[HN Gopher] We've spotted a planet surviving its dying star
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       We've spotted a planet surviving its dying star
        
       Author : gmays
       Score  : 159 points
       Date   : 2021-10-14 12:08 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (theconversation.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (theconversation.com)
        
       | eesmith wrote:
       | Published at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03869-6 .
       | "Dying" refers to "survive the volatile evolution of their host
       | stars into white dwarfs."
        
       | TMWNN wrote:
       | The classic short story "A Pail of Air" (1951;
       | <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pail_of_Air>) depicts human
       | survivors of a frozen Earth without the Sun.
        
       | denton-scratch wrote:
       | "Dying" is a bit of an under-statement. A white dwarf is to all
       | intents and purposes dead. It has no source of energy, and
       | radiates only because of stored heat.
       | 
       | That heat dissipates so slowly that (AIUI) no white dwarf in the
       | universe has yet had time to cool down enough to stop radiating
       | (i.e. the universe does not yet contain any black dwarves).
       | 
       | So a star that is in the process of collapsing into a white dwarf
       | could reasonably be said to be "dying". Once it's collapsed, it's
       | dead.
        
         | Voloskaya wrote:
         | "Dying" is not referring to the state of the star today, but to
         | the process of death: the planet survived while it's star was
         | dying, which is the interesting bit of the story.
        
           | denton-scratch wrote:
           | Agreed.
           | 
           | To survive in orbit around a WD is not a remarkable
           | achievement - you just carry on orbiting forever (roughly).
           | Orbiting a red giant would be pretty interesting, though -
           | the RG has an indistinct surface, its diameter and luminosity
           | varies, and it emits a lot of material as wind.
           | 
           | To survive in orbit around a neutron star would be another
           | thing again. Neutron stars have intense magnetic fields, and
           | spin rather quickly, resulting in a rotating field that is
           | wrapped around on itself. That in effect creates a particle
           | accelerator, driving electron flows (the electrons were all
           | expelled when the NS collapsed) with extreme energies.
           | 
           | Short of hanging around near an exploding supernova, I can't
           | imagine a more hostile environment.
        
             | hinkley wrote:
             | Would the magnetic fields of a neutron star create a tidal
             | locking effect through eddy currents in the planet's core,
             | boosting it into a larger orbit and slowing the spin of the
             | star? Seems like a giant inside out induction motor.
             | 
             | I wonder what the band of survival is, where the planet
             | doesn't get turned to Swiss cheese first.
        
               | denton-scratch wrote:
               | I have no idea what the neighbourhood of a neutron star
               | is like, nor what the effects of such intense fields
               | might be. This is theoretical physics and cosmology. I'm
               | not competent even to speculate.
               | 
               | Yes, I get the "induction motor" idea. With fields and
               | voltages that intense, I guess just about anything
               | becomes conductive.
               | 
               | [Edit] I don't know whether those field strengths are
               | consistent with atoms continuing to be atoms - I guess
               | there must be some range beyond which a thing like a
               | planet could maintain its integrity. But (guessing
               | wildly) I would expect there to be a region around a
               | neutron star within which it is impossible for atoms to
               | exist.
        
           | justshowpost wrote:
           | Newly discovered Click-Bayitt type stars
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | postalrat wrote:
         | Next you are going to say that a phone is dead unless it's
         | being charged.
        
           | denton-scratch wrote:
           | Please explain how a "charger" for a white dwarf might work!
           | I mean, you could just chuck a huge ball of hydrogen at it;
           | that might work, but it'd be easier to just bundle together
           | two balls of hydrogen and make a new star.
           | 
           | I think I'd expect a charger to restore a phone to something
           | like its as-new functionality. I've never heard of any
           | mechanism that could change a white dwarf into not a white
           | dwarf, other than extreme age, or being merged with another
           | object.
        
         | rapsey wrote:
         | How would we see black dwarves?
        
           | Chris2048 wrote:
           | A BD is still hotter than background temp, so you could maybe
           | see faint IR, and you could initially find it as a result of
           | its mass if there are nearby objects orbiting (although now
           | less illuminated), or simply transitioning in front of other
           | stars (I guess that's how they find wandering planets?).
           | 
           | Alternatively, map all the white dwarves, then wait long
           | enough, then look again..
        
