Slashdot Mirror


Hypernova Erupts as Global Telescopes Scramble

An anonymous reader writes "The remarkable Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment [ROTSE] telescopes have tracked a 2 billion year old hypernova, from which an intense gamma ray burst reached earth on March 29. From Carl Akerlof, the ROTSE investigator: "The optical brightness of this gamma ray burst is about 100 times more intense than anything we've ever seen before." To underscore how the sun never rises on this automated telescope network, the observations switched rapidly from New South Wales in Australia back to Fort Davis, Texas, over a 12 hour burnout of the collapsing black hole."

201 comments

  1. a hypernova! by atlasheavy · · Score: 1, Funny

    Which kind of raises the question, why not a meganova, or a giganova?

    jeez, silly names...

    --

    iRooster, the Mac OS X a
    1. Re:a hypernova! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which kind of raises the question, why not a meganova, or a giganova?

      jeez, silly names...


      Niganova?

    2. Re:a hypernova! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Can you think of a better way to say "REALLY REALLY BIG SUPERNOVA" in one word and without the caps? IMO, this makes sense: we have a switch from Latin to Greek in the prefix, which means whatever follows is more awesome. It's definitely more proper than your silly projected transition to "mega" and "giga", which are generally accepted numerical prefixes and therefore unrelated and not usable here.

    3. Re:a hypernova! by LucidityZero · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which kind of raises the question, why not a meganova, or a giganova?

      Hyper- \Hy"per-\ [Gr. "ype`r over, above; akin to L. super, E. over. See Over, and cf. Super-.] 1. A prefix signifying over, above; as, hyperphysical, hyperthyrion; also, above measure, abnormally great, excessive;

      Meg- \Meg-\, Mega \Meg"a\, Megalo- \Meg"a*lo-\ [Gr. me`gas, gen. mega`loy, great.] Combining forms signifying: (Metric System, Elec., Mech., etc.) A million times, a million of; as, megameter, a million meters; megafarad, a million farads; megohm, a million ohms. br>
      Giga would fit the same defintion as Mega, just.... more of it. :)
      --
      Sig.i>
    4. Re:a hypernova! by zokum · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just wondering, is a giganova 1024 or 1000 times stronger than a meganova :-)

      --
      Rest in peace Malin "looxn" Kristiansen. We miss you...
    5. Re:a hypernova! by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, if they had started with kilonova after the normal nova, meganova would be ok. But they choose supernova. And hyper>super.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    6. Re:a hypernova! by pyrote · · Score: 1

      my fav is still the 'chevy nova'

      --
      THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
    7. Re:a hypernova! by edp · · Score: 1, Funny
      "Just wondering, is a giganova 1024 or 1000 times stronger than a meganova :-)"

      1000. A gibinova would be 1024 times stronger. See http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html.

    8. Re:a hypernova! by c4miles · · Score: 1

      1000 times. Otherwise it would be a gibinova.

    9. Re:a hypernova! by GammaRay+Rob · · Score: 1

      What about a bossanova or chevynova?

      -GammaRay Rob (who chases hypernovae for a living. Really!)

      --
      This line no sig
    10. Re:a hypernova! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be precise, it's 1000 minus the protocol overhead.

    11. Re:a hypernova! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah the moderator has it right!

      negro. n.
      flamebait.

    12. Re:a hypernova! by doi · · Score: 1

      I still like how Calvin (of Calvin & Hobbes) came up with a better name for the Big Bang: The Horrendous Space Kablooey! Astronomers need to come up with more names like that.

      --
      A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's an erection for?
    13. Re:a hypernova! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, geeks, how i love thee!

    14. Re:a hypernova! by Auriam · · Score: 1

      Sooo.. is 'ultra' more than 'hyper'? ;) I've always wondered about that one. After all, if we go with the Nintendo Proposition, where 'Ultra' comes after 'Super' (the 64 was called the Ultra 64 for a while, that's why its product code was NUS-64).. and 'Hyper' hasn't been used yet, we come up with the opposite conclusion.. then again, unless they discover an 'ultranova', I suppose we're stuck with 'ultra' and 'hyper' being equal.

    15. Re:a hypernova! by kamend · · Score: 1

      actually even sillier...
      Why not 2 billion and 6 years old "hypernova"

  2. Re:FP by willpall · · Score: 1, Interesting

    yeah, anyway... "During the first minute after the explosion it emitted energy at a rate more than a million times the combined output of all the stars in the Milky Way" This is completely unimaginable. I just wonder: has anything on this scale has been observed before?

    --
    Libertarian: label used by embarrassed Republicans, longing to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
  3. GAMMA BURST! Hitting us right now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hide in your basesment and get out your tinfoil hat! ...I'm glad to see many of you are already prepared.

    1. Re:GAMMA BURST! Hitting us right now! by kiggs · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now this is what I call SHOCK and AWE! not that tiny stuff using puny little bombs. This is the mother of all explosions!

    2. Re:GAMMA BURST! Hitting us right now! by k-0s · · Score: 1

      It's too late everyone is sterile now. Well except those who wear lead underwear, like me.

    3. Re:GAMMA BURST! Hitting us right now! by wheany · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Unfortunately you, like any other person reading Slashdot, won't do anything with your non-sterility.

      Human race is doomed.

    4. Re:GAMMA BURST! Hitting us right now! by k-0s · · Score: 1

      A nerd can dream can't he?

  4. Too bad.... by tankdilla · · Score: 5, Funny

    And it was just about to retire the next day. 2 billion years of loyal service as a hypernova, and it erupts just like that.
    Quoted a co-worker, "It's what we call in the nova business retirony."

    --

    -Look lively. LOOK LIVELY!!! --Mr. Shmallow

    1. Re:Too bad.... by Nix0n · · Score: 1

      And if a movie were made starring the hypernova, our plucky protagonist would invariably say to his younger, more nimbile supernova partner:

      "I'm getting too old for this shit."

  5. Ack! by divide+overflow · · Score: 0

    The remarkable Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment [ROTSE] telescopes have tracked a 2 billion year old hypernova, from which an intense gamma ray burst reached earth on March 29.

    Wonderful...an intense gamma ray burst. I wonder how much this increases my chances of getting cancer...?

    1. Re:Ack! by Avaxx · · Score: 1

      Probably a lot. However, it won't affect you for another 2 billion years so...

