Galaxy clusters magnify background objects through strong gravitational lensing. Typical magnifications for lensed galaxies are factors of a few but can also be as high as tens or hundreds, stretching galaxies into giant arcs1,2. Individual stars can attain even higher magnifications given fortuitous alignment with the lensing cluster. Recently, several individual stars at redshifts between approximately 1 and 1.5 have been discovered, magnified by factors of thousands, temporarily boosted by microlensing3,4,5,6. Here we report observations of a more distant and persistent magnified star at a redshift of 6.2 ± 0.1, 900 million years after the Big Bang. This star is magnified by a factor of thousands by the foreground galaxy cluster lens WHL0137–08 (redshift 0.566), as estimated by four independent lens models. Unlike previous lensed stars, the magnification and observed brightness (AB magnitude, 27.2) have remained roughly constant over 3.5 years of imaging and follow-up. The delensed absolute UV magnitude, −10 ± 2, is consistent with a star of mass greater than 50 times the mass of the Sun. Confirmation and spectral classification are forthcoming from approved observations with the James Webb Space Telescope.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Rivera-Thorsen, T. E. et al. The Sunburst Arc: direct Lyman α escape observed in the brightest known lensed galaxy. Astron. Astrophys. 608, L4 (2017).
Johnson, T. L. et al. Star formation at z = 2.481 in the lensed galaxy SDSS J1110+6459: star formation down to 30 pm scales. Astrophys. J. Lett. 843, L21 (2017).
Kelly, P. L. et al. Extreme magnification of an individual star at redshift 1.5 by a galaxy-cluster lens. Nat. Astron. 2, 334–342 (2018).
Rodney, S. A. et al. Two peculiar fast transients in a strongly lensed host galaxy. Nat. Astron. 2, 324–333 (2018).
Chen, W. et al. Searching for highly magnified stars at cosmological distances: discovery of a redshift 0.94 supergiant in archival images of the galaxy cluster MACS J0416.1-2403. Astrophys. J. 881, 8 (2019).
Kaurov, A. A., Dai, L., Venumadhav, T., Miralda-Escudé, J. & Frye, B. Highly magnified stars in lensing clusters: new evidence in a galaxy lensed by MACS J0416.1-2403. Astrophys. J. 881, 58 (2019).
Coe, D. et al. RELICS: Reionization Lensing Cluster Survey. Astrophys. J. 884, 85 (2019).
Salmon, B. et al. RELICS: The Reionization Lensing Cluster Survey and the brightest high-z galaxies. Astrophys. J. 889, 189 (2020).
Rivera-Thorsen, T. E. et al. Gravitational lensing reveals ionizing ultraviolet photons escaping from a distant galaxy. Science 366, 738–741 (2019).
Zitrin, A. et al. Hubble Space Telescope combined strong and weak lensing analysis of the CLASH sample: mass and magnification models and systematic uncertainties. Astrophys. J. 801, 44 (2015).
Zitrin, A. et al. New multiply-lensed galaxies identified in ACS/NIC3 observations of Cl0024+1654 using an improved mass model. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 395, 1319–1332 (2009).
Broadhurst, T. et al. Strong-lensing analysis of A1689 from Deep Advanced Camera images. Astrophys. J. 621, 53–88 (2005).
Jullo, E. & Kneib, J. P. Multiscale cluster lens mass mapping – I. Strong lensing modelling. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 395, 1319–1332 (2009).
Jullo, E. et al. A Bayesian approach to strong lensing modelling of galaxy clusters. New J. Phys. 9, 447 (2007).
Oguri, M. The mass distribution of SDSS J1004+4112 revisited. Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn 62, 1017–1024 (2010).
Diego, J. M., Tegmark, M., Protopapas, P. & Sandvik, H. B. Combined reconstruction of weak and strong lensing data with WSLAP. Mon. Mot. R. Astron. Soc. 375, 958–970 (2007).
Diego, J. M., Protopapas, P., Sandvik, H. B. & Tegmark, M. Non-parametric inversion of strong lensing systems. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 360, 477–491 (2005).
Diego, J. M. The Universe at extreme magnification. Astron. Astrophys. 625, A84 (2019).
Meneghetti, M. et al. The Frontier Fields lens modelling comparison project. Mon. Mot. R. Astron. Soc. 472, 3177–3216 (2017).
Venumadhav, T., Dai, L. & Miralda-Escudé, J. Microlensing of extremely magnified stars near caustics of galaxy clusters. Astrophys. J. 850, 49 (2017).
Diego, J. M. et al. Dark matter under the microscope: constraining compact dark matter with caustic crossing events. Astrophys. J. 857, 25 (2018).
Dai, L. Statistical microlensing towards magnified high-redshift star clusters. Mon. Mot. R. Astron. Soc. 501, 5538–5553 (2021).
Portegies Zwart, S. F., McMillan, S. L. W. & Gieles, M. Young massive star clusters. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48, 431–493 (2010).
Figer, D. F., McLean, I. S. & Morris, M. Massive stars in the quintuplet cluster. Astrophys. J. 514, 202–220 (1999).
Bouwens, R. J. et al. Very low-luminosity galaxies in the early universe have observed sizes similar to single star cluster complexes. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.02090 (2017).
Vanzella, E. et al. Massive star cluster formation under the microscope at z = 6. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 483, 3618–3635 (2019).
Behrendt, M., Schartmann, M. & Burkert, A. The possible hierarchical scales of observed clumps in high-redshift disc galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 488, 306–323 (2019).
Sana, H. et al. Binary interaction dominates the evolution of massive stars. Science 337, 444–446 (2012).
Sana, H. et al. Southern massive stars at high angular resolution: observational campaign and companion detection. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 215, 15 (2014).
Moe, M. & Di Stefano, R. Mind your Ps and Qs: the interrelation between period (P) and mass-ratio (Q) distributions of binary stars. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 230, 15 (2017).
Szécsi, D., Agrawal, P., Wünsch, R. & Langer, N. Bonn Optimized Stellar Tracks (BoOST). Simulated populations of massive and very massive stars for astrophysical applications. Astron. Astrophys. 628, A125 (2022).
Shimizu, I., Inoue, A. K., Okamoto, T. & Yoshida, N. Nebular line emission from z > 7 galaxies in a cosmological simulation: rest-frame UV to optical lines. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 461, 3563–3575 (2016).
Wen, Z. L., Han, J. L. & Liu, F. S. A catalog of 132,684 clusters of galaxies identified from Sloan Digital Sky Survey III. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 199, 34 (2012).
Wen, Z. L. & Han, J. L. Calibration of the optical mass proxy for clusters of galaxies and an update of the WHL12 cluster catalog. Astrophys. J. 807, 178 (2015).
Alam, S. et al. The eleventh and twelfth data releases of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: final data from SDSS-III. Astropys. J. Suppl. Ser. 219, 12 (2015).
Planck Collaboration. Planck 2015 results: XXVII. The second Planck catalogue of Sunyaev–Zeldovich sources. Astron. Astrophys. 594, A27 (2016).
Sunyaev, R. A. & Zeldovich, Y. B. Small-scale fluctuations of relic radiation. Astrophys. Space Sci. 7, 3–19 (1970).
Strait, V. et al. RELICS: properties of z ≥ 5.5 galaxies inferred from Spitzer and Hubble imaging, including a candidate z ~ 6.8 strong [O iii] emitter. Astrophys. J. 910, 135 (2021).
Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S. SExtractor: software for source extraction. Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser. 117, 393–404 (1996).
Beintez, N. Bayesian photometric redshift estimation. Astrophys. J. 536, 571–583 (2000).
Coe, D. et al. Galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. I. Detection, multiband photometry, photometric redshifts, and morphology. Astron. J. 132, 926–959 (2006).
Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S. & Davé, R. Inferring the star formation histories of massive quiescent galaxies with BAGPIPES: evidence for multiple quenching mechanisms. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 480, 4379–4401 (2018).
Eldridge, J. J. et al. Binary Population and Spectral Synthesis version 2.1: construction, observational verification, and new results. Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust. 34, e058 (2017).
Ferland, G. J. et al. The 2017 release of Cloudy. Rev. Mex. Astron. Astr. 53, 385–438 (2017).
Salpeter, E. E. The luminosity function and stellar evolution. Astrophys. J. 121, 161–167 (1955).
Calzetti, D. et al. The dust content and opacity of actively star-forming galaxies. Astrophys. J. 533, 682–695 (2000).
Ellis, R. S. et al. The homogeneity of spheroidal populations in distant clusters. Astrophys. J. 483, 582–596 (1997).
Stanford, S. A., Eisenhardt, P. R. & Dickinson, M. The evolution of early-type galaxies in distant clusters. Astrophys. J. 492, 461–479 (1998).
Hastings, W. K. Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika 57, 97–109 (1970).
Limousin, M., Kneib, J.-P. & Natarajan, P. Constraining the mass distribution of galaxies using galaxy–galaxy lensing in clusters and in the field. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 356, 309–322 (2005).
Eliasdóttir, Á. et al. Where is the matter in the Merging Cluster Abell 2218? Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/0710.5636 (2007).
Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S. & White, S. D. M. The structure of cold dark matter halos. Astrophys. J. 462, 563–575 (1996).
Johnson, T. L. et al. Star formation at z = 2.481 in the lensed galaxy SDSS J1110+6459. I. Lens modeling and source reconstruction. Astrophys. J. 843, 78 (2017).
Dai, L. & Pascale, M. New approximation of magnification statistics for random microlensing of magnified sources. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12009 (2021).
Jiménez-Teja, Y. et al. RELICS: ICL analysis of the z = 0.566 merging cluster WHL J013719.8–08284. Astrophys. J. 922, 268 (2021).
Kriek, M. et al. An ultra-deep near-infrared spectrum of a compact quiescent galaxy at z = 2.2. Astrophys. J. 700, 221–231 (2009).
Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. Stellar population synthesis at the resolution of 2003. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 344, 1000–1028 (2003).
Chabrier, G. Galactic stellar and substellar initial mass function. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 115, 763–795 (2003).
Spera, M., Mapelli, M. & Bressan, A. The mass spectrum of compact remnants from the PARSEC stellar evolution tracks. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 451, 4086–4103 (2015).
Oguri, M., Diego, J. M., Kaiser, N., Kelly, P. L. & Broadhurst, T. Understanding caustic crossings in giant arcs: characteristic scales, event rates, and constraints on compact dark matter. Phys. Rev. D 97, 023518 (2018).
Windhorst, R. A. et al. On the observability of individual population III stars and their stellar-mass black hole accretion disks through cluster caustic transits. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 234, 41 (2018).
Lejeune, T. H., Cuisinier, F. & Buser, R. Standard stellar library for evolutionary synthesis. I. Calibration of theoretical spectra. Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser. 125, 229–246 (1997).
Calzetti, D. et al. The brightest young star clusters in NGC 5253. Astrophys. J. 811, 75 (2015).
Sanyal, D., Grassitelli, L., Langer, N. & Bestenlehner, J. M. Massive main-sequence stars evolving at the Eddington limit. Astron. Astrophys. 580, A20 (2015).
El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Tian, H., Duchêne, G. & Moe, M. Discovery of an equal-mass ‘twin’ binary population reaching 1000+ au separations. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 489, 5822–5857 (2019).
Leitherer, C. et al. Starburst99: synthesis models for galaxies with active star formation. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 123, 3–40 (1999).
Kroupa, P. On the variation of the initial mass function. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 322, 231–246 (2001).
da Silva, R. L., Fumagalli, M. & Krumholz, M. SLUG—Stochastically Lighting Up Galaxies. I. Methods and validating tests. Astrophys. J. 745, 145 (2012).
Krumholz, M. R., Fumagalli, M., da Silva, R. L., Rendahl, T. & Parra, J. SLUG – stochastically lighting up galaxies – III. A suite of tools for simulated photometry, spectroscopy, and Bayesian inference with stochastic stellar populations. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 452, 1447–1467 (2015).
Madau, P. & Dickinson, M. Cosmic star-formation history. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 52, 415–486 (2014).
Kehrig, C. et al. The extended He ii λ4686 emission in the extremely metal-poor galaxy SBS 0335 - 052E seen with MUSE. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 480, 1081–1095 (2018).
Sarmento, R., Scannapieco, E. & Cohen, S. Following the cosmic evolution of pristine gas. II. The search for pop III–bright galaxies. Astrophys. J. 854, 75 (2018).
Sarmento, R., Scannapieco, E. & Côté, B. Following the cosmic evolution of pristine gas. III. The observational consequences of the unknown properties of population III stars. Astrophys. J. 871, 206 (2019).
