Small worlds around other stars may come in more than two varieties. Using exoplanet densities, astronomers have largely sorted planets that are bigger than Earth but smaller than Neptune into two categories: denser, rocky super-Earths and larger, puffy mini-Neptunes (SN: 6/19/17). Mini-Neptunes are generally thought to be padded in thick layers of hydrogen and helium […] More

The Number of the HeavensTom SiegfriedHarvard Univ., $29.95 There is no bigger question than whether the universe is all there is. Scientists are juggling several ideas for what a multiverse, if one exists, might be like. Our universe could be one bubble in a vast cosmic fizz. Or one of many 3-D domains stacked, like […] More

The most realistic computer simulation of star formation yet offers stunning views of what the inside of a stellar nursery might look like.

In the Star Formation in Gaseous Environments simulation, or STARFORGE, a giant virtual cloud of gas collapses into a nest of new stars. Unlike other simulations, which could render only a small clump of gas within a larger cloud, STARFORGE simulates an entire star-forming cloud. It’s also the first simulation to account for the whole medley of physical phenomena thought to influence star formation, researchers report online May 17 in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

“We sort of know the basic story of star formation … but the devil is in the details,” says Mike Grudić, a theoretical astrophysicist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill. (SN: 4/21/20). Astronomers still don’t fully understand, for instance, why stars have different masses. “If you really want to get the full picture, then you really have to just simulate the whole thing.”

[embedded content]
In the computer simulation STARFORGE, a massive cloud of cosmic gas — roughly 20 parsecs, or 65 light-years, across — collapses to form new stars. White areas indicate denser regions of gas, including baby stars. Orange highlights places where there’s lots of variation in the gas motion, such as in powerful jets launched by new stars. Gas shown in purple is more tranquil. After 4.3 million years (Myr) have passed, the simulation pauses so the virtual camera can swoop around the cloud, revealing its 3-D structure.

STARFORGE starts with a blob of gas that can be tens to hundreds of light-years across and up to millions of times the mass of the sun. Turbulence inside the cloud creates dense pockets that collapse to forge new stars. Those stars then launch powerful jets, give off radiation, shed stellar winds and explode in supernovas. Eventually, these phenomena blow the last vestiges of the cloud away and leave behind a hive of young stars. The whole process takes millions of years — or months of computing time, even running on supercomputers.

Using STARFORGE, Grudić and colleagues have confirmed that jets launched by new stars help regulate how much material a star amasses. In simulations without jets, typical stars were about 10 times the mass of the sun — way bigger than the actual average star. “As soon as you add this jet feedback to your simulation,” Grudić says, “stellar masses start coming out more or less right on the dot for what they’re observed to be.”

The STARFORGE simulation has helped confirm that jets launched by newborn stars (simulated one shown) determine how much mass stars can accrete.Northwestern University, University of Texas at Austin

Sign Up For the Latest from Science News

Headlines and summaries of the latest Science News articles, delivered to your inbox More

If you’re looking for life beyond the solar system, there’s strength in numbers.
A new study suggests that systems with multiple planets tend to have rounder orbits than those with just one, indicating a calmer family history. Only child systems and planets with more erratic paths hint at past planetary sibling clashes violent enough to knock orbits askew, or even lead to banishment. A long-lasting abundance of sibling planets might therefore have protected Earth from destructive chaos, and may be part of what made life on Earth possible, says astronomer Uffe Gråe Jørgensen of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen.
“Is there something other than the Earth’s size and position around the star that is necessary in order for life to develop?” Jørgensen says. “Is it required that there are many planets?”
Most of the 4,000-plus exoplanets discovered to date have elongated, or eccentric, orbits. That marks a striking difference from the neat, circular orbits of the planets in our solar system. Rather than being an oddity, those round orbits are actually perfectly normal — for a system with so many planets packed together, Jørgensen and his Niels Bohr colleague Nanna Bach-Møller report in a paper  published online October 30 in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Sign Up For the Latest from Science News

Headlines and summaries of the latest Science News articles, delivered to your inbox

