Showing posts with label sun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sun. Show all posts

Friday, September 11, 2009

Ten Things You Don’t Know About the Sun

1 comments

Quick! What's the brightest star in the sky?

If you said Sirius, then give yourself a blue gold star. But I'm sorry to say: Bzzzzt. You're wrong. Your problem is you know too much astronomy; Sirius is the brightest star in the night sky. The correct answer is, duh, the Sun.

The Sun is a star just like all the others in the sky, more or less, but it just so happens to be substantially closer. The funny thing is, it's so close that it's incredibly bright and we can't even look at it. Well, we can, but it hurts. And the fact that it's there every day (Seattlites: ignore that part) and we can't even glance at it means we take it for granted. It's a vast, mighty, seething cauldron of energy, and even though solar astronomers have studied it for centuries, there's a lot about the Sun that's still not understand. And if they don't get it, then I'm pretty sure that you're unaware of one or two things about it too. I'm fuzzy on one or two (or a thousand) things about it myself.

So here's my list of stuff you may not grok about our nearest star. It's the fourth in my Ten Things You Don't Know series (the others are black holes, the Milky Way, and the Earth). How many didn't you know? I'll be honest: before I wrote my book -- which has a whole chapter about our dangerous star -- I didn't know some of these things about the Sun. But I ain't sayin' which ones.

1) You won't go blind looking at it. Probably.

You've heard this from your mother, your neighbor, and pretty much everyone else: don't look at the Sun or you'll go blind! Well, that's not strictly true. To be clear: no one has ever been permanently and totally blinded by looking at the Sun (despite a recent 30 Rock episode). You can hurt your eyes, but the damage is usually not total, and a lot of it heals (though not always completely).

Usually, damage to the eyes from looking at the Sun happens during a total solar eclipse. The eclipse itself doesn't hurt you -- after all, the point of the eclipse is that the Sun is covered by the Moon! -- but the damage happens in the moments right after the eclipse. While the Sun is blocked, your pupil dilates to let in more light, so when the first sliver of the brilliant Sun reappears your eye is flooded with light. This can cause damage to your retina called solar retinopathy. It's actually not heat damage, but photochemical; the flood of UV light actually alters the chemistry of your cells, damaging them.

In general, the damage is minor and can heal well, though there can be some permanent though relatively minor effects (in other words, you still shouldn't stare at the Sun). Usually the damage is worse in children because their lenses let in more blue light (the lens yellows with age, acting as a natural filter for UV light).

So you won't go permanently and totally blind from looking at the Sun... unless you do it looking through binoculars or a telescope. But then in those cases there are Darwin Awards to consider.

Incidentally, using sunglasses to look at the Sun can actually make things worse, since they block visible light and your pupil dilates to compensate. If you want to observe the Sun -- and I recommend it, because it's fascinating and utterly beautiful -- then read Mr Eclipse's guide to safe solar viewing. It's a site for sore eyes.

2) The Sun is not an average star.

If I had a nickel for every time I have heard someone say or write that the Sun is an average star... well, I'd have a lot of nickels. But just because someone says something a lot doesn't mean it's right.

With a few exceptions, stars come in pretty much one shape (round), but lots of sizes. Also different temperatures, color, energy output, and so on. All of these characteristics are due to one overriding quality: mass. The mass of a star determines a whole lot about its life: how big it is, what color it is, how much energy it emits, and even how long it will live. Low mass stars (say, less than half the Sun's mass) are cool, red, dim, and live a long time. High mass stars (more than about 10-20 times the Sun's mass) are blue, incredibly luminous, and die after a few million years.

Where does the Sun fit on that scale?

As with most things in nature, the number of objects depends on the size. There are very few high mass stars, more intermediate mass stars, and gazillions of low mass stars. Roughly 10% of all stars by number in the Milky Way Galaxy are like the Sun, which means that very few are more massive. Even being conservative, I'd say that the Sun is more massive than 80% of the stars in the Galaxy. That's hardly average!

Now, if you take the lowest mass star and the highest mass star and average them, then yeah, the Sun looks a bit feeble (it's way down toward the low mass end). But that's unfair, because the sheer number of low mass stars drops that average considerably. The picture you usually see is like the one above on the left: the Sun compared to some ginormous star like Aldebaran, a red giant. But those stars are rare! Red dwarfs outnumber more massive stars 5:1 or better, and brown dwarfs may be even more common. So the picture on the right is more fair.

