Slashdot Mirror


NASA Detects Nearby Mystery Explosion

starexplorer2001 writes "Space.com is reporting that NASA has detected a 'totally new' mystery explosion near our galaxy." From the article: "The event, detected Feb. 18, looks something like a gamma-ray burst (GRB), scientists said. But it is much closer--about 440 million light-years away--than others. And it lasted about 33 minutes. Most GRBs are billions of light-years away and last less than a second or just a few seconds."

329 comments

  1. Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by sbaker · · Score: 4, Funny

    2,586,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away is 'nearby' ?!

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
    1. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by iezhy · · Score: 0

      must be some alien SETI project :)

    2. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by 2.7182 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's a lot closer that 10 billion light years away, which is about the age of the universe, depending on which NYT Science Times article you believe.

      Think of it this way - life appeared about a billion years ago, so that was twice as long ago as when this event happened. We're seeing an event that happenned a little before the dinosaurs appeared.

    3. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      2,586,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away is 'nearby' ?!

      Hell yeah. It's VERY close. Compared to the distances at which gamma-ray bursts are typically observed, this is right in front of our metaphorical nose.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    4. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In astronomic dimensions, yes, that's not really far away.

      The number is big, yes. But only because you're using a unit that doesn't lend itself well to the distances measured. It's like measuring the volume of oceans in pints. :)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's just about 4400 times the diameter of our galaxy. So imagine the milky way were your house. Of course I don't know the diameter of your house, but let's just assume it's something like 10 meters. Then in relation it would be 44 km away. Ok, I admit, that's not really "nearby" any more ... but then, thinking of it, the center of gravitation of a geek is his computer, so make that about half a meter, so the distance shrinks to 2.2 km ... would you accept that as nearby, or do I have to mention that the really important part of the computer is the CPU anyway? :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by eln · · Score: 1

      It's also an interesting definition of "new." Since it happened 440 million light years away, and we're just detecting it now, it must have happened about 440 million years ago. Not exactly new, except in the network rerun "new to you" kind of way.

    7. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 0

      2,586,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away is 'nearby' ?!

      It is if you're omnipotent.

      Q.

    8. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, a light year is a unit of distance, not of time ;)

    9. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life appeared nearer four billion years ago

    10. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by Andrzej+Sawicki · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ver, very metaphorical indeed.

    11. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by starnix · · Score: 1

      It is a unit of distance, however, to be able to see something that far away, would require the light to make it here, which would take, Anyone? TIME!!! Even though this was observed a few days ago, it happened 440 million years ago, it just took the light this long to make it here.

    12. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      In astronomic dimensions, yes, that's not really far away....you're using a unit that doesn't lend itself well to the distances measured.

      It's a hell of a lot of light years -- 440 million light years. If the universe is 17 billion years old, as it was last time I checked, that's about 2% of the radius of the universe, a respectable number. Or more locally, M31 in Andromeda is "only" 2.9 million light years away, so the "nearby" explosion is 150 times further than that.

      You might get away with "cosmologically", but it's much further away than most familiar astronomical features.

    13. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Informative
      Think of it this way - life appeared about a billion years ago, so that was twice as long ago as when this event happened. We're seeing an event that happenned a little before the dinosaurs appeared.

      I think you're a bit off. Life appeared very soon after the Earth formed - a bit over four billion years ago. IIRC, multicellular life got going at about a billion years ago, and vertebrates invaded the land about half a billion years ago.

      Of course if you happen to live in Kansas then YMMV.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    14. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by advocate_one · · Score: 2, Informative
      2,586,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away is 'nearby' ?!

      Yes... cosmologically speaking... it's only just outside the local supercluster... it's on this map... you can't miss it... just remember to take a left at Alburquerque

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    15. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by yo_tuco · · Score: 1

      " must be some alien SETI project"

      I think it's little green men in a black war pushing the red button.

    16. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      woooo, lucky i ducked

    17. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      2,586,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away is 'nearby' ?!
      Was the origianl post. Then someone made a comment connecting lightyears to the age of the universe. That's a lot closer that 10 billion light years away, which is about the age of the universe

      AFAIK the origal post was joking about it being close to us spacial not close to us in time. Besides I thought it was accepted pratice to refer to things we see now as happening now.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    18. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by 2.7182 · · Score: 1

      No, the age of the earth is about 4 billion years.

    19. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "omnipresent".

    20. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by FroMan · · Score: 1

      My guess is you are not from the US, most likely somewhere in europe. Not because you use metric, but because you find 27 miles a long distance.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    21. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by ender- · · Score: 1

      My guess is you are not from the US, most likely somewhere in europe. Not because you use metric, but because you find 27 miles a long distance.

      Not only that, but he guestimated a house as only being about 32ft wide. Our McMansions [sigh - Yes I'm guilty, it was cheap and in a great school district] are closer to 50ft wide on a standard 60ft wide lot.

    22. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Heh, I didn't even check the size of the house... Yeah, 58'x28' is pretty standard. Granted I also live on 12 acres.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    23. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space. -- Douglas Adams

      I'm happy I don't have to commute more than 27 miles each way for a change. 27 miles is pretty close in these parts. (The D.C. metropolitan area).

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    24. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by Firehed · · Score: 1
      So we have some 440-million-year-stale gamma rays. My understanding is that the universe is more or less 16bn years old, considerably more than the 10bn you mention. Of course if life has only existed for the last billion, anything prior to that is, in effect, "time without time" (I figure if nothing's alive to witness it, it's no different if it happened in an instant or over a hundred trillion years).

      Wouldn't we care more about stuff that happened closer to the creation of the known universe anyways?

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    25. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by BungoMan85 · · Score: 1

      Well, 4 billion years ago life was getting started, but it wasnt till 3.5 billion years ago that anything we would recognize came about.

      --
      Bungo!
    26. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      The observable universe is around 40 billion ly in radius if memory serves. You have to take into account expansion - the space behind the light had expanded during its journey. So this burst was only 1% of that distance. Take that to a volume and you get that it happened within the nearest 0.0001% of the observable universe (I think... I might be an order of magnitude out).

      So, on a universal scale, it's pretty close.

    27. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by srhill · · Score: 1

      You have to scale the energy involved too: Consider someone dropping a 1 megaton nuke 44km from your house. That's pretty darn close. Hope you have lots of lead in your walls.

    28. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that anyone who uses miles can cope with such a large number.

    29. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by Chris6502 · · Score: 1

      The gamma rays aren't stale. In their relativistic time frame very little time has passed since the explosion :)

      --
      UNIX: 'cuz you can tattoo it on your knuckles!
    30. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by Locke03 · · Score: 1

      Astronomy and cosmology kind of work that way. Seeing that nothing gets to us instantly, we are always observing phenomenon that have already happened. GO out and look at the sun (but not right at it), thats how it looked about 8 minutes ago. Look at Alpha Centauri, thats how it looked about 4.3 years ago.

      --
      I don't care what youre doing so much as the idiotic way you're doing it.
    31. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by Locke03 · · Score: 1

      This is a little easier to work with:

      2.586 x 10^21 miles = 134,873,456 Parsecs

      --
      I don't care what youre doing so much as the idiotic way you're doing it.
    32. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by zopf · · Score: 1
      --
      Did you see the pool? They flipped the bitch!
    33. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by kadathseeker · · Score: 1

      Well, the tip of my wang is about as near. So yeah.

      --
      The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
    34. Re:Is this some new meaning of the word 'nearby'? by dragmar · · Score: 1
      Think of it this way - life appeared about a billion years ago
      ...on this planet
  2. pardon me by coaxeus · · Score: 4, Funny

    sorry, that was me, I had tacobell for lunch.

    --
    My name is coaxeus, and I approve this message. In fact, I think it is awesome.
    1. Re:pardon me by StarfishOne · · Score: 0

      [obligatory] I for one welcome our tacobell visting overlords [/obligatory]

    2. Re:pardon me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uranus?

    3. Re:pardon me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry, that was me, I had tacobell for lunch.
      Is that you, Dr. Orpheus?
  3. It's the first retaliation by 2.7182 · · Score: 0

    For that comet that we busted up. I for one welcome our new comet navigating overlords!

  4. aliens? by servo335 · · Score: 1

    Or does this just show how little we understnd the universe

    1. Re:aliens? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm going for "how little we understand the universe". All our theories are nice and tidy, but none of them really predict the organized chaos of the universe. They only describe what is possible, probably, or unlikely. Thus every once in a while we come across something that we didn't expect, or (even better) we come across something our current theories can't explain. (Which then results in a greater understanding of the universe, and an update to our theories.) :-)

    2. Re:aliens? by LordSkippy · · Score: 1
      or (even better) we come across something our current theories can't explain. (Which then results in a greater understanding of the universe, and an update to our theories.)

      In theory. Or it gets tossed out as "bad data", equipment/measurement anomaly/error, or just out right ignored, because it doesn't fit into the pet theories of a bunch of professors trying to protect/justify their research grant.

      Scientific process is a wonderful thing, as long as human politics don't get in the way.

      --
      My karma is in a nose dive
    3. Re:aliens? by ShibaInu · · Score: 1

      For every old professor trying to justify grants, there are a larger number of young bucks who want to make a name for themselves. Data that can't easily be explained is a great place to do that.

    4. Re:aliens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going for "how little we understand the universe".

      Pfft. I'm going for "The inter-galactic wars draw nearer"

      Time to stock up on canned food and shotguns.

  5. Read More by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

    Doesn't anyone read SciFi anymore? It's the Omega clouds! And when they get here, they'll wipe out every square corner on Earth! Run for the hills! :-P

    1. Re:Read More by nairb774 · · Score: 1

      ...every square corner...

      Are there any other types of corners?

      .

      .

      Couldn't resist.
      (Yes I know corners are not necessarly 90 degrees)

    2. Re:Read More by qeveren · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. Chindi should have actually been titled "Retards in Space", that's how "great" it was. :P

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    3. Re:Read More by Mick+Ohrberg · · Score: 1
      Doesn't anyone read SciFi anymore? It's the Omega clouds!

      I think it's VGER.

      --

      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

    4. Re:Read More by ticbot · · Score: 0
      when they get here, they'll wipe out every square corner on Earth!

      Quick! Head for the round corners!

