Binary star

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star 

Hubble image of the Sirius binary system, in which Sirius B can be clearly distinguished (lower left)

A binary star is a star system consisting of two stars orbiting around their common barycenter. Systems of two or more stars are called multiple star systems. These systems, especially when more distant, often appear to the unaided eye as a single point of light, and are then revealed as multiple by other means.

The term double star is often used synonymously with binary star; however, double star can also mean optical double star. Optical doubles are so called because the two stars appear close together in the sky as seen from the Earth; they are almost on the same line of sight. Nevertheless, their "doubleness" depends only on this optical effect; the stars themselves are distant from one another and share no physical connection. A double star can be revealed as optical by means of differences in their parallax measurements, proper motions, or radial velocities. Most known double stars have not been studied adequately to determine whether they are optical doubles or doubles physically bound through gravitation into a multiple star system.

Binary star systems are very important in astrophysics because calculations of their orbits allow the masses of their component stars to be directly determined, which in turn allows other stellar parameters, such as radius and density, to be indirectly estimated. This also determines an empirical mass-luminosity relationship (MLR) from which the masses of single stars can be estimated.

Binary stars are often resolved as separate stars, in which case they are called visual binaries. Many visual binaries have long orbital periods of several centuries or millennia and therefore have orbits which are uncertain or poorly known. They may also be detected by indirect techniques, such as spectroscopy (spectroscopic binaries) or astrometry (astrometric binaries). If a binary star happens to orbit in a plane along our line of sight, its components will eclipse and transit each other; these pairs are called eclipsing binaries, or, together with other binaries that change brightness as they orbit, photometric binaries.

If components in binary star systems are close enough they can gravitationally distort their mutual outer stellar atmospheres. In some cases, these close binary systems can exchange mass, which may bring their evolution to stages that single stars cannot attain. Examples of binaries are Sirius, and Cygnus X-1 (Cygnus X-1 being a well-known black hole). Binary stars are also common as the nuclei of many planetary nebulae, and are the progenitors of both novae and type Ia supernovae.

Discovery

The term binary was first used in this context by Sir William Herschel in 1802, when he wrote:

If, on the contrary, two stars should really be situated very near each other, and at the same time so far insulated as not to be materially affected by the attractions of neighbouring stars, they will then compose a separate system, and remain united by the bond of their own mutual gravitation towards each other. This should be called a real double star; and any two stars that are thus mutually connected, form the binary sidereal system which we are now to consider.

By the modern definition, the term binary star is generally restricted to pairs of stars which revolve around a common center of mass. Binary stars which can be resolved with a telescope or interferometric methods are known as visual binaries. For most of the known visual binary stars one whole revolution has not been observed yet; rather, they are observed to have travelled along a curved path or a partial arc.

Binary system of two stars

The more general term double star is used for pairs of stars which are seen to be close together in the sky.^[1] This distinction is rarely made in languages other than English. Double stars may be binary systems or may be merely two stars that appear to be close together in the sky but have vastly different true distances from the Sun. The latter are termed optical doubles or optical pairs.

Since the invention of the telescope, many pairs of double stars have been found. Early examples include Mizar and Acrux. Mizar, in the Big Dipper (Ursa Major), was observed to be double by Giovanni Battista Riccioli in 1650 (and probably earlier by Benedetto Castelli and Galileo). The bright southern star Acrux, in the Southern Cross, was discovered to be double by Father Fontenay in 1685.

John Michell was the first to suggest that double stars might be physically attached to each other when he argued in 1767 that the probability that a double star was due to a chance alignment was small. William Herschel began observing double stars in 1779 and soon thereafter published catalogs of about 700 double stars. By 1803, he had observed changes in the relative positions in a number of double stars over the course of 25 years, and concluded that they must be binary systems; the first orbit of a binary star, however, was not computed until 1827, when Félix Savary computed the orbit of Xi Ursae Majoris. Since this time, many more double stars have been catalogued and measured. The Washington Double Star Catalog, a database of visual double stars compiled by the United States Naval Observatory, contains over 100,000 pairs of double stars, including optical doubles as well as binary stars. Orbits are known for only a few thousand of these double stars, and most have not been ascertained to be either true binaries or optical double stars. This can be determined by observing the relative motion of the pairs. If the motion is part of an orbit, or if the stars have similar radial velocities and the difference in their proper motions is small compared to their common proper motion, the pair is probably physical. One of the tasks that remains for visual observers of double stars is to obtain sufficient observations to prove or disprove gravitational connection.

Classifications

Edge-on disc of gas and dust present around the binary star system HD 106906

Methods of observation

Binary stars are classified into four types according to the way in which they are observed: visually, by observation; spectroscopically, by periodic changes in spectral lines; photometrically, by changes in brightness caused by an eclipse; or astrometrically, by measuring a deviation in a star's position caused by an unseen companion. Any binary star can belong to several of these classes; for example, several spectroscopic binaries are also eclipsing binaries.

Visual binaries

Main article: Visual binary

A visual binary star is a binary star for which the angular separation between the two components is great enough to permit them to be observed as a double star in a telescope, or even high-powered binoculars. The angular resolution of the telescope is an important factor in the detection of visual binaries, and as better angular resolutions are applied to binary star observations, an increasing number of visual binaries will be detected. The relative brightness of the two stars is also an important factor, as glare from a bright star may make it difficult to detect the presence of a fainter component.

The brighter star of a visual binary is the primary star, and the dimmer is considered the secondary. In some publications (especially older ones), a faint secondary is called the comes (plural comites; companion). If the stars are the same brightness, the discoverer designation for the primary is customarily accepted.

The position angle of the secondary with respect to the primary is measured, together with the angular distance between the two stars. The time of observation is also recorded. After a sufficient number of observations are recorded over a period of time, they are plotted in polar coordinates with the primary star at the origin, and the most probable ellipse is drawn through these points such that the Keplerian law of areas is satisfied. This ellipse is known as the apparent ellipse, and is the projection of the actual elliptical orbit of the secondary with respect to the primary on the plane of the sky. From this projected ellipse the complete elements of the orbit may be computed, where the semi-major axis can only be expressed in angular units unless the stellar parallax, and hence the distance, of the system is known.

Spectroscopic binaries

Algol B orbits Algol A. This animation was assembled from 55 images of the CHARA interferometer in the near-infrared H-band, sorted according to orbital phase.

Sometimes, the only evidence of a binary star comes from the Doppler effect on its emitted light. In these cases, the binary consists of a pair of stars where the spectral lines in the light emitted from each star shifts first towards the blue, then towards the red, as each moves first towards us, and then away from us, during its motion about their common center of mass, with the period of their common orbit.