Pretty much no matter how you slice it, the Sun is a powerhouse, way way bigger, brighter, hotter, and more impressive than most of the stars in the sky.

Which brings up the question, how does it keep this up?

3) The Sun converts matter into energy.

OK, so the Sun is pretty bright. Ever wonder why?

It's because of that whole E = mc2 thing. Seriously. The Sun is pretty big; at 1.4 million kilometers across it has a million times the volume of the Earth! That means that at its core, at the very center of the Sun, the pressure and temperature are ridiculously high (340 billion atmospheres and 16 million degrees Celsius (27 million degrees Fahrenheit)); so high that hydrogen can undergo nuclear fusion and turn into helium.

That's how a hydrogen bomb works! When H is turned into He, some of the matter (the m in the equation) is converted into energy (the E). Thing is, that pesky c in the equation is the speed of light, which all on its own is fast enough, but here we're squaring it too, making it a seriously ridiculous number (about 1011 km2/sec2 if you're keeping track at home). So a little tiny piece of matter converts into a vastly powerful and scary amount of energy.

We know how much energy the Sun emits (4 x 1026 Joules per second; again, I hope you're keeping notes), and so we can use Einstein's equation to calculate that, to power the Sun, it must convert 5 million tons of matter into energy every frakking second. That's roughly the mass of seven fully loaded oil supertankers, to give you an idea of the kind of scale we're talking here.

Is your mind boggled yet? Then think on this: knowing the efficiency of hydrogen fusion, that means that 700 million tons of hydrogen are converted into 695 million tons of helium every second of every day of the billions-of-years lifespan of the Sun.

Egads.

That sounds like the Sun will run out of hydrogen quickly, but remember, the Sun is big. 5 million tons is just 0.00000000000000000025% of the Sun's mass, so we're safe for a few billion years.

If you want to hear more about this, I talked about it in detail in the second episode of my doomed video series Q & BA:

As a comparison, the total nuclear weapon arsenal on Earth is about 20,000 bombs. Assume each has a yield of one megaton (which is certainly an overestimate). How does the Sun compare to this mighty cache of weapons?

It emits the energy equivalent of 5,000,000 times the total yield of the entire Earth's nuclear weaponry stash. Every second. And that's a conservative estimate. All that, just 150 million kilometers (93 million miles) away.

Sleep tight.

4) It would be invisible to the naked eye 60 light years away.

For all the Sun's sound and fury -- and despite the point I make that it's way above average for a star -- it's incredible how quickly it would fade to invisibility if we were to move away from it. For a normal person the faintest star you can see has a magnitude of about 6, where magnitudes are a logarithmic scale with higher numbers for fainter objects; the full Moon has a mag of about -13, Venus is around -4, the bright star Vega about 0, and Polaris is about 2.

Of course, the farther away an object, the fainter it gets. It turns out that the Sun fades to 6th mag at a distance of roughly 60 light years. Now, that's a long way by human standards -- 600 trillion kilometers, or 360 trillion miles -- but on the galactic scale that's still breathing down our necks; the Milky Way is 100,000 light years or one quintillion kilometers across. That's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers. A lot. In the illustration above of the Milky Way, 60 lights years is less than half a pixel. The galaxy is huge.

When you go outside at night and look at the stars, almost all the stars you see are within 100 light years from us, and only a handful of the extreme brightest ones can be seen from farther away. If you were to pluck the Sun from the solar system and plop it down in some random location in our Galaxy, there's a better than 99.99999% chance it would be invisible to the naked eye.

5) The Sun is not yellow.

This one causes a lot of confusion. Let me be clear: the Sun emits light at all different colors; red through violet. The amount it puts out at different colors is different, though. In fact, it emits most strongly in the blue-green part of the spectrum (around 480 nanometers)... but it doesn't look green because our eye (with help from the brain) combines all those different colors.

Technically, the Sun is white. This is easy to show: a piece of paper held up to sunlight appears white, as do snow and clouds. If the Sun were yellow, those would look yellow.

However, a lot of people perceive the Sun as yellow. There has been quite a bit of research into this (and never-ending discussions), but I don't think it has yet been fully understood why that is. Do people compare it to the blue sky? Are they used to seeing it lower in the sky (it hurts to look at it when it's up high) when atmospheric effects make it look yellow/red/orange? Hard to say.

But it's white. So there.

6) It solved a major problem in physics... and then created another one.

The idea that stars use nuclear fusion to generate energy is credited to Hans Bethe, who thought of it in the 1930s. In the 1950s, an incredible paper came out describing the detailed nuclear reactions going on in the cores of stars (I read it as an undergrad astronomy major a long time ago, and it's actually pretty cool).

The physics involved made a prediction: the Sun should be emitting neutrinos, energetic subatomic particles that are a severe pain in the neck to detect. The first solar neutrinos were detected in the 1960s, which was very cool. But there was a problem: only 1/3 of the predicted neutrinos were found.

This was no small thing; the very nature of what we understood about quantum mechanics and particle physics was threatened by this finding! The missing neutrino problem, as it was called, was considered one of the most outstanding mysteries in astronomy at the time. Of course, every crank and crackpot on the planet came along and said they had the solution to the missing neutrino problem, usually told to them by aliens or the ghost of Einstein.

Finally, though, the problem was solved. Through real science. Duh. The detectors astronomers had used to look for neutrinos were only sensitive to one kind of neutrino, the kind the Sun emitted. There are actually three kinds, so if, somehow, neutrinos could change their type as they flew from the Sun to here we'd only expect to see 1/3 the predicted number (2/3 would change to the kind we couldn't detect). If that were true, then statistically seeing 1/3 the total would make sense. But then the Canadian Sudbury Neutrino Observatory came online (pictured above), one that could measure the effects of all three neutrino flavors. When the results were combined and extrapolated, it was seen that the number of neutrinos coming from the Sun was just as predicted. Yay!

However, there remained a problem: the only way neutrinos can change their flavor is if they have mass. Only a tiny amount, but it's still some, and The Standard Model (yes, capitalize it when you use it!) of particle physics said they shouldn't have any mass at all. The Standard Model is, therefore, wrong. Or more properly, incomplete. The SM does pretty well for lots of other particles, but neutrinos are still something of a mystery; they're still difficult to detect and difficult to study. Someday we'll have this more under control, but for now we can be happy that the Sun, at least, is behaving as expected.

7) The Sun can blow out satellites and even cause blackouts on Earth.

The Sun may look steady and peaceful, but every now and then it gets a bee in its bonnet, and gets seriously ticked.

The Sun's magnetic field changes over time, with a 22 year cycle. At the start of the cycle the magnetic field is very weak, and grows in strength. About 5.5 years later (it varies) it reaches its peak, then fades again. It dips to zero, then strengthens again, but this time the polarity is reversed, with north becoming south and vice-versa (note the Sun doesn't physically flip over, just the polarity of the field). You can think of it as a double 11 year cycle if you'd like.

At any time, the magnetic field of the Sun is fiendishly complex, but near the peak of the magnetic cycle it gets very strong, too. It can get tangled up near the surface, like a sack full of bed springs, and store a huge amount of energy. If something happens -- a line gets crossed, for example -- that energy can be released. It can cause a solar flare, a massive explosion of matter and energy from the Sun's surface, or a coronal mass ejection (or CME), a vastly larger eruption of material. A CME can slam us with high-energy subatomic particles, and a good flare can send high-energy gamma rays our way as well, a double-whammy of nastiness.

Either of these can fry a satellite. They generate massive amounts of currents in the materials making up satellites, which can arc and blow out circuits. Most satellites can withstand a minor onslaught, but quite a few have been lost in bigger events.

We can be affected down here on Earth's surface, too. The Earth's magnetic field gets rung like a bell when slammed by a CME, which can generate vast currents under the Earth's surface. These geomagnetically induced currents, or GICs, can dump a lot of extra current into the power grid, causing widespread blackouts.

And this is not just a guess: in March 1989, just such a GIC blacked out Quebec, causing millions of dollars in damage. The picture above shows a transformer that was totally destroyed in the 1989 solar eruption. Other events like that are not hard to dig up.

The problem now is that the North American grid is carrying so much current that it's almost at full capacity, like a pipe full of water. Any extra current and down it goes... and the Sun is gearing up for the next magnetic maximum. The last one, in 2003, was a record breaker, with huge flares and CMEs. Will it happen again?

And when? Probably not when you think...

8) The peak of solar activity is not at the same time as the magnetic field peak.

You would think that all that violent activity would peak at the same time as the magnetic field peak. But it's a little more complicated than that.

