Gaseous ring around young star raises questions

Jan 19, 2012
Artist's conception image of a young star surrounded by a disk (made up of rings) (Credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech)

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers have detected a mysterious ring of carbon monoxide gas around the young star V1052 Cen, which is about 700 light years away in the southern constellation Centaurus. The ring is part of the star’s planet-forming disk, and it’s as far from V1052 Cen as Earth is from the sun. Discovered with the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope, its edges are uniquely crisp.

Carbon monoxide is often detected near young , but the gas is usually spread through the planet-forming disk. What’s different about this is that it is shaped more like a rope than a dinner plate, said Charles Cowley, professor emeritus in the University of Michigan who led the international research effort.

“It’s exciting because this is the most constrained ring we've ever seen, and it requires an explanation,” Cowley said. “At present time, we just don't understand what makes it a rope rather than a dish.”  Perhaps magnetic fields hold it in place, the researchers say. Maybe “shepherding planets” are reining it in like several of Saturn’s moons control certain planetary rings.

“What makes this star so special is its very strong magnetic field and the fact that it rotates extremely slow compared to other stars of the same type,” said Swetlana Hubrig, of the Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP), Germany.

The star’s unique properties first caught the researchers’ attention in 2008, and they have been studying it intensely ever since.

Understanding the interaction between central stars, their magnetic fields, and planet-forming disks is crucial for astronomers to reconstruct the solar system's history. It is also important to account for the diversity of the known planetary systems beyond our own. This new finding raises more questions than it answers about the late stages of star and solar system formation.

“Why do turbulent motions not tear the ring apart?” Cowley wondered. “How permanent is the structure? What forces might act to preserve it for times comparable to the stellar formation time itself?”

The team is excited to have found an ideal test case to study this type of object.

“This star is a gift of nature,” Hubrig said.

The findings are newly published online in Astronomy and Astrophysics. The paper is titled “The narrow, inner CO ring around the magnetic Herbig Ae star HD 101412.” Authors are from the University of Michigan, the Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP) in Germany, the Istituto Nazionale die Astrofisica in Italy and the European Southern Observatory.

Explore further: Image: Galactic wheel of life shines in infrared

More information: The findings are newly published online in Astronomy and Astrophysics. The paper is titled “The narrow, inner CO ring around the magnetic Herbig Ae star HD 101412.”

Preprint: arxiv.org/abs/1112.6181

A&A paper: dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201118571

Related Stories

Planet Formation in Action? (w/ Video)

Feb 24, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Using ESO’s Very Large Telescope an international team of astronomers has been able to study the short-lived disc of material around a young star that is in the early stages of making ...

Youngest planet seen as it's forming

Oct 19, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The first direct image of a planet in the process of forming around its star has been captured by astronomers who combined the power of the 10-meter Keck telescopes with a bit of optical sleight ...

A new(ish) star is born

Aug 29, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Researchers have uncovered a new stellar neighbour with the discovery of the closest young star to Earth.

Coming to a solar system near you… super-Earth!

Aug 08, 2011

It is our general understanding of solar system composition that planets fall into two categories: gas giants like Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus… and rocky bodies that support some type of atmosphere ...

White Dwarf Stars Consume Rocky Bodies

Aug 16, 2011

“I love rocky road… So won’t you buy another gallon, baby…” Yeah. We all love rocky road ice cream, but what do stars like to snack on? In the case of the white dwarf star it would ...

Recommended for you

Image: Galactic wheel of life shines in infrared

11 hours ago

It might look like a spoked wheel or even a "Chakram" weapon wielded by warriors like "Xena," from the fictional TV show, but this ringed galaxy is actually a vast place of stellar life. A newly released ...

New window on the early Universe

Oct 22, 2014

Scientists at the Universities of Bonn and Cardiff see good times approaching for astrophysicists after hatching a new observational strategy to distill detailed information from galaxies at the edge of ...

User comments : 33

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
Jan 19, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MarkyMark
4.6 / 5 (30) Jan 19, 2012
The ring is part of the stars planet-forming disk


This might be better expressed as :

The ring is THOUGHT TO BE part of the stars planet-forming disk....

