The Earth could be soon flung out of orbit or into the sun all thanks to a passing star
Could a passing star be on a collision course with our solar system and, eventually, Earth?
It's difficult to know if such an outcome is likely. Recently, researchers have found the Milky Way likely won't crash into its neighboring galaxy any time soon. Our blue marble is already slated to be eaten by our sun in several billion years, after it turns into a red giant and expands.
But researchers said in a recent study published in the journal Icarus that thousands of computer simulations indicate there's a chance a passing field star – a star that appears in the same region of the sky as another object being studied – could cause more havoc than previously believed.
'Our simulations indicate that isolated models of the solar system can underestimate the degree of our giant planets' future secular orbital changes by over an order of magnitude. In addition, our planets and Pluto are significantly less stable than previously thought,' Nathan Kaib and Sean Raymond, a pair of astronomers, wrote in May. Kaib is from Iowa's Planetary Science Institute and Raymond is from France's University of Bourdeaux.
The study's authors say passing stars are the most probable trigger for instability during the course of the next four billion years.
The gravitational tug could cause instability to completely stable objects, including Pluto: formerly the ninth planet of our solar system. Over the course of five billion years, stars could transform Pluto from a completely stable object to one with a chaotic set of gravitational interactions that sets it off its orbit. While the odds of those changes occurring in that time frame from Pluto are approximately five percent, they are exponentially greater for Mercury.
The risk of instability for the solar system's fifth planet would increase by between around 50 and 80 percent.
'We also find an approximately 0.3 percent chance that Mars will be lost through collision or ejection and an approximately 0.2 percent probability that Earth will be involved in a planetary collision or ejected,' they wrote.
Kaib previously published work that suggested Earth's orbit was altered by a passing star three million years ago.
'We looked at the typical, run-of-the-mill flybys,' Raymond told New Scientist. 'These are the stars that really do pass by the sun all the time, cosmically speaking.'
Still, these simulations aside, Kaib told Science News that 'none of these things are probable.'
Although, the outlet notes, a 0.2 percent chance of collision with the Earth is much greater than previous research has found.
'It's a little scary how vulnerable we may be to planetary chaos,' Renu Malhotra, a planetary scientist at the University of Arizona who was not involved with the study, told Science News.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Astronomers discover the largest comet from the outskirts of the solar system is exploding with jets of gas
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Astronomers have discovered that the largest comet from the Oort Cloud, a shell of icy bodies at the very edge of the solar system, is bursting with chemical the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile, the team discovered that C/2014 UN271, an 85-mile-wide (137 km) body around 10 times the size of the average comet and also known as Bernardinelli-Bernstein, is erupting with complex and evolving jets of carbon monoxide gas. Now located halfway between the sun and the solar system's furthest planet, Neptune (or 16.6 times the distance between the Earth and our star), C/2014 UN271 becomes the second-most distant comet originating from the Oort Cloud that has been seen to be chemically active. The observations are also the first direct evidence of what drives cometary activity when these icy bodies are far from the sun. "These measurements give us a look at how this enormous, icy world works," team leader and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center researcher Nathan Roth said in a statement. "We're seeing explosive outgassing patterns that raise new questions about how this comet will evolve as it continues its journey toward the inner solar system." ALMA was able to observe C/2014 UN271 despite its distance from the sun via the carbon monoxide in its atmosphere and its thermal emissions. Previously, the sensitivity of this ground-breaking instrument, composed of an array of 66 radio antennas located in the Atacama Desert region of northern Chile, allowed scientists to determine the size of the core or "nucleus" of the comet. Building upon this, the team was able to precisely determine the comet's entire size and the amount of dust that envelopes its core or "nucleus." This confirmed the status of C/2014 UN271 as the largest Oort Cloud comet ever to the clearer picture painted of this giant comet by ALMA was the first detection of molecular outgassing for C/2014 UN271. This has afforded scientists a rare look at the chemistry of icy bodies from the very edge of the solar system. Related Stories: — The sun is a 'runaway world collector' that can trap passing rogue planets — The solar system is teeming with 1 million 'alien invaders' from Alpha Centauri — Watch asteroid 2024 YR4 zoom harmlessly through space after risk of hitting Earth falls to near zero (video) C/2014 UN271 is approaching the sun, and as it does, the comet will begin to heat up, and more frozen material within it will turn gaseous and erupt from its icy comets are thought to be composed of unspoiled material left over from the formation of the solar system around 4.6 billion years ago, this could offer a glimpse at the conditions in which Earth and the other planets were team's research was published on June 12 in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Fox News
