Supernova Discovered

hey! writes: "A supernova was found last Wednesday in the M74 galaxy (announcment can be found here :http://www.aavso.org/newsflash/nf904.shtml. It is not visible to the naked eye, but was discovered with at 10 inch telescope and is getting brighter -- it may be visible in amateur instruments as small as 4", according to Lew Gramer of the IAAC list. More information is available at seds.org including a very nice before and after picture."

Comments

When did it happen?

[omega9]

It will be interesting to find out exactly when it took place.

IIRC, it takes about 7 minutes for the light from the sun to reach the Earth. This supernova is no doubt a long ways away (or else we would be fearing for our lives?), so it stands to reason it actually took place days, weeks, or even months ago.

It's like looking into the past.

Re:When did it happen?

[Chris Brewer]

Try thousands, if not millions of years ago.

Our nearest celestial neighbour is Alpha Centauri which is 4.5 light years away. This means if it went supernova, we wouldn't know about it for 4.5 years.

Re:When did it happen?

[vtaluskie]

FYI this link lists the distance as 30-40 million light years.... so my vote would be for the it happened millions of years ago :)

Additional linkage from APOD

Re:When did it happen?

[cybrpnk]

M74 is 30 million light years away so this supernova went off 30 million years ago. This is about 15 times farther away than the Andromeda galaxy, which is the closest "true" galaxy to the Milky Way.

No criticism intended, but if you are wondering if something visible in a distant galaxy occurred days, weeks or months ago, you need to get a fast update on just how BIG the universe is. I recommend a quick trip to the Powers of Ten website....

Re:When did it happen?

[SIGFPE]

It's like looking into the past

It's not just like it, it is looking into the past.

Re:When did it happen?

[pubudu]

In response to a question about how long ago this event occurred, vtaluskie responded:

FYI this link lists the distance as 30-40 million light years.... so my vote would be for the it happened millions of years ago

Not to nitpick, but this has bothered me and left me in a state of confusion: doesn't a statement like this suggest some absolute standard of time? Wouldn't this (giving an age of an event) suggest the possibility of knowing that two events were indeed simultaneous? It was my understanding that no two events can be verified to be simultaneous, for the time at which an event occurs is based on the observer's frame of reference.

Re:When did it happen?

[(void*)]

You can verify that two events are simultaneous. But this fact is tied to where and the state of motion of how you set up your coordinate system. So this supernova did go off millions of years ago. But if you were travelling really fast towards it, you will see it brighten and dim, as all supernova do, in much shorter times.

Spotted the Oasis

[Anonymous Coward]

After performing the supernova, the star abruptly decided that its interests lay elsewhere. Fans were stunned.

Re:Spotted the Oasis

[Cy Guy]

After performing the supernova,

So are you implying that the supernova is like the Bossa Nova? The Dance of Love?

Re:Spotted the Oasis

[Verteiron]

More like The Dance of Horrendous Space Kablooie...

nonplussed

[imrdkl]

I would at least like to have to avert my eyes.

SO the shockwave should be getting here

[Unknown Poltroon]

right about nowwwwaaaaarrrrggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!

wouldn't it be neat...

[thebigbadme]

if we could use this newly found phenomina to help educate thoes coming up in the world (as well as thoes already here) more about the science of the stars. Getting people interested in things like this doesn't happen to easy now-a-days, tell your friends and neighbors, get them to see it them-selves if you can.

being pragmatic...

[dostick]

..but how this will affect our life ?

really ? except thiose "interesting facts" about light travelling yada yada..

Re:being pragmatic...

[Anonymous Coward]

My only concern is the associated gamma ray burst. Some day some star that is "close enough" to ours will have gone nova "long enough ago" that we are likely to be fried when finally we start seeing it...

Re:being pragmatic...

[eclectro]

If a hypernova were close enough to earth the gamma-ray burst could blow away our atmosphere. You can read more about it here.

Re:being pragmatic...

[CheshireCatCO]

You owe your life to supernovae, since that's the only way (known) to enrich the interstellar medium with heavy elements, like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc. It's hard to imagine anything affecting your life more than that which made you possible.

Re:being pragmatic...

[hey!]

Well, if it continues to get brighter, you might be able to get out and see it with a pair of binoculars, or maybe even your bare eyes. Would it make a difference in your life?

It depends on you.

Some years ago, I got out on a cold winter morning with my girlfriend (no my wife) to see Haley's comet. It wasn't nearly as spectactular as Hyatuke, which in turn was no great shakes unless you were accustomed to looking into the skies. Did it change my life?

Well, sort of.

It didn't get me a better job, so I could buy a larger TV and Tivo. But I did get to see something my ancestors had seen, century after century, and knowing as they did not know that it connects me with them. I did see the dirty ball of ice that caused apocalyptic hysteria every 75 years in the dark ages, that raised and lowered the curtain on Mark Twain's life. To understand this thing obeys the universal laws of gravitation, Kepler's law, that in a few decades it will return to the mysterious and unexplored outer regions of the solar system, reach its apogee, and slowly turn and begin to pick up speed to come rocketing through the inner solar system. To wonder if I will be there to see its return with my children, grandchildren and great grand children (there's a small, small chance I will be alive if I live to be 99 and keep my eyesight).