             | kadoban wrote:
             | You'd probably also be able to see white dwarves that were
             | on their way to being black (whatever the threshold is).
        
               | Chris2048 wrote:
               | Given there are no BDs (so they are theoretical) maybe
               | there isn't a threshold defined?
               | 
               | A WD will slowly cool to a BD over Trillions of years, so
               | it's all linear. Funnily enough, they are probably every
               | shade of red/brown in-between - but "brown dwarves" are
               | usually reserved for objects that never where "proper"
               | hydrogen-fusing stars, but are large enough to fuse
               | deuterium.
        
               | kijin wrote:
               | There's no hard threshold, the star just fades gradually
               | from #FFF to #000.
               | 
               | A fully black dwarf would be so cold it would be
               | indistinguishable from cosmic background radiation, but
               | that's going to take at least a trillion times longer
               | than the current age of the universe. Not just slightly
               | longer.
        
               | kadoban wrote:
               | Right. I'm just saying that if the are any black dwarfs
               | (which there should not be), we should be able to find
               | ~arbitrarily dim ones as well, down to our ability to
               | see.
        
           | dredmorbius wrote:
           | Gravitational lensing, most likely.
           | 
           | Possibly through gravitational interactions with non-dwarf
           | stars in the same system.
           | 
           | There not being any yet makes either method somewhat more
           | challenging.
        
           | Ericson2314 wrote:
           | If there were bright things behind them
           | 
           | The universe is young, a lot of stuff hasn't happened yet. It
           | wouldn't be surprising if we are about the earliest life of
           | this sort that could exist.
        
             | vlovich123 wrote:
             | I thought the cosmological expansion theory of the standard
             | model was falling apart calling into question the Big Bang
             | theory. If that's the case, then are we sure we have a good
             | handle on the age of the universe?
        
               | garblegarble wrote:
               | Do you have any links where I can read more about that?
               | That's fascinating and I wasn't aware, and I evidently am
               | not using the right search terms to find out more
        
               | Taek wrote:
               | Maybe unrelated but YouTube has been throwing a lot of
               | faux science and astronomy at me lately. Youtubers
               | reading controversial papers presented as indisputable
               | even when there's no scientific consensus at all on the
               | results.
        
               | whatshisface wrote:
               | It's depressing to think about, but for many intents and
               | purposes fake space facts are just as good as true space
               | facts.
        
               | 6502nerdface wrote:
               | Especially for purposes of monetizing YouTube videos.
        
             | contravariant wrote:
             | Depends on your perspective I suppose. Most of the stars
             | have already formed and star formation will slowly grind to
             | a halt in a few billion years.
        
               | Ericson2314 wrote:
               | old and young universe then :)
               | 
               | At least, I can understand visualize the time scale of
               | the universe a lot better than I can visual the length
               | scale. Speed of light doesn't feel like 1/1 to humans!
        
         | JohnJamesRambo wrote:
         | https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/living-near-a-whi...
         | 
         | I've always found this idea neat.
        
           | Koshkin wrote:
           | An informative piece, thanks for sharing. (Being tidally
           | locked complicates the situation, I think.)
        
           | uyaij wrote:
           | > By damping trash onto the surface of the white dwarf, one
           | could harvest its gravitational binding energy from the
           | emitted electromagnetic radiation at nearly the yield of
           | nuclear fuel.
           | 
           | This sounds interesting, how would such a method of power
           | generation work?
        
             | jerf wrote:
             | Well, that very nearly _is_ the method of power generation.
             | It would presumably be paired with some sort of Dyson
             | sphere around the white dwarf. (Remember that a  "Dyson
             | sphere" isn't necessarily a solid shell, but just some
             | configuration of matter where no matter which direction the
             | energy goes it is intercepted by something.)
             | 
             | You may also enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-O-
             | Qdh7VvQ which is a minutephysics on black hole power using
             | much the same principles but attaining yet higher
             | efficiencies.
        
               | justshowpost wrote:
               | Sorry, but it has to be rigid to be a sphere. Angular
               | momentum is a bitch!
               | 
               | PS: Dyson Spheres is misnomer, Olaf Stapledon should be
               | credited for this idea (Star Maker 1937)
        
               | FredPret wrote:
               | So we would decelerate the trash, it hits the white
               | dwarf, gets crushed, and then undergoes various nuclear
               | transformations resulting in energy output we would then
               | capture with our Dyson swarm?
        
             | m1n1 wrote:
             | Is "damping" a technical term, distinct from "dumping"? The
             | article uses it more than once so it seems deliberate...
        
               | orra wrote:
               | Damping is a physics or maths term. To damp means to
               | (steadily?) decrease the amplitude of a wave or
               | oscillation.
        
               | saltcured wrote:
               | Damping is generally a technique which reduces, slows, or
               | restricts a system. It is not a synonym for dumping. We
               | have old, related terms like the "damper" on a fireplace,
               | which I suspect may invoke a more basic analogy of
               | putting water on wood fuel, i.e. making it damp and
               | slower to burn.
               | 
               | In modern usage, "damping" usually refers to a drag or
               | parasitic affect in some oscillatory system, but it does
               | not have to be oscillatory. It can be other drag effects
               | that convert energy, with a usual assumption that it will
               | bring the system to a new equilibrium. An object falling
               | through the atmosphere can be considered to have its fall
               | dampened by the air drag, converging towards its terminal
               | velocity.
               | 
               | I am not familiar with all the physics involved in
               | falling towards/into such a star, so I do not know if
               | there are field effects which would cause damping of the
               | fall prior to impact of the trash with an actual surface,
               | similar to the atmospheric descent towards earth. I also
               | wonder if they imagine the orbital system is being damped
               | to allow the trash to impact the star, by bleeding off
               | tangential velocity to decay the orbit.
        
       | tamaharbor wrote:
       | I assume this would accelerate global warming.
        
       | justshowpost wrote:
       | Isn't that just a simple formula? I even seen planet
       | destroyed/remains on some of stellar evolution simulators.
       | 
       | It all depends on orbit radius and star mass at the end of
       | Asymptotic Red Giant Branch.
       | 
       | Note that white dwarves aren't stars but rather _stellar
       | remnants_ without energy source.
        
       | yummybear wrote:
       | If you write an article with "we spotted", then please provide
       | some image material, even if only a graph.
        
         | purplecats wrote:
         | It seems to be the cool thing to do lately. Especially if you
         | have a visual web app, a tool that has a functional GUI
         | component, or a breaking story about the planet or a new piece
         | of hardware, you must make sure not to include the one thing
         | that would make it most worthwhile -- a picture.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | reedf1 wrote:
         | You'd probably be disappointed. The best you could hope for is
         | a graph of luminous flux vs time, showing the slightest
         | decrease as the planet transits some emission nebulae.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | nsonha wrote:
         | Astronomy "images" are computer generated anyway, often with
         | artistic touches.
        
         | zhte415 wrote:
         | While I'm no astrophysiyst I don't think it's a matter of
         | 'their sun was there last week, look, this week it's not' and
         | nor do I think an artist's impression of something orbiting
         | nothing adds any more, nay, indeed adds nothing, to the written
         | description.
        
           | wongarsu wrote:
           | The paper contains figures like [1] or [2], which I think do
           | add something to the written description (and obviously the
           | paper authors thought so too, otherwise they wouldn't have
           | included it in the paper). These visuals are quite useful
           | when talking about what we mean by "spotted" (though the
           | context is important and the article only spends maybe two
           | paragraphs on the actual observation method, so there's some
           | danger of misinterpretation)
           | 
           | 1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03869-6/figures
           | /1...
           | 
           | 2:
           | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03869-6/figures/7
        
             | simonh wrote:
             | Those images would be copyrighted, so may not be available
             | to the publisher of the article.
        
               | sigg3 wrote:
               | Where are all the graphical artists at?
               | 
               | We had an Ask HN here, like yesterday.
        
