PDA

View Full Version : Multiple Star planetary systems



CuriosityDreamer
2018-Mar-09, 02:13 AM
I'm studying animation and film so I try to write down every idea I get no matter how silly, weird or even impossible for possible future inspiration. (Even vague dreams) Then sometimes I expand those ideas by adding some research. I know this information has nothing to do with science but I believe context and backstory would help. I want to believe in aliens (in the sense of other intelligent lifeforms [not bacteria and virus' but parasites sortoff count if they take hosts such as in Stargate SG 1 series and the Stargate film]) but until there are real proof I merely keep an open mind, but that doesn't have to stop me from dreaming.

I've always been aware of binary systems (technically not always) but recently I thought to look into how many stars you can mash into one system. My recent inspiration (FICTION) is an alien race far, far away in a super old galaxy where our light has not yet even traveled and in that galaxy would be a solar system with a planet and multiple stars.

Now taking into account various variables:
- Time is not an issue
- Materials are not an issue (Quantity and types)
- There needs to be one massive planet preferably at the center of the system (Mainly for a visual balance)
- The planet should the only planet and no moon
- The planet should preferably be the size of our sun
- The planet should sustain life but does not have to be survivable by humans
- The planet can have any necessary compositions to stabilize the system
- The stars would all be identical (Really unlikely) and stable
- The stars would be an equal distance away from each other and an ideal distance away from the planet
- The stars would preferably be bigger than the planet but if more realistically stable, be smaller than the planet
- The planet should in a sense be a life form (Instinctual [Primal if this do that and adapt to situation and condition] but not intelligent [can't move at will or think])
- The planet should produce intelligent life forms through an unknown process but only after great periods of time and with enough heat
- The lifeforms can't reproduce
- This system would be an anomaly (Super old anomaly) with ideal conditions and circumstances

With these insane points in mind ideally how many stars can be placed in this system. When I started constructing this idea I thought "inside the box", if the planet was at the center of the cube and then a star be at the center of each side, then this system would have 6 stars and one planet where the 6 stars are in an eqiulibrium rotating around the planet. It is really unrealistic and unnatural but would this system be able to stay stable scientifically?
Context aside mainly my question is would such a system be possible, if not the living planet but at least just the star system formation. Science meet a lunatic. :rofl:

I was thinking the suns rotating around the planet could form a natural barrier to protect the planet and provide constant heat to sustain the planet's life (Heat = life, too much heat = exothermic reaction and creation of life)

Spacedude
2018-Mar-09, 02:05 PM
- The planet should preferably be the size of our sun.

Could such a planet that size and with presumably a rocky/metal mass physically exist? Might it have a core of metallic fusion?

selden
2018-Mar-09, 02:31 PM
Having multiple objects orbiting uniformly around a central object is called "a Klemperer rosette". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klemperer_rosette

The stars would be at identical distances from one another, but that distance would change with time as they orbit the center.

Such an arrangement of stars, also having a planet perfectly balanced at the center, seems unlikely to happen naturally, but that could be part of the backstory.

I don't think there'd be any constraints on the size of the planet relative to the stars, but having it the size of our sun implies that it'd have a very low over-all density, since a lot of mass would result in a crushing gravity. Most of your constraints do seem possible, though.

Jack Williamson and Frederick Pohl collaborated on a couple of SF novels about a planet the size of a star: Farthest Star and Wall Around a Star.

For what it's worth, the star system called Castor (also Alpha Geminorum) does consist of 6 separate stars. However, it contains three pairs of stars, with the stars in each pair tightly orbiting around one another. This feature can simplify how one thinks about such a system, since in some ways it's much like having a system of three stars. The climate of a planet orbiting one of those pairs doubtless would vary dramatically, depending on the changing distances to the other stars.

CuriosityDreamer
2018-Mar-09, 03:09 PM
- The planet should preferably be the size of our sun.

Could such a planet that size and with presumably a rocky/metal mass physically exist? Might it have a core of metallic fusion?

I forgot to take into account the core of the planet. My knowledge of different cores and compositions are limited. Would it be possible to assume by a fluke inside a supermassive nebula, almost any formation would be possible given enough dark matter, energy and matter (dust), by assuming time is not an issue and time is relative?

