Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

The (Alternative) Reason for the Seasons, Part 2: Variable Star

+0
−0

Part 1

On Earth, we have seasons due to our planet's tilt. In my last question, I proposed an alternative world where the seasons were instead caused by an eccentric orbit. Now I'm going for something more exotic. Instead of axial tilt or orbital eccentricity, what if the seasons were caused by actual variations in the energy output of the planet's host star?

Details:

  • The planet is earth-like and inhabited.
  • The system must be stable for at least 3,000 years.
  • The length of the "seasonal" cycle must be within [-50%, +100%] of one Earth year (i.e. between six and 24 months).
  • The temperature difference for some point on the planet's surface between "winter" and "summer" must be at least 15oF and no more than 40oF.
  • The cycle doesn't have to be exactly the same as Earth's, and all of the above can be taken loosely in light of that. For instance, the cycle could repeat once every four Earth years as long as there's a cold season of some description every one Earth year, and a 60oF temperature delta is acceptable so long as it happens less often than once per hot season.

Is it possible for a real variable star system to produce seasons with these characteristics?

And if so, what kind of variable star would be best suited to producing such a world?

If not, how close can we get? Which variables are problematic?

Importantly, the planet does not need to have formed in its current location around the star, and the system does not have to be stable across astronomical timespans. I'm not concerned about whether an inhabitable planet could realistically form and evolve life in this scenario, just whether such a planet could have seasons caused by a variable star.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/57134. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

1 answer

+0
−0

Let's look at the two extremes: $\Delta T=15^{\circ}\text{F}$ and $\Delta T=40^{\circ}\text{F}$. In the first case, I'll say $T_{\text{min}}=50^{\circ}\text{F}$ ($283.2\text{ K}$) and $T_{\text{max}}=65^{\circ}\text{F}$ ($291.5\text{ K}$). This gives us $$\frac{T_{\text{max}}}{T_{\text{min}}}=1.03$$ Let's also assume that the planet's surface temperature is well-approximated by its effective temperature; in other words, $$T\simeq T_{\text{eff}}=CL_*^{1/4}$$ where $C$ is a function that doesn't depend on $T$ or $L_*$. Let's say that $L_{*,\text{min}}$ and $L_{*,\text{max}}$ are the stellar luminosities that correspond to the minimum and maximum temperatures of the planet. Doing some substitution, we find that $$\frac{L_{*,\text{max}}}{L_{*,\text{min}}}=1.13$$ which is actually quite small for variable stars. Now, let's convert this to a change in absolute magnitude, $m$. We have $$\Delta m=-2.5\log_{10}\left(\frac{L_{*,\text{max}}}{L_{*,\text{min}}}\right)$$ which gives us $\Delta m=-.133$ magnitudes (remember, brighter objects have smaller magnitudes).

In the second case, say $T_{\text{min}}=35^{\circ}\text{F}$ ($274.8\text{ K}$) and $T_{\text{max}}=75^{\circ}\text{F}$ ($297.0\text{ K}$). This gives us $$\frac{T_{\text{max}}}{T_{\text{min}}}=1.08$$ We then have $$\frac{L_{*,\text{max}}}{L_{*,\text{min}}}=1.63$$ and so $\Delta m=-0.53$ magnitudes.

The best kind of variable stars I can find that meet your requirements are Alpha2 Canum Venaticorum variables, which have periods of up to roughly 160 days and magnitude changes of up to 0.1 magnitudes (possibly more). These stars should produce effects similar enough to what you want, within reasonable amounts.


It is true that this type of star - massive and luminous - will not last very long, and it will be difficult - not impossible, but difficult - for planets (and life!) to form around it. However, as the last paragraph of the question states,

Importantly, the planet does not need to have formed in its current location around the star, and the system does not have to be stable across astronomical timespans. I'm not concerned about whether an inhabitable planet could realistically form and evolve life in this scenario

If anyone can find a longer-lived star that has similar pulsations, that would fantastic. For now, though, I think this is the best you'll get.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »