James Webb Space Telescope investigates the origins of 'failed stars' in the Flame Nebula
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has probed deep into the dusty shroud of a young nebula alight with star formation on the hunt for "failed star" brown dwarfs.
Brown dwarfs are stellar objects that are born like stars but fail to gather enough matter to reach the masses needed to trigger the fusion of hydrogen to helium in their cores. These bodies with masses between 13 and 75 times the mass of Jupiter (or 1.3% to 7.5% the mass of the sun) are, therefore, much fainter than regular main sequence stars, despite the fact that some nuclear fusion does happen within them.
Brown dwarfs are hotter and brighter in their youth, and that makes them easier to spot in a young nebula like the Flame Nebula, which is around 1 million years old (if that seems ancient, consider our own middle-aged solar system is 4.6 billion years old).
The JWST was able to cut through the thick gas and dust obscuring the Flame Nebula to hunt its lowest mass limit of brown dwarfs. The search turned up free-floating objects roughly two to three times the mass of Jupiter. By "free-floating," astronomers mean objects that aren't orbiting a parent star.
These could be stellar fragments that are on their way to becoming brown dwarfs.
"The goal of this project was to explore the fundamental low-mass limit of the star and brown dwarf formation process," team leader Matthew De Furio of the University of Texas at Austin said in a statement."With the JWST, we're able to probe the faintest and lowest mass objects."
The JWST hunted for free-floating planetary mass bodies that have masses of at least around half that of Jupiter. This was set by a process called "fragmentation" that sees large dense clouds of gas and dust, so-called "molecular clouds," break down and condense to form stars and brown dwarfs.
Fragmentation is highly dependent on the balance between temperature, thermal pressure, and gravity, in addition to other slightly less critical factors.
As molecular cloud fragments contract under their own gravity, their cores rise in temperature. A core with enough mass becomes a protostar that will begin the fusion of hydrogen. This results in outward energy balancing the inward push of gravity and halting the collapse. The stabilized object is now a main-sequence star fusing hydrogen to helium in its core.
However, if a core isn't dense and hot enough to kickstart hydrogen fusion, there is nothing to balance gravity, and the collapse continues unabated. These failed fragments continue to radiate away heat, a "proto-brown dwarf" in essence.
"The cooling of these clouds is important because if you have enough internal energy, it will fight that gravity," team member Michael Meyer of the University of Michigan said. "If the clouds cool efficiently, they collapse and break apart."Fragmentation ceases when the gas of a fragment is dense enough to become opaque. This means it can reabsorb its own radiation, which stops it from cooling and halts its collapse.
The lower mass limit of these fragments has been theorized to be between 1 and 10 times the mass of Jupiter. These findings could reduce that mass range.
"As found in many previous studies, as you go to lower masses, you actually get more objects up to about ten times the mass of Jupiter. In our study with the JWST, we are sensitive down to 0.5 times the mass of Jupiter, and we are finding significantly fewer and fewer things as you go below ten times the mass of Jupiter," De Furio said. "We find fewer five-Jupiter-mass objects than ten-Jupiter-mass objects, and we find way fewer three-Jupiter-mass objects than five-Jupiter-mass objects. "We don't really find any objects below two or three Jupiter masses, and we expect to see them if they are there, so we are hypothesizing that this could be the limit itself."
Meyer added that with the JWST, astronomers have for the first time been able to probe up to and beyond the brown dwarf mass limit. "If that limit is real," Meyer continued, "there really shouldn't be any one-Jupiter-mass objects free-floating out in our Milky Way galaxy, unless they were formed as planets and then ejected out of a planetary system."
The faintness of brown dwarfs makes them tough to spot, but this effort is worthwhile as these failed stars can deliver a wealth of information about star formation and the differences and similarities between stars and planets.
This study by the JWST builds upon prior research by the Hubble Space Telescope, which wasn't sensitive enough to study brown dwarfs of such low-masses in the Flame Nebula but was able to identify prime targets for further investigation."It's really difficult to do this work, looking at brown dwarfs down to even ten Jupiter masses, from the ground, especially in regions like this,' said De Furio. "And having existing Hubble data over the last 30 years or so allowed us to know that this is a really useful star-forming region to target. We needed to have the JWST to be able to study this particular science topic."
Astronomer Massimo Robberto of the Space Telescope Science Institute described the baton passing of Hubble to the JWST as a "quantum leap" in astronomers capability to understand the nature of brown dwarfs.
Related Stories:
— How the Rubin observatory could detect thousands of 'failed stars'
— Hubble Space Telescope discovers 'failed stars' are bad at relationships too
— Earth-size planet discovered around cool red dwarf star shares its name with a biscuit
The team will now continue to study the Flame Nebula using the JWST, searching for objects lurking within its dense, dusty veil.
"There's a big overlap between the things that could be planets and the things that are very, very low-mass brown dwarfs," Meyer concluded. "And that's our job in the next five years: to figure out which is which and why."
The team's research has been accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Giant space 'boulders' unleashed by NASA's DART mission aren't behaving as expected, revealing hidden risks of deflecting asteroids
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Three years ago, NASA made history by deliberately smashing a spacecraft into a large asteroid, altering its course and demonstrating humankind's ability to protect our planet from "potentially hazardous" space rocks in the future. But a new analysis hints that the debris from this monumental collision is not behaving as expected, raising doubts about the success of future asteroid-deflecting missions. On Sept. 26, 2022, NASA's Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) spacecraft purposefully collided with the asteroid Dimorphos, crashing directly into the middle of the space rock at around 15,000 mph (24,000 km/h). The mission was a smashing success: Not only did DART alter Dimorphos' trajectory — shortening its trip around its partner asteroid Didymos by around 30 minutes — it also completely changed the shape of the asteroid. The collision, which occurred more than 7 million miles (11 million kilometers) from Earth, demonstrated that this type of action, known as the "kinetic impactor" method, was a conceivably viable option for protecting our planet from potentially hazardous asteroids. However, a new study, published July 4 in The Planetary Science Journal, has revealed a hidden complication: Dozens of large "boulders," which were knocked loose from the asteroid by the spacecraft are apparently traveling with greater momentum than predicted and have configured into surprisingly non-random patterns. Related: Could scientists stop a 'planet killer' asteroid from hitting Earth? The researchers analyzed images from the European Space Agency's (ESA) Light Italian Cubesat for Imaging of Asteroids (LICIACube), which flew alongside DART to monitor the collision. This allowed them to track 104 boulders — each between 0.7 and 11.8 feet (0.2 to 3.6 meters) across — as they shot away from the asteroid. The big takeaway was that these boulders had around three times more momentum than predicted, likely as the result of "an additional kick" the boulders received as they were pushed away from the asteroid's surface, study lead author Tony Farnham, an astronomer at the University of Maryland, said in a statement. "That additional factor changes the physics we need to consider when planning these types of missions," he added. The team also noted that the boulders were arranged into unexpected patterns: "We saw that the boulders weren't scattered randomly in space," Farnham said. "Instead, they were clustered in two pretty distinct groups, with an absence of material elsewhere, which means that something unknown is at work here." The researchers want to learn more about what happened so that we have all the necessary information at hand if and when we need to make decisions about using a kinetic impactor to protect our planet from an incoming space rock in the future. "If an asteroid was tumbling toward us, and we knew we had to move it a specific amount to prevent it from hitting Earth, then all these subtleties become very, very important," study co-author Jessica Sunshine, an astronomer at the University of Maryland, said in the statement. "You can think of it as a cosmic pool game," she added. "We might miss the pocket if we don't consider all the variables." This is not the first time scientists have noticed something unexpected about the fallout from the DART mission. In April 2024, researchers noted that some of the largest boulders might have been set on a collision course with Mars and could smash into the Red Planet in around 6,000 years, potentially endangering any future human colonies that may live there. In August last year, simulations using LICIACube data also suggested that some of the smaller fragments from the asteroid could hit Earth in around 30 years, potentially triggering a spectacular meteor shower without posing a real threat to our planet. However, despite all these uncertainties, the kinetic impactor method is still the most viable option to protect ourselves from any real threat of being hit by an asteroid. RELATED STORIES —'City killer' asteroid 2024 YR4 could shower Earth with 'bullet-like' meteors if it hits the moon in 2032 —An 'invisible threat': Swarm of hidden 'city killer' asteroids around Venus could one day collide with Earth, simulations show —'God of Chaos' asteroid Apophis could still hit Earth in 2029, study hints — but we won't know for 3 more years This topic was discussed earlier this year when the "city killer" asteroid 2024 YR4 was temporarily believed to have a roughly 3% chance of hitting Earth in 2032. The odds of a collision are now zero, but experts are keen to keep the conversation going, especially as the severe cuts to NASA's budget proposed by the Trump administration could limit our ability to spot dangerous space rocks. Researchers will get a better idea of what is happening with the Dimorphos debris next year, when ESA's Hera spacecraft arrives at the asteroid to properly study the fallout from the DART collision.