A theory I am considering is 7 stars formed where 1 star is either bigger or smaller than the other stars (depending on the size ratio's of the planets and its suns). To my knowledge, planetary masses are formed after stars when the remaining energy is not enough to form a star. (Now my understanding between stars and dwarf stars are limited, but I do understand when our sun starts dying it will become a dwarf star and some of the moons of jupiter and saturn would aproximately be the next possition within out solar system to sustain life)

Let's say the 7th star had just enough energy to be classified as a star, it would be a different size than the other stars that had enough energy. Say there were excess energy and materials around the 7th star that tried to form a star the same size as the other 6, assuming the planet has to be smaller. Now per circumstance (1 out of infinity of correct conditions) the 7th star formed a star but didn't have enough energy especially at it's edges and assuming molten lava cools down to form rock, the edges of the sun cooled to form the surface of a planet. (Given you propably don't want to dig a hole on that planet) Say maybe some cosmic event happened nearby that caused the surface of said planet to experience a rapid exothermic reaction maybe even the creation of the first life form of the planet, the core of the planet aka the star would cool down to the temperature of a superhot core but a supercold star. Now assuming this system has its planet and 6 stars one could assume this system does not have a shortage of energy and matter.

Including 6 suns and probably a really massive molten core, it would be safe to presume the magnetic fields and gravitational forces would have a really high magnitude on that planet and any life form being able to freely move on that planet would be similar to a god on earth (superman theory). I watch a lot of Sci-Fi shows and I had physical sciences (didn't do well but I do remember all the cool stuff science does) at school and a distinction in IT.


physically exist

It is safe to assume everything is theoretical and probably impossible and we would have to have perfect conditions but to quote a few famous people:

"Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done." - Robert A. Heinlein
"Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible." - Francis of Assisi
"It always seems impossible until it's done." - Nelson Mandela
"The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible." - Arthur C. Clarke

grant hutchison
2018-Mar-09, 03:26 PM
Klemperer rosettes are dynamically unstable, so would definitely need to be artificially created and maintained. And it's a planar, rather than a 3D solution.

The face-centred cubic distribution in the OP doesn't have an orbital solution around a central force - you can put things in orbits so that they intermittently forms the required shape, but not orbits that maintain the required shape at all times.

Grant Hutchison

CuriosityDreamer
2018-Mar-09, 04:15 PM
I don't think there'd be any constraints on the size of the planet relative to the stars, but having it the size of our sun implies that it'd have a very low over-all density, since a lot of mass would result in a crushing gravity. Most of your constraints do seem possible, though.

I was actually counting on the crushing gravitational force. The plan for this civilization is for them to be an advanced ancient alien species capable of inter-galaxy travel, at peace with its own kind and have a non-interference rule but also a protection rule, say an ancient powerful race that act as guardians on other planets protecting the lesser species from ouside threats. Not going too much into their backstory and role on earth, the alien race would have technology would could not even dream of and due to the lack of gravitaional forces (in a sense) this race would have few constraints on earth.


The stars would be at identical distances from one another, but that distance would change with time as they orbit the center.

In my theoretical system, the stars are orbiting around the planet while the planet stays stationary in relativity to the other stars. While the star system itself would move in space normally due to the expanding universe theory. To account for this idea, consider this system as magnets instead of stars and a conductive metal at the center of the 6 magnets in such a system the metal will remain motionless as long as the magnets stay equal distance away. Now assuming lab conditions do not apply and stars react differently than magnets normally would. There would be a flux in gravitational forces as the distances change and each star orbits the planet in relation to the other stars which would cause the planet to "wubble", in the lack for a better term, but I do believe in such and unlikely but ideal enviroment the stars would keep the planet at the center. Futhermore the gravitational forces and magnetic fields of this entire solar system could possibly act as a natural force field against any other external threats with exceptions to black holes. But it is also possible this system could act as a giant magnet by pulling all space bodies towards it. (In a backstory this could result in an extinction event and the reason why they try to protect other races)

Given the chance that none of the stars decide to fling out of the solar system or decide to go nuclear, this system although theoretically stable would be extremely volatile and could collapse with the slightest theoreticall "bump".



The stars would be at identical distances from one another, but that distance would change with time as they orbit the center.

