What Makes Stars Twinkle?
Ah, it's a lovely night for enjoying the outdoors. You go outside in the warm summer air to listen to the crickets and breathe in the scents of verdant life and then turn your head to the heavens. You see hundreds of stars in the sky, and the brightest are conspicuously twinkling and gleaming.
Some are even shifting their colors across the rainbow, delighting your eyes and mind—unless you're out there to do some observing with a telescope. That twinkling is lovely for any average stargazer to behold, but scientifically it's a pain in the astronomer.
Twinkling is the apparent rapid variation of brightness and color of the stars. It's technically called scintillation, from the Latin for 'sparkle,' which is apt. While it is admittedly lovely, it's still the bane of astronomers across the world.
[Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter]
For millennia, twinkling was misunderstood. As with so many scientific principles, it was misdiagnosed by ancient Greeks such as Aristotle, who attributed it to human vision. At that time, he and his peers believed that the eye actively created vision by sending out beams that illuminated objects and allowed us to see them. But these beams were imperfect, so the belief went, and the farther away an object was, the more the beam would be distorted; stars, being very far away, suffered this flaw greatly, causing them to twinkle. It was Isaac Newton, through his studies of optics, who finally determined the true cause.
A fundamental property of light—true of all waves, in fact—is that it bends when it goes from one medium to another. You're familiar with this: a spoon sitting in a glass of water looks bent at the top of the liquid. This is called refraction, and in the case of the spoon, it happens when the light goes from the water in the glass to the air on its way to your eye, distorting the shape of the otherwise unbent spoon. The amount of refraction depends on the properties of the materials through which the light travels. Density, for instance, can dictate the degree of refraction for light moving through gas—so light traveling through air alone will still bend if the air has different densities from one spot to the next.
If Earth's atmosphere were perfectly static and homogeneous, then the refraction of starlight would be minimal. Our air is always in motion, however, and far from smooth. Winds far above the planet's surface stir the air, creating turbulence. This roils the gases, creating small air packets of different densities that move to and fro.
Starlight passing through one such parcel of air will bend slightly. From our point of view on Earth, the position of the star will shift slightly when that happens. The air is also in motion, so from moment to moment, the starlight will pass through different parcels on its way to your eye or your detector, shifting position each time, usually randomly because of the air's turbulent motion. What you see on the ground, then, is the star rapidly shifting left, right, up and down, and all directions in between, several times per second—in other words, twinkling.
The amount of the shift is confusingly called 'seeing' by astronomers, and it's actually quite small. It's usually only a few arcseconds, a very small angle on the sky—the full moon, for example, is about 1,800 arcseconds wide. Stars, though, are so far away from us that they appear to be a minuscule fraction of an arcsecond wide, a tiny point of light to the eye, so even this minuscule arcsecond-scale shifting makes them appear to dance around.
Note that this is why planets typically don't twinkle. Jupiter, for example, is usually several dozen arcseconds wide, so twinkling doesn't affect its position as much, and we perceive its light to be steady.
Twinkling is usually more obvious for stars near the horizon than overhead. The atmosphere is a shell of air surrounding Earth. When we look straight up, we're looking through roughly 100 kilometers of air, but toward the horizon, that length increases to more than 1,000 km! That gives the air many more chances to refract the starlight, increasing twinkling.
But it's not just position that twinkling affects. Different wavelengths—colors—of light refract by different amounts. This is why a prism or a raindrop breaks light up into separate colors to create a rainbow. For a star, which can emit light at essentially all colors, this means sometimes its red light is bent toward you and blue is bent away, so the star appears ruddy. A fraction of a second later, a different parcel of air refracts the blue light toward you, and the star sparks azure.
This effect is most apparent for white stars near the horizon. Sirius is white, and it's the brightest star in the night sky; when rising or setting, it can flash brilliantly and change colors rapidly. This is probably why it's often reported as a UFO! So if you hear a report that a bright spacecraft changed colors rapidly as it hovered over the trees, be aware that it almost certainly was not an alien ship but an alien sun.
For astronomers, though, twinkling leads to a very different outcome: light from an object gets spread out over an image's exposure time. Details in a distant galaxy, for example, look out of focus and blurry. Also, faint objects appear even fainter because their light is smeared out. These are serious problems but ones for which we have a solution: adaptive optics. Inside some telescopes are sensors that can detect the amount of twinkling. This information is sent to a computer that rapidly calculates the distortion, then adjusts pistons behind a deformable mirror to reshape the reflective surface in a way to compensate for the twinkling. Most large ground-based telescopes employ this amazing tech, which produces clear, sharp images despite the atmospheric turbulence.
