relationships.[33] The Exoplanet Data Explorer includes objects up to 24 Jupiter masses with the advisory: "The 13 Jupiter-mass distinction by the IAU Working Group is physically unmotivated for planets with rocky cores, and observationally problematic due to the sin i ambiguity."[34] The NASA Exoplanet Archive includes objects with a mass (or minimum mass) equal to or less than 30 Jupiter masses.[35] Another criterion for separating planets and brown dwarfs, rather than deuterium fusion, formation process or location, is whether the core pressure is dominated by Coulomb pressure or electron degeneracy pressure with the dividing line at around 5 Jupiter masses.[36][37]
An exoplanet is confirmed for NASA's Exoplanet Archive either when "different observation techniques reveal features that can only be explained by a planet"[38] or by analytical techniques.[2] For the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia, "A planet is considered as Confirmed if it is claimed unambiguously in an accepted paper or a professional conference."[39]
The convention for naming exoplanets is an extension of the system used for designating multiple-star systems as adopted by the International Astronomical Union (IAU). For exoplanets orbiting a single star, the IAU designation is formed by taking the designated or proper name of its parent star, and adding a lower case letter.[41] Letters are given in order of each planet's discovery around the parent star, so that the first planet discovered in a system is designated "b" (the parent star is considered "a") and later planets are given subsequent letters. If several planets in the same system are discovered at the same time, the closest one to the star gets the next letter, followed by the other planets in order of orbital size. A provisional IAU-sanctioned standard exists to accommodate the designation of circumbinary planets. A limited number of exoplanets have IAU-sanctioned proper names. Other naming systems exist.[citation needed]
NASA graphic of present and future exoplanet missions as of 2022.
For centuries scientists, philosophers, and science fiction writers suspected that extrasolar planets existed, but there was no way of knowing whether they were real in fact, how common they were, or how similar they might be to the planets of the Solar System. Various detection claims made in the nineteenth century were rejected by astronomers.[citation needed]
The first evidence of a possible exoplanet, orbiting Van Maanen 2, was recorded in 1917, but was not recognized as such until 2016.[42] The astronomer Walter Sydney Adams produced a spectrum of the star using Mount Wilson's 60-inch telescope which he interpreted the spectrum to be of an F-type main-sequence star. This spectrum was reexamined during studies of white dwarf stars with unpredicted compositions. It is now thought that such a spectrum could be caused by the residue of a nearby exoplanet that had been pulverized by the gravity of the star, the resulting dust then falling onto the star.[43]
Numerous other claims of discovery took place in the mid 20th century, involving 61 Cygnus, Lalande 21185, and Barnard's Star, which were not discredited until the mid to late 1970s (see Discredited claims below). Another suspected scientific detection of an exoplanet occurred in 1988. Shortly afterwards, the first detection[44] that is currently accepted came in 1992 when Aleksander Wolszczan and Dale Frail announced the discovery of two terrestrial-mass planets orbiting the millisecond pulsarPSR B1257+12.[45] The first confirmation of an exoplanet orbiting a main-sequence star was made in 1995, when a giant planet was found in a four-day orbit around the nearby star 51 Pegasi. Some exoplanets have been imaged directly by telescopes, but the vast majority have been detected through indirect methods, such as the transit method and the radial-velocity method.
Exoplanet detections per year as of September 2024[46]
In February 2018, researchers using the Chandra X-ray Observatory, combined with a planet detection technique called microlensing, found evidence of planets in a distant galaxy, stating, "Some of these exoplanets are as (relatively) small as the moon, while others are as massive as Jupiter. Unlike Earth, most of the exoplanets are not tightly bound to stars, so they're actually wandering through space or loosely orbiting between stars. We can estimate that the number of planets in this [faraway] galaxy is more than a trillion."[47]
In the sixteenth century, the Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno, an early supporter of the Copernican theory that Earth and other planets orbit the Sun (heliocentrism), put forward the view that fixed stars are similar to the Sun and are likewise accompanied by planets.[49]
In the eighteenth century, the same possibility was mentioned by Isaac Newton in the "General Scholium" that concludes his Principia. Making a comparison to the Sun's planets, he wrote "And if the fixed stars are the centres of similar systems, they will all be constructed according to a similar design and subject to the dominion of One."[50]
In 1938, D.Belorizky demonstrated that it was realistic to search for exo-Jupiters by using transit photometry.[51]
In 1952, more than 40 years before the first hot Jupiter was discovered, Otto Struve wrote that there is no compelling reason that planets could not be much closer to their parent star than is the case in the Solar System, and proposed that Doppler spectroscopy and the transit method could detect super-Jupiters in short orbits.[52]
Multiple claims have been made that 61 Cygni might have a planetary system. Kaj Strand of the Sproul Observatory in 1942 observed tiny but systematic variations in the orbital motions of 61 Cygni A and B, suggesting that a third body of about 16 Jupiter masses must be orbiting 61 Cygni A.[56] Multiple further claims were made, but more recent observations have yet to find confirmation. More information at 61 Cygni:Claims of a planetary system.
Around the same time that 61 Cygni was being investigated, similar claims about the presence of exoplanets were made about Lalande 21185: Lalande 21185#Past claims of planets.
During the 1950s and 1960s, Peter van de Kamp of Swarthmore College made another prominent series of detection claims, this time for planets orbiting Barnard's Star.[57] Astronomers now generally regard all early reports of detection as erroneous.[58]
Coronagraphic image of AB Pictoris showing a companion (bottom left), which is either a brown dwarf or a massive planet. The data were obtained on 16 March 2003 with NACO on the VLT, using a 1.4 arcsec occulting mask on top of AB Pictoris.
2MASS J044144 is a brown dwarf with a companion about 5–10 times the mass of Jupiter. It is not clear whether this companion object is a sub-brown dwarf or a planet.
As of 30 October 2025, a total of 6,042 confirmed exoplanets are listed in the NASA Exoplanet Archive, including a few that were confirmations of controversial claims from the late 1980s.[61] The first published discovery to receive subsequent confirmation was made in 1988 by the Canadian astronomers Bruce Campbell, G. A. H. Walker, and Stephenson Yang of the University of Victoria and the University of British Columbia.[62] Although they were cautious about claiming a planetary detection, their radial-velocity observations suggested that a planet orbits the star Gamma Cephei. Partly because the observations were at the very limits of instrumental capabilities at the time, astronomers remained skeptical for several years about this and other similar observations. It was thought some of the apparent planets might instead have been brown dwarfs, objects intermediate in mass between planets and stars. In 1990, additional observations were published that supported the existence of the planet orbiting Gamma Cephei,[63] but subsequent work in 1992 again raised serious doubts.[64] Finally, in 2003, improved techniques allowed the planet's existence to be confirmed.[65]
On 9 January 1992, radio astronomers Aleksander Wolszczan and Dale Frail announced the discovery of two planets orbiting the millisecond pulsarPSR 1257+12 based on the variability of timing of the pulses.[45] This discovery was confirmed, and is generally considered to be the first definitive detection of exoplanets. Follow-up observations solidified these results, and confirmation of a third planet in 1994 revived the topic in the popular press.[66] These pulsar planets are thought to have formed from the unusual remnants of the supernova that produced the pulsar, in a second round of planet formation, or else to be the remaining rocky cores of gas giants that somehow survived the supernova and then decayed into their current orbits. As pulsars are aggressive stars, it was considered unlikely at the time that a planet could form in their orbit.[67]
In the early 1990s, a group of astronomers led by Donald Backer, who were studying what they thought was a binary pulsar (PSR B1620−26 b), determined that a third object was needed to explain the observed Doppler shifts. Within a few years, the gravitational effects of the planet on the orbit of the pulsar and white dwarf had been measured, giving an estimate of the mass of the third object that was too small to be a star. The conclusion that the third object was a planet was announced by Stephen Thorsett and his collaborators in 1993.[68]
On 6 October 1995, Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz of the University of Geneva announced the first definitive detection of an exoplanet orbiting a main-sequence star, nearby G-type star51 Pegasi.[69][70][71] This discovery, made at the Observatoire de Haute-Provence, ushered in the modern era of exoplanetary discovery, and was recognized by a share of the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics. Technological advances, most notably in high-resolution spectroscopy, led to the rapid detection of many new exoplanets: astronomers could detect exoplanets indirectly by measuring their gravitational influence on the motion of their host stars. More extrasolar planets were later detected by observing the variation in a star's apparent luminosity as an orbiting planet transited in front of it.[69]
Initially, the most known exoplanets were massive planets that orbited very close to their parent stars. Astronomers were surprised by these "hot Jupiters", because theories of planetary formation had indicated that giant planets should only form at large distances from stars. But eventually more planets of other sorts were found, and it is now clear that hot Jupiters make up the minority of exoplanets.[69] In 1999, Upsilon Andromedae became the first main-sequence star known to have multiple planets.[72]Kepler-16 contains the first discovered planet that orbits a binary main-sequence star system.[73]
On 26 February 2014, NASA announced the discovery of 715 newly verified exoplanets around 305 stars by the Kepler Space Telescope. These exoplanets were checked using a statistical technique called "verification by multiplicity".[74][75][76] Before these results, most confirmed planets were gas giants comparable in size to Jupiter or larger because they were more easily detected, but the Kepler planets are mostly between the size of Neptune and the size of Earth.[74]
On 23 July 2015, NASA announced Kepler-452b, a near-Earth-size planet orbiting the habitable zone of a G2-type star.[77]
On 6 September 2018, NASA discovered an exoplanet about 145 light years away from Earth in the constellation Virgo.[78] This exoplanet, Wolf 503b, is twice the size of Earth and was discovered orbiting a type of star known as an "Orange Dwarf". Wolf 503b completes one orbit in as few as six days because it is very close to the star. Wolf 503b is the only exoplanet that large that can be found near the so-called small planet radius gap. The gap, sometimes called the Fulton gap,[78][79] is the observation that it is unusual to find exoplanets with sizes between 1.5 and 2 times the radius of the Earth.[80]
In January 2020, scientists announced the discovery of TOI 700 d, the first Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone detected by TESS.[81]
As of January 2020, NASA's Kepler and TESS missions had identified 4374 planetary candidates yet to be confirmed,[82] several of them being nearly Earth-sized and located in the habitable zone, some around Sun-like stars.[83][84][85]
Directly imaged planet Beta Pictoris b, with an edge-on orbit as seen from Earth
Planets are extremely faint compared to their parent stars. For example, a Sun-like star is about a billion times brighter than the reflected light from any exoplanet orbiting it. It is difficult to detect such a faint light source, and furthermore, the parent star causes a glare that tends to wash it out. It is necessary to block the light from the parent star to reduce the glare while leaving the light from the planet detectable; doing so is a major technical challenge which requires extreme optothermal stability.[90] All exoplanets that have been directly imaged are both large (more massive than Jupiter) and widely separated from their parent stars.
Specially designed direct-imaging instruments such as Gemini Planet Imager, VLT-SPHERE, and SCExAO will image dozens of gas giants, but the vast majority of known extrasolar planets have only been detected through indirect methods.
When the star is behind a planet, its brightness will seem to dimIf a planet crosses (or transits) in front of its parent star's disk, then the observed brightness of the star drops by a small amount. The amount by which the star dims depends on its size and on the size of the planet, among other factors. Because the transit method requires that the planet's orbit intersect a line-of-sight between the host star and Earth, the probability that an exoplanet in a randomly oriented orbit will be observed to transit the star is somewhat small. The Kepler telescope used this method.
As a planet orbits a star, the star also moves in its own small orbit around the system's center of mass. Variations in the star's radial velocity—that is, the speed with which it moves towards or away from Earth—can be detected from displacements in the star's spectral lines due to the Doppler effect. Extremely small radial-velocity variations can be observed, of 1 m/s or even somewhat less.[91]
When multiple planets are present, each one slightly perturbs the others' orbits. Small variations in the times of transit for one planet can thus indicate the presence of another planet, which itself may or may not transit. For example, variations in the transits of the planet Kepler-19b suggest the existence of a second planet in the system, the non-transiting Kepler-19c.[92][93]
Animation showing difference between planet transit timing of one-planet and two-planet systems When a planet orbits multiple stars or if the planet has moons, its transit time can significantly vary per transit. Although no new planets or moons have been discovered with this method, it is used to successfully confirm many transiting circumbinary planets.[94]
Microlensing occurs when the gravitational field of a star acts like a lens, magnifying the light of a distant background star. Planets orbiting the lensing star can cause detectable anomalies in magnification as it varies over time. Unlike most other methods which have a detection bias towards planets with small (or for resolved imaging, large) orbits, the microlensing method is most sensitive to detecting planets around 1–10 AU away from Sun-like stars.
A planet is able to gravitationally pull its host star Astrometry consists of precisely measuring a star's position in the sky and observing the changes in that position over time. The motion of a star due to the gravitational influence of a planet may be observable. Because the motion is so small, however, this method was not very productive until the 2020s. It has produced only a few confirmed discoveries,[95][96] though it has been successfully used to investigate the properties of planets found in other ways.