In these systems, the separation between the stars is usually very small, and the orbital velocity very high. Unless the plane of the orbit happens to be perpendicular to the line of sight, the orbital velocities will have components in the line of sight and the observed radial velocity of the system will vary periodically. Since radial velocity can be measured with a spectrometer by observing the Doppler shift of the stars' spectral lines, the binaries detected in this manner are known as spectroscopic binaries. Most of these cannot be resolved as a visual binary, even with telescopes of the highest existing resolving power.

In some spectroscopic binaries, spectral lines from both stars are visible and the lines are alternately double and single. Such a system is known as a double-lined spectroscopic binary (often denoted "SB2"). In other systems, the spectrum of only one of the stars is seen and the lines in the spectrum shift periodically towards the blue, then towards red and back again. Such stars are known as single-lined spectroscopic binaries ("SB1").

The orbit of a spectroscopic binary is determined by making a long series of observations of the radial velocity of one or both components of the system. The observations are plotted against time, and from the resulting curve a period is determined. If the orbit is circular then the curve will be a sine curve. If the orbit is elliptical, the shape of the curve will depend on the eccentricity of the ellipse and the orientation of the major axis with reference to the line of sight.

It is impossible to determine individually the semi-major axis a and the inclination of the orbit plane i. However, the product of the semi-major axis and the sine of the inclination (i.e. a sin i) may be determined directly in linear units (e.g. kilometres). If either a or i can be determined by other means, as in the case of eclipsing binaries, a complete solution for the orbit can be found.

Binary stars that are both visual and spectroscopic binaries are rare, and are a valuable source of information when found. About 40 are known. Visual binary stars often have large true separations, with periods measured in decades to centuries; consequently, they usually have orbital speeds too small to be measured spectroscopically. Conversely, spectroscopic binary stars move fast in their orbits because they are close together, usually too close to be detected as visual binaries. Binaries that are found to be both visual and spectroscopic thus must be relatively close to Earth.

Eclipsing binaries

An eclipsing binary star is a binary star system in which the orbit plane of the two stars lies so nearly in the line of sight of the observer that the components undergo mutual eclipses. In the case where the binary is also a spectroscopic binary and the parallax of the system is known, the binary is quite valuable for stellar analysis. Algol, a triple star system in the constellation Perseus, contains the best-known example of an eclipsing binary.

Play media

This video shows an artist's impression of an eclipsing binary star system. As the two stars orbit each other they pass in front of one another and their combined brightness, seen from a distance, decreases.

Eclipsing binaries are variable stars, not because the light of the individual components vary but because of the eclipses. The light curve of an eclipsing binary is characterized by periods of practically constant light, with periodic drops in intensity when one star passes in front of the other. The brightness may drop twice during the orbit, once when the secondary passes in front of the primary and once when the primary passes in front of the secondary. The deeper of the two eclipses is called the primary regardless of which star is being occulted, and if a shallow second eclipse also occurs it is called the secondary eclipse. The size of the brightness drops depends on the relative brightness of the two stars, the proportion of the occulted star that is hidden, and the surface brightness (i.e. effective temperature) of the stars. Typically the occultation of the hotter star causes the primary eclipse.

An eclipsing binary's period of orbit may be determined from a study of its light curve, and the relative sizes of the individual stars can be determined in terms of the radius of the orbit, by observing how quickly the brightness changes as the disc of the nearest star slides over the disc of the other star. If it is also a spectroscopic binary, the orbital elements can also be determined, and the mass of the stars can be determined relatively easily, which means that the relative densities of the stars can be determined in this case.

Since about 1995, measurement of extragalactic eclipsing binaries' fundamental parameters has become possible with 8-meter class telescopes. This makes it feasible to use them to directly measure the distances to external galaxies, a process that is more accurate than using standard candles. By 2006, they had been used to give direct distance estimates to the LMC, SMC, Andromeda Galaxy, and Triangulum Galaxy. Eclipsing binaries offer a direct method to gauge the distance to galaxies to an improved 5% level of accuracy.

Non-eclipsing binaries that can be detected through photometry

Nearby non-eclipsing binaries can also be photometrically detected by observing how the stars affect each other in three ways. The first is by observing extra light which the stars reflect from their companion. Second is by observing ellipsoidal light variations which are caused by deformation of the star's shape by their companions. The third method is by looking at how relativistic beaming affects the apparent magnitude of the stars. Detecting binaries with these methods requires accurate photometry.

Astrometric binaries

Astronomers have discovered some stars that seemingly orbit around an empty space. Astrometric binaries are relatively nearby stars which can be seen to wobble around a point in space, with no visible companion. The same mathematics used for ordinary binaries can be applied to infer the mass of the missing companion. The companion could be very dim, so that it is currently undetectable or masked by the glare of its primary, or it could be an object that emits little or no electromagnetic radiation, for example a neutron star.

The visible star's position is carefully measured and detected to vary, due to the gravitational influence from its counterpart. The position of the star is repeatedly measured relative to more distant stars, and then checked for periodic shifts in position. Typically this type of measurement can only be performed on nearby stars, such as those within 10 parsecs. Nearby stars often have a relatively high proper motion, so astrometric binaries will appear to follow a wobbly path across the sky.

If the companion is sufficiently massive to cause an observable shift in position of the star, then its presence can be deduced. From precise astrometric measurements of the movement of the visible star over a sufficiently long period of time, information about the mass of the companion and its orbital period can be determined. Even though the companion is not visible, the characteristics of the system can be determined from the observations using Kepler's laws.

This method of detecting binaries is also used to locate extrasolar planets orbiting a star. However, the requirements to perform this measurement are very exacting, due to the great difference in the mass ratio, and the typically long period of the planet's orbit. Detection of position shifts of a star is a very exacting science, and it is difficult to achieve the necessary precision. Space telescopes can avoid the blurring effect of Earth's atmosphere, resulting in more precise resolution.

Configuration of the system

Detached

Semidetached

Contact

Configurations of a binary star system with a mass ratio of 3. The black lines represent the inner critical Roche equipotentials, the Roche lobes.

Another classification is based on the distance between the stars, relative to their sizes:

Detached binaries are binary stars where each component is within its Roche lobe, i.e. the area where the gravitational pull of the star itself is larger than that of the other component. The stars have no major effect on each other, and essentially evolve separately. Most binaries belong to this class.

Semidetached binary stars are binary stars where one of the components fills the binary star's Roche lobe and the other does not. Gas from the surface of the Roche-lobe-filling component (donor) is transferred to the other, accreting star. The mass transfer dominates the evolution of the system. In many cases, the inflowing gas forms an accretion disc around the accretor.

A contact binary is a type of binary star in which both components of the binary fill their Roche lobes. The uppermost part of the stellar atmospheres forms a common envelope that surrounds both stars. As the friction of the envelope brakes the orbital motion, the stars may eventually merge. W Ursae Majoris is an example.

Cataclysmic variables and X-ray binaries

Artist's conception of a cataclysmic variable system

When a binary system contains a compact object such as a white dwarf, neutron star or black hole, gas from the other (donor) star can accrete onto the compact object. This releases gravitational potential energy, causing the gas to become hotter and emit radiation. Cataclysmic variable stars, where the compact object is a white dwarf, are examples of such systems. In X-ray binaries, the compact object can be either a neutron star or a black hole. These binaries are classified as low-mass or high-mass according to the mass of the donor star. High-mass X-ray binaries contain a young, early-type, high-mass donor star which transfers mass by its stellar wind, while low-mass X-ray binaries are semidetached binaries in which gas from a late-type donor star or a white dwarf overflows the Roche lobe and falls towards the neutron star or black hole. Probably the best known example of an X-ray binary is the high-mass X-ray binary Cygnus X-1. In Cygnus X-1, the mass of the unseen companion is estimated to be about nine times that of the Sun, far exceeding the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit for the maximum theoretical mass of a neutron star. It is therefore believed to be a black hole; it was the first object for which this was widely believed.

Orbital period

Orbital periods can be less than an hour (for AM CVn stars), or a few days (components of Beta Lyrae), but also hundreds of thousands of years (Proxima Centauri around Alpha Centauri AB).

Variations in period

Main article: Applegate mechanism

The Applegate mechanism explains long term orbital period variations seen in certain eclipsing binaries. As a main-sequence star goes through an activity cycle, the outer layers of the star are subject to a magnetic torque changing the distribution of angular momentum, resulting in a change in the star's oblateness. The orbit of the stars in the binary pair is gravitationally coupled to their shape changes, so that the period shows modulations (typically on the order of ∆P/P ∼ 10⁻⁵) on the same time scale as the activity cycles (typically on the order of decades).

Another phenomenon observed in some Algol binaries has been monotonic period increases. This is quite distinct from the far more common observations of alternating period increases and decreases explained by the Applegate mechanism. Monotonic period increases have been attributed to mass transfer, usually (but not always) from the less massive to the more massive star.

Designations

A and B

Artist's impression of the binary star system AR Scorpii

The components of binary stars are denoted by the suffixes A and B appended to the system's designation, A denoting the primary and B the secondary. The suffix AB may be used to denote the pair (for example, the binary star α Centauri AB consists of the stars α Centauri A and α Centauri B.) Additional letters, such as C, D, etc., may be used for systems with more than two stars. In cases where the binary star has a Bayer designation and is widely separated, it is possible that the members of the pair will be designated with superscripts; an example is Zeta Reticuli, whose components are ζ¹ Reticuli and ζ² Reticuli.

Discoverer designations

Double stars are also designated by an abbreviation giving the discoverer together with an index number. α Centauri, for example, was found to be double by Father Richaud in 1689, and so is designated RHD 1. These discoverer codes can be found in the Washington Double Star Catalog.

Hot and cold

The components of a binary star system may be designated by their relative temperatures as the hot companion and cool companion.

Examples:

• Antares (Alpha Scorpii) is a red supergiant star in a binary system with a hotter blue main-sequence star Antares B. Antares B can therefore be termed a hot companion of the cool supergiant.
• Symbiotic stars are binary star systems composed of a late-type giant star and a hotter companion object. Since the nature of the companion is not well-established in all cases, it may be termed a "hot companion".
• The luminous blue variable Eta Carinae has recently been determined to be a binary star system. The secondary appears to have a higher temperature than the primary and has therefore been described as being the "hot companion" star. It may be a Wolf–Rayet star.
• R Aquarii shows a spectrum which simultaneously displays both a cool and hot signature. This combination is the result of a cool red supergiant accompanied by a smaller, hotter companion. Matter flows from the supergiant to the smaller, denser companion.
• NASA's Kepler mission has discovered examples of eclipsing binary stars where the secondary is the hotter component. KOI-74b is a 12,000 K white dwarf companion of KOI-74 (KIC 6889235), a 9,400 K early A-type main-sequence star. KOI-81b is a 13,000 K white dwarf companion of KOI-81 (KIC 8823868), a 10,000 K late B-type main-sequence star.

Evolution

Play media

Artist's impression of the evolution of a hot high-mass binary star

Formation

While it is not impossible that some binaries might be created through gravitational capture between two single stars, given the very low likelihood of such an event (three objects being actually required, as conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing another) and the high number of binaries currently in existence, this cannot be the primary formation process. The observation of binaries consisting of stars not yet on the main sequence supports the theory that binaries develop during star formation. Fragmentation of the molecular cloud during the formation of protostars is an acceptable explanation for the formation of a binary or multiple star system.

The outcome of the three-body problem, in which the three stars are of comparable mass, is that eventually one of the three stars will be ejected from the system and, assuming no significant further perturbations, the remaining two will form a stable binary system.

Mass transfer and accretion

As a main-sequence star increases in size during its evolution, it may at some point exceed its Roche lobe, meaning that some of its matter ventures into a region where the gravitational pull of its companion star is larger than its own. The result is that matter will transfer from one star to another through a process known as Roche lobe overflow (RLOF), either being absorbed by direct impact or through an accretion disc. The mathematical point through which this transfer happens is called the first Lagrangian point. It is not uncommon that the accretion disc is the brightest (and thus sometimes the only visible) element of a binary star.

If a star grows outside of its Roche lobe too fast for all abundant matter to be transferred to the other component, it is also possible that matter will leave the system through other Lagrange points or as stellar wind, thus being effectively lost to both components. Since the evolution of a star is determined by its mass, the process influences the evolution of both companions, and creates stages that cannot be attained by single stars.

Studies of the eclipsing ternary Algol led to the Algol paradox in the theory of stellar evolution: although components of a binary star form at the same time, and massive stars evolve much faster than the less massive ones, it was observed that the more massive component Algol A is still in the main sequence, while the less massive Algol B is a subgiant at a later evolutionary stage. The paradox can be solved by mass transfer: when the more massive star became a subgiant, it filled its Roche lobe, and most of the mass was transferred to the other star, which is still in the main sequence. In some binaries similar to Algol, a gas flow can actually be seen.

Runaways and novae

Artist rendering of plasma ejections from V Hydrae

It is also possible for widely separated binaries to lose gravitational contact with each other during their lifetime, as a result of external perturbations. The components will then move on to evolve as single stars. A close encounter between two binary systems can also result in the gravitational disruption of both systems, with some of the stars being ejected at high velocities, leading to runaway stars.

