Monica Young
NEWS by Monica Young

Superflares from Sun-like Stars

NASA's Kepler mission is finding solar-type stars that emit jaw-dropping explosions of high-energy particles and radiation. Now astronomers are looking into why some solar-type stars emit superflares — and why the Sun never will.

Superflare illustration
A normal star emits a superflare thousands of times as bright as typical solar flares in this artist's illustration.
Casey Reed / NASA
In 1859 the Sun emitted the most powerful flare in recorded history, the so-called Carrington event. Energetic particles danced off telegraph lines, creating sparks that shocked operators and ignited fires in telegraph paper. Brilliant aurora were seen as far south as the Caribbean. Estimates are rough, but this flare probably produced some 1025 Joules of energy — a million times more than is stored in the world’s entire nuclear arsenal.

But in the grand scheme of things, that’s nothing — so-called “superflares” can be 10,000 times more powerful. And, it turns out, regular, ol’ solar-type stars are perfectly capable of releasing these massive belches of energy. New results from NASA’s Kepler mission have found 365 superflares coming from solar-type stars, suggesting that superflares might not be so uncommon in “normal” stars.

Dozens of superflares from solar-type stars have been seen before, but observations have been sporadic at best. Kepler, famous for its exoplanet search, makes the study of these rare events feasible in a systematic way.

Superflare starspots
An artist illustrates the giant starspots (dark regions) that produce superflares (white region). These starspots dwarf those seen on the visible surface of the Sun.
Hiroyuki Maehara (Kyoto University)
Hiroyuki Maehara (Kyoto University) and his colleagues searched eight months of data from 2009, when Kepler monitored 83,000 stars of the same type as the Sun. Only 148 solar-type stars (0.2%) emitted a superflare under Kepler’s watchful eye, so the events must be exceedingly rare. But every superflaring star had one thing in common: gigantic starspots. As the starspots formed and dissolved on the surface of the star, the star’s brightness varied in a quasi-periodic way. Starspots harbor magnetic energy that can be released when magnetic fields tangle and reconnect, flinging plasma off the surface of the star.

Superflaring stars also tend to rotate quickly. Maehara and his colleagues found that stars with shorter rotation periods had more (though not necessarily stronger) superflares, presumably because magnetic activity arises from the interaction between a star’s rotation and the boiling motion of its ionized gas.

But slowly rotating stars are still capable of producing flares, just not as often. Of the 365 superflares Maehara and his colleagues found, 14 came from solar-type stars with rotation periods similar to the Sun’s. Extrapolating from the superflares seen, the number of stars observed, and the length of time that Kepler watched them, the scientists found that a superflare of 1027 Joules should occur every 800 years, and one of 1028 Joules every 5,000 years.

Typical solar flare
NASA's Solar Dynamic Observatory images a typical solar flare as it spits ionized gas off the surface of the Sun
NASA / GSFC / SDO
Yet, in 2,000 years of geophysical records, the Sun has never issued such a violent event. Spots on the Sun never get so big that they’re in danger of emitting a superflare. And that’s a good thing too. The strongest superflare found by Maehara would send high-energy particles “knocking around Earth's atmosphere, disassociating the nitrogen and oxygen, getting rid of the entire ozone layer,” says Bradley Schaefer (Louisiana State University). In addition to superquick sunburns and a collapsing food chain, a superflare could fry the electric grid and down the whole satellite system, he adds.

So we can count ourselves lucky that our Sun is one of the 99.8% of solar-type stars that will never emit a superflare. (This is one of those times when it’s better to be among the 99%.)

What Sets Superflaring Stars Apart?

One long-standing theory holds that “hot Jupiters,” Jupiter-sized planets that circle their host star in dizzyingly close orbits, affect a star’s magnetic activity. The planet acts as an anchor for the star’s magnetic field, Schaefer explains. As the planet orbits the star, the magnetic field lines connecting the two twist and stretch like rubber bands until sooner or later they snap.