A pulsar, a small, dense remnant of a star that has exploded as a supernova, emits radio waves regularly as it rotates. If planets orbit the pulsar, the motion of the pulsar around the system's center of mass alters the pulsar's distance to Earth over time. As a result, the radio pulses from the pulsar arrive on Earth at a later or earlier time. This light travel delay due to the pulsar being physically closer or farther from Earth is known as a Roemer time delay.[97]The first confirmed discovery of an extrasolar planet was made using this method. But as of 2011, it has not been very productive; five planets have been detected in this way, around three different pulsars.
Like pulsars, there are some other types of stars which exhibit periodic activity. Deviations from periodicity can sometimes be caused by a planet orbiting it. As of 2013, a few planets have been discovered with this method.[98]
When a planet orbits very close to a star, it catches a considerable amount of starlight. As the planet orbits the star, the amount of light changes due to planets having phases from Earth's viewpoint or planets glowing more from one side than the other due to temperature differences.[99]
Relativistic beaming measures the observed flux from the star due to its motion. The brightness of the star changes as the planet moves closer or further away from its host star.[100]
Massive planets close to their host stars can slightly deform the shape of the star. This causes the brightness of the star to slightly deviate depending on how it is rotated relative to Earth.[101]
With the polarimetry method, a polarized light reflected off the planet is separated from unpolarized light emitted from the star. No new planets have been discovered with this method, although a few already discovered planets have been detected with this method.[102][103]
Disks of space dust surround many stars, thought to originate from collisions among asteroids and comets. The dust can be detected because it absorbs starlight and re-emits it as infrared radiation. Features on the disks may suggest the presence of planets, though this is not considered a definitive detection method.
Planets may form within a few to tens (or more) of millions of years of their star forming.[104][105]
The planets of the Solar System can only be observed in their current state, but observations of different planetary systems of varying ages allows us to observe planets at different stages of evolution. Available observations range from young protoplanetary disks where planets are still forming[106] to planetary systems of over 10 Gyr old.[107] When planets form in a gaseous protoplanetary disk,[108] they accrete hydrogen/helium envelopes.[109][110] These envelopes cool and contract over time and, depending on the mass of the planet, some or all of the hydrogen/helium is eventually lost to space.[108] This means that even terrestrial planets may start off with large radii if they form early enough.[111][112][113] An example is Kepler-51b which has only about twice the mass of Earth but is almost the size of Saturn, which is a hundred times the mass of Earth. Kepler-51b is quite young at a few hundred million years old.[114]
Using data from Kepler, a correlation has been found between the metallicity of a star and the probability that the star hosts a giant planet, similar to the size of Jupiter. Stars with higher metallicity are more likely to have planets, especially giant planets, than stars with lower metallicity.[121]
Some planets orbit one member of a binary star system,[122] and several circumbinary planets have been discovered which orbit both members of a binary star. A few planets in triple star systems are known[123] and one in the quadruple system Kepler-64.
The apparent brightness (apparent magnitude) of a planet depends on how far away the observer is, how reflective the planet is (albedo), and how much light the planet receives from its star, which depends on how far the planet is from the star and how bright the star is. So, a planet with a low albedo that is close to its star can appear brighter than a planet with a high albedo that is far from the star.[124]
This color–color diagram compares the colors of planets in the Solar System to exoplanet HD 189733b. The exoplanet's deep blue color is produced by silicate droplets, which scatter blue light in its atmosphere.
In 2013, the color of an exoplanet was determined for the first time. The best-fit albedo measurements of HD 189733b suggest that it is deep dark blue.[125][126] Later that same year, the colors of several other exoplanets were determined, including GJ 504 b which visually has a magenta color,[127] and Kappa Andromedae b, which if seen up close would appear reddish in color.[128]Helium planets are expected to be white or grey in appearance.[129]
The darkest known planet in terms of geometric albedo is TrES-2b, a hot Jupiter that reflects less than 1% of the light from its star, making it less reflective than coal or black acrylic paint. Hot Jupiters are expected to be quite dark due to sodium and potassium in their atmospheres, but it is not known why TrES-2b is so dark—it could be due to an unknown chemical compound.[130][131][132]
For gas giants, geometric albedo generally decreases with increasing metallicity or atmospheric temperature unless there are clouds to modify this effect. Increased cloud-column depth increases the albedo at optical wavelengths, but decreases it at some infrared wavelengths. Optical albedo increases with age, because older planets have higher cloud-column depths. Optical albedo decreases with increasing mass, because higher-mass giant planets have higher surface gravities, which produces lower cloud-column depths. Also, elliptical orbits can cause major fluctuations in atmospheric composition, which can have a significant effect.[133]
There is more thermal emission than reflection at some near-infrared wavelengths for massive and/or young gas giants. So, although optical brightness is fully phase-dependent, this is not always the case in the near infrared.[133]
Temperatures of gas giants reduce over time and with distance from their stars. Lowering the temperature increases optical albedo even without clouds. At a sufficiently low temperature, water clouds form, which further increase optical albedo. At even lower temperatures, ammonia clouds form, resulting in the highest albedos at most optical and near-infrared wavelengths.[133]
In 2014, a magnetic field around HD 209458 b was inferred from the way hydrogen was evaporating from the planet. It is the first (indirect) detection of a magnetic field on an exoplanet. The magnetic field is estimated to be about one-tenth as strong as Jupiter's.[134][135]
The magnetic fields of exoplanets are thought to be detectable by their auroralradio emissions with sensitive low-frequency radio telescopes such as LOFAR, although they have yet to be found.[136][137] The radio emissions could measure the rotation rate of the interior of an exoplanet, and may yield a more accurate way to measure exoplanet rotation than by examining the motion of clouds.[138] However, the most sensitive radio search for auroral emissions, thus far, from nine exoplanets with Arecibo also did not result in any discoveries.[139]
Earth's magnetic field results from its flowing liquid metallic core, but on massive super-Earths with high pressure, different compounds may form which do not match those created under terrestrial conditions. Compounds may form with greater viscosities and high melting temperatures, which could prevent the interiors from separating into different layers and so result in undifferentiated coreless mantles. Forms of magnesium oxide such as MgSi3O12 could be a liquid metal at the pressures and temperatures found in super-Earths and could generate a magnetic field in the mantles of super-Earths.[140][141]
Hot Jupiters have been observed to have a larger radius than expected. This could be caused by the interaction between the stellar wind and the planet's magnetosphere creating an electric current through the planet that heats it up (Joule heating) causing it to expand. The more magnetically active a star is, the greater the stellar wind and the larger the electric current leading to more heating and expansion of the planet. This theory matches the observation that stellar activity is correlated with inflated planetary radii.[142]
In August 2018, scientists announced the transformation of gaseous deuterium into a liquid metallic hydrogen form. This may help researchers better understand giant gas planets, such as Jupiter, Saturn and related exoplanets, since such planets are thought to contain a lot of liquid metallic hydrogen, which may be responsible for their observed powerful magnetic fields.[143][144]
Although scientists previously announced that the magnetic fields of close-in exoplanets may cause increased stellar flares and starspots on their host stars, in 2019 this claim was demonstrated to be false in the HD 189733 system. The failure to detect "star-planet interactions" in the well-studied HD 189733 system calls other related claims of the effect into question.[145] A later search for radio emissions from eight exoplanets that orbit within 0.1 astronomical units of their host stars, conducted by the Arecibo radio telescope also failed to find signs of these magnetic star-planet interactions.[146]
In 2019, the strength of the surface magnetic fields of 4 hot Jupiters were estimated and ranged between 20 and 120 gauss compared to Jupiter's surface magnetic field of 4.3 gauss.[147][148]
In 2023 astronomers detected what might be the first sign of magnetosphere around a rocky exoplanet in the YZ Ceti system.[149]
In 2007, two independent teams of researchers came to opposing conclusions about the likelihood of plate tectonics on larger super-Earths[150][151] with one team saying that plate tectonics would be episodic or stagnant[152] and the other team saying that plate tectonics is very likely on super-Earths even if the planet is dry.[153]
If super-Earths have more than 80 times as much water as Earth, then they become ocean planets with all land completely submerged. However, if there is less water than this limit, then the deep water cycle would move enough water between the oceans and mantle to allow continents to exist.[154][155]
Large surface temperature variations on 55 Cancri e have been attributed to possible volcanic activity releasing large clouds of dust which blanket the planet and block thermal emissions.[156][157]
Tidal heating caused by gravitational tug of neighboring planets might lead to the emergence of volcanic activities on a terrestrial exoplanet.[158][159]
In 2007, the star V1400 Centauri was occulted by an object (either a planet or brown dwarf) surrounded by an extensive disc of debris. The object, designated J1407b, was long believed to host a vast planetary ring system much larger than Saturn's rings.[160][161] Follow-up observations found the supposed ring system could instead be a circumplanetary disk.[162][163]
There is strong evidence of a ring system around HIP 41378 f, given the planet's measured radius is too large for its mass, the radius measurement might have been affected by a ring system around the planet.[164][165]
The rings of the Solar System's gas giants are aligned with their planet's equator. However, for exoplanets that orbit close to their star, tidal forces from the star would lead to the outermost rings of a planet being aligned with the planet's orbital plane around the star. A planet's innermost rings would still be aligned with the planet's equator so that if the planet has a tilted rotational axis, then the different alignments between the inner and outer rings would create a warped ring system.[166]
There is evidence that moons around other planets, commonly referred to exomoons, may exist. None has been confirmed so far.[citation needed]
In 2012 a candidate exomoon was detected around WASP-12b via periodic light variations in the planet's light curve.[167] Subsequent observations found this object might actually be a trojan planet.[168]
In December 2013, a candidate exomoon was detected in the microlensing event MOA-2011-BLG-262, it was believed to be either a 0.5M🜨 exomoon around a Jupiter-sized free-floating planet or a Neptune-mass planet around a red dwarf,[169] but follow-up observations confirmed the latter scenario.[170]
On 3 October 2018, evidence suggesting a large exomoon orbiting Kepler-1625b was reported,[171] and in 2021 evidence of an exomoon around Kepler-1708b was also reported.[172] Their existence, however, remain doubtful,[173] but follow-up observations may confirm these exomoons.[174]
Clear versus cloudy atmospheres on two exoplanets.[177]
Atmospheres have been detected around several exoplanets. The first to be observed was HD 209458 b in 2001.[178]
Sunset studies on Titan by Cassini help understand exoplanet atmospheres (artist's concept).
As of February 2014, more than fifty transiting and five directly imaged exoplanet atmospheres have been observed,[179] resulting in detection of molecular spectral features; observation of day–night temperature gradients; and constraints on vertical atmospheric structure.[180] Also, an atmosphere has been detected on the non-transiting hot Jupiter Tau Boötis b.[181][182]
In May 2017, glints of light from Earth, seen as twinkling from an orbiting satellite a million miles away, were found to be reflected light from ice crystals in the atmosphere.[183][184] The technology used to determine this may be useful in studying the atmospheres of distant worlds, including those of exoplanets.[citation needed]
Kepler-1520b is a small rocky planet, very close to its star, that is evaporating and leaving a trailing tail of cloud and dust like a comet.[185] The dust could be ash erupting from volcanos and escaping due to the small planet's low surface-gravity, or it could be from metals that are vaporized by the high temperatures of being so close to the star with the metal vapor then condensing into dust.[186]
In June 2015, scientists reported that the atmosphere of GJ 436 b was evaporating, resulting in a giant cloud around the planet and, due to radiation from the host star, a long trailing tail 14 million km (9 million mi) long.[187]
Tidally locked planets in a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance would have their star always shining directly overhead on one spot, which would be hot with the opposite hemisphere receiving no light and being freezing cold. Such a planet could resemble an eyeball, with the hotspot being the pupil.[188] Planets with an eccentric orbit could be locked in other resonances. 3:2 and 5:2 resonances would result in a double-eyeball pattern with hotspots in both eastern and western hemispheres.[189] Planets with both an eccentric orbit and a tilted axis of rotation would have more complicated insolation patterns.[190]
Surface features can be distinguished from atmospheric features by comparing emission and reflection spectroscopy with transmission spectroscopy. Mid-infrared spectroscopy of exoplanets may detect rocky surfaces, and near-infrared may identify magma oceans or high-temperature lavas, hydrated silicate surfaces and water ice, giving an unambiguous method to distinguish between rocky and gaseous exoplanets.[191]
Artist's illustration of temperature inversion in exoplanet's atmosphere.[192]
Measuring the intensity of the light it receives from its parent star can estimate the temperature of an exoplanet. For example, the planet OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb is estimated to have a surface temperature of roughly −220 °C (50 K). However, such estimates may be substantially in error because they depend on the planet's usually unknown albedo, and because factors such as the greenhouse effect may introduce unknown complications. A few planets have had their temperature measured by observing the variation in infrared radiation as the planet moves around in its orbit and is eclipsed by its parent star. For example, the planet HD 189733b has been estimated to have an average temperature of 1,205 K (932 °C) on its dayside and 973 K (700 °C) on its nightside.[193]
As more planets are discovered, the field of exoplanetology continues to grow into a deeper study of extrasolar worlds, and will ultimately tackle the prospect of life on planets beyond the Solar System.[194] At cosmic distances, life can only be detected if it is developed at a planetary scale and strongly modified the planetary environment, in such a way that the modifications cannot be explained by classical physico-chemical processes (out of equilibrium processes).[194] For example, molecular oxygen (O2) in the atmosphere of Earth is a result of photosynthesis by living plants and many kinds of microorganisms, so it can be used as an indication of life on exoplanets, although small amounts of oxygen could also be produced by non-biological means.[195] Furthermore, a potentially habitable planet must orbit a stable star at a distance within which planetary-mass objects with sufficient atmospheric pressure can support liquid water at their surfaces.[196][197]
A diagram depicting habitable zone boundaries across star type with September 2024 data. Earth is plotted alongside 42 potentially rocky exoplanets within the habitable zone.
The habitable zone around a star is the region where the temperature is just right to allow liquid water to exist on the surface of a planet; that is, not too close to the star for the water to evaporate and not too far away from the star for the water to freeze. The heat produced by stars varies depending on the size and age of the star, so that the habitable zone can be at different distances for different stars. Also, the atmospheric conditions on the planet influence the planet's ability to retain heat so that the location of the habitable zone is also specific to each type of planet: desert planets (also known as dry planets), with very little water, will have less water vapor in the atmosphere than Earth and so have a reduced greenhouse effect, meaning that a desert planet could maintain oases of water closer to its star than Earth is to the Sun. The lack of water also means there is less ice to reflect heat into space, so the outer edge of desert-planet habitable zones is further out.[198][199] Rocky planets with a thick hydrogen atmosphere could maintain surface water much further out than the Earth–Sun distance.[200] Planets with larger mass have wider habitable zones because gravity reduces the water cloud column depth which reduces the greenhouse effect of water vapor, thus moving the inner edge of the habitable zone closer to the star.[201]
Planetary rotation rate is one of the major factors determining the circulation of the atmosphere and hence the pattern of clouds: slowly rotating planets create thick clouds that reflect more and so can be habitable much closer to their star. Earth with its current atmosphere would be habitable in Venus's orbit, if it had Venus's slow rotation. If Venus lost its water ocean due to a runaway greenhouse effect, it is likely to have had a higher rotation rate in the past. Alternatively, Venus never had an ocean because water vapor was lost to space during its formation [202] and could have had its slow rotation throughout its history.[203]
Tidally locked planets (a.k.a. "eyeball" planets[204]) can be habitable closer to their star than previously thought due to the effect of clouds: at high stellar flux, strong convection produces thick water clouds near the substellar point that greatly increase the planetary albedo and reduce surface temperatures.[205]
Planets in the habitable zones of stars with low metallicity are more habitable for complex life on land than high metallicity stars because the stellar spectrum of high metallicity stars is less likely to cause the formation of ozone thus enabling more ultraviolet rays to reach the planet's surface.[206][207]
Habitable zones have usually been defined in terms of surface temperature, however over half of Earth's biomass is from subsurface microbes,[208] and the temperature increases with depth, so the subsurface can be conducive for microbial life when the surface is frozen and if this is considered, the habitable zone extends much further from the star,[209] even rogue planets could have liquid water at sufficient depths underground.[210] In an earlier era of the universe the temperature of the cosmic microwave background would have allowed any rocky planets that existed to have liquid water on their surface regardless of their distance from a star.[211] Jupiter-like planets might not be habitable, but they could have habitable moons.[212]
The outer edge of the habitable zone is where planets are completely frozen, but planets well inside the habitable zone can periodically become frozen. If orbital fluctuations or other causes produce cooling, then this creates more ice, but ice reflects sunlight causing even more cooling, creating a feedback loop until the planet is completely or nearly completely frozen. When the surface is frozen, this stops carbon dioxide weathering, resulting in a build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from volcanic emissions. This creates a greenhouse effect which thaws the planet again. Planets with a large axial tilt[213] are less likely to enter snowball states and can retain liquid water further from their star. Large fluctuations of axial tilt can have even more of a warming effect than a fixed large tilt.[214][215] Paradoxically, planets orbiting cooler stars, such as red dwarfs, are less likely to enter snowball states because the infrared radiation emitted by cooler stars is mostly at wavelengths that are absorbed by ice which heats it up.[216][217]
If a planet has an eccentric orbit, then tidal heating can provide another source of energy besides stellar radiation. This means that eccentric planets in the radiative habitable zone can be too hot for liquid water. Tides also circularize orbits over time, so there could be planets in the habitable zone with circular orbits that have no water because they used to have eccentric orbits.[218] Eccentric planets further out than the habitable zone would still have frozen surfaces, but the tidal heating could create a subsurface ocean similar to Europa's.[219] In some planetary systems, such as in the Upsilon Andromedae system, the eccentricity of orbits is maintained or even periodically varied by perturbations from other planets in the system. Tidal heating can cause outgassing from the mantle, contributing to the formation and replenishment of an atmosphere.[220]
A review in 2015 identified exoplanets Kepler-62f, Kepler-186f and Kepler-442b as the best candidates for being potentially habitable.[221] These are at a distance of 1000, 490 and 1,120 light-years away, respectively. Of these, Kepler-186f is in similar size to Earth with its 1.2-Earth-radius measure, and it is located towards the outer edge of the habitable zone around its red dwarf star.[222]
When looking at the nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates, Proxima Centauri b is about 4.2 light-years away. Its equilibrium temperature is estimated to be −39 °C (234 K).[223]
In November 2013, it was estimated that 22±8% of Sun-like[a] stars in the Milky Way galaxy may have an Earth-sized[b] planet in the habitable[c] zone.[4][117] Assuming 200 billion stars in the Milky Way,[d] that would be 11 billion potentially habitable Earths, rising to 40 billion if red dwarfs are included.[6]
Kepler-186f, a 1.2-Earth-radius planet in the habitable zone of a red dwarf, was reported in April 2014.
Proxima Centauri b, a planet in the habitable zone of Proxima Centauri, the nearest known star to the solar system with an estimated minimum mass of 1.27 times the mass of the Earth.
In February 2013, researchers speculated that up to 6% of small red dwarfs may have Earth-size planets. This suggests that the closest one to the Solar System could be 13 light-years away. The estimated distance increases to 21 light-years when a 95% confidence interval is used.[224] In March 2013, a revised estimate gave an occurrence rate of 50% for Earth-size planets in the habitable zone of red dwarfs.[225]
Exoplanets are often members of planetary systems of multiple planets around a star. The planets interact with each other gravitationally and sometimes form resonant systems where the orbital periods of the planets are in integer ratios. The Kepler-223 system contains four planets in an 8:6:4:3 orbital resonance.[227]
ANDES – The ArmazoNes High Dispersion Echelle Spectrograph, a planet finding and planet characterisation spectrograph, is expected to be fitted onto ESO's ELT 39.3m telescope. ANDES was formally known as HIRES, which itself was created after a merger of the consortia behind the earlier CODEX (optical high-resolution) and SIMPLE (near-infrared high-resolution) spectrograph concepts.[citation needed]
CoRoT – Space telescope that found the first transiting rocky planet.[230]
ESPRESSO – A rocky planet-finding, and stable spectroscopic observing, spectrograph mounted on ESO's 4 × 8.2 m VLT telescope, sited on the levelled summit of Cerro Paranal in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile.
Kepler – Mission to look for large numbers of exoplanets using the transit method.[citation needed]
TESS – Mission to search for new exoplanets, active from 2018 to 2020 and rotating to observe stars from all over the sky. As of 22 March 2025[update], TESS had identified 7,525 candidate exoplanets, of which 618 had been confirmed.[231]
^ abcFor the purpose of this 1 in 5 statistic, "Sun-like" means G-type star. Data for Sun-like stars was not available so this statistic is an extrapolation from data about K-type stars.
^ abcFor the purpose of this 1 in 5 statistic, Earth-sized means 1–2 Earth radii.
^ abFor the purpose of this 1 in 5 statistic, "habitable zone" means the region with 0.25 to 4 times Earth's stellar flux (corresponding to 0.5–2 AU for the Sun).
^ abAbout 1/4 of stars are GK Sun-like stars. The number of stars in the galaxy is not accurately known, but assuming 200 billion stars in total, the Milky Way would have about 50 billion Sun-like (GK) stars, of which about 1 in 5 (22%) or 11 billion would have Earth-sized planets in the habitable zone. Including red dwarfs would increase this to 40 billion.
^Maire, A.; Rodet, L.; Lazzoni, C.; Boccaletti, A.; Brandner, W.; Galicher, R.; Cantalloube, F.; Mesa, D.; Klahr, H.; Beust, H.; Chauvin, G.; Desidera, S.; Janson, M.; Keppler, M.; Olofsson, J.; Augereau, J.; Daemgen, S.; Henning, T.; Thébault, P.; Bonnefoy, M.; Feldt, M.; Gratton, R.; Lagrange, A.; Langlois, M.; Meyer, M. R.; Vigan, A.; D'Orazi, V.; Hagelberg, J.; Le Coroller, H.; Ligi, R.; Rouan, D.; Samland, M.; Schmidt, T.; Udry, S.; Zurlo, A.; Abe, L.; Carle, M.; Delboulbé, A.; Feautrier, P.; Magnard, Y.; Maurel, D.; Moulin, T.; Pavlov, A.; Perret, D.; Petit, C.; Ramos, J. R.; Rigal, F.; Roux, A.; Weber, L. (2018). "VLT/SPHERE astrometric confirmation and orbital analysis of the brown dwarf companion HR 2562 B". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 615: A177. arXiv:1804.04584. Bibcode:2018A&A...615A.177M. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732476.
^ abcBodenheimer, Peter; D'Angelo, Gennaro; Lissauer, Jack J.; Fortney, Jonathan J.; Saumon, Didier (2013). "Deuterium Burning in Massive Giant Planets and Low-mass Brown Dwarfs Formed by Core-nucleated Accretion". The Astrophysical Journal. 770 (2): 120. arXiv:1305.0980. Bibcode:2013ApJ...770..120B. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/120. S2CID118553341.
^Kumar, Shiv S. (2003). "Nomenclature: Brown Dwarfs, Gas Giant Planets, and ?". Brown Dwarfs. 211: 532. Bibcode:2003IAUS..211..529B.
^Brandt, T. D.; McElwain, M. W.; Turner, E. L.; Mede, K.; Spiegel, D. S.; Kuzuhara, M.; Schlieder, J. E.; Wisniewski, J. P.; Abe, L.; Biller, B.; Brandner, W.; Carson, J.; Currie, T.; Egner, S.; Feldt, M.; Golota, T.; Goto, M.; Grady, C. A.; Guyon, O.; Hashimoto, J.; Hayano, Y.; Hayashi, M.; Hayashi, S.; Henning, T.; Hodapp, K. W.; Inutsuka, S.; Ishii, M.; Iye, M.; Janson, M.; Kandori, R.; et al. (2014). "A Statistical Analysis of Seeds and Other High-Contrast Exoplanet Surveys: Massive Planets or Low-Mass Brown Dwarfs?". The Astrophysical Journal. 794 (2): 159. arXiv:1404.5335. Bibcode:2014ApJ...794..159B. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/159. S2CID119304898.
^Wright, J. T.; Fakhouri, O.; Marcy, G. W.; Han, E.; Feng, Y.; Johnson, John Asher; Howard, A. W.; Fischer, D. A.; Valenti, J. A.; Anderson, J.; Piskunov, N. (2010). "The Exoplanet Orbit Database". Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. 123 (902): 412–422. arXiv:1012.5676. Bibcode:2011PASP..123..412W. doi:10.1086/659427. S2CID51769219.
^Newton, Isaac; I. Bernard Cohen; Anne Whitman (1999) [1713]. The Principia: A New Translation and Guide. University of California Press. p. 940. ISBN978-0-520-08816-0.
^Struve, Otto (1952). "Proposal for a project of high-precision stellar radial velocity work". The Observatory. 72: 199–200. Bibcode:1952Obs....72..199S.
^See, T. J. J. (1896). "Researches on the orbit of 70 Ophiuchi, and on a periodic perturbation in the motion of the system arising from the action of an unseen body". The Astronomical Journal. 16: 17–23. Bibcode:1896AJ.....16...17S. doi:10.1086/102368.
^Rodriguez Baquero, Oscar Augusto (2017). La presencia humana más allá del sistema solar [Human presence beyond the solar system] (in Spanish). RBA. p. 29. ISBN978-84-473-9090-8.