    5. Re:Read More by Xaria · · Score: 1

      Damn, you beat me to it ;)

      It's about 260 years too early though.

  6. Two words by Billosaur · · Score: 3, Funny

    Death Star

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:Two words by AbraCadaver · · Score: 1

      Of course it's the Death Star - but #1 or #2? :P

    2. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was Alderaan being blown up by the Death Star. Considering this is something that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, there's really no question about it!

    3. Re:Two words by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I thought I'd felt a great disturbance in the Force.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    4. Re:Two words by Kankraka · · Score: 1

      It's the third one, sheesh! We aaaaaaaallll knooow that the other two were destroyed a long long time ago! :) I wonder how soon until the empires reach makes it to the Milky Way, I'd totally enlist.

    5. Re:Two words by Kankraka · · Score: 1

      Ohwait, never mind either of my posts, mod my stupid hungover ass down.. The GRB happened billions of years ago, I forgot light takes a long time to get from really really far.

    6. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hyperspace bypass

    7. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought I'd felt a great disturbance in the Force.

      No, that was me. My wife told me she is pregnant again.

    8. Re:Two words by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Do disturbances in the Force propagate at the speed of light?

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    9. Re:Two words by TheOldSchooler · · Score: 1

      Oh the Jedi are going to feel this one!

    10. Re:Two words by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, duh. If you can't figure that one out, then let me tell how fast my ship does the Kessel run.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re:Two words by Z1NG · · Score: 1

      Only on /. would a post saying, "I thought I'd felt a great disturbance in the Force" be marked as "Informative".

    12. Re:Two words by ObjetDart · · Score: 1
      Only on /. would a post saying, "I thought I'd felt a great disturbance in the Force" be marked as "Informative".

      Only on /. would there be a post saying, "I thought I'd felt a great disturbance in the Force".

      --
      I read Usenet for the articles.
    13. Re:Two words by TrevelyanL85A2 · · Score: 1

      Let the 2nd Hyperspace War begin

  7. And we're sure... by BadanTheUgly · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...it wasn't Dick Cheney?

    1. Re:And we're sure... by Mes · · Score: 1

      That would be classified.

    2. Re:And we're sure... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1
  8. Genisis? by LordPhantom · · Score: 3, Funny

    Am I the only one thinking "KAAAAHHHHNNNNNN!!!!!!"?

    1. Re:Genisis? by astroman74 · · Score: 1

      Definately not the only one thinking that: http://khaaan.com/

    2. Re:Genisis? by Dausha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, you are. :-) After all, that is set in the future.

      I actually thought that the explosion of the Death Star, which occurred "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" would have just about reached us by now. Watch for a second similar "mystery" explosion in about ten years.

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    3. Re:Genisis? by Niartov · · Score: 0

      I would have to go with.

      Suddenly I felt a great disturbence in the Force.

    4. Re:Genisis? by kcbrown · · Score: 1
      After all, that is set in the future.

      Yep. It's obviously gotta be present day. Which means...

      Pay no mind to this. It's just SG-1 at it again.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    5. Re:Genisis? by yogikoudou · · Score: 1

      Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo !!!!!!, you're not.

    6. Re:Genisis? by sorak · · Score: 1
      I actually thought that the explosion of the Death Star, which occurred "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" would have just about reached us by now. Watch for a second similar "mystery" explosion in about ten years.

      And watch for the "mystery" re-releases of those explosions in about twenty years, or the next time George Lucas needs money...whichever comes first.

    7. Re:Genisis? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1
      I actually thought that the explosion of the Death Star, which occurred "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" would have just about reached us by now.


      But why haven't our telescopes yet detected those giant yellow words scrolling gracefully towards us through space?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  9. Alt-F4 by chigun · · Score: 2, Funny

    Has anyone heard anything about the Four brave cosmonauts that were up there studying this?

    --
    swanker than you
    1. Re:Alt-F4 by dr_dank · · Score: 3, Funny

      Has anyone heard anything about the Four brave cosmonauts that were up there studying this?

      Early reports mention that one is now invisible, another turned to stone, one can now stretch, and the cocky one can set himself on fire.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    2. Re:Alt-F4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think at least of half of us on Earth got the same dose, not sure that the atmosphere does a lot to halt gammas.

    3. Re:Alt-F4 by bigredradio · · Score: 1

      Mod this one up. Laughed my ass off.

    4. Re:Alt-F4 by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean the *three* brave astronauts sent up? Or was it two?

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    5. Re:Alt-F4 by sorak · · Score: 1

      Early reports mention that one is now invisible, another turned to stone, one can now stretch, and the cocky one can set himself on fire.

      1. Is the first one invisible, or is it just that NASA doesn't want to admit she's dead?
      2. My brother can turn to stone, but only when listening to pink floyd in the basement
      3. The third one left NASA to pursue his dream of working in the porno industry
      4. Anyone can set themselves on fire. The trick is pretending it doesn't hurt
  10. Distance is relative by mateito81 · · Score: 0

    Much like time distance is relative. Five miles in rush hour is about equal to thirty on the freeway (maybe sixty for some).

    1. Re:Distance is relative by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1
      Five miles in rush hour is about equal to thirty on the freeway (maybe sixty for some).

      But what if I'm on the freeway during rush hour?
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  11. Oh, dang. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was Alderaan blowing up.

    1. Re:Oh, dang. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > That was Alderaan blowing up.

      I suppose that means we were in line with the explosive ring on it. And if there isn't one, there soon will be.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Oh, dang. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alderaan and another couple hundred systems too. And this time there won't be left even the asteroids.

  12. OMG! by telchine · · Score: 4, Funny

    OMG! They're making room for a hyperpace-bypass!

  13. Mystery Explosion? by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

    Mystery Explosion... am I the only one who thinks this is an awesome name for a crappy glam band?

    Their first album would need to be called something like Galactic Sorcery, Gems of Alchemy, or Bells of Illusion.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    1. Re:Mystery Explosion? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      No, the band is called Disaster Area. Mystery Explosion is just their latest performance of which we just got a view.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  14. War! by Docrates · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the alien's version of "I nuke you if you nuke me" is "I blow up your star if you blow up my star"....

    Maybe one of them blinked first.

    --

    There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
    1. Re:War! by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      Pessimist that I am, I figure we just witnessed the one other intelligent life form in the universe exterminating itself. Millennia from now when we confirm this, this event will be commemorated as We Are Alone Now Day.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    2. Re:War! by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Not quite. Millenia from now we'll probably have to deal with super-intelligent space cockroaches.

  15. somewhere in the U.P. by revery · · Score: 1

    And, somewhere in the UP, between Watersmeet and Marquette a billboard has silently been erected along US2 that reads:

                  "Mystery Explosion" only 440 million light-years away. Take exit Alpha Gamma 12, Just past Blorgon 7.

    If this makes no sense to you, then you have never lived or spent any significant amount of time in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. You poor, poor troll. Go home and kiss your children.

    1. Re:somewhere in the U.P. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I laughed till I cried, it's been a few years but I'll never forget dragging my Dad thru mystery spot. Where water magically runs uphill....

  16. I'm confused by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1
    But it is much closer--about 440 million light-years away--than others. And it lasted about 33 minutes. Most GRBs are billions of light-years away and last less than a second or just a few seconds."

    Does this mean the event happened 440 million years ago and we're just now detecting it because information about it has finally arrived? The physics of spacetime have always puzzled me.

    --
    "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    1. Re:I'm confused by ChowRiit · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's right: nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, not even information. We are witnessing something that happened millions of years ago, but because the electromagnetic waves (light, gamma rays etc) carrying the information are all travelling at the same speed (the speed of light), we get a chronological "look" at how the event panned out millions of years ago.

      In actual fact, when you look at, say, a chair, you're actually seeing the chair as it was several (nano/pico/something, not sure of the exact time interval) seconds ago (a very small time period).

    2. Re:I'm confused by Ginnungagap42 · · Score: 1

      Does this mean the event happened 440 million years ago and we're just now detecting it because information about it has finally arrived?

      Yes, exactly right.

    3. Re:I'm confused by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      yup. and if you realize that the source of the explosion was an interstellar spaceship accellerating to lightspeed, then you know that it's going to start braking near this solar system any minute now.

      In fact, better check outside the window...

    4. Re:I'm confused by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's right: nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, not even information.

      Quantam entanglement can.

    5. Re:I'm confused by DeveloperAdvantage · · Score: 1

      Does that take into account the expansion of the universe? Is it 400 million light years away now or is that how far away it was when the exposion occurred (presumably it was closer 400 million years ago?)

      --
      FREE - Java, J2EE and Ajax Audiobooks for Software Developers - www.DeveloperAdvantage.com
    6. Re:I'm confused by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Does this mean the event happened 440 million years ago and we're just now detecting it because information about it has finally arrived?

      Assuming the explosion site is moving only slowly relative to us, which it almost certainly is - then yep, that's exactly what it means. If we're in rapid motion relative to each other then things get a little more complicated, because the meaning of the word 'ago' gets rather blurred...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    7. Re:I'm confused by ChowRiit · · Score: 1

      OK, there are a few strictly theoretical ways to transfer energy faster than the speed of light, but nothing that has been rigidly proven or demonstrated, as far as I know.

    8. Re:I'm confused by miceliux · · Score: 1

      speed of light it's not relative to the speed of the observators

    9. Re:I'm confused by ChowRiit · · Score: 1

      The light has had to travel 400 million light years, therefore, assuming no acceleration, it would be the average distance between us and the location of the original event over over the 400 million year timespan, (or whatever the exact distance is), I think...

    10. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming the chair is 1 meter away from you. You are seeing it 2.98 x10^-8 seconds ago. (speed of light being 2.98 X10^8 m/s)

    11. Re:I'm confused by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Right, but how far apart were we when it happened, and how far apart are we now? If we were closer, then it happened more recently. If we were further, then it happened longer ago... Granted, we ought to be moving apart, like "everything" around here, but this is a freak occurrence anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:I'm confused by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Funny

      nothing can travel faster than the speed of light - oh, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Human stupidity can travel much faster than light.

    13. Re:I'm confused by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      But you can't transfer information with it faster than light.

