Slashdot Mirror


The Sun Had Sisters

[TheBORG] writes to mention a Space.com article about the Sun's departed solar siblings. Our own medium-sized yellow star was far from alone when it was formed, with hundreds of fellow solar bodies and a supernova to keep it company. From the article: "The evidence for the solar sisters was found in daughters--such as decayed particles from radioactive isotopes of iron--trapped in meteorites, which can be studied as fossil remnants of the early solar system. These daughter species allowed Looney and his colleagues to discern that a supernova with the mass of about 20 suns exploded relatively near the early Sun when it formed 4.6 billion years ago; and where there are supernovas or any massive star, you also see hundreds to thousands of sun-like stars, he said. The cluster of thousands of stars dispersed billions of years ago due to a lack of gravitational pull, Looney said, leaving the sisters 'lost in space' and our Sun looking like an only child ever since, he said."

34 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Like the Pointer Sisters.... by rubberbando · · Score: 2, Funny

    They were doing the Nutron Dance....woooohooo...

    --
    DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
  2. Not just another Looney Theory... by Kelson · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...but an appropriate name for an astrophysicist.

  3. Sisters? by MANYplaces84 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I bet they were hot!

  4. The Sun Had Sisters.... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...which would make them *THE DAUGHTERS*.

    HA! The sun would have to get up *PRETTY EARLY IN THE MORNING* to catch *ME* out"!!!

    Oh wait...

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  5. Down another rung of importance. by 955301 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let me see if I have this clear now. We are mold forming upon the scum on top of a molten pile of rock swinging around a hot piece of miniscule debris left over from a single speck exploding on the outskirts of a tiny disk floating in a vast space full of other tiny disks and whatnot? And the going theories include one where this vast space is only one of an infinite number of vast spaces?

    Put's watching my diet in perpective, that's for certain.

    --
    You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    1. Re:Down another rung of importance. by TheForgotton · · Score: 2, Funny

      Have you ever considered becoming an organ donor?

  6. Just wait till he starts on his next theory.. by Channard · · Score: 3, Funny

    'Interplanetary lesbian incest and its place in the formation of our galaxy'

    1. Re:Just wait till he starts on his next theory.. by Ixne · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now that's what I call a Big Bang.

  7. lack of gravitational pull?? by corbettw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So the claim is that hundreds, maybe thousands, of sun-like stars were in close proximity to each other, but they didn't generate enough gravity to stay in the same neighborhood? How does that make any kind of sense?

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    1. Re:lack of gravitational pull?? by pclminion · · Score: 5, Funny

      So the claim is that hundreds, maybe thousands, of sun-like stars were in close proximity to each other, but they didn't generate enough gravity to stay in the same neighborhood? How does that make any kind of sense?

      Allow me to introduce my good friend, Kinetic Energy.

    2. Re:lack of gravitational pull?? by vtcodger · · Score: 2, Funny
      No, you don't understand. The cluster was a bit sloppy about its financial mangement, maxed out the credit cards took out some unfortunate adjustable rate loans and eventually its financial situation became untenable. The banks grabbed the only remaining asset -- the gravity.

      So here we are, orphaned, adrift and alone. An object lesson for all to observe ...

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    3. Re:lack of gravitational pull?? by budgenator · · Score: 2, Funny

      OOHH, I got some yummies troll-cookies to feed you! If your solving Newtonian physics for three bodies in orbit, there are some people over at NASA and teh Nobel committee that would like to talk to you; because right now we can solve two bodies, and approximate three bodies, but your doing clusters, dude you rock.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    4. Re:lack of gravitational pull?? by Iron+Condor · · Score: 2, Informative
      for even a simple two-body system using the inverse-square law, the orbiting object will spiral outward due to accumulated discretization error.
      Yep, and it's easy to see why without even doing any math. Assuming the initial conditions are set up for a circular orbit, the body's initial velocity is at 90 degrees to the vector to the "sun". In the first timestep, the body will move only along this perpendicular direction,

      You're both wrong, of course. The order of discretization has nothinig to do with this, the naive choice of coordinates does. It is easy to do a fine (first-order!) simulation if you choose appropriate coordinates: In the case of a circular orbit, for example, the phase-angle of the orbit is all you need - it is the only thing the Lagrangian depends on explicitly and only linearly. Pick phi and r as your coordinates and the very first line on your page will be "d/dt r=0".