^Doyle, L. R.; Carter, J. A.; Fabrycky, D. C.; Slawson, R. W.; Howell, S. B.; Winn, J. N.; Orosz, J. A.; Prša, A.; Welsh, W. F.; Quinn, S. N.; Latham, D.; Torres, G.; Buchhave, L. A.; Marcy, G. W.; Fortney, J. J.; Shporer, A.; Ford, E. B.; Lissauer, J. J.; Ragozzine, D.; Rucker, M.; Batalha, N.; Jenkins, J. M.; Borucki, W. J.; Koch, D.; Middour, C. K.; Hall, J. R.; McCauliff, S.; Fanelli, M. N.; Quintana, E. V.; Holman, M. J.; et al. (2011). "Kepler-16: A Transiting Circumbinary Planet". Science. 333 (6049): 1602–1606. arXiv:1109.3432. Bibcode:2011Sci...333.1602D. doi:10.1126/science.1210923. PMID21921192. S2CID206536332.
^Ballard, S.; Fabrycky, D.; Fressin, F.; Charbonneau, D.; Desert, J. M.; Torres, G.; Marcy, G.; Burke, C. J.; Isaacson, H.; Henze, C.; Steffen, J. H.; Ciardi, D. R.; Howell, S. B.; Cochran, W. D.; Endl, M.; Bryson, S. T.; Rowe, J. F.; Holman, M. J.; Lissauer, J. J.; Jenkins, J. M.; Still, M.; Ford, E. B.; Christiansen, J. L.; Middour, C. K.; Haas, M. R.; Li, J.; Hall, J. R.; McCauliff, S.; Batalha, N. M.; Koch, D. G.; et al. (2011). "The Kepler-19 System: A Transiting 2.2 R⊕ Planet and a Second Planet Detected Via Transit Timing Variations". The Astrophysical Journal. 743 (2): 200. arXiv:1109.1561. Bibcode:2011ApJ...743..200B. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/200. S2CID42698813.
^Cassan, A.; Kubas, D.; Beaulieu, J. -P.; Dominik, M.; Horne, K.; Greenhill, J.; Wambsganss, J.; Menzies, J.; Williams, A.; Jørgensen, U. G.; Udalski, A.; Bennett, D. P.; Albrow, M. D.; Batista, V.; Brillant, S.; Caldwell, J. A. R.; Cole, A.; Coutures, C.; Cook, K. H.; Dieters, S.; Prester, D. D.; Donatowicz, J.; Fouqué, P.; Hill, K.; Kains, N.; Kane, S.; Marquette, J. -B.; Martin, R.; Pollard, K. R.; Sahu, K. C. (11 January 2012). "One or more bound planets per Milky Way star from microlensing observations". Nature. 481 (7380): 167–169. arXiv:1202.0903. Bibcode:2012Natur.481..167C. doi:10.1038/nature10684. PMID22237108. S2CID2614136.
^Evans, T. M.; Pont, F. D. R.; Sing, D. K.; Aigrain, S.; Barstow, J. K.; Désert, J. M.; Gibson, N.; Heng, K.; Knutson, H. A.; Lecavelier Des Etangs, A. (2013). "The Deep Blue Color of HD189733b: Albedo Measurements with Hubble Space Telescope/Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph at Visible Wavelengths". The Astrophysical Journal. 772 (2): L16. arXiv:1307.3239. Bibcode:2013ApJ...772L..16E. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/772/2/L16. S2CID38344760.
^Barclay, T.; Huber, D.; Rowe, J. F.; Fortney, J. J.; Morley, C. V.; Quintana, E. V.; Fabrycky, D. C.; Barentsen, G.; Bloemen, S.; Christiansen, J. L.; Demory, B. O.; Fulton, B. J.; Jenkins, J. M.; Mullally, F.; Ragozzine, D.; Seader, S. E.; Shporer, A.; Tenenbaum, P.; Thompson, S. E. (2012). "Photometrically derived masses and radii of the planet and star in the TrES-2 system". The Astrophysical Journal. 761 (1): 53. arXiv:1210.4592. Bibcode:2012ApJ...761...53B. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/53. S2CID18216065.
^ abcBurrows, Adam (2014). "Scientific Return of Coronagraphic Exoplanet Imaging and Spectroscopy Using WFIRST". arXiv:1412.6097 [astro-ph.EP].
^Valencia, Diana; O'Connell, Richard J. (2009). "Convection scaling and subduction on Earth and super-Earths". Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 286 (3–4): 492–502. Bibcode:2009E&PSL.286..492V. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.07.015.
^Van Heck, H.J.; Tackley, P.J. (2011). "Plate tectonics on super-Earths: Equally or more likely than on Earth". Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 310 (3–4): 252–261. Bibcode:2011E&PSL.310..252V. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011.07.029.
^Mamajek, E. E.; Quillen, A. C.; Pecaut, M. J.; Moolekamp, F.; Scott, E. L.; Kenworthy, M. A.; Cameron, A. C.; Parley, N. R. (2012). "Planetary Construction Zones in Occultation: Discovery of an Extrasolar Ring System Transiting a Young Sun-Like Star and Future Prospects for Detecting Eclipses by Circumsecondary and Circumplanetary Disks". The Astronomical Journal. 143 (3): 72. arXiv:1108.4070. Bibcode:2012AJ....143...72M. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/3/72. S2CID55818711.
^Saillenfest, M.; Sulis, S.; Charpentier, P.; Santerne, A. (2023). "Oblique rings from migrating exomoons: A possible origin for long-period exoplanets with enlarged radii". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 675. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/20234674 (inactive 12 July 2025).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link)
^Российские астрономы впервые открыли луну возле экзопланеты (in Russian) - "Studying of a curve of change of shine of WASP-12b has brought to the Russian astronomers unusual result: regular splashes were found out.<...> Though stains on a star surface also can cause similar changes of shine, observable splashes are very similar on duration, a profile and amplitude that testifies for benefit of exomoon existence."
^Kislyakova, K. G.; Pilat-Lohinger, E.; Funk, B.; Lammer, H.; Fossati, L.; Eggl, S.; Schwarz, R.; Boudjada, M. Y.; Erkaev, N. V. (2016), "On the ultraviolet anomalies of the WASP-12 and HD 189733 systems: Trojan satellites as a plasma source", Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461 (1): 988–999, arXiv:1605.02507, Bibcode:2016MNRAS.461..988K, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1110, S2CID119205132
^Bennett, D. P.; Batista, V.; Bond, I. A.; Bennett, C. S.; Suzuki, D.; Beaulieu, J. -P.; Udalski, A.; Donatowicz, J.; Bozza, V.; Abe, F.; Botzler, C. S.; Freeman, M.; Fukunaga, D.; Fukui, A.; Itow, Y.; Koshimoto, N.; Ling, C. H.; Masuda, K.; Matsubara, Y.; Muraki, Y.; Namba, S.; Ohnishi, K.; Rattenbury, N. J.; Saito, T.; Sullivan, D. J.; Sumi, T.; Sweatman, W. L.; Tristram, P. J.; Tsurumi, N.; Wada, K.; et al. (2014). "MOA-2011-BLG-262Lb: A sub-Earth-mass moon orbiting a gas giant or a high-velocity planetary system in the galactic bulge". The Astrophysical Journal. 785 (2): 155. arXiv:1312.3951. Bibcode:2014ApJ...785..155B. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/155. S2CID118327512.
^Kipping, David; Teachey, Alex; Yahalomi, Daniel A.; Cassese, Ben; Quarles, Billy; Bryson, Steve; Hansen, Brad; Szulágyi, Judit; Burke, Chri (18 January 2024). "A Reply to: Large Exomoons unlikely around Kepler-1625 b and Kepler-1708 b". arXiv:2401.10333 [astro-ph.EP].
^Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar; Ramirez, Ramses M.; Schottelkotte, James; Kasting, James F.; Domagal-Goldman, Shawn; Eymet, Vincent (2014). "Habitable Zones around Main-sequence Stars: Dependence on Planetary Mass". The Astrophysical Journal. 787 (2): L29. arXiv:1404.5292. Bibcode:2014ApJ...787L..29K. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L29. S2CID118588898.
Jayawardhana, Ray (2011). Strange New Worlds: The Search for Alien Planets and Life Beyond Our Solar System. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN978-0-691-14254-8. (Hardcover.)
An exoplanet, also known as an extrasolar planet, is a planet that orbits a star outside the Solar System, typically within the Milky Way galaxy.[1] These worlds vary widely in size, composition, and orbit, ranging from rocky, Earth-like bodies to massive gas giants larger than Jupiter.[2] As of December 2025, astronomers have confirmed 6,065 exoplanets through NASA's Exoplanet Archive, with thousands more candidates awaiting verification; most have been detected in the galactic neighborhood around the Sun, within thousands of light-years.[3][4]The discovery of exoplanets revolutionized astronomy, confirming that planetary systems are common throughout the galaxy and challenging earlier assumptions that our Solar System was unique.[4] The first confirmed exoplanets were detected in 1992 orbiting the pulsar PSR B1257+12, marking the initial breakthrough in extrasolar planet detection.[5] This was followed in 1995 by the identification of 51 Pegasi b, the first exoplanet found around a Sun-like star, which earned its discoverers the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics.[5] Subsequent missions, such as NASA's Kepler Space Telescope (launched in 2009) and Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS, launched in 2018), have dramatically increased the catalog by employing advanced detection techniques.[6]Exoplanets are primarily detected indirectly, as their faint light is overwhelmed by their host stars' glare.[7] The most common methods include the transit method, which measures periodic dips in a star's brightness as a planet passes in front of it, and the radial velocity method, which detects the star's subtle gravitational wobble through shifts in its spectral lines.[1] Other techniques, such as direct imaging, gravitational microlensing, and astrometry, have also contributed to discoveries, particularly for planets in wider orbits or around distant stars.[4] These approaches have revealed diverse exoplanet types, including "hot Jupiters" with scorching atmospheres, "super-Earths" intermediate in size between Earth and Neptune, and potentially habitable worlds in the "Goldilocks zone" where liquid water could exist.[2]The study of exoplanets holds profound implications for understanding planetary formation, system architectures, and the prevalence of life beyond Earth.[4] Systems like TRAPPIST-1, with seven Earth-sized planets including three in the habitable zone, exemplify the potential for diverse environments.[8] Ongoing observations with the James Webb Space Telescope are analyzing exoplanet atmospheres for biosignatures, such as water vapor or oxygen, advancing the search for extraterrestrial habitability.[9] With billions of stars in the Milky Way likely hosting planets, exoplanet research continues to expand our cosmic perspective.[4]
Definition and Terminology
Definition
An exoplanet is defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) as an object with a true mass below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium, currently calculated at 13 Jupiter masses for solar-metallicity objects, that orbits a star, brown dwarf, or stellar remnant, and has a mass ratio with the central object below the L₄/L₅ instability limit (approximately 1/25).[10] This working definition, originally established in 2003 and amended in 2018 by IAU Commission F2, emphasizes the object's formation-independent status as a planet provided it meets these orbital and mass criteria, distinguishing it from brown dwarfs which exceed the deuterium fusion threshold.[10] Free-floating planetary-mass objects not orbiting any central body are explicitly excluded from this definition and classified separately as sub-brown dwarfs or rogue planetary-mass objects.[10]Alternative definitions exist, such as NASA's broader characterization, which includes free-floating exoplanets—known as rogue planets—that do not orbit stars but are untethered planetary bodies beyond our solar system.[1] While the IAU focuses on orbiting objects, NASA's approach encompasses these isolated worlds to reflect the diversity of planetary systems, though protoplanets in early formation stages are generally not classified as confirmed exoplanets under either framework. Confirmation of an exoplanet requires rigorous criteria to distinguish genuine detections from false positives, such as stellar variability, background eclipsing binaries, or instrumental artifacts. The NASA Exoplanet Archive mandates that candidates undergo sufficient follow-up observations—often multiple independent datasets from techniques like radial velocity, which measures the star's wobble to confirm the planet's mass, or transit photometry repeated over several orbits—to achieve a low false-positive probability, with all data published in peer-reviewed literature.[11] Exomoons, natural satellites orbiting exoplanets rather than stars directly, are not considered exoplanets themselves but potential components of planetary systems.[11]
Nomenclature
The nomenclature for exoplanets follows a widely adopted convention that designates each planet by appending a lowercase letter to the identifier of its host star, ensuring systematic and unique labeling across astronomical catalogs. The host star's name or catalog entry—such as a proper name (e.g., 51 Pegasi) or a survey-based code (e.g., Kepler-452)—is followed by the letter 'b' for the first confirmed planet, 'c' for the second, and so on alphabetically, with uppercase letters reserved for the star itself (e.g., Kepler-452b). This priority is granted to the discovering team or survey, and the designation is assigned only after independent confirmation to avoid provisional or retracted names.[12][13]The evolution of exoplanet naming reflects the progression of detection methods and discoveries. The earliest confirmed exoplanets, detected in 1992 around the millisecond pulsar PSR B1257+12 via pulsar timing, were designated PSR B1257+12 b, c, and d, marking the first use of this letter-suffix system for extrasolar worlds.[14] As radial velocity surveys dominated in the 1990s, names like 51 Pegasi b emerged from stellar catalogs such as the Henry Draper Catalogue (e.g., HD 209458 b). With the rise of transit surveys in the 2010s, designations shifted to mission-specific formats, exemplified by the TRAPPIST-1 system, where seven Earth-sized planets were labeled TRAPPIST-1 b through h in order of increasing semi-major axis following their 2017 discovery.[15]In multi-planet systems, letters are typically assigned in chronological order of discovery, though when planets are identified simultaneously, they are ordered by increasing semi-major axis or orbital period to reflect their positions.[16] Special cases arise in binary star systems, where planets may orbit one component (e.g., the retracted candidate Alpha Centauri Bb, proposed around Alpha Centauri B in 2012 but disproven in 2015 due to instrumental artifacts).[17] The NASA Exoplanet Archive, maintained by the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center (IPAC) at Caltech, serves as the primary global repository for cataloging these designations, compiling data from peer-reviewed publications and standardizing names for more than 6,000 confirmed exoplanets as of November 2025 to facilitate research and cross-referencing.[3]
Historical Development
Early Speculations and Discredited Claims
In the 19th century, astronomers began speculating about planets orbiting other stars based on observed perturbations in stellar motions, particularly through astrometry. One of the earliest such claims involved the binary star 70 Ophiuchi, where astronomer W. S. Jacob and others in the 1850s reported irregularities in its path, interpreting them as evidence of an unseen planetary companion; these observations were later attributed to measurement errors and observational biases rather than actual planets.[18] Similarly, Giovanni Schiaparelli's 1877 observations of linear "canali" on Mars fueled broader speculation about complex planetary systems beyond our solar system, inspiring theoretical discussions on the prevalence of habitable worlds around other stars, though no direct exoplanet detections were claimed.[19]Lord Kelvin's work in the 1890s on tidal evolution further contributed to these speculations by modeling how gravitational interactions could stabilize or disrupt planetary orbits over time, extending ideas from the Earth-Moon system to potential configurations around other stars and influencing early theoretical frameworks for extrasolar planetary dynamics.[20] These 19th-century ideas, while unverified, laid conceptual groundwork for systematic searches.In the mid-20th century, astrometric techniques advanced, leading to more specific but ultimately discredited claims. In 1943, astronomer K. Aa. Strand announced evidence for a planetary-mass companion, 61 Cygni C, orbiting the binary system 61 Cygni, with a mass estimated at about 16 times that of Jupiter, based on perturbations in the motion of 61 Cygni B; this claim was later discredited due to instrumental and measurement errors. The purported discovery was enthusiastically referenced by science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke in letters to Lord Dunsany dated September 6 and 21, 1944, where he described 61 Cygni C as roughly Jupiter-sized but "a good deal heavier," detected via the gravitational wobble of 61 Cygni B.[21][22] In 1963, Peter van de Kamp announced the detection of two Jupiter-mass planets orbiting Barnard's Star, based on decades of photographic plate measurements showing a stellar wobble with periods of 25 and 13 years; follow-up analyses in the 1970s revealed these signals were artifacts from periodic adjustments to the telescope's focal length at Sproul Observatory, not planetary perturbations.[23][24]Another notable claim came in the 1980s, when infrared observations suggested a low-mass companion to the nearby M8 dwarf VB 10 (also known as LHS 3001), potentially a brown dwarf or planetary-mass object; high-resolution imaging and astrometry in the late 1980s and 1990s confirmed no such object existed, attributing the signal to unresolved background sources or instrumental effects.[25]A more prominent example occurred in 1991, when Andrew Lyne's team claimed a planetary companion to PSR B1829-10 based on pulse timing variations, only to retract it in 1992 after improved data revealed the irregularities stemmed from astrophysical noise in the pulsar's emission rather than gravitational effects.[26]These early speculations and discredited detections, though flawed, highlighted the challenges of instrumental precision and systematic errors, spurring refinements in astrometric and radial velocity methods that eventually enabled confirmed discoveries in the 1990s.[27]
First Confirmations and Major Milestones
The first confirmed exoplanets were discovered in 1992 orbiting the millisecond pulsar PSR B1257+12, using pulsar timing observations that revealed periodic variations in the pulse arrival times indicative of gravitational perturbations from orbiting bodies.[14] Aleksander Wolszczan and Dale Frail identified three planets with minimum masses ranging from approximately 0.01 to 4 Earth masses, marking the inaugural verification of an extrasolar planetary system despite the unusual host being a neutron star remnant.[28] This breakthrough, published in Nature, established the feasibility of detecting planets beyond the Solar System and set the stage for subsequent searches around more conventional stars.[14]In 1995, the first exoplanet around a main-sequence star was confirmed: 51 Pegasi b, a gas giant with a minimum mass of 0.47 Jupiter masses in a 4.2-day orbit, detected via radial velocity measurements of the host star's wobble. Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz's discovery, also reported in Nature, revolutionized the field by demonstrating that hot Jupiters—massive planets in close orbits—could exist around Sun-like stars, challenging prevailing models of planetary formation.[29] This finding spurred the development of dedicated exoplanet surveys and earned Mayor and Queloz the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics.Subsequent milestones accelerated the pace of discoveries. In 2004, a low-mass planet of about 14 Earth masses was confirmed around μ Arae using high-precision radial velocity data from the HARPS spectrograph, representing one of the lightest exoplanets known at the time and hinting at diverse planetary masses.[30] The 2009 launch of NASA's Kepler space telescope enabled the detection of thousands of transiting exoplanet candidates through photometric monitoring of over 150,000 stars, confirming more than 2,600 planets by the mission's end and revealing the prevalence of multi-planet systems.[31]From 2018 onward, missions like TESS and the 2021 launch of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) advanced atmospheric characterizations, with JWST providing detailed spectra of exoplanet atmospheres between 2023 and 2025. For instance, JWST observations of the TRAPPIST-1 system—initially discovered in 2017 with seven Earth-sized planets—yielded hints of potential biosignatures and secondary atmospheres on habitable-zone worlds like TRAPPIST-1 e, narrowing possibilities for volatile compositions and habitability.[32] These efforts have shifted focus toward smaller, cooler planets more akin to Earth.As of October 2025, the NASA Exoplanet Archive lists 6,042 confirmed exoplanets, with discovery trends increasingly favoring rocky, temperate worlds in habitable zones over the gas giants that dominated early findings.[3]
Detection Techniques
Indirect Methods
Indirect methods for detecting exoplanets infer the presence of planets through their gravitational influence on the host star or background light, without directly observing the planet itself. These techniques have been instrumental in discovering the majority of confirmed exoplanets, as they can probe a wide range of orbital configurations and planet masses.The radial velocity method measures the periodic Doppler shift in the star's spectral lines caused by the star's reflex motion around the system's center of mass due to an orbiting planet. This wobble induces a velocity variation with semi-amplitude K, approximated for low-eccentricity orbits asK=1−e228.4(MJmpsini)(1yrP)−1/3(M⊙M∗)−2/3m/s,where mp is the planet's mass, i is the orbital inclination, P is the orbital period, e is the eccentricity, MJ is Jupiter's mass, and M∗ is the stellar mass. The method requires high-precision spectroscopy, achieving sensitivities down to ~1 m/s with instruments like HARPS. The first exoplanet detected by this technique was 51 Pegasi b, a Jupiter-mass planet in a 4.2-day orbit, announced by Mayor and Queloz in 1995. As of 2025, radial velocity has confirmed over 1,100 exoplanets, favoring massive planets in close orbits due to larger K values.[33]Transit photometry detects exoplanets by observing the periodic decrease in stellar flux when a planet passes in front of its host star, as viewed from Earth. The transit depth δ, which quantifies the fractional flux drop, is given by δ=(Rp/R∗)2, where Rp is the planet radius and R∗ is the stellar radius; this directly yields Rp if R∗ is known from stellar models.[34] The transit duration and shape further constrain the orbital inclination and semi-major axis. The geometric probability of observing a transit is approximately R∗/a, where a is the semi-major axis, making it low (~0.5% for Earth-Sun analogs) but higher for close-in orbits. The first transiting exoplanet, HD 209458 b, was identified in 2000 through ground-based observations confirming a ~1.5% flux dip. Space-based missions like Kepler and TESS have revolutionized this method, detecting thousands of transiting planets, particularly small ones in multi-planet systems.Astrometry detects the small positional wobble of a star on the sky caused by the gravitational tug of an orbiting planet. This method is sensitive to wide-orbit planets and provides full orbital parameters, including true mass without inclination ambiguity. Though challenging due to required precision (~microarcseconds), it has confirmed a few exoplanets, such as the candidate around Barnard's Star in 2019 (later debated). Ground- and space-based efforts, including Gaia, continue to advance astrometry for exoplanet detection.[4]Transit timing variations (TTV) extend transit photometry by monitoring deviations in predicted transit epochs caused by gravitational interactions among multiple planets in the system. These perturbations accumulate over multiple orbits, producing detectable timing shifts of minutes to hours, especially near mean-motion resonances, allowing inference of non-transiting companions' masses as low as Earth's. The method does not require direct flux dips from additional planets but relies on precise timing of observed transits. Holman and Murray proposed TTV as a sensitive probe for terrestrial-mass planets in 2005, predicting measurable signals for systems with periods under ~1 year. Kepler data enabled the first confirmations of non-transiting planets via TTV, such as Kepler-19c in 2011, the first planet discovered solely by this method.[35]Gravitational microlensing detects exoplanets by observing the temporary magnification of a distant background star's light when a foreground star-planet system passes in front, bending spacetime per general relativity. The planet causes a characteristic short-duration anomaly in the lensing light curve, sensitive to planets at separations of ~1-10 AU, including free-floating ones.[36] The first unambiguous microlensing exoplanet detection was OGLE-2003-BLG-235Lb in 2003, a ~5 Earth-mass planet orbiting a low-mass star at ~3 AU. Surveys like OGLE and MOA have identified over 300 planets as of 2025, uniquely probing cold, low-mass worlds in the Galactic bulge.[37]Despite their successes, indirect methods share limitations, including biases toward massive, close-in planets (radial velocity and transit) or rare events (microlensing), with false positives from stellar activity, eclipsing binaries, or instrumental noise. TTV requires multi-planet systems and long baselines for signal accumulation. These biases mean the detected population underrepresents distant, low-mass planets, though complementary techniques like direct imaging can probe wide orbits.
Direct Imaging
Direct imaging involves capturing photons directly from an exoplanet, rather than inferring its presence through stellar effects, by employing high-contrast imaging techniques to separate the faint planetary light from the overwhelming glare of the host star. This method relies on coronagraphs, which block or mask the central starlight to create a dark region in the image, combined with adaptive optics systems that correct for atmospheric distortions in ground-based observations or use precise pointing in space-based setups. These technologies achieve the necessary contrast ratios, typically on the order of 10^{-9} or better, to detect planets that are billions of times fainter than their stars.[38][39]The primary challenges stem from the extreme flux disparity between stars and planets, favoring the detection of young, self-luminous gas giants that are still hot from formation and thus brighter in the infrared, as well as those in wide orbits greater than about 5 AU where angular separation allows better isolation from stellar light. Current ground-based systems struggle with inner regions closer to the star due to diffraction limits and residual starlight, limiting discoveries to a small sample of massive planets (often several Jupiter masses) around young stars. Space-based observations mitigate some issues but still require advanced wavefront control to suppress scattered light effectively.[38][40]One of the landmark successes was the 2008 imaging of the HR 8799 system, where four massive gas giant planets were directly photographed orbiting a young A-type star at separations of 24 to 68 AU, marking the first multi-planet system confirmed via direct imaging and providing evidence of planetary orbital motion over subsequent observations. That same year, Fomalhaut b was announced as an exoplanet candidate at about 119 AU from its star, appearing as a bright point source in optical images, though later analyses debated its nature as potentially a dust cloud rather than a planet due to its fading and irregular motion. These detections highlighted the potential of direct imaging for studying young systems but also its limitations in confirming planetary status without spectral data.[41][42]Advancements in the 2010s came with dedicated instruments like the Gemini Planet Imager (GPI) on the Gemini South Telescope and SPHERE on the Very Large Telescope, which integrate extreme adaptive optics, coronagraphs, and integral field spectrographs to achieve contrasts up to 10^{-6} at small separations, enabling the characterization of dozens of young planets through photometry and low-resolution spectra. More recently, the James Webb Space Telescope's Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam), operational since 2022, has pushed boundaries by imaging protoplanets in the PDS 70 disk, including detailed views of accreting gas giants at separations around 20-50 AU and hints of a potential third companion, revealing disk-planet interactions and atmospheric properties in unprecedented detail. These tools have expanded the sample to over 50 confirmed directly imaged exoplanets as of 2025, focusing on thermal emission in the near- to mid-infrared.[43][44][45]Looking ahead, the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, expected to launch in 2027, will demonstrate advanced coronagraphy in space to survey thousands of nearby stars for Jupiter-sized planets at separations of 5-20 AU, achieving contrasts around 10^{-9} and paving the way for future missions targeting Earth-like worlds by refining high-contrast imaging technologies.[46]
Stellar Hosts and System Architectures
Characteristics of Host Stars
Exoplanets are primarily hosted by main-sequence stars spanning spectral types F, G, K, and M, with these categories encompassing the vast majority of known systems. Sun-like G-type stars, analogous to our own Sun, serve as archetypal hosts and have been extensively studied through missions like Kepler, revealing planetary occurrence rates where Kepler studies indicate that roughly 50% of Sun-like stars host at least one small planet (0.5-1.5 Earth radii) with orbital periods less than 200 days.[47] M-type dwarfs, the most numerous stellar class in the Milky Way and comprising about 75% of all stars, dominate exoplanet discoveries due to their abundance, proximity, and the effectiveness of transit detection methods on their compact systems; they host a substantial and growing fraction of confirmed exoplanets, comprising around 40% as of October 2025.[48] However, M dwarfs are prone to frequent stellar flares, which can impact planetary habitability and atmospheric retention.[49]A prominent feature among host stars is the correlation between stellar metallicity and the presence of giant planets. Higher iron-to-hydrogen ratios ([Fe/H]) significantly enhance the likelihood of forming massive planets, with the detection probability following a logarithmic relation P ∝ 10^{0.13 [Fe/H]}, as derived from recent analyses of FGK stars.[50] This planet-metallicity correlation underscores the role of metal-enriched protoplanetary disks in enabling rapid core accretion for gas giants, a trend most pronounced for Jovian-mass worlds around solar-type stars.Binary and multiple-star systems represent about half of all stellar configurations, yet they pose challenges for stable planetary orbits owing to gravitational perturbations that can destabilize inner companions. Despite this, circumbinary planets exist, exemplified by Kepler-16b, a Saturn-mass world orbiting an eclipsing binary pair of K- and M-type dwarfs at a separation of 0.7 AU. Such systems highlight regions of dynamical stability, often near mean-motion resonances with the binary orbit.[51]Among evolved stellar remnants, white dwarfs frequently display "polluted" atmospheres enriched with metals like calcium, magnesium, and silicon, signatures of disrupted rocky planetesimals from former planetary systems. These pollutants, detected in up to 25-50% of white dwarfs within 100 pc, indicate ongoing accretion from debris disks and provide compositional clues about exoplanet interiors, such as the prevalence of mantle-like materials akin to peridotite.[52]
Orbital Architectures
The orbital architectures of exoplanets are characterized by their Keplerian orbital elements, including the semi-major axis a, which describes the average distance from the host star; the eccentricity e, which measures the orbital shape from circular (e=0) to highly elliptical; and the inclination i, which indicates the angle relative to the host star's equatorial plane. These parameters reveal a diverse range of configurations, from tightly packed inner orbits to extended outer ones. For instance, hot Jupiters—gas giants with masses comparable to Jupiter—typically exhibit small semi-major axes (a<0.1 AU), low eccentricities (e<0.1), and short orbital periods (P<10 days), enabling their detection via transits and radial velocity methods around Sun-like stars.[53][54]Compact multi-planet systems represent a common architecture, particularly among smaller planets, where multiple worlds orbit in close proximity to their host star. The TRAPPIST-1 system exemplifies this, hosting seven Earth-sized planets with semi-major axes ranging from approximately 0.02 to 0.06 AU, corresponding to orbital periods of 1.5 to 12 days, forming a tightly spaced configuration around an ultracool M-dwarf star. These systems often feature low mutual inclinations (a few degrees) and period ratios clustered near but slightly exterior to integer values, suggesting formation through inward migration followed by dynamical settling. Resonant chains further define many such architectures, where planets maintain stable configurations through mean-motion resonances, such as the 3:2 and 4:3 ratios observed in the four sub-Neptune planets of Kepler-223, with periods of about 7.4, 9.8, 14.8, and 19.7 days.[15][55][53]Orbital stability in these compact systems is governed by factors like the Hill radius, which approximates the region of gravitational influence around a planet and sets a minimum separation to avoid close encounters leading to ejections or collisions—typically requiring separations of several mutual Hill radii (e.g., 5–10 RH) for long-term stability over gigayears. Mean-motion resonances play a crucial role in enhancing stability by locking planets into periodic configurations that dampen eccentricities and prevent chaotic interactions, as seen in resonant chains where three-body resonances can bridge gaps between pairwise resonances. In contrast, wide orbits (a>10 AU) are rarer and often result from planet-planet scattering during migration phases, where gravitational instabilities eject planets to large semi-major axes with high eccentricities (e>0.5) and inclinations, though Oort cloud-like analogs remain scarce due to detection challenges. Simulations indicate that a few percent of scattered planets end up on such extended orbits, potentially observable via direct imaging.[56][53]Observational trends highlight architectural preferences, with fewer giant planets detected beyond 1 AU—peaking instead near the snow line at periods of ~300 days—while super-Earths and mini-Neptunes dominate inner regions (a<1 AU), comprising up to 50% of systems around Sun-like stars in compact arrangements. This distribution implies distinct formation pathways, with giants forming farther out and migrating inward, whereas smaller planets assemble in situ or through milder migrations, leading to the prevalence of low-eccentricity, coplanar multi-planet setups. M-dwarfs, such as TRAPPIST-1's host, tend to favor these tight inner architectures due to their extended protoplanetary disks.[57][53]
Physical Properties
Size, Mass, and Density
The radius of an exoplanet is most commonly measured using the transit method, which detects the periodic dimming of a host star's light as the planet passes in front of it. The depth of this transit provides the squared ratio of the planetary radius Rp to the stellar radius Rs, allowing Rp to be derived once Rs is known from stellar characterization. This technique has revealed a wide range of exoplanet sizes, from compact rocky worlds approximately 1 R⊕ in radius, comparable to Earth, to inflated gas giants reaching up to about 2 RJ, where RJ is Jupiter's radius.[58][59]Exoplanet masses are determined primarily through the radial velocity method, which measures the gravitational tug of the planet on its host star, yielding the minimum mass mpsini (where i is the orbital inclination). For transiting systems, the known inclination enables derivation of the true mass mp. Alternatively, transit-timing variations (TTV) in multi-planet systems provide mass estimates by analyzing deviations in predicted transit times due to gravitational interactions. These methods have characterized masses from sub-Earth levels to several Jupiter masses, though radial velocity is biased toward massive planets on close orbits.[58]Planetary density ρ is calculated as ρ=4πRp33mp, offering insights into bulk composition and internal structure when both mass and radius are available. Rocky super-Earths, with radii between 1 and 2 R⊕, typically exhibit densities of 5–10 g/cm³, indicative of iron- and silicate-rich cores with minimal volatile envelopes. In contrast, gaseous mini-Neptunes, spanning 2–4 R⊕, have lower densities of 1–2 g/cm³ due to thick hydrogen-helium atmospheres overlying smaller rocky/icy cores. A notable feature in the radius distribution is the "Fulton gap," a scarcity of planets with radii between 1.5 and 2 R⊕, first identified in 2017 using Kepler data and attributed to atmospheric photoevaporation stripping envelopes from planets in this size range around active stars.[60][61]Despite over 6,000 confirmed exoplanets as of late 2025, precise density measurements remain limited, with only about 10% having both reliable mass and radius determinations, primarily from combined transit and radial velocity observations. This scarcity introduces uncertainties in composition models, as densities for most planets are inferred indirectly from population statistics rather than individual measurements.[4][61]
Temperature and Composition
The equilibrium temperature of an exoplanet, which approximates the effective temperature assuming blackbody radiation and no internal heat sources, is given by the formula Teq=T∗2aR∗(1−A)1/4, where T∗ is the stellar effective temperature, R∗ is the stellar radius, a is the semi-major axis of the planet's orbit, and A is the Bond albedo.[62] This calculation provides a baseline for thermal regimes, with hot Jupiters typically exhibiting Teq>1000 K due to their close-in orbits around host stars.[54]Exoplanets are broadly classified by their thermal states into hot and cold categories, with the former dominated by stellar irradiation and the latter by internal heat or distance from the host star. Ultra-hot Jupiters represent an extreme subset, where dayside temperatures exceed 2000 K, leading to molecular dissociation; for instance, KELT-9b reaches a dayside temperature of approximately 4300 K, causing hydrogen molecules (H2) to break apart and altering atmospheric chemistry through recombination heat transport. These high temperatures contrast with cold exoplanets, such as those in wider orbits, where Teq falls below 300 K, preserving volatile ices.[54]Exoplanet compositions are inferred from mass-radius relations and spectroscopic data, distinguishing rocky planets primarily made of silicates and iron from icy ones rich in water (H2O) and ammonia (NH3), while gas giants feature thick hydrogen/helium envelopes overlying potential cores.[63] Transmission and emission spectroscopy has revealed key atmospheric constituents, such as water vapor detected in the hot Saturn WASP-39b via JWST observations in 2022, confirming its presence at volume mixing ratios of about 0.3-1%.[64] Carbon dioxide has also been identified in similar worlds, including WASP-39b with a mixing ratio around 300 ppm, providing insights into carbon chemistry in moderately warm (∼900 K) environments.[65]Interior structure models use mass-radius data to delineate core-envelope boundaries, revealing how rocky or icy cores (typically 10-50% of total mass) support H/He envelopes in sub-Neptunes and super-Earths, with transitions occurring around 1.5-2 Earth radii where envelope compression affects density.[66] For example, density measurements constrain core sizes in planets like Kepler-11b, indicating iron-rich interiors beneath thin atmospheres.[66]
Formation and Evolutionary Processes
Formation Mechanisms
Exoplanets are believed to form primarily within protoplanetary disks of gas and dust surrounding young stars, where solid particles coalesce and grow into planetary bodies over millions of years.[67] The dominant theoretical frameworks for this process include core accretion, gravitational disk instability, and pebble accretion, each suited to different planetary types and orbital distances. These mechanisms explain the diversity of observed exoplanets, from rocky super-Earths to gas giants, by accounting for the efficiency of dust aggregation, gas capture, and dynamical interactions within the disk.[68]In the core accretion model, planet formation begins with the collision and sticking of microscopic dust grains in the disk, which grow into centimeter-sized particles and eventually kilometer-scale planetesimals through mechanisms like turbulent concentration and streaming instabilities. These planetesimals (typically 1-10 km in diameter) further aggregate via gravitational interactions to form planetary cores of approximately 10-15 Earth masses, a process that takes about 1-10 million years depending on disk conditions.[67] Once a core reaches this critical mass, it gravitationally attracts a massive hydrogen-helium envelope from the surrounding gas, leading to rapid gas accretion and the formation of gas giants if the core is massive enough; this envelope buildup can occur on timescales of 10^5-10^6 years.[68] The model is particularly effective for explaining planets forming within 5 AU, where disk temperatures allow for the condensation of ices that enhance solid material availability.[69]Gravitational disk instability provides an alternative pathway for the swift formation of massive planets, especially at larger orbital distances beyond 5 AU, where core accretion may be too slow due to sparse solids.[70] In this scenario, local overdensities in the gas-dominated disk become gravitationally unstable, leading to the collapse of gas clumps into protoplanetary cores on extremely short timescales of about 10^4 years, driven by cooling and fragmentation processes.[71] These clumps can directly form gas giants with minimal rocky cores, as the instability operates in massive, marginally stable disks with masses exceeding 0.1 solar masses.[70] While less favored for inner disk planets due to the need for specific disk conditions, this mechanism may account for wide-orbit giants observed in direct imaging surveys.[68]Pebble accretion addresses challenges in forming intermediate-mass planets like super-Earths by emphasizing the role of centimeter- to meter-sized "pebbles" that drift inward due to aerodynamic drag in the disk. These pebbles provide a continuous flux of solids that low-mass planetary embryos (starting from Mars-sized seeds) can efficiently accrete at rates up to 100 Earth masses per million years, enabling rapid growth in the inner disk without relying solely on slower planetesimal collisions. This process is particularly effective for super-Earths forming at 1-10 AU, as the high pebble supply allows cores to reach 5-20 Earth masses before significant gas accretion or disk dispersal.[72]Recent experimental work has revealed an additional process contributing to planetary composition during formation: water is naturally produced when hydrogen from primitive atmospheres dissolves into iron-rich magma oceans on forming planets, generating significant quantities through iron-oxide reduction under high-pressure and high-temperature conditions. This mechanism, demonstrated in laboratory simulations at pressures of ~60 gigapascals and temperatures over 4,000°C, provides a novel source of water for exoplanets, particularly sub-Neptunes, and has implications for their habitability and interior evolution.[73]Planetary formation can also occur in more complex environments, such as binary star systems. A November 2025 discovery of three Earth-sized planets orbiting both stars in the compact binary TOI-2267 demonstrates that rocky planets can form and remain stable in such gravitationally challenging setups, expanding theoretical models to account for the prevalence of multi-star hosts.[74]Planetary migration plays a crucial role in shaping final orbital architectures, as growing planets interact with the disk via gravitational torques, causing inward or outward drift.[75] In Type I migration, low-mass planets (below ~10 Earth masses) experience torques from density waves excited at Lindblad resonances, leading to inward migration on timescales of 10^5-10^6 years, which can explain compact systems of super-Earths. For more massive planets that open gaps in the disk, Type II migration slows to match the disk's viscous evolution, typically taking 10^6-10^7 years and resulting in closer orbits for gas giants; this mechanism is invoked to account for hot Jupiters, which likely formed farther out and migrated inward.[75]Observational evidence supporting core accretion includes a strong correlation between host star metallicity and the presence of giant planets, as higher metallicity enhances the dust density needed for efficient core growth.[69] Stars hosting gas giants are typically 0.2-0.5 dex more metal-rich than field stars, a trend observed in radial velocity surveys of thousands of systems.[69] This metallicity effect diminishes for lower-mass planets, consistent with pebble and core accretion pathways that rely less on total solids for smaller bodies.[76]