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    14. Re:I'm confused by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      speed of light it's not relative to the speed of the observators

      Certainly not, but how long ago was the explosion if we're in motion relative to the object exploding? Whose clock is it appropriate to use?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    15. Re:I'm confused by ChowRiit · · Score: 1

      Which would be 30 nanoseconds ago, thanks :)

    16. Re:I'm confused by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Does this mean the event happened 440 million years ago and we're just now detecting it because information about it has finally arrived?

      Yes. Though it doesn't matter that it happened that long ago.

      The physics of spacetime have always puzzled me.

      Then here's one for you: since it could not have had any causal effect on us until its light propogated to us, in a very real sense for us it has only just happened.

      So 440 million years ago 440 million lightyears away is really right now.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    17. Re:I'm confused by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      Hehe, and when it does, we don't know about it until we observe it (distance from event)/(speed of light) seconds later :o)

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    18. Re:I'm confused by 1800maxim · · Score: 1

      What is incredible, though, is human brain's interpretation. We would never be able to tell a difference in time that it takes for the light to go from across the street to our retina...

      but our brain (our sight) looks ahead, meaning that if a car is driving by and we want to trace it with our eyes, we do not look at where it was a second ago, we look at where it will be at the time when the light will hit the retina and our brain will process the information - sort of looking ahead, based on the pattern/speed/direction of its movement.

    19. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Leci n'est pas un photon.

    20. Re:I'm confused by wanerious · · Score: 1
      Does that take into account the expansion of the universe? Is it 400 million light years away now or is that how far away it was when the exposion occurred (presumably it was closer 400 million years ago?)

      Well, unfortunately, it's neither. "400 million light years" is close enough so that we can get away with this kind of approximation, but astronomers really don't talk about "distance" at scales much larger than this because it doesn't have much meaning. The "400 million" number was probably derived from a direct measurement of cosmological redshift of the spectra of the explosion. This redshift number just tells us the percentage expansion (well, when you multiply it by 100) of the universe since the emission of the radiation. That's it.

      For close objects, the redshift is *approximately* z=(H)(light travel time), but this is increasingly less accurate for redshifts of greater than, say, 0.1. This redshift is about 0.03, so between the emission and reception time, the universe has expanded only about 3%. There's not too much error, then, in saying that it *is* 400 million light years away, if you can live with that kind of error.

      The problem is that the "lookback time" and recession velocities depend on what kind of universe we live in --- *how* it has expanded in the meantime. For distances this small it doesn't really matter, but this is why you really never hear *real* astronomers talk about distances to galaxies "10 billion light-years away". It doesn't make any sense, and it's misleading.

    21. Re:I'm confused by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, astronomers use light-years-as-of-now to measure distance as that is the most relative to our frame of reference. I don't think they normally account for inflation. (There's a good economics pun in there somewhere but I'm too wired to make it out right now).

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    22. Re:I'm confused by Weird+O'Puns · · Score: 2, Interesting
      nothing can travel faster than the speed of light

      <nitpick>

      Single particles can. For real life example see Cherekov radiation.

      </nitpick>

    23. Re:I'm confused by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      but our brain (our sight) looks ahead, meaning that if a car is driving by and we want to trace it with our eyes, we do not look at where it was a second ago, we look at where it will be at the time when the light will hit the retina and our brain will process the information - sort of looking ahead, based on the pattern/speed/direction of its movement.

      You're not dealing with the lightspeed delay there, though; the time taken for the light to travel from car to retina is totally insignificant. You're compensating for the glacially slow pace at which your brain processes the information.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    24. Re:I'm confused by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 1

      The indications are that when one particle is observed, the other entangled particle changes state immediately. Read "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" for an example. There's other books, but that's the one that comes to mind immediately.

    25. Re:I'm confused by ArwynH · · Score: 1

      y'know, seeing as the was this big explosion an' all I suspect It's far more likely that it was an interstellar spaceship attepting to accelerate past the speed of light...

    26. Re:I'm confused by Amouth · · Score: 1

      I always loved that..

      when our sun dies it will take 8 1/2 min for us to notice that we are all roaly screwed

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    27. Re:I'm confused by nizo · · Score: 1
      Well if it starts braking near our solar system, at least it won't be stopping here :-)


      My first thought was maybe somebody triggered their auto-destruct.

    28. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes but the sun will engulf the earth when it reaches red giant phase and reduce the planet to a floating cinder

    29. Re:I'm confused by wanerious · · Score: 1

      Right, but the result of the initial observation is still not deterministic, so you can't use non-locality to send information. At least according to the Copenhagen (most widely held) interpretation of QM.

    30. Re:I'm confused by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "In actual fact, when you look at, say, a chair, you're actually seeing the chair as it was several (nano/pico/something, not sure of the exact time interval) seconds ago (a very small time period)."

      It really depends on how for away a chair is.

      I believe the light travels about 12 inches in a nanosecond.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    31. Re:I'm confused by aluminum_geek · · Score: 2, Interesting



      Technically you are correct. However, what most people mean is nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vaccuum. Cherekov radiation is just an example of a particle traveling faster than the speed of light in air. While difficult, this is (obviously) not impossible. The speed of light varies depending on the medium it's traveling in, just like sound.
      Now, if you accept the quantum mechanics view of the universe, theoretically some things can go faster than the speed of light, eg hawking radiation.

      </Supernitpicking>

    32. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing travels faster than the speed of light in the vacuum. The speed of light in other physical media (e.g. air, water, etc.) is less than the speed of light in a vacuum; hence you get particles traveling close to the speed of light in a vacuum but are actually in a medium that slows light and hence Cerenkov radiation.

    33. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming the chair is 1 meter away from you. You are seeing it 2.98 x10^-8 seconds ago. (speed of light being 2.98 X10^8 m/s)

      1m / 2.98x10^8m/s = 3.36x10^-9s

      A light nanosecond is actually fairly close to one foot. (29.98 cm vs 30.48 cm)

    34. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making the commonly implied assumption that we are referring to light's speed in a vacuum, the statement "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" is certainly true, slow propagation in a dielectric notwithstanding.

    35. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'est quoi le fuck 'leci'?

    36. Re:I'm confused by tverbeek · · Score: 1
      Leci n'est pas un photon.

      {chuckle}

      Reference for the art-awareness-challenged.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    37. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also assuming that light has ALWAYS been at the constant it sits at now, and hasn't decreased phenomenally...who knows? We don't!

    38. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liar! There are some particles that infact do travell faster than the speed of light. And then there's stupidity..

    39. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the problems has to do with the speed of light and the difficulties involved in trying to exceed it. You can't. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws. The Hingefreel people of Arkintoofle Minor did try to build spaceships that were powered by bad news but they didn't work particularly well and were so extremely unwelcome whenever they arrived anywhere that there wasn't really any point in being there.

      -DA

    40. Re:I'm confused by twifosp · · Score: 1

      In the case of Cherekov radiation the particles aren't traveling faster than C. The single particles phase velocity is traveling faster than the group velocity of the rest of the light. This causes the blue glow which is similar to an object breaking the sound barrier. But group velocity never exceeded C. Remember, light can slow down too.

      As of "now" it is accepted that nothing travels faster than C.

      Even this experiment did not conclude that the particle traveled faster than light. Only that the shift in quantum state of the observing electron happened before the particle entered the chamber. There's still no proof that the particle itself exceeded the speed of C.

    41. Re:I'm confused by RoverDaddy · · Score: 1

      Bad news can travel faster than the speed of light.

      --
      RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
    42. Re:I'm confused by roystgnr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I believe the light travels about 12 inches in a nanosecond.

      Google agrees.

      It makes you realize just how fast multi-Gigahertz processors are, doesn't it? Look over at your computer - by the time the light from it reaches your eyes, it's probably already working on it's next instruction.

    43. Re:I'm confused by DrVomact · · Score: 1
      To be really precise about it, you're perceiving the result of a breakdown of photochemical dyes in your retinal photoreceptors that was triggered by light reflected off a hypothetical object you call a "chair" a little while ago. That retinal event triggered some optical nerve activity, which was relayed to your brain, there triggering further neural firings that caused you to think you were seeing a chair.


      Of course, you can't be sure of any of that.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    44. Re:I'm confused by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 1
      That's right: nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, not even information
      To clarify, this is believed to be true locally, but not necessarily globally. As spacetime bends, so too do the rules, and with certain exotic dynamic spacetimes it is in principle possible to cover vast distances faster than light, without ever actually travelling faster than light to a local observer.

      And of course this all assumes the belief that reality must always follow the laws of science. I can assert that I am rational, but is there really any reason to believe that reality itself must always be rational too? That seems like wishful anthropomorphising to me.

    45. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially when it's creating god damn black holes inside of laboratories.

      Which reminds me... can gravity accelerate light, like we slingshot satellites?

    46. Re:I'm confused by Beau6183 · · Score: 1


      Warp Drive?
      </geek>

    47. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alright. Frontrow seats.

    48. Re:I'm confused by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Here's something I thought was cool when I found out about it; your eyes are wired directly to your inner ears to improve their tracking ability. Hold something out in front of you and focus on a point on it, hold it still and move your head around. You can track it easily. Now hold your head still and move the object around; it's much harder to track.

    49. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In actual fact, when you look at, say, a chair, you're actually seeing the chair as it was several (nano/pico/something, not sure of the exact time interval) seconds ago (a very small time period).

      In contrast, when you look at, say, a beautiful woman, you're actually seeing the woman as she was several (months/years/decades) ago. In a cheesy photographer's home studio. In a trailer park. In rural Texas. So she can pay for her crack habit.

      She's not really in the room with you. And that's a good thing - she doesn't look so good any more.

    50. Re:I'm confused by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      But we're talking about space. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

    51. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do the numbers play out if said chair is in Steve Ballmer's office?

    52. Re:I'm confused by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 1

      I know information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, but what about government white papers?

      --
      Squirrel!
    53. Re:I'm confused by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 1

      Goverment white papers travel slower than the speed of dark.

    54. Re:I'm confused by gerardrj · · Score: 1

      I'm not certain which interpretation of your comment to take.
      In any case... "space" is most certainly not a vacuum; it's full of all sorts of stuff. It may be very, very, very low density but it is not a vacuum.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    55. Re:I'm confused by Kuros_overkill · · Score: 1

      Human Stupidity has nothing to do with information, so it is not limited by this factor.

