Why wouldn't other stars have planets?

[AndyMcCall]

Hi,

I'm fairly new to astronomy, I've had an interest in science all my life, but over the last two years have really been reading, listening to podcasts and watching TV programs about space, astronomy and the universe. one area I am really interested in is discovery of planets orbiting other stars.

Being new, I what I can't understand is - why wouldn't other stars have planets around them? To me it just seems command sense that they will due to the star formation process.

Are there any theories or reasons why stars *wouldn't* have planets, or is it just a case that we can't say its more likely to have planets until we have observed that its more likely (if it is!)?

[dave1978]

Im no expert but i suppose it would depend on the proto planetary disc formation and the event that initiated the spin to the emerging solar system.

There is every possibility that the emerging star would leave no material behind for planet formation.

[Shibby]

Astrophysicists have always theorised there would be planets around other stars, as you say based on the theory of star formation discs.

But it was only quite recently that it was proven that they exist. Now precisely 500 have been detected. (including 1 potentially Earth-like) See the PlanetQuest website.

Edit: sorry, I may have misunderstood your question. The Kepler data should give us a good indication of the actual likelihood of exoplanets, but even then Kepler will only be detecting the larger planets.