A ground-breaking collection of five hundred stars, seventy of which hold planets, has been successfully linked to the long-standing "lithium mystery" observed in the Sun.
A ground-breaking collection of five hundred stars, seventy of which hold planets, has been successfully linked to the long-standing "lithium mystery" observed in the Sun. Using the HARPS spectrograph, a team of astronomers found that sun-like stars that "host" planets near them consume their lithium more efficiently than stars that lack them.
"For almost a decade we have tried to find what is the factor that differentiates stars with planetary systems (containing planets) from their relatives that lack such systems," says Garik Israelian, the lead author of an article published this week in the scientific journal Nature. "We have now discovered that the amount of lithium in sun-like stars depends on the presence or absence of planets."
For decades, low levels of this chemical element have been observed in the Sun, compared to other Sun-like stars, and astronomers have not been able to explain this anomaly. The discovery of a clear trend among planet-host stars provides a logical explanation for this long-standing mystery. "The explanation for this sixty-year-old puzzle is quite simple for us," adds the lead researcher. "The sun lacks lithium because there are planets around it."
This conclusion is based on an examination of five hundred stars, including seventy that host planets around them. Most of these stars were examined for several years using the HARPS spectrograph device connected to a 3.6 meter diameter telescope, which is the world's most important "hunter" of celestial bodies located outside the solar system. "This collection is the best possible sample available to date for understanding the factors that distinguish stars with planetary systems," notes one of the researchers.
The astronomers focused mainly on sun-like stars, which make up about a quarter of the entire collection being examined. They found that most of the stars around which planets exist contain less than XNUMX percent of lithium than the amount observed in other stars. "Like our sun, these stars were extremely efficient in eliminating the lithium they inherited at the time of their "birth", explains one of the researchers. "Through our large and unique sample we are also able to prove that the reason for the reduction in the amount of lithium is not related to any other characteristic of the star, such as its age."
Unlike most other elements lighter than iron, the light nuclei of lithium, beryllium and boron are not produced in significant quantities in stars. Contrary to this, the researchers estimate that lithium, which contains only three protons and four neutrons, was created mainly immediately after the big bang, 13.7 billion years ago. Therefore, most stars should contain the same amount of lithium, unless this element is consumed and eliminated within the star. This finding also provides astronomers with a new and inexpensive tool for searching for planetary systems: by measuring the amount of lithium present in a star, researchers will be able to decide which of the stars are worthy of further serious observational efforts, if any.
Now that the connection between the presence of planets and low levels of lithium is proven, it is necessary to investigate the physical mechanism behind it. "There are several ways in which a star is able to interfere with the internal movement of materials in a planet near it, while rearranging the various chemical elements within them, similar to lithium. Now, it is the role of theory experts to decide what the most likely mechanism is," concludes the lead researcher.
24 תגובות
that make sense
Less lithium in the star and more lithium in the planets because there is a probability that some of them will be suitable for creating life and some of these life forms will suffer from mental illnesses for which lithium is the treatment.
Nahum:
No scientist ever accepts anything as a proven conclusion with certainty.
Every scientist, on the other hand, will use drugs whose relationship to the cure of the disease in which he is ill has been proven only circumstantial and not causal.
Here it is exactly the same thing:
In light of the current findings, it is very likely that if they spend time looking for planets they would prefer to spend it around lithium-free stars. This is an operative conclusion of the type that is always accepted based on a probability assessment and never from certain knowledge.
It seems to me that the assertion that there is a lack of lithium in a star with the presence of planets around it should be accepted as a mere hypothesis until a clear causal connection is found between them. Any wording from which it is implied that this is an absolute scientific truth is a popularization of science. I believe that no real scientist will accept such a conclusion as proven with certainty, until a causal relationship is found or a larger amount of samples are tested and the correlation between the two phenomena exceeds the logical probability of coincidence.
sympathetic:
Right!
The mapping sciences are indeed compared to collecting stamps, but...
They are also sciences and that is also what Rutherford said.
All science is either physics or stamp collecting.
Ernest Rutherford
sympathetic:
When you take a medicine on the recommendation of the scientists - it is hard to say that the recommendation is not scientific.
This is also not true at all.
In general - I assume you have heard that the sciences are divided (roughly) into "mapping sciences" and "process sciences".
Is geography a science?
Is astronomy a science?
These are sciences that do not try to understand but provide observations!
Even medicine sometimes does this in cash and these observations form the basis for the doctors' activities.
I don't see the conclusion as puzzling and it turns out that the editors of Nature don't see it as puzzling either.
Being serious doesn't make anything scientific yet, correlations are just the beginning. Correlations should be taken seriously, but from here to science there is a long way to go.
There were people who found a definite correlation between the wins of a baseball team and the stock market. Is this still science?
And one more thing - Ehud:
A significant correlation is something that should be taken seriously, so it is not at all surprising that they do it.