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The choice of sperm is 'entirely up to the egg' — so why does the myth of 'racing sperm' persist?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. It's a commonly held belief: Sperm cells are like runners in an epic race, competing against each other for access to the coveted egg at the finish line. The egg, in turn, waits patiently for the winning sperm to pierce its outer membrane, triggering fertilization. This narrative of racing sperm and waiting eggs has persisted through time — and yet, it simply isn't accurate. Scientific research has debunked this idea time and time again. In her new book "The Stronger Sex: What Science Tells Us about the Power of the Female Body" (Seal Press/Hachette, 2025), science writer Starre Vartan addresses this and other pervasive myths about the female body, highlighting what science actually tells us about differences in biology between the sexes and where gaps in knowledge still exist, in part, due to a historic lack of research focused on females. Making all your eggs at once, stress-testing and dumping most of them, and having one available at a time for fertilization is a mammalian adaptation. It represents a shift in reproductive strategy, according to Professor Lynnette Sievert, a biological anthropologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. That shift is away from an earlier, or more ancient method of reproduction, which fish, amphibians, and most reptiles still employ today to great success. They both make both eggs and sperm continually, in great quantities, and throughout their lifetimes until they die. Female fish and frogs expel their masses of eggs into the water, and the males shoot, deposit, or generally aim their sperm in the eggs' direction. The eggs that get fertilized then develop — or don't, due to environmental conditions, or get eaten by predators. Sea turtles have sex, but still lay hundreds of fertilized eggs at a time and do so until they are elderly, as do oviparous snakes (viviparous snakes give birth to live young). For all these animals, reproduction is a numbers game. Lots of eggs, lots of sperm, plenty of fertilized eggs and hatchlings, with just a few young surviving to adulthood. In many cases the newly hatched turtles, tadpoles and wee snake-babies are an important food source for other animals who live in their ecosystem, like a biological offering to the greater community. This more-reproductive-stuff-is-better design is still employed by male humans, but not females. Related: Do sperm really race to the egg? "Human males still follow the fish pattern. They're still putting out a million sperm. They're not cleaning the sperm, they're not putting out the best sperm, they're just putting out all the sperm just like a fish," Sievert says. She wonders why then, female mammals made a significant shift away from that model. "Why was there never a selection on male sperm and mammals to be like eggs? Something shifted, that separated the sexes," she says. It's an unanswered biological question, but there is one obvious possible answer: Control. Female mammals house the mechanisms over which eggs (and sperm) are used for reproduction inside their bodies, while amphibians, reptiles, and fish let outside ecological conditions like temperature, predators, salinity and pollutants decide who lives and dies. Both strategies are clearly effective, but why would mammals have shifted away from a successful model? It could be that longer-lived mammals are able to store epigenetic information about local conditions as they grow, which could influence when and which eggs and sperm are chosen. The choices about who lives and who doesn't are made before or during conception, instead of after, resulting in offspring that are best suited to current conditions. Why all this trouble to "turn your body into an eggshell," as Cat Bohannon puts it in her book "Eve: How the Female Body Drove 200 Million Years of Evolution" — when the eggshell, or other reproductive strategies work so well? It could be explained by a combination of energetics and fine-tuning. By bringing fertilization and growing their young inside the female body, mammals can then use their lived experience (not just conditions at the moment of conception) to affect which traits are selected for. They can do this by controlling both which egg and which sperm are preferred. All this energy being used at or before the stage of conception means there are fewer fertilized eggs, and fewer babies. When you only have a baby or two at a time, instead of hundreds, it then becomes logical to invest in ensuring it has the best chances of survival — so an egg battle and a female body that's choosy about sperm makes total sense. As do the years of parenting that follow. That eggs choose sperm is a basic biological fact that has been "discovered" quite a few times over the years. The stubbornness of the "active sperm and waiting egg" story despite the facts highlights how hard it is for humans to accept biological narratives that run counter to our cultural ideas. As Emily Martin detailed in her memorable paper, we know that it was once the narrative that the sperm was the active party in fertilization, with all the speedy, tough sperm out swimming each other and trying to be the first one to attack the egg's outer membrane to gain entry and deposit their DNA packages. Way back in the mid-1980s, it was first discovered that the egg was actually the active decider in fertilization. The egg does this by using its zona pellucida (a thick protein coat that protects the egg cell) to chemically grab onto sperm, test it, and then reject or admit its DNA into the egg. The sperm, wiggling back-and-forth, can't break even a single chemical bond, but the egg can. Research in the 1990s went on to support the idea, and it's widely