If a white dwarf has a close companion star that overflows its Roche lobe, the white dwarf will steadily accrete gases from the star's outer atmosphere. These are compacted on the white dwarf's surface by its intense gravity, compressed and heated to very high temperatures as additional material is drawn in. The white dwarf consists of degenerate matter and so is largely unresponsive to heat, while the accreted hydrogen is not. Hydrogen fusion can occur in a stable manner on the surface through the CNO cycle, causing the enormous amount of energy liberated by this process to blow the remaining gases away from the white dwarf's surface. The result is an extremely bright outburst of light, known as a nova.

In extreme cases this event can cause the white dwarf to exceed the Chandrasekhar limit and trigger a supernova that destroys the entire star, another possible cause for runaways. An example of such an event is the supernova SN 1572, which was observed by Tycho Brahe. The Hubble Space Telescope recently took a picture of the remnants of this event.

Astrophysics

Binaries provide the best method for astronomers to determine the mass of a distant star. The gravitational pull between them causes them to orbit around their common center of mass. From the orbital pattern of a visual binary, or the time variation of the spectrum of a spectroscopic binary, the mass of its stars can be determined, for example with the binary mass function. In this way, the relation between a star's appearance (temperature and radius) and its mass can be found, which allows for the determination of the mass of non-binaries.

Because a large proportion of stars exist in binary systems, binaries are particularly important to our understanding of the processes by which stars form. In particular, the period and masses of the binary tell us about the amount of angular momentum in the system. Because this is a conserved quantity in physics, binaries give us important clues about the conditions under which the stars were formed.

Calculating the center of mass in binary stars

In a simple binary case, r₁, the distance from the center of the first star to the center of mass or barycenter, is given by:

${\displaystyle r_{1}=a\cdot {\frac {m_{2}}{m_{1}+m_{2}}}={\frac {a}{1+{\frac {m_{1}}{m_{2}}}}}}$

where:

a is the distance between the two stellar centers and

m₁ and m₂ are the masses of the two stars.

If a is taken to be the semi-major axis of the orbit of one body around the other, then r₁ will be the semimajor axis of the first body's orbit around the center of mass or barycenter, and r₂ = a – r₁ will be the semimajor axis of the second body's orbit. When the center of mass is located within the more massive body, that body will appear to wobble rather than following a discernible orbit.

Center of mass animations

Main article: Barycenter

The position of the red cross indicates the center of mass of the system. These images do not represent any specific real system.

(a.) Two bodies of similar mass orbiting around a common center of mass, or barycenter

(b.) Two bodies with a difference in mass orbiting around a common barycenter, like the Charon-Pluto system

(c.) Two bodies with a major difference in mass orbiting around a common barycenter (similar to the Earth–Moon system)

(d.) Two bodies with an extreme difference in mass orbiting around a common barycenter (similar to the Sun–Earth system)

(e.) Two bodies with similar mass orbiting in an ellipse around a common barycenter

Research findings

Multiplicity likelihood for Population I main sequence stars

Mass Range	Multiplicity Frequency	Average Companions
≤ 0.1 M☉	22%+6% −4%	0.22+0.06 −0.04
0.1–0.5 M☉	26%±3%	0.33±0.05
0.7–1.3 M☉	44%±2%	0.62±0.03
1.5–5 M☉	≥ 50%	1.00±0.10
8–16 M☉	≥ 60%	1.00±0.20
≥ 16 M☉	≥ 80%	1.30±0.20

It is estimated that approximately one third of the star systems in the Milky Way are binary or multiple, with the remaining two thirds being single stars. The overall multiplicity frequency of ordinary stars is a monotonically increasing function of stellar mass. That is, the likelihood of being in a binary or a multi-star system steadily increases as the masses of the components increase.

There is a direct correlation between the period of revolution of a binary star and the eccentricity of its orbit, with systems of short period having smaller eccentricity. Binary stars may be found with any conceivable separation, from pairs orbiting so closely that they are practically in contact with each other, to pairs so distantly separated that their connection is indicated only by their common proper motion through space. Among gravitationally bound binary star systems, there exists a so-called log normal distribution of periods, with the majority of these systems orbiting with a period of about 100 years. This is supporting evidence for the theory that binary systems are formed during star formation.

In pairs where the two stars are of equal brightness, they are also of the same spectral type. In systems where the brightnesses are different, the fainter star is bluer if the brighter star is a giant star, and redder if the brighter star belongs to the main sequence.

Artist's impression of the sight from a (hypothetical) moon of planet HD 188753 Ab (upper left), which orbits a triple star system. The brightest companion is just below the horizon.

The mass of a star can be directly determined only from its gravitational attraction. Apart from the Sun and stars which act as gravitational lenses, this can be done only in binary and multiple star systems, making the binary stars an important class of stars. In the case of a visual binary star, after the orbit and the stellar parallax of the system has been determined, the combined mass of the two stars may be obtained by a direct application of the Keplerian harmonic law.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to obtain the complete orbit of a spectroscopic binary unless it is also a visual or an eclipsing binary, so from these objects only a determination of the joint product of mass and the sine of the angle of inclination relative to the line of sight is possible. In the case of eclipsing binaries which are also spectroscopic binaries, it is possible to find a complete solution for the specifications (mass, density, size, luminosity, and approximate shape) of both members of the system.

Planets

Main article: Habitability of binary star systems

Schematic of a binary star system with one planet on an S-type orbit and one on a P-type orbit

While a number of binary star systems have been found to harbor extrasolar planets, such systems are comparatively rare compared to single star systems. Observations by the Kepler space telescope have shown that most single stars of the same type as the Sun have plenty of planets, but only one-third of binary stars do. According to theoretical simulations, even widely separated binary stars often disrupt the discs of rocky grains from which protoplanets form. On the other hand, other simulations suggest that the presence of a binary companion can actually improve the rate of planet formation within stable orbital zones by "stirring up" the protoplanetary disk, increasing the accretion rate of the protoplanets within.

Detecting planets in multiple star systems introduces additional technical difficulties, which may be why they are only rarely found. Examples include the white dwarf-pulsar binary PSR B1620-26, the subgiant-red dwarf binary Gamma Cephei, and the white dwarf-red dwarf binary NN Serpentis, among others.

A study of fourteen previously known planetary systems found three of these systems to be binary systems. All planets were found to be in S-type orbits around the primary star. In these three cases the secondary star was much dimmer than the primary and so was not previously detected. This discovery resulted in a recalculation of parameters for both the planet and the primary star.