      --

      -----
      It is not the horror of war that troubles me, but the unseen horrors of peace.
    2. Re:Ack! by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      They said it reached Earth on March 29. Which means the gamma rays are/were already here.

      --
      Why not fork?
    3. Re:Ack! by lemox · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wonderful...an intense gamma ray burst. I wonder how much this increases my chances of getting cancer...?

      Only if you do a lot of sunbathing outside the Earth'r atmosphere.

      --

      "We obviously need a new moderation category: (-1, Woo-fucking-hoo)" --Mr. AC

    4. Re:Ack! by White_Lightning · · Score: 1
      Not much, unless you decided to drink a couple of hundred beers from green bottles* upon reading this article.

      *the green color in glass comes from chromium.

    5. Re:Ack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonderful...an intense gamma ray burst. I wonder how much this increases my chances of getting cancer...?

      Well, if you would avoid the Galactic Optical Airborne Transient Search Experiment [GOATSE] photographs tracking Uranus, your chances of cancer go way down.

    6. Re:Ack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rotse.cx???????

  6. Good point by Mattygfunk1 · · Score: 4, Funny
    In astronomy circles - black holes are considered interplanetary BSODs.

    _________
    cheap web site hosting - now with extra donuts.

    1. Re:Good point by Auriam · · Score: 1

      Heh ;). "Error: your universe is either busy or has become unstable. Press Enter to continue, or press Ctrl-Alt-Delete again to restart."

      Still, there's a difference: at least with a black hole, you can wait a few universe-lifetimes until Hawking radiation evaporates your way out.. with Windows, you're screwed for All Eternity.

  7. As the late great Carl Sagan would have said... by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1

    "Billlllyuns and billlllyuns of years ago..."

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
    1. Re:As the late great Carl Sagan would have said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately he never said that.

    2. Re:As the late great Carl Sagan would have said... by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1

      So he claimed. But I saw Cosmos when it first came out. Everyone who watched it, including me, was certain they heard him say it at least once.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    3. Re:As the late great Carl Sagan would have said... by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      He did say "billions" billions of times, but never said "billions and billions" (except later as a joke.) It was Johnny Carson who said that.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
  8. Old News. by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 4, Funny

    This happened 2 Billion years ago.

    Slow news day?

    1. Re:Old News. by isorox · · Score: 1

      It's a dupe, what more do you expect

    2. Re:Old News. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, slashdot isn't known for posting breaking news, you know.

    3. Re:Old News. by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 1

      Not only did it happen 2 billion years ago, SciFi Today wrote a story on it yesterday with lots of great links here! Check it out!

    4. Re:Old News. by ralphclark · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This might be old news but its certainly *big* news. It's just that the post is a little slow around here (i.e. 3x10^8 m/s).

      Being big news, it certainly raises some interesting questions:

      1). Given the enormous power output of this burst ("more than a million times the combined output of all the stars in the Milky Way" for at least a minute, then falling off) what effect would this have had on any organic life in that galaxy? More specifically, could anything bigger than a bacterium have survived?

      2). Are there any hypernova candidates in our own galaxy or the local Magellanic clouds?

      3). If there are, how much warning will we get before they go off?

      4). Assuming only technologies which don't contravene our current understanding of physics, how long would take us to retreat to a safe distance (the intergalactic void presumably)?

      One can only suspect that this might be one of those theoretical (until now) pan-galactic sterilizing "reset" events. Which might settle the debate over the Fermi paradox once and for all.

    5. Re:Old News. by HotButteredHampster · · Score: 1

      A very interesting post. Do you have any links to the theory behind these "reset events"? My personal opinion (not backed up by calculations) is that even this burst would do no more than local damage in a galaxy, and it may be a "relic" phenomenon: an event which was possible in the earlier ages of the universe but unlikely in today's modern galactic society...

      --
      "Smart is sexy." -- D. Scully ("War of the Coprophages")
    6. Re:Old News. by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since the proposed mechanism is a nova (supernove?) that occurs next to a black hole, I don't see any intrinsic reason that they shouldn't still be possible. Or why all such events should be of similar brightness. Or any easy way to put a limit on just how bright it could get.

      OTOH, perhaps the radiation wouldn't be emitted symmetrically. In that case it seem likely that there could be parts of the galaxy that would survive. But just suppose that a large black hole was quite nearby when S-Doradus choose to go supernove. You might be able to calculate a limit on how bright that could be, but I certainly couldn't.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:Old News. by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      They did say that gamma rays are stopped at the upper atmosphere. Moreover, assuming it was a problem, only the side of the planet facing the supernova would have a problem.

      Besides, we all know intense gamma ray bursts turn you into, well, I'm sure someone's mentioned it by now. A TERRIBLE LOOKING CGI ENTITY!

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    8. Re:Old News. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      5) When is Bush planning to invade this "far-away galaxy" to see if they're hiding other stars capable of this mass destruction?

      6) Are the aliens responsible for this? Good tactical plan: get all of Earth's telescopes to point in one direction, then come at us from the opposite.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    9. Re:Old News. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      They did say that gamma rays are stopped at the upper atmosphere. Moreover, assuming it was a problem, only the side of the planet facing the supernova would have a problem.
      This is somewhat like saying that since Kevlar will stop bullets, you don't need to worry about a direct hit from the main gun on a battleship when wearing a flak jacket.

      And are you suggesting we don't need to worry about sterilizing half the planet?
    10. Re:Old News. by ralphclark · · Score: 1
      Here's something about the subject which puts it into context nicely.

      For a science-fictionalized context, you may enjoy the second book Space in Stephen Baxter's excellent Manifold trilogy.

    11. Re:Old News. by Deflatamouse! · · Score: 1

      The answer is 42, my friend =)

    12. Re:Old News. by Wildfire+Darkstar · · Score: 1

      The problem with identifying hypernovae "candidates" is that we're still not entirely certain what causes a hypernova. They could just be really, really large supernovae, or they could be two stars in a binary system merging, or something else entirely.

      Whether or not anything can survive, that really depends on how close that thing is. A hypernova probably wouldn't completely eliminate all life within its galaxy, but it would have smaller, though not insignificant, effects over a much greater radius.

      For what's its worth, some have put forward the star Eta Carinae as a possible candidate for a hypernova explosion. It one of the most massive, and unpredictable, stars in our galaxy. It's said (by people who have a far greater understanding of this sort of thing than me) that this would have a pretty severe effect on anything in our stellar vicinity outside of our atmosphere, but I don't think its being said that it would eliminate life within.

      --
      Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
    13. Re:Old News. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or Larry Nivens Nova Weather

  9. Can you get my back? by mcmonkey · · Score: 3, Funny
    "During the first minute after the explosion it emitted energy at a rate more than a million times the combined output of all the stars in the Milky Way. If you concentrated all the energy that the sun will put out over its entire 9 billion-year life into a tenth of a second, then you would have some idea of the brightness," said Michael Ashley, faculty member in the astrophysics and optics department at the University of New South Wales and a member of the ROTSE team.
    George Hamilton rated it an SPF 31 event.
    1. Re:Can you get my back? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      George Hamilton rated it an SPF 31 event.

      Actually 9 billion years divided by 0.1 seconds works out to an SPF of 79,000,000,000,000.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:Can you get my back? by Cruciform · · Score: 0

      How is parent off-topic? Hypernovas lead to gamma rays, which leads to George Hamilton, who is obviously not known in all generations of Slashdot readers for his glowing butterball complexion.

      +5 Informative I say! And damn the sunscreen!

    3. Re:Can you get my back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So presumably, some sort of eyewear would be in order?

    4. Re:Can you get my back? by AndroidCat · · Score: 0
      If the Sun went supernova (impossible, but work with me) the neutrinos would kill all life to the outer solar system. (Never mind being fried and blown apart, the neutrinos have already killed you.)

      As for a Hypernova .. well, I guess "BANG!" doesn't quite cover it.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  10. I'll Get The Ball Rolling by DarkZero · · Score: 5, Funny

    From Carl Akerlof, the ROTSE investigator: "The optical brightness of this gamma ray burst is about 100 times more intense than anything we've ever seen before."

    And five minutes later, after someone accidentally spilled coffee on Dr. Akerlof, angering him, he was quoted as saying... wait for it... wait for it... all together now...

    HULK SMASH!!!

    Let the painfully immature gamma ray jokes begin.

    1. Re:I'll Get The Ball Rolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I though everybody knew the power of the gamma rays, especialy after what happened to Dr. Robert Bruce Banner. My question is... are we... afected... ray... smash... me smash puny sumit thing...

    2. Re:I'll Get The Ball Rolling by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Alright! Refer to this previous Slashdot article on Anger as a Software Design Philosophy and get coding dude!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:I'll Get The Ball Rolling by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

      Identity check. AOL CDs and parking decks, and Megahal cursing at you. If these things mean anything to you, reply. If not, nothing to see here, move along.

  11. Well... keep fingers crossed by KDan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's just hope we don't get one of these anywhere much closer than this, cause otherwise everyone will have a really good sun tan very fast!

    Daniel

    --
    Carpe Diem
    1. Re:Well... keep fingers crossed by Danse · · Score: 1

      Would something like this pretty much scour the "nearby" star systems clean of any life they might have supported? Kinda sucks to have a roll of the dice come up snakeyes and have a black hole collapse somewhere close enough to sterilize your planet.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    2. Re:Well... keep fingers crossed by Janitor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You mean like this one:
      Possible Hypernova Could Affect Earth

    3. Re:Well... keep fingers crossed by KDan · · Score: 1

      Would something like this pretty much scour the "nearby" star systems clean of any life they might have supported?

      Yup, pretty much. Kind of like being inside the cosmic equivalent of a microwave oven for a few minutes or days. The Earth's atmosphere would probably filter most of it, but depending on how long it lasts it may either saturate or show bad side-effects, and it won't filter all of it - nothing filters gamma rays 100%, it's always only a percentage (unlike alpha or beta which can be blocked completely). So depending on how much gets through, it could be harmless, cause lots of cancers on everyone, just cook all of us large surface animals and bacteria/plants, or even scorch the Earth clean of life. Lots of prospects for interesting catastrophes.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    4. Re:Well... keep fingers crossed by scotchco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well... when you ever wanted the answer to Fermi's Paradox ("if they existed, they'd be here") - this may well be it. More-or-less regular events like this, purging a sphere of maybe 5000 LY clean of any higher forms of life may explain why we never see any traces of other advanced lifeforms (no radio signals etc.), especially if we presume that there's no practical FTL drive even remotely possible. Maybe there is simply not enough time for any possible civilization to be noticed within our timeframe before they get extinguished. Also, it'd be easy to imagine the astronomers to be slightly wrong in their predictions about the deadliness of Eta Carinae - our own extinction might already be underway... And, as I understand it, there may be events much much worse than that... Regards, scotchco

    5. Re:Well... keep fingers crossed by justin_saunders · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't worry, do like Bert the Turtle - "Duck and Cover!".

      --

      "My cat's breath smells like cat food." - The Tao of Ralph Wiggum.
    6. Re:Well... keep fingers crossed by geoswan · · Score: 1
      Well... when you ever wanted the answer to Fermi's Paradox ("if they existed, they'd be here") - this may well be it. More-or-less regular events like this, purging a sphere of maybe 5000 LY clean of any higher forms of life may explain why we never see any traces of other advanced lifeforms

      Stars aren't all packed at the same density in our galaxy, or others. Where stars are less dense, these purging events would be less common, and Fermi's aliens would have a chance to continue existing. Of course, in that case, they'd be there not here .

      But how did you come up with the 5,000 lightyear figure? I went to NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day site, and looked for eta Carinae. This helped me find this link to a 1999 note on hypernovae. It says a hypernova would be about ten times more destructive than a supernova. IIRC a supernova's civilization killing ability is confined to a sphere 30 to 100 lightyears in diameter. Do you have a more recent, or alarming, link to the destructive power of a hypernova?

    7. Re:Well... keep fingers crossed by scotchco · · Score: 1

      Now, 10 times 30 to 100 would be 300 to 10.000...

      But no, the 5000 LY was just inferred as an approximation by the estimate that the Eta Carinae event would be about 7500 LY away (if I am not mistaken), and the astronomers seem to think (based on whatever reasoning) that Eta Carinae going Hypernova would have some impact on space installations, but not severely damage earth lifeforms. Given the inverse square law for energy and particle densities, reducing the distance to the event by 1/3rd would already dramatically increase the infall, and so increase the likelyhood of adverse effects on life on a planetary surface.

