This might just be me, but I find metaphors like ''Fingerprints' inside the Sun' harder to read than the title of the original paper, which is probably what should be linked here per HN submission guidelines:
For the press release, something like The Real Sun and Its Simulations Disagree. A Planet That Fell In Early Might Explain It. might be easier to follow.
MESA, a piece of software referenced in this article, is a pretty incredible system. (Even referring to it as software underplays the extent of its community and impact.)
Many people are involved in MESA and Bill Paxton was always quick to point out the many new folks that worked on it, but this article does a great job of celebrating his impact:
It's amazing to me that he went from being the voice on the other end of the Mother Of All Demos to having such a major impact on stellar astrophysics during his "retirement." He passed away in 2025.
> Their results favour a scenario in which the young Sun engulfed a super-Earth around 5–10 times the mass of Earth
Given the state of the early solar system, it would be surprising if the Sun didn't swallow a lot of metallic and carbonaceous rocks and pebbles. But it seems unclear to me how the researchers would distinguish between one super-Earth and >10^10 smaller rocks? Chemically I feel the two would be largely the same.
I don't fully follow (not being an astrophysicist), but it seems like the depth of the metallic material within the star matters a lot for their model. A planet can "bury" it (their word) a lot deeper than small rocks by physically sinking in before it gets destroyed. Sections 4.2 and 4.5 (among others I assume) in the actual paper linked above talk about this stuff.
>But it seems unclear to me how the researchers would distinguish between one super-Earth and >10^10 smaller rocks?
I have a similar feeling when life on earth is suggested to be "alien", arriving via debris in the solar system as the earth formed. Isn't everything in the solar system coalesced from the same debris?
Well if we found current or fossil life with a common ancestor on other bodies it would certainly demonstrate that it arrived via debris; whereas if we find life with no common ancestor or find no evidence of life at all that would reject the hypothesis. It wouldn't necessarily answer which body was the original birthplace, but for the purposes of modelling, whether life happened to start here is a much less impactful question than whether life had to start here. If all life here started here, then life had to develop quickly; if we could potentially descend from stuff in the pre-solar system debris field that could add billions of years to the clock, and makes interstellar panspermia highly plausible.
Same thing with people who naively believe that amino acids can only be formed in space and can only be brought to Earth in asteroids, as opposed to forming *ON* Earth.
That always felt like a deus ex machina answer to me too. We don't know exactly how abiogenesis happened on earth so some people just like to cut off the chain of causation with the idea of, "it was seeded"... but then how did abiogenesis happen elsewhere?
I don't think that's a very popular theory among anyone who knows what they're talking about though.
The life-bearing debris would have to arrive quite some time after formation of Earth, as it was molten. Surviving atmospheric entry is hard, surviving after landing in lava is impossible.
This, but how do they rule out the extra stuff landing in the sun much earlier - when the solar system was still a pre-solar nebula, and which bits would end up where (sun vs. planets vs. whatever) was far from settled?
> Researchers also found that such a world could survive its passage through the Sun's outer layers while losing very little mass, which suggests that planets may leave detectable fingerprints inside their host stars long after they have disappeared.
So I guess the large size would have permitted it to smuggle stuff into the core that would have just vaporised in the corona if carried by many smaller objects?
It's not plain to me where you're going. But the answer about the core of a planet engulfed by the sun is that it vaporizes eventually, just not right away.
Has someone got a quick explainer for why adding a planet would result in less lithium? Is it just that a super-earth would be big enough and have so little lithium that it would measurably water down the other elements?
Not an astrophysicist, but since they mentioned the lithium is depleted, I wonder if that implies the collision of a planetary body with a sun would consume or react with the solar lithium.
You have to get nearly halfway from the surface of the sun (photospere) to its core before the density of the sun’s material is equivalent to that of the earth.
Clearly wasn’t a “planet” — failed catastrophically at clearing its neighborhood. The Royal Astronomical Society should be ashamed for publishing something so un-scientific. /s
This might just be me, but I find metaphors like ''Fingerprints' inside the Sun' harder to read than the title of the original paper, which is probably what should be linked here per HN submission guidelines:
> Planetary engulfment as a solution to solar-model discrepancies and its implications for planetary systems https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stag1527
For the press release, something like The Real Sun and Its Simulations Disagree. A Planet That Fell In Early Might Explain It. might be easier to follow.
There's been a lot of changed titles recently, and it is quite annoying. I feel like that used to get corrected.
MESA, a piece of software referenced in this article, is a pretty incredible system. (Even referring to it as software underplays the extent of its community and impact.)
Many people are involved in MESA and Bill Paxton was always quick to point out the many new folks that worked on it, but this article does a great job of celebrating his impact:
https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/news/an-accidental-astrophysicist
It's amazing to me that he went from being the voice on the other end of the Mother Of All Demos to having such a major impact on stellar astrophysics during his "retirement." He passed away in 2025.