    56. Re:I'm confused by Kuros_overkill · · Score: 1

      No, light has the same speed regardless of your frame of reference.

    57. Re:I'm confused by Floody · · Score: 1
      That's right: nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, not even information. We are witnessing something that happened millions of years ago, but because the electromagnetic waves (light, gamma rays etc) carrying the information are all travelling at the same speed (the speed of light), we get a chronological "look" at how the event panned out millions of years ago.


      That is an over-simplified and somewhat misleading portrayal of the SR model. Given that the OP's question assumed a universal reference frame, the only realistic (although not necessarily gratifying) response is: "It is not possible to answer the question as stated in any meaningful way. If you assume a local reference frame on earth, then it appears as though whatever event is responsible for this GRB occured a few hundred million years ago. If you were to assume a reference frame at the original source it could be an entirely different story. However, because the two frames are disconnected, this is unknowable."

      From the reference frame of the GRB itself, the event is occuring right now, and will be forever; but it's not our "right now" or our "forever."
    58. Re:I'm confused by Mahou · · Score: 1

      are you retarded? this has nothing to do with some mysterious higher level physics. it's plane old delay caused by distance at a determined rate. this happens with sound too. you know when lightning strikes and you don't hear the thunder until a couple seconds later because of the distance? this is the same thing, except instead of compression waves travelling through air it's photons travelling through mostly empty space

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
  17. Disturbance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I Felt a Great Disturbance in the Force. As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror.

    1. Re:Disturbance by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Let me demonstrate the POWER of a fully operational DEATH STAR!

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  18. Slashdot gets scooped again! by KrancHammer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Pffft! We gonglorians at digg.magellanclouds.com.et had this story posted 440 million years ago!

    --
    Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
    1. Re:Slashdot gets scooped again! by sqrt7744 · · Score: 0

      And you still haven't discovered the cause?

    2. Re:Slashdot gets scooped again! by gnovos · · Score: 1

      And what we are seeing here is the "GonloriSmock Effect"

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
  19. Nothing to see! by Phaid · · Score: 1

    This is Brigadier Kerla speaking for the High Command. There has been an incident on Praxis. However, everything is under control, we have no need for assistance. Obey treaty stipulations and remain outside the Neutral Zone. This transmission ends now.

    1. Re:Nothing to see! by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      "We is condemning supplies and stuff."

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
  20. Atlantis blew up a solar system by denjin · · Score: 1

    I saw this on Atlantis last year...how 2005.

  21. Obviously by Orlando · · Score: 1

    It's the Vogon Constructor Fleet clearig a way for the new bypass. We're next!

    --
    -= This is a self-referential sig =-
  22. why do i fear.... by Galaxie · · Score: 1

    why do i fear the price of oil rising and somehow having it linked to this... //magic eight balls do not report gamma ray bursts

    --
    <end/>
  23. Brrrrr by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1
    I just felt a chill. As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

    (yes, yes, speed of light, 440 million years ago, whatever)

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    1. Re:Brrrrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd assume that this would count as a long time ago, far away.

  24. Quagaars! by Ginnungagap42 · · Score: 1

    Double 'a', actually.

  25. I know what it was! by AltGrendel · · Score: 1

    It was that working warp engine that these guys are working on.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  26. Missing persons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, that's a psionic burst from the combined energy of Slashdot readers' minds exploding when they realize that not only has TripMaster Monkey not gotten a first post in three days, he hasn't posted at all in three days! Now, whether that psionic burst is from joy or sadness can't be determined at this point, however.

    Wait ... brain waves are delta waves, aren't they? Damn. There goes that theory.

    I need TMM to provide me with Google links to this phenomenon!! I need more detailed information because the article is (always) light on facts!! I need an anime smile!! AUGH!!!

    { quivering on floor sucking thumb in fetal position due to TMM withdrawal }

  27. Blame Orrin Hatch by southpolesammy · · Score: 1

    Actually, that explosion was the result of all the computers on the planet Bleepgorp exploding shortly after their illegal downloads of season 1 of American Idol through the delta quadrant wormhole.

    --
    Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    1. Re:Blame Orrin Hatch by TechnoGuyRob · · Score: 1

      Yeah...because American Idol existed FOUR HUNDRED MILLION YEARS AGO!

    2. Re:Blame Orrin Hatch by BurritoJ · · Score: 1

      Actually 800 MY... 400 there, 400 back...

    3. Re:Blame Orrin Hatch by southpolesammy · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you're just not familiar with the space-time bending concept of a wormhole?

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
  28. Do not attempt this at home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Explosion was done by licensed special effects experts. No sentient beings were harmed by this.

    1. Re:Do not attempt this at home by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Supernova explosion with 33-minute GRB display and loud report. Light and get away.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  29. Re:mod Up by ChowRiit · · Score: 1

    Ignoring all the silly posts above, this is facsinating. It's nice to know there's still mystery in the universe, and the prospect of seeing a supernova unfold is very exciting. I'm not sure, but I believe a supernova would outshine any other stars in the sky, even from that distance (although this may only be stars within out galaxy). Either way, it will let us get valuable information on the hardest part of a star's life to observe: their death.

  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. Oh no, oh no oh no! by BecomingLumberg · · Score: 1

    I'm looking for a Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, if only that dastardly Duck Dodgers doesn't get in the way.

    --
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
    1. Re:Oh no, oh no oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that as Dick Dodgers :(

  32. "33"? by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

    Hey, Rag-Tag Fugitive Fleet, we're over here!

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
  33. Intersting... by ChowRiit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ignoring all the silly posts above, this is a fascinating event. It's nice to know there's still mystery in the universe, and the prospect of seeing a supernova unfold is very exciting. I'm not sure, but I believe a supernova would outshine any other stars in the sky, even from that distance (although this may only be stars within out galaxy). Either way, it will let us get valuable information on the hardest part of a star's life to observe: their death.

    1. Re:Intersting... by ivoras · · Score: 1
      I believe a supernova would outshine any other stars in the sky, even from that distance (although this may only be stars within out galaxy).
      As long as it's distant enough not to cook us...
      --
      -- Sig down
    2. Re:Intersting... by Kaldaien · · Score: 1

      Interesting that you should mention the "end of a star's life." Some astronomers have theorized that the smaller gamma ray bursts may be the energy released when a mass collides with a neutron star (which is one of the possible outcomes of a supernova). It is fascinating to think that the mass of a single grain of sand striking a neutron star the size of Earth releases as much energy as the bomb America dropped on Hiroshima at the end of World War II. Ironic, if you consider that we first started looking for gamma ray bursts as a way to detect Soviet nuclear weapon testing, following World War II.

      Even more interesting, to me, is the fact that this gamma ray burst, while extremely long, has an afterglow that appears dimmer than the average gamma ray burst's afterglow.

    3. Re:Intersting... by Kaldaien · · Score: 1
      As long as it's distant enough not to cook us...
      Sounds fishy...

      I have read on more than one occasion where a person fancies the idea of cosmic radiation causing extinctions on Earth. It seems to me, however, that if it had happened in the past it would have sterilized even the most resilient life on Earth; not the simple extinction of a mere handful of species. Furthermore, in addition to the Earth's magnetosphere, the Sun's - which extends over 10 billion miles (further than either of the Voyager spacecraft have traveled) - shields us from a great deal of foreign radiation.
  34. FEMA by allenfr · · Score: 1

    FEMA has announced they will be responding to this new threat to national security. How many light years is an adaquate response time for them ?

    1. Re:FEMA by Burgundy+Advocate · · Score: 1
      How many light years is an adaquate response time for them ?


      Damnit, my head hurts now.

      --
      Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
  35. Must be WMDs by DARKFORCE123 · · Score: 1

    Looks like someone is using Weapons of Mass Destruction in a far away galaxy! We must stop them!

    Lets get that space program ramped up to save the galaxy!

  36. Old school ref by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 1

    "Thank you, professor. We now take you to Grover's Mill, New Jersey, where one of the mysterious objects has landed."

    --
    --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
  37. Bin Laden has a Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His agents travelled back in time (and space) and did it!

  38. Re:how visible would a supernova be? by Kranfer · · Score: 1

    Sometimes a supernova can be viewed. There are reports during the time of old kingdom and such of Egypt that Super Nova were observed... But the stars were within our own galaxy. 440 million light years is well outside our galaxy. Although it would be nifty to see a Super Nova in the night skies. Maybe a decent sized telescope like the Kek Twins on Maunea Kea on the island of Hawaii will get some good pictures :)

    --
    -- Josh
    "Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
  39. The REAL Question... by Descalzo · · Score: 1
    is why do we give a wet slap about something that lasted half an hour 440 million years ago?

    That started as a joke, but now I really want to know: Why DO we care?

    --
    I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
    1. Re:The REAL Question... by azav · · Score: 1

      Weeeelll, if it happened 440 million LY ago, and it takes that long for it to get to us, we can't tell what happened after that since it hasn't gotten "here" yet. So it's not that "do we care about that", but it's "we can't check on anything that happened after that till it gets here".

      I think. :]

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    2. Re:The REAL Question... by ChowRiit · · Score: 1

      Well, the real point is to learn more about the universe in general. If it turns out to be a supernova, all the better: we can learn about something we've never really properly observed before.

      Science simply for sciences sake make seem silly, but it has resulted in so many useful, practical applications, often from the strangest and most obscure sources, than gathering knowledge about how the universe works should never be seen as a foolish endevour.

      As for this particular event, it may have happened 440 million years ago, but we can study it now and it will be indicative of what the event would look like anywhere in the universe. If, say, a nearby star went supernova, understanding how the supernova happens could be vital to the survival of humanity, or something, you just never know.

      Does that make any sense?

    3. Re:The REAL Question... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      That started as a joke, but now I really want to know: Why DO we care?

      Why do we care about most things in the news -- hardly any affect us personally or directly. If you insist on a practical application; this is a sign of a massive explosion, a gigantic energy release. If we survive, we will need to know how to do things like that in a few million years -- they'd be ultimate WMDs, sterilizing an entire galaxy, or more hopefully have a constructive use.