Twinkling has a scientific use as well. The kind of light we see is not the only kind that refracts; radio waves do so as well when they pass through interstellar plasma, the ionized gas between the stars. Pulsars are rapidly spinning neutron stars that send out brief radio wave pulses at rapid intervals. The radio waves scintillate as they pass through plasma on their way to Earth, and astronomers can measure that scintillation to investigate that plasma. Research published in Nature Astronomy in April 2025 used this to look at the material in space close to the sun and map out structures in the Local Bubble, a region of space surrounding the sun where ancient supernovae cleared out much of the gas. Scientists found 21 large arcs of plasma sustained by turbulence inside the bubble, which surprised them because it was previously assumed that the bubble was more smooth.
Personally, I'm of two minds about twinkling. It's lovely, certainly, but it caused me quite a bit of grief when I was using a telescope for my own research. Depending on what you're trying to study, though, it can still be a useful tool. So one might say my own opinion of twinkling is malleable; it can be bent either way.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
What Is the Analemma?
We're all familiar with the sun's daily motion in the sky. It rises in the east, gets higher in the sky until circa noon, then begins its hours-long descent to set on the western horizon. You may also know of our star's more stately annual journey. For Northern Hemisphere dwellers, as summer approaches, it moves a tiny bit higher in the sky every day at noon until the June solstice, when it turns around and starts to get lower every day until the December solstice. These motions are the clockwork of the sky. They repeat with enough precision that we base our measurements of passing time on them. But there are more than two gears to this cosmic mechanism; in addition, there are subtle and elegant—though somewhat bizarre—cogs that swing the sun's position in the sky back and forth during the year, as well as up and down. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] If you were to stand in the same spot every day and take a photograph of the sun at the same clock time (ignoring the shift during daylight saving time), after a full year, the position of the sun would form a lopsided figure eight in the sky. This phenomenon is called the analemma, and it's a reflection of Earth's axial tilt and the ellipticity of our planet's orbit. They combine in subtle ways to create the figure-eight pattern, and the best way to understand all this is to examine these effects separately. First, what would be the sun's position in the sky if Earth had no axial tilt and its orbit were a perfect circle? In that case, the sun would trace the exact same path in the sky every day. If you took a daily photograph in the same place at the same time, the sun would always be at the same spot in the sky; the figure-eight analemma would collapse to become a simple dot. We actually have a name for this ideal motion: the mean sun ('mean' meaning average). The mean sun's motion across the sky is constant and unwavering. You could literally set your clock by this hypothetical sun—and, in fact, we do!—to define a 24-hour day that never changes. You can think of the mean sun as being a clock. It always reaches its highest point in the day at exactly noon. Now let's fiddle with that and add Earth's tilt in. Our planet is tipped over by about 23.5 degrees relative to the plane of its orbit around the sun. This changes the sun's actual position—what we call the 'true sun'—in the sky and causes it to deviate from the mean sun's path. The true sun is what you'd use to measure time if you had a sundial, though, perhaps sadly, over the past few centuries, they've fallen somewhat out of fashion. Earth's tilt is what causes the seasons; in the summer, when our planet's pole is tipped toward the sun, the days are longer, and the true sun's daily path across the sky is higher. The opposite is true in the winter. This immediately explains the north-south extent of the analemma! The true sun gets higher in the summer and lower in the winter, so every day at noon, it changes its height above the horizon a little bit. Over the course of a year, the true sun will move a distance in the sky equal to twice Earth's tilt, or about 47 degrees (compared with the 90-degree angle from the horizon to the zenith, directly overhead). But the analemma also has an east-west extent that gives it that figure-eight shape. This, too, is largely because of Earth's tilt. Imagine you're in the Northern Hemisphere, facing south at noon on the December solstice, when the true sun is at its lowest noontime point in the sky all year. Every day for the next six months, it will move a little bit to the north, slowly at first, then accelerating, reaching a maximum rate at the equinox. Then it slows again until the summer solstice. Because it's moving northward, it's not moving at the same speed as the mean sun. It starts to fall behind, lagging a bit to the east, taking a little more time to reach its daily apex. (It gets to its highest point a little after a clock shows noon.) Every day it lags a little bit more, taking longer and longer to peak in its daily path. But here's where things get weird: As the true sun's lag increases, the rate at which it lags gets smaller every day. It's still falling behind the mean sun, but every day, the additional amount is smaller. Then the true sun's eastward motion stops, reverses and starts to catch up to the mean sun. It eventually pulls ahead, to the mean sun's west, and reaches its apex before mean-sun noon. This continues for a few more weeks until its westward motion slows, stops and reverses, and it starts moving to the east again. It eventually slows enough that the mean sun catches up to it and passes it, and the whole process starts again. This back-and-forth motion, coupled with the up-and-down motion, creates the analemma's overall figure-eight shape. The actual dependence of this motion is a complicated function of algebraic trigonometry (and spherical geometry), but in the end, very roughly, over the course of a year, the sun moves ahead of the mean sun for three months, then behind it for another three, then ahead again, then behind again. Lather, rinse, repeat. The deviation of the true sun from the mean sun is what astronomers call 'the equation of time.' It's used to figure out how much a sundial's time is off from the mean sun's 24-hour clock, and it adds up to about an eight-degree excursion to the east and west. This is much smaller than the 47-degree north-south motion, so the analemma is narrow and tall. This is complicated by Earth's elliptical orbit. Earth orbits at the fastest rate when it's closest to the sun, and when it's farther out, it moves more slowly. When Earth is closest to the sun (called perihelion), its orbital rate is faster than average, so the true sun lags behind the mean sun. The reverse is true at the most distant orbital point from the sun (aphelion), and the true sun moves ahead of the mean sun. If Earth had no axial tilt, its orbital ellipticity would mean that over the year the true sun would make a short line in the sky aligned east-west. There's also a perspective effect from this; at perihelion the true sun's motion in the sky is faster than it is at aphelion, and this affects the shape of the analemma as well. Combined with Earth's tilt, this throws off the figure eight's north-south symmetry. The southern loop (made when the sun appears to be moving faster near perihelion) is larger than the northern one—and wider as well. This makes the overall shape more like a bowling pin. This gets even more complicated; the date of perihelion (around January 4 every year) is near but not quite the December solstice (on or around December 21), which skews the figure eight a bit, knocking it catawampus, distorted from perfect symmetry. So if all this is true for Earth, what about other planets? They have elliptical orbits and have axial tilts as well, so they, too, get analemmas, but they're shaped differently. Mars, for example, is tilted by about 25 degrees, similar to Earth. Its orbit is much more elliptical, however, and that dominates the analemma, making it more teardrop-shaped. Jupiter has a tilt of only three degrees, but its orbit is more elliptical than Earth's, making its analemma a simpler ellipse in its sky. Neptune may have the most pleasingly shaped analemma of them all: its tilt is 28 degrees, but its orbital eccentricity is very slight, so its analemma is a nearly symmetric figure eight. I understand this is all a bit complicated and may be difficult to picture in your head; I struggled with some of the more subtle motions myself (which wasn't helped by the many incorrect descriptions of the phenomenon I found online). It's perhaps surprising that the clockwork motion of the heavens isn't as straightforward as you'd hope! But I actually find beauty in all this: the repeating cycles, the subtle motions, the glorious symmetry to it. And it's all predictable, combining physics, geometry and mathematics. There is some truth to the idea of musica universalis, the 'music of the spheres,' and, like the music of great composers, there is majesty in complexity.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Mathematicians Solve Multidimensional Shape-Slicing Dilemma
In 1986 Belgian mathematician Jean Bourgain posed a seemingly simple question that continued to puzzle researchers for decades. No matter how you deform a convex shape—consider shaping a ball of clay into a watermelon, a football or a long noodle—will you always be able to slice a cross section bigger than a certain size? A paper by Bo'az Klartag of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and Joseph Lehec of the University of Poitiers in France, posted to the preprint site has finally provided a definitive answer: yes. Bourgain's slicing problem asks whether every convex shape in n dimensions has a 'slice' such that the cross section is bigger than some fixed value. For three-dimensional objects, this is like asking whether an avocado of a given size, no matter the exact shape, can always be split into two halves with each side revealing at least some sizable slice. Bourgain, a titan of mathematics, is said to have spent more time on this problem than any other; although it may seem deceptively easy to resolve in the physical world's two or three dimensions, it quickly balloons in difficulty when we consider four or five. This added complexity makes determining anything in n-dimensional space seem impossible. 'If you believe in this so-called curse of dimensionality, you might just give up,' Klartag says. Fortunately, he adds, he and Lehec 'belong to a different school of thought.' The pair's breakthrough builds on recent progress by mathematician Qingyang Guan of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, who approached the problem with a technique based on physics rather than geometry. Specifically, Guan showed that modeling how heat diffuses out of a convex shape can reveal hidden geometric structures. Researchers could calculate filling any convex shape with warm gas and carefully observe the heat's dissipation according to physical laws. Guan's key insight—a precise limit on how rapidly the rate of dissipation changes during this heating process—proved to be just what Klartag and Lehec needed. 'Guan's bound tied together all the other key facts' known for the problem, says mathematician Beatrice-Helen Vritsiou of the University of Alberta. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] The result let Klartag and Lehec resolve the problem in only a few days. Klartag notes that 'it was lucky because we knew [Guan's result] was exactly one of the things we needed' to connect several seemingly disparate approaches to the puzzle. With this final piece in place, the geometry of convex bodies in high dimensions is now a little less mysterious—although, as always in mathematics, each new slice reveals more questions to explore.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