“When a rubberband breaks,” Schaefer says, “it will snap back, and we'll feel the snap and hear the pop.” In the case of magnetic fields, a field line snapping back to the star will use some of its energy to accelerate particles, and some to emit light in every wavelength from radio to X-ray.

The hot-Jupiter theory makes good physical sense, and there are no really good alternatives at the moment. So imagine the researcher’s surprise when, of all the superflaring stars observed by Kepler, none had a hot Jupiter associated with it. If these were really behind unusual activity in solar-type stars, then about 15 hot-Jupiter transits should have been detected around superflaring stars.

But that doesn’t mean the hot-planet theory is kaput, only that it’s in need of revision. “Smaller planets could easily hide and be rare in the Kepler data,” Schaefer suggests. “The magnetic field can be anchored in any planet with a magnetic field, say a superearth or an earth, and the physics would all be the same.”

As Kepler continues monitoring solar-type stars (the mission is currently slated to carry on for another four years), the ever-climbing mountain of data will help astronomers understand what makes a superflare. Plus, astronomers could soon get some help. Schaefer suggests that looking for more flares could make a perfect citizen science project. In the not-too-distant future, the answers might lie in the hands of the public.
Posted by Monica Young, May 16, 2012
Share this story:

Other links: + digg | + reddit | + del.icio.us | + rss

comments (17)

Post a Comment


The following comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sky Publishing.
By posting a comment, you agree to our Rules of Conduct and Terms of Use.

First comments (from 17)

Superflares from Sun-like stars

Posted by Bruce May 16, 2012 At 05:39 PM PDT
This is a hugely important finding! What must this mean for the famous Drake equation? Monica Young's statement, "So we can count ourselves lucky that our Sun is one of the 99.8% of solar-type stars that will never emit a superflare" begs for more explaination. How do you define "solar-type stars" here, Dr. Young? Also, I'm very happy to hear that "our Sun ... will never emit a superflare", but it's rare to hear scientists use an absolute term such as "never" in a science report. Why are you so sure, Dr. Young?


Solar-type stars

Posted by Monica Young May 17, 2012 At 07:18 AM PDT
Hi Bruce, By solar-type stars, I mean G-type, which is a temperature classification. Normal/main-sequence stars range in surface temperature from 2,000 to 40,000 Kelvin and are labeled by a pretty random sequence of letters: OBAFGKM (commonly remembered as the pneumonic, Oh be a fine guy(or girl) kiss me). So by solar-type stars, I mean stars that have the same surface temperature as the Sun. Note that a solar-type star can rotate much more quickly than the Sun, so many (but not all) superflaring, solar-type stars are actually rotating very quickly, generating the magnetic energy needed for the superflares.


Never say never?

Posted by Monica Young May 17, 2012 At 07:22 AM PDT
@Bruce: I never use the term "never" lightly! :) We can say our Sun has probably never emitted a superflare because 1) in 2,000 years of recorded history, no such event has been recorded, and it is highly unlikely that this would be the case if the Sun were capable of emitting superflares, and 2) if a superflare event had happened in the Earth's recent history, it would have had severe effects on the Earth's atmosphere, which have not been observed. And then of course there's the statistical argument: only 0.2% of solar-type stars emit superflares, and the vast majority of these are quickly rotating stars, so it is very, very unlikely that the Sun has the capability to emit a superflare. I think in this case, given the statistics in our favor, the term "never" can be used.


Solar flare statistics

Posted by Edward Schaefer May 17, 2012 At 03:01 PM PDT
Let's see: For other slowly rotating stars like the Sun, it was found that " a superflare of 10^27 Joules should occur every 800 years, and one of 10^28 Joules every 5,000 years." So of those, how often will one occur with the Earth in the parh of the resulting CME? And of those, how often will the magnetic fields of the CME and the Earth be well enough aligned to let a lot of the energy down towards the Earth? If the odds of a major flare's CME both heading our way and not being deflected are as little as 1 in 10, then even if the Sun flares like other similar stars, the average time between 10^27 Joules superflares that affect the Earth goes to 1 in 8,000 years, and for 10^28 Joules superflares that average time goes to 50,000 years. Now having 2,000 years of reliable records (if those are even reliable for the whole 2,000 years) does not seem so significant.