      However, I'm not academic about this - 300, 3000, 5000, or 10000, does it really matter? Especially if our astronomers can't do much more than guess. If they think 7.500 LY is safe, but they misguess, we're dead anyway.

      Also, if stars are less dense, catastrophic events are less likely to occur - but so is diminishing the probability of intelligent life within the same timeframe as ours.

      Regards,
      scotchco

    8. Re:Well... keep fingers crossed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is some recent evidence that Eta Carinae is actually a binary star system consisting of two very massive stars closely orbiting each other. The distance between the stars is roughly comparable to the distance between the Sun and Saturn. Each star is estimated at between 50 and 80 times the Sun's mass (for comparison, Betelgeuse is only 20 times the Sun's mass). So each star would be fairly remarkable by itself. Stick them in a binary system that close together and you have something that will likely cause star formation theories to be rewritten.

    9. Re:Well... keep fingers crossed by barakn · · Score: 1

      I''ll use my fingers for better purposes. GRBs are special events. GRBs caused by hypernovas would look like supernovas to 499 observers out of 500. The one (un)lucky observer would be in the path of one of the two thin jets emitted by the hypernova. These are jets of material traveling at relativistic speeds. When the material decelerates and releases EM radiation, it is all emitted in the direction of the jet (the relativistic headlight effect). Unless the jet is pointed straight at you, it is almost impossible to detect. An event like this is not going to sterilize a galaxy.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    10. Re:Well... keep fingers crossed by HiThere · · Score: 1

      However, if stars are thinner, then interstellar flight is going to look even less attractive... unless there's some really potent shortcut that we just haven't discovered yet.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    11. Re:Well... keep fingers crossed by KDan · · Score: 1

      They could even be so dim that those inhabitants there don't ever realise there's a universe out there!

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
  12. Outdated Gamma-ray sky map by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Hilarious, the little animated skymap showing the
    burst becoming the brightest thing in the sky was
    produced by EGRET... Which ceased operations several
    years ago. Whatever they are showing in that figure,
    it can't be real data.

    1. Re:Outdated Gamma-ray sky map by White_Lightning · · Score: 1

      BS. We still have EGRET running at the university I work at. You are talking about machine names, aren't you?

    2. Re:Outdated Gamma-ray sky map by mefein · · Score: 1

      EGRET stands for the Energetic Gamma Ray experiment.

    3. Re:Outdated Gamma-ray sky map by White_Lightning · · Score: 1

      My bad. I thought it was the avian.

    4. Re:Outdated Gamma-ray sky map by mefein · · Score: 1

      I find it amazingf that more people have not commented on the data in the plot being faked. Perhaps the story was published in an astrobiology magazine so that astrophysicists would not find it.

  13. Re:FP by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

    Well, no. To quote the summary: From Carl Akerlof, the ROTSE investigator: "The optical brightness of this gamma ray burst is about 100 times more intense than anything we've ever seen before."

    So, nothing more than 1% of this intensity has been seen before.

    --
    "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
  14. Before it gets slashdotted.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ** KARMA WHORE MODE: OFF **

    Hypernova Blast:
    Global Chase Ensues
    based on U. Michigan release

    Two billion years ago, in a far-away galaxy, a giant star exploded, releasing almost unbelievable amounts of energy as it collapsed to a black hole. The light from that explosion finally reached Earth at 6:37 a.m. EST on March 29, igniting a frenzy of activity among astronomers worldwide. This phenomenon has been called a hypernova, playing on the name of the supernova events that mark the violent end of massive stars.

    With two telescopes separated by about 110 degrees longitude, the Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment (ROTSE) will have one of the most continuous records of this explosion.


    The changing intensity of a gamma-ray burst. On the left is an image of the gamma ray sky showing the burst becoming the brightest object. On the right is a plot of the changing brightness with time. The first gamma-ray burst was seen in the year 1967 (although it was not reported to the world until 1973) by satellite-borne detectors intended to look for violations of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Credit: BATSE

    "The optical brightness of this gamma ray burst is about 100 times more intense than anything we've ever seen before. It's also much closer to us than all other observed bursts so we can study it in considerably more detail," said Carl W. Akerlof, an astrophysicist in the Physics Department at the University of Michigan.

    Contrary to visible light, gamma rays are non-thermal meaning that they are not produced in hot celestial bodies like the sun. Gamma rays occur in exceptional circumstances such as in the aftermath of a stellar explosion, in the vicinity of black holes, or at the core of active galaxies.

    Just recently, the ROTSE group commissioned two optical telescopes in Australia and Texas and were waiting for the first opportunities to use the new equipment. The burst was promptly detected by NASA's Earth orbiting High-Energy Transient Explorer (HETE-2) but human intervention was required to find the exact location.

    Despite sporadic clouds and rainstorms in Australia, the ROTSE instrument at Siding Spring Observatory in northern New South Wales was able to record the decaying light from the blast. Twelve hours later, the second ROTSE telescope in Fort Davis, Texas was picking up the job of monitoring this spectacular explosion.

    "During the first minute after the explosion it emitted energy at a rate more than a million times the combined output of all the stars in the Milky Way. If you concentrated all the energy that the sun will put out over its entire 9 billion-year life into a tenth of a second, then you would have some idea of the brightness," said Michael Ashley, faculty member in the astrophysics and optics department at the University of New South Wales and a member of the ROTSE team.

    Given that the history of astronomy goes back centuries, observations in the gamma spectrum are really among the newest areas in celestial research. The high-energy light is swallowed by the earth's atmosphere yet the light cannot be captured with conventional lenses or mirrors. Special detectors in satellites and high altitude research rockets register gamma rays with energies of up to around ten billion electron volts.


    Gamma rays occur in exceptional circumstances such as in the aftermath of a stellar explosion, in the vicinity of black holes, or at the core of active galaxies. Credit: NASA

    Fortunately for life on earth, a gamma particle from the universe does not penetrate to the earth's surface, but if it flies past an atomic nucleus within the earth's atmosphere, the gamma particle can transform itself into an electron and its (positive) antiparticle, a positron. During its journey through the air, this pair comes across more atomic nuclei and a gamma quantum is generated which then once again hits atomic nuclei. Thus, a single cosmic gamma particle creates roughly a thousand secondar

  15. blindsided by MoFoYa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "To underscore how the sun never rises on this automated telescope network, the observations switched rapidly from New South Wales in Australia back to Fort Davis, Texas..."

    yeah, but if it were september would we even know it happened?
    IANAA but, it seems that even if you always have someone looking into the night sky, it's only half of the sky - you cant see the side where the sun is untill later in the year.

    now if we could somehow drop a satellite telescope behind in orbit around the sun about 6 months behind us and another 3 months behind (for line of sight comms) we could get a more complete picture of our neiborhood year round.

    or...i could be completly ignorant.

    1. Re:blindsided by panurge · · Score: 4, Informative
      You are basically right, but you have to place them at the Lagrange points, otherwise they wander off.

      However, it's much easier just to put the telescope in orbit around the earth. Without atmospheric scattering, the telescope can be aimed close to the sun. That's one of the advantages of Hubble over any terrestrial telescope.

      --
      Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    2. Re:blindsided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      yeah, but if it were september would we even know it happened?

      Ya mean, September has ended? I haven't noticed! (A fitting analogy though: the hypernova is the signal, the sun is the noise...)

    3. Re:blindsided by arivanov · · Score: 1

      If the telescope is in space the Sun closes only several degrees of the viewing angle. While definitely annoying this is not anywhere close to critical. So unless there will be some other pressing need, this is way off. Also the telescope should be put into one of the main Sun/Earth Lagrange points (L1 or L2), not arbitrary 3/6 months before/behind us.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    4. Re:blindsided by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Problem is that a telescope is very expensive and heavy. 1-I dont believe we currently have any rocket being able to lift a whole (assambled) space telescope into geo, let alone even farther out. 2-Also you are not able to send a shuttle there to repair/maintain it. 3-you have tons of data to transmit which isnt going to be easier if you have 100m km between earth and the telescope. and it is even funnier if the telescope is 6 month behind, because then the sun is in the way....

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    5. Re:blindsided by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      > if the telescope is 6 month behind, because then the sun is in the way....

      Well, I assume that's why he said

      and another 3 months behind (for line of sight comms)

      don't know if that would work, but at least he thought of it

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

  16. In the make you wonder department. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The first of the four images from hubble of the event is about 2 light years across I figure the last of the 4 images they say is 6 light years across.

    Problem is this only happened in March so how did it expand 4 light years in like a few months and how exactly did that expansion happen when some how the burst just reached us over that distance.

    Anyone see a problem here? It expands 4 light years in size in just a few months yet some how the light manages to travel 2 billion light years.

    I can't see how this could have happened, Iv'e been thinking about it since it was posted as APOD picture of the day a few days ago.

    Expansion faster then the speed of light? It don't make sence to me.

    1. Re:In the make you wonder department. by LucidityZero · · Score: 1

      Okay. So me an the AC could be complete and total idiots here, but it seems to me like he's making some sense.
      I'm sure that there is some sort of perfectly rational physilogical or astronomical explanation for this, but... could someone atleast share so we know?
      How did this expansion occur seemingly faster than light?

      --
      Sig.i>
    2. Re:In the make you wonder department. by ndevice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      perhaps the same explanation as what happens when you wave a laser pointer across the moon (assuming you have powerful enough to see at that distance).

      You need to remember that nothing is breaking the speed of light barrier here because we're talking about different parts of the explosion: because the explosion is taking place so far away distances get amplified - simple trig. It's all in the angles. Think about cones.

      Of course I might not know what I'm talking about either, or am answering a question different from the one you asked.

    3. Re:In the make you wonder department. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      For all that are wondering. I did some more reading and the nebula that's been illuminated is now 7 light years across (diameter) as of December 17th 2002.
      Now they're saying the nebula has always been there and it just being illuminated so the nebula is not traveling faster then the speed of the light...

      Ya ok fair enough but the light has traveled 3.5 light years from the center in only a single year.

      Now it don't make sence to me so I asked them to explain it to me and if I get a reply I'll post it here.

    4. Re:In the make you wonder department. by Mac+Degger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, they explain it in another part of the site: it's something called the superliminal effect. Find the description here:

      http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/light_echo _0 30326.html#update

      and the pretty picture to accompany it here:

      http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay /i mg_display.php?pic=light_echo_graphic_030326_02,0. jpg

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    5. Re:In the make you wonder department. by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Oops! That should read 'superluminal' effect :)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    6. Re:In the make you wonder department. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so much funnier due to your sig..

    7. Re:In the make you wonder department. by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      The apparently superluminal speed of expansion is an optical illusion caused by the fact that what we see is approaching us at relativistic speeds. The original energy we first saw, which travels at C speed, and a week later we see that which is 3 weeks later in the objects time frame because the ejection of the material creating the image is itself traveling toward us at near C speeds. I saw some math several years ago, but cannot recall the details well enough to quote it here.

      Someone who is familiar with how this works should attempt to explain it better for us inquisitive bystanders to interesting events such as this.

      --
      Cheers, Gene

    8. Re:In the make you wonder department. by barakn · · Score: 1

      You guys are confusing a star lighting up its nebula in our own galaxy with a hypernova in a distant galaxy. I'd mod you off-topic.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    9. Re:In the make you wonder department. by D'Eyncourt · · Score: 2, Informative

      In that picture sequence what you are seeing is not an explosion of material from the burster but light from it being reflected by interstellar clouds. These clouds are a bit closer to us than the burster. The pathway from the burster to the outermost clouds in the last picture of the series is 8 light-months longer than the pathway to the clouds in the first picture.

      A simplified model:
      Imagine a light and you are 2 light-seconds apart with a thin translucent screen halfway between you and the bulb, this screen being perpendicular to that path and of infinite extent. The light flashes on very briefly and you see the point of the wall directly between you and the bulb light up in 2 seconds. As you watch a ring forms around that point as screen is lit progressively by the burst of light. When the light travelling at a 45 degree angle off of the path directly to you hits the the screen, it forms a ring 1 light-second in radius. Some basic trig shows that the light from this ring gets to you in just over 2.8 seconds (2*sqrt(2)), thus the ring appears to have grown from the center point to 1 light-second radius in 0.8 seconds.

      Move along--no violation of the speed of light here.

    10. Re:In the make you wonder department. by SETIGuy · · Score: 1
      For all that are wondering. I did some more reading and the nebula that's been illuminated is now 7 light years across (diameter) as of December 17th 2002. Now they're saying the nebula has always been there and it just being illuminated so the nebula is not traveling faster then the speed of the light...