People spend a huge amount of their lives to pay for the acquisition of goods that they think make a difference in their lives. Perhaps your passion is fast cars, high fidelity audio equipment, cameras or video equipment. Nobody questions these passions. My passion to see things for myself. To see the gossamer web of the M44 beehive; the struggle of an adult insect emerging from its chrsalis; the great equatorial belts of Saturn under the shadow of the rings; the chocolate brown dusty layer containing the Iridium anamoly of the K-T boundary in the Montana badlands; the shimmering of bioluminescent plankton in the summer seas; flocks of birds swooping and surfing each others wake on invisble air currents.

Does it make a difference in my life? Yes.

Would it make a difference in your life?

It depends on you.

Re:being pragmatic...

[(void*)]

Someone once attempted to calculate the probability of a supernova happening close enough to the Earth, that it will cause significant damage to life.

The galaxy went dim?

[SixArmedJesus]

Is it just me, or in the before and after photos, did the galaxy that it's next to get a heck of a lot dimmer? What would have caused something like this? Do galaxies pulsate or something? Or would it have been due to our own atmospheric interference?

SAJ

Re:The galaxy went dim?

[cronio]

I would imagine it's just because it was taken with a different telescope, and/or with different settings. The galaxy next to it is smaller and in a different place, too.

Re:The galaxy went dim?

[eclectro]

The size of the telescope, the lenses used in the objective, atmospheric conditions, the different filters used, the CCD cameras used, the length of the exposure time, all play a huge factor in how the picture looks.

Because there are so many different variables involved, it's common to see variations like this. The galaxies do not "go dim".

More on M74 here.

Re:The galaxy went dim?

[CheshireCatCO]

I'd propose a somewhat more straightforeward explaination: the SN is bright. It probably represents more light per pixel than anywhere else in the host galaxy. So the after-image was scaled differently in brightness to allow the SN to show up, making the galaxy appear dimmer. Even if they'd used all the same equipment, this effect would kick in.

Re:The galaxy went dim?

[SIGFPE]

You're in for a surprise. Many of the pictures in the world around you are processed significantly - whether it's for advertising purposes or in a scientific journal. You can tell very little about how bright something is by looking at a photograph. In order to bring an astronomical picture to the public it goes through many operations. Typical processes include:

1. False colour. A photograph may in fact be in the infrared or ultraviolet spectrum in which case these wavelengths are replaced by visible light so that we can see them.
   
2. Compositing. Often astronomical pictures are formed by compositing together different images - for example images taken with different coloured filters or even completely different sensors.
   
3. Filtering. For example the raw output from a CCD might be sharpened using a suitable digital filter (which can introduce other artifacts such as 'ringing').
   
4. Normalisation. The overall brightness of the image may be adjusted so that important features are neither too bright or too dark.
   
5. Cleanup. An image might be cleaned up to remove effects like lens flare or even dirt on the sensor.
   
6. Artistic modifications. If an image is on display to the general public it might be modified in a package like photoshop to give the best looking press release.
   

In M74?

[cperciva]

All the reports are saying that this supernova is "in M74"; but looking at the pictures, it looks to me like it's well outside. Is there some way of knowing how far away it is, in order to know if it is really part of M74?

Re:In M74?

[Doctor Fishboy]

These supernova follow a reasonably well-known light curve, and so by measuring its apparent brightness and knowing what its actual brightness is, you can get a rough cut at the distance.

If it was in our galaxy, it would be MUCH brighter.

Might be hypernova

[eclectro]

This promises to be one of the brightest supernova in a long time. I hope they point the hubble torwards it.

There is an excellent site that will track the progress of this supernova here

Space.com has an article about hypernova here. More detail about hypernova mechanics are here and here

If they can catch a Gamma-Ray Burst with this object, then this will be a pretty big deal.

Re:Might be hypernova

[DustMagnet]

By following the above link to rochesterastronomy.org, I was surprise to learn that this slashdot story isn't even news.
Acording to this site:

For the year 2002, 43 supernovae have been reported (282 last year).

So one more isn't much to write home about (or slashdot).

Re:Might be hypernova

[frunk]

Actually there are two elements that make this interesting. One is the fact that they caught it so early, when the supernova was still brightening. This is relatively rare. Second, this is the nearest supernova that they've found before the gamma ray burst has occurred.

Of course, as has been pointed out, it's also significantly brighter then most supernovas.

Don't!

[Black Parrot]

> I hope they point the hubble torwards it.

Don't do it! This it the latest goatse trick - probably a black hole or something.

Um, Supernovas are much more unpleasant than that

[ColGraff]

If alpha centauri, or any star within dozens of lightyears (right over the fence in astronomical terms) went supernova, we would find ourselves suffering from a condition doctors refer to in technical jargon as being "dead. very, very dead." The earth certainly wouldn't be vaporized, but the huge amounts of radiation put out by a supernova are not exactly healthy.

Fortuneatly, stars tend to get all funky and red-giant-y before doing the thermonuclear BreakDance to end all Breakdances, so we'd probably have enough warning to build shelters. Or just cower and have an epidemic of mass insanity - either way is cool, I guess. If we don't know about it until the boom, though - well, have you ever seen "On The Beach"? The original, not the remake.