Scientists describe how solar system could have formed in bubble around giant star

December 22, 2017, University of Chicago
This simulation shows how bubbles form over the course of 4.7 million years from the intense stellar winds off a massive star. UChicago scientists postulated how our own solar system could have formed in the dense shell of such a bubble. Credit: V. Dwarkadas/D. Rosenberg

Despite the many impressive discoveries humans have made about the universe, scientists are still unsure about the birth story of our solar system.

Scientists with the University of Chicago have laid out a comprehensive theory for how our solar system could have formed in the wind-blown bubbles around a giant, long-dead star. Published Dec. 22 in the Astrophysical Journal, the study addresses a nagging cosmic mystery about the abundance of two elements in our solar system compared to the rest of the galaxy.

The general prevailing theory is that our solar system formed billions of years ago near a supernova. But the new scenario instead begins with a giant type of star called a Wolf-Rayet star, which is more than 40 to 50 times the size of our own sun. They burn the hottest of all stars, producing tons of elements which are flung off the surface in an intense . As the Wolf-Rayet star sheds its mass, the stellar wind plows through the material that was around it, forming a bubble structure with a dense shell.

"The shell of such a bubble is a good place to produce stars," because dust and gas become trapped inside where they can condense into stars, said coauthor Nicolas Dauphas, professor in the Department of Geophysical Sciences. The authors estimate that 1 percent to 16 percent of all sun-like stars could be formed in such stellar nurseries.

This setup differs from the supernova hypothesis in order to make sense of two isotopes that occur in strange proportions in the early solar system, compared to the rest of the galaxy. Meteorites left over from the early solar system tell us there was a lot of aluminium-26. In addition, studies, including a 2015 one by Dauphas and a former student, increasingly suggest we had less of the isotope iron-60.

This simulation shows how bubbles form over the course of 4.7 million years from the intense stellar winds off a massive star. UChicago scientists postulated how our own solar system could have formed in the dense shell of such a bubble. Credit: V. Dwarkadas & D. Rosenberg

This brings scientists up short, because supernovae produce both isotopes. "It begs the question of why one was injected into the solar system and the other was not," said coauthor Vikram Dwarkadas, a research associate professor in Astronomy and Astrophysics.

This brought them to Wolf-Rayet , which release lots of aluminium-26, but no iron-60.

"The idea is that aluminum-26 flung from the Wolf-Rayet star is carried outwards on grains of dust formed around the star. These grains have enough momentum to punch through one side of the shell, where they are mostly destroyed—trapping the aluminum inside the shell," Dwarkadas said. Eventually, part of the collapses inward due to gravity, forming our solar system.

As for the fate of the giant Wolf-Rayet star that sheltered us: Its life ended long ago, likely in a supernova explosion or a direct collapse to a black hole. A direct collapse to a black hole would produce little iron-60; if it was a supernova, the iron-60 created in the explosion may not have penetrated the bubble walls, or was distributed unequally.

Other authors on the paper included UChicago undergraduate student Peter Boyajian and Michael Bojazi and Brad Meyer of Clemson University.

Explore further: Hubble's cosmic bubbles

Related Stories

Hubble's cosmic bubbles

April 21, 2017

This entrancing image shows a few of the tenuous threads that comprise Sh2-308, a faint and wispy shell of gas located 5,200 light-years away in the constellation of Canis Major (The Great Dog).

Image: Hubble's blue bubble

February 29, 2016

Sparkling at the center of this beautiful NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image is a Wolf–Rayet star known as WR 31a, located about 30,000 light-years away in the constellation of Carina (The Keel).

What is a Wolf-Rayet star?

February 6, 2015

Wolf-Rayet stars represent a final burst of activity before a huge star begins to die. These stars, which are at least 20 times more massive than the Sun, "live fast and die hard", according to NASA.

Hubble eyes a smoldering star

September 23, 2013

(Phys.org) —This new image, snapped by NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, shows the star HD 184738, also known as Campbell's hydrogen star. It is surrounded by plumes of reddish gas—the fiery red and orange hues are caused ...

Hubble view: Wolf-Rayet stars, intense and short-lived

July 3, 2015

This NASA/European Space Agency (ESA) Hubble Space Telescope picture shows a galaxy named SBS 1415+437 (also called SDSS CGB 12067.1), located about 45 million light-years from Earth. SBS 1415+437 is a Wolf-Rayet galaxy, ...

Recommended for you

Magnetic fields may be the key to black hole activity

October 17, 2018

Collimated jets provide astronomers with some of the most powerful evidence that a supermassive black hole lurks in the heart of most galaxies. Some of these black holes appear to be active, gobbling up material from their ...

Astronomers find a cosmic Titan in the early universe

October 17, 2018

An international team of astronomers has discovered a titanic structure in the early Universe, just two billion years after the Big Bang. This galaxy proto-supercluster, nicknamed Hyperion, is the largest and most massive ...