Evolutionary Pathways
Exoplanets undergo significant transformations throughout their lifetimes due to a combination of internal thermal processes and external gravitational and radiative influences. These evolutionary pathways shape their physical properties, orbits, and potential habitability, often leading to diverse outcomes such as atmospheric loss, orbital migration, or ejection from their host systems. While formation mechanisms set the initial conditions, subsequent evolution is driven by cooling, mass loss, and dynamical instabilities that alter planetary structures and system architectures over billions of years.Gas giant exoplanets, similar to Jupiter and Saturn in our solar system, experience prolonged cooling and contraction phases powered by gravitational energy release and residual formation heat. These planets radiate excess internal heat into space, causing their radii to shrink over time as the gas envelope compresses under self-gravity. For instance, younger gas giants appear larger and hotter, while older ones, like Saturn compared to Jupiter, exhibit cooler interiors and smaller radii due to this ongoing contraction. This process dominates the thermal evolution of massive planets, with luminosity decreasing as the planet ages, though tidal heating in close-in orbits can counteract cooling in some cases.Photoevaporation, driven by high-energy stellar radiation, plays a crucial role in stripping atmospheres from low-mass exoplanets, particularly those orbiting close to their stars. Ultraviolet and X-ray photons heat planetary atmospheres, causing them to expand and escape, which preferentially affects planets with hydrogen/helium envelopes around 1-4 Earth radii. This mechanism sculpts the observed radius valley in exoplanet populations, separating super-Earths (bare rocky cores ~1.3 R⊕) from mini-Neptunes (~2.6 R⊕) by eroding the envelopes of intermediate-sized worlds. Models by Owen and Wu demonstrate that photoevaporation occurs most intensely during the early, active phases of stellar evolution, herding planets into these distinct size classes.[77]Tidal interactions between exoplanets and their host stars induce orbital decay and spin synchronization, especially for close-in giants like hot Jupiters. Tidal friction dissipates energy within the planet or star, transferring angular momentum and causing the planet's orbit to shrink over time, potentially leading to inspiral and stellar engulfment. For hot Jupiters, this evolution is evident in observed transit timing variations signaling orbital decay rates of seconds per year.[78] Concurrently, tides synchronize the planet's rotation with its orbital period, resulting in tidally locked configurations where one hemisphere perpetually faces the star.Dynamical interactions, such as planet-planet scattering, further drive evolutionary changes by destabilizing multi-planet systems. Close encounters between planets can eject one into interstellar space or excite high eccentricities in the survivors, explaining the observed population of eccentric exoplanets. Simulations show that scattering in systems with multiple giants produces eccentricity distributions matching radial velocity detections, with ejections occurring in up to 50% of unstable configurations. These events often follow periods of disk migration, where giants are more prone to such instabilities.As exoplanets age, internal processes wane, leading to diminished volcanism and weakening magnetic fields. Cooling reduces mantle convection, suppressing volcanic activity that once recycled atmospheres and surfaces on rocky worlds.[79] Similarly, declining core dynamos result in fading magnetic fields, leaving planets vulnerable to stellar winds and atmospheric erosion.[80] Dynamical disruptions contribute to rogue planets—free-floating worlds unbound from any star—formed through ejections during scattering, with estimates suggesting billions wander the galaxy.[81]
Atmospheres and Surfaces
Atmospheric Properties
Exoplanet atmospheres exhibit diverse compositions depending on the planet's size, formation history, and evolutionary processes. For gas giant exoplanets, such as hot Jupiters, the atmospheres are predominantly composed of hydrogen (H) and helium (He), retained from the primordial nebula during core accretion formation.[82] These primary atmospheres often include trace amounts of heavier molecules like water vapor (H₂O) at temperatures ranging from 600 to 3000 K.[82] In contrast, smaller terrestrial and super-Earth exoplanets typically possess secondary atmospheres formed through volcanic outgassing from their interiors, potentially dominated by nitrogen (N₂), oxygen (O₂), carbon dioxide (CO₂), and water (H₂O), with O₂ arising in high-metallicity or post-impact scenarios.[82] These compositions reflect the planet's bulk elemental abundances and internal geochemistry, influencing overall atmospheric stability and observability.[82]The vertical structure of exoplanet atmospheres is layered, analogous to solar system planets but adapted to extreme irradiation and compositions. The photosphere, probed by infrared observations at pressures of approximately 1 mbar to 1 bar, reveals molecular opacity sources like H₂O and CO.[83] Below this lies the troposphere in the intermediate layer (1 mbar to 1 bar), where convection, cloud formation, and temperature gradients dominate, often leading to thermal inversions in highly irradiated worlds.[83] Greenhouse effects, driven by absorbing gases such as CO₂ and H₂O, can amplify equilibrium temperatures by several hundred Kelvin; for instance, in runaway greenhouse scenarios, surface temperatures may rise dramatically to over 1000 K as water vapor traps outgoing radiation.[84] These structural features create complex pressure-temperature profiles that govern energy redistribution and chemical reactions.[83]Atmospheric dynamics on exoplanets are driven by intense stellar irradiation and rapid rotation, resulting in vigorous circulation patterns. On hot Jupiters, super-rotating jet streams transport heat from the dayside to the nightside, with equatorial winds exceeding 1 km/s; for example, HD 189733b exhibits winds up to 2 km/s, sculpting temperature contrasts and chemical distributions.[85] Cloud formation is integral to these dynamics, particularly silicate clouds (e.g., MgSiO₃ and Mg₂SiO₄) that condense at mbar pressures in upper atmospheres above 1000 K, leading to phenomena like silicate rains or "quartz showers" as particles precipitate in cooler regions.[86] These processes enhance vertical mixing and influence spectral signatures by scattering light across optical to infrared wavelengths.[86]Observations of exoplanet atmospheres primarily rely on transit and eclipse photometry/spectroscopy with space telescopes. Transmission spectroscopy during planetary transits measures how starlight filters through the atmosphere's limb, revealing absorption features from molecules like H₂O and CO at specific wavelengths.[87] Emission spectroscopy from secondary eclipses captures the planet's thermal glow minus the star's contribution, constraining dayside temperatures and compositions.[87] The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has enabled precise detections, including H₂O, CO₂, and CH₄ in the atmosphere of K2-18 b, a sub-Neptune in the habitable zone, via NIRISS and NIRSpec instruments.[88] In April 2025, further JWST observations tentatively detected dimethyl sulfide (DMS) in K2-18 b's atmosphere, a potential biosignature gas, though its presence remains controversial.[89] Similarly, JWST observations of LHS 1140 b in 2024 revealed tentative evidence of haze through Rayleigh scattering in a potential N₂-dominated atmosphere, ruling out H₂-rich envelopes.[90]Atmospheric escape significantly shapes low-mass exoplanets, particularly those in close orbits. Hydrodynamic escape, where stellar radiation drives bulk outflow of the upper atmosphere, dominates for planets with low escape velocities, leading to substantial mass loss over billions of years; Neptune-mass worlds like GJ 436 b exhibit ongoing hydrodynamic loss of hydrogen envelopes.[91] This process is energy-limited, with XUV irradiation powering the escape, and observations of extended hydrogen exospheres confirm its role in eroding primordial atmospheres on close-in low-mass planets.[92]
Surface Features
Rocky exoplanets are modeled to possess silicate-rich crusts similar to Earth's, formed from the solidification of molten mantles during planetary cooling, with compositions inferred from host star abundances and interior simulations showing dominant minerals like olivine and pyroxene.[93] On super-Earths, which have masses 1-10 times Earth's, mantle convection driven by radiogenic heating and core-mantle boundary dynamics may enable plate tectonics, where rigid lithospheric plates recycle through subduction, contrasting with stagnant lid regimes on smaller worlds; numerical models indicate that higher gravity and viscosity favor mobile lids on planets up to ~2 Earth radii.[94][95]Icy exoplanets, particularly those in the outer habitable zones of cool stars, are predicted to host subsurface oceans beneath thick water-ice shells, analogous to Jupiter's moon Europa, maintained by tidal heating from orbital resonances or radiogenic decay that prevents full freezing.[96] Cryovolcanism, involving eruptions of water-ammonia mixtures through fractures, could resurface these worlds, with models for cold ocean planets estimating plume activity rates sufficient to expose ocean material over geological timescales.[97]In extreme environments, hot rocky exoplanets like CoRoT-7b exhibit global or hemispheric lava oceans due to intense stellar irradiation, with dayside surface temperatures reaching approximately 2474 K, vaporizing silicates and creating rock-vapor atmospheres.[98] For Neptune-like ice giants, high-pressure interiors foster diamond rain, where methane photodissociation in the upper atmosphere forms carbon crystals that sink and potentially remelt, influencing magnetic field generation; thermodynamic models suggest this process is viable on sub-Neptune exoplanets with carbon-rich envelopes.[99]Atmospheric interactions shape exoplanet surfaces through chemical weathering and physical erosion, where reactive gases like CO2 or SO2 alter rock compositions, while stellar winds strip volatiles from thin atmospheres.[100] Tidal locking, prevalent on close-in planets, produces permanent subsolar (day) and antistellar (night) hemispheres, leading to extreme temperature gradients that drive asymmetric erosion—intense on the hot dayside—and potential ice buildup on the cold nightside.[101]Surface features remain indirectly observable via transmission spectroscopy of atmospheres, where outgassing from rocky or icy surfaces imprints chemical signatures; for instance, disequilibrium oxygen (O2) coexisting with methane could signal biological surface processes on habitable worlds, distinguishable from abiotic sources through context like planetary radius and incident flux.[102][103]
Habitability Considerations
Habitable Zone Dynamics
The habitable zone (HZ) is the orbital region around a star where a rocky planet with sufficient atmospheric pressure can sustain liquid water on its surface, a key prerequisite for habitability. Traditional models define the inner edge by the runaway greenhouse limit, where excessive stellar irradiation causes water vapor to accumulate in the atmosphere, triggering irreversible ocean evaporation, and the outer edge by the moist greenhouse limit, where stratospheric water loss becomes significant due to hydrogen escape. These boundaries delineate conservative HZ estimates, which assume Earth-like atmospheres without additional greenhouse gases or cloud effects; optimistic boundaries extend inward to a recent Venus limit (where Venus may have had habitable conditions) and outward to a maximum CO₂ greenhouse limit, potentially broadening the zone. Using updated one-dimensional radiative-convective models, Kopparapu et al. (2013) calculated the conservative HZ around a Sun-like star from 0.95 AU (inner) to 1.67 AU (outer), placing Earth firmly within it while excluding Venus and Mars.[104]The location and width of the HZ strongly depend on the host star's spectral type, luminosity, and effective temperature, as lower-luminosity stars require closer orbits for sufficient insolation, while hotter stars permit wider zones at greater distances. For M-dwarf stars, which constitute the majority of nearby stars, the HZ is compact and orbits at fractions of an AU due to their dimness; for instance, around Proxima Centauri (an M5.5 dwarf), the conservative HZ spans approximately 0.04 to 0.08 AU, enabling Earth-sized planets to receive habitable fluxes at separations as small as 0.05 AU. In contrast, A- and F-type stars host broader HZs extending beyond 2 AU, though their shorter main-sequence lifetimes limit long-term stability. These variations arise from scaling the HZ flux with stellar luminosity in climate models, emphasizing the prevalence of HZ candidates around cooler M dwarfs in exoplanet surveys.[104]Three-dimensional general circulation models reveal that atmospheric dynamics can significantly modify HZ boundaries beyond one-dimensional approximations, particularly through heat transport and cloud feedbacks. On slowly rotating or tidally locked planets common around M dwarfs, efficient day-to-night heat redistribution via winds reduces dayside overheating, while high-altitude clouds reflect incident radiation, cooling the surface and extending the inner HZ edge outward by up to 20% compared to cloud-free models. Conversely, cloud formation on the nightside can trap heat, further stabilizing temperatures, though excessive cloud cover might dim the planet and shift outer boundaries inward. These effects highlight the limitations of simplified models and underscore the need for 3D simulations to assess true habitability margins.Notable exoplanet systems illustrate HZ dynamics in practice. The TRAPPIST-1 system, an ultracool M8 dwarf hosting seven Earth-sized planets discovered in 2017, features three (e, f, and g) within the conservative HZ at orbital distances of 0.029, 0.038, and 0.047 AU, respectively, where insolation levels range from Earth-like to slightly sub-Earth, potentially allowing liquid water under varied atmospheres. Similarly, TOI-700 d, an Earth-sized world (1.19 R⊕) orbiting an M2 dwarf at 0.163 AU, resides in the conservative HZ as confirmed in 2020, receiving about 86% of Earth's insolation and representing one of the best TESS candidates for further atmospheric study. These examples demonstrate how HZ placement enables detection of potentially water-bearing worlds via transit photometry.[105]As stars age, their HZ evolves due to changes in luminosity and spectral output, with implications for long-term planetary habitability. For M dwarfs, which evolve slowly on the main sequence, initial high activity and flaring give way to gradual brightening and reddening over billions of years, causing the HZ to expand outward at rates of ~0.1-1% per Gyr; planets initially in the HZ may desiccate early, while outer orbits become viable later. This temporal shift, modeled using stellar evolution tracks, suggests that only planets formed beyond the early HZ or with replenished volatiles can remain habitable over cosmic timescales. Tidal heating from close orbits can marginally adjust these boundaries by adding internal energy, but its effects are secondary to stellar evolution.
