Astronomers measure largest-ever magnetic field around massive star

Hobby-Eberly Telescope, Primary Mirror
The primary mirror of the Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET) at McDonald Observatory. The mirror is made up of 91 segments, and has an effective aperture of 9.2 meters. Credit: Marty Harris/McDonald Observatory.

(—A group of astronomers led by Gregg Wade of the Royal Military College of Canada have used the Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET) at The University of Texas at Austin's McDonald Observatory and the Canada-France Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) on Hawaii's Mauna Kea to measure the most magnetic massive star yet. Their work is published in today's issue of the research journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

The star's is 20,000 times stronger than the Sun's, and almost 10 times stronger than that detected around any other high-. At about 35 times the Sun's mass, the O-type star NGC 1624-2 lies in the open star cluster NGC 1624, about 20,000 light-years away in the .

This star is an extreme case study to help astronomers better understand all massive stars, which play an important role in the evolution of galaxies.

"Understanding the evolution of massive stars, those that explode as core-collapse supernovae, is really important," said team member Anne Pellerin of Canada's Mount Allison University.

When the stars explode, the heavy born in the cores are scattered into space, she explained. "In the big picture, the Sun is born from the debris of a supernova that exploded—that's how we get iron."

Additionally, despite their short lives (NGC 1624-2 will live only about five million years, or one-tenth of one percent of the Sun's current age at midlife), massive stars shape the galaxies in which they live. "Their strong winds, fields, and dramatic supernova explosions make them the primary sculptors of the structure, chemistry, and evolution of galaxies," Wade said.

But "massive stars are rare," Pellerin said. "Anything we can do to get to know them is good." She explained that the extreme magnetic fields of massive stars aren't well understood.

"The most important consequence of the strong magnetic field is that it binds and controls the stellar wind of NGC 1624-2 to a very large distance from the star—11.4 times the star's radius," Wade said. "The huge volume of this magnetosphere is remarkable. It's more than four times wider than that of any other comparable massive star, and in terms of volume it is around 80 times larger." The star's magnetic field also influences the internal structure of NGC 1624-2, he said.

Thus the magnetic field can strongly influence a massive star's life, from birth to supernova death. But because these magnetic fields are poorly understood, models of stellar evolution are incomplete.

"We need observations of stars like NGC 1624-2 to teach us what's really going on," Wade said.

The team wanted to better understand the nature of this monster star, but it is so distant, and surrounded by dust, that they needed a large telescope with immense light-gathering power to study its light in detail.

"This star is hard to observe because it's highly extinguished by dust," Pellerin said. "That makes it fainter, so it takes a bigger telescope mirror." They used the 9.2-meter HET coupled with its High Resolution Spectrograph instrument.

They teased out the star's rotation by studying repeating patterns in the star's spectrum from HET. The patterns in the spectra are caused by winds coming off of the star.

"The winds of are very dense, especially compared to the Sun's," which is called the solar wind, Pellerin said. "These stars are losing a lot of mass through their winds—up to 30 percent over their entire lives. The wind is a plasma, made up of charged particles that follow the lines of the magnetic field," she explained. "It creates some weird features in the spectra."

The repetition of such "weird features" in the star's light allowed the team to figure out that the star is rotating quite slowly: It takes this star about 160 Earth days to rotate once on its axis. (For comparison, it takes the Sun about 25 days to rotate on its axis.)

"We think that the star is slowed down because it has to drag its wind around—because the wind is bound to the magnetic field," Wade said. "This is something that has to be tested, but it looks very likely."

To measure the strength of star's magnetic field, the team used the Canada-France- (CFHT) coupled with an instrument called ESPaDOnS. Specifically, they measured small biases in the direction of rotation of the electromagnetic waves absorbed or emitted by atoms located in the field.

"An excess of clockwise-rotating waves indicates a magnetic field pointing towards us, while an excess of counterclockwise-rotating waves indicates a magnetic field pointing away from us," Wade said. "The larger the excess, the larger the magnetic field. These excesses are usually very tiny, requiring many observations or careful processing of the data to tease out the signal. But in the case of NGC 1624-2, it was obvious from our very first observations that a remarkably strong magnetic field was present."

ESPaDOnS is the most powerful instrument in the world for this kind of work, Wade said.

Explore further

The Magnetic Nature of a Mysterious Cosmic X-ray Emitter

More information:
Citation: Astronomers measure largest-ever magnetic field around massive star (2012, September 11) retrieved 23 September 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 11, 2012
She explained that the extreme magnetic fields of massive stars aren't well understood.

. But because these magnetic fields are poorly understood, models of stellar evolution are incomplete.

At least this is one very honest researcher. Perhaps she should have been slightly more forth-coming and explained what the real problem is with the magnetic field in the star and star formation:
It's quite simply that the current nebular theory of star formation doesn't work in the presence of magnetic fields. Those fields tend to oppose ANY collapse of the so-called proto-star dust cloud. So how can you have a star when there's a magnetic field? Or how can you actually have a magnetic field when there is a star? This is and has been a very vexing conundrum for cosmologists that just doesn't want to go away.
Stellar formation under the current paradigm is just not understood at all - because when the real hard physics is considered, it is simply impossible. Period.

Sep 11, 2012
because when the real hard physics is considered, it is simply impossible. Period.
Didn't Arthur C. Clarke write "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." To which I might add, when an idjit like Keven say something is impossible, he was most certainly wrong before he even opened his mouth.

Sep 12, 2012
Someone should do their socialogy thesis on the animosity present in comment boards and blog sites. Tard and idjit are just way too commonly dispensed as personal slurs here. Some (VD) can't post once without it. I imagine much of the insecurity behind this behavior originated in early grade school, from physical inadequacies. People need to find productive ways to compensate.

Sep 12, 2012
Personally I bought a lifted truck and date an airhead but whatever works for you.

Sep 12, 2012
"But because these magnetic fields are poorly understood, models of stellar evolution are incomplete."

Yes, and until they acknowledge the electric currents or variable electric field (in this case) that MUST accompany the magnetic field, it will continue to be poorly understood.

"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory." Hannes Alfven

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more