Researchers investigate the peculiar radio source IC 1531

October 17, 2018

An international team of researchers has investigated a peculiar extragalactic radio source known as IC 1531. The new study analyzes the nature of IC 1531's high-energy emission, suggesting that the source is a radio galaxy. ...

Double dust ring test could spot migrating planets

October 17, 2018

New research by a team led by an astrophysicist at the University of Warwick has a way of finally telling whether newly forming planets are migrating within the disc of dust and gas that typically surrounds stars or whether ...

19 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rrwillsj
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2017
Well, dammit! Another (single, as in one) piece of the puzzle. That adds another tick to my speculation. That planets with long-term biospheres, will eventually be proven to be very rare at this early age of the Universe.

I guess the next step is to estimate numbers of these Wolf-Rayet predecessors? And maybe a census of possible star systems produced from them?

From Wikipedia, they are classified as 'rare' but evidently new ones keep popping up. Which is good news for the second part of my hypothesis. That over the next tens/hundreds of billions of years. There should be a steadily increasing output of
stable Sol type stars and maybe long-term habitable worlds.

Just going to have to patient and see what we see.

ddaye
not rated yet Dec 22, 2017
That adds another tick to my speculation. That planets with long-term biospheres, will eventually be proven to be very rare at this early age of the Universe.

I'm a layman but I keep coming back to our double-planet-sized Moon. It's the most obvious aspect of our planet that says "very rare." It played a part in plate tectonics, the makeup of our surface, the size and nature of our core and magnetic field, and the stability of our axis.
rrwillsj
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2017
ddaye, you could be right about the role of a large moon upon the Earth's development. Though as large as our Moon is, it has only been a minor influence on this global geology. It's most important role has been as a shield against billions of years of infalling rock. Which provided the opportunity for plate tectonics to stabilize our geography.

It will take many major advancements in our technology, to be able to detect and confirm Earth-size worlds in stable orbits of single Sol-type stars.

And, once it is possible to verify satellites of such worlds. Verify if there is a biosphere. And the stars and planets will have to be at least three or four billion years in existence before any biosphere could evolve to a detectable, appreciative quantity.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2017
Hey there willis
ddaye, you could be right about the role of a large moon upon the Earth's development. Though as large as our Moon is, it has only been a minor influence on this global geology. It's most important role has been as a shield against billions of years of infalling rock
-You have by chance a link for this rubbish? I do.
https://www.quora...ollision

-Before you post every bit of snot that drips out of your nose you ought to Google it first. It will at least help you to hide your deficits.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2017
More boogers on the screen
It will take many major advancements in our technology, to be able to detect and confirm Earth-size worlds in stable orbits of single Sol-type stars
"The exoplanet GJ 1132b, which orbits the dwarf star GJ 1132, is located about 39 light-years away from Earth. It has a radius about 1.4 times that of Earth and is 1.6 times Earth's mass, according to the new study. When the planet was first discovered, researchers called it a potential Venus twin because it's a rocky world with a very high surface temperature — and now, they've found that the planet and Venus might have a thick atmosphere"

And

"TESS will identify planets ranging from Earth-sized to gas giants, orbiting a wide range of stellar types and orbital distances. The principal goal of the TESS mission is to detect small planets with bright host stars in the solar neighborhood, so that detailed characterizations of the planets and their atmospheres can be performed."
katesisco
1 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2017
I have imagined our sun Sol producing a gaseous shell (bubble) after there already were the gas giants in place. Inside this shell the sun produced metalized equatorial ejections which became our inner planets.
rrwillsj
1.7 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2017
So TGoO1, if I understand your mentioning of GJ 1132b is to emphasis all the known data that makes it useless rubbish for human colonization?

Thanks for providing evidence to prove my point. That Earth-type worlds, habitable by humans, are to date, elusive rare creatures indeed.

As for TESS, let's wait and see some verified data. Before we leap to any wishful expectations.
TrollBane
3 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2017
No one knows what really triggered the growth of complex life from simple bacteria and single-celled life. We only have a sample size of one to work with. On Earth it needed 3 or 4 billion years, but it could easily have happened half a billion years earlier or later.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2017
Thanks for providing evidence to prove my point. That Earth-type worlds, habitable by humans, are to date, elusive rare creatures indeed
IOW "I'm obviously wrong which proves I was right."

Watchuu talking bout willis?
https://youtu.be/bJd1RktjYTU

"Study: Earth-like Planets Common
by Robin Lloyd, Senior Editor | February 17, 2008 02:27pm "BOSTON — Rocky planets like Earth could be found around most sun-like stars in our galaxy, new research suggests, further raising hopes that scientists will someday find ET or at least primitive life beyond our solar system.

