Extending the habitable zone for red dwarf stars

Feb 24, 2012 By Charles Q. Choi
This artist's concept illustrates a young, red dwarf star surrounded by three planets. Such stars are dimmer and smaller than yellow stars like our sun, which makes them ideal targets for astronomers wishing to take images of planets outside our solar system, called exoplanets. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Scientists have long thought that planets had to orbit very close to small and dim red dwarf stars in order to be warm enough for life. New research challenges that assumption.

Stars known as red dwarfs might have larger friendly to ‘life as we know it’ than once thought, researchers say.

Red dwarfs, also known as M stars, are dim compared to stars like our sun and just 10 to 20 percent as massive. They make up roughly three-quarters of the stars in the galaxy, and recently scientists found red dwarfs are far more common than before thought, making up at least 80 percent of the total number of stars.

The fact that red dwarfs are so very common has made astrobiologists wonder if they might be the best chance for discovering habitable to life as we know it. More and more planets are getting discovered around red dwarfs — for instance, a potentially habitable "super-Earth" at least 4.5 times the mass of Earth, GJ 667Cb, was recently found orbiting the red dwarf GJ 667C.

"More of these planets are being found, so research is moving from being theoretical and predictive to using actual data from extrasolar planets," said researcher Manoj Joshi, an atmospheric physicist at the University of East Anglia in England.

The habitable zone of a star is defined by whether liquid can survive on its surface, given that life exists virtually wherever there is liquid water on Earth. Too far from a star, and a world is too cold, freezing all its water; too close to a star, and a world is too hot, boiling all of its water off.

Since red dwarfs are so cold compared to our sun, planets would have to be very close in to be habitable to any life as we know it — in many cases, less than the distance between Mercury and our sun. This closeness actually makes them appealing to hunters of alien worlds — planets near their stars eclipse them more often, making them easier to detect than planets that orbit farther away.

Orbit of Mercury relative to other planets in our solar system. Since red dwarfs are so cold compared to our sun, planets would have to be very close in to be habitable to any life as we know it — in many cases, less than the distance between Mercury and our sun. Credit: Spacestationinfo.com

However, being too close to a star can have its disadvantages. For instance, the gravitational pull of the star would cause tides that could wreak havoc on such a world, perhaps leading to a so-called "tidal Venus" scenario where it loses all of its surface water. Also, young red dwarfs less than 3 billion years old may be very active, firing off flares several times per day, causing ultraviolet radiation to jump by 100 to 10,000 times normal levels and potentially sterilizing the surface of a nearby planet or even helping to strip off its atmosphere.

Now scientists find that planets may remain habitable farther away from a red dwarf than once thought. This in turn could mean there is a chance there are far more habitable worlds around red dwarfs than previously suspected.

The habitability of a star depends on how warm or cold it is, which in turn rests in large part on how much starlight it absorbs and reflects. Frozen water such as ice and snow reflects light, which means it helps cool planets, including Earth.

"If a rocky planet forms around an M-star and it has water on it, if it gets cold enough, that'll turn to ice or snow," Joshi said. "As for the odds of rocky planets forming around M-stars, Neptune- and sub-Neptune-sized objects have been found, so chances could be good."

A planet’s surface ice reflects sunlight, decreasing the planet’s temperature. Credit: Glenn Grant / National Science Foundation

The researchers modeled how reflective ice and snow would be on simulated planets orbiting two real-life red dwarfs. Ice and snow are less reflective against longer, redder wavelengths, while red dwarfs obviously have fairly red light to begin with.

The scientists found that any such planets encircling red dwarfs would absorb more of their light than previously thought, leading to significantly warmer surfaces. This means the outer edge of the habitable zone around might be 10 to 30 percent farther away from its parent zone than once suggested.

"I was surprised that the effect was as large as it was," Joshi told Astrobiology Magazine. "The zone where liquid water is stable on a planet's surface is farther away from such stars than previously thought."

Joshi cautioned they only looked at the effects of water ice and snow, when other kinds might be important when considering how much energy a planet absorbs and reflects, such as frozen carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. Also, "we didn't look at the effects of atmospheric absorption of radiation by gases such as water vapor or carbon dioxide," he added. "That should be done in future."

Joshi and Robert Haberle detailed their findings in the Jan. 23 issue of the journal Astrobiology.

Explore further: Chandra X-ray Observatory finds planet that makes star act deceptively old

Related Stories

Habitable planets and white dwarfs

Mar 22, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The search for habitable planets similar to Earth has routinely focused around active nuclear burning stars. However, in a recently published paper by Eric Agol from the University of Washington, ...

Greenhouse effect could extend habitable zone

Aug 26, 2011

The distant region beyond Saturn is too cold for liquid water, a necessity for life as we know it. But new research indicates that rocky planets far from their parent star could generate enough heat to keep ...

Discovery triples number of stars in universe

Dec 01, 2010

Astronomers have discovered that small, dim stars known as red dwarfs are much more prolific than previously thought—so much so that the total number of stars in the universe is likely three times bigger ...

Recommended for you

The entropy of black holes

Sep 12, 2014

Yesterday I talked about black hole thermodynamics, specifically how you can write the laws of thermodynamics as laws about black holes. Central to the idea of thermodynamics is the property of entropy, which c ...

Modified theory of dark matter

Sep 12, 2014

Dark matter is an aspect of the universe we still don't fully understand. We have lots of evidence pointing to its existence (as I outlined in a series of posts a while back), and the best evidence we have point ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2012
Within the electrical plasma cosmology view, red dwarfs are the most likely origin for life. That's because they are observed to exhibit water in their atmospheres; their illuminated atmospheres extend to such great distances that planets can actually orbit the star from inside of this tenuous envelope; the temperatures are quite reasonable.

The advantage to having a planet orbit within the illuminated envelope is that there would be no seasons or days. Thus, the Electric Universe cosmology directly suggests this as an ideal origin for life. It's worth noting that the gravitational cosmology does not naturally suggest an origin for life, hence all of the confusion.

It's also worth mentioning that if Wal Thornhill is right, then planets within this illuminated stellar envelope would not exhibit any radio communication capabilities either, as the high charge density surrounding the planet -- another essential component for life's origin -- would obstruct it.
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2012
If a planet had life it would not longer be cover with highly reflective ice and snow but photosynthesizing microbes -- the surface of planets around M-stars therefor could well be black.
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2012
Mars wouldn't be warmer if our sun was a red dwarf because it's reflecting the red light from the sun and Mars is the red planet.
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2012
If a planet had life it would not longer be cover with highly reflective ice and snow but photosynthesizing microbes

I'm not so sure about that. Look at Earth. We have countless types of photosynthesizing organisms all over the planet, and yet none of the ice/snow-bound environments have a film of biological covering.

The other thing to consider is that photosynthesis requires relatively energetic light to do its thing. It seems likely that the much weaker, redder light would not have sufficient energy, particularly if we're considering planets at greater distances.

Yes, I know this is all based on what we know about life here, but energy availability seems like a decent barometer. And so my feeling would be that any potential life would not be based on photosynthesis but on thermal energy processing derived from heat from the sun or internal radiation.