Huge Star Quake Rocks Milky Way

SJrX writes "The BBC is reporting that scientists have detected "the biggest explosion observed by humans within [the past 400 years]". The explosion luckily occured about 50,000 light years away form us, on the far side of the Milky Way, as the article goes on to say that had the explosion been within 10 light years of us, it "would possibly have triggered a mass extinction.""

Comments

Science by Press Release

[Einer2]

Come on, give me a break. I've seen some of the science being done on this flare. There are enough cool things without being needlessly sensational, and invoking the Wipe-Out-All-Civilization radius definitely counts as sensational. After all, isn't the nearest magnetar something like 5 kiloparsecs away?

Re:Science by Press Release

[jesterzog]

There are enough cool things without being needlessly sensational, and invoking the Wipe-Out-All-Civilization radius definitely counts as sensational.

I couldn't agree more. There are only 10 stars within 10 light years of us -- one trinary, two doubles and three individual stars. None of them are anywhere near being potential supernovae. The BBC sensationalism was pointless and misleading.

The actual quote from which that comment was derived was probably the one in the New Scientist article:

That relatively small distance, coupled with an accurate energy measurement by NASA's RHESSI satellite, means the explosion was not as powerful - at source - as more distant bursts linked with black holes. Nevertheless, it "may have sterilised any planets within a few light years of it", says Rob Fender, an astronomer at Southampton University, UK, who is studying the lingering radio emission from the flare.

Assuming this is correct, the BBC journalist seems to have taken an off-hand comment and put it into an unreleated and meaningless context.

Re:Equation constraints

[General Alcazar]

I find the Drake equation very interesting. It is an interesting speculation, but since it is based on all kinds of arbitrary assumptions, it is almost useless. But not totally. One of the most interesting things about it is that it points out that, based on our assumptions, we should be detecting some kind of extra-terran life. Since we are not, clearly some of our assumptions are erroneous. The question is - WHICH assumptions are erroneous?

Here are some things we do know:

1. We are here.
2. We have the means to communicate between ourselves.
3. The ability to communicate between individual organisms has given rise to something greater than the sum of our parts: culture, society, language, mass consiousness, the internet, music, etc.
4. We have not encountered any communications to date that are like what we would expect.

But let's step back a bit, and look at the processes that life goes through as a whole. A long, long time ago, there were no multi-cellular life forms on earth. At first, just organic compounds. Then something appeared (maybe some kind of virus?). Eventually, single cell organism appeared. Things stayed like this for an awfully long time. Then, multi-cellular organisms appeared. These multi-cellular organisms gave rise to something we call consciousness. One version of these creatures - humans - developed quite sophisticated consciousnesses. These units of consciousness, together gave rise to very interesting 'things' such as language, memes, and other insubstantial, but very real 'things'.

See the pattern? What we see here is a continuous pattern of units coming together and creating units out of their aggregate which possess qualities fundamentally transcendant than those of their parts. Particles > Atoms > Molecules > Compounds > Cells > Organisms > Consciousness > Memes and so on.

I would buy the argument that life is very common in the Universe, and even the Milky Way. The vastness of it all seems to make it so probable. But what if our current point in evolution is only a brief transitional state, in the grand scheme of things? We have only been radio communicators for about one hundred years or so. That is a super super tiny blip in time. A lot of us seem to assume that the future will be like some sort of Star Trek reality or something, where technological advancement is the primary area of change. But what if what we are going through is more of a spiritual evolution - one that we have only just begun, and one that will ultimately transcend our own existence as we know it?

For all we know, we could be surrounded by alien consciousness all the time, and not even know it, much the same way a bacteria has very limited awareness of the presence of humans, let alone any concept of what one is.

Re:Quantify ???

[mbrother]

How many piano tuners are there in Chicago? This is an example Fermi used to use. Yes, maybe you could go out and measure this, using the "job" field in tax returns, the yellow pages, etc., but you can also get an idea of the number by figuring out how many people live in Chicago. How many of those people on average have pianos? How often do they need tuning? How fast can they be tuned? You have a pretty good idea (or he did anyway) of the answers to those individual questions, you can put an estimate on the number without actually making a direct measurement. Some problems in science can be tackled this way, and it's a type of reasoning scientists ought to be able to use well.

Re:Equation constraints

[IdleTime]

One thing we need to consider is the following: One plnate has to be the first to develop intelligent life!

What if it has taken 13 billion years for intelligent life to evolve and we are the first to do so?

What if life flares up and dies out again within a few million years?

What if this galaxy only contains a few planets with intelligent life and far apart, but other galaxies contains life in abundance. The distances makes it very difficult to communicate.

What if the universe is full of life but because of distances it is not possible or extremly difficult to communicate?

It is a very interesting area, but unfortunatly we can do little more than speculate. And yes, SETI is just a speculation, a speculation based on how WE think another life-form would communicate. Alas, I will never live to find out if there is life on other planets.

Re:Equation constraints

[Anonymous Coward]

> why is it BELIEVED that even a singe cell 'appeared' out of seemingly nowhere?

It isn't.

It's believed that self-replicating molecules appeared. It's believed that self-replicating molecules that synthesized lipids were better replicators than those that didn't. It's believed that mitochondria - which aren't much more than bits of RNA with a wrapper around it - were once independent lifeforms, predating cells by a wide margin. Single-celled organisms that use mitochondria as fuel source are a pretty natural extension -- just a big lipid layer around a benign environment for self-replicating molecules.

> Microbiology has shown that a "simple" cell is more complicated by far than anything ever designed by humans.

It's also a lot more complicated than anything taught at the high school (or even undergraduate) biology classes.

> Why is it so hard to admit that the order and information content of the "natural" world is the product of a mind just as the products of our modern technological world are conceived in the minds of their creators? All of science would still be just as fascinating and useful if that BELIEF were accepted as the cause for the origin of the order, design and laws that scientists seek to explore.

Because most people (such as proponents of ID) find something they can't explain, bow down before it as evidence of God's genius, and then stop investigating. After all, if something's "irreducably" complex, why bother investigating it any further?

Meanwhile, us scientists (whether we believe in God or not -- and I, as a scientist and a Christian, see no contradiction between evolution and my faith) will continue on doing science.

Here endeth the science lesson and beginneth the metaphysics/theology.

Have you ever considered that a God smart enough to create a universe 13.8 billion years ago out of a few physical constants, just might be smart enough to create a universe in which intelligent life spontaneously evolved (on Earth, and perhaps on billions of other worlds) to recognize His existence?

Have you ever further condidered that a God smart enough to pull off a stunt like that is probably a hell of a lot smarter than one who had to manually kludge in lifeforms, regardless of whether he whipped the thing up a mere 6000 years ago, or even if he created the universe, and has spent most of the past 3 billion years constantly hacking in things like cells, multicellular organisms, eyes, lungs, exploding beetles, and the human cerebral cortex and what-not every few hundred million years?

I know which one I'd consider the more glorious. Why do you cram your God into such a small box?