Science fiction has often featured planets of binary or ternary stars as a setting, for example George Lucas' Tatooine from Star Wars, and one notable story, "Nightfall", even takes this to a six-star system. In reality, some orbital ranges are impossible for dynamical reasons (the planet would be expelled from its orbit relatively quickly, being either ejected from the system altogether or transferred to a more inner or outer orbital range), whilst other orbits present serious challenges for eventual biospheres because of likely extreme variations in surface temperature during different parts of the orbit. Planets that orbit just one star in a binary system are said to have "S-type" orbits, whereas those that orbit around both stars have "P-type" or "circumbinary" orbits. It is estimated that 50–60% of binary systems are capable of supporting habitable terrestrial planets within stable orbital ranges.

Examples

The two visibly distinguishable components of Albireo

The large distance between the components, as well as their difference in color, make Albireo one of the easiest observable visual binaries. The brightest member, which is the third-brightest star in the constellation Cygnus, is actually a close binary itself. Also in the Cygnus constellation is Cygnus X-1, an X-ray source considered to be a black hole. It is a high-mass X-ray binary, with the optical counterpart being a variable star. Sirius is another binary and the brightest star in the night time sky, with a visual apparent magnitude of −1.46. It is located in the constellation Canis Major. In 1844 Friedrich Bessel deduced that Sirius was a binary. In 1862 Alvan Graham Clark discovered the companion (Sirius B; the visible star is Sirius A). In 1915 astronomers at the Mount Wilson Observatory determined that Sirius B was a white dwarf, the first to be discovered. In 2005, using the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers determined Sirius B to be 12,000 km (7,456 mi) in diameter, with a mass that is 98% of the Sun.

Luhman 16, the third closest star system, contains two brown dwarfs.

An example of an eclipsing binary is Epsilon Aurigae in the constellation Auriga. The visible component belongs to the spectral class F0, the other (eclipsing) component is not visible. The last such eclipse occurred from 2009 to 2011, and it is hoped that the extensive observations that will likely be carried out may yield further insights into the nature of this system. Another eclipsing binary is Beta Lyrae, which is a semidetached binary star system in the constellation of Lyra.

Other interesting binaries include 61 Cygni (a binary in the constellation Cygnus, composed of two K class (orange) main-sequence stars, 61 Cygni A and 61 Cygni B, which is known for its large proper motion), Procyon (the brightest star in the constellation Canis Minor and the eighth-brightest star in the night time sky, which is a binary consisting of the main star with a faint white dwarf companion), SS Lacertae (an eclipsing binary which stopped eclipsing), V907 Sco (an eclipsing binary which stopped, restarted, then stopped again), BG Geminorum (an eclipsing binary which is thought to contain a black hole with a K0 star in orbit around it), and 2MASS J18082002−5104378 (a binary in the "thin disk" of the Milky Way, and containing one of the oldest known stars).

Multiple star examples

Planet Lost in the Glare of Binary Stars (illustration)

Systems with more than two stars are termed multiple stars. Algol is the most noted ternary (long thought to be a binary), located in the constellation Perseus. Two components of the system eclipse each other, the variation in the intensity of Algol first being recorded in 1670 by Geminiano Montanari. The name Algol means "demon star" (from Arabic: الغول‎ al-ghūl), which was probably given due to its peculiar behavior. Another visible ternary is Alpha Centauri, in the southern constellation of Centaurus, which contains the fourth-brightest star in the night sky, with an apparent visual magnitude of −0.01. This system also underscores the fact that no search for habitable planets is complete if binaries are discounted. Alpha Centauri A and B have an 11 AU distance at closest approach, and both should have stable habitable zones.

There are also examples of systems beyond ternaries: Castor is a sextuple star system, which is the second-brightest star in the constellation Gemini and one of the brightest stars in the nighttime sky. Astronomically, Castor was discovered to be a visual binary in 1719. Each of the components of Castor is itself a spectroscopic binary. Castor also has a faint and widely separated companion, which is also a spectroscopic binary. The Alcor–Mizar visual binary in Ursa Majoris also consists of six stars, four comprising Mizar and two comprising Alcor.

Nemesis (hypothetical star)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(hypothetical_star)

Nemesis is a hypothetical red dwarf or brown dwarf, originally postulated in 1984 to be orbiting the Sun at a distance of about 95,000 AU (1.5 light-years), somewhat beyond the Oort cloud, to explain a perceived cycle of mass extinctions in the geological record, which seem to occur more often at intervals of 26 million years. As of 2012, more than 1800 brown dwarfs have been identified. There are actually fewer brown dwarfs in our cosmic neighborhood than previously thought. Rather than one star for every brown dwarf, there may be as many as six stars for every brown dwarf. The majority of solar-type stars are single. The previous idea stated half or perhaps most stellar systems were binary, trinary, or multiple-star systems associated with clusters of stars, rather than the single-star systems that tend to be seen most often. In a 2017 paper, Sarah Sadavoy and Steven Stahler argued that the Sun was likely part of a binary system at the time of its formation, leading them to suggest "there probably was a Nemesis, a long time ago". Such a star would have separated from this binary system over four billion years ago, meaning it could not be responsible for the more recent perceived cycle of mass extinctions, Douglas Vakoch told Business Insider, adding that "If the sun really was part of a binary star system in its early days, its early twin deserves a benign name like Companion, rather than the threatening Nemesis."

More recent theories suggest that other forces, like close passage of other stars, or the angular effect of the galactic gravity plane working against the outer solar orbital plane (Shiva Hypothesis), may be the cause of orbital perturbations of some outer Solar System objects. In 2011, Coryn Bailer-Jones analyzed craters on the surface of the Earth and reached the conclusion that the earlier findings of simple periodic patterns (implying periodic comet showers dislodged by a hypothetical Nemesis star) were statistical artifacts, and found that the crater record shows no evidence for Nemesis. However, in 2010, A. L. Melott and R. K. Bambach found evidence in the fossil record confirming the extinction event periodicity originally claimed by Raup and Sepkoski in 1984, but at a higher confidence level and over a time period nearly twice as long. The Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) failed to discover Nemesis in the 1980s. The 2MASS astronomical survey, which ran from 1997 to 2001, failed to detect an additional star or brown dwarf in the Solar System.

Using newer and more powerful infrared telescope technology which is able to detect brown dwarfs as cool as 150 kelvins out to a distance of 10 light-years from the Sun, the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE survey) has not detected Nemesis. In 2011, David Morrison, a senior scientist at NASA known for his work in risk assessment of near Earth objects, has written that there is no confidence in the existence of an object like Nemesis, since it should have been detected in infrared sky surveys.