> Their results favour a scenario in which the young Sun engulfed a super-Earth around 5–10 times the mass of Earth
Given the state of the early solar system, it would be surprising if the Sun didn't swallow a lot of metallic and carbonaceous rocks and pebbles. But it seems unclear to me how the researchers would distinguish between one super-Earth and >10^10 smaller rocks? Chemically I feel the two would be largely the same.
I don't fully follow (not being an astrophysicist), but it seems like the depth of the metallic material within the star matters a lot for their model. A planet can "bury" it (their word) a lot deeper than small rocks by physically sinking in before it gets destroyed. Sections 4.2 and 4.5 (among others I assume) in the actual paper linked above talk about this stuff.
>But it seems unclear to me how the researchers would distinguish between one super-Earth and >10^10 smaller rocks?
I have a similar feeling when life on earth is suggested to be "alien", arriving via debris in the solar system as the earth formed. Isn't everything in the solar system coalesced from the same debris?
Well if we found current or fossil life with a common ancestor on other bodies it would certainly demonstrate that it arrived via debris; whereas if we find life with no common ancestor or find no evidence of life at all that would reject the hypothesis. It wouldn't necessarily answer which body was the original birthplace, but for the purposes of modelling, whether life happened to start here is a much less impactful question than whether life had to start here. If all life here started here, then life had to develop quickly; if we could potentially descend from stuff in the pre-solar system debris field that could add billions of years to the clock, and makes interstellar panspermia highly plausible.
Same thing with people who naively believe that amino acids can only be formed in space and can only be brought to Earth in asteroids, as opposed to forming *ON* Earth.
Our current best guess is a geothermal vent in a high phosphorus 'soda lake' like the one in Canada. https://www.science.org/content/article/unusual-soda-lakes-m...
That always felt like a deus ex machina answer to me too. We don't know exactly how abiogenesis happened on earth so some people just like to cut off the chain of causation with the idea of, "it was seeded"... but then how did abiogenesis happen elsewhere?
I don't think that's a very popular theory among anyone who knows what they're talking about though.
The life-bearing debris would have to arrive quite some time after formation of Earth, as it was molten. Surviving atmospheric entry is hard, surviving after landing in lava is impossible.
I was going to expand on my comment about the difference between alien and non-alien being a difference only in time. It's all from the same stuff.
It makes a difference to our understanding of the conditions under which life can form.
That's easy, they'll check whether there's one big fingerprint vs >10^10 little tiny fingerprints and conclude accordingly \j
Not if the EU has a say about it. Those rocks and pebbles have a right to privacy and fingerprinting is off the table.
You sound bitter about this.
This, but how do they rule out the extra stuff landing in the sun much earlier - when the solar system was still a pre-solar nebula, and which bits would end up where (sun vs. planets vs. whatever) was far from settled?
> Researchers also found that such a world could survive its passage through the Sun's outer layers while losing very little mass, which suggests that planets may leave detectable fingerprints inside their host stars long after they have disappeared.
So I guess the large size would have permitted it to smuggle stuff into the core that would have just vaporised in the corona if carried by many smaller objects?
Sounds reasonable to me.
But also what the fuck happens to the core of such a planet when that happens?
We aren't actually sure what gave our core the spin it has, right? I'm not fully awake yet but I think it's plain where I'm going with this.
> We aren't actually sure what gave our core the spin it has, right?
We are, it’s from the conservation of angular momentum. The material that made our planet also had a non-zero angular momentum.
It's not plain to me where you're going. But the answer about the core of a planet engulfed by the sun is that it vaporizes eventually, just not right away.
Nominative determinism- first author's name "Mutlu Yıldız" means "happy star"
Has someone got a quick explainer for why adding a planet would result in less lithium? Is it just that a super-earth would be big enough and have so little lithium that it would measurably water down the other elements?
Not an astrophysicist, but since they mentioned the lithium is depleted, I wonder if that implies the collision of a planetary body with a sun would consume or react with the solar lithium.
You have to get nearly halfway from the surface of the sun (photospere) to its core before the density of the sun’s material is equivalent to that of the earth.
That’s it Apollo! Spit it out, what’s in your mouth, spit it out now!
I find it endlessly fascinating that information cannot be destroyed and we keep finding more and more ways to read the universe at every scale!
Did stellar abundance fits in grad school, getting the Teff systematics out took months.
That sentence is kind of scary.
Imagine being a civilization on a planet that knows it's going to be swallowed by their sun.. (during the lifetime of the living members)
and how exactly are we going to put our fingers into the sun?
Clearly wasn’t a “planet” — failed catastrophically at clearing its neighborhood. The Royal Astronomical Society should be ashamed for publishing something so un-scientific. /s
I once ate a peanut too.
When I saw the word 'Fingerprints', I thought it was a brilliant expression.