The Sun's field actually peaks twice; there is a first peak which then declines over about a year, then a slight resurgence for about a year, then a decline which leads down to the minimum -- it looks like a double-humped camel's back (technically, a Bactrian camel, if a zoologist happens to be reading this). The peak of flare and CME activity is actually associated with that second peak, with more and more violent solar explosions occurring then. This last occurred in November 2003, when the Sun went nuts, blasting out flare after flare in a series that stunned astronomers (I attended a special meeting for solar astronomers about this event, and they were all aghast at what the Sun had done). The image above (in false color) shows one flare that happened on November 4, 2003, and you can see it was quite a bruiser.

The next peak in the solar magnetic field should occur sometime in 2012 or so. As you can imagine, all the Mayan prophecy goofballs are making a lot of hay with that. But the actual peak in activity won't be until 2013 or 2014! So their end-of-the-world scenarios will have to be delayed a bit... not that this will stop them.

The last peak was a real wowser, but no one knows what will happen this time. The minimum lasted much longer than usual -- we're still in it -- and solar physicists aren't sure if that means we'll have a weaker or stronger than normal cycle. This is an incredibly complex subject, and the only way we'll know what happens for sure is to wait.

Sometimes, the best teacher in science is patience.

9) It's getting hotter.

The Sun is fusing hydrogen into helium in its core. It doesn't have enough mass to squeeze the helium enough to fuse it (it takes far higher pressure and temperature to fuse helium into carbon), so that helium builds up in the core, like ash in a fireplace. As more of it piles up, its own gravity squeezes it. When you compress a gas it heats up, and that helium is basically just a gas, though a very hot and high-density one. So for billions of years, as the very center of the Sun has had more and more helium pile up, it's been getting hotter.

That extra heat works its way out from the center and eventually out through the surface. So, over time, the Sun itself, even its surface, is getting hotter. A hotter star is brighter... which means the Sun is getting brighter, too. In fact, it's about 40% brighter now than it was when nuclear fusion first switched on 4.5 billion years ago.

And it's still getting hotter now. That's bad. It's been calculated that if the Earth's average temperature were to increase by about 10 degrees Fahrenheit, a runaway greenhouse effect would be triggered... and the Earth is being heated by the ever-hotter Sun. It turns out this magic moment will happen in about 1.1 billion years. At that time, the Earth will become a little too warm for comfort; the ice caps will melt, and Antarctica will be a pretty good vacation spot.

But only for a little while. 2.4 billion years later (3.5 billion years from now) the Sun will be so hot (about 40% brighter than it is today) that the Earth's temperature will rise enough to evaporate all the oceans!

That will, to use a scientific term, suck.

But (he says, chuckling in an evil fashion), it gets worse. Oh yes, far worse.

10) The Sun has 6.3 billion more years to live.

Right now, the Sun is 4.55 or so billion years old. It's been getting hotter all that time, but in general, from day to day, it's been a stable star shining steadily.

In 6.3 billions years, that'll all change.

At some point, there won't be any more hydrogen in the Sun's core to fuse. All that will be left is helium, contracting (about 30 meters per year, which is not a whole lot, but we're talking millions of years here) and getting hotter. Eventually, the core will heat up enough that hydrogen will fuse in a thin shell surrounding the core. This will add even more heat to the Sun, and what happens then is the outer part of the Sun will balloon outward (because hot gas expands). Over about 700 million years, the Sun will expand from about 1.5 times its current size to about 2.3 times.

After that time, the helium core gets so compressed under its own weight it becomes degenerate, a bizarre quantum mechanical state that is complicated and weird and you probably don't need details here. But when this happens it gets even hotter, the outer layers of the Sun swell even more, and it'll bloat out to an awesome 160 million kilometers in diameter, about 100 to 150 times its current size! Weirdly, that will add so much surface area to the Sun that it will actually get cooler; the average amount of heat per square centimeter of its surface will drop... but it will have a lot more square centimeters so it'll be brighter. Cooler stars are red, and the Sun will be huge, so it will then be a red giant.

After that, things get complicated. It will go through several periods of contraction and re-expansion. Eventually it will have some serious paroxysms which will eject over half the mass of the Sun into space. This exposes the ultra-dense blindingly bright core of the Sun. There won't be any more fusion; all the helium will be used up, and all that will be left is an Earth-sized ball of matter with about half the Sun's mass, first white hot, but then cooling over billions and hundreds of billions of years, ending up a cold black dwarf, invisible and quite thoroughly dead.