Claimed periodicity of mass extinctions

In 1984, paleontologists David Raup and Jack Sepkoski published a paper claiming that they had identified a statistical periodicity in extinction rates over the last 250 million years using various forms of time series analysis. They focused on the extinction intensity of fossil families of marine vertebrates, invertebrates, and protozoans, identifying 12 extinction events over the time period in question. The average time interval between extinction events was determined as 26 million years. At the time, two of the identified extinction events (Cretaceous–Paleogene and Eocene–Oligocene) could be shown to coincide with large impact events. Although Raup and Sepkoski could not identify the cause of their supposed periodicity, they suggested a possible non-terrestrial connection. The challenge to propose a mechanism was quickly addressed by several teams of astronomers.

In 2010, Melott & Bambach re-examined the fossil data, including the now-improved dating, and using a second independent database in addition to that Raup & Sepkoski had used. They found evidence for a signal showing an excess extinction rate with a 27-million-year periodicity, now going back 500 million years, and at a much higher statistical significance than in the older work.

Development of the Nemesis hypotheses

Two teams of astronomers, Daniel P. Whitmire and Albert A. Jackson IV, and Marc Davis, Piet Hut, and Richard A. Muller, independently published similar hypotheses to explain Raup and Sepkoski's extinction periodicity in the same issue of the journal Nature. This hypothesis proposes that the Sun may have an undetected companion star in a highly elliptical orbit that periodically disturbs comets in the Oort cloud, causing a large increase of the number of comets visiting the inner Solar System with a consequential increase of impact events on Earth. This became known as the "Nemesis" or "Death Star" hypothesis.

If it does exist, the exact nature of Nemesis is uncertain. Muller suggests that the most likely object is a red dwarf with an apparent magnitude between 7 and 12, while Daniel P. Whitmire and Albert A. Jackson argue for a brown dwarf. If a red dwarf, it would exist in star catalogs, but it would only be confirmed by measuring its parallax; due to orbiting the Sun it would have a low proper motion and would escape detection by older proper motion surveys that have found stars like the 9th-magnitude Barnard's Star. (The proper motion of Barnard's Star was detected in 1916.) Muller expects Nemesis to be discovered by the time parallax surveys reach the 10th magnitude.

Muller, referring to the date of a recent extinction at 11 million years before the present day, posits that Nemesis has a semi-major axis of about 1.5 light-years (95,000 AU) and suggests it is located (supported by Yarris, 1987) near Hydra, based on a hypothetical orbit derived from original aphelia of a number of atypical long-period comets that describe an orbital arc meeting the specifications of Muller's hypothesis. Richard Muller's most recent paper relevant to the Nemesis theory was published in 2002. In 2002, Muller speculated that Nemesis was perturbed 400 million years ago by a passing star from a circular orbit into an orbit with an eccentricity of 0.7.

In 2010, and again in 2013, Melott & Bambach found evidence for a signal showing an excess extinction rate with a 27-million-year periodicity. However, because Nemesis is so distant from the Sun, it is expected to be subject to perturbations by passing stars, and therefore its orbital period should shift by 15–30%. The existence of a sharp 27-million year peak in extinction events is therefore inconsistent with Nemesis.

Orbit of Sedna

Sedna orbit compared to the Solar System and Oort cloud

The trans-Neptunian object Sedna has an extra-long and unusual elliptical orbit around the Sun, ranging between 76 and 937 AU. Sedna's orbit takes about 11,400 years to complete once. Its discoverer, Michael Brown of Caltech, noted in a Discover magazine article that Sedna's location seemed to defy reasoning: "Sedna shouldn't be there", Brown said. "There's no way to put Sedna where it is. It never comes close enough to be affected by the Sun, but it never goes far enough away from the Sun to be affected by other stars." Brown therefore postulated that a massive unseen object may be responsible for Sedna's anomalous orbit. This line of inquiry eventually led to the hypothesis of Planet Nine.

Brown has stated that it is more likely that one or more non-companion stars, passing near the Sun billions of years ago, could have pulled Sedna out into its current orbit. In 2004, Kenyon forwarded this explanation after analysis of Sedna's orbital data and computer modeling of possible ancient non-companion star passes.

Past, current, and pending searches for Nemesis

Searches for Nemesis in the infrared are important because cooler stars comparatively shine brighter in infrared light. The University of California's Leuschner Observatory failed to discover Nemesis by 1986. The Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) failed to discover Nemesis in the 1980s. The 2MASS astronomical survey, which ran from 1997 to 2001, failed to detect a star, or brown dwarf, in the Solar System. If Nemesis exists, it may be detected by Pan-STARRS or the planned LSST astronomical surveys.

In particular, if Nemesis is a red dwarf or a brown dwarf, the WISE mission (an infrared sky survey that covered most of our solar neighborhood in movement-verifying parallax measurements) was expected to be able to find it. WISE can detect 150-kelvin brown dwarfs out to 10 light-years, and the closer a brown dwarf is, the easier it is to detect. Preliminary results of the WISE survey were released on April 14, 2011. On March 14, 2012, the entire catalog of the WISE mission was released. In 2014 WISE data ruled out a Saturn or larger-sized body in the Oort cloud out to ten thousand AU.

Calculations in the 1980s suggested that a Nemesis object would have an irregular orbit due to perturbations from the galaxy and passing stars. The Melott and Bambach work shows an extremely regular signal, inconsistent with the expected irregularities in such an orbit. Thus, while supporting the extinction periodicity, it appears to be inconsistent with the Nemesis hypothesis, though of course not inconsistent with other kinds of substellar objects. According to a 2011 NASA news release, "recent scientific analysis no longer supports the idea that extinctions on Earth happen at regular, repeating intervals, and thus, the Nemesis hypothesis is no longer needed."

Paleoanthropology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoanthropology 

Paleoanthropology or paleo-anthropology is a branch of paleontology and anthropology which seeks to understand the early development of anatomically modern humans, a process known as hominization, through the reconstruction of evolutionary kinship lines within the family Hominidae, working from biological evidence (such as petrified skeletal remains, bone fragments, footprints) and cultural evidence (such as stone tools, artifacts, and settlement localities).

The field draws from and combines primatology, paleontology, biological anthropology, and cultural anthropology. As technologies and methods advance, genetics plays an ever-increasing role, in particular to examine and compare DNA structure as a vital tool of research of the evolutionary kinship lines of related species and genera.

Etymology

The term paleoanthropology derives from Greek palaiós (παλαιός) "old, ancient", ánthrōpos (ἄνθρωπος) "man, human" and the suffix -logía (-λογία) "study of".

Hominoid taxonomies

Hominoids are a primate superfamily, the hominid family is currently considered to comprise both the great ape lineages and human lineages within the hominoid superfamily. The "Homininae" comprise both the human lineages and the African ape lineages. The term "African apes" refers only to chimpanzees and gorillas. The terminology of the immediate biological family is currently in flux. The term "hominin" refers to any genus in the human tribe (Hominini), of which Homo sapiens (modern humans) is the only living specimen.

Suborder Hominoids

Family Hominids

Subfamily Homininae

Tribe Gorillini

Tribe Hominini

Genus Ardipithecus

Genus Australopithecus

Genus Paranthropus

Genus Kenyanthropus

Genus Homo

History

18th century

In 1758 Carl Linnaeus introduced the name Homo sapiens as a species name in the 10th edition of his work Systema Naturae although without a scientific description of the species-specific characteristics. Since the great apes were considered the closest relatives of human beings, based on morphological similarity, in the 19th century, it was speculated that the closest living relatives to humans were chimpanzees (genus Pan) and gorilla (genus Gorilla), and based on the natural range of these creatures, it was surmised that humans shared a common ancestor with African apes and that fossils of these ancestors would ultimately be found in Africa.

19th century

Charles Darwin

The science arguably began in the late 19th century when important discoveries occurred that led to the study of human evolution. The discovery of the Neanderthal in Germany, Thomas Huxley's Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature, and Charles Darwin's The Descent of Man were all important to early paleoanthropological research.

The modern field of paleoanthropology began in the 19th century with the discovery of "Neanderthal man" (the eponymous skeleton was found in 1856, but there had been finds elsewhere since 1830), and with evidence of so-called cave men. The idea that humans are similar to certain great apes had been obvious to people for some time, but the idea of the biological evolution of species in general was not legitimized until after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859.

Though Darwin's first book on evolution did not address the specific question of human evolution—"light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history," was all Darwin wrote on the subject—the implications of evolutionary theory were clear to contemporary readers.

Debates between Thomas Huxley and Richard Owen focused on the idea of human evolution. Huxley convincingly illustrated many of the similarities and differences between humans and apes in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature. By the time Darwin published his own book on the subject, Descent of Man, it was already a well-known interpretation of his theory—and the interpretation which made the theory highly controversial. Even many of Darwin's original supporters (such as Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Lyell) balked at the idea that human beings could have evolved their apparently boundless mental capacities and moral sensibilities through natural selection.

Asia

Five of the seven known fossil teeth of Homo luzonensis found in Callao Cave, the Philippines.

Prior to the general acceptance of Africa as the root of genus Homo, 19th-century naturalists sought the origin of humans in Asia. So-called "dragon bones" (fossil bones and teeth) from Chinese apothecary shops were known, but it was not until the early 20th century that German paleontologist, Max Schlosser, first described a single human tooth from Beijing. Although Schlosser (1903) was very cautious, identifying the tooth only as "?Anthropoide g. et sp. indet?," he was hopeful that future work would discover a new anthropoid in China.

Eleven years later, the Swedish geologist Johan Gunnar Andersson was sent to China as a mining advisor and soon developed an interest in "dragon bones". It was he who, in 1918, discovered the sites around Zhoukoudian, a village about 50 kilometers southwest of Beijing. However, because of the sparse nature of the initial finds, the site was abandoned.

Work did not resume until 1921, when the Austrian paleontologist, Otto Zdansky, fresh with his doctoral degree from Vienna, came to Beijing to work for Andersson. Zdansky conducted short-term excavations at Locality 1 in 1921 and 1923, and recovered only two teeth of significance (one premolar and one molar) that he subsequently described, cautiously, as "?Homo sp." (Zdansky, 1927). With that done, Zdansky returned to Austria and suspended all fieldwork.

News of the fossil hominin teeth delighted the scientific community in Beijing, and plans for developing a larger, more systematic project at Zhoukoudian were soon formulated. At the epicenter of excitement was Davidson Black, a Canadian-born anatomist working at Peking Union Medical College. Black shared Andersson’s interest, as well as his view that central Asia was a promising home for early humankind. In late 1926, Black submitted a proposal to the Rockefeller Foundation seeking financial support for systematic excavation at Zhoukoudian and the establishment of an institute for the study of human biology in China.

The Zhoukoudian Project came into existence in the spring of 1927, and two years later, the Cenozoic Research Laboratory of the Geological Survey of China was formally established. Being the first institution of its kind, the Cenozoic Laboratory opened up new avenues for the study of paleogeology and paleontology in China. The Laboratory was the precursor of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) of the Chinese Academy of Science, which took its modern form after 1949.

The first of the major project finds are attributed to the young Swedish paleontologist, Anders Birger Bohlin, then serving as the field advisor at Zhoukoudian. He recovered a left lower molar that Black (1927) identified as unmistakably human (it compared favorably to the previous find made by Zdansky), and subsequently coined it Sinanthropus pekinensis. The news was at first met with skepticism, and many scholars had reservations that a single tooth was sufficient to justify the naming of a new type of early hominin. Yet within a little more than two years, in the winter of 1929, Pei Wenzhong, then the field director at Zhoukoudian, unearthed the first complete calvaria of Peking Man. Twenty-seven years after Schlosser’s initial description, the antiquity of early humans in East Asia was no longer a speculation, but a reality.

The Zhoukoudian site

Excavations continued at the site and remained fruitful until the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937. The decade-long research yielded a wealth of faunal and lithic materials, as well as hominin fossils. These included 5 more complete calvaria, 9 large cranial fragments, 6 facial fragments, 14 partial mandibles, 147 isolated teeth, and 11 postcranial elements—estimated to represent as least 40 individuals. Evidence of fire, marked by ash lenses and burned bones and stones, were apparently also present, although recent studies have challenged this view. Franz Weidenreich came to Beijing soon after Black’s untimely death in 1934, and took charge of the study of the hominin specimens.

Following the loss of the Peking Man materials in late 1941, scientific endeavors at Zhoukoudian slowed, primarily because of lack of funding. Frantic search for the missing fossils took place, and continued well into the 1950s. After the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, excavations resumed at Zhoukoudian. But with political instability and social unrest brewing in China, beginning in 1966, and major discoveries at Olduvai Gorge and East Turkana (Koobi Fora), the paleoanthropological spotlight shifted westward to East Africa. Although China re-opened its doors to the West in the late 1970s, national policy calling for self-reliance, coupled with a widened language barrier, thwarted all the possibilities of renewed scientific relationships. Indeed, Harvard anthropologist K. C. Chang noted, "international collaboration (in developing nations very often a disguise for Western domination) became a thing of the past" (1977: 139).

Africa

Skull of Australopithecus africanus

1920s – 1940s

The first paleoanthropological find made in Africa was the 1921 discovery of the Kabwe 1 skull at Kabwe (Broken Hill), Zambia. Initially, this specimen was named Homo rhodesiensis; however, today it is considered part of the species Homo heidelbergensis.