This could contribute to the volatile factor of the system but also to the fantastical element, If we would observe a system like this, let's just say it would be a discovery of a lifetime. Assuming the planet undergoes a massive exothermic reaction to create life every bilion or so years this reaction could either help to compensate for the change to correct the orbits or add to the volatile nature and and eventually lead to the system's destruction, given the system doesnt encounter a black hole or becomes a black hole itself... I am aware there are many factors that could destroy this system but for my backstory I merely need this system to survive about 12 or so births. (The number has no story significance but is merely to state that the births may be a low number but preferably be more than 5)


Having multiple objects orbiting uniformly around a central object is called "a Klemperer rosette". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klemperer_rosette

Jack Williamson and Frederick Pohl collaborated on a couple of SF novels about a planet the size of a star: Farthest Star and Wall Around a Star.

For what it's worth, the star system called Castor (also Alpha Geminorum) does consist of 6 separate stars. However, it contains three pairs of stars, with the stars in each pair tightly orbiting around one another. This feature can simplify how one thinks about such a system, since in some ways it's much like having a system of three stars. The climate of a planet orbiting one of those pairs doubtless would vary dramatically, depending on the changing distances to the other stars.


Thanks will look into these sources. I understand that my idea itself is completely fictional but I would love to make it as realistic as possible. Besides if I add science then people will be more likely to believe and relate to the idea and dream, which as a filmmaking tool would make my creation even better.

CuriosityDreamer
2018-Mar-09, 04:47 PM
Klemperer rosettes are dynamically unstable, so would definitely need to be artificially created and maintained.

It doesn't have last forever. It actually just need to form once for the first birth of the lifeform. But for story reasons, I would prefer at least a few more births to give the first lifeform time to develop and to be influenced by the magnetic- and gravitational forces.


And it's a planar, rather than a 3D solution.

If I understand the difference correctly, that would be an issue. I would want the planet to be surrounded by stars for the maximum possible heat and respective forces exerted on the planet.


The face-centred cubic distribution in the OP doesn't have an orbital solution around a central force - you can put things in orbits so that they intermittently forms the required shape, but not orbits that maintain the required shape at all times.

I will admit I just barely understood that, but from what I understand is the stars start in another orbit then eventually end in my "ideal" orbit and after a period in time return to another or the first orbit.

If this is the case I would accept this argument. It could be called something like the "Relaxed Orbit" and the "Equilibrium Orbit" or the "Birthing Orbit". Where during the relaxed orbit the lifeform(s) in the planet grow and develop while during the birthing orbit their bodies undergo change and the planet goes through an exothermic reaction to give birth to one more life form, at the climax or near end of the birthing orbit. In such an orbiting cycle the race itself would have the necessary time to develop and evolve as a species without or with a less chance of being destroyed early on, with exception to outside forces. In this theory this cycle could be a really stable system with ups and downs.

Swift
2018-Mar-09, 06:25 PM
<snip>

In my theoretical system, the stars are orbiting around the planet while the planet stays stationary in relativity to the other stars. While the star system itself would move in space normally due to the expanding universe theory. To account for this idea, consider this system as magnets instead of stars and a conductive metal at the center of the 6 magnets in such a system the metal will remain motionless as long as the magnets stay equal distance away. Now assuming lab conditions do not apply and stars react differently than magnets normally would. There would be a flux in gravitational forces as the distances change and each star orbits the planet in relation to the other stars which would cause the planet to "wubble", in the lack for a better term, but I do believe in such and unlikely but ideal enviroment the stars would keep the planet at the center. Futhermore the gravitational forces and magnetic fields of this entire solar system could possibly act as a natural force field against any other external threats with exceptions to black holes. But it is also possible this system could act as a giant magnet by pulling all space bodies towards it. (In a backstory this could result in an extinction event and the reason why they try to protect other races)

Hi CuriosityDreamer, welcome to CQ.

Sorry to say, but this magnetic interaction you describe is not based in real universe physics at all. If it works for your story, that's fine, but it isn't realistic.

CuriosityDreamer
2018-Mar-09, 07:49 PM
Hi CuriosityDreamer, welcome to CQ.

Sorry to say, but this magnetic interaction you describe is not based in real universe physics at all. If it works for your story, that's fine, but it isn't realistic.

So...what your saying is it is only unrealistic if the planet doesn't rotate around a sun?


...you can put things in orbits so that they intermittently forms the required shape, but not orbits that maintain the required shape at all times.

I was honestly hoping it would be possible to have the planet stay stationary but thanks to Grant Hutchison I am entertaining this idea (Referencing it as the "Birthing Orbit" mainly to make it easier to refer to). Where the stars do their thing and eventually in their orbits end in the position that I described-
When I started constructing this idea I thought "inside the box", if the planet was at the center of the cube and then a star be at the center of each side, then this system would have 6 stars and one planet where the 6 stars are in an eqiulibrium

Now I just need to make peace with a visually unbalanced star system (My designing flaw) to try and design a star system with 6 stars orbiting each other and a planet orbiting a star. [New idea while typing]

Would it be possible for the planet to change its orbit to orbit other stars? (Basically orbiting multiple stars) I also realized that if the system follows the Birthing Orbit idea I can place more stars into the system to make this orbit happen more often or to purposely make the system more unstable. The idea isn't to make the system last forever, it has to eventually collapse to motivate the species of the planet to help other beings.

I wish to formally thank everyone for challenging my theories, it helps me to properly develop my character and it's world (Theoretically, it would probably be a few years before I start actually executing the idea)

Swift
2018-Mar-09, 08:08 PM
Originally Posted by Swift
Hi CuriosityDreamer, welcome to CQ.

Sorry to say, but this magnetic interaction you describe is not based in real universe physics at all. If it works for your story, that's fine, but it isn't realistic.
So...what your saying is it is only unrealistic if the planet doesn't rotate around a sun?

No, what I am saying is that on the scale of a solar system, magnetic forces are not going to be strong enough to influence orbits, or to be a substitute for gravity. You are using magnetism as a magical force to create a situation you want for your story, but it doesn't work even remotely like how you describe it.

CuriosityDreamer
2018-Mar-09, 10:31 PM
No, what I am saying is that on the scale of a solar system, magnetic forces are not going to be strong enough to influence orbits, or to be a substitute for gravity. You are using magnetism as a magical force to create a situation you want for your story, but it doesn't work even remotely like how you describe it.

Sorry, I understand now what you are saying, you misunderstood me, my fault. I merely used magnets as a small scale example, I am aware magnetic fields on such a grand scale would not have that magnitude. Same as how our gravitational fields do not have the similar effect on other bodies (Everything with mass has a gravitational field- no matter how small) as what planets have on each other. But in large scales gravity functions similar to magnets in small scale or am I incorrect? (I assume more proffesional science people would not like to compare magnets and gravity like that but it does make things easier to understand)

In conclusion, I was referring to how 6 magnets could suspense a metal ball if correctly placed therefore in large scales gravitational forces could have a similar effect.

I do wish to apologize for the confusion, the fault was mine for not making my argument clear.

selden
2018-Mar-10, 12:40 PM
So...what your saying is it is only unrealistic if the planet doesn't rotate around a sun?


Yes.

(Although the correct term in this case is "revolve". "Rotate" means to spin on an axis. "Revolve" means to travel around another object.)




I was honestly hoping it would be possible to have the planet stay stationary but thanks to Grant Hutchison I am entertaining this idea (Referencing it as the "Birthing Orbit" mainly to make it easier to refer to). Where the stars do their thing and eventually in their orbits end in the position that I described-

Now I just need to make peace with a visually unbalanced star system (My designing flaw) to try and design a star system with 6 stars orbiting each other and a planet orbiting a star.


As I mentioned previously, Castor is a known 6-star system. A configuration similar to what it has might be reasonable. I've inserted a framegrab below showing a representation of its orbits as drawn by Celestia. (I used the Addon (http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/creators/chuft-captain/ccCastor01.zip) available on the Celestia Motherlode (http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catalog/extrasolar_stars.php) to generate this picture. )



[New idea while typing]

Would it be possible for the planet to change its orbit to orbit other stars? (Basically orbiting multiple stars) I also realized that if the system follows the Birthing Orbit idea I can place more stars into the system to make this orbit happen more often or to purposely make the system more unstable. The idea isn't to make the system last forever, it has to eventually collapse to motivate the species of the planet to help other beings.

In principle, I think that would be possible, but I think that it might be difficult to find such a configuration which is almost stable or repeats over an appropriately long period of time. Presumably the inhabitants have to have had enough time to have developed competing civilizations of some kind. Note that a planet orbiting the outlying pair of Castor's stars would come close to its other stars once every 10,000 years or so, which might be usable.

