ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Where Did the Sun Come from? The Search Continues

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



open cluster Messier 67

M67. Credit: ThinkingCamera/Flickr via CC

We all come from somewhere. If you wind the clock back far enough, we all come from the same place. Sometime about 4.5 billion years ago, the sun was born, and a disk of debris swirling around it soon coalesced into Earth and the rest of the planets. But where did that happen? Where was the sun born?

One of the leading candidates for the sun’s birthplace has probably been ruled out, according to a study in the March issue of The Astronomical Journal.

Most stars seem to have been born in clusters or groups. Assuming the sun did the same before venturing out on its own, some remnant of the sun’s native cluster might still exist within the galaxy. And inside that cluster would reside stars born in the same chemical environment, at around the same time, as the sun. Those stars, in short, would be the long-lost siblings of the only star in the universe that we know to support life.

Bárbara Pichardo of the National Autonomous University of Mexico and her colleagues in Mexico, the U.S., Italy and Germany looked into a possible solar origin within M67, a cluster of stars about 3,000 light-years away. M67 qualifies as relatively nearby within the Milky Way Galaxy, which is about 100,000 light-years across. In addition to its proximity, the cluster has a number of attributes that make it an attractive candidate for the sun’s birthplace. Its stars are about the same age as the sun, and their chemical makeup is strikingly sunlike as well. Astronomers have already found a number of stars within M67 that look to be dead ringers for the sun.

But that may just be coincidence. Pichardo and her colleagues ran computer simulations to wind the galactic clock back billions of years, looking for a time when the sun and M67 were close together. If the sun was somehow ejected from a cluster, after all, its orbit and the orbit of the cluster must have intersected at some point in the past.

After simulating 350,000 possible paths that the sun and M67 may have taken through the galaxy to reach their present locations, the researchers concluded that the sun could not have emerged from M67. The only way that the sun could have sprung from that cluster, they found, was if it had been ejected at a velocity great enough to disperse a nascent solar system or the makings thereof. In other words, our existence, and the existence of our host planet, is evidence that the sun never underwent such a violent ejection.

One important caveat, though: the computer simulations assume that the familiar spiral arms of the Milky Way are stable, unchanging structures. But some studies have indicated that the arms of spiral galaxies may in fact be transient. If that were the case, the researchers note, the hypothesis of M67 as the sun’s birthplace might itself be reborn.

About the Author: John Matson is an associate editor at Scientific American focusing on space, physics and mathematics. Follow on Twitter @jmtsn.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 5 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. jtdwyer 8:27 pm 03/14/2012

    The article states:
    “One important caveat, though: the computer simulations assume that the familiar spiral arms of the Milky Way are stable, unchanging structures. But some studies have indicated that the arms of spiral galaxies may in fact be transient. If that were the case, the researchers note, the hypothesis of M67 as the sun’s birthplace might itself be reborn.”

    Thanks, John Matson, for that crucial disclaimer that likely invalidates the entire analysis. Since the relationship between the motions of the arms of spiral galaxies and the stars that are often created within them has yet to be definitively determined, no useful analysis of the Solar system’s motions within the galaxy can be conducted. No sense in guessing, even using sophisticated simulation modeling methods…

    The recent studies evaluating the dynamics of spiral galaxy arms are themselves based on highly sophisticated simulation models. Please see: Grand, et al, (2012), “Dynamics of stars around spiral arms in an N-body/SPH simulated barred-spiral galaxy”, http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.6387v1

    Link to this
  2. 2. N a g n o s t i c 7:13 am 03/15/2012

    This is definitely a throwaway article.

    Link to this
  3. 3. jgrosay 5:32 pm 03/15/2012

    My level in astronomy and astrophysics doesn’t go beyond high school, but I’ve learned that the arms of galaxies are temporary images, formed by coincidence in orbits of stars that give the shapes observed for the arms, if you simulate a time long enough in the evolution of a galaxy, you’ll see that the shape of arms changes from bars to spirals and back, with some intermediate shapes. Anyway those shapes may be just images, and may not affect in deep the dynamics of star orbits or anything whitin the galaxy. Is this important for the proposals depicted in the article ?. Salut +

    Link to this
  4. 4. Dredd 4:08 pm 03/16/2012

    In terms of the hominid, and perhaps other, species where the Sun is going now is far more important a consideration. And that eventuality is more certain.

    http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2009/09/tenets-of-ecocosmology.html

    Link to this
  5. 5. jtdwyer 9:51 am 03/19/2012

    jgrosay – As the article mentions, “the computer simulations [used in this study to track the presumed motions of the Solar system within the galaxy] assume that the familiar spiral arms of the Milky Way are stable, unchanging structures.”

    Whatever rules this simulation study used to define the motions of the Solar system within the galaxy, they were based on a model of the galaxy’s spiral arms that did not allow for any changes in their structures…

    I don’t follow how “those shapes may be just images, and may not affect in deep the dynamics of star orbits or anything whitin the galaxy” – as any changes in the configuration of masses among and within spiral structures would necessarily affect the dynamical motions of stars and other masses within them.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Back To School

Back to School Sale!

12 Digital Issues + 4 Years of Archive Access just $19.99

Order Now >

X

Email this Article



This function is currently unavailable

X