OR even better:

The ring is HOPED TO BE part of WHAT WE ASSUME IS the stars planet-forming disk....

So far there is zero observational evidence to support the notion that planets form from the dust surrounding stars. If anyone had such actual observed evidence available for scrutiny, that person/persons would have been awarded a nobel prize already.

Have you not watched Dr Who? He took his friend to the beginning of earths formation from dust ( true Spider aliens speeded it up )?

Seriously tho Dr Who has a lot more realism than some of the stuff you believe in!
Richardmcsquared
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2012
From what would planets form if not dust ejects of accretion? Currently the Hubble ST has images of NGC 2467 a star forming from the surrounding nebula.
Zenmaster
1.8 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2012
It's possible that a star may slowly form from surrounding dust accretion and eventually 'ignites'. At some point later in its cycle, the star may explode (nova), with planetary material being one of the ejected by-products. Enough of the progenitor star remains with the various spheres developing in orbit (still have a planetary ring). One question is how can such planetary material remain in the vicinity of a nova?
kaasinees
1.5 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2012
It's possible that a star may slowly form from surrounding dust accretion and eventually 'ignites'. At some point later in its cycle, the star may explode (nova), with planetary material being one of the ejected by-products. Enough of the progenitor star remains with the various spheres developing in orbit (still have a planetary ring). One question is how can such planetary material remain in the vicinity of a nova?

This might not be so far off, factor in gravity and force of the ex/implosion and the matter gets enough beating to form rocks.
roboferret
5 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2012
The presence of 60Ni (a decay product of 60Fe) in iron meteorites is evidence that the solar system formed from supernova remnants. It is also evidence that it happened billions of years ago. I'd be interested to hear Kevin's explanation of the existence of decay products from isotopes with half-lives of millions of years, given that he believes the universe is 6000 years old.
yyz
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2012
"At some point later in its cycle, the star may explode (nova), with planetary material being one of the ejected by-products"

Even if this planetary making scheme was plausible (which it isn't, for a variety of reasons), you would have a problem explaining planets around single stars like V1052 Cen. Nova occur only in accreting *binary* systems (and the secondary is not destroyed in the nova outburst phase): http://en.wikiped...iki/Nova
Sonhouse
not rated yet Jan 19, 2012
Anyone know how old this star is? Could it be old enough to already have evolved shepherding planets?
Chase_O_
3 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2012
The artist's conception of this image looks like the opposite of what is described in the article. However, he still made it look amazing!
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2012
The artist's conception of this image looks like the opposite of what is described in the article. However, he still made it look amazing!


That's a stock image, not originally intended to represent this particular star.

At some point later in its cycle, the star may explode (nova), with planetary material being one of the ejected by-products

Nova occur only in accreting *binary* systems (and the secondary is not destroyed in the nova outburst phase)


While you are technically correct that his use of the term "nova" was gramatically incorrect, I assume he was using the term "nova" in the vernacular and intended to say super-nova. Most people do not understand that a nova and super-nova are entirely different processes and are mutually exclusive of one another. Most people you ask will probably tell you that a super-nova is just a big nova. lol.

A super-nova would fit into his proposed theory though, and I think that's the consensus view now.
GSwift7
2.4 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2012
As a mental exercise, I enjoy trying to picture the processes described by these theories. For example, what state would the material released by a super-nova be in? I imagine superheated plasma compressed beyond imagination by the force of the explosion, moving unbelievably fast away from the blast. It would expand rapidly as soon as the shock wave of the explosion passes, which would cool it at some very high rate. Some material should evaporate off, but some might cool so fast and still be packed densely enough to form superheated liquids (heavy elements like silicon and iron for example). Those globs of liquid would remain hot for a long time, since they would be surrounded by a relatively dense cloud of superheated gas from the explosion. At that point gravity might start to pull those superheated liquid droplets and globs together? I don't think you would have actual solid particles for quite a long time, as everything would remain too hot for solids to form for quite a while.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2012
...of course, it might not be like that at all!

Keep in mind that the gas cloud plus the remnant of the star's core would retain most of the mass of the original star (minus any mass loss due to fission conversion from mass to energy during the blast). So local space would still retain the gravitational equivelant of the pull from the star before the supernova, which should keep a significant portion of the star's remains within local space, and as the gasses cool and rotate they could compress into the disks we observe. At least that's how I understand the current concensus views.
Resonance
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2012
So far there is zero observational evidence to support the notion that planets form from the dust surrounding stars. If anyone had such actual observed evidence available for scrutiny, that person/persons would have been awarded a nobel prize already.


What about our earth dumby? Where do you think it came from? It just popped into existence? I think it's much more reasonable to connect the two dots with billions of years.
Henrik
1.2 / 5 (36) Jan 19, 2012
Stellar evolution is a faith based doctrine, not a scientific fact.
bewertow
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2012
Stellar evolution is a faith based doctrine, not a scientific fact.


What these religious idiots doing on a science website?

Henrik and kevinrtrs are always trolling with their fairy tale garbage. Why have they not been banned?

Btw, my thesis research is in star formation, so I would know that there is plenty of observational evidence for current models of star formation. You are just an ignorant fool.
chardo137
3.3 / 5 (14) Jan 19, 2012
I don't know why religious fundamentalists even bother to read science, since it is obvious that they don't even begin to understand it. Are they just waiting and hoping for telescopes to take a picture of God? Science cannot be understood by anyone who knows the answers before looking into it.
StillWind
1.3 / 5 (18) Jan 19, 2012
So far there is zero observational evidence to support the notion that planets form from the dust surrounding stars. If anyone had such actual observed evidence available for scrutiny, that person/persons would have been awarded a nobel prize already.


What about our earth dumby? Where do you think it came from? It just popped into existence? I think it's much more reasonable to connect the two dots with billions of years.


Thanks for being the sheep. The existence of the Earth, or any planet or star for that matter does not confirm "Accretion Theory". Structures like the asteroid belt and planetary rings strongly argue against "accretion". Obviously there is something beyond gravity that causes planets to form.
GSwift7
3.5 / 5 (18) Jan 19, 2012
Stellar evolution is a faith based doctrine, not a scientific fact


Nobody in the field claims that the current theory is a fact. It is the best educated guess that we have been able to make so far, based on the very limited observations we have so far. Every expert will tell you that our confidence level is relatively low in regard to current best guess theory. However, most experts agree on a few aspects being relatively certain. That's why the above story is so exciting. It adds another peice to the puzzle so that one day we should have enough pieces of the puzzle in place to allow us to figure out what the whole picture might look like. Right now we may not even have all of the edge pieces in place. As Bewertow said, there are parts we are fairly certain of though. There's just a few exceptions that we can't exactly model yet, and we don't know why. The answers to those questions probably won't overturn the majority of what we think we know. You are overestimating doubt.
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (16) Jan 19, 2012
Thanks for being the sheep. The existence of the Earth, or any planet or star for that matter does not confirm "Accretion Theory". Structures like the asteroid belt and planetary rings strongly argue against "accretion". Obviously there is something beyond gravity that causes planets to form


That's not really a good analogy because both the asteroid belt and Saturn's rings are cold. The material in them is solid. Solid objects bounce off of one another when they collide in space. In the neighborhood of a supernova that wouldn't be the case. Everything would remain hot enough to keep all the elements molten for quite a long time. You would have tiny drops of molten material all over the place, and liquids in space tend to stick together when they collide, like mercury droplets will do on a table. Surface tension and electrostatic attraction would act to help them combine into larger droplets. Thinking of solid bits of dust is a conceptual mistake on your part.
GSwift7
3.1 / 5 (15) Jan 19, 2012
In fact, as far as we know, the earth was still so hot that it was 100% molten when it formed, and so were the other planets and the material from which the asteroid belt was made. Notice that the outer planets (which would have cooled faster than the inner planets) retained a much larger percentage of lighter elements.