      Ya ok fair enough but the light has traveled 3.5 light years from the center in only a single year.

      You are making the mistaken assumption that the hypernova is at the center of the nebula when, in fact, the portion of the nebula that we see is between us and the hypernova.

      Think of it this way. Assume that that nebula is a flat sheet seven light years in diameter and 10 light years away from the hypernova and 1,000,000 light years away from us. (See the picture here) Light from the hypernova gets to the center of the nebula 10 years after the explosion and to us, 1,000,010 years after the nova.

      Light from the explosion gets to the edge of the nebula sqrt(10^2+3.5^2)=10.6 years after the explosion, and to us 1,000,010.6 years after the explosion. So to us, it looks like the nebula expanded to a diameter of 7 light years in 0.6 years.

      The more likely geometry is that the nebula is a shell around the hypernova. From the apparent speed at which the illuminated region expands we could determine the diameter of the shell.

  17. Re:wave/particle duality by ndevice · · Score: 2, Informative

    Bad form to reply to my own post but what do I know? I should have googled gamma particles first before posting.

    Turns out that references to gamma particles really are used quite frequently, and sometime interchangably within the same context too. Much more frequently than I would have thought.

  18. Re:wave/particle duality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Main Entry: tomato
    Pronunciation: t&-'mA-(")tO; chiefly British, eastern New England, northeastern Virginia, and sometimes elsewhere in cultivated speech -'m[a']- or -'mä-; chiefly Northern -'ma-

  19. Re:wave/particle duality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Article just says it was an University of Michigan release. No author listed, so maybe De Broglie wrote it from beyond the grave.

  20. Saw this on that PBS show.... by billstewart · · Score: 1

    ... Nova...

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  21. Re:wave/particle duality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks! just what I needed. Humour at 1 in the morning.

  22. whose telescope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I was told a "rot-see" telescope caught a hypernova eruption. I first thought, what are those army dudes doin with a telescope?

    get it, rotc vs. rotse

    rimshot!

    1. Re:whose telescope? by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

      ROTSE(?) goatse.cx + ROT13 = tbngfr.pk(?)

  23. Ananova! by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    How about ananova...no wait that's a website...

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    1. Re:Ananova! by Mac+Degger · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can't wait until they see a Kournikova :)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    2. Re:Ananova! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      And I've always wondered about that name: ananova-- "not new" or "nothing new".

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:Ananova! by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      And someday, grasshopper, you'll understand Sansabelt brand fatman slacks.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
  24. That's Pretty Big by TeachingMachines · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "If you concentrated all the energy that the sun will put out over its entire 9 billion-year life into a tenth of a second, then you would have some idea of the brightness."
    The key phrase here is then you would have some idea. Frankly, there is a point in astronomy and astrophysics where things get so big, and so fast, and so bright, that the only idea that remains in one's brain when trying to imagine such phenomena is a white light with a big hand reaching into it. The example above is classic: first I have to imagine 9 billion years (good luck, I can't even remember what happened yesterday) and then I have to imagine a tenth of a second, which is like a total brain fart. And then, and only then, would I have some idea of the brightness. Well, I guess that I would have some idea if my head hadn't imploded while trying to imagine that nanofart called a "tenth of a second." Geezus.

    --

    The Death Penalty: Killing people to show others that killing people is wrong.
    1. Re:That's Pretty Big by Jerf · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe you can't imagine a tenth of a second but I can. It's actually pretty easy; grab yourself a stopwatch with at least a tenth of a second resolution and watch the tenths of a second tick by. They're fast but comprehendable.

      Their neighbor, the hundreths of a second, are below our visual actuity (not to mention the cheap LCD's refresh rate), and appear as nothing but a blur, even if you have something you can see them reliably on. That's harder to comprehend correctly, although there are still real-life phenomena that take place on that scale and we deal with them OK.

      I don't think time is that confusing until you get down to millisecond scale.

  25. Choice of names... by TheMidget · · Score: 4, Funny
    With two telescopes separated by about 110 degrees longitude, the Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment (ROTSE) will have one of the most continuous records of this explosion.

    Fortunately, they didn't call their telescope network the Global Optical Automatic Transient Search Experiment, whose headquarter are in the Christmas Islands.

    1. Re:Choice of names... by yokem_55 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this would be modded funny if people took the time figure out what the acronym for "Global Optical
      Automatic Transient Search EXperiment" is.

      --
      ...and IN SOVIET RUSSIA, beowulf clusters imagine 1, 2, 3 profit!!!! jokes made out of YOU!!!
    2. Re:Choice of names... by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      And perhaps you might have gotten modded higher had you realized that it's actually just "Global Optical Automatic Transient Search Experiment", in CX (Christmas Island), of course

    3. Re:Choice of names... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      test

  26. A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... by irw · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Two billion years ago, in a far-away galaxy, a giant star exploded."

    The death of star. Death Star.

    I predict they might be seeing a second one of these explosions any time soon...

  27. And the telescope network rhymes with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nevermind.

  28. ROTSE by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 1, Funny

    Is the quoted speaker the Rotse man? Rotse.cx?

    Tim

    --
    Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
  29. Moderidiots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not offtopic, just think about the name they chose for their telescope network!

  30. don't worry about cancer by Gryftir · · Score: 3, Informative

    Would it increase your changes of getting cancer? Shields that reduce gamma ray intensity by 50% include 1cm (0.4 inches) of lead, 6cm (2.4 inches) of concrete or 9cm (3.6 inches) of packed dirt. On the good side, gamma radiation is only as harmful as x-ray or beta particles. This NASA site however says that most gamma radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, which is why you need balloons or sattelites to really see gamma rays.

    --
    http://www.santacruzbynight.com/index.shtml Santa Cruz By Night Vampire Larp
    1. Re:don't worry about cancer by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Besides, according to Elron Hubbard in All About Radiation, radiation is water-soluable and you can wash it off. (And not smoking causes cancer.) Whooda thunk it?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  31. Looking at it now with the VLT by mindpixel · · Score: 1

    I've been staring at this thing for three days now. It's in a filed crowed with galaxies of every shape.

    I wrote about it in my /. blog a few days ago.

    1. Re:Looking at it now with the VLT by mindpixel · · Score: 1

      Ah, that's field, not filed.

  32. Michael returns, and out come the Aussie stories. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He must be so proud. I'm sure that "the whole world is watching Australia!", and that this event will "finally put Australia on the map!"...