And what of the Earth? It's possible the Earth will be swallowed by the Sun when it becomes a red giant in 7 billion years, but it's also possible we'll be too far away to get eaten by our star. Either way, though, the Earth will be fried, blasted, bombarded by searing solar matter... and its surface heated well beyond the melting point of rock.

In other words, ouch. Unless we move the Earth far enough out from the Sun (like, billions of kilometers), then we'll have to find some better real estate somewhere else in the Milky Way. This one will have a little bit too much lava for my taste.

The actual series of events leading up to all this is significantly more detailed and interesting; if you want more, than read Chapter 7 of my book, Death from the Skies! and you can follow along as the Sun dies over the next 7.765 billion years. It's actually an incredibly fascinating story, and was one of my favorite chapters to write.

Conclusion:

Familiarity breeds contempt.

Oh, you want more? OK. It's easy to take the Sun for granted, but even though it's 280,000 times closer than the next nearest star we know of, it's loaded with mysteries. I've only listed a few, and I had to cull easily ten more from this list. Even to professionals in the field, the Sun is laden with questions, and the answers are still being sought.

Further reading:

If you want to learn more about the Sun, here are a few places to check out:

Big Bear Solar Observatory

SOHO, the Solar Heliospheric Observatory, a multi-nation mission which has been studying the Sun for more than thirteen years! It has great imagery and fantastic videos.

The Nine Planets has all kinds of info on the Sun and planets and is one of my favorite sites.

Image Credits:

Solar eclipse: luc_viatour's Flickr stream

Sun comparison: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss and Wikipedia.

Neutrino detector: Sudbury Neutrino Observatory

Quebec transformer: NASA.

Solar flare: SOHO, NASA, and the ESA.

Desert photo: bachmont's Flickr photostream.

Red giant sun illustration: James Gitlin/STScI

Spectacular Green Flash image: Mike Baird's Flickr photostream.

Source : Discover Magazine.com



The Sun - Introduction
The Sun is a star. It is a rather ordinary star - not particularly big or small, not particularly young or old. It is the source of heat which sustains life on Earth, and controls our climate and weather. It is the closest star to Earth, and the most closely studied.

The Sun
The light from the Sun heats our world and makes life possible. The Sun is also an active star that displays sunspots, solar flares, erupting prominences, and coronal mass ejections. These phenomena impact our near-Earth space environment and determine our "space weather."

Sun
The Sun is the most prominent feature in our solar system. It is the largest object and contains approximately 98% of the total solar system mass. One hundred and nine Earths would be required to fit across the Sun's disk, and its interior could hold over 1.3 million Earths.

Sun - Overiew
The Sun, a huge sphere of mostly ionized gas, supports life on Earth. It powers photosynthesis in green plants, and is ultimately the source of all food and fossil fuel. The connection and interactions between the Sun and Earth drive the seasons, ocean currents, weather, and climate.

Sun, The Solar System's Only Star
The realisation that the Sun is a star has done wonders for astronomy. By studying it, the closest star, scientists have learned about all stars. Conversely, by studying the stars, in all their variety we have learned about the past and future of our Sun.

Friday, May 2, 2008

The Size Of Our World - Stars And Planets In Scale

0 comments

So how big is our planet Earth? The video below illustrates the size of planets and stars compared to each other. See how our planet and Sun become dwarfs and disappear in the scale.



  • W Cephei; VV Cephei: 3,676,200,000 km (ie, 288194 x Earth)
  • My Cephei: 3,481,250,000 kim
  • Antares: 1,108,430,000 km
  • Beteigeuze: 905,125,000 km
  • Rigel: 86,335,000 km
  • Arcturus: 4,177,500 km
  • Pollux: 6,962,500 km
  • Sirius: 2,506,500 km
  • Sun: 1,392,500 km
  • Jupiter: 142,984 km
  • Saturn: 108,728 km
  • Neptune: 49,532 km
  • Earth: 12,756 km
  • Venus: 12,104 k
  • Mars: 6,794 km
  • Mercury: 4880 km

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Spectacular Sky Show: Venus, Jupiter and the Moon

0 comments

By Joe Rao
SPACE.com Skywatching Columnist

The most spectacular celestial sights over the next couple of weeks are reserved for the early morning sky. Two bright planets will converge, then be joined by the moon.