It's hard to picture the nature of the space surrounding a supernova after the explosion, because we think of space as being cold. The area around such an event will remain at extremely high temperatures for geological time scales. Everything would be constantly bathing in a field of radiation so intense that it would melt your microwave oven (or a planet-sized chunk of stuff). It's not a friendly place to be.
electrodynamic
1 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2012
Present creation theory suggest only the most basic elements came about, at some finite point in time, and the heavier elements were created by the fusion reactions in stars, then spread.
Seems like there should be some way to model this process, and see what elements are produced, and in what proportions.
You could model the original stars with only the basic elements, and see if you eventually end up with stars with present day chemical make up.
I Imagine a nova wouldn't be much more than a hot plasma, and raw energy in every possible frequency, and form.
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2012
Seems like there should be some way to model this process, and see what elements are produced, and in what proportions.
Yes. There was a Nobel involved in that.

http://en.wikiped...ynthesis

http://en.wikiped...ynthesis

And Fred Hoyle got the shaft when the Nobels were handed out on that. He REALLY didn't like the Big Bang and kept trying to make it go away. The Universe seems to disagree with him but the Nobel committee was just plain petty.

Ethelred
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2012
Sub; Binding Energy for Dark-matter
The narrow, inner CO ring around the magnetic Herbig Ae star HD 101412.
Search further stages through Cosmology Vedas Interlinks Books- Tamasoma Jyothirgamaya- Beyond Dark matter -June 2005- TXU 1-282-571
http://vidyardhic...spot.com
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2012
Whats different about this ring is that it is shaped more like a rope than a dinner plate
It could be dark matter effect, similar to one, which is observed around rotating galactic clusters. http://apod.nasa....516.html Despite of this, there are many other possible explanations, for example charge interactions, which can exist inside of ionized gas.
CHollman82
1.4 / 5 (18) Jan 20, 2012
Structures like the asteroid belt and planetary rings strongly argue against "accretion". Obviously there is something beyond gravity that causes planets to form.


umm... no they don't...

Most of the moons of the ringed planets formed within the rings themselves through accretion of the ring material, sweeping wide paths clean.

I don't think you understand the time scales involved in these processes... we, through all of human history, are looking at a tiny time slice of a process that takes millions or even billions of years. Who's to say that the rest of the material in the rings of Saturn or Jupiter won't come together under gravity to form large bodies in the eons that follow?

The process is happening right now, but human life spans are so tiny and insignificant it's like watching an explosion one nanosecond at a time.
CHollman82
1.4 / 5 (19) Jan 20, 2012
I really hate it when people don't understand the limitations of their own perspective.
rubberman
2.8 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2012
I can't believe with all this talk of solar systems forming after the central star goes super nova that someone hasn't come up with a theory about the core of our sun being a Neutron star.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2012
You are just an ignorant fool.
Understand ignorant doesn't mean stupid, just a willful decision to ignore something, like being in denial.
Seeker2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2012
What these religious idiots doing on a science website?
I think they're on a mission. Great sites to find unbelievers.

Seeker2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2012
Science cannot be understood by anyone who knows the answers before looking into it.
Also remember those who have all the answers also have all the questions and yours might just not be one of them.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2012
goes super nova that someone hasn't come up with a theory about the core of our sun being a Neutron star.
He hasn't posted since the end of the year. Please do not tempt fate like that.

Ethelred
MarkyMark
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2012
goes super nova that someone hasn't come up with a theory about the core of our sun being a Neutron star.
He hasn't posted since the end of the year. Please do not tempt fate like that.

Ethelred
Yea whats with that? He used to be so regular here that it seemed normal to see him spam his links in some topic or other.
Au-Pu
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2012
kevinrts your comment would suggest that you could be seriously mentally challenged.
Cosmological time scales are not in minutes, hours, or days but in billions of years
For any person to observe the formation of stars out of a disc of gas and dust they would need to be many billions of years old.
I would suggest that you refrain from further posts until you have reached such a venerated age and then you could enlighten us with the results of your observations over your lifetime
Please spare us your insanities
bluehigh
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2012
I really hate it when people don't understand the limitations of their own perspective.
- CHollman

A self reflective observation of your own personality attribute that frustrates you? Or are you are an exception?

Please spare us your insanities
- Au-Pu

Indeed, please do spare the more open minded among us your petty self righteousness, Au-Pu. Its so tedious.