Discussion: Superflares Might Have Protected ...

[Fraser]

SUMMARY: Our Sun can flare up from time to time, but probably nothing like the superflares it created in its early days. According to new observations by the Chandra X-Ray Observatory of a nursery of young stars in the Orion Nebula, young stars can produce flares on an incredible scale - many times greater than anything we'd see on the Sun today. Surprisingly, these flares might force rocky planets to keep their distance from their parent star, preventing them from spiraling in to their destruction.

View full article

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

[antoniseb]

It is very interesting reading these stories about surveys of early Sun-like solar systems. We are starting to learn some real answers as to how the solar system formed. It will be interesting to see what future bigger instruments like the SKA, TPF, and 30-meter optical telescopes tell us about these places.

[om@umr.edu]

This is an interesting story.

It almost sounds like they imagine that flares push away the material forming planets.

"Big X-ray flares could lead to planetary systems like ours where Earth is a safe distance from the Sun".

"Stars with smaller flares, on the other hand, might end up with Earth-like planets plummeting into the star."

Do these young stars "between one and 10 million years old" provide any clues to the origin of the solar cycle and solar eruptions?

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[eburacum45]

Hey; looks like some of the processes in planetary formation might be moderated by electric charge after all.

About half of the young suns in Orion show evidence for disks, likely sites for current planet formation, including four lying at the center of proplyds (proto-planetary disks) imaged by Hubble Space Telescope. X-ray flares bombard these planet-forming disks, likely giving them an electric charge. This charge, combined with motion of the disk and the effects of magnetic fields should create turbulence in the disk

That is interesting; I wonder how much that charge affects the eccentricity of the newly formed planets' orbits.

[Greg]

This is a great example of how novel observations can yield completely unexpected but entirely plausible conclusions about something we could previously only speculate about. I would be interested to see if there is any way to determine if older stars were this active when they were younger (or not) so that we can test this theory when we can detect planets around them. Perhaps this is an explanation for how our system avoided the fate of some systems with "Hot Jupiters" close to the parent star.

[Svemir]

I think that we are actually witnessing planet formation process.
Superflares from parent star are major engine behind "gravitational colapse" in protoplanetary discs, that otherwise would orbit the parent star much longer then observed time of planet formation ( 1 -100 Myr).

This charge, combined with motion of the disk and the effects of magnetic fields should create turbulence in the disk

, wich in turns creates planets.
This view is much closer to EU models model of planet formation (ejection due to electrical stress), Tom Van Flandern's ejection due high rotational speed of a parent star and dr. O. Manuel's model (1 Supernovae on the spot) then mainstream (?) view ("divine" hand of 10 million supernovae in Milky Way).
I believe that protoplanetary discs/dust are ejected from the parent star as superflares, too.

Even the most enlightened astro...., use speculation in interpretation of such observation. I have this link : http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/sup...uperflares.html
where they speculated that superflares might be caused by magnetic field
of a parent star and magnetic field of an accompanying giant planet.
There are no giant planets in this story.Yet.
They/we simply don't know what causes superflares.

"Stars with smaller flares, on the other hand, might end up with Earth-like planets plummeting into the star."

And this is speculation, too.
Our Sun has small flares and not even Mercury has plummeted into Sun.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by Svemir@May 11 2005, 06:20 AM
I believe that protoplanetary discs/dust are ejected from the parent star as superflares, too.

Hi, Svemir.

Might there be a continum represented by
supernova > nova > superflare > ordinary flares?

Decay products of short-lived radioactivities (Pu-244, I-129, Al-26, Fe-60) leave little doubt that the birth of the solar system was closely connected with violent nuclear reactions in the parent star.

Measurements suggest that the material that formed our planets included different parts of the parent star:

a.) Outer layers where the r-process made Pu-244 and excess Xe-136 in a region rich in H, He, C and N.

b.) Intermediate regions where the s-process made excess Xe-130 in a region rich in Si and C.

c.) Central regions where the e-process made stable and radioactive isotopes of Ni and Fe, including Fe-60.

d.) Excess O-16 from He-burning or self-shielding that is characteristic of the different types of meteorites and planets, including the Sun itself [Nature 434 (2005) 619-622].

I.e., Svemir, might the current 11-year cycle of ordinary solar flares be residual activity from the massive flare (supernova) that triggered formation of the solar system?

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 11 2005, 12:57 PM
Might there be a continum represented by supernova > nova > superflare > ordinary flares?

There might be a continuum from super-flare to ordinary-flare, but it seems like a stretch to include Nova and Supernova in that continuum. Perhaps you could include magnetar burst in the continuum somehow, depending on how loosely you defined it.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by antoniseb+May 11 2005, 02:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb @ May 11 2005, 02:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@May 11 2005, 12:57 PM
Might there be a continum represented by supernova > nova > superflare > ordinary flares?

There might be a continuum from super-flare to ordinary-flare, but it seems like a stretch to include Nova and Supernova in that continuum. Perhaps you could include magnetar burst in the continuum somehow, depending on how loosely you defined it. [/b][/quote]
I agree, Anton.

Extreme flares (supernovae) may cause Gamma Ray Bursts (See preceeding news item).

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 11 2005, 02:47 PM
Extreme flares (supernovae) may cause Gamma Ray Bursts (See preceeding news item).

I think it is stretching things a bit to call Supernovas extreme flares. Current models do not have flares and Supernovas happening by similar processes at all. Also, Supernovas CAUSE Gamma Ray Bursts? Perhaps you mean they are both outward manifestations of the same process (particularly for type 1c supernovae).

It seems very &#39;newspeak&#39; to try and change the terminology to make a single term ambiguously apply to multiple separate ideas. I think such a practice is double-plus bad.

[Nereid]

Might there be a continum represented by supernova > nova > superflare > ordinary flares?

Would you care to give us some of the key physical parameters along this sequence (irrespective of whether they are related in any way)? I&#39;m thinking energy release (in EM), expansion speed of &#39;flared mass&#39;, characteristic time (however defined).

What &#39;continuum&#39; might there be, wrt underlying physical processes?

{for readers new to this: in mainstream astrophysics, supernovae arise from two quite different underlying physical mechanisms - &#39;detonation&#39; of a white dwarf, and &#39;core collapse&#39; of a massive star; novae arise from nuclear detonation of H (or maybe He) dumped onto a condensed object such as a WD or NS; ordinary flares are essentially magnetic in origin. Naturally, this thumbnail sketch glosses over many important aspects, so don&#39;t &#39;run with it&#39; without checking into the details&#33; }