Bach-Møller and Jørgensen analyzed the eccentric paths of 1,171 exoplanets orbiting 895 different stars. The duo found a tight correlation between number of planets and orbit shape. The more planets a system has, the more circular their orbits, no matter where you look or what kind of star they orbit.
Earlier, smaller studies also saw a correlation between number of planets and orbit shapes, says astrophysicist Diego Turrini of the Italian National Astrophysics Institute in Rome. Those earlier studies used only a few hundred planets.
“This is a very important confirmation,” Turrini says. “It is providing us an idea of … how likely it is there will be no fight in the family, no destructive events, and your planetary system will remain as it formed … long enough to produce life.”
Systems with as many planets as ours are exceedingly rare, though. Only one known system comes close: the TRAPPIST-1 system, with seven roughly Earth-sized worlds (SN: 2/22/17). Astronomers have found no solar systems so far, other than ours, with eight or more planets. Extrapolating out to the number of stars expected to have planets in the galaxy, Jørgensen estimates that about 1 percent of planetary systems have as many planets as we do.
“It’s not unique, but the solar system belongs to a rare type of planetary system,” he says.
That could help explain why life seems to be rare in the galaxy, Jørgensen suggests. Exoplanet studies indicate that there are billions of worlds the same size as Earth, whose orbits would make them good places for liquid water. But just being in the so-called “habitable zone” is not enough to make a planet habitable (SN: 10/4/19).
“If there are so many planets where we could in principle live, why are we not teeming with UFOs all the time?” Jørgensen says. “Why do we not get into traffic jams with UFOs?”
The answer might lie in the different histories of planetary systems with eccentric and circular orbits. Theories of solar system formation predict that most planets are born in a disk of gas and dust that encircles a young star. That means young planets should have circular orbits, and all orbit in the same plane as the disk.
“You want the planets to not come too close to each other, otherwise their interactions might destabilize the system,” says Torrini. “The more planets you have the more delicate the equilibrium is.”
Planets that end up on elliptical orbits may have gotten there via violent encounters with neighboring planets, whether direct collisions that break both planets apart or near-misses that toss the planets about (SN: 2/27/15). Some of those encounters may have ejected planets from their solar systems altogether, possibly explaining why planets with eccentric orbits have fewer siblings (SN: 3/20/15).
Earth’s survival may therefore have depended on its neighbors playing nice for billions of years (SN: 5/25/05). It doesn’t need to have escaped violence altogether, either, Jørgensen says. One popular theory holds that Jupiter and Saturn shifted in their orbits billions of years ago, a reshuffling that knocked the orbits of distant comets askew and send them careening into the inner solar system. Several lines of evidence suggest comets could have brought water to the early Earth (SN: 5/6/15).
“It’s not the Earth that is important,” Jørgensen says. “It’s the whole configuration of the planetary system that’s important for life to originate on an earthlike planet.” More

As astronomy datasets grow larger, scientists are scouring them for black holes, hoping to better understand the exotic objects. But the drive to find more black holes is leading some astronomers astray.

“You say black holes are like a needle in a haystack, but suddenly we have way more haystacks than we did before,” says astrophysicist Kareem El-Badry of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. “You have better chances of finding them, but you also have more opportunities to find things that look like them.”

Two more claimed black holes have turned out to be the latter: weird things that look like them. They both are actually double-star systems at never-before-seen stages in their evolutions, El-Badry and his colleagues report March 24 in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The key to understanding the systems is figuring out how to interpret light coming from them, the researchers say.  

Sign Up For the Latest from Science News

Headlines and summaries of the latest Science News articles, delivered to your inbox

Thank you for signing up!

There was a problem signing you up.

In early 2021, astronomer Tharindu Jayasinghe of Ohio State University and his colleagues reported finding a star system — affectionately named the Unicorn — about 1,500 light-years from Earth that they thought held a giant red star in its senior years orbiting an invisible black hole. Some of the same researchers, including Jayasinghe, later reported a second similar system, dubbed the Giraffe, found about 12,000 light-years away.

But other researchers, including El-Badry, weren’t convinced that the systems harbored black holes. So Jayasinghe, El-Badry and others combined forces to reanalyze the data.

To verify each star system’s nature, the researchers turned to stellar spectra, the rainbows that are produced when starlight is split up into its component wavelengths. Any star’s spectrum will have lines where atoms in the stellar atmosphere have absorbed particular wavelengths of light. A slow-spinning star has very sharp lines, but a fast-spinning one has blurred and smeared lines.

“If the star spins fast enough, basically all the spectral features become almost invisible,” El-Badry says. “Normally, you detect a second star in a spectrum by looking for another set of lines,” he adds. “And that’s harder to do if a star is rapidly rotating.”

That’s why Jayasinghe and colleagues misunderstood each of these systems initially, the team found.

“The problem was that there was not just one star, but a second one that was basically hiding,” says astrophysicist Julia Bodensteiner of the European Southern Observatory in Garching, Germany, who was not involved in the new study. That second star in each system spins very fast, which makes them difficult to see in the spectra.

What’s more, the lines in the spectrum of a star orbiting something will shift back and forth, El-Badry says. If one assumes the spectrum shows just one average, slow-spinning star in an orbit — which is what appeared to be happening in these systems at first glance — that assumption then leads to the erroneous conclusion that the star is orbiting an invisible black hole.

Instead, the Unicorn and Giraffe each hold two stars, caught in a never-before-seen stage of stellar evolution, the researchers found after reanalyzing the data. Both systems contain an older red giant star with a puffy atmosphere and a “subgiant,” a star on its way to that late-life stage. The subgiants are near enough to their companion red giants that they are gravitationally stealing material from them. As these subgiants accumulate more mass, they spin faster, El-Badry says, which is what made them undetectable initially.

“Everyone was looking for really interesting black holes, but what they found is really interesting binaries,” Bodensteiner says.

These are not the only systems to trick astronomers recently. What was thought to be the nearest black hole to Earth also turned out to be pair of stars in a rarely seen stage of evolution (SN: 3/11/22).

“Of course, it’s disappointing that what we thought were black holes were actually not, but it’s part of the process,” Jayasinghe says. He and his colleagues are still looking for black holes, he says, but with a greater awareness of how pairs of interacting stars might trick them. More