6 hours ago
- Fox News
Cannabis use raises risk of heart attack and stroke more than cocaine, other drugs, major review suggests
The potential risk of cannabis use has been in the spotlight following recent research pointing toward negative health effects. This includes a new meta-analysis by French researchers, published in the journal Heart, which reviewed multiple studies to assess the link between cannabis and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The researchers analyzed data from more than 400 million patients involved in 24 previous cross-sectional studies (capturing data at a single point in time) and cohort studies (following patients over time). One study focused on medical cannabis. The overall results noted a significant increase in risk of major cardiovascular events, including a 29% higher likelihood of heart attack, 20% higher risk of stroke and twice the chances of cardiovascular death. The danger was also elevated in people who used cannabis at least once a week. Several studies found higher odds of acute myocardial infarction, commonly known as a heart attack. One study pinpointed the risk among younger populations aged 15 to 22, while another observed it in patients who used cannabis more than once a week. One study from the primary French administrative database for hospitals found that, compared to other illicit drugs like cocaine and opioids, cannabis was a larger predictor of heart attack. Another study analyzed the association between cannabis and acute coronary syndrome (reduced blood flow to the heart) in nearly 15,000 patients ranging from 18 to 54 years old. The analysis found no significant association in the overall sample, but signaled a higher risk in a subgroup of patients aged 18 to 36. Cannabis use significantly increased all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in a cohort of patients who experienced a heart attack before age 50. A UK Biobank analysis pointed out that women have a "significantly higher" risk of cardiovascular mortality than men. The larger review concluded that these findings reveal "positive associations" between cannabis use and MACE, and should "encourage investigating cannabis use in all patients presenting with serious cardiovascular disorders." Although medical marijuana can provide relief for people with conditions like arthritis, multiple sclerosis, cancer and other illnesses, overuse has been linked to potential health risks, especially for seniors. The authors of the French review acknowledged that there were some limitations to the findings – primarily that there is a lower prevalence of cocaine and opioids compared to cannabis use. "Cannabis exposure was poorly reported in the included studies, which prevented our meta-analysis from assessing it," they wrote. There was also a potential for some degree of bias in some of the studies due to lack of information or missing data. "Studies that relied on patient surveys faced substantial bias regarding exposure and outcome misclassification when patients assessed these data themselves," the researchers noted. Other potential limitations included overlapping data and limited timeframes. During an appearance on "America's Newsroom" in early June, Fox News senior medical analyst Dr. Marc Siegel commented on a recent study that found more seniors are using cannabis than ever before, despite the potential health risks. Siegel noted that regular use of cannabis can be dangerous if not tracked. "We definitely jumped the gun by not anticipating all the medical risks here." "You might use a gummy to go to bed, and then the next thing, you're using two gummies, or three gummies, and it could increase anxiety, it can increase discombobulation, you're not thinking clearly, ER visits are on the increase," he cautioned. "We know about problems with the lungs," Siegel added. "It can accelerate dementia and can affect behavior." The doctor likened the use of marijuana to the effects of smoking cigarettes in terms of damage to the heart and lungs. "It is absolutely an active chemical we need to watch out for, and I'm very disturbed that the elderly are using it," he said. "We've completely jumped the gun [on legalization] because people are going to the ER with psychosis. They're going there with vomiting disorders. They're having car accidents as a result," he went on. For more Health articles, visit "We are studying Colorado ever since it was legalized there, and the results are not pretty. We definitely jumped the gun by not anticipating all the medical risks here." Fox News Digital reached out to the study authors for comment.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
A forest the size of North America would be needed to offset Big Oil's reserves, study finds
The world would need to plant a forest the size of North America in order to offset planet-warming emissions from the 200 largest oil and gas companies, new research has found. A study published Thursday in the journal Communications Earth & Environment analyzed the economic and ecological benefits of planting trees as a means of balancing potential carbon dioxide emissions from the projected burning of oil reserves held by the fossil fuel industry. Many experts consider planting trees to be one of the best means of balancing CO2 because the plants absorb and store carbon that otherwise would enter the atmosphere and heat the planet. But researchers in England and France found that the tree-planting process, known as afforestation, faces insurmountable land use and financial challenges. "We have to be careful as a society to think that we can continue to burn fossil fuels and emit CO2 in a