Astronomers Discover Impossible Binary Systems

Astronomers working with the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope on Hawaii have discovered four pairs of stars that orbit each other in less than 4 hours.

This artist's impression shows the tightest of the new record breaking binary systems. Two active M4 type red dwarfs orbit each other every 2.5 hours, as they continue to spiral inwards. Eventually they will coalesce into a single star (J. Pinfield / RoPACS network)

Until now it was thought that such close-in binary stars could not exist.

About half of the stars in our Milky Way galaxy are, unlike our Sun, part of a binary system in which two stars orbit each other. Most likely, the stars in these systems were formed close together and have been in orbit around each other from birth onwards. It was always thought that if binary stars form too close to each other, they would quickly merge into one single, bigger star. This was in line with many observations taken over the last three decades showing the abundant population of stellar binaries, but none with orbital periods shorter than 5 hours.

For the first time, the team has investigated binaries of red dwarfs, stars up to ten times smaller and a thousand times less luminous than the Sun. Although they form the most common type of star in the Milky Way, red dwarfs do not show up in normal surveys because of their dimness in visible light.

“To our complete surprise, we found several red dwarf binaries with orbital periods significantly shorter than the 5 hour cut-off found for Sun-like stars, something previously thought to be impossible”, said Dr Bas Nefs of Leiden Observatory in the Netherlands, lead author of a paper accepted for publication in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. “It means that we have to rethink how these close-in binaries form and evolve.”

Since stars shrink in size early in their lifetime, the fact that these very tight binaries exist means that their orbits must also have shrunk as well since their birth, otherwise the stars would have been in contact early on and have merged. However, it is not at all clear how these orbits could have shrunk by so much.

One possible answer to this riddle is that cool stars in binary systems are much more active and violent than previously thought.

It is possible that the magnetic field lines radiating out from the cool star companions get twisted and deformed as they spiral in towards each other, generating the extra activity through stellar wind, explosive flaring and star spots. Powerful magnetic activity could apply the brakes to these spinning stars, slowing them down so that they move closer together.

“Without UKIRT’s superb sensitivity, it wouldn’t have been possible to find these extraordinary pairs of red dwarfs,” said co-author Dr David Pinfield of the University of Hertfordshire. “The active nature of these stars and their apparently powerful magnetic fields has profound implications for the environments around red dwarfs throughout our Galaxy.”

_______

Bibliographic information: Nefs SV et al. 2012. Four ultra-short period eclipsing M-dwarf binaries in the WFCAM Transit Survey. Accepted for publication in Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.; arXiv:1206.1200v1

  • http://www.facebook.com/nuno.dasilva.77 Nuno da Silva

    Not even fisics can save us now LOLOLOLOLOLOOLOOOLOL

    • Rossss

      come again?

    • Dave_Mowers

       Perhaps it can? During WWII the United States sapped the German intellectual supply by taking in Jewish scientists. If the United States created a national college of sciences and offered free (no cost enrollment) to anyone who qualified  on the entrance exams could we not source all the genius intellect in the world by offering free physics and astronomics education with degrees? Could they not create a secondary campus for all those who did not qualify to learn the necessary instructions for them to retest? Why aren’t we encouraging the study of physics in every imaginable way?

      None of this works without a strong educational foundation, America needs to dump trillions on a national education initiative. What would our country be like if the 14 trillion dollars Wall Street and banks received was instead spent on retooling America’s education system? 

      14 Trillion Dollars spent shoring up a failed financial gambling monopoly instead of tackling the real issues like mankind’s inevitable journey into the stars. We spent fourteen times less on the Apollo moon missions.

      “Fortune Favors the Bold” -Pliny

  • guest

    I stared at the paragraph beneath the photograph in this article for too long…

  • Quaternions

    If they exist then they can’t be impossible?

    • Kira00

      I think reporters like to exaggerate. 