Key Habitability Factors
Beyond the orbital placement within a star's habitable zone, several intrinsic planetary and stellar properties critically influence an exoplanet's potential to support life. These factors encompass the ability to retain a stable atmosphere, maintain internal energy sources for geological activity, manage water resources, detect potential biosignatures, and navigate environmental challenges that could preclude habitability.[106]Atmosphere retention is vital for shielding a planet's surface from harmful stellar radiation and preserving conditions for liquid water. Planetary magnetic fields play a key role in this process by deflecting charged particles in the stellar wind, thereby reducing atmospheric erosion through processes like sputtering and hydrodynamic escape. For instance, Earth's intrinsic magnetic field has helped it retain a substantial nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere over billions of years, in contrast to Venus, which lacks a global magnetic field and has experienced significant atmospheric loss due to solar wind interactions, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect. On exoplanets, particularly those orbiting active stars like M-dwarfs, the absence of a strong magnetic field could accelerate atmospheric stripping, rendering worlds uninhabitable even if initially water-rich. Simulations indicate that rocky exoplanets with magnetic moments comparable to Earth's could sustain habitable atmospheres for up to 4 billion years around Sun-like stars, but this duration shortens dramatically without such protection.[107][108][108][106]Internal heat sources drive geological processes essential for nutrient cycling, outgassing, and maintaining a magnetic dynamo, all of which support long-term habitability. Radiogenic heating from the decay of isotopes like uranium, thorium, and potassium provides a baseline energy flux in planetary interiors, potentially sustaining plate tectonics on super-Earths even after initial formation heat dissipates. Tidal heating, arising from gravitational interactions with the host star or companion bodies, becomes particularly significant for close-in exoplanets, where orbital eccentricities or resonances amplify energy dissipation in the mantle. This can lead to Io-like volcanism on tidally locked worlds, such as those inferred around M-dwarfs, where extreme heating might resurface planets with fresh volatiles but risks sterilizing atmospheres through excessive outgassing. For example, models of Earth-mass planets in the habitable zones of low-mass stars predict tidal heat fluxes up to 100 times Earth's, potentially fostering active geology but complicating surface stability.[109][110][111][112]A planet's water inventory determines the availability of liquid solvents for biochemical reactions, with delivery mechanisms and retention states shaping surface conditions. Water is often accreted during formation or delivered post-formation via comet and asteroid impacts, which can enrich inner-system planets with up to several Earth oceans' worth of material, as evidenced by isotopic similarities in solar system bodies. However, in regions of low stellar insolation, such as outer habitable zones, planets may enter global "snowball" states where surface water freezes, trapping it as ice and potentially inhibiting habitability unless internal heating or orbital forcing triggers deglaciation. Exoplanet models suggest that water worlds with mass fractions exceeding 10% could avoid snowball phases due to diffusive ocean transport, but low-insolation environments around cooler stars heighten this risk, limiting liquid water exposure.[113][114][115][116]Detecting biosignatures—gaseous byproducts of life—offers indirect evidence of habitability, with atmospheric disequilibria serving as key indicators. Oxygen (O₂) and methane (CH₄) coexist in Earth's atmosphere only through biological production and consumption, creating a redox imbalance that could signal life on exoplanets if observed without plausible abiotic explanations. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has advanced searches for such markers, notably on hycean worlds like K2-18b, where 2023 observations hinted at dimethyl sulfide (DMS)—a potential biosignature produced by marine phytoplankton on Earth—but follow-up analyses by 2025 confirmed no conclusive detection, attributing signals to instrumental or abiotic sources like sulfur chemistry. Frameworks for assessing these biosignatures emphasize multi-wavelength observations to rule out false positives, such as volcanic O₂ or photochemical CH₄, prioritizing high-confidence disequilibria over single-molecule detections.[117][117][88][118]Despite favorable traits, certain conditions pose severe challenges to exoplanet habitability. M-dwarf stars, which host many potentially habitable worlds due to compact habitable zones, frequently emit flares that bombard planetary atmospheres with high-energy radiation, potentially eroding protective layers and sterilizing surfaces through UV-induced DNA damage. Superflares, 10–1000 times more energetic than solar events, could deplete ozone equivalents on Earth-like planets, increasing surface lethality for millions of years, though thick atmospheres or strong magnetic fields might mitigate this. Additionally, super-Earths with masses 1.5–10 times Earth's often develop high-pressure interiors and thick H₂/He envelopes, creating extreme surface conditions where pressures exceed 100 bars, inhibiting the emergence of complex life forms adapted to milder environments. These pressures can suppress convection and plate tectonics, further hindering nutrient recycling essential for biology.[119][120][119][110]
Exploration and Future Directions
Current Search Projects
Several prominent space-based missions have significantly advanced the detection and characterization of exoplanets. The Kepler Space Telescope, operational from 2009 to 2018, confirmed 2,662 exoplanets through the transit method, providing a foundational dataset for understanding planetary systems around Sun-like stars. The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), launched in 2018 and ongoing as of 2025, surveys nearly the entire sky for transiting exoplanets around bright, nearby stars, with a focus on potentially habitable worlds; it has confirmed 708 exoplanets to date.[3] NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), operational since 2021, excels in atmospheric characterization using spectroscopy, revealing compositions for planets like TRAPPIST-1 e and WASP-43 b through observations of transmission and emission spectra.Ground-based observatories complement these efforts with high-precision measurements. The High Accuracy Radial velocity Planet Searcher (HARPS) at ESO's La Silla Observatory achieves radial velocity precisions of about 1 m/s, contributing to over 130 exoplanet discoveries since 2003 by detecting stellar wobbles induced by orbiting planets.[121] Its successor, ESPRESSO on the Very Large Telescope (VLT), delivers even higher precision below 1 m/s, enabling searches for rocky exoplanets in habitable zones and confirming dozens of low-mass planets through stable spectroscopic observations.[122] For direct imaging, the Spectro-Polarimetric High-contrast Exoplanet REsearch (SPHERE) instrument on the VLT has imaged young giant exoplanets like 51 Eridani b since 2014, using adaptive optics and coronagraphy to suppress starlight and study protoplanetary environments.[44]Astrometric surveys provide mass constraints for exoplanets. The European Space Agency's Gaia mission, which concluded nominal operations in January 2025 after observing over two billion stars, has yielded the first confirmed astrometric exoplanet detection in February 2025, with ongoing data processing expected to reveal hundreds more through precise stellar position measurements in its upcoming releases.[123] Comprehensive databases aggregate these findings for analysis. The NASA Exoplanet Archive catalogs 6,042 confirmed exoplanets as of October 2025, including vetted data from multiple missions and ground surveys.[3] Similarly, the Exoplanet Encyclopaedia at exoplanet.eu maintains a sortable catalog of detected systems, emphasizing radial velocity and transit discoveries with updated parameters from peer-reviewed publications.[124]Citizen science initiatives enhance professional searches by leveraging public participation. Planet Hunters TESS, hosted on the Zooniverse platform since 2018, engages volunteers in classifying TESS light curves to identify transit signals missed by automated pipelines, leading to validated discoveries such as the mini-Neptune TOI-4633 c in a binary system.[125]
Upcoming Missions and Technologies
The European Space Agency's Atmospheric Remote-sensing Infrared Exoplanet Large-survey (ARIEL) mission, scheduled for launch in 2029, aims to perform a statistical survey of exoplanet atmospheres by observing over 1,000 planets transiting their host stars, focusing on the chemical composition and formation processes of these worlds.[126] This dedicated spectroscopic survey will build on capabilities demonstrated by current observatories like the James Webb Space Telescope to characterize atmospheric properties across diverse planetary types.[126]NASA's Habitable Exoplanet Observatory (HabEx) and Large Ultraviolet Optical Infrared Surveyor (LUVOIR) represent flagship mission concepts under study for potential deployment in the 2030s, emphasizing direct imaging of Earth-like exoplanets around Sun-like stars to search for biosignatures such as oxygen or methane in habitable zone worlds.[127] HabEx, with its 4-meter off-axis telescope and starshade occulter, is designed to detect and spectrally analyze a handful of nearby exo-Earth candidates, enabling the identification of potential signs of life through high-contrast imaging.[127] The Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO) builds on such concepts as NASA's planned flagship mission focused on searching for and characterizing habitable exoplanets through direct imaging and atmospheric spectroscopy to detect potential biosignatures.[128] Similarly, LUVOIR concepts propose larger apertures (up to 15 meters) for broader surveys, including ultraviolet to infrared observations that could resolve atmospheric features indicative of biological activity on dozens of temperate planets.[129] These missions remain in the conceptual phase, pending decadal survey prioritization and funding.[127]On the ground, the European Southern Observatory's Extremely Large Telescope (ELT), expected to begin operations in 2028, will employ high-resolution spectroscopy instruments like the High Angular Resolution Monolithic Optical and Near-infrared Integral field spectrograph (HARMONI) to probe the atmospheres of rocky exoplanets, potentially detecting molecular signatures in systems as close as Proxima Centauri. With its 39-meter primary mirror, the ELT aims to achieve the sensitivity needed for transmission spectroscopy of small, terrestrial worlds, resolving faint signals from biosignature gases. Complementing this, the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT), slated for first light around 2030, will use its Giant Magellan Telescope Consortium Large Earth Finder (G-CLEF) spectrograph to measure radial velocities with 10 cm/s precision, enabling the detection of Earth-mass planets in the habitable zones of nearby stars within 10 parsecs.[129]Advancing detection technologies, starshades—deployable external occulters that block stellar light to enhance coronagraphy— are under development to facilitate direct imaging of exoplanets from space, potentially allowing telescopes to isolate Earth-sized planets up to 10 times fainter than their stars.[130] These structures, up to 50 meters in diameter when deployed, could be paired with future observatories to achieve contrasts necessary for biomarker searches.[130] In data analysis, artificial intelligence techniques, including machine learning for anomaly detection, are being integrated to identify novel chemical signatures in exoplanet transit spectra, such as unexpected atmospheric compositions that may indicate non-equilibrium processes driven by life.[131] These AI methods, trained on datasets from missions like Kepler and TESS, improve the efficiency of sifting through vast photometric and spectroscopic archives for potential biosignatures.[131]Long-term objectives for these initiatives include expanding the known exoplanet catalog to over 100,000 confirmed worlds through combined space- and ground-based efforts, while prioritizing the confirmation of biosignatures via direct detection of Earth-like spectra—such as combined oxygen and methane—at distances up to 10 parsecs.[132] Achieving these goals would provide statistical constraints on the prevalence of habitable environments and the potential for life in the galaxy.[132]However, these missions face significant hurdles, including escalating costs—often exceeding initial estimates by hundreds of millions due to complex instrumentation—and launch delays stemming from supply chain issues and technical integrations, as seen with the PLATO mission's schedule holding at late 2026 despite earlier risks of slippage to 2027.[133] For instance, ARIEL has encountered assembly delays from contractors, pushing timelines while maintaining the 2029 target, underscoring the need for robust international collaboration to mitigate budgetary and logistical pressures.[134]