
Entire planetary system of four tiny exoplanets found orbiting the nearest single star to the sun
Summary
Astronomers have discovered four sub-Earth size planets orbiting Barnard's Star, just six light-years from Earth.
University of Chicago researchers used the MAROON-X instrument on Hawaii's Gemini North telescope to detect the planets.
The planets are 19% to 34% of Earth's mass and complete their orbits in less than seven days.
These small planets likely lack atmospheres and orbit too close to their star to be habitable.
The discovery follows decades of false detections around Barnard's Star, Earth's nearest single star neighbor. After decades of searching, astronomers have uncovered some of the strongest evidence yet of exoplanets orbiting Barnard's Star, the nearest single star system to Earth. The four planets are classified as sub-Earths because each one is about 19% to 34% the mass of Earth, according to new research.
'It's a really exciting find — Barnard's Star is our cosmic neighbor, and yet we know so little about it,' said lead study author Ritvik Basant, doctoral student of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of Chicago, in a statement. 'It's signaling a breakthrough with the precision of these new instruments from previous generations.'
Barnard's Star, discovered by American astronomer E.E. Barnard in 1916, is a low-mass red dwarf, one of the most common types of stars. Over the past decade, astronomers have found that many of these stars have multiple rocky planets orbiting them.
Enter MAROON-X, an instrument mounted on the Gemini North telescope in Hawaii that's designed to search for exoplanets orbiting red dwarfs. The instrument seeks out planets by detecting the subtle wobble of stars as the gravity of orbiting planets tug on their stellar hosts, known as the radial velocity technique.
Using MAROON-X, the study team spotted the least massive exoplanet ever found, and it hopes the find will lead to the discovery of more sub-Earth exoplanets across the cosmos.
Astronomers believe smaller exoplanets may be more varied in composition than the larger exoplanets detected so far. Finding more minuscule worlds with the latest, highly sensitive instruments could open up a new way of understanding how planets form — and which ones could be habitable for life.
A study detailing the findings was published March 11 in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Four tiny worlds
The planets are so small that they are more analogous to Mars, according to Basant.
'When compared to our solar system, each of the four planets are inside the distance of Mercury's orbit,' Basant said.
The planets closely orbit Barnard's Star, zipping around their stellar host in a matter of days, compared with the year it takes Earth to complete one orbit around the sun. The outermost planet takes less than seven days to complete one orbit, while the innermost planet has an orbital period of less than three days, Basant said.
Proximity at a price
The planets are so close to the star that their surfaces are likely too hot to be habitable.That means the foursome are also not within the habitable zone of the star, or just the right distance from the star where liquid water can stably exist on the surface of the planet.
'When Barnard's star was young and active … the star blasted these small planets with X-UV radiation, frequent flares, and dense winds,' said Edward Guinan, professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Villanova University in Pennsylvania, in an email. 'Because of this, these sub-Earth size planets probably don't have atmospheres, water, and life.'
Guinan was not involved in the new study but has previously searched for planets around Barnard's Star.
Planets of this size are largely unexplored beyond our solar system, making it a significant step forward as astronomers search for Earth-mass planets around sun-like stars, Basant said.
'A lot of what we do can be incremental, and it's sometimes hard to see the bigger picture,' said study coauthor Jacob Bean, a professor in the University of Chicago's department of astronomy and astrophysics. 'But we found something that humanity will hopefully know forever. That sense of discovery is incredible.'
The search for nearby planets
While the Proxima Centauri system is the closest to our solar system at a distance of 4.25 light-years away, it comprises three stars circling one another, making Barnard's Star the nearest single star system.
Now, astronomers know that planets orbit the two closest star systems to our solar system.
Barnard's Star has served as a kind of white whale for astronomers over the decades as they have tried to find evidence of planets orbiting it, only to be disproven as false positives later, 'likely due to the limited sensitivity of earlier instruments,' Basant said.
Many exoplanets have been discovered as they transit, or pass in front of, their host star, creating an observable dip in starlight suggesting the presence of a planet.
But the elusive planets orbiting Barnard's Star do not transit, meaning they don't pass in front of their star from the perspective of telescopes on Earth and can't be detected with powerful space observatories like the James Webb Space Telescope.
