Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Evidence That All Stars Are Born In Pairs (phys.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the takes-two-to-tango dept.

InfiniteZero shares a report from Phys.Org: Did our sun have a twin when it was born 4.5 billion years ago? Almost certainly yes -- though not an identical twin. And so did every other sun-like star in the universe, according to a new analysis by a theoretical physicist from UC Berkeley and a radio astronomer from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory at Harvard University. The new assertion is based on a radio survey of a giant molecular cloud filled with recently formed stars in the constellation Perseus, and a mathematical model that can explain the Perseus observations only if all sunlike stars are born with a companion. "We ran a series of statistical models to see if we could account for the relative populations of young single stars and binaries of all separations in the Perseus molecular cloud, and the only model that could reproduce the data was one in which all stars form initially as wide (more than 500 astronomical units) binaries," said co-author Steven Stahler, a UC Berkeley research astronomer. "These systems then either shrink or break apart within a million years." The study has been published in April on the arXiv server.

90 comments

  1. Frost Fernch Pots by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anyone else read it as Paris? I thought it was going to be some bizarre statistical thing drawn from IMDB.

    More coffee needed, I think.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by 91degrees · · Score: 0

      You're not alone. Surely Paris is where they're buried.

    2. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too! I'm glad not to be the only moron.

    3. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      me too. I thought "The French will claim credit for anything"....

    4. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1
      That's what you get with Camel Case headlines, fools the brain... "paris" can easily be read as "pairs", but Pairs is misleading :)

    5. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly 80% of whom see the title read in Paris and not in Pairs.

    6. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Same.

      For a moment I was thinking we're going to get another article about AIs and how AIs think that all celebrities begin their life in Paris for some odd reason.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      I thought it was going to be another sextape.

    8. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by garryknight · · Score: 1

      Came here to say just this. But then it is the the Spring...

      --
      Garry Knight
    9. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Yes, me.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    10. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      But you are the only moon.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    11. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      They already do, like birth of the modern republic.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    12. Re: Frost Fernch Pots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And stars.

    13. Re: Frost Fernch Pots by simbioz · · Score: 1

      Me too!!! I would have been a very interesting article.

    14. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 1

      Glad I'm not the only one who read it that way. I was thinking that, sure French cinema is great and all, but ALL stars are born there?

    15. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      You are not the only one. I'm also citing insufficient caffeine.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    16. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by dave420 · · Score: 1

      We know you're prone to making pointless generalisations of millions of people, so this isn't entirely surprising.

    17. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Anyone else read it as Paris? I thought it was going to be some bizarre statistical thing drawn from IMDB.

      I read it correctly as "pairs", but I thought it meant that Justin Beiber had a twin that was wandering the Earth, waiting to emerge as the anti-christ.

      More cocaine needed, I think.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re: Frost Fernch Pots by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

      I did too. It's called a "Freudian Slip" or " parapraxes."

    19. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am also guilty of this.

    20. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by martiniturbide · · Score: 1

      Yes, me too. I got to fix this dyslexia.

    21. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is see what you did there. +1

    22. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not dyslexia, it's due to the fact that when reading Humans only interpret the beginning and end of the word, then approximate the meaning from the length and content of the middle letters. It's actually quite natural, and it is a faster way to read.

    23. Re:Frost Fernch Pots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone else read it as Paris?

      Time to support DAM ... Mothers Against Dyslexia.

  2. ok so if stars are born in pairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That raises the question, what happened to ours?

    1. Re: ok so if stars are born in pairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it's incorrect to say that. It begs the question of what happened to the sun's twin.

    2. Re:ok so if stars are born in pairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Sun has a twin somewhere. With a goatee.

    3. Re:ok so if stars are born in pairs by Kkloe · · Score: 3, Funny

      It went its own way to form a better planet system, with blackjack and hookers.

    4. Re:ok so if stars are born in pairs by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe our Sun is the one with the goatee? Ever had sunburn?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re: ok so if stars are born in pairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the sun's twin has more mass and has met its demise in a supernova. The sun's twin probably doesn't have a goatee, but it could be a goatse.

    6. Re:ok so if stars are born in pairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, but if this is true then it explains why most star systems are binary. Having a single sun is unusual.

    7. Re:ok so if stars are born in pairs by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The sun was probably formed in a cluster with several other stars. They'll be out there in the galaxy somewhere. We might be able to spot one from an isotopic signature.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    8. Re: ok so if stars are born in pairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there.

    9. Re:ok so if stars are born in pairs by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Some of us gets the Star Trek reference. Mirror, Mirror.

      Unless you go for the No-hair theorem.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    10. Re:ok so if stars are born in pairs by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Jupiter. It simply lost mass as the coalesced to the larger of the pair, with some of it becoming the other planets and most falling into what became the sun. It left Jupiter itself too small to ignite.

      Or, of course, their mathematical model could be completely wrong, because the statement that the "only" mathematical model that could explain the data is one where all stars have partners sounds like science-bullshit-fu of the first order. At least they could have the decency to add "of the ones we thought of" or "of the ones we tried". As it is, we're left with proving that the Sun's supposed partner DOESN'T exist, and since it is very difficult to prove that something doesn't exist when it could be "invisible" in any of the countless ways someting can be invisible in space -- too far away, too small, too dark, too much of it made of of dark matter, concealed by invisible fairies, fallen through to the evil companion Universe where everybody is left handed and drinks absinthe and cherry soda cocktails.

      If it is Jupiter, of course, that makes it easy. It isn't lit, so we know its mass is less than 1/10 (less than 0.075 if you want to be picky) the mass of the sun (no overt fusion, the companion isn't a red dwarf or we couldn't possibly miss it). It has cooled enough to be invisible, which probably adds close to another zero -- if it had a mass 1/80th of the Sun or larger , it would probably have a surface temperature still hot enough to see as it would be a brown dwarf and might sustain some nuclear reactions capable of generating heat in addition to still giving off heat as it slowly collapses. So it pretty much has to be smaller than roughly 13 Jupiter masses, making it technically not a star no matter what. Well, what do we find when we look for very large non-brown-dwarf objects nearby? Jupiter! And heck, through Saturn in for good measure! Jupiter has 1/1000 the mass of the sun, large enough that it is probably still losing heat via its own gravitational collapse but not enough to ignite any serious sustained fusion process. If the proto-star split early enough into Jupiter and Saturn (and the rest of the planets) then the Sun simply won the war for material by having a lot more gravity and hence sweeping up most of the dust before it lit and fusion drove the rest of the material away.

      Which leads us to the remaining problem with their model. They're basing their claim on stellar formation in a dense cloud that created an extended star cluster. Perhaps that isn't a completely general starforming environment, and stars that form from smaller clouds tend to win the race for material and blow the starforming dust away on their newborne light before their smaller companions reach "star" size, even brown dwarf size.

      That would explain why a LOT of stars seem to have Jupiter-scale planets (not that our exoplanet search isn't naturally biased towards finding these planets BECAUSE of their size). I'll bet there is an "alternative" model for star formation that would embrace this possibility and still explain the data from their star cluster but no, I'm sure that they have considered EVERY possibility in order to conclude that it is impossible for the sun not to have a star-sized companion, when it simply doesn't, at least not anywhere anyone can see when looking pretty carefully and with good instruments that would be very, very likely to show it up if it was there.

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    11. Re:ok so if stars are born in pairs by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      It hides behind the Sun so we can never see it. That also explains the weird issues with Mercury's orbit.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:ok so if stars are born in pairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The LGBXYZLMNOP is at its zenith. Within less than a century these types will be herded into camps for disposal. Mark my words. What comes into fashion, goes out of fashion.

    13. Re:ok so if stars are born in pairs by TWX · · Score: 2

      Well, there is a theory (lowercase "t") that the periodic extinction events seen on Earth strongly correlate with a long-period orbit of something that swoops-in close enough to the Solar System to disturb Kuiper Belt objects, which sends them into the Inner Solar System to crash into the various planets and moons. A Brown Dwarf Star is generally the size of the object expected to cause this where we wouldn't be able to see it in our sky.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    14. Re:ok so if stars are born in pairs by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Jupiter

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    15. Re:ok so if stars are born in pairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out that our sun does not have a twin, AND that this makes stable planetary orbits so much more likely? In other words, suns can either have a partner or planets, but not both.

    16. Re:ok so if stars are born in pairs by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      Very interesting and insightful comment (if not only b/c I share a deep appreciation and fascination of astronomy/cosmology/astrophysics). Slashdot needs more of these.

  3. all sun-like stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    headline misses an important qualifier.

  4. All stars born in Paris by calken1979 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was scratching my head to think of famous French people only to realise I misread the title.