               | wongarsu wrote:
               | I'm sure the authors and their institutions would be
               | happy to grant the right to use the images in an article
               | about the paper if somebody asked them. Publicity for the
               | finding is in their best interest. Unless their
               | publishing agreement with Nature restricts this, not sure
               | how strict exclusivity is in those cases
        
               | simonh wrote:
               | In some cases, for some papers it might be possible to
               | eventually get rights to the charts that would satisfy
               | your own publisher's legal department yes. They'd have to
               | jump through those hoops every time though, and time is
               | money.
        
       | ziddoap wrote:
       | Perhaps I missed it, but I'm curious to how they know this is a
       | planet which survived the red giant phase vs. a planet which was
       | captured afterwards (or formed from the debris caused from the
       | star -> red giant -> white dwarf transition). Maybe it's covered
       | more in actual paper.
        
       | platz wrote:
       | But, who wants to live forever?
        
       | shadykiller wrote:
       | Why would the planet be destroyed or have it's course altered ?
       | The Star's mass remains the same and so does the gravity.
       | Wouldn't the planet's own gravity hold it up when it's engulfed,
       | and retrain shape when the star becomes a white dwarf ?
        
         | joe-collins wrote:
         | Well, there would be some extra drag, for one.
        
         | MauranKilom wrote:
         | > The Star's mass remains the same
         | 
         | What makes you think so? I'm no expert, but matter is
         | definitely expelled in the process of forming a white dwarf.
         | The stuff scouring the inner planets doesn't appear out of thin
         | air...
         | 
         | This random paper also appears to say that the mass lost is on
         | the order of half the initial mass:
         | 
         | https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aadfd6/...
         | 
         | > total stellar mass loss ranges from 33% of M_initial at 0.83
         | M_sun to 83% of M_initial at 7.5 M_sun.
        
         | FredPret wrote:
         | Not an astrophysicist, but it might get torched, blown away by
         | the initial shockwave, or maybe drag between the planet and the
         | solar atmosphere will slow its orbit into a collision course.
        
       | tlholaday wrote:
       | Sol is gas, right?
       | 
       | Gasses cool when they expand, right?
       | 
       | What's the expected surface temperature of Sol after it has
       | expanded past Earth's orbit?
        
         | gs17 wrote:
         | Looks like it will drop to about half the current surface
         | temperature as it expands (although this seems to be talking
         | about it at around 0.5 AU) http://www.astronomy.ohio-
         | state.edu/~ryden/ast162_4/notes15....
        
           | tlholaday wrote:
           | Thanks for the link. I wonder what temperature prevails at
           | 1.0 AU.
           | 
           | On the one hand, artists' conceptions of boiled oceans and
           | cities in cinders that saddened and discouraged me in my
           | childhood. On the other hand, the heat energy density of Sol
           | today is comparable to a compost heap. When the radius of a
           | sphere doubles, it's volume increase eight times.
           | 
           | If Sol is too itsy to start helium fusion, maybe orbiting
           | within the post-expansion photosphere - the hydrogen envelope
           | - is chill, damp, and sparky?
        
             | rootusrootus wrote:
             | The sun won't (potentially) swallow up the Earth for about
             | 8 billion more years. The carbon cycle on this planet will
             | have ended about 7 billion years before then; the increased
             | output of the sun will have boiled away the oceans; plate
             | tectonics will stop, etc. There won't be anything alive on
             | this planet left to see the sun burn out.
        
       | edge17 wrote:
       | Out of curiosity, the video part way down ("White Drwarf System
       | Animation Text") showing the dying star... how are these videos
       | created? Is it done in something like Blender? The video credits
       | Keck Observatory, do they have 3d artists on staff for this kind
       | of thing? Do Astronomy grad students just learn how to create
       | visualizations? What's the turnaround for getting something like
       | this made because I'm assuming it was made for the press release.
        
         | Gauntleteer wrote:
         | I work for the Keck Observatory (engineer). Far as I know we do
         | not have any 3D animators on staff. We produce images from our
         | science instruments for the astronomers to download and they
         | all eventually end up here:
         | https://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/koa/public/koa.php
        
       | t789623239782 wrote:
       | The first extrasolar planets discovered had survived a supernova
       | explosion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1257%2B12
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-10-15 23:01 UTC)