Trenti, M., Stiavelli, M. & Shull, J. M. Metal-free gas supply at the edge of reionization: late-epoch population III star formation. Astrophys. J. 700, 1672–1679 (2009).
Vanzella, E. et al. Candidate population III stellar complex at z = 6.629 in the MUSE Deep Lensed Field. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 494, L81–L85 (2020).
Abbott, R. et al. GW190521: a binary black hole merger with a total mass of 150M⊙. Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 101102 (2020).
Farrell, E. et al. Is GW190521 the merger of black holes from the first stellar generations? Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett. 502, L40–L44 (2020).
Kinugawa, T., Nakamura, T. & Nakano, H. Formation of binary black holes similar to GW190521 with a total mass of ~150M⊙ from population III binary star evolution. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett. 501, L49–L53 (2020).
Zdziarski, A. A. & Gierliński, M. Radiative processes, spectral states and variability of black-hole binaries. Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 155, 99–119 (2004).
Holwerda, B. W. et al. Milky Way red dwarfs in the BoRG Survey; galactic scale-height and the distribution of dwarf stars in WFC3 imaging. Astrophys. J. 788, 77 (2014).
Burgasser, A. J. & Splat Development Team. The SpeX Prism Library Analysis Toolkit (SPLAT): a data curation model. In Proc. Intl Workshop on Stellar Spectral Libraries (IWSSL 2017) (eds Coelho, P. et al.) 7–12 (Astronomical Society of India, 2017).
Hainline, K. N., Shapley, A. E., Greene, J. E. & Steidel, C. C. The rest-frame ultraviolet spectra of UV-selected active galactic nuclei at z ~ 2–3. Astrophys. J. 733, 31 (2011).
The RELICS Hubble Treasury Program (GO 14096) and follow-up programme (GO 15842) consist of observations obtained by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope (HST). Data from these HST programmes were obtained from the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST), operated by the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI). Both HST and STScI are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. (AURA), under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. The HST Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) was developed under NASA contract NAS 5-32864. J.M.D. acknowledges the support of project PGC2018-101814-B-100 (MCIU/AEI/MINECO/FEDER, UE) and María de Maeztu, ref. MDM-2017-0765. A.Z. acknowledges support from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Israel. R.W. acknowledges support from NASA JWST Interdisciplinary Scientist grants NAG5-12460, NNX14AN10G and 80NSSC18K0200 from GSFC. E.Z. and A.V. acknowledge funding from the Swedish National Space Board. M.O. acknowledges support from World Premier International Research Center Initiative, MEXT, Japan, and JSPS KAKENHI grant numbers JP20H00181, JP20H05856, JP18K03693. G.M. received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. MARACAS – DLV-896778. P.K. acknowledges support from NSF AST-1908823. Y.J.-T. acknowledges financial support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 898633, and from the State Agency for Research of the Spanish MCIU through the ‘Center of Excellence Severo Ochoa’ award to the Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (SEV-2017-0709). The Cosmic DAWN Center is funded by the Danish National Research Foundation under grant no. 140.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information
Nature thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data figures and tables
a, HST photometry with 1σ error bars, SED fit, and redshift probability distribution for the Sunrise Arc using the photometric fitting code BAGPIPES. The arc shows a clear Lyman break feature, and has a photometric redshift z = 6.24 ± 0.10 (68% CL). b, HST photometry for the full arc (black), clumps 1.1a/b (green/blue), and Earendel (red), with associated 1σ error bars. BPZ yields a photometric redshift of zphot = 6.20 ± 0.05 (inset; 68% CL), similar to the BAGPIPES result. Clumps 1.1a/b have similar photometry, strengthening the conclusion that they are multiple images. Note both BPZ and BAGPIPES find significant likelihood only between 5.95 < z < 6.55 for the Sunrise Arc.