  33. Old news. Observed visually by amateurs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This Gamma Ray Burst news got to amateur astronomers within hours of its detection on 29th of March. It was also the first GRB to be observed visually as can be seen from AAVSO's report. The observers were deep-sky enthuasts from Finland.The equipment used was amateur level telescopes and eyeballs.

  34. New Telescope? by xXunderdogXx · · Score: 2, Funny

    So they used the new ROTSE telescope. Has anyone heard of the GOATSE telescope? Yeah it's exclusively used for peering into massive black holes.

    1. Re:New Telescope? by Alcohol+Fueled · · Score: 1

      lol.. holy fuck that was funny.

      --
      Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
    2. Re:New Telescope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that GOATSE was for a veterinarian to peer up the assholes of black goats!

    3. Re:New Telescope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Son... Ya done me proud...

      Moderators, this BETTER get modded up to +5 Funny or I'll scream. (Fucking asshole moderators have no sense of humor.)

  35. Or is it? by brejc8 · · Score: 1

    Is it an erupting hypernova?
    or
    Is it aliens shooting at us?

    "gamma ray burst is about 100 times more intense than anything we've ever seen before", Yep aliens for sure.

    1. Re:Or is it? by !Freeky2BGeeky · · Score: 1

      Actually, It's aliens taking our picture and you just saw the flash. I hope they got my good side!

      --

      Visualize Whirled Peas

  36. Gamma rays by jandersen · · Score: 4, Informative

    'Contrary to visible light, gamma rays are non-thermal meaning that they are not produced in hot celestial bodies like the sun. Gamma rays occur in exceptional circumstances such as in the aftermath of a stellar explosion, in the vicinity of black holes, or at the core of active galaxies'

    This is of course not true - gamma rays are produced in many places, among other things by Radium, if my memory serves me. And the Sun does indeed produce gamma rays are essentially just high energy photons, just like visible light (and radio waves, for that matter) with 'high energy'. Electromagnetic radiation is quantified in 'packets' called photons, and it is mostly a metter of taste whether you call them radio waves, microwaves, light, X-rays or gamma rays. There's an upper for gamma photons by the way (sort of): a photon with very high energy will tend to 'split' and form a pair consisting of an electron and a positron, which then annihilate in a burst of photons.

    1. Re:Gamma rays by mefein · · Score: 1

      It is not quite true that there is an upper limit for gamma-ray energies. For a gamma-ray to produce an electron-positron pair there has to be a second photon in the interaction (to conserve momentum). Thus in space where the photon density is low gamma-rays of very high energies can be produced and transmitted accross large (astrophysical) distances without difficulty.

    2. Re:Gamma rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not technically true.

      X-Rays are high-energy photons that goup to infinity (and beyond!), but they are differentiated from X-Rays by what produced them.

      XRays are produced by electron movements within deep shells of an atom.

      Gamma Rays are from the nucleus (alone).

      ONLY nuclear reactions produce Gamma rays.

      XRays are produced by heavily bound electrons, electrons being sped up/slowed down, and many more electron changes.

    3. Re:Gamma rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding that upper limit for photon energies: you forgot to mention an important detail: A single photon on its own can't do this conversion into a electron+positron pair all on its own --- it needs a second object to hit into before that can happen.

      The actual photon energy cut-off applies when the energy becomes large enough that the photons of the omnipresent cosmic microwave background radiation are sufficient as the partner in this game. Since these background photons are to be found literally *everywhere*, the ultra high energy photon can't get far before hitting the first of those.

  37. Re:wave/particle duality by KDan · · Score: 1

    Yup. Gamma rays are high-energy photons. Photons are particles. In fact, all particles are waves, and all waves are quantized in particles, so you could call an electron an "electron wave-packet", a photon a "light particle", etc... Plus the term "gamma rays" was coined when they discovered radioactivity, at which point they knew very little about all this, so alpha rays and beta rays (which are most definitely particles - helium nuclei and electrons, respecitvely) are also called "rays".

    Daniel

    --
    Carpe Diem
  38. Re:OH NO! How much longer... by Zenjive · · Score: 1

    Never trust a sane puppeteer

    --


    A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with. - Tennessee Williams
  39. Mod parent down as trawl! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It mentioned the infamous rotse.cx site!

  40. Re:ROTSE by popeyethesailor · · Score: 1

    Suddenly, i dont want to know about the "12 hour burnout of the collapsing black hole".

  41. optical gamma rays? by X_Bones · · Score: 3, Redundant

    "The optical brightness of this gamma ray burst is about 100 times more intense than anything we've ever seen before."

    Aren't gamma rays by definition not optical (i.e. not in the visible spectrum)?

    1. Re:optical gamma rays? by DJPenguin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What would you rather they say... "felt" before? :)

      I think he means "seen" in the same manner as "observed" or "recorded".

    2. Re:optical gamma rays? by Junta · · Score: 1

      But then why say 'optical brightness'. The word 'sees' can be ambiguous, but optical brightness is very clearly something in the visible spectrum...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:optical gamma rays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The explosion is called a gamma-ray burst because it is initially seen as a burst of gamma-rays. However, lots of radiation at many wavelengths is given off during and after the explosion. The gamma-ray flash of these bursts can last from less than a second to hundreds of seconds, but you can watch the optical brightness for days (depending on how sensitive your telescope is and how fast the burst is dimming). The ROTSE instruments record visible light, the same kind you would see with your eyes, so that is what Prof. Akerlof is talking about.

      Yours,

      Don Smith on behalf of the ROTSE collaboration

    4. Re:optical gamma rays? by Kompressor · · Score: 1

      Although gamma rays are probably not visible to any species native to this planet, you should keep in mind that our inability sense something does not mean that it is significantly different from something we can.

      Consider this: The human eye cannot percieve ultraviolet radiation. Therefore, for us, it is not "optical", and definately outside of the visible spectrum. However, bees regularly use ultraviolet radiation to differentiate between flowers, which would make ultraviolet radiation "optical" as far as a bee is concerned.

      Following this line of reasoning leads us to the conclusion that the visible spectrum varies and is a human-centric (mammal-centric?) arbitrary slice of the electromagnetic spectrum. As long as the electromagnetic radiation in question has similar properties to visible light, the same adjectives as used to describe visible light should apply.
      (Although something tells me that there's a few differences between what's coming from my 60 watt bulb and a star gone nova...)