    4. Re:The REAL Question... by Omaze · · Score: 1

      In the article it's mentioned that scientists expected the resulting phenomenon, whatever it is, to reach peak brightness within a week after the explosion. That struck me as odd. Almost nothing happens in the stars in a week's time but I'm sure there's a good reason for it.

      I'm wondering more about the Doppler effect, or red shifting. Red shifting is plausible--if for no other reason than the statistics behind quantum mechanics. Unless you can gather an entire wave of light back into a single point then it stands to reason that the photons will grow further apart. Gamma rays are pretty high energy and are at the top of the electromagnetic spectrum as we know it. If this particular burst looks like gamma rays to us when it gets here... what was it originally? There's got to be some sort of high-order energy past what we know as the electromagnetic spectrum if indeed red shifting is a true phenomenon of electromagnetic radiation. I suppose it could still be part of the electromagnetic spectrum but the wavelengths would be getting down to smaller than the distance between the quarks in a densely packed nucleus.

      Then there's timing. Red shifting would cause the duration of an emission to expand as well. If most GRBs, after traveling billions of years, only last a few seconds then the event which caused the emission must be on the order of a few milliseconds (or arbitrarily "less than a few seconds"). This burst was 440 million years off and lasted 33 minutes. The amount of red shifting would be significantly less between 440 million years and several billion... so the originating event could still have been on the order of whole minutes long (or arbitrarily "more than as much less than 33 minutes as a few seconds is to a few milliseconds").

      I think I remember what I was doing on the 18th. Maybe that's why I woke up with such a headache... :)

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    5. Re:The REAL Question... by wanerious · · Score: 1
      This is a good exercise in drawing distinctions between cows and humans. Upon seeing a large explosion several miles away, a cow would likely blink, lower its head, and continue to munch grass. The explosion would not immediately affect the cow's practical agenda, which is to eat.

      Most humans, and perhaps some higher mammals, would be curious as to the nature, cause, and ultimate ramifications of the explosion. Most of us would like to investigate it. Perhaps the explosion is related to other, smaller explosions. Perhaps it will support or refute a particular model of how things behave. Perhaps the rapidly expanding cloud of gases is pretty and emotionally evocative. In any case, we are fundamentally curious beings.

    6. Re:The REAL Question... by wanerious · · Score: 1
      Then there's timing. Red shifting would cause the duration of an emission to expand as well. If most GRBs, after traveling billions of years, only last a few seconds then the event which caused the emission must be on the order of a few milliseconds (or arbitrarily "less than a few seconds"). This burst was 440 million years off and lasted 33 minutes. The amount of red shifting would be significantly less between 440 million years and several billion... so the originating event could still have been on the order of whole minutes long (or arbitrarily "more than as much less than 33 minutes as a few seconds is to a few milliseconds").

      The redshift is only about 3%, so probably not an issue here.

    7. Re:The REAL Question... by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Please don't reply to cows.

      Thank you.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    8. Re:The REAL Question... by Omaze · · Score: 1

      3% over what increment? If it's 3% per light year, or even 3% per 100 light years, or 3% per 100 million light years, then the iteration is definitely significant. Since astronomers rely on red shifting to measure distances between stars within our own galaxy, though, it stands that the impact is significant. I'm not saying it's an issue. I don't want to debate it. I said it's a consideration to think about.

      According to this page a red shift of z=4.25, a recession speed of 0.93c, corresponds to a distance of 12-15 million light years. Nine years ago when I was studying nuclear physics I could probably have told you more distinctly what that means. Assuming it's the velocity remaining, a 7% decrease equates to 12-15 million light years. Assuming a linear relationship (unlikely, but I'm doing the math in my head) then light traveling 440 million light years would experience a decrease of around 250%. That means the gamma rays, by the time they reached Earth, are 2.5 times lower in energy than from the originating point. That's not an order of magnitude but it's definitely significant.

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    9. Re:The REAL Question... by wanerious · · Score: 1
      3% over what increment? If it's 3% per light year, or even 3% per 100 light years, or 3% per 100 million light years, then the iteration is definitely significant. Since astronomers rely on red shifting to measure distances between stars within our own galaxy, though, it stands that the impact is significant. I'm not saying it's an issue. I don't want to debate it. I said it's a consideration to think about.

      Cosmological redshift is an indicator of how much the universe has expanded since the radiation was emitted. A redshift of 3% (in this case) means that the universe is now 3% bigger than it was when the light was emitted. In fact, that's *all* the redshift means. Cosmological redshift is completely different from the Doppler shift used, as you say, for motions of stars in our own galaxy.

      According to this page a red shift of z=4.25, a recession speed of 0.93c, corresponds to a distance of 12-15 million light years. Nine years ago when I was studying nuclear physics I could probably have told you more distinctly what that means. Assuming it's the velocity remaining, a 7% decrease equates to 12-15 million light years. Assuming a linear relationship (unlikely, but I'm doing the math in my head) then light traveling 440 million light years would experience a decrease of around 250%. That means the gamma rays, by the time they reached Earth, are 2.5 times lower in energy than from the originating point. That's not an order of magnitude but it's definitely significant.

      Unfortunately, the linked page is in error. It is a common misunderstanding. Astronomers rarely speak of a "distance" of 12-15 billion light years, because such a distance has no meaning. Is it 12-15 billion ly from the time of emission or reception? And applying special relativistic Doppler shifts is in error since the expansion is for co-moving objects carried along by the expansion of *space*. Galaxies are not rushing through space away from us, but are fairly fixed in an expanding space. It is a subtle, but crucial, difference. The *only* information accurately obtained via cosmological redshifts is the expansion factor. Calculating a lookback time or distance (emission or reception) to an object requires a certain model of expansion that has occurred in the meantime.

    10. Re:The REAL Question... by Omaze · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if you're attempting to assert that the redshift phenomena doesn't exist or if you just want to argue about which kind of redshift I was originally thinking about (Doppler, gravitational, cosmological). I was musing about the cumulative effect of all three and how significant it may be. There's clearly a quantifiable effect. Where does your 3% number come from anyway? It's still significant even if it is only 3%.

      Try kicking your dog if you need to assert your superiority. I was looking for a productive discussion and apparently I fished out someone who wanted to fight.

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    11. Re:The REAL Question... by wanerious · · Score: 1
      I can't tell if you're attempting to assert that the redshift phenomena doesn't exist or if you just want to argue about which kind of redshift I was originally thinking about (Doppler, gravitational, cosmological). I was musing about the cumulative effect of all three and how significant it may be. There's clearly a quantifiable effect. Where does your 3% number come from anyway? It's still significant even if it is only 3%.

      Try kicking your dog if you need to assert your superiority. I was looking for a productive discussion and apparently I fished out someone who wanted to fight.

      I think you took my comments badly. Of course redshifts exist. The kind of redshifts we ought to be talking about are cosmological --- these are the ones typically used in computing distances to galaxies. My 3% number is simply the cosmological redshift (I think in the original source they claim 3.3%), which indicates an expansion of the universe of 3% since the signal was emitted. Then you offered an argument based upon a link to a page that suffers from a common misunderstanding, which I pointed out.

      You are right that redshifts, in general, distort the timing of distant events. But here, since the redshift is only 3%, the event (locally, at emission) happened only 3% faster. It's not much of a factor, as I was trying to say. If having a "productive discussion" means that I shouldn't point out where you're wrong, then I'll butt out.

    12. Re:The REAL Question... by Omaze · · Score: 1

      I don't remember there being a source which said that cosmological redshift is 3 (or 3.3)%. That was your personal assertion.

      You keep saying that the page I linked to is a common misconception but you offer what to back that up? Since this morning I've looked over at least a dozen pages, all of them physics .edu or space related .gov research (No, I wasn't about to look at answers.com or about.com for a scientific discussion) and all of them, if they include mathematical derivations, use the same equations. So what exactly is this common misunderstanding?

      What exactly am I wrong about? That the redshift phenomena is something interesting to think about? Do you hold some intellectual astroturf on someone else thinking about the effect of redshift? I see in one of your other posts that you assert that you're an astronomy educator. Perhaps you could contribute something educational rather than repeating,"No! You're wrong! I know all about it but I'm not going to describe it at all. Quit thinking about it!"

      I'm throwing you back.

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    13. Re:The REAL Question... by wanerious · · Score: 1
      I don't remember there being a source which said that cosmological redshift is 3 (or 3.3)%. That was your personal assertion.

      I think it's buried in the original press release or preprint. Anyway, the standard method we use to determine distances like 440 million ly is the Hubble Law --- observe the redshift and then ham-handedly use the classical Doppler formula z=v/c to get the recessional velocity. If the Hubble constant is, say, 50 km/s/Mpc, then we can get the distance of the object. This works ok for reshifts less than 0.1 or so. Working this out for 440 million ly gives a reshift of about 0.03, similar to other galaxies at that distance (like those in the Coma cluster).

      You keep saying that the page I linked to is a common misconception but you offer what to back that up? Since this morning I've looked over at least a dozen pages, all of them physics .edu or space related .gov research (No, I wasn't about to look at answers.com or about.com for a scientific discussion) and all of them, if they include mathematical derivations, use the same equations. So what exactly is this common misunderstanding?

      I would recommend a scientific discussion. The misunderstanding is in ascribing the redshifts of distant galaxies to an actual recessional velocity through space. If this were the case, then one could use the classical or relativistic Doppler formulas, like the ones to which you linked. But galaxies can be thought of as basically pinned in an expanding space that carries them along for the ride, like points on an expanding rubber band. The points don't move relative to their local position on the rubber band, but as the band stretches they are carried apart from each other.

      What exactly am I wrong about? That the redshift phenomena is something interesting to think about? Do you hold some intellectual astroturf on someone else thinking about the effect of redshift? I see in one of your other posts that you assert that you're an astronomy educator. Perhaps you could contribute something educational rather than repeating,"No! You're wrong! I know all about it but I'm not going to describe it at all. Quit thinking about it!"

