posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 05:00 PM
It's peculiar how the abundance of calcium in the spectra of the two ZR stars differs so much. Calcium is considered one of the prime indicators of
stellar age. Zeta 2 Reticuli is markedly deficient in calcium, and so appears older than the Sun. Zeta 1 is enhanced in the same element, and so, is
thought to be much younger.
This is not at all likely to be the case, as the authors of the last cited paper agree. the two stars are thought to be of nearly the same age, on
other, very sound scientific evidence. Some unexplained difference in the chromospheric evolution of the two stars is assumed to exist.
I see no reason to exclude the possibility that this difference is due to stellar rejuvenation engineering. If outer layers of hydrogen were mixed
back into the cores of the stars, some calcium may have gone along for the ride, depleting that element in the chromosphere.
Perhaps the technique was refined between the time of its application to the first star and then the second. It would presumably be inefficient to
transport calcium along with hydrogen, when it is not needed. If relatively pure hydrogen-rich stellar material was sent into the core of the star,
the ratio of calcium in the outer layers would, inevitably, go up.
The order in which the stars would have been rejuvenated in this scenario even makes sense. First Zeta 2, which is a bit more massive, and so would
evolve into a hotter star sooner than the other, and then Zeta 1, in slightly less urgent need of attention.
edit on 26-3-2014 by Ross
54 because: added missing word