Your response justifies some of the criticisms that certain people voice towards science for "not being ready to recognize the correctness of phenomena until it deciphers the mechanism behind them".
This is a claim that is in the wrong interpretation - even in relation to medicine, which was mentioned here as the most conservative science (a clear example is medicine's recognition of the effectiveness of acupuncture, although the mechanism behind it is not understood, but this is only an example, because until recently this was actually the condition of almost all drugs the moment they were put into use!)
sympathetic:
The first sentence of the article is:
"A groundbreaking collection of five hundred stars, seventy of which hold planets, has been successfully linked to the "lithium mystery" "
This should answer some of your questions.
You may find more information in the original article (the one that served as a source for this article and is linked at the end) and if not then in the article in Nature
In my opinion, this is not a proof or a theory. Scientists have found a certain correlation: solar systems with planetary systems do not have lithium. How statistically significant this claim is is not written. How many windshields were tested? Is it clear for sure that the glasses that contained lithium certainly did not have planets?
There is no theory here that explains the mechanism that destroys the lithium in those suns with planetary systems. Until such a mechanism is shown, this is a correlation. Since there is no theory, it seems a little strange to me to determine the absence of lithium as a condition for the sun to have a planetary system...
Rah:
It is written in the article:
"In contrast, the researchers estimate that lithium, which contains only three protons and four neutrons, was formed mainly immediately after the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago. Therefore, most stars should contain the same amount of lithium, unless this element is consumed and eliminated within the star"
Eyal A:
Planets are also discovered that do not create eclipses by the changes they create in the movement of their sun.
The problem is (and Yehuda addressed this) that only large enough stars create changes in this motion that are easy to detect.
Yehuda:
But it clearly says so!
What stars could they be talking about when they said "Which of the stars deserve further serious observational efforts" if not about stars that have already been observed and no planets have been seen?
Why do they assume the lithium has been eliminated? Why not think that a star with low lithium levels to begin with is somehow prone to forming planets?
Another important thing is that from now on it will also be possible to mark planetary systems that do not produce defects in the direction of the Earth: those that cannot be marked as planetary systems at all with the existing method.
To Michael
But the emphasis is that it will be possible to find small planets around lithium-deficient stars. If until today such a planet was defined as one that had no planets because no large planets would be found in it, now they would know that it has small or large and distant planets and would continue to look for them there
this is the intention
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
It's simply wonderful how scientists reveal the secrets of the universe without leaving "home"
I hope that a way will soon be found to receive images of distant planets
and most importantly,
A revolutionary way (there are hints of this in quantum theory) for receiving information from all corners of the universe in super high resolutions and at a speed incomparably higher than the speed of light.
Yehuda:
In any case - whoever read the article, surely came across it in the following sentence:
"This finding also provides astronomers with a new and inexpensive tool for searching for planetary systems: by measuring the amount of lithium present in a star, researchers will be able to decide which of the stars are worthy of further serious observational efforts, if any."
And regarding your question, it says:
"Now that the connection between the presence of planets and low levels of lithium is proven, it is necessary to investigate the physical mechanism behind it."
"The sun has no lithium because it has planets" is not a suitable title. Find a correlation, as long as there is no reasonable causal explanation it is not appropriate to use the word "because".
to the singular point
I understand that from what is written in the article, they understood that here lies a method for discovering small Earth-like planets, and I was just saying what is obvious to everyone, and I appropriated to myself an honor that others deserved, and God forbid an injury to the dignity of many people would result from this, and I apologize to you and to all The site commenters who immediately understood what mine was took some time to understand.
And surely you understand why there is a lack of lithium in the sun, so maybe you can explain to us what you probably already understand?
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, how did you come up with that? You are just a genius. The professor and the doctor should come and thank you for the original and creative idea that you continued to explain and detail.
This is a method for discovering tiny planets in distant suns!
explanation:-
Since it is desirable to see if a star has lithium before checking if it has planets, we get a huge achievement for a method of finding tiny Earth-like planets!!!
And how?
The methods that exist today for finding planets depend on the planet's gravity or the eclipse it forms with its sun, that is, the size of the planet and its distance from the sun.
The lithium method does not depend on the size and gravity of the planet (which are necessary for the discovery of planets by the gravity or eclipse method) and we can find suspicious suns in the inventions of small Earth-like planets or those where the large Jupiter-like ones are far from the sun.
Food for thought for Professor Zvi Maza and Dr. Shai Zucker who are engaged in Israel in the discovery of planets in other solar systems.
Unfortunately, I tried to find an explanation for the reason for the lack of lithium in the entire article. Is it possible that this is due to the rotation speed of the initial cloud from which the solar system was formed?
Food for thought again
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The correct wording: "There are several ways in which a planet can interfere with the internal movement of materials in its star, while rearranging the various chemical elements within them, thus likely causing the destruction of lithium.
So now you can literally count the number of stars in the galaxy that host planets...