Star Doctor needed?

Posted by Bruce May 18, 2012 At 06:20 AM PDT
Edward Schaefer’s point is why I questioned Dr. Young’s use of the word “never”. (Actually, I think she’s “probably” right:) Her excellent article shows that the only common factor of all these super-flaring G stars is the formation of extremely bad cases of startspotitis. (Sorry, but what do we call this?) The article implies that the rate of this stellar condition goes to zero as the stellar rotation rate drops, but our Sun’s rotation is still fast enough (as Edward’s comment points out) for it to possibly be susceptible. As having a star hugging magneto-planet seems to be a contributing factor to this stellar “disease” we can be thankful that Mercury isn’t much closer to the Sun. These spin-off Kepler stellar physics findings may prove to be even more important that the planet hunt in the long run. We might “never” travel to other stars, but we have to live with the Sun.


The anthropic principle at work

Posted by Peter May 18, 2012 At 11:25 AM PDT
Stars spin quickly when young, but slow with age. So by the time life around a sun-like star like ours evolves to the point of such complexity that super-flares could kill it off, super-flares will "never" occur anymore. Design or lucky accident? The debate goes on.


Superflares from Sun-like Stars

Posted by Rod May 18, 2012 At 05:00 PM PDT
Peter, yes indeed the debate goes on. This report indicates luck decides how the Earth-Sun relationship became established in origins science and why we find ourselves orbiting such a friendly star and habitable planet. Secular science is very much rooted in a philosophy of origins that excludes there being a Creator. Something I suspect Galileo would never agree with.


typo

Posted by Alison May 18, 2012 At 07:59 PM PDT
"pneumonic"? ... cough, cough... excuse me... MNEMONIC? Spell-checkers are "never" foolproof. :)


Superflaring from the sun in the past?

Posted by Bruce May 18, 2012 At 08:47 PM PDT
To Rod, certainly Isaac Newton would never have accepted an evolutionary origin ether. To Peter, in view of conservation of angular momentum the slowdown of stellar spin rate must be extremely slow, unless there’s a close planet causing a large tidal drag. Is there a known deceleration rate for the Sun’s rotation? In the commonly taught evolutionary timeline the Earth was without even complex aquatic life for almost 4 billion years. Then, according to what’s taught about the fossil record, the so-called Cambrian explosion took place at about 550 million years ago, when sizeable and diverse animal life proliferated in the seas. I see this sudden emergence of complex life in the fossil record as evidence of Creation. Perhaps prior to this time the sun may not have been such a friendly star.


Superflaring G stars and our Sun

Posted by Rod May 19, 2012 At 04:50 AM PDT
Bruce, you may want to check out the Faint Young Sun Paradox (read problem) concerning the early Sun and Precambrian earth. Getting back to class G stars, http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php now list 770 exoplanets, 321 have class G host stars. The average exoplanet mass is 2.17 Jupiters and average e = 0.216, so very eccentric orbits for many. The average class G star in this table is 1.116 M_sun with average temp of 5666 K, thus many of the G stars with exoplanets are larger than our Sun. The mass range was 0.7 M_sun to 2.7 M_sun. I don't have a complete list of variables that affect the Earth-Sun relationship that allow the Earth to be very habitable today orbiting our class G Sun but I will not claim the configuration we enjoy is because of luck or a series of cosmic accidents when the solar system formed.


Search:
 
Tag:
 
Author:
 
Date:  
 









Sky Publishing, a New Track Media Company
Copyright © 2013 New Track Media. All rights reserved.
Sky & Telescope, Night Sky, and SkyandTelescope.com are registered trademarks of New Track Media