sort of business-as-usual scenario and just offset it later," said Nina Friggens, a research fellow in plant soil ecology at the University of Exeter and one of the study's authors. "The picture on that is increasingly looking very unviable." Read more: The planet is dangerously close to this climate threshold. Here's what 1.5°C really means The world's 200 largest fossil-fuel companies hold about 200 billion tons of carbon in their reserves, which would generate as much as 742 billion tons of CO2 if burned, according to the study. That's far more than the budget required to limit global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.5 degrees Celsius — an internationally agreed-upon target intended to prevent the worst effects of climate change. The burning of fossil fuels represents about 90% of planet-warming emissions. Most experts and governments agree that rapid action is needed, including a combination of offsetting emissions and reducing them altogether. But, as the paper notes, "fossil-fuel companies currently face little incentive to reduce the extraction and use of fossil fuels, and regulatory measures to limit these activities have been slow to materialise." The researchers set out to calculate how much land area of afforestation would be needed to compensate for these emissions by 2050. The number they came up with was 9.5 million square miles of new trees — more land area than North America and part of South America. "That would displace all infrastructure, agriculture and preexisting habitats," Friggens said. "It's not something that we are at all suggesting that we do — it's just to illustrate the size of the problem." Read more: 2024 was the hottest year on record, NASA and NOAA confirm The economic viability of such a project for oil and gas companies is even less realistic. Most estimates suggest that afforestation is the "cheapest" means of offsetting carbon emissions — the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates it will cost more than $14.5 per ton of carbon offset. At that rate, afforestation offsets would cost the 200 largest fossil fuel companies around $10.8 trillion — or roughly 11% of global GDP, according to the study. By comparison, the price of direct air capture — a newer field of technology that draws CO2 from the air and stores it underground or in industrial products — would be about $908 per ton, costing the companies $673.7 trillion, or about 700% of global GDP, according to the study. That said, even the more affordable afforestation approach would cause nearly all fossil fuel companies to lose value, according to the researchers — they referred to this as "negative net environmental valuation." The companies "would be worth less than what they would have to pay for their offsetting," said Alain Naef, an assistant professor of environmental economics at the ESSEC Business School in Paris and another of the study's authors. Lucy Hutyra, a distinguished professor of earth and environment at Boston University who was not involved in the study, said the paper is an "interesting thought experiment, underscoring the immense social and economic costs associated with burning fossil fuels." She said the economic findings are noteworthy, although nuanced, as monetary estimates of the economic damages that result from emitting CO2 into the atmosphere — sometimes referred to as "the social cost of carbon" — can fluctuate widely. She noted that the Trump administration recently ordered federal agencies to stop considering such damages when writing regulations, "effectively making it $0." "[The study] clearly supports the argument that these reserves are best left unexploited," Hutyra said. "However, the authors adopt a maximalist approach, assuming that all emissions must be offset solely through afforestation, which unsurprisingly leads to extreme land requirements. Afforestation alone is clearly insufficient to address this scale of the problem." Indeed, the researchers acknowledged that the study has limitations as it relies on broad assumptions, including that all existing fossil fuel reserves will be sold and burned. In addition, by focusing on afforestation, it does not account for other approaches that are central to tackling climate change, such as preventing deforestation and restoring existing forests. Read more: California decarbonization projects are among two dozen eliminated by Trump's Department of Energy Still, the findings come as the world moves further from its climate goals. Last year was Earth's hottest on record with a global average surface temperature about 1.46 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial baseline — closer than ever to the 1.5 degree threshold. What's more, the Trump administration has shifted the United States away from decarbonization efforts, including canceling funding for dozens of decarbonization projects in recent weeks and ramping up efforts to increase oil and gas production. President Trump in January also withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, the treaty signed by about 200 nations from which the 1.5 degree Celsius goal stems. The researchers said their findings should not suggest afforestation and carbon offsetting are futile. "It can work — it can have valuable climate benefits, cultural benefits, social benefits, biodiversity benefits," Friggens said. Naef said carbon offsetting remains an important tool but cannot be used to compensate for all emissions. "While offsetting can be useful at the margin, the key change will not be offsetting — it will be a reduction of carbon emissions," he said. The main message from the paper, he added, is that "oil and gas should remain in the ground." This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