      You're too touchy. I have attempted to describe it twice. Think about it all you want. It's terribly interesting. Most of the good introductory books on astronomy have cosmological disclaimers like the above, some with stronger language than others. The best book for non-specialists about cosmology ever written, in my opinion, is Harrison's "Cosmology: The Science of the Universe". Sometimes it's available via Amazon. But for a discussion of this, try Wiki Redshift

    14. Re:The REAL Question... by Omaze · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Finally there's a response with some real reading material in it. The first response was both flippant and amateurish.

      > Think about it all you want. It's terribly interesting.

      Now you're agreeing with the sentiment which I expressed after fighting with me for six hours. Truly remarkable.

      Use of the word "terribly" leads me to believe that you're talking down your nose more than you're trying to hold a productive discussion. If that was your intent then, by all means, carry on.

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    15. Re:The REAL Question... by wanerious · · Score: 1
      Now you're agreeing with the sentiment which I expressed after fighting with me for six hours. Truly remarkable.

      Well, I mean that cosmology and the phenomenon of redshift is, in general, fascinating. So much so that I decided to make it my vocation. In this case, redshift is not much of a factor in the original story, as opposed to your original statements. Who's fighting? I was just trying, unsuccessfully, to point out a common misunderstanding. Carry on with your views if you take such offense at dissent.

      Use of the word "terribly" leads me to believe that you're talking down your nose more than you're trying to hold a productive discussion. If that was your intent then, by all means, carry on.

      "Terribly," a colloquialism meant to indicate interest to a high degree. I have a hard time imagining things much more deeply interesting than cosmology.

    16. Re:The REAL Question... by Omaze · · Score: 1

      It's quite clear that there's little room for speculation. In the future we may find out that the redshift which you pooh-pooh with such veracity has a much more complex effect than is currently known. At one time the earth was flat, the atom was unsplittable, and a photon could not possibly be both a wave and a particle.

      Clearly you know everything there is to possibly know about astronomy. Don't expect me to quit speculating.

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    17. Re:The REAL Question... by wanerious · · Score: 1
      It's quite clear that there's little room for speculation. In the future we may find out that the redshift which you pooh-pooh with such veracity has a much more complex effect than is currently known. At one time the earth was flat, the atom was unsplittable, and a photon could not possibly be both a wave and a particle.

      Well, there's little room for *wild* speculation, as any speculation as to the physical causes of redshift must correspond to mountains of previous data and theory on the topic. Speculate all you want, just be prepared for others more acquainted with the science to tell you where you're off track. And I have no idea where you get the notion that I "pooh-pooh" redshift. It was observed with a value of 3.3%. What's the disagreement? Redshift *is* an effect, not a cause. I just don't follow you.

      Clearly you know everything there is to possibly know about astronomy.

      Now that's just snarky. You're better than that.

      I don't have your email, but if you're still interested, here is the link to the initial observational announcement with the 3.3% reshift cited from the observations: Announcement
      and here's a link to the Astronomy Picture of the Day with photos of the relevant portion of the sky, as well as many related links:
      APOD discussion

    18. Re:The REAL Question... by QMO · · Score: 1

      I wonder if your last two responders missed the point of your question.

      I would not have thought that you were implying that we shouldn't care, but rather were wondering why we are the way we are.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
  40. Exactly 33 minutes? by cejones · · Score: 1

    If you wanted to get someone's attention in the universe... a GRB that lasts for a long time would be a great way to do it. Not that I am saying it was aliens or anything.... heheheh

  41. Don't worry... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    ... is just the final implosion of the Star Trek franchise.

  42. search no further by Feyr · · Score: 1

    that was my mother's birthday candle

  43. Re:how visible would a supernova be? by MadTinfoilHatter · · Score: 1

    I've heard of these in the historic past that got real bright - even visible during the day. That would be cool!

    Are you sure they weren't talking about the bright lamp in the big roofless room? I've heard that it's sometimes visible during the day as well, but that it's hot rather than cool...

  44. U R teH suXXor! V0rLoN Pwn3s J00!!! by kulakovich · · Score: 1


    Aren't the Vorlons supposed to be busy about now? Or am I late?

    kulakovich

  45. Obviously... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    Most GRBs are billions of light-years away and last less than a second or just a few seconds.

    Obviously they get compressed together over a long journey. Has anyone considered this?

    Remember, no one knows as much as they think they do. When you do, the Universe keeps proving you wrong.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Obviously... by wanerious · · Score: 1
      Obviously they get compressed together over a long journey. Has anyone considered this?

      A great many people. And it runs the other way --- radiation gets spread out due to cosmic expansion over a long journey, so we actually see the phenomena in slow motion.

    2. Re:Obviously... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
      And it runs the other way --- radiation gets spread out due to cosmic expansion over a long journey, so we actually see the phenomena in slow motion.

      Then why are the further away bursts so much shorter?

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    3. Re:Obviously... by wanerious · · Score: 1

      They are related to a different class of physical phenomenon.

  46. Fireworks by slushbat · · Score: 1

    Perhaps it will turn out to be a normal GRB. As it is so much closer than normal we get to detect fainter effects than we would normally notice?

    --

    Don't put off until tomorrow what you can leave until the day after.

  47. you're all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    naturally, it's just another star crushed by one of chuck norris's fists.

  48. natural phenomenon? by Nuklearwanze · · Score: 1

    i think the most interesting question to answer is not "what" it was, but if it's actually a natural phenomenon at all. I'm pretty sure most of you know the various estimates of the number of advanced civilisations in the universe.......... i seriously think that astronomers should at least look at the possibility, that not all stellar observations have a "natural" origin - a civilisation near our solar system may even think of our sun as a source of strange natural radio waves...

  49. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  50. Here's a thought... by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

    So they say *most* are billions of light years away and happen for just seconds. Have they ever thought perhaps their measurements of space/time are not correct, and while those other bursts they've seen may really be billions of light years away, they could actually be happening for hours? If nothing else, I would be more interested in the previous findings and how space time may actually behave differently over greater distances than previously thought. IANAS though, so perhaps it's just the wandering mind of an infantile over here.

  51. For the technical details, see ... by StupendousMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    IAU Circular 8674, which states in part

    [a spectrum] obtained with Gemini-South telescope (+ GMOS) on Feb. 21.024 UT, shows that underlying a power-law continuum are features consistent with a broad-lined type-Ib/c supernova (designated 2006aj) near maximum light, confirming the findings of Masetti et al. (GCN 4803).

    There is a good deal of news in the GRBLog:

    http://grad40.as.utexas.edu/grblog.php

    Just search for "GRB 060218".

    It appears to be a Type Ib/c supernova -- meaning a massive star, which has lost most of its hydrogen envelope, running out of fuel in its core and exploding -- in a relatively nearby galaxy. By "nearby", I mean "at a redshift of z=0.033", which is still much farther away than the Virgo or Coma clusters of galaxies.

    It is currently around magnitude 18, and may brighten by a magnitude or so, but will still require a pretty big telescope and sensitive camera to detect.

    --
    Michael Richmond "This is the heart that broke my finger."
    mwrsps@rit.edu http://stupendous.rit.edu
    1. Re:For the technical details, see ... by careykohl · · Score: 1

      The parent post seems pretty quite knowledgeable... anyone wanna translate it into dumb-ass for the rest of us?

    2. Re:For the technical details, see ... by graemecoates · · Score: 5, Informative
      The parent post seems pretty quite knowledgeable... anyone wanna translate it into dumb-ass for the rest of us?

      I'll have a go...

      [a spectrum] obtained with Gemini-South telescope (+ GMOS) on Feb. 21.024 UT, shows that underlying a power-law continuum are features consistent with a broad-lined type-Ib/c supernova (designated 2006aj) near maximum light, confirming the findings of Masetti et al. (GCN 4803).

      A very big telescope in Chile (GMOS) took an image of the object and recorded it's spectrum (light broken down by wavelength and recorded). From the spectrum, there is continuum radiation than has intensity proportional to the wavelength raised to some power. However, there are also features (spectral lines) in the spectrum which suggest it is a Type Ib or Ic supernova (exploding star).

      It appears to be a Type Ib/c supernova -- meaning a massive star, which has lost most of its hydrogen envelope, running out of fuel in its core and exploding -- in a relatively nearby galaxy. By "nearby", I mean "at a redshift of z=0.033", which is still much farther away than the Virgo or Coma clusters of galaxies.

      Supernovae like these occur due to the collapse of the core of a star as there is not enough fuel to sustain fusion to keep the star from collapsing under it's own gravity. The implosion creates a massive amount of heat which causes the explosion we see. Different to the proposed mechanism for a Ia Supernova.

      It's actually pretty close (in universe terms). (Still a damn long way away!) The redshift (z) is defined at wikipedia. The Virgo and Coma clusters are large nearby galaxy clusters.

      It is currently around magnitude 18, and may brighten by a magnitude or so, but will still require a pretty big telescope and sensitive camera to detect.

      Each decrease in magnitude is 100^1/5 times brighter than the previous one (it's a little confusing). A magnitude 0 star is about 2.5 times brighter than a magnitude 1 which is 2.5times brighter than magnitude 2, and so on. The brightest star in the sky (Sirius - visible tonight) is magnitude -1.6 (negatives are fine). The dimmest star you'll see with unaided eyesight is about 6 in really good dark skies, about 2 or 3 from a city. The Sun is -26.7, the moon about -13. This object is about 60000 times dimmer than a magnitude 6 star. (100^(12/5)).

      Amateur telescopes with ccd cameras should be able to record this. It'd be pretty much impossible to actually see with the human eye and a telescope.

      In brief, a star went bang; it's the first time we've been able to see it this early in the explosion; it's fairly close (but not too close); Don't bother to try to look for it in binoculars.

    3. Re:For the technical details, see ... by msbsod · · Score: 1

      Thank you so much for the reference!

      I do not appreciate journals like space.com, cnn.com or pcworld.com. All they do is copy a story, add ads, trace you with cookies, change metric units into antic units, misspell every foreign name, tell you only a fraction of the story, omit references and fill up their plagiarism with links to similar stories on their own web site.
      /. writers and editors, please check your sources.

    4. Re:For the technical details, see ... by ElderKorean · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that.

      While I basically understood the grandparent, you've done a much better job.

      Have you though about a job as a science journalist - we need people who can dumb down stories for the general populace to understand while still keeping the scientist inside happy.