There are gravity simulation programs which could be used to try to put together such a system. One such is available at http://www.orbitsimulator.com Its author, Tony Dunn, often contributes here on CosmoQuest.

Castor as shown in Celestia:
23028

CuriosityDreamer
2018-Mar-10, 02:34 PM
In principle, I think that would be possible, but I think that it might be difficult to find such a configuration which is almost stable or repeats over an appropriately long period of time. Presumably the inhabitants have to have had enough time to have developed competing civilizations of some kind. Note that a planet orbiting the outlying pair of Castor's stars would come close to its other stars once every 10,000 years or so, which might be usable.
23028

Yes, the idea is that time would not be an issue since the inhabitants would be able to live billions of years but are not able to reproduce, I'm planning on placing an elder inhabitant on earth to witness the full lifespan and development of the human race and to prevent any extinction events and outside intereference.

eburacum45
2018-Mar-16, 10:44 AM
I don't think there'd be any constraints on the size of the planet relative to the stars, but having it the size of our sun implies that it'd have a very low over-all density, since a lot of mass would result in a crushing gravity. Most of your constraints do seem possible, though.
There are quite a few constraints on the size of real planets, assuming real-life materials rather than unobtainium. A rocky planet will compress under its own gravity so that it can't realistically get any bigger than about 3.5 Earth's radius. A waterworld could get as large as 4.5 Earth radii before compressing into a smaller ball.
http://aleph.se/andart2/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/planetradius.png

Only a gas giant could approach stellar scale - they reach maximum radius at around Jupiter's radius, but they can get larger if the gas envelope is heated by an external source, such as a star, or by contraction. KELT-11B is 40% larger than Jupiter, and significantly larger than many red dwarf stars.
https://www1.lehigh.edu/news/%E2%80%98styrofoam%E2%80%99-planet-may-help-solve-mystery-giant-planets
These hot, low-density worlds would be a challenge to inhabit, however.

selden
2018-Mar-16, 01:00 PM
Sorry, I hadn't been thinking of those kinds of real-world constraints. Since I was thinking that it was supposed to be a story with a sufficiently high-tech background, I was mostly considering what gravitational effects on the stars of the system might result from such an extremely large artificial planet. As you write, there are quite a few natural physical constraints on the sizes of "unassisted" planetary formation.

Ken G
2018-Mar-16, 02:26 PM
There are quite a few constraints on the size of real planets, assuming real-life materials rather than unobtainium. A rocky planet will compress under its own gravity so that it can't realistically get any bigger than about 3.5 Earth's radius. A waterworld could get as large as 4.5 Earth radii before compressing into a smaller ball.
http://aleph.se/andart2/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/planetradius.png

Only a gas giant could approach stellar scale - they reach maximum radius at around Jupiter's radius, but they can get larger if the gas envelope is heated by an external source, such as a star, or by contraction. KELT-11B is 40% larger than Jupiter, and significantly larger than many red dwarf stars.
https://www1.lehigh.edu/news/%E2%80%98styrofoam%E2%80%99-planet-may-help-solve-mystery-giant-planets
These hot, low-density worlds would be a challenge to inhabit, however.Very nice post, I had not realized the Earth was so close to the maximum size possible for a rocky planet. In case you had not made this connection yet, when a planet mass is well past the value for peak radius, the physics starts looking more and more like that of a white dwarf.

Ken G
2018-Mar-16, 02:28 PM
Sorry, I hadn't been thinking of those kinds of real-world constraints. Since I was thinking that it was supposed to be a story with a sufficiently high-tech background, I was mostly considering what gravitational effects on the stars of the system might result from such an extremely large artificial planet. As you write, there are quite a few natural physical constraints on the sizes of "unassisted" planetary formation.It's not just the formation mechanism, it's the internal structure constraints. The plots given were for materials that have cooled, so to get much larger the planet would need to be at a very high temperature, more like a star.

eburacum45
2018-Mar-16, 03:12 PM
If the OP is interested, I could point towards a number of highly speculative ways to produce very low-density megastructures - but I think the object of the exercise is to imagine a high-gravity planet, where the inhabitants would evolve to become unreasonably strong.