      In a more general case, energy or angular momentum are usually good coordinates to use, because the Lagrangian does not depend on them. And thus they are conserved simply by inspection of the equations. And thus the only way you could ever lose them is by making a programming mistake.

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
    5. Re:lack of gravitational pull?? by pclminion · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're both wrong, of course. The order of discretization has nothinig to do with this, the naive choice of coordinates does.

      This "naive" method is PRECISELY what we are discussing. Look at my comment. Notice my usage of the word "naive." Notice that you are not following the topic.

      This thread is not about the impossibility of an energy-conserving first order method. It is SPECIFICALLY about the naive cartesian Euler method, which is what I presumed the OP implemented.

      But hey, you get to show off your mad skillz... Fine.

  8. Dearly Departed by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "The cluster of thousands of stars dispersed billions of years ago due to a lack of gravitational pull, Looney said"

    How does that work? These stars are the gravitational pull, local "depressions" in the spacetime fabric that bend space around them towards themselves. Which is gravitational pull. Which must be overcome by some other force, either other gravitational pull from some other, larger/closer mass(es), or momentum from a kinetic event like a collision. Maybe the exploding supernova knocked them out of the area. Maybe, if it was big enough, its departing mass would have not only knocked the stars away, but pulled them away, overcoming their mutual gravitational attraction through greater departing, but still attractive, mass.

    But something did. That's the biggest missing factor in this whole proposed scenario, in Robin Lloyd's Space.com story about it at least, that it needs to hold it together. Theories fall apart because of a lack of gravity, star clusters not so much.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Dearly Departed by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Informative

      Star clusters fall apart from lack of sufficient gravitational attraction all the time. This shouldn't be surprising. Just because some stars are rotating around each other for a while doesn't mean the orbits are stable.

      The article doesn't say exactly, but there's some easy inferences. We were part of a star cluster. There was a large star in the cluster, providing a large amount of gravitational attraction. That star then went nova, shedding a large portion of its mass. Ta-da, there is no longer enough gravity to hold the cluster together, and it flies apart.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:Dearly Departed by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or it was something else. You can't just infer the scenario you describe was the one. The one I described, collision/dragging interaction with the supernova mass, is just as plausible. The ambiguity is at the center of "what happened?", and there are many mutually exclusive and combinatory possiblities.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Dearly Departed by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or it was something else. You can't just infer the scenario you describe was the one.

      Yeah, or it was something else. There are about a billion things that could have prevented the star cluster from being stable. I was merely presenting the simplest and most obvious one, just as an example. Your post implied that it seemed implausible that a star cluster could fly apart, and that without this crucial piece of information you refused to believe the conclusion that there was in fact such a cluster -- "Theories fall apart because of a lack of gravity, star clusters not so much." Which isn't true. Star clusters fall apart all the time due to lack of gravity, so asking "why?" makes a poor fulcrum for doubting the findings described in the article.

      BTW, while the energy of the nova may have contributed to pushing stars out of the cluster, it is doubtful to me that the gravity of the escaping mass did, since it would necessarily be a relatively small amount of mass near enough to effect any particular star. The mere fact of it no longer being concentrated within the cluster would have a much larger and immediate effect on the trajectories of the other stars.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Dearly Departed by khallow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Recall that this cluster would be immersed in the Milky Way and have a cross-section far larger than the Solar System. I imagine that a small weakly linked cluster would have been torn apart by numerous perturbations by massive stars passing through.

  9. Re:Pah! by Etherwalk · · Score: 3, Funny

    > Look at me! I'm an epistomologist!

    Really? How do we know that?

  10. Was One Named Nemesis? by blamanj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A finding like this would lend support to the Nemesis theory. If our sun and any of those sister stars are still in some gravitational cycle, it could help explain the periodic extinctions that seem to occur every 26 million years.

  11. And in an alternate universe... by stile99 · · Score: 3, Funny

    A scientist named Twoney is publishing an article in the Astrophysical Journal proposing that a supernova billions of years ago would have resulted in the presence of only one little lonely star in this sector of the galaxy, with the nearest neighbor over four light-years away. "Imagine what a lonely, cold place our solar system would be had this horrible event happened," said Terry Twoney. "Why, our solar system would be so small that life might be viable on just one planet, and Pluto would be so small and cold there would be debates regarding if it even counted as a planet!"

  12. Re:Huh? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another thing I find odd is the timeline. The universe is around 14 billion years old, and the solar system around 5-6 billion years old. The heavy elements we find in the solar system must have come from supernovas or similar, but type II supernovas take an awful long time to mature, so there can't have been several generations of them; the universe is just too young.
    I'm surprised that the Universe is as developed as it is, being this young.

    Regards,
    --
    *Art

  13. Re:Huh? by cruachan · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, as I understand the theory (and IANAA - well except an occassional amateur one) if a supernova explodes in or near a gas cloud the shockwave initiates star formation.

  14. The sun's sisters? by dantheman82 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Aren't they Solaris, and Coffee Beans, the N1 Star, and StarSuite, as well as GSun and iSun?

    --
    This sig donated to Pater. Long live /.
    1. Re:The sun's sisters? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Would that make Project Blackbox the dark matter everybody is talking about?

  15. Re:"If our favorite planet, Earth... by chrismcdirty · · Score: 3, Funny

    Time to change the name to end that joke once and for all. I propose we name it 'Urectum'.

    --
    It's like sex, except I'm having it!
  16. Re:Huh? by AlecC · · Score: 2, Informative

    No. The shockwave from the supernova produced localized density increases in a nearby or surrounding gas cloud. These density increases pushed the local gravitational field over the level at which the gas begins to accrete into what will eventually become a star. Such shock waves are the main cause of starts being formed, and the reason why there are "star nurseries" - volumes of space in which a large number of new stars are being born.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  17. Runge-Kutta!! by arthurpaliden · · Score: 4, Funny

    Grabs his hair and runs screaming from the room.

  18. Re:Huh? by Dadoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    type II supernovas take an awful long time to mature

    I'm pretty sure that's not true. Remember: the larger the star, the shorter its life. Really large stars have lifetimes of just a few tens of millions of years, while red dwarfs can live trillions, according to current theory. While a 20 solar mass star isn't that big, I imagine it still didn't last long.

    --
    Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
  19. Can't be by ZombieSquirrel · · Score: 2, Funny

    If there used to be more suns in the sky, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the bible. Hmmm . . . ?

  20. Re:Analog Computing by pclminion · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've had an idea for a while for an analog computer which computes orbits.

    First step, acquire a star. Second step, acquire a planet and place it in orbit around the star. Record what happens. See, it's an analog computer that calculates orbits!

  21. The actual paper, if you want to read it by Colgate2003 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm working on covering this for the Museum of Science, Boston on our podcast. I tracked down a PDF of the actual paper, if anyone is interested.

  22. Re:Huh? by helioquake · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dadoo is correct. A very massive star has to have a hotter core at its center in order to support its heavier stellar mass (the hotter the gas, the higher the gas pressure, and hence the more effective to support its own weight in order not to collapse into a singularity, i.e., a blackhole). And the rate of nuclear reaction is often proportional to a higher power of Temperature at the core. That means the hotter the core is, the faster it is to synthesize heavier elements from proton to Helium.

    As the same star evolves, it depletes hydrogen (proton) soon at the core. But because the star is still massive, it enables to burn helium, then carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and eventually it starts burning more heavier elements via nuclear processing (til iron -- Fe -- which cannot be burned to generate nuclear energy).

    This heavier element synthesis is accelerated by high temperature and pressure (basically) at the core of a star. For a very massive star (Mass ~ 100 sun) it lives only about a few million years before it begins to show the sign of aging (heavier metallic elements in its atmosphere). And when these stars die, their explosions would disperse these heavier elements throughout its neighboring space (also upon explosion, an ample flux of neutrons would bombard other atoms and eventually the atoms trap the neutrons to form heavier elements than Fe; Strontium, uranium, plutonium and gold are good examples of such process).

    In a small star like the Sun, the synthesis process takes place very slowly (in the time scale of a few billion years). So it's only natural that astrophysicits think today that there must have been a lot of very massive stars formed in the early days of the Universe to explain its metallicity level seen today.