
One Star Is Orbiting Inside Another in This Never-Before-Seen Binary System
For the first time, astronomers have spotted a rapidly spinning neutron star that is gravitationally bound to a helium star companion. The discovery of this unusual binary system helps confirm a long theorized—but rarely seen—cosmic process called common envelope evolution.
Binary star systems, or pairs of stars that orbit around each other, are very common. In fact, it's estimated that 85% of stars in the universe have at least one companion. But this newly discovered pair is unlike any seen before.
In this case, a helium star is bound to a millisecond pulsar: a fast-spinning neutron star that emits beams of radiation at regular intervals. These stars achieve their extraordinary rotation rates by siphoning matter from nearby stellar companions.
In May 2020, a team of researchers led by Jin Lin Han, a radio astronomer at the National Astronomical Observatories and the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, used China's FAST radio telescope to detect weak signals from a point deep within the Milky Way galaxy.
A few months later, the researchers confirmed that these signals were radiation emissions from a pulsar. They then tracked these bursts for four and a half years, and their measurements revealed that this star isn't alone. It's actually part of a binary system, orbiting its companion every 3.6 hours. But for one-sixth of that orbit, the pulsar's radiation is blocked—or eclipsed—by its companion.
'That's a large part of the orbit,' Han told Gizmodo. 'That's strange, only a larger companion can do this.'
In binary systems, a millisecond pulsar is usually accompanied by a white dwarf: a hot, dense core left behind after a star like our Sun has exhausted its fuel. But the data Han and his colleagues collected indicated that this companion had to lie somewhere in between a compact object and a normal star, he said.
Further investigation of this strange companion revealed that it is roughly as massive as our Sun, but it couldn't be a normal star because it was undetectable in all wavelengths outside of the radio spectrum. This led the researchers to conclude that it's a star stripped clean of its hydrogen, leaving behind a core primarily composed of helium. They published their findings today in the journal Science.
This type of binary system 'has never been discovered before,' Han said. But it has long been theorized that such a pairing could form via common envelope evolution, and he and his colleagues believe that's what happened here.
'The process of common envelope evolution is slightly different to how stars like pulsars are often thought to interact in binary systems,' Duncan Lorimer, a professor of physics and astronomy at West Virginia University who was not involved in the study, told Gizmodo in an email.
Normally, a neutron star's intense gravitational field pulls material from a companion star that has expanded, allowing its gaseous outer layers to be 'eaten' by the neutron star, he explained. This process, called accretion, causes the neutron star to 'spin up' and become a pulsar.
But in common envelope evolution, 'the companion star is so large that its outer layers engulf the neutron star as well,' Lorimer said. 'This acts as a brake on the whole binary system.'
Inside the companion star's outer layers—the envelope—friction causes the pulsar and the companion's core to spiral toward each other, forming a highly compact binary system, like the one Han and his colleagues have now observed. With an orbital period of just 3.6 hours, this pulsar and its companion are circling each other very closely.
Ultimately, the outer layers of the companion star are expelled, Lorimer said, which explains why this millisecond pulsar's helium star companion has been stripped.
'The evolutionary pathway that the authors set out, it's not a surprising pathway,' Victoria Kaspi, a professor of physics at McGill University who was not involved in the study, told Gizmodo. 'It's one that has been recognized, identified, discussed in detail for many years.'
'The interesting question is, if you're going to find 1,000 millisecond pulsars, what fraction of them will be like this one? It's about one in 1,000—something like that. And they found it,' she said.
Han and his colleagues believe there are more than a dozen other systems like this one in our galaxy, making them exceptionally rare. The fact that these researchers found one of them is a 'great breakthrough,' Lorimer said.
'The more millisecond pulsars we find, the more likely we are to find examples of rare evolutionary outcomes. This system is an excellent example of that,' he said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Bright Future: Technology Leaders Look To Quantum
John Prisco, Security CEO & founder of Safe Quantum Inc., working with data-driven companies to develop and deploy quantum-safe technologies Amid the ongoing funding news for bright, young quantum startups (see Classiq, SilQ Connect), recent news from the U.S. Congress and established technology companies is raising the stakes for quantum viability and the need to keep Chinese quantum development within reach. Word on the street is that Nvidia plans to invest in PsiQuantum, the chipmaker's first direct tie to quantum hardware. The move is especially interesting considering the position of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, who said earlier this year that a viable quantum computer is still decades away. This move would extend Nvidia's ongoing interest in quantum, which includes quantum software development, a hybrid system framework and a new quantum research lab in Boston that will be devoted to leveraging AI-powered supercomputers alongside advanced quantum hardware. The Nvidia news comes on the heels of other big-name investments in quantum this year. Amazon joined the quantum party, nudging some of its chief cloud rivals like Google and Microsoft in the race for potential payoff when quantum goes commercial. Amazon touted its Ocelot quantum chip (announced a week after Microsoft's own) as a high-efficiency approach to quantum and extending the Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud-computing platform. Microsoft doesn't plan to allow access to its chip through the Azure public cloud infrastructure, however, focusing instead on building the capacity of its chip to add qubits—quantum bits of data. The flurry of activity isn't a moment too soon if you look at China's movements in quantum. The Chinese announced in April a successful test of perfectly encrypted data communications over 750 miles, an extraordinary distance. It's yet another example of China's emerging dominance in quantum development, a potential threat so serious that Microsoft President Brad Smith warned it puts the United States in jeopardy of falling irrevocably behind. Smith has exhorted the current administration to prioritize quantum research, renewing programs such as the National Quantum Initiative Act and focusing on developing an educational pipeline initiative to cultivate quantum talent. Already this year, a bipartisan group of U.S. representatives banded together to introduce a sandbox program to complement the National Quantum Initiative. The Quantum Sandbox for Near-Term Applications Act aims to provide a cloud-based workspace for government and commercial researchers to experiment with quantum applications for defense, healthcare, energy and manufacturing. There are other bright spots. Cisco, at the heart of the existing internet infrastructure, announced a new quantum lab and the development of a quantum chip prototype designed to enable quantum networks to scale. IBM has partnered with Tata Consultancy Services to launch the largest quantum research and development center in India, alongside an IBM Quantum Systems Two installation with a 156-qubit Heron quantum processor. The Indian investment is on top of IBM's strategy to invest $150 billion (that's BILLION) in the United States over the next five years to expand U.S.-based manufacturing of quantum computers and mainframe systems. With the volume of investment in small and large technology companies, it's clear that quantum's future is calling. No doubt the next few years will also herald a time of mergers and acquisitions, as newer technologies come to market. Smart investors would do well to especially consider companies with a focus on early-stage quantum solutions, such as quantum key distribution (QKD), with proven use cases that deploy quantum today over existing fiber optic networks. Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Will we ever know for sure how COVID-19 began? Not without more data from China, WHO says
Scientists still aren't sure how the COVID-19 pandemic – the worst health emergency in a century – began. That was the unsatisfying conclusion from an expert group charged by the World Health Organization (WHO) to investigate the pandemic's origins in its final report. Marietjie Venter, the group's chair, said at a press briefing that most scientific data supports the hypothesis that the new coronavirus jumped to humans from animals. That was also the conclusion drawn by the first WHO expert group that investigated the pandemic's origins in 2021, when scientists concluded the virus likely spread from bats to humans, via another intermediary animal. At the time, WHO said a lab leak was 'extremely unlikely'. Related Five years after COVID appeared, mysteries remain. Here's what we know Venter said that after more than three years of work, WHO's expert group was unable to get the necessary data to evaluate whether or not COVID-19 was the result of a lab accident, despite repeated requests for hundreds of genetic sequences and more detailed biosecurity information that were made to the Chinese government. 'Therefore, this hypothesis could not be investigated or excluded,' she said. 'It was deemed to be very speculative, based on political opinions and not backed up by science'. She said that the 27-member group did not reach a consensus; one member resigned earlier this week and three others asked for their names to be removed from the report. Venter said there was no evidence to prove that COVID-19 had been manipulated in a lab, nor was there any indication that the virus had been spreading before December 2019 anywhere outside of China. Related Italy honours COVID-19 victims on remembrance day, five years after pandemic hit 'Until more scientific data becomes available, the origins of how SARS-CoV-2 entered human populations will remain inconclusive,' Venter said, referring to the scientific name for the COVID-19 virus. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said it was a 'moral imperative' to determine how COVID began, noting that the virus killed at least 20 million people, wiped at least $10 trillion (€8.8 trillion) from the global economy and upended the lives of billions of people. Last year, the AP found that the Chinese government froze meaningful domestic and international efforts to trace the virus' origins in the first weeks of the outbreak in 2020 and that WHO itself may have missed early opportunities to investigate how COVID-19 began. Related New CIA assessment claims COVID-19 virus 'probably' came from Chinese laboratory US President Donald Trump has long blamed the emergence of the coronavirus on a laboratory accident in China, while a US intelligence analysis found there was insufficient evidence to prove the theory. Chinese officials have repeatedly dismissed the idea that the pandemic could have started in a lab, saying that the search for its origins should be conducted in other countries. Last September, researchers zeroed in on a short list of animals they think might have spread COVID-19 to humans, including racoon dogs, civet cats, and bamboo rats.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Could the Solar System Lose a Planet to a Passing Star?
There's a bit of a paradox about our galaxy: it's both jam-packed with stars and cavernously empty. The Milky Way is crowded in the sense that it holds hundreds of billions of stars, as well as sprawling clouds of gas and dust. But even so, there is a lot of elbow room: the nearest star to the sun is more than four light-years distant, separated from us by tens of trillions of kilometers. That's an immense distance and difficult to even analogize. Saying our fastest space probes would take tens of thousands of years to reach the nearest star is still such a ponderous concept that it's hard to grasp. Of course, there are more crowded spots, too. Some stellar clusters pack thousands of stars into a small volume of space, and the bustling galactic center swarms with stars. But out here in the galactic suburbs, stars are more spread out, providing one another plenty of room as they orbit through the Milky Way. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] Still, given enough time, some stars will encroach on our personal space. About 80,000 years ago a small red dwarf called Scholz's star passed the sun at a distance of just 0.85 light-year. Looking ahead, about 1.3 million years hence, the star Gliese 710 will give us a close shave by 0.17 light-year. That may seem like a long time on a human scale, but that's barely a tick of the galactic clock. The sun and its retinue of planets, asteroids and comets have been around for more than 4.5 billion years. Across that yawning stretch of time, it's a near certainty the sun has had some close encounters of the stellar kind. What sort of effect does that have on the solar system? We know that the sun is surrounded by a vast halo of trillions of icy bodies collectively called the Oort Cloud; although each individual object is far too faint to see with modern equipment, every now and again, one will drop down into the inner solar system and grace our skies as a long-period comet. Estimates of the cloud's size vary, but it could stretch more than a light-year from the sun. A star passing through that region could gravitationally poke at those ice balls, nudging hundreds or even thousands of them toward the sun, and some of them could hit an inner planet. Some researchers have even speculated that such a close pass could provoke a mass extinction event. Research published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters showed that the passage of Scholz's star was unlikely to trigger such an event; the star is too much of a lightweight and was moving too quickly to significantly jostle the Oort Cloud and rain death upon our world. Given enough time, however, other stars could indeed stir up trouble in the distant reaches of the outer solar system. Happily, we probably have thousands of millennia to prepare. But such a celestial drive-by can have other unsettling consequences as well. Many astronomers have wondered about the long-term stability of the solar system's planets, given that they interact with each other gravitationally over the eons. The early solar system was wracked with profound instabilities, but more recently such effects have been far more subtle. Oddly enough, Mercury, the innermost planet, is particularly susceptible to these. The physics behind this is complex, but in a nutshell, small changes in the orbit of Neptune—the major planet most affected by a star passing by—propagate inward. It tugs on Uranus, which tugs on Saturn, which tugs on Jupiter, and the solar system's most massive planet affects everything else. Its orbit and that of Mercury can fall into a resonance in which the orbital periods (the 'years' of both planets) are simple ratios of each other. When this happens, Mercury gets an added kick (literally, like when a child on a playground swing kicks at the right moment, pumping up their oscillations). It's been known for decades that these effects can change the ellipticity of Mercury's orbit, sometimes stretching it out into a long oval. If the orbit were to get too elongated, Mercury could fall into the sun or get close enough to Venus to get flung out of the solar system. Mars, too, could fall prey to this; like Mercury, it has a more oval-shaped orbit than that of Earth or Venus and can find its orbit changing shape radically over a sufficiently long time frame. In the past, most of those simulations assumed the solar system to be in isolation, with no other stars nearby sticking their noses in our business. But we know that's not the case, and such stellar interference must be accounted for to understand the solar system's evolution. Many simulations that do include passing stars don't usually take all the effects into complete consideration; for example, they run their models for a few tens of millions of years even though it can take billions for gradually growing instabilities to have an impact. Others have used limited modeling of stellar encounters, meaning that they haven't included the entire possible range of masses, velocities and passage distances expected from stars in the galaxy. Research published online in the planetary science journal Icarus last month attempts to address all these factors in more robust simulations of the solar system's dynamic evolution. What the authors find is that some celestial bodies are a little less stable than previously thought, given how often stars pass by the sun. Not surprisingly, Pluto is the hardest hit. (The researchers only modeled the eight major planets plus Pluto.) Previously, Pluto was thought to have a pretty stable orbit, but the new simulations show that over the course of about five billion years, there's a 4 percent chance for Pluto to be ejected from the solar system entirely. These passes also increase Mercury's odds of an unhappy end. Previous studies showed a roughly 1 percent chance of it dropping into the sun or being ejected from the solar system because of planetary dynamics in the next five billion years or so, but according to the new study, there's an additional 0.56 percent chance that these events could occur via stellar interactions. Mars, too, has a 0.3 percent chance of the fate of getting an extreme sunburn or starlessly wandering the galaxy. Earth isn't immune, either. The new research finds that our own fair world has a 0.2 percent chance of being involved in a planetary collision or ejected into interstellar space. The odds are low, certainly, but higher than I'd care for given the world-shattering stakes. At this point I think I should remind you of the timescale involved: we're talking five billion years into the future, which is roughly the same amount of time that's elapsed since the solar system was born in the first place. That's a long time, so this is not something you or I should personally worry about. Plus, we don't know of any stars that will pass terribly close to us for several million years anyway. In the shorter term, I'm more concerned about—in chronologically ascending order—global warming (at the timescale of decades), medium-sized asteroids (centuries), supervolcanoes (hundreds of millennia) and giant-sized asteroids (tens of millions of years). Remember, too, that the solar system has been around a long time and, crucially, Earth is still here. It's been batted around a bit, but life persists. Over the very long term, the universe is a dangerous place, but for now, for us—cosmically speaking, at least—we can breathe easy.