Question about stars and planets in the galaxies. Much appreciated. :)?

Question

Is there a significant difference between stars that are closer to the core of a galaxy vs. stars like ours that are in the outer region?

Would planets orbiting around all these stars be hotter, colder, bigger, smaller, etc. depending on where they are located within the galaxy?

Thanks,

- Stallion

Answer 1

good question and im not sure but i think there would be bigger stars toward the center of the galaxy

im not sure if the planets would have much of a difference and i think that would depend on how they were formed in their own star system

Answer 2

good question, have a star

Answer 3

Yes, definitely. Across the Milky Way, metallicity is higher in the galactic center and decreases as one moves outwards. Astronomers call all elements other than Hydrogen and Helium "metals". Metallicity is the total fraction of "metals" that a star possesses.

The difference in metallicity is due to the higher density of stars in the galactic center: there are more stars in the center of the galaxy and so, over time, more "metals" have been returned to the interstellar medium and incorporated into new stars.

There is a difference, because low "metal" stars have to be  larger on average. But not much is known for certain about that.

Answer 4

Generally speaking, stars closer to the core of a galaxy are older than stars out by the arms. As such, there will be a higher ratio of stars that have gone through their hydrogen, and are fusing helium and other heavier elements in their core (until they get to iron, then they run out of fuel).

To date we have not surveyed nearly enough extrasolar planets to be able to say with any certainty what they would be like. If it's true that planets are much more common than previously thought, there are billions of worlds in every galaxy. It may be impossible to generalize how they may differ as a group from the galactic core to the arms.