    5. Re:For the technical details, see ... by chawly · · Score: 1

      It has been said before, but I'll say it again. In Korea only old people ....... have the time for this kind of thing. What am I doing here ? I don't think it has been said before but I'll say it now. In Scotland, only old people ..... have the time for this kind of thing - and I'm a Scot and I'm getting old - so there !

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
    6. Re:For the technical details, see ... by TMB · · Score: 1
      Just have to quibble with an otherwise excellent rewording...

      A very big telescope in Chile (GMOS)


      GMOS is not the name of the telescope. The telescope is Gemini South. The spectrograph is GMOS (Gemini Multi Object Spectrograph).

      [TMB]
    7. Re:For the technical details, see ... by hawkfish · · Score: 1
      It is currently around magnitude 18, and may brighten by a magnitude or so
      If it is that bright that far away, it has me wondering what it would be like if this had happened in OUR galaxy. What would it do to us, for example? And if it is bad, does it get factored into the Drake equation?
      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  52. suicide galaxy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    another Sux0r suicide bombing galaxy...

  53. What's wrong? by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Obi-Wan: It's as if a million voices all cried out in terror - and were suddenly silenced.

    Luke: I knew I shouldn't have had the extra beans on that jawa burrito.

  54. Re: Asleep at the Switch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I wasn't asleep at the switch! I was *drunk*!"

  55. Allah Aqbar! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Let that be a lesson to any other alien races that draw a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad!

  56. Uh oh.. by shambalagoon · · Score: 1

    The Zentradi are coming.

  57. Marvin; is that you? (old one....) by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

    That creature has stolen the space modulator...

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  58. Whew!!! by russ1337 · · Score: 1

    Whew! That was close...

  59. StarDrive Malfunction by MadMorf · · Score: 1

    Obviously, it was a malfunctioning StarDrive, a magnetic containment breach, which allowed the escape of Gamma particles for approximately 33 minutes, until the engineering crew was able to get the containment field to stabililze and stop the leak.

  60. Damn terrorists by rlp · · Score: 1

    Well, I guess we found Saddam's WMD's ...

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  61. Re:how visible would a supernova be? by Shag · · Score: 1
    Within the last few months, there was a nice supernova (SN2005cs) in the Whirlpool Galaxy (spiral galaxy M51) which was quite visible at night using typical amateur reflecting telescopes of 16 or fewer inches aperture - in fact, it was discovered by an amateur! - hardly requiring anything near the size of Keck. :)

    Keck and the other scopes on Mauna Kea will, though, sometimes try to sneak a peek at a "high-priority" target like this, if they can find the time in their busy schedules.

    Oh, along with Rochester Astronomy, a couple other cool sources for announcements of newly found supernovae and such are the IAU Circulars (subscription required) and Astronomer's Telegram. For gamma ray bursts, check out NASA's Gamma ray bursts Coordinates Network, too.

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  62. Re:Genisis? No, Bruce Banner! by teasea · · Score: 1

    Damn! I missed my opportunity to get bathed in Gamma radiation!

    Well, green is probably a bad color for me.

  63. YAY! by Alpha_Traveller · · Score: 1

    Can I presume that this signals the Second Coming or should I feel free to book my flight to the Bahamas now?

    --
    "Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
    1. Re:YAY! by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Just make sure your pilots aren't born-again Christians.

  64. Notify Dmitri! by GyroLC · · Score: 1

    It's space commies, coming to steal our water!

  65. SETI picked up the following radio transmission... by Zerbey · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just prior the explosion was heard:

    "Hey, Billy-Joe! Watch THIS!"

  66. Man, what a disappointment! by centron · · Score: 1

    Let me get this straight: A half-billion years ago, outside our galaxy, for half an hour, there was some unusual gamma radiation.

    Yep, NASA detects Nearby Mystery Explosion certainly didn't pique my interest for what turns out to be of only vague academic value. No, sir!

    --

    XeoMage

  67. Universe by SchrodingersRoot · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which, IIRC, is the most recent measuring of the Hubble Constant, the value for the Hubble Constant is 71 ± 4 km/s/Mpc. This would give the universe an age of 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years.

    Other findings of WMAP include the makeup of the universe as 4% matter, 23% dark matter, and 73% dark energy, and a flat geometry for the universe.

    Best estimates for the age of our solar system are currently about 4.6 billion years. Life ostensibly started very quickly, on a cosmological timeline. IIRC, earliest evidence of life points to around 3.5 billion years ago.

    But your point about it being a lot more recent on a cosmological scale are correct.

  68. Can you hear me now? by jabber · · Score: 1

    Good!

    --

    -- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
  69. Ba weep granna weep ninnybong by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Hmm.. maybe I won't put my Matrix of Leadership on eBay just yet...

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  70. Re:Remember horseshoes and hand grenades? by vertinox · · Score: 1

    Remember that saying: "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades?"

    Well close only counts with black holes, neutron stars, and galactic explosions.

    I mean if a neutron star passed within a hundred million miles of us, we'd be f**ked.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  71. "Ring" by billjank · · Score: 1

    From TFA:"This could be a new kind of burst, or we might be seeing a gamma-ray burst from an entirely different angle," said Swift scientist John Nousek at Penn State University.

    Hey, maybe Lucas was onto something when he "retouched" the trilogy.

  72. Re:SETI picked up the following radio transmission by thumper666 · · Score: 1

    You forgot "Hold my beer!" :)

  73. War Declared! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And in other news, US President George W Bush has declared war on Space. He's quoted as saying "It'll be a tough one but the uh world, _will_ prevail.".

    Dick Cheney reinforced their stance on the move towards premptive attacks by saying "The lack of proof of the existance of anything, is proof in itself that this enemy exists".

    Rednecks all over the country cheered, with calls to "get them air stealing space monkeys for once and for all".

  74. It's the Zig! by Requiel · · Score: 1

    ... For Great Justice!

  75. You mean you didn't hear? by buzzcutbuddha · · Score: 1

    The plans for the Vogon's Hyperspace Bypass have finally been approved. Demolition begins this week. They've been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.

  76. Some one set us up the bomb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NT

  77. Meaningless by Daath · · Score: 1

    It's meaningless in imperial measurements. That'll be around 4,162,632,500,000,000,000,000 km.
    The Milky Way is around 946,052,840,000,000,000 km in diameter (our galaxy galaxy, not the candy bar, though I wish).
    That's 4,400 times the diameter of the galaxy ;P Near? :D

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
    1. Re:Meaningless by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > It's meaningless in imperial measurements.

      How can one unit of distance be "meaningless" while another unit of distance is supposedly correct?

    2. Re:Meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can one unit of distance be "meaningless" while another unit of distance is supposedly correct?

      Because what sort of civilized country thinks in miles?

      Oh yeah.

    3. Re:Meaningless by sbaker · · Score: 1

      > It's meaningless in imperial measurements.

      It's important to use the right units to make a point.

      The parent makes a point in a literary rather than scientific sense...it was a JOKE...not a scientific statement. The original article reads something like 'An ungodly huge explosion happened nearby at 440 blah, blah, blah' - which most people hear as "nearby". When you put down a 2 and 21 zeroes, people are gonna say "What d'ya mean 'nearby'? That's not nearby at all!".

      People don't have a grasp of how far a lightyear is - to make my point, I picked probably the largest unit that people have actually, personally experienced.

      --
      www.sjbaker.org
  78. Our Past It Out There by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is interesting to think about. If at some point in the (very) distant future we discover a way to send information faster than light, we could theoretically send a request to a civilization to capture the light from an historic event as it reaches them and return it back to us. Imagine being able to watch historic battles unfold etc.

    1. Re:Our Past It Out There by MadRocketScientist · · Score: 1

      First intelligent signal from space:

      "Hello, I am sending you this request hoping it reaches you by yesterday. Please point your telescopes toward my homeworld at {coordinates supplied}. Then zoom in Here {link to otherplanets.maps.google.com}. Watch the house behind the Starbuck's and tell me where I left my car keys. Thank you!"

  79. Obligatory LOTR quote: by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

    "It comes in pints?!" :)

    --

    kurzweil_freak

    5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

    Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

  80. Praxis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, that was Praxis!

  81. More nitpicking by SchrodingersRoot · · Score: 1

    Now, IANAP, but I believe the deal with Cherenkov radiation is that it occurs when a charged particle (such as an electron) exceeds the speed of light in a medium. Since the propogation speed of light changes based on the medium through which it travels, in some media, this can be accomplished. The denser the material, the slower light propagates through it. Water is something like 0.75c. Diamond, I believe, is somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.4c. See Refractive Index for more information.

    The general idea is that nothing can exceed c, the speed of light in a perfect vacuum. Which, if I'm not incorrect, is what ChowRiit was referring to when s/he said "That's right: nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, not even information."

  82. Yeah yeah yeah by BillGod · · Score: 1

    Yeah yeah yeah.. so when do i become the incredible hulk from the gamma rays?

    --
    MISSING - Sig file. 2 years old black and white and very funny. If found please email me.
  83. The Klingon Dreadnought must have exploded! by aisnota · · Score: 1

    Lets calculate how much anti-matter would have to be distributed for such a long gamma ray burst.

    What is that number for dial an astrophysicist?

    Damn, I keep losing that number.

    Chirp in with your guess as to how much anti-matter lasts for 30 light minutes of explosion?

    --
    http://www.aisnota.com/slashdot/ Welcome to Logic and the Future
    1. Re:The Klingon Dreadnought must have exploded! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what the fuck are you talking about?

  84. Gamma Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long will it be before we all get super human strength an turn green? Approximately ...

    1. Re:Gamma Rays by Xiph1980 · · Score: 0
      Originally posted by Anonymous Coward
      How long will it be before we all get super human strength an turn green? Approximately ...


      By the time we'd all get superhuman powers it wouldn't be superhuman anymore. Just human since it's not anything out of the ordinary.
      --
      Manuals are your last resort only
  85. Funny, but more by suso · · Score: 0

    The parent may have been marked up as funny, but I think its time that we start taking seriously the possibility that events like these could be triggered by other life in the universe. Their space wars and so on. It would be difficult to generate phenomenon on the same scale as a supernova though. This of course is not a very scientific observation, but it is indeed a possibility.