The research team, led by Bean, captured data from Barnard's Star over the course of 112 nights spanning a period of three years. The data showed evidence for three planets orbiting Barnard's Star, two of which had been previously suggested as potential planets.
The researchers then combined their findings with data captured using the ESPRESSO instrument on the Very Large Telescope in Chile by a different team that authored an October 2024 study. The combined dataset confirmed the existence of a fourth exoplanet.
'We observed at different times of night on different days. They're in Chile; we're in Hawaii. Our teams didn't coordinate with each other at all,' Basant said. 'That gives us a lot of assurance that these aren't phantoms in the data. It's thrilling to witness the precision of next-generation spectrographs like MAROON-X and ESPRESSO. Their ability to detect sub-Earth mass planets for the first time feels like unlocking a new level in a game, filled with unknown possibilities.'
MAROON-X, which began as a temporary 'visitor' instrument, is now being converted to a permanent one after its detections.
'I am very happy to see that new MAROON-X data provide an independent confirmation of the planet b and candidates c and d, and together with the ESPRESSO data, the analysis makes the detection significantly more robust,' said Jonay González Hernández, lead author of the October 2024 paper and a researcher at the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias in Spain. He was not involved in the new study.
Guinan said the planets described within the study 'look like a firm discovery.'
'Finally, real planets have been discovered around Barnard's Star after several false alarms over the past (50 years),' Guinan said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Would you hit a dog? Then why hit a child?
In much of the world, we have outlawed physical violence against adults, including the physical punishment of women, prisoners and military recruits. It is also illegal in many places to hit a dog. In the U.S., for example, kicking or hitting a dog can result in criminal charges. And yet, parents' spanking and hitting of children in the name of 'discipline' is legal in the U.S. and in more than 130 other countries around the world. A recent study found that American parents are significantly more likely to consider it acceptable to hit a child than to hit a dog. We are in a cultural moment where physically punishing a dog is viewed as more morally objectionable than doing the same to human children. Despite decades of research showing that physical punishment is harmful and ineffective, its use persists in households around the U.S. and the world. The question is not whether hitting children causes harm, rather, it's why society allows it, knowing that it does. My colleagues and I analyzed data from 195 studies in 92 countries and found no evidence that physical punishment has any benefits. On the contrary, our findings show that physical punishment of children is linked to exclusively negative consequences, including increased aggression, lower academic performance and a higher risk of depression, anxiety and other emotional difficulties later in life. Imagine for a moment that your boss, supervisor or teacher hits you for not meeting expectations. Your immediate response would likely include physical stress reactions such as sweating and a racing heart, as well as emotional responses such as anger, sadness, anxiety or fear. These responses are evolutionary and adaptive, designed to prepare us for fight or flight in the face of threats. When such violence is repeated, it can lead to a state of constant anxiety and fear that the next blow could come at any moment. The same happens to a child. Parents tend to use spanking and other forms of physical punishment with good intentions, hoping to correct or manage children's misbehavior. Yet, the physical stress and emotional responses from physical punishment can be particularly consequential early in life, when brains and biological systems are developing in response to experience. In a neuroscientific study, my team examined brain activity in a group of children who had been spanked in their first 10 years of life, compared to a similar group who had never been spanked. Using fMRI, we showed the children images of happy, neutral and fearful or threatening faces. The children who had been spanked exhibited heightened brain activation in response to fearful/threatening faces, specifically in regions associated with detecting and responding to environmental threats. Other studies have also found reduced cortex gray matter volume in adults who experienced corporal punishment during childhood. Many adults who were hit as children remember it as 'discipline,' not violence, and often insist they 'turned out fine.' But this reasoning overlooks the broader picture. Millions of people around the world smoke without visibly seeing lung damage, yet we widely accept the health risks of smoking because science has made them clear. Similarly, even if physical punishment doesn't leave visible marks, research shows that it significantly increases the risks to children's mental, emotional and developmental health. Some argue that the government shouldn't interfere in private family matters, such as how parents choose to discipline their children. But let's reconsider that argument, and apply it to women. We rightly find it unacceptable for a man to hit his wife, regardless of it being a 'private' matter. Why should it be acceptable to hit children, who are smaller, more vulnerable and entirely dependent on adults for their safety and well-being? Protecting children from harm is not government overreach; it is a fundamental moral and societal responsibility. The right to physical safety that is