Kenneth L. Franklin (1923-2007), the former Chairman and Chief Astronomer at New York's Hayden Planetarium, would often make reference to our "dynamic and ever-changing sky."

Such an eloquent description certainly fits our current morning sky, for these final days of January and the first days of February will be an exceptional time for predawn sky watchers with a beautiful pairing of the two brightest planets, Venus and Jupiter. They will appear closest together in the dawn sky of Friday, Feb. 1, and a few mornings later, the waning crescent moon will later drop by to join them.

Dazzling "double planet"

For the past several months, dazzling Venus has been prominent in our morning sky. And about a week ago, brilliant Jupiter also began to emerge from out of the glare of the Sun.

The two planets are currently rising out of the east-southeast horizon about two hours before sunrise.

From now through the end of January, the gap between the two will noticeably close, until on Feb. 1 they'll be separated by just over one-half degree, which is roughly the apparent width of the moon (The width of your fist, held at arm's length roughly corresponds to 10 degrees). Jupiter will shine brilliantly at magnitude -1.9, yet it will appear only 1/7 as bright as Venus, which will gleam at magnitude -4.0.

Together they will make for a spectacular "double planet" low in the dawn twilight. In the mornings thereafter they will appear to slowly separate, but before they have a chance to get too far apart the moon will join the picture.

Celestial summit meeting

At last quarter (half) phase on Jan. 30, the moon will stand alone, high toward the south at sunrise. But with each passing morning, as it wanes to a slender crescent, it will shift toward the east, ultimately into the same region of the sky as our two planets.

Early on Sunday morning, Feb. 3, the moon will sit well off to the west (right) of the planets. On the following morning, Monday, Feb. 4, the show will reach its peak when, about 45 minutes before sunrise, Venus, Jupiter and the moon — the three brightest objects of the night sky — will form a striking isosceles triangle, with the two planets 3 degrees apart and the moon marking the vertex of the triangle just over 5 degrees below the "dynamic duo."

Imagine the astrological significance that the ancients might have ascribed to a celestial summit meeting such as this!

You might want to check your southeast horizon in advance to make sure that there are no tall trees or buildings that might obstruct your view of the moon which will be sitting very low to the horizon.

Like a painting, this celestial tableau might, at first glance may appear rather flat and one-dimensional. But by gazing at this scene long enough, our minds can perhaps picture these objects strung out across the solar system, along our line of sight as they really are.

Beyond our moon — figuratively a stone's throw away at 247,000 miles (397,000 kilometers) — we first reach Venus, about 510 times farther out, or 126 million miles (203 million kilometers) from Earth. The lesser gem flanking Venus — Jupiter, largest of all the planets — is nearly 4 and a half times more distant than Venus at a distance of 560 million miles (901 million kilometers).

Generally speaking, at least for the immediate future, conjunctions between Venus and Jupiter will come in pairs. The first conjunction takes place in the morning sky, followed about 10 months later by another in the evening sky. Then, after about two and a half years, Venus and Jupiter are again in conjunction, again in the morning sky.

When Venus and Jupiter next get together, it will be in the evening sky late next fall, on Dec. 1. After that, we'll have to wait until May 2011 (morning sky) and Mar. 2012 (evening sky) for the next set of Venus-Jupiter conjunctions.

Source : Space.com

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Universe's First Stars May Have Been Dark

0 comments

By Maggie McKee

The universe's first stars may have been bloated behemoths powered by dark matter, suggests an intriguing, if speculative, new study. These 'dark stars' might have delayed the creation of heavy elements, which make up everything from planets to people, as well as cosmic reionisation, which made the universe transparent to light billions of years ago.

Theorists believe the first stars formed in cradles of dark matter, condensing from clouds of gas until their cores became so dense that nuclear fusion ignited.

But previous research did not consider how the dark matter cradles themselves might affect star formation, say Douglas Spolyar of the University of California in Santa Cruz, Katherine Freese of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and Paolo Gondolo of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, all in the US.

When they accounted for dark matter, they discovered it could have had a profound influence on the first stars.

Just what that effect is is still unclear, since no one knows what dark matter is – astronomers merely detect its gravitational pull on normal matter. But if it is made of weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs, as many scientists believe, Spolyar and his colleagues say it could alter our understanding of the early universe.

