Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Youngest Galactic Supernova Found, But No Aliens

Posted by timothy on from the tax-paid-striptease-from-nasa dept.

Simon Howes writes "After searching for decades, astronomers have found a supernova in our galaxy! So it wasn't little green men we were waiting for. It's located very near the center of the galaxy, about 28,000 light years away, and it's only at most about 140 years old. Quote from Bad Astronomy: 'If you're wondering what all the buzz has been about the past few days over a NASA discovery, then wait no longer. No, it's not aliens or an incoming asteroid. Instead, it's still very cool: astronomers have found the youngest supernova in the Milky Way.'" FiReaNGeL contributes a link to coverage on e! Science News; I think Wired's account of the super-hyped tele-press-conference is the funniest.

10 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Doesn't make sense.... by Mikkeles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it's 140 yrs old, then it can't be farther than 140 ly for us to know about it ??!!?

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    1. Re:Doesn't make sense.... by kalirion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We are seeing a 140 year old supernova. Just like someone looking at my baby pictures will be seeing a 3 month old kalirion.

    2. Re:Doesn't make sense.... by liquiddark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Relativity actually defines, in a sense, the age of an event relative to your own perspective. The "causal" perspective is the only one that really matters. From our causal perspective, the supernova is 140 years old.

  2. Re:140 Years old by Azaril · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would be, if wasn't actually 28140 years old.

  3. distance vs age? by forsetti · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wait -- if it is 28,000 light years away, but only 140 years old .... does that mean we won't see it for another 27,860 years? Or, did it actually occur 28,140 years ago and we could see it 140 years ago?

    --
    10b||~10b -- aah, what a question!
    1. Re:distance vs age? by rossdee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In space, all news is old news.

  4. Re:Not to be picky, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Luckily the scientists involved understand reference frames and hence can communicate wthout loosing the numbers that matter in the error bars.

  5. Re:140 Years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... or if America wasn't dozens to hundreds of millions of years old.

  6. I came in here to burn some mod points... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And I'm posting because there is no "Moron" mod.

    This is seriously one of the stupidest discussions I've ever seen on /. Every post is either repeating something from the article, making a pedantic loser comment on the "140 years" line, or explaining to the morons the whole concept of "Frame of Reference."

    It's what I'd expect from a society where people prank call a scientific conference. Nice one, guys.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  7. 28140 years old by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The write-up says:

    about 28,000 light years away, and it's only at most about 140 years old

    If we are observing it (the light, that left the start 28000 years ago) now, the start must be about 28140 years old...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.