      --
      kmem russian roulette: Aquillar> dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/kmem bs=1 count=1 seek=$RANDOM
    5. Re:optical gamma rays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, duh! But these astronomer types are always so picky and precise, it's surprising to see, err, read (observe?) this kind of mistake.

  42. Co-incidentally.. by jesterzog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are absolutely massive numbers involved that it's difficult to realistically comprehend them let alone compare them meaningfully.

    Co-incidentally, I worked out for someone tonight that if the Sun and the Earth were 5 centimetres apart (that's a couple of inches), then the Andromeda galaxy would be roughly 6.7 million kilometres down the road. (About 4 million miles.) And Andromeda's one of the closest of what was most recently estimated to be around 80 billion galaxies.

    1. Re:Co-incidentally.. by Gauchito · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's good that the universe is so much bigger than our minds. We'll never stop being amazed.

  43. I swear... by imrec · · Score: 4, Funny

    Rotse. I swear every and any word/acronym/setofcharacters containing o*tse or some form of it has, in my mind, been ruined forever. My first day at slashdot will continue haunt me to the end of my days.

    Thank you.

    --
    Note: This sig contains nine S's, nine I's and five O's which... means absolutely nothing.
  44. Domain Name by makapuf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'd suggest they register a .cx domain name instead of .net ...

  45. Be glad that wasn't in our galaxy by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    I suggest we remove that galaxy from our list of places to go to when we have FTL - I doubt there is much life left after an event like this happens in your galaxy.

    Even give 2 billion years to recover, I'll bet that galaxy is just a bit thin on life.

  46. Gamma particle? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

    Quoth the article:
    Fortunately for life on earth, a gamma particle from the universe does not penetrate to the earth's surface, but if it flies past an atomic nucleus within the earth's atmosphere, the gamma particle can transform itself into an electron and its (positive) antiparticle, a positron.

    Now, im in an entry level college physics course right now, and we're doing electromagentic stuff, and we jsut learned that gamma radiation is just that--ionising radiation. EM wave, no particle. What's the article talking about? Something I havent learned yet?

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    1. Re:Gamma particle? by ZigMonty · · Score: 1

      Have you heard of a "photon"?

    2. Re:Gamma particle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photons are neither a wave, nor a particle.

      They are *modelled* as one or the other, depending upon what we are looking at.

      A wave cannot produce particles (no momentum source), so it's a gamma *particle* in pair-production.

      A particle cannot interfere with itself (unless it's human...), so it's a gamma ray when looking at the macro effects.

      You'll get to this when you look at the photo-electric effect.

  47. Talk about good timing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And to think, I only just duct taped up my house last month. Whew!

  48. No wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that explains why I turn slightly green every time I get angry, now.

  49. obsessive vogons by tomzyk · · Score: 1

    "now if we could somehow drop a satellite telescope behind in orbit around the sun about 6 months behind us..."

    From what I understand, there's already a spaceship in that precise location.

    --
    Karma: NaN
  50. Doc Bruce Banner, belted by gamma rays ... by Conspir8or · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't care about cancer ... does this increase my chances of getting superpowers? Then I'd just have to find a tailor who can provide rip-proof purple pants ....

  51. Re:your math is screwed by Bill+Currie · · Score: 1

    Since when does 10 times 100 get 10000? More like 1000.

    --

    Bill - aka taniwha
    --
    Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak

  52. Re:But imagine .. by HiThere · · Score: 1

    You know, there needs to be a new moderation category... grim.

    The parent is the kind of post that normally just deserves an off topic mod, but in *this* context... perhaps funny is the best available, but grim is what would be appropriate. Gallows humor.

    You can't do anything about the problem, all you can do is laugh. At jokes that aren't funny.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  53. ObSimpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's something called the superliminal effect.


    Lisa: "But you have recruiting ads on TV. Why do you need subliminal messages?"

    Navy guy: "It's a three-pronged attack. Subliminal, liminal, and superliminal."

    Lisa: "Superliminal?"

    Navy Guy: "I'll show you. Hey you! Join the navy!"

    Lenny and Carl: "Uh, yeah, alright." "I'm in."
  54. Comparing the incomparable by geoswan · · Score: 1
    I have a copy of a really cool book, by Canadian Science journalist, called "Thesizesaurus". It is intended to be a kind of thesaurus for sizes. It talks about the compromises one needs to make to bring quantities from science into a everyday context ordinary readers can understand.

    25 or 30 years ago, when Pulsars were a relatively new phenomenon, I attended a presentation at the old McLaughlin Planetarium, where the presenter gave a very memorable presentation. He was explaining how the Crab Nebula could contain a pulsar, without us ever noticing.

    He projected a flashing light on to the simulcrm of the sky. And he had a tone generator generating ticks in synch with the flashing light. Then he turned up the frequency of the flashes. The flashes all blended into one continuous light long before the ticks became indistinguishable. My recollection was that it took about three times the frequency before the ticks blended together. Okay -- it made an impression on me.

  55. i get it !!! by joeyspqr · · Score: 1

    i spent 5 minutes composing my pedantic comment about how the quote is ' ... the sun never SETS ... ' (on the British Empire)

    then i realized: it's astronomy !!! it happens at night !!!

    help me ... i need a life

    --
    +1 fashionably cynical
  56. In other news... by deitrahs · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...SETI@home reports that they've finally gotten an intelligible signal from that area of the sky. The message came in just before the nova.

    After decoding, it said, "Hey, Zborno, what's this button do?"

  57. huh? by sstory · · Score: 1

    If you put them at the Lagrange points, some of them will shoot off rapidly. They're not all stable, you know.

  58. the took hundreds of telescopes by asscroft · · Score: 1

    and a couple super computers and stuck em where the sun don't shine. haha
    pretty neat, outrunning the sunrise every night.

    yuou could say this system is faster than the speed of light, but you'd really only be faster than the speed of the earth's rotation.

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
  59. Let's hope it's not Morse code by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this is some alien species' way of saying "Hey! We're over here!!!". Generating a great big blast of light without destroying the entire galaxy. What a great (and far advanced) idea!

    Now let's hope they aren't sending us a message in Morse code. Hehe..

  60. flargle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    blargle flargle argle?

  61. Whats the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get within 500 light years of that sucker ...
    oh well sunscreen spf 2*28