Earendel has remained consistently bright across 3.5 years of HST imaging. The figure shows WFC3/IR images of the lensed star (circled in green) across four epochs. a, b, Epoch 1 (a) and epoch 2 (b), taken as part of RELICS; they are a sum of the infrared imaging in four filters F105W + F125W + F140W + F160W from each epoch (one orbit each). c, d, Follow-up F110W imaging taken in epoch 3 (c) and epoch 4 (d). One orbit is shown in each, in a more efficient filter than those used for the previous epochs. e, Plot of the original RELICS photometry (blue) compared to the follow-up photometry (orange), each with 1σ error bars. The blue band is the weighted average of the original RELICS infrared fluxes (35 ± 9 nJy, 68% CL), and the orange band is the new F110W flux (49 ± 4 nJy, 68% CL).
a, HST composite image of WHL0137–08, a massive galaxy cluster at z = 0.566 that lenses the Sunrise Arc. Multiple images of the two lensed galaxies used in the lens modelling are marked in cyan and labelled in zoomed outsets. Cluster member galaxies circled in magenta are those freely optimized in both the LTM and Lenstool lens models. Critical curves are shown for the best-fit LTM model. The dashed orange curve is at z = 3.1, the same photometric redshift as multiple image system 2 (shown in b), and the solid red curve is at z = 6.2, the photometric redshift of the Sunrise Arc (system 1, shown in c). The lensed star Earendel lies directly between 1.1a and 1.1b. Note that 1.1c appears fainter than its counter-images 1.1a/b, owing to its lower magnification and that all of these images are unresolved. The galaxies labelled A–E are described in Methods section ‘Lens modelling’. BCG, brightest cluster galaxy.
Earendel’s image is spatially unresolved. We manipulate this image, separating it in two or stretching it in place to put upper limits on its magnified radius R < 0.055″ and distance 2ξ < 0.11″ between two unresolved images. These constraints allow us to calculate constraints on the intrinsic radius r, distance D to the critical curve, and magnification μ for each lens model. Here we show a zoomed region of the arc around Earendel in a 10× super-sampled reconstruction of our HST WFC3/IR F110W image based on eight drizzled exposures. The distances and radius labelled in the diagram are exaggerated for visibility.
Stellar surface mass density calculations are performed in the vicinity of the lensed star, within the green boxes shown. The arc and star are masked to avoid contamination, but nearby cluster galaxies are included. This figure shows the HST F110W band image, which is used to define the extent of the lensed arc.
Microlensing is only expected to vary the total magnification by a factor of 2–3 over time, consistent with the observed steady flux over 3.5 years. a, The simulated microcaustic network arising from stars and stellar remnants within the lensing cluster. The cluster caustic is the extreme magnification horizontal region near the middle of the image, with individual cusps from microlenses still visible beyond the cluster caustic. We estimate Earendel will move relative to the microlens network at ~1,000 km s−1 in some unknown direction. b, Predicted magnification fluctuations over time arising from this motion in the 1M⊙ pc−2 case (blue) and the 10M⊙ pc−2 case (purple), assuming that the relative motion is at an angle of 45°. Grey bands highlight a factor of 2 (dark) and a factor of 4 (light) change in magnification. c, The likelihood of magnification variations between two observations separated by different times, again for both the 1M⊙ and 10M⊙ pc−2 cases. Note the ‘more is less’ microlensing effect that reduces variability in the observed images when the density of microlenses increases.
a–d, A star’s metallicity will affect its evolution, so to probe this effect we show here our luminosity constraints compared to stellar tracks from BoOST at metallicities of 1Z⊙ (a), 0.1Z⊙ (b), 0.02Z⊙ (c) and 0.004Z⊙ (d). The 0.1Z⊙ case is also shown in Fig. 3, and these plots are similar, including the green region allowed by our analysis. Although the tracks do exhibit some notable differences, the resulting mass estimates do not change significantly given the current large uncertainties.
Here we show the total magnification required to lens stars to Earendel’s apparent magnitude as a function of time on stellar evolution tracks (BoOST 0.1Z⊙, as plotted in the H–R diagram Fig. 3). This required magnification changes over the lifetime of each star as it varies in luminosity or temperature, changing the flux observed in the F110W filter. We find that stars at ~100M⊙ and above spend the most time (~2 Myr) in the green region that reproduces Earendel’s observed flux, given our magnification estimates. But considering that lower-mass stars are more numerous, we conclude that masses of roughly (50–100)M⊙ are most likely if Earendel is a single star.
About this article
Cite this article
Welch, B., Coe, D., Diego, J.M. et al. A highly magnified star at redshift 6.2. Nature 603, 815–818 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04449-y
This article is cited by
Nature Astronomy (2022)