    1. Re:All stars born in Paris by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      I did the same thing. Hollywood has had many European starlets, but not all were born in Paris.

    2. Re:All stars born in Paris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, let's see. Sol (our sun) is a loaner. Alpha Centauri is in a three-some. Thus, the answer is obvious, and very "West Coast". Our sun lost its companion to a close neighbor, and now Sol has to live through the rest of its life watching as its former companion frolics over at the neighbor's house with Alpha and Alpha's other partner. Sad!

  5. So basically.. by Ayano · · Score: 2

    Our sun ate its twin. Fitting.

    --
    I don't read AC
  6. Simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does the presence of a sibling star and its gravity have an impact on planet formation?

    1. Re:Simple question by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It could have, but at least the 500 AU separation should definitely be sufficient for planets in the 1 AU region to be stable orbits if they happen to form under these conditions.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  7. Astronomers Research by LeMeilleurNeha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Astronomers have even searched for a companion to our sun, a star dubbed Nemesis because it was supposed to have kicked an asteroid into Earth’s orbit that collided with our planet and exterminated the dinosaurs. It has never been found.

    1. Re:Astronomers Research by BLToday · · Score: 0

      The Nemesis Hypothesis is very interesting because it helps explain the regularity of mass extinctions. Of course, it could just be the regular harvesting of life in our part of the galaxy by Reavers, Eternal Ones, or The Flood.

    2. Re: Astronomers Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The supposed periodicity of mass extinctions every 26 million years has been disproved. Besides, stars can and do move through the solar system from time to time. Yes, they can and do affect Oort Cloud objects in the process. But it's nothing so periodic as Nemesis supposedly is. It's pretty unlikely that Nemesis exists at all.

    3. Re:Astronomers Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      were they searching at night?

    4. Re: Astronomers Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Source of that? Have yet to see any scientific article debunking it with facts.

      Besides, if there is a periodic recurrence of meteor showers or any returning celestial event, that wouldn't advocate against Nemesis, rather help prove something's up there we haven't yet detected, messing with our solar system. Could or could not be Nemesis, but certainly no additional proof it doesn't exist.

    5. Re:Astronomers Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that "stars" are bright? If there was a twin, it would visible in the sky. It wouldn't be a dark planet roaming around the universe.

    6. Re:Astronomers Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jupiter

    7. Re:Astronomers Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Jupiter is the biggest "planet" or "failed star" or whatever you want to call it, but it still revolves around the Sun, like the other planets.

    8. Re: Astronomers Research by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      > You do realize that "stars" are bright?

      I think Nemesis was hypothesized to be a brown dwarf... dim (compared to Sol, at least) like red-hot lava, and so far away it's not even visible (at least, not enough to stand out against background radiation when Hubble does its large-area surveys). Right now, we haven't seen visible proof that it exists, but nobody wants to put their reputation on the line to say there's *definitely* no such star until we've at least had a few years to search for it using JWT (which I think will have sensors more suitable for finding it than Hubble, if it actually does exist).

      If Nemeis DOES exist, it'll pretty much rewrite the book about almost everything we thought we knew about the Solar System out beyond Neptune and Uranus, the same way Hubble & computer analysis of old photographic plates made us realize that Pluto isn't just non-unique... it's merely just ONE of SO MANY dwarf planets, in ~20 years we've gotten to the point where their informal names barely matter anymore because there are too many to memorize anyway besides the dozen or so that are the most noteworthy due to size or history.

    9. Re:Astronomers Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, like a binary star system, then.

  8. I am no astronomer by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    But I am going to eat this with a lot of salt.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:I am no astronomer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you dare, we are using it here!

  9. Paris ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I initially read "Paris", and was a bit confused :)
    Camel Case headlines...

    1. Re:Paris ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for confirming I wasn't the only one.

  10. AllStars were always in pairs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. what would you do with one shoe?

  11. arXiv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put on arXiv != "Published". "Published" in academic context usually means put through a peer review process at a journal then accepted for publication.

    arXiv is wonderful for what it does (preprints for free!) but it is not a peer reviewed journal. There have been many papers that got to the arXiv but never made it through peer review...

    1. Re:arXiv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comments: Accepted in MNRAS. 21 pages with 9 figures and 5 tables/p

  12. I don't buy it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's 100's of billions of stars in our small galaxy, and 100's of billions of galaxies. That's an aweful lot for "All".

  13. Explains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen

  14. Proof of intelligent design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all the intelligent design theorists out there, this could be the evidence you have been waiting for. By separating our sun from its twin, our supreme creator may be conducting an experiment in quantum entanglement, and is using our twin to communicate with us from far across the galaxy.

  15. Paris and star-cross'd lovers, Verona unhappy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Anyone else read it as Paris?

    Why not? Paris is the city of love and the article esentially claims "star-cross'd lovers" are, well star-crossed lovers, as it says on the tin. They were created in pairs billions of years ago and belong together for eternity. Gives a whole new meaning to heart-warming romance and we probably need a bit more of that nowadays.

    The only remaining questions are, which will come sooner: a Hollywood adaptation of the new theory or an anime one? Maybe H. makes an Adam Sandler romcom and JP makes a loli drama? Furthermore, should Paris site the "pair of star-cross'd lovers" or Verona or just turn the script into a road-movie which links the two locations?

  16. No, not all stars are born in Paris. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    For example the Superstar Rajnikanth was born in Bangalore, Karnataka, India.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:No, not all stars are born in Paris. by Minupla · · Score: 1

      lol - I had the same dyslexic moment when I read the headline. Need more coffee.

      Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
  17. Evidence? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    While a mathematical model that says stars are born in pairs is interesting. it is NOT evidence of anything...

    Well, it's evidence that that's how the model works, but it's not evidence of anything in the Real World (tm)....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  18. From Berkeley... by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 1

    No doubt the research was initiated by the theory that all things, even suns, are able to fluidly assume their own gender. In what possible way could a star do this then, other than to be born as two stars that later collapse into a single stellar identity? The question remains however, if the stars as have checked their privelege. #Killallreddwarfs.

    1. Re:From Berkeley... by urbanriot · · Score: 1

      Bro, if I could be so bold so as to assume your gender, I'd give you all my mod points if I had them. I came to the comments section specifically to see if anyone had anything funny, snarky, sarcastic, or sardonic to say about UC Berkeley as I was genuinely shocked to hear that anything useful comes out of there. Seriously, I thought UC Berkeley was a liberal arts joke school based on their antics.

  19. the real question then, is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what the hell happened to matt damon's twin?

  20. A million years? by MangoCats · · Score: 1

    If this phenomenon only lasts a million years - give or take an order of magnitude, then it's nearly absolutely insignificant / irrelevant to the ~4 billion year life cycle that is apparently required for rocky planets to cool and interesting life to evolve.

    It's also only going to be observable in places like the one being studied... they need to find another cloud to confirm the theory with, otherwise it's just a model made to fit a single dataset.

  21. Assumptions by kwiecmmm · · Score: 1

    The article says this:

    Many stars have companions

    so why does the article's title (and the article here) say all stars are born in pairs.

    Why this may be true for most stars, because most stars are born in stellar nurseries. It doesn't mean there aren't other circumstances where a star can develop on its own.

    Maybe I am over-reacting to a headline, but I want scientific articles to be accurate so people don't just read headlines and assume they understand everything.

  22. Dubious by rkordmaa · · Score: 1

    I would believe "many stars are born as binaries" or even "most stars are born as binaries", but to claim "ALL stars are born as binaries" would require a whole lot more evidence than a computational model.

    1. Re:Dubious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot: "All stars are born in pairs"—The Press: "All stars are born in Paris".

      Slashdotter: "All stars are born as binaries"—Programmers: "We are living in a simulation after all: all stars are born as binaries. Planets are just files."

  23. Does Jupiter count? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read recently that Jupiter was formed almost at the same time as the sun. Maybe the second "star" sometimes just stays a big gas planet.

    1. Re: Does Jupiter count? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Jupiter probably does count. That's one of the goals of the Juno probe currently in orbit at Jupiter. Some scientists believe that even Saturn is a product of a star which failed to ignite during the creation of the Solar system.

  24. It moved. by Jhon · · Score: 2

    It got a better deal in an adjacent spiral arm with a red giant.

  25. Headline/article stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Headline says a model, based on assumptions, is the same as evidence.

  26. Fermi answer by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    They are born in pairs so whenever the stars get to close to one another they cause an extinction.

    --
    [($)]
  27. Drake equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My hunch is that you are right about this being Jupiter/Saturn/gas giants.

    An intriguing consequence, at least as far as I see it, might be that our solar system is far more unusual than the typical one (small stellar twin), which could have far-reaching consequences, making the conditions for life rarer than previously supposed.

  28. Siblings observe each other. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Siblings observe each other.