How We Solve the Climate Crisis
I spend a lot of time on the Internet; it's become my second home in the 20 years I've communicated science online. And recently I came across an image that stuck with me: a cartoon of a sad, crying Earth covered in cut-down trees that says, 'No intelligent species would destroy their own environment.' I think this cartoon and the ideas it represents are both wrong and destructive. I don't want my son, who is eight years old, to believe that humans are dumb and evil—both because that's a pretty big bummer and because it's obviously untrue. But I often find myself quite lonely in having that perspective, and I'm wondering if, perhaps, there are other folks out there who feel the same as I do. Humans didn't cause climate change by being stupid; they caused it by being extremely smart. We started burning coal to solve problems. We did it to grow more food, to heat and light our homes, to power refrigerators, to connect the world in a way that made the past few centuries of scientific advancement possible. We are here precisely because of our intelligence—and yes, the greed and selfishness of people in the fossil fuel industry who have certainly slowed our transition away from fossil fuels. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] But we are problem-solving machines, and we will solve this problem too. Our intelligence is geared toward survival. We want to provide a good life for ourselves and our children. The results have been staggering. In the U.S. in 1895 one quarter of people died before age five. Today, it's under 6 percent, and we will keep striving until it hits zero. Imagine the essays Ben Franklin or Mark Twain would write about this level of advancement. How would they keep tears from their eyes if they saw what we've achieved? So much of that achievement has been based on energy, and the fossil fuels we've burned to generate it, whether coal, natural gas or oil. We've learned that this harms both the environment and people, and to our credit we aren't always bad at addressing this. It was not long ago that London could be so clogged with coal smoke that you had to clean it off the windows every day. When rivers catch on fire, the U.S. changes its policies. When rain becomes acidic, the world changes its policies. When harms are done locally, we tend to be pretty good at cleaning things up. But with climate change caused by carbon dioxide emissions, we're facing a much harder problem. That's for two reasons. First, on a psychological level, the effects of greenhouse gases on the climate are often invisible to us. Weather is always messy, and climate works on such big and long scales that it's hard to detect, communicate and respond to what's happening. And second, unlike the sulfur and nitrogen pollution that caused acid rain, or the chlorofluorocarbons that threatened to wear a hole in the ozone layer, carbon dioxide is not an unintended byproduct; it is the goal of burning fossil fuels. If you burn fossil fuels as cleanly as possible, all you get is carbon dioxide and water vapor. Responding to climate change means we must reduce the amount of CO2 that burning fossil fuels creates. It requires us to completely reimagine how we power our planet. Here's where I feel hope: we have already done this, and we know it is possible. In the U.K. CO2 emissions are now at their lowest levels since 1879 following a shift from coal to renewable energy! This is possible; we can see it being done. And it's the responsibility of the biggest polluters, the countries like the U.S. who have benefitted most from burning fossil fuels, to make those changes happen. And here is where I think we should absolutely feel some shame at our species. Humans are greedy. Humans are shortsighted. Humans will tell stories to make themselves believe that the things that they already want to do (like delaying climate action) are the right things to do. This is our nature, and I do think we could have done a better job at overcoming it. I am frustrated by the amount of time we've spent arguing instead of acting. I am frustrated by the extent to which we will not accept any inconvenience or sacrifice in exchange for making the world more livable for people in other places in the world, and even for our own children. It's worth acknowledging that this amount of foresight is unique to humans. It requires a great deal of intelligence, and, frankly, it's remarkable to me that we're able to do it at all. We are not like trees, which caused a mass extinction of their own when they evolved on land; we know that our actions today are threatening up to a million species worldwide. This is both an indictment of our failure to act sooner, and a reason to believe we can succeed if we dedicate ourselves to this fight. I don't want my son growing up thinking that his species is in some way evil. I want him thinking humans are problem solvers, and that solving problems always creates new ones. Whatever strategies we take to fix global warming will create more new problems, too. Renewable technologies like solar panels and wind turbines, for example, use way more land than coal-fired power plants, contributing to their own environmental impact. They're the best solution in many places right now, but maybe in the future we will replace them with better ways of generating energy, like advanced geothermal, more nuclear fission or maybe even nuclear fusion. The people of the future will be mad at us for the flawed work that we did, just like we're kind of mad at all the people who tried to make the world a better place by burning a bunch of coal. And that's all right. Humans are not evil. We solve problems, and when we do, we create new problems. And I think that, ultimately, this is a pretty normal story for intelligent species. One day, if we ever make contact with another species like our own, I bet they'll have a lot of stories about how they did the same thing—and how they found their way through. This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.