accepted. Yet, over the last 20 years, scientists continue to "discover" this fact. In 2017, Quanta magazine published an article about a researcher whose work was "challenging this dogma" that "the egg is not the submissive, docile cell that scientists long thought it was" and in 2019, a University of Virginia magazine article stated: "The old notion of the egg as a passive partner for sperm entry is out. Instead, the researchers found, there are molecular players on the surface of the egg that bind with a corresponding substance on the sperm to facilitate the fusion of the two." The writer called this an "unexpected discovery." This "rediscovery" of already known scientific information about the egg and sperm's interaction was covered by a Ms. Magazine article in 2024 about Evelyn Fox Keller, a pioneer in the field of feminist philosophy of science. The passive egg/active sperm idea just wouldn't go away, even in the same journals that published the research that it wasn't true. "One of Fox Keller's key findings was that seemingly neutral assumptions in biology can in fact be gendered. Keller's informed social analysis of the sciences paved the way to approach science as a cultural phenomenon." That researchers and the science press are repeating the same "discoveries" for decades shows just how gendered ideas stick to the culture, and can hold science back. The newest evidence shows that not only does an egg decide which sperm it wants to admit, the egg may be attracting or repelling different sperm even before they make it to the egg. In 2020, scientists at Stockholm University collaborating with colleagues at the University of Manchester found that eggs release a chemical that can attract sperm as it makes its journey. They also found that different eggs attract different varieties of sperm — not all eggs attracted the same sperm. The eggs sometimes attracted sperm that was not their partner's. They figured this out by obtaining reproductive material from couples who gave them permission to at an IVF clinic in Manchester, U.K. "Each experimental block comprised the follicular fluid and sperm samples from a unique set of two couples, exposing sperm from each male to follicular fluid from their partner and a non-partner," the researchers wrote of their methods. RELATED STORIES —1st 'atlas' of human ovaries could lead to fertility breakthrough, scientists say —Sperm don't swim anything like we thought they did, new study finds —Watch 1st-ever video of ovulation occurring in real time Chemosensory communication between eggs and sperm allows "female choice and bias fertilizations toward specific males," the researchers wrote. What are the egg's criteria? It's unknown at this point. It could be selecting higher-quality sperm or sperm that's more genetically compatible in some way. "This shows that interactions between human eggs and sperm depend on the specific identity of the women and men involved," one of the researchers told Labroots. He went on to say that the choice of sperm was entirely up to the egg. The science shows that contrary to some cultural stories, the menstrual cycle is highly sensitive to conserve energy; eggs go to war each month so that only the strongest survive; that winner egg sends out come-hither signals to sperm it likes; and then it chooses which sperm to unite with to make a possible new human being. So much for the inherent weakness of women's bodies and the passive female reproductive system. In interviews with dozens of researchers from biology, anthropology, physiology, and sports science, plus in-depth conversations with runners, swimmers, wrestlers, woodchoppers, thru-hikers, firefighters, and more, "The Stronger Sex" squashes outdated ideas about women's bodies. It's a celebration of female strength that doesn't argue "down with men" but "up with us all."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Astronomers hike up Mount Blanc for the view
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. A team of astronomy-loving mountaineers, led by Cyril Dupuy, founder of the French smart telescope company Vaonis, recently hiked the icy slopes of Mount Blanc. There, they captured the highest photograph of the sun ever taken in Europe. From April 29 to May 1 of this year, the team ascended Western Europe's tallest peak, carrying with them their Vespera Pro smart telescope. Despite being blocked from the true peak of Mount Blanc by a hazardous snow bridge, the team succeeded in their scientific expedition, setting up their telescope to get unprecedented views of the sky. This photo was taken on Mount Blanc at 14,100 feet (4,300 meters) above sea level, a bit below the 15,780-foot (4,810 m) summit. From their position close to the summit of Mount Blanc, the team was able to capture high-altitude images of the sun with the Vespera Pro telescope. They were even able to observe Malin-1, the largest known spiral galaxy, which lies more than a billion light years from Earth. "Inspired by the Janssen Observatory built atop Mont Blanc in the late 19th century, I decided to follow in trailblazer Jules Janssen's footsteps and capture from the Alpine skies a unique image of the sun as well as the largest known spiral galaxy, a nod to Janssen's research — though this time armed with 21st-century technology," explained Dupuy in a recent statement. The trip was one of many that astrophotographers like Dupuy take to remote locations with less light pollution to photograph crisp, clear night skies. By combining long-exposure techniques and camera and telescope technology, astrophotographers can see details far beyond what the naked eye can see: star clusters, the Milky Way, and even the faint glow of other galaxies. You can read more about astrophotography, the best telescopes to get started, and more about capturing our night skies.
