Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-m259h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-12T08:59:03.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Faint Young Sun and Faint Young Stars Paradox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2017

Petrus C. Martens
Petrus C. Martens*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics & Astronomy, Georgia State University, 25 Park Place, 6 th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA email: martens@astro.gsu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The purpose of this paper is to explore a resolution for the Faint Young Sun Paradox that has been mostly rejected by the community, namely the possibility of a somewhat more massive young Sun with a large mass loss rate sustained for two to three billion years. This would make the young Sun bright enough to keep both the terrestrial and Martian oceans from freezing, and thus resolve the paradox. It is found that a large and sustained mass loss is consistent with the well observed spin-down rate of Sun-like stars, and indeed may be required for it. It is concluded that a more massive young Sun must be considered a plausible hypothesis.

Keywords

Stars: late-typestars: rotationstars: mass lossstars: evolutionsolar wind

Information

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 12 , Symposium S328: Living Around Active Stars , October 2016 , pp. 350 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2017 

References

Kasting, J. F., 1989, Global and Planetary Change, 1, 83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasting, J. F., 1991, Icarus, 94, 1 Google Scholar
Kasting, J. F. 2004, AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts Google Scholar
Kasting, J. F., Toon, O. B., & Pollack, J. B., 1988, Scientific American, 258, 46 Google Scholar
Keppens, R. & Goedbloed, J. P., 2000, ApJ, 530, 1036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minton, D. A. & Malhotra, R., 2007, ApJ, 660, 1700 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nandy, D. & Martens, P. C. H., 2007, Advances in Space Research, 40, 891 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
do Nascimento, J.-D. Jr, Vidotto, A. A., Petit, P., et al., 2016, ApJ Letters, 820, L15 Google Scholar
Pneuman, G. W. & Kopp, R. A., 1971, Sol. Phys., 18, 258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, E. R. & Pneuman, G. W., 1974, Sol. Phys., 34, 231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagan, C. & Mullen, G., 1972, Science, 177, 52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrijver, C. J. & Zwaan, C. 2000, Solar and stellar magnetic activity / Carolus J. Schrijver, Cornelius Zwaan. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. (Cambridge astrophysics series; 34)Google Scholar
Velli, M., Tenerani, A., & DeForest, C. 2016, AAS/Solar Physics Division Meeting, 47, 402.05Google Scholar
Weber, E. J. & Davis, L. Jr, 1967, ApJ, 148, 217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar