Slashdot Mirror


Supernova Birth Observed From Orbiting Telescope

FiReaNGeL writes "Astronomers have seen the aftermath of spectacular stellar explosions known as supernovae before, but no one had witnessed a star dying in real time — until now. While looking at another object in the spiral galaxy NGC 2770, using NASA's orbiting Swift telescope, scientists detected an extremely luminous blast of X-rays released by a supernova explosion. They alerted 8 other telescopes to turn their eyes on this first-of-its-kind event. 'We were looking at another, older supernova in the galaxy, when the one now known as SN 2008D went off. We would have missed it if it weren't for Swift's real-time capabilities, wide field of view, and numerous instruments.'" Bad Astronomy has an excellent, well-illustrated story about the discovery as well. I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property contributes a link to the BBC's coverage, and adds a nugget gleaned from Ars Technica: "SN 2007uy's collapse caused an X-ray burst of about 10^39 joules, most likely due to the 'shock break out' when the energy of the core's collapse finally reached the neutron star's surface."

65 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory Back to the Future joke by Uncle+Focker · · Score: 1

    "SN 2007uy's collapse caused an X-ray burst of about 10^39 joules But how many gigawatts is that?
    1. Re:Obligatory Back to the Future joke by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      2.77777778x10^26 gigawatt-hours.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:Obligatory Back to the Future joke by weszz · · Score: 1
      in my mind reading that, I was wondering if it was going to time travel, since it had to have been moving faster than 88mph...

      and that much energy...

      if only there was a way to harness it...

      every now and then blow up a star and get all of our energy from that. hmm... figure what, blow up a star every couple hundred years or so should keep our lights on

    3. Re:Obligatory Back to the Future joke by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      That's Officer Thinking, Spaceball.

    4. Re:Obligatory Back to the Future joke by Lord+Crc · · Score: 3, Informative

      I just had to try to put that into perspective, so I looked up the net annual usage of electricity in the US. If we had somehow captured, converted and stored all that energy, the US would spend about 45 million years using it up (assuming linear growth similar to the last 10 years, and I didn't screwed up the math).

    5. Re:Obligatory Back to the Future joke by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem like much at all. Put it this way, just about anything that has ever happened on Earth has been powered by the Sun. Only a tiny fraction of the Sun's output lands on Earth and yet the Earth has been powered for more than a couple of billion years. Yet you're saying that the final death throes of a star in which it's doing the most intense thing that every happen in its lifetime that it throws of enough energy to feed a single 21st century nation for a few million years. Paltry!

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    6. Re:Obligatory Back to the Future joke by rssrss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Uh? According to the annual report at the web site you linked, the total energy usage of the US (not including isolation) is about 100 Quads per year. A quad is 10^15 BTUs. One BTU is about 1055 Joules. So, the US uses ~10^20 Joules per year (J/a). The whole world uses about 4 or 5 times that amount. But, lets say the whole world uses 10^21 J/a. At that rate it will take 10^18 years to use 10^39 J. I don't think that the universe will last a substantial fraction of that time period.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
    7. Re:Obligatory Back to the Future joke by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      45 million years struck me as a little too soon for the U.S. to go supernova, but after watching the U.S. for just the past few years, I think maybe we could pull off a regular nova or at least a stellar flare.

    8. Re:Obligatory Back to the Future joke by chunk08 · · Score: 1

      but you'd did screwed up the grammar
      Fixed that for you ;-)
      --
      Do away with our corrupt tax code. Support the Fair Tax
    9. Re:Obligatory Back to the Future joke by Lord+Crc · · Score: 1

      I should have specified that I based it on electricity use. You make a good point though.

    10. Re:Obligatory Back to the Future joke by rumith · · Score: 1

      The universe as we know it might actually live that long and much longer, since the proton half-life (assuming that the Grand Unification Theory is correct and protons do decay after all) is currently estimated to be at least 10^35 years.

    11. Re:Obligatory Back to the Future joke by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      This doesnt seem to be that much because he alse assumes linear growth of energy consumption over all those millions of years.

      At the end of those 55 million years, ever person in the US would use as much energy as a small country...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    12. Re:Obligatory Back to the Future joke by bodan · · Score: 1

      Well, it did happen in just a few minutes. That's like a 10^15 factor in power, for objects that are within couple of orders of magnitudes in size.

      (The big factor is for 2 billion years over five minutes; what you're talking about would swallow some more orders of magnitude, but still...)

      --
      "I think I am a fallen star. I should wish on myself."
    13. Re:Obligatory Back to the Future joke by rssrss · · Score: 1
      I am not a physicist, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but:

      Proton decay From Wikipedia

      In particle physics, proton decay is a hypothetical form of radioactive decay in which the proton decays into lighter subatomic particles, usually a neutral pion and a positron. Proton decay has not been observed. There is currently no evidence that proton decay exists.


      * * *

      Proton decay is one of the few observable effects of the various proposed GUTs, the other major one being magnetic monopoles. Both became the focus of major experimental physics efforts starting in the early 1980s. Proton decay was, for a time, an extremely exciting area of experimental physics research. To date, all attempts to observe these events have failed. Recent experiments at the Super-Kamiokande water Cherenkov radiation detector in Japan indicate that if protons decay at all, their half-life must be at least 10^35 years.


      I take the second paragraph to mean that half lives of less than 10^35 years have been ruled out. Not that 10^35 years is the half life of a proton.

      The following is from a PBS Nova show website:

      Stellar Era Ends: During this era, which will last from 100 million years to one trillion years after the Big Bang (and is the era we are currently in), most of the energy generated by the universe will be in the form of stars burning hydrogen and other elements in their cores. This long period will give way to an even longer lingering death for our universe.


      So in 10^18 years, the universe may still exist, but it will likely be a very cold place to be, and will have been such for trillions of years.
      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
    14. Re:Obligatory Back to the Future joke by dwye · · Score: 1

      The universe as we know it might actually live that long and much longer, since the proton half-life (assuming that the Grand Unification Theory is correct and protons do decay after all) is currently estimated to be at least 10^35 years.

      Except that The Big Rip will hit first, destroying those protons a few months after they destroy the Galaxy, and long before they can decay through GUT decay.

      Assuming that Dark Energy behaves exactly as currently calculated, that is.

    15. Re:Obligatory Back to the Future joke by rumith · · Score: 1

      I take the second paragraph to mean that half lives of less than 10^35 years have been ruled out. Not that 10^35 years is the half life of a proton.

      That's what I said: "it is currently estimated to be at least 10^35 years".

  2. mmm.. popcorn by woodchip · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now, Who put metal in the microwave?

  3. Re:mmm.. popcorn by Uncle+Focker · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does anyone else taste blue?

  4. Re:"in real time" by avandesande · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To be precise we don't see anything in real-time.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  5. Re:Interesting use of the term 'real time' by pha7boy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    time is relative. if you see it now, it's real time. Too bad is not naked eye close.

    --
    -- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
  6. Re:Interesting use of the term 'real time' by qoncept · · Score: 2

    "That means they watched in 'real time' something that happened about 100 million years ago?"

    Thanks, HughesNet!

    --
    Whale
  7. eh? by thermian · · Score: 1

    I thought it read 'Superman Birth Observed..
    I'm far too tired for slashdot..

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
  8. Re:Interesting use of the term 'real time' by BigBlueOx · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes, it happened ~100 million years ago and from our point of view we just watched it in real time.

    And the sun in the sky is 8 minutes old.

    And your conscious mind is 1/2 second behind.

    And I'd really rather you not remind me of disturbing things like this and leave me in peace with my bottle of Cragganmore. Now go away.

  9. Re:Interesting use of the term 'real time' by SBacks · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, space is big and light takes a long time to get to us. By 'real time', they mean they are watching the photons coming from the actual death of the star, and not the photons coming from the debris from years and years later.

  10. Re:Interesting use of the term 'real time' by thermian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since nothing that is observed is happening at the time of the observation, real time is as good a term as any.

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
  11. Now I know what it was by Salsaman · · Score: 4, Funny

    I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I thought it was the beans I had eaten the night before.

  12. Re:Interesting use of the term 'real time' by arthurpaliden · · Score: 2, Funny

    All things are relative and all my relatives are things ......

  13. Thus illustrating.. by Paranatural · · Score: 1, Funny

    The dangers of firing up the Large Hadron Collider. Repent now, ye scientists, before we create a black hole! Or cause the sun to go nova! Or cause a Spice Girls Reunion Tour!

  14. Data? by moosesocks · · Score: 1

    This may seem like a silly question, but were the astronomers able to capture data of the entire event, starting before the initial burst of energy was observed?

    Were they already recording data when the new supernova became apparent, is there some sort of "astronomical TiVo that continuously records data in the hopes of inadvertently observing an event such as this one, or did the scientists need to press 'record' once they observed the initial burst of energy?

    I only ask, because the article's comparision to "winning the lottery" seems fairly apt, as the odds of observing such an event purely by chance must be extremely (some would say "astronomically") low.
    Also, the star's behavior immediately before the supernova could possibly provide interesting data as well. Even a *lack* of "interesting" data would be useful in its own right.

    Is it standard procedure to record every scrap of data that is received by such a facility, or do the scientists only record data once the telescope is in position, aimed at a relevant target, etc?

    I'm not quite sure where I'm going with all this... mostly just curiosity. It seems that the scientists got very lucky with this observation. Hopefully we can learn something from it, and increase our understanding of the universe!

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    1. Re:Data? by Gat0r30y · · Score: 2, Informative

      The astronomer was looking at another supernova very close to the one in question - the number i read was 8 seconds after the start (of X-ray emissions) of the new supernova - they started getting data. Indeed they got really lucky here.
      On a completely unrelated note
      Have you ever seen a supernova blow up?
      No, but if its anything like my old chevy nova it will light up the night sky

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
  15. I have to ask by dmomo · · Score: 1

    How long ago?

  16. Re:Interesting use of the term 'real time' by CowboyNealOption · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be mostly visible to someone with x-ray vision only? Plus if it was too close, too large a dose of x-rays probably wouldn't be a good thing.

  17. Re:Interesting use of the term 'real time' by geekoid · · Score: 1

    By your definition, nothing you see is real time.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  18. Re:"in real time" by CowboyNealOption · · Score: 2, Funny

    I see photons hitting my retina in real time.

  19. Watching the Postironic Genesis by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This supernova event's description includes a mention of how stars make only the elements no heavier than iron:

    After a few million years of generating energy by fusing light elements into heavier ones (hydrogen to helium, helium to carbon, and so on), the core runs out of fuel. Iron builds up in the very center of the star, and no star in the Universe has what it takes to fuse iron.


    Heavier elements (like uranium) are actually created in the supernova event itself:

    Along with all elements having atomic weights higher than that of iron, it is only naturally formed in supernova explosions.


    So this observation is actually recording the actual origin of all the elements heavier than iron. All the jewelry and aerospace materials you've ever seen, all the copper you use in wiring and plumbing, all elements with atomic numbers from 27 (cobalt) through 94 (plutonium) were made in crucibles like the one we just took home movies of.
    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Watching the Postironic Genesis by jmichaelg · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...all elements with atomic numbers from 27 (cobalt) through 94 (plutonium) were made in crucibles like the one we just took home movies of.

      Nucleo-genesis doesn't stop at plutonium. The transuranic elements get created just as well. The only difference between them and the elements up to and including plutonium is longevity. I'll bet a lot of astronomers were vying for scope access so they could look for elements in the island of stability.

    2. Re:Watching the Postironic Genesis by sir+fer · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that! I often wondered where the elements heavier than iron came from since iron is at the bottom of the nuclear-reaction "valley" in the energy-per nuclide curve, just never bothered to look it up and thanks to you I never need bother ;o)

      --
      Debian FTW ;o)
    3. Re:Watching the Postironic Genesis by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You're welcome. In return, would you care to explain how the "energy per nuclide curve" works?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  20. CORRECTION - I made a mistake in that submission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    I would like to correct this part of my submission:

    SN 2007uy's collapse caused an X-ray burst of about 10^39 joules, most likely due to the 'shock break out' when the energy of the core's collapse finally reached the neutron star's surface."


    That should've been SN 2008D, not SN 2007uy. I confused the old supernova with the new one somehow, which is pretty bad considering it even has the year as part of the name. The NEW supernova is the one whose X-ray burst released approximately 10^39 joules.

    Also, the unnamed "scientists" who were lucky enough to find this are Alicia Soderberg of Princeton University & her colleagues, just so we give credit where credit is due.

    - I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
  21. Re:"in real time" by adavies42 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not actually true, signal propagation from your retina to your visual cortex is not instantaneous.

    --
    Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
    -kfg
  22. Old news by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah that's right, another dupe from slashdot; this story was covered 97 million years ago when it actually happened.

  23. Re:"in real time" by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    That depends on what you define as 'seeing'. Is it conformational change in opsins (light-sensitive proteins) or conscious awareness of seeing something?

  24. another supernova birth ... yawn by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Supernovas all look the same at birth but it's proper form to smile politely and congratulate the parents anyway.

  25. Error in summary of Ars story by DrJay · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whoever wrote the summary of the story on Ars had a bad day. The figure in Joules is right, but it came when the energy hit the surface of the existing star, not whatever remnant remains of the core.

    --
    ______ This mind intentionally left blank.
  26. Which supernova? by ozbird · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Ars Technica: "SN 2007uy's collapse caused an X-ray burst of about 10^39 joules, most likely due to the 'shock break out' when the energy of the core's collapse finally reached the neutron star's surface."

    I think they mean SN 2008D, the new supernova that was just detected by its X-ray flash. SN 2007uy was the old (31 Dec 2007) supernova they were observing at the time that SN 2008D went off.

  27. Re:Interesting use of the term 'real time' by element-o.p. · · Score: 1



    Exactly.

    Even if I hold a flashlight right next to my eyeball (ouch!) and turn it on, there is still a small -- albeit infinitesimally small -- delay between the point when the photons exit the flashlight and when they impact my retina. Thus, I am not watching the flashlight turn on in "real time", although for all practical purposes, it is close enough.

    </pedantic>

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  28. Re:Interesting use of the term 'real time' by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    nothing you see is real time.

    D'uh!

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  29. Re:mmm.. popcorn by end15 · · Score: 1

    If it's anything like my Chevy Nova it should light up the night sky!

    --
    All glory to the Hypnotoad!
  30. Re:Too bad is not naked eye close by sir+fer · · Score: 1

    Well the nova that made the Crab Nebula (witnessed in 1054AD) was visible during the day and there don't seem to have been too many ill effects. High energy radiation of the gamma/xray type makes up the minority of energy released during these events, and thanks to the inverse-square law, not much will have hit us anyways.

    --
    Debian FTW ;o)
  31. Re:Interesting use of the term 'real time' by niktemadur · · Score: 1

    Since nothing that is observed is happening at the time of the observation, real time is as good a term as any.

    Ooh, that was good, and just about closes the book on the whole argument.
    In fact, now that you mention it that way, a lot of things are starting to make more sense.
    Words to live by.

    --
    Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  32. automation by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So is there some sort of automated system which gets every major telescope on, or orbiting, the planet to drop what it's doing and point at supernovae (if they can see them) as they appear? Or does someone have to get a telephone directory out and start asking some unfortunate Chilean the way to the beach in a loud voice?

    I understand that astronomers have been wanting to gather as much data as they can from as many telescopes as they can on supernovae as they appear, and have organised lots of telescopes en masse before, I just wonder by what means it's achieved.

    I also think that it would be incredibly cool if, in the dusty control room of an observatory up a mountain in Hawaii or somewhere, there was a big red button labeled "push in case of supernova", which grabbed the co-ordinates currently being observed, and took over every other telescope on the planet to point at them.

    Also, have they done interferometry with this data? because that would be an awesomely large telescope diameter (and awesomely small resolution angle).

    --
    FGD 135
  33. Well that about does it... by sir+fer · · Score: 1

    As far as rare events, go, there has been one tsunami (boxing day tsunami), one spectacular comet (McNaught) and now a super-nova witnessed from the beginning...any other rare events we can look forward to?

    --
    Debian FTW ;o)
  34. Re:Interesting use of the term 'real time' by bogjobber · · Score: 1

    The fact that we can't tell with absolute precision how long the light has been traveling is a good example of why we use the term real time. In our frame of reference, it is happening in real time.

  35. Re:mmm.. popcorn by PakProtector · · Score: 1

    Of course it should! That's what happens when you put two Ford Pintos into the super collider!

    --

    Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
    man: no entry for woman in the manual.
    "Qua!?"

  36. Re:Interesting use of the term 'real time' by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Since nothing that is observed is happening at the time of the observation, real time is as good a term as any.

    I'd say that since according to Relativity we're observing this event at the earliest point in time it would be physically possible for us to observe it, "real time" is a great term.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  37. Re:Interesting use of the term 'real time' by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That means they watched in 'real time' something that happened about 100 million years ago?

    Yeah, exactly. Wake me up when a supernova explodes down the street.

    Actually there are inertial frames in which this supernova practically just exploded, e.g. that of the neutrinos which just arrived here from the supernova traveling at almost the speed of light. They would see their flight path undergo Lorentz contraction; as the velocity approaches c the distance shrinks to zero.

  38. Any signal on a neutrino telescope? by flabbergasted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Were any neutrino telescopes collecting data at the time? If so, did they see a signal? The delay between the time of arrival of the X-ray burst and the neutrino signal would put bounds on the mass of the neutrino. Given the distance to the supernova, there probably wasn't much of a signal, but it would be interesting to know if anything was seen.

    1. Re:Any signal on a neutrino telescope? by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Informative
      The delay between the time of arrival of the X-ray burst and the neutrino signal would put bounds on the mass of the neutrino.

      Actually, the neutrino burst would arrive before the X-ray burst. The neutrinos are released as the degenerate gas at the stellar core collapses to neutronium; they pass through the surrounding material as if it wasn't even there, and set out into the universe immediately.

      Once the neutron core has formed, further infalling matter hits the hardest surface in the universe, and this produces a colossal shock. The X-ray burst is released only when this shock wave reaches the surface of the star. That won't take long, but it's long enough; the neutrinos are already far out into space.

      The principle still holds, of course; the neutrino mass affects the neutrino velocity, and so the timing of the two bursts will give us data on those quantities. But the delay will probably be in quite the opposite direction to what you suggested.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:Any signal on a neutrino telescope? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      But as the detectors are running 24/7, there might be a spike.
      OTOH, this isnt andromeda, so not sure about what countrates to expect. Not a lot, after a small rule-of-thumb calculation, even in the best detectors...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:Any signal on a neutrino telescope? by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

      The neutrinos are released as the degenerate gas at the stellar core collapses to neutronium; they pass through the surrounding material as if it wasn't even there, and set out into the universe immediately.

      This is mostly true. During core collapse, the high density drops the mean free path of a neutrino to a few meters, and the neutrinos become energy carriers in a short-lived equilibrating process. The resulting neutrino-neutron reactions are what allow elements heavier than Bismuth to form (s-process products tend to be too neutron-heavy to survive), and the net outward transfer of energy contributes to the rebound shock.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
  39. NGC-2770? by zapakh · · Score: 1

    Looks like the USS Drox just went supercritical.

  40. Re:mmm.. popcorn by Adambomb · · Score: 1

    Hey, which crazy thing happening are you guys screaming about?

    --
    Ice Cream has no bones.
  41. Re:CORRECTION - I made a mistake in that submissio by locofungus · · Score: 1

    Also, the unnamed "scientists" who were lucky enough to find this are Alicia Soderberg of Princeton University & her colleagues, just so we give credit where credit is due.

    Completely unrelated, but I had to go back and reread the first name after seeing that surname:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna

    is another Soderberg that geeks might be familiar with.

    Tim.

    --
    God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
  42. Re:Interesting use of the term 'real time' by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
    And your conscious mind is 1/2 second behind.


    I'm glad you brought that up. I mentioned this to my dad a while back (I used the figure of a 1/4 second but close enough) and he gave me that deer in the headlights look for a few seconds as it just dawned on him what I said.

    It's funny to think we are living "behind" real time yet our body keeps (most of) us functioning normally. Evolution is interesting, isn't it?

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  43. Obligatory Bad Astronomy joke by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

    Hydrogen burning into helium - 10 million years
    Helium burning into carbon and oxygen - 1 million years
    Carbon burning into neon, sodium, magnesium, and aluminum - 1,000 years
    Neon burning into magnesium - 3 years
    Oxygen burning into silicon, sulfur, argon, and calcium - 0.3 years
    Silicon burning into iron - 5 days

    Catching a Type II Supernova in the shock breakout - Priceless

    (copyleft MandyDaxon@BadAstronomy)

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"