    1. Re:Funny, but more by Billosaur · · Score: 1
      The parent may have been marked up as funny, but I think its time that we start taking seriously the possibility that events like these could be triggered by other life in the universe. Their space wars and so on. It would be difficult to generate phenomenon on the same scale as a supernova though. This of course is not a very scientific observation, but it is indeed a possibility.

      Considering we are now beginning to detect planets around other stars (admittedly big ones), there's no telling what other phenomena we will find associated with stars as look harder at them. Perhaps if two intelligent, space-faring species were at war, explosions from weapons detonations, especially if they involved the use of nuclear fusion or anti-matter/matter annihilation, might certainly be detectable. Again there's the the problem of we'd being seeing these things long after they originally occurred, but it would certainly mean there were lifeforms elsewhere, though then the question would be, have they moved their fight in our direction over the eons?

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    2. Re:Funny, but more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      33 minutes man, this ain't your regular bombing....

    3. Re:Funny, but more by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      And explosion like this isn't just going to affect a few planets in a solar system, it's going to flash fry every system for hundreds or thousands of light years in every direction. Kinda the interstellar version of the hydrogen bomb.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    4. Re:Funny, but more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was probably just Battlestar Galactica, fending off some Cylons.

    5. Re:Funny, but more by Kuros_overkill · · Score: 1

      but it would certainly mean there were lifeforms elsewhere

      Gauged on that blast, the're not there anymore.

  86. 'Totally new' by richmaine · · Score: 1

    I'm glad that the 'totally new' was in quotes to clue me into the fact that this was introducing a new definition of the phrase: only half a billion years old. :-)

  87. Is the science illiteracy all in jest? by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    I hope so, because a stunning lack of
    basic facts of cosmology comes through
    in most of the posts above.

    At least google some astrophysics, people.
    And yes, that is nearby, in intergalactic
    terms.

    Space is big. really, really big!

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  88. I feel a disturbance in the force... by thewiz · · Score: 1

    like the minds of millions of /.ers have ceased to exist.

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  89. Answer to age old question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With that, the Superman and WonderWoman romantic interlude comes to a close.

    1. Re:Answer to age old question by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Makes me think about the Larry Niven short story "Man Of Steel, Woman Of Kleenex" that speculates on what would happen if Superman were to get it on. The phrase "would gut her like a trout, then blow her brains through the top of her head" comes to mind.

      And if he *did* manage to get a woman pregnant without killing her, once the baby starts kicking . . .

    2. Re:Answer to age old question by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      He'll have to fly her to a red sun (or whatever colour he loses his powers) or to live in a dark room for the term.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  90. Mystery explosion by MoxFulder · · Score: 1

    WMDs?

  91. Gamma ray bursts remain puzzling... by Kaldaien · · Score: 1

    Until we discovered that gamma ray bursts are not uniformly distributed, they appeared to defy E=MC^2; were they to radiate uniformly, E=MC^2 would suggest impossibly massive sources. Instead, as we understand them right now, they radiate much like a spotlight and cannot be directly measured beyond the penumbra

    This article suggests that this gamma ray burst may simply be from a different angle than the continuous bombardments of gamma ray bursts that we have been studying since the beginning of the cold war. 50 years is incomprehensibly short on a cosmic scale, this may well be the first time that we have measured a GRB from this vantage.

    In any case, it should prove interesting to observe the afterglow -- it is certainly easy to spot ;)

  92. Man, they're gunning for us... by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

    The event, detected Feb. 18, looks something like a gamma-ray burst (GRB), scientists said. But it is much closer--about 440 million light-years away--than others.

    Wasn't there a series of Charles Sheffield novels where Alpha-Centuauri explodes and blasts the earth with gamma rays? Of coure AC isn't an exploding type star, and what are the odds that it would be pointing right at us if it did. One must suspect foul play...

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  93. Obig. Discworld reference by Serzen · · Score: 1
    nothing can travel faster than the speed of light

    This is not strictly true. Light simply thinks that it's the fastest thing going. The truth of the matter is that dark is faster than light, for no matter how fast light goes, it gets there just to discover that dark was there first.

  94. Far enough from Earth by Dareth · · Score: 1

    So if you were far enough from Earth, but could use a "Super Strong(tm)" telescope to see the Earth, it would show you Earth's past!

    Sweet! Just like that Star Trek TOS episode... Squire of Gothos.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:Far enough from Earth by blendedmetaphor · · Score: 1

      Or if there was a very large mirror very far away from earth, we could see earth's past from earth!

      --
      Existence is futile
  95. Coincidentally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...this was the last story ever published on that site. Strange...

  96. Nine inches per Nanosecond. by RossumsChild · · Score: 1

    Is the relevant speed of light you're looking for.

    So an image of light reflecting off an object 9 feet away is 12 nanoseconds old.

    1. Re:Nine inches per Nanosecond. by Kaki+Nix+Sain · · Score: 1
      --

      (C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.

    2. Re:Nine inches per Nanosecond. by RossumsChild · · Score: 1

      [Google's talking about the speed of light in a vacuum.]

    3. Re:Nine inches per Nanosecond. by RossumsChild · · Score: 1

      Which reminds me. . .the 9 inches per nanosecond is for silicon. Not air. Whoops.

    4. Re:Nine inches per Nanosecond. by Scarletdown · · Score: 1
      Google's talking about the speed of light in a vacuum


      But is that in an upright or a cannister vacuum? And what brand of vacuum would that be, for that matter: Hoover, Kirby, Bissell?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  97. Different two words by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    Stargate (okay, maybe one word). The event lasted about 33 minutes. Maybe someone used a gatebuster on it to close it before the 38 minutes were up?

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  98. Vogon Poetry mishap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone couldn't stand another verse and hit a self destruct button

  99. As much as an event... by duh_lime · · Score: 1

    ... that happened 440 million years ago can be considered "news". This must be a new record for /. "old news".

  100. Now we know how long ago by Snap+E+Tom · · Score: 1

    Now we know that "a long time ago" was 440 million years ago and "far, far away" means 440 million light years away.

  101. Where's the KABOOM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was supposed to be an earth-shattering KABOOM!

    So much for Illudium Q-35. Now let's try Q-36!

  102. Krypton by TollBooth · · Score: 0

    Finally Krypton has exploded, soon enough Superman should arrive.

  103. Didn't Everyone Read Vogon RFC Circular 208-3231?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which noted that the plans have been available in the Alpha Centauri planning department for quite a while now. It's about time you humans started taking an interest in local affairs.

  104. If only... by Landshark17 · · Score: 1

    ... it had lasted 42 minutes.

    --
    This sig is false.
  105. I dont know what it is... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

    "But it is much closer--about 440 million light-years away--...Most GRBs are billions of light-years away..." ...BUT ITS GETTING ALOT CLOSER!

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  106. Finally, evidence of Xenu by wintermute42 · · Score: 1

    This intergalatic explosion is evidence of Xenu, the evil overlord who imprisoned the Thetans on Earth. Yes, oh doubters of L. Ron Hubbard, now you can see that The Great One was right all along. What astronomers are seeing now are the remnants of the war that took place long ago, before the great spaceships came to earth using their wonderous intergalatic star drives. Before the Thetans were sent here.

    I'd write more, but it's time to take my pills. The voice of L. Ron in my head is making it difficult to concentrate.

    1. Re:Finally, evidence of Xenu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The explosion could also be a sign that Battlefield Earth 2 will be in theatres soon (or more likely, direct to video). You've been warned!

  107. Oops! by o_miljac · · Score: 0

    there goes my storage with sh*tload of photon torpedoes .... Damn Klingons.

  108. Sorry, but no by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

    Remember the destruction of both Death Stars took place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. This was a nearby/recent event.

  109. Time is relative to speed by 2901 · · Score: 1

    I'm planning to nip over there to take a look. Once my starship is up to its cruising speed of 99.999% of c, the event will only be a million years ago.

    It is not such old news after all

  110. Hubble detects... by gnuwho? · · Score: 1

    ...strange Deathstar-like plannet seen lurking nearby.

  111. Near miss? by Illbay · · Score: 1

    *whew*!

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
  112. Re:It's all a wind-up. by Poingggg · · Score: 1

    "Hello, I am sending you this request hoping it reaches you by yesterday..."

    I almost thought it would continue with "I am a member of the Royal Family of the planet XMorb and I have in my posession(sp?) a large amount of money I have to transfer to another planet..."

    --
    What person will donate an airborne act of love?
  113. The volume of the ocean is by tylernt · · Score: 1

    2,896 trillion pints.

    --
    DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    1. Re:The volume of the ocean is by dorkygeek · · Score: 1
      But the question is: how many years would we need to drink them. And could we call them "light" years?

      --
      Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
    2. Re:The volume of the ocean is by sbaker · · Score: 1

      > 2,896 trillion pints.

      Is that US pints or British pints?

      --
      www.sjbaker.org
  114. duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it was a warp core breach.... DUH!

  115. Re:mod Up by DerWulf · · Score: 1

    Still mysteries in the 'verse? Are you kidding? You are like a first grader, first day at school "I'm sure glad there is more to learn after kindergarten".

    --

    ___
    No power in the 'verse can stop me
  116. Re:how visible would a supernova be? by Kranfer · · Score: 1

    I never even read about this visible Supernova. I knew I mispelled the Keck Twins too lol. When I was in Hawaii in November the people who work the telescopes told me that they have VERY busy schedules, you are right. Sometimes educational/research institutions pay $25,000 just for one night. If you are interested you can see a picture I took of the keck telescopes at: http://www.ussamazon.com/live/hawaii/telescopes.JP G Yeah upper case JPG, server I use for that site is case sensative. But thanks for the awesome info!

    --
    -- Josh
    "Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
  117. Re:how visible would a supernova be? by Shag · · Score: 1

    Yup, that's Kecks on the left, NASA IRTF on the right.

    $25,000 of funding might leave you a bit short of a night of Keck time, though, depending on what time of year. The general rule of thumb there is to figure $1 per second. :) After all, they're spending $40,000 a month on air conditioning alone...

    By way of comparison, the U. of Hawaii 2.2-meter scope costs maybe $2,500 a night to run.

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.