"The finding is based on an analysis of dust around 309 stars with masses comparable to our sun."

-You're full of shit.
rrwillsj
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2017
TGoO1. Thanks again buddy, for providing more evidence supporting my opinion. That you are confusing comicbook suppositions with confirmed, multiply verified facts.

"What you are claiming is that you can crack open an egg, cook and eat it. Not just before the hen lays that egg. But even before the rooster can cover that hen!"

As the saying goes: "Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and it is full of shit!"
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2017
Willis says
It's most important role has been as a shield against billions of years of infalling rock
...bullshit.

Willis says
It will take many major advancements in our technology, to be able to detect and confirm Earth-size worlds in stable orbits of single Sol-type stars
...bullshit.

Willis says
Earth-type worlds, habitable by humans, are to date, elusive rare creatures indeed
...bullshit.
That you are confusing comicbook suppositions with confirmed, multiply verified facts
...lying bullshit.

Keep pumping you toad.
rrwillsj
3 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2017
Well TGoO1, you have failed at expressing your bullshit. The best you seem capable of is steershit.

Butt tell you what. The day a flying saucer lands in my backyard and the LGM pilot hops out and tosses me the keys? I will then be willing to admit that my opinions of the natural scarcity of inhabited planets, is wrong.

Please, phone ET and tell'em to come on over!

As for habitable planets. There is a small possibility of detecting Pre-Oxygenization worlds with anaerobic microscopic life/biosphere.
Confirming such with multiple verification will be difficult but not insurmountable.

The day, all the confirmed, verified data, vividly displaying the failure to discover any habitable planets within range of detection by our technology? Will you have the backbone? The strength of character to admit that your opinions are incorrect?

Hey, I even gave myself a handicap, Either habitable or inhabited (maybe not shirtsleeve environment).

Your welcomed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2017
You're one of those trolls who comes here and pretends he's an idiot just to bait innocent and sincere posters aren't you?
I even gave myself a handicap
You already HAVE a handicap. A mental one.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
not rated yet Dec 27, 2017
Interesting model, akin to earlier models of solar system generation in molecular clouds. These clouds form massive 1st generation stars that goes supernova, which in turn triggers a less massive 2nd generation. Those stars are still so massive that they blow up shells, and it is here the many 3d generation stars of solar mass or less forms, seeded by elemenst produced in supernovas and massive stars.

Incidentally other research has found that multiple supernovas in rapid succession would be needed to explain our isotopes [one of SETI.org seminar movies, IIRC], also indicating birth in a massive solar cloud.

@rrwillsj: As per above I do not think this makes our system rarer than before, having been element seeded by massive stars should be common.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
not rated yet Dec 27, 2017
@ddaye: "I'm a layman but I keep coming back to our double-planet-sized Moon. It's the most obvious aspect of our planet that says "very rare." It played a part in plate tectonics, the makeup of our surface, the size and nature of our core and magnetic field, and the stability of our axis."

I hope you realize that if there is no connection between the Moon and Earth regarding properties, the basic apposites of "rare" means nothing. Also, it helps to specify how Earth would be rare. Biology implies language capable species would be rare, but life would not since it arose so early here, certainly within the first half of Earth age to now.

The connection between properties is an arguable point. The mantle properties of Earth are mainly set by ductility by oxygen, which is proportional to the distance to our Sun. The core size is weakly coupled to e.g. inner heat and magnetic field.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
not rated yet Dec 27, 2017
[ctd]

Also here, mind that models say that median terrestrial planets are hit by 0-3 impactors of the size that created Moon. Finally Mars' axis is stable enough for life, especially crustal such, despite lacking Moon.

The geophysical Rare Earth hypothesis, which this is a variant of, is not widely accepted. The biological Rare Human hypothesis, more so.
gculpex
not rated yet Dec 28, 2017
The day a flying saucer lands in my backyard and the LGM pilot hops out and tosses me the keys. I will then be willing to admit that my opinions of the natural scarcity of inhabited planets, is wrong.

Please, phone ET and tell'em to come on over!

You are welcomed.

You can count me as one waiting for the spaceship...
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2017
gc "You can count me as one waiting for the spaceship..."

I gotta admit I do not understand that attitude of passive resignation.

I think, that if I was a 'True Believer' of alien intelligence capable of visiting our world?

I'd be out there trying to signal them in.

Of course that would be an unconscionable act. Trying to lure the poor, innocent aliens into landing here on the Planet of the Crazy Apes. That we can feast on their bones or other skeletal structure if any.
IwinUlose
2 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2018
Of course that would be an unconscionable act. Trying to lure the poor, innocent aliens into landing here on the Planet of the Crazy Apes. That we can feast on their bones or other skeletal structure if any.


Their skin shall make excellent seat and steering wheel covers; and their technology will make pornography as great as it was always meant to be.

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

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.