In 1924 in a limestone quarry at Taung, Professor Raymond Dart discovered a remarkably well-preserved juvenile specimen (face and brain endocast), which he named Australopithecus africanus (Australopithecus meaning "Southern Ape"). Although the brain was small (410 cm³), its shape was rounded, unlike the brain shape of chimpanzees and gorillas, and more like the shape seen in modern humans. In addition, the specimen exhibited short canine teeth, and the anterior placement of the foramen magnum was more like the placement seen in modern humans than the placement seen in chimpanzees and gorillas, suggesting that this species was bipedal.

All of these traits convinced Dart that the Taung child was a bipedal human ancestor, a transitional form between ape and human. However, Dart's conclusions were largely ignored for decades, as the prevailing view of the time was that a large brain evolved before bipedality. It took the discovery of additional australopith fossils in Africa that resembled his specimen, and the rejection of the Piltdown Man hoax, for Dart's claims to be taken seriously.

In the 1930s, paleontologist Robert Broom discovered and described a new species at Kromdraai, South Africa. Although similar in some ways to Dart's Australopithecus africanus, Broom's specimen had much larger cheek teeth. Because of this difference, Broom named his specimen Paranthropus robustus, using a new genus name. In doing so, he established the practice of grouping gracile australopiths in the genus Australopithecus and robust australopiths in the genus Paranthropus. During the 1960s, the robust variety was commonly moved into Australopithecus. A more recent consensus has been to return to the original classification of Paranthropus as a separate genus.

1950s – 1990s

The second half of the twentieth century saw a significant increase in the number of paleoanthropological finds made in Africa. Many of these finds were associated with the work of the Leakey family in eastern Africa. In 1959, Mary Leakey's discovery of the Zinj fossin (OH 5) at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, led to the identification of a new species, Paranthropus boisei. In 1960, the Leakeys discovered the fossil OH 7, also at Olduvai Gorge, and assigned it to a new species, Homo habilis. In 1972, Bernard Ngeneo, a fieldworker working for Richard Leakey, discovered the fossil KNM-ER 1470 near Lake Turkana in Kenya. KNM-ER 1470 has been interpreted as either a distinct species, Homo rudolfensis, or alternatively as evidence of sexual dimorphism in Homo habilis. In 1967, Richard Leakey reported the earliest definitive examples of anatomically modern Homo sapiens from the site of Omo Kibish in Ethiopia, known as the Omo remains. In the late 1970s, Mary Leakey excavated the famous Laetoli footprints in Tanzania, which demonstrated the antiquity of bipedality in the human lineage. In 1985, Richard Leakey and Alan Walker discovered a specimen they called the Black Skull, found near Lake Turkana. This specimen was assigned to another species, Paranthropus aethiopicus. In 1994, a team led by Meave Leakey announced a new species, Australopithecus anamensis, based on specimens found near Lake Turkana.

Numerous other researchers have made important discoveries in eastern Africa. Possibly the most famous is the Lucy skeleton, discovered in 1973 by Donald Johanson and Maurice Taieb in Ethiopia's Afar Triangle at the site of Hadar. On the basis of this skeleton and subsequent discoveries, the researchers came up with a new species, Australopithecus afarensis. In 1975, Colin Groves and Vratislav Mazák announced a new species of human they called Homo ergaster. Homo ergaster specimens have been found at numerous sites in eastern and southern Africa. In 1994, Tim D. White announced a new species, Ardipithecus ramidus, based on fossils from Ethiopia.

In 1999, two new species were announced. Berhane Asfaw and Tim D. White named Australopithecus garhi based on specimens discovered in Ethiopia's Awash valley. Meave Leakey announced a new species, Kenyanthropus platyops, based on the cranium KNM-WT 40000 from Lake Turkana.

21st century

In the 21st century, numerous fossils have been found that add to current knowledge of existing species. For example, in 2001, Zeresenay Alemseged discovered an Australopithecus afarensis child fossil, called Selam, from the site of Dikika in the Afar region of Ethiopia. This find is particularly important because the fossil included a preserved hyoid bone, something rarely found in other paleoanthropological fossils but important for understanding the evolution of speech capacities.

Two new species from southern Africa have been discovered and described in recent years. In 2008, a team led by Lee Berger announced a new species, Australopithecus sediba, based on fossils they had discovered in Malapa cave in South Africa. In 2015, a team also led by Lee Berger announced another species, Homo naledi, based on fossils representing 15 individuals from the Rising Star Cave system in South Africa.

New species have also been found in eastern Africa. In 2000, Brigitte Senut and Martin Pickford described the species Orrorin tugenensis, based on fossils they found in Kenya. In 2004, Yohannes Haile-Selassie announced that some specimens previously labeled as Ardipithecus ramidus made up a different species, Ardipithecus kadabba. In 2015, Haile-Selassie announced another new species, Australopithecus deyiremeda, though some scholars are skeptical that the associated fossils truly represent a unique species.

Although most hominin fossils from Africa have been found in eastern and southern Africa, there are a few exceptions. One is Sahelanthropus tchadensis, discovered in the central African country of Chad in 2002. This find is important because it widens the assumed geographic range of early hominins.

Renowned paleoanthropologists

Fossil hominid skull display at The Museum of Osteology in Oklahoma City, USA

• Robert Ardrey (1908–1980)
• Lee Berger (1965–)
• Davidson Black (1884–1934)
• Robert Broom (1866–1951)
• Michel Brunet (1940–)
• J. Desmond Clark (1916–2002)
• Carleton S. Coon (1904–1981)
• Raymond Dart (1893–1988)
• Eugene Dubois (1858–1940)
• Johann Carl Fuhlrott (1803–1877)
• Aleš Hrdlička (1869–1943)
• Glynn Isaac (1937–1985)
• Donald C. Johanson (1943–)
• Kamoya Kimeu (1940–)
• Gustav Heinrich Ralph von Koenigswald (1902–1982)
• Jeffrey Laitman (1951–)
• Louis Leakey (1903–1972)
• Meave Leakey (1942–)
• Mary Leakey (1913–1996)
• Richard Leakey (1944–)
• André Leroi-Gourhan (1911–1986)
• Kenneth Oakley (1911–1981)
• David Pilbeam (1940–)
• John T. Robinson (1923–2001)
• Jeffrey H. Schwartz (1948–)
• Chris Stringer (1947–)
• Ian Tattersall (1945–)
• Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955)
• Phillip V. Tobias (1925–2012)
• Erik Trinkaus (1948–)
• Alan Walker (1938–2017)
• Franz Weidenreich (1873–1948)
• Milford H. Wolpoff (1942–)
• Tim D. White (1950–)
• John D. Hawks
• Yohannes Haile-Selassie (1961–)
• Sonia Harmand (1974–)