afforded to adults, including prisoners, soldiers, and even to dogs, should be extended to children. Simply put, all countries should prohibit the physical punishment of children in the home, school and all settings. Such legislation should not be punitive, but written into family codes instead of criminal codes, and paired with educational campaigns, similar to those that shifted social norms around smoking. Additionally, support for parents through initiatives like parenting programs is essential to promote non-violent discipline strategies. We've long stopped justifying hitting adults, and we recoil at hurting an animal. It's time we ensure the same standard applies to children, so we can one day say with pride that they, too, are fully protected from violence. Jorge Cuartas, assistant professor at NYU Steinhardt, is an internationally recognized expert on the health and developmental impacts of physical punishment in childhood. He has authored over 30 scientific articles on the subject, published in leading journals such as Nature Human Behaviour, The Lancet and Child Development. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Asteroid's odds of hitting the Moon have now more than doubled
Earth is safe from asteroid 2024 YR4, but fresh looks at the space rock using Webb and other telescopes have now increased its chances of impacting the Moon. After a brief stint as the highest risk asteroid we know about, 2024 YR4 is now deemed harmless to Earth. In fact, NASA's Center for Near-Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) and the ESA's Near-Earth Objects Coordination Centre (NEOCC) now only give a very slim chance of any threat from it. That probability now sits at just 1 in 120,000, but in 2047, a full 15 years after the 2032 encounter that initially raised so many alarms. However, based on the newest telescopic observations of 2024 YR4, its December 22, 2032 flyby may be the last time it ever passes by our planet. The extreme sensitivity of the James Webb Space Telescope allowed astronomers to continue to observe the asteroid long after it moved beyond the capabilities of Earth-based telescopes. Using the data collected by Webb, scientists with CNEOS updated their calculations of 2024 YR4's orbital path. Back at the end of February, when NASA had ruled out any significant danger to Earth from the asteroid, they also determined there was a 1.7 per cent chance it would strike the Moon. The new data has now increased that probability to 4.3 per cent. That's more than double the initial chance of lunar impact. The latest probability of impact for asteroid 2024 YR4, as of June 3, 2025, at 4.3 per cent of striking the Moon on December 22, 2032. Along the top of the image is NASA's sequence of plots generated from Jan 27 through Feb 23 showing how the asteroid's closest approach to Earh changed as observations refined its orbit. (NASA CNEOS) A 4.3 per cent of impact still counts as a 95.7 per cent chance that it will miss the Moon. So, with it having no chance of hitting Earth on that date, 2024 YR4 could simply slip through lunar orbit with no effect at all — just a telescopic curiosity to observe as it passes by. Still, at an estimated 65-metres wide, when 2024 YR4 was still thought to be a threat to Earth, it was (unofficially) considered to be a 'city-killer' asteroid. It was highly unlikely to have hit anywhere inhabited. However, if it did, that size of asteroid would have caused extensive damage on a local level. For any city in the impact zone, the effects would have been catastrophic. An estimate of the size and shape of asteroid 2024 YR4 based on telescopic observations. (NOIRLab) For comparison, the 20-metre asteroid that exploded over Cheylabinsk on February 15, 2013 produced an airburst — a pressurized wave of air — that shattered windows across the city when it reached the ground. Tiny fragments of the asteroid rained down over the area, with the largest piece, roughly 60 cm wide and with a mass of around 300 kg, punching a hole in the frozen surface of nearby Lake Chebarkul. The airburst that would result from 65-metre 2024 YR4 exploding would be powerful enough to level buildings. While not large enough to produce a crater, the shattered asteroid would likely include several larger pieces that would cause further damage and injuries upon striking the ground. If 2024 YR4 does hit the Moon in 2032, with no atmosphere to slow it down, it would impact with full force, travelling at nearly 13 kilometres per second, or over 46,000 km/h. The Waning Gibbous phase of the Moon on the night of December 22, 2032. (NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio) If it strikes somewhere in the dark region of the surface, the impact will certainly be noticeable from Earth. It wouldn't be powerful enough to affect the Moon's orbit, or knock any significant pieces off the Moon. It would certainly leave behind a crater that an orbiting spacecraft (such as NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) would be able to find, though. According to NASA, as of now, 2024 YR4 has moved beyond even Webb's ability to observe it, as it is now too close to the Sun. The next 'encounter' with the asteroid will be in 2028, with its closest pass at that time being around 20 times farther than the Moon. Telescopes should be able to find and track it, though, adding more to our knowledge of its orbit, and potentially locking down whether it will hit or miss the Moon when it returns four years later. (Thumbnail image was produced by the author, using photo-editing software, by adding a 3D computer model of asteroid 2024 YR4 to a background image of the Moon taken during NASA's Artemis 1 mission.) Click here to view the video


The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Would you hit a dog? Then why hit a child?
In much of the world, we have outlawed physical violence against adults, including the physical punishment of women, prisoners and military recruits. It is also illegal in many places to hit a dog. In the U.S., for example, kicking or hitting a dog can result in criminal charges. And yet, parents' spanking and hitting of children in the name of 'discipline' is legal in the U.S. and in more than 130 other countries around the world. A recent study found that American parents are significantly more likely to consider it acceptable to hit a child than to hit a dog. We are in a cultural moment where physically punishing a dog is viewed as more morally objectionable than doing the same to human children. Despite decades of research showing that physical punishment is harmful and ineffective, its use persists in households around the U.S. and the world. The question is not whether hitting children causes harm, rather, it's why society allows it, knowing that it does. My colleagues and I analyzed data from 195 studies in 92 countries and found no evidence that physical punishment has any benefits. On the contrary, our findings show that physical punishment of children is linked to exclusively negative consequences, including increased aggression, lower academic performance and a higher risk of depression, anxiety and other emotional difficulties later in life. Imagine for a moment that your boss, supervisor or teacher hits you for not meeting expectations. Your immediate response would likely include physical stress reactions such as sweating and a racing heart, as well as emotional responses such as anger, sadness, anxiety or fear. These responses are evolutionary and adaptive, designed to prepare us for fight or flight in the face of threats. When such violence is repeated, it can lead to a state of constant anxiety and fear that the next blow could come at any moment. The same happens to a child. Parents tend to use spanking and other forms of physical punishment with good intentions, hoping to correct or manage children's misbehavior. Yet, the physical stress and emotional responses from physical punishment can be particularly consequential early in life, when brains and biological systems are developing in response to experience. In a neuroscientific study, my team examined brain activity in a group of children who had been spanked in their first 10 years of life, compared to a similar group who had never been spanked. Using fMRI, we showed the children images of happy, neutral and fearful or threatening faces. The children who had been spanked exhibited heightened brain activation in response to fearful/threatening faces, specifically in regions associated with detecting and responding to environmental threats. Other studies have also found reduced cortex gray matter volume in adults who experienced corporal punishment during childhood. Many adults who were hit as children remember it as 'discipline,' not violence, and often insist they 'turned out fine.' But this reasoning overlooks the broader picture. Millions of people around the world smoke without visibly seeing lung damage, yet we widely accept the health risks of smoking because science has made them clear. Similarly, even if physical punishment doesn't leave visible marks, research shows that it significantly increases the risks to children's mental, emotional and developmental health. Some argue that the government shouldn't interfere in private family matters, such as how parents choose to discipline their children. But let's reconsider that argument, and apply it to women. We rightly find it unacceptable for a man to hit his wife, regardless of it being a 'private' matter. Why should it be acceptable to hit children, who are smaller, more vulnerable and entirely dependent on adults for their safety and well-being? Protecting children from harm is not government overreach; it is a fundamental moral and societal responsibility. The right to physical safety that is afforded to adults, including prisoners, soldiers, and even to dogs, should be extended to children. Simply put, all countries should prohibit the physical punishment of children in the home, school and all settings. Such legislation should not be punitive, but written into family codes instead of criminal codes, and paired with educational campaigns, similar to those that shifted social norms around smoking. Additionally, support for parents through initiatives like parenting programs is essential to promote non-violent discipline strategies. We've long stopped justifying hitting adults, and we recoil at hurting an animal. It's time we ensure the same standard applies to children, so we can one day say with pride that they, too, are fully protected from violence. Jorge Cuartas, assistant professor at NYU Steinhardt, is an internationally recognized expert on the health and developmental impacts of physical punishment in childhood. He has authored over 30 scientific articles on the subject, published in leading journals such as Nature Human Behaviour, The Lancet and Child Development.