They used a candidate WIMP called a neutralino in their calculations and found that as a primordial gas cloud contracted, it reached a threshold density in which the dark matter particles swaddling it began to interact with each other. They annihilated on contact, producing particles such as electrons as well as photons of light that then deposited energy into the cloud.

Infrared glow

This could heat up the cloud so much that it would stop contracting, so that it was supported by the annihilation of dark matter rather than by nuclear fusion, like normal stars. Such a 'dark star' would be about as massive as the Sun and would glow at infrared wavelengths. But it would be much larger – depending on the mass of the neutralino used, the star could span anywhere from the distance between the Sun and Uranus in our solar system to nearly 60 times that size.

"To call it a dark star is a bit of a misnomer – it simply has a different source of internal energy to support the star against gravity," says Volker Bromm of the University of Texas in Austin, US, an expert on the universe's first stars who is not a member of the study. "It would be a ball of gas that would have a reddish glow."

Could any of these stars still survive today? Possibly, depending on the neutralino mass, say the researchers. "They could be flying around our galaxy," Spolyar told New Scientist. In that case, the very first generation of stars in the universe – so-called 'population III' stars – would have been "very different beasts" than previously thought, the team says.

Nearly all of the elements in the universe aside from hydrogen and helium were forged inside stars, and "the first stars are the first step in that process", team member Freese told New Scientist. If the first stars were dark, "there could be a major delay or even a stopping of this process", she says.

Primordial cloud

"It may turn out that the early star formation and consequently the synthesis of elements went differently than we thought," comments Igor Moskalenko of Stanford University in California, US. "If so, we have evidence of the dark matter presence literally in every cell of our body."

Other 'pop III' stars – which formed inside early galaxies rather than isolated dark matter cradles – would thus have been responsible for seeding the universe with its first heavy elements.

That suggests that heavy elements may not be spread evenly throughout space, since the stars in early galaxies would have enriched their surroundings in these elements and left voids of relatively empty space unenriched, says Bromm. If astronomers ever find a truly primordial cloud of gas in the universe, then it might hint that the first stars were dark.

Similarly, the first stars are thought to have helped ionise the universe within a few hundred million years after the big bang, making it transparent to ultraviolet light. (This phenomenon is actually referred to as 'reionisation', since the universe was a scalding soup of charged particles immediately after the big bang. It then cooled down enough for ions to coalesce into neutral atoms after 370,000 years or so.)

Micro and macro

If the first stars were dark, then that suggests the stars in early dwarf galaxies would have been responsible for reionising the universe, says Bromm.

"Another thing that's exciting to me is that we may have a new type of star and we can go look for these things," says Freese. Neutrinos produced by the annihilation of dark matter in the stars might turn up in detectors such as AMANDA and IceCube at the South Pole, and gamma-ray photons produced in the same process could be picked up by NASA's GLAST spacecraft, due to launch in mid-2008.

Bromm says the research is quite speculative, since there are "incredibly many degrees of freedom when it comes to the properties of dark matter". But he adds that the work helps to bridge the gap between studies of dark matter on a particle physics scale and its effect on astronomical objects. "This paper is one of the first in this very interesting line of convergence between micro and macro physics," he told New Scientist.

Source : New Scientist Page


The First Stars in the Universe
Exceptionally massive and bright, the earliest stars changed the course of cosmic history.

Dark Matter May Have Powered Universe's First Stars
Dark matter may have fueled the formation of the universe's first stars—vast, invisible giants totally unlike the blazing suns of today—scientists say.

Universe's Earliest Stars May Hold Clues to the Nature of Dark Matter

The universe's earliest stars may hold clues to the nature of dark matter, the mysterious stuff that makes up most of the universe's matter but doesn't interact with light, cosmologists report.

First Stars (and other beginnings)
Computer simulations suggest that many, if not all, of the universe's first generation of stars (Population III) were brighter, hotter, and more massive than even today's luminous blue variable stars.

First Stars Were Brutes, but Died Young, Astronomers Say
The first stars in the universe were short-lived brutish monsters, and they changed the nature of the cosmos forever, blazing away a dark fog that had smothered space for 300 million years and beginning to enrich the cosmos with the stuff of life.

Related Links

 

Copyright 2008 All Rights Reserved Revolution Two Church theme by Brian Gardner Converted into Blogger Template by Bloganol dot com