  • http://twitter.com/NeoHumpty NeoHumpty

    My question is.. What kind of speed is happening to cause such fast orbital periods?  That seems way faster than I can fit in my head.  

    • Dave_Mowers

      Approximately 6.7 million miles per hour. The question(s) is/are…is one rotating around the other this fast or are they both rotating around eachother? The Earth by comparison  rotates at 67,062 miles per hour around our star; the Sun. What if they are rotating at different speeds? How can they be this close to eachother and not have gravity pull them together in the time it took for their light to reach us? What force is slowing their inevitable collide?

      Could this be an example of an energized, electro-magnetic, ignited gas giant planet with anti-gravity force trapped by another larger gravitized into permanent orbit? Is this proof of anti-gravity as an equal and existing force in nature?

      • Robertfitzgibbon

        …I think the pertinent question would be…what is the relationship between the 2.5 hour orbits and when the two stars eventually begin to collide? I mean, will the collision happen next year…or in another 3 billion years?

        ….will I get to see it happen?

        Regards,

        RJ O’Guillory
        Author-
        Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family

        • Dave_Mowers

           That is what I am asking. How can two objects both with gravity be so close together and not already have collided? Perhaps the relationship between the two stars can best be described by the example of a plastic sphere traveling along a funneling of water down a spout; it spins faster as it nears the bottom or appears too as the rotations are shorter as it travels downward?

          If not this then some form of anti-gravity must be keeping them apart. Maybe the rotation is so fast that it is overcoming gravity but not by enough to do more than separate the two?

  • Brian M.

    Sensationalized title makes everyone in the sciences look bad. It’s contradictory and flat out incorrect. Please change this! Articles with titles like this scare people away from the sciences, not attract them!!!

  • IDrinkBatUrine

    Well I would like to “have my say!” Have it now! Have my say! This is my say, and I’m having it! I’ve always been one to have my say, and now’s my chance! This is my say! Have it! Have my say, good sir! Enjoy this say!

  • Ricardo Gonzalez

    Excelente noticia. www.puertoarial.com, http://www.facebook.com/puertoarial/

  • guest

     our Sun IS apart of a binary system! the ‘wobble’ that causes precession of the equinoxs isn’t a wobble but the result of the Sun dragging us through space with another star creating this 24,000 year cycle.

    • Mike Murphy

       so…where is this other star?

  • http://www.facebook.com/jo.kool.90 Jo Kool

    Our system is a binary system. The other star is in a synchronized orbit on the other side of sol. Therefore its out of sight. This however does not mean it is not there just because it is not visible from earth.

    • renato

       New theory?

    • Dave_Mowers

       I’m playing this out loud…Our Sun orbits another Sun while our planet orbits our Sun which would mean we would be able to see the other Sun because one half of one year we are on the other side of our Sun and able to look for/at another Star. Even if our Sun were fixed around or rotating in tandem with another Star we still rotate around our Star and would be able to see the other Sun. In fact another Sun (binary) that close would be the brightest object in the sky sometimes like Venus or Sirius which both can be seen day or night. Our wobble is caused by planetary collision or asteroid collision from other objects passing through or “we” passing through them as a solar system as we were once closer to our galaxy; the Milky Way. As we travel into deeper space these events should happen less, unless we begin attracting ourselves towards another galaxy system; being pulled by it.

      • renato

        It seems you are right! But what if another Sun is a distant brown dwarf?

        • Dave_Mowers

           Possible however unlikely as man has been studying the heavens for as long as there has been man. Think about this, if the Sumerian culture charted star constellations and were able to calculate precession and they were at their pinnacle in 4,000 B.C. or earlier then they must have started doing this 25,000 years earlier than that. We are way beyond the technologies of the ancient cultures but have amassed their cumulative knowledge which was continued for us by Akkadians, Assyrians,  Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. With all that we have seen in 30,000 years don’t you think we would have found this elusive star by now?

  • Dave_Mowers

    How come the greatest nation on Earth has no sciences department of the government? I would much rather see my tax money spent on engineering and astronomical studies than see ATF funding for stopping raw milk distributors from violating FDA regulations. America used to be at the fore-front of space exploration, why have we defunded NASA?

    Our only chance of finding the elements needed to create the physics for star travel comes from planetary exploration of bodies in our solar system. Why do we waste all our efforts on studying things we can never go to when we have an entire solar system waiting to be explored? How many jobs could be created by a national program to put Americans on every single planet?

    Newt Gingrich’s moon plan may have sounded crazy but it is exactly the kind of thing America needs to get our manufacturing industry back and put Americans to work. We need a launch base on the moon to get to Mars. No matter what your opinion or politics, our government is here to serve the people and our people need jobs, interplanetary, localized space travel will solve these issues. The Federal Reserve must have a mandate to force capital into ventures that make America great again.

    Don’t we have enough “software internet tech” companies? It is patently obvious the “free market” will not get us there; time for real leadership and a new direction in the United States. Think about it, a new metal with physics properties unknown to us now, could be the key to solving the energy crisis. A single bacteria could hold the key to cancer, an ultra-enriched soil element could create monster-sized fruits and vegetables in Earth’s environment and solve the food dilemma. Our whole planet could be rich. Is this not how the Founding Father’s generation gained their wealth; untapped resources.

    They have found super-giant trees on Mars; NASA has photographed them. A single new species of tree that grows 1,000 times larger than ours could produce limitless oxygen and a crop of them planted on the treeless Sierra Madres could solve global warming by absorbing massive amounts of carbon dioxide. What if we did this and our atmosphere began to grow?

    • http://www.facebook.com/jack.whistler Jack Whistler

      You my friend are living in a fairytale world. How do you propose a new metal will solve the energy crises? You do understand that metals are a type of element, and the primary determining factor of an element’s composition is the number of proton’s it has…and that we’ve mapped out everything from 1 (hydrogen) up into the hundreds where they are so unstable they exist for only fractions of a second? Where do you propose this mystery element is hiding? Or were you speaking of alloys…which are mixes of metals mentioned above. Cancer is a variety of conditions with numerous causes, there will never be 1 single cure, you are looking for a panacea, which does not exist. We already enrich soil for better food production through a process called “knifing” where nitrogen is placed in the ground to promote growth. I suppose you can link to some evidence of these mythic trees on Mars? I’m not saying we don’t need to invest more in space, but we need to have realistic expectations when we do it. BTW man-made global waming (if that’s what you are referring to) is mathematically impossible, given the mass of the Earth’s atmosphere vs. the human race’s CO2 emissions. (It would take 1,666 years to produce CO2 equal to 1% of the atmosphere’s mass, and that’s assuming 100% of what was put into the atmosphere just lingered like an unpaid bill.)

  • Tammuz the Terrific
    • Dave_Mowers

       Awesome site! The idea that as our solar system formed and the Sun’s matter condensed, galactic lightning scoured the surface of the inner solar system planets creating the canyons is mind boggling. Have you seen the ice flow tunnels on Mars yet?

  • yaridanjo

    Astronomers cannot even find the Sun’s dark star in our own solar system.  Why would one expect them to get the process for the formation of other star systems correct?

    Google: Vulcan Revealed

    for its mass and orbital parameters.

  • Dave_Mowers

     By definition a “dark star” is a black hole and if we had one in our vicinity our Sun and all our planets would be traveling into it and destroyed or consumed by it.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/42THFKXIPMJHQBIH6OPI4RVIDY Thebes

    The scientific method dictates that if evidence does not fit the theory, one revises the theory.
    It works.

    (sadly with certain recent psuedo-science, partisan researches have instead attempted to revise the evidence by “adding value” with corrective models which do not accurately predict future observations)

  • Bruno G.

    A reluctant admission that electromagnetic forces are needed to explain celestial phenomena