Slashdot Mirror
Most Extreme Gamma-Ray Blast Yet Detected
Matt_dk sends in a quote from a story at NASA:
"The first gamma-ray burst to be seen in high-resolution from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope is one for the record books. The blast had the greatest total energy, the fastest motions and the highest-energy initial emissions ever seen. ... Gamma-ray bursts are the universe's most luminous explosions. Astronomers believe most occur when exotic massive stars run out of nuclear fuel. As a star's core collapses into a black hole, jets of material — powered by processes not yet fully understood — blast outward at nearly the speed of light. The jets bore all the way through the collapsing star and continue into space, where they interact with gas previously shed by the star and generate bright afterglows that fade with time. ...Fermi team members calculated that the blast exceeded the power of approximately 9,000 ordinary supernovae, if the energy was emitted equally in all directions."
"Fermi team members calculated that the blast exceeded the power of approximately 9,000 ordinary supernovae, if the energy was emitted equally in all directions."
IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAND~
Great shot, kid! That was one in a million!
Athy, athier, athiest.
i've always wondered how they know the size and distance of these objects. short of running a tape measure out, how the hell do you calculate the size of something an unknown distance away?
The chain of logic is vast and complex, but I'll try to summarize:
1) First, we used radar and the speed of light to figure out the distances of things in our solar system. These calculations helped us figure out the diameter of the Earth's orbit, which is used in the next step, parallax.
2) Once we know the diameter of Earth's orbit, we used parallax to determine the distance to nearby stars. Parallax is a process of triangulation, where we use the earth at two extremes and the star we are looking at as the three points of a triangle. Knowing two angles and one side lets us solve for the distance to the star. But the resolution of our telescopes only lets us use this method with any accuracy for stars in our immediate vicinity.
3) Once we could figure our how far away nearby stars are, we began focusing in on types of stars that have fairly consistent outputs of energy in comparison to their other measurable traits, such as color. We call these consistent types of stars (and other astronomical objects) standard candles.
4) Once we are sure that these standard candles do indeed have consistently predictable outputs, we can guess how far away stars of these types are by noting that luminosity (total light output) and apparent brightness are related by a simple inverse distance squared relationship. This lets us estimate the distance to any type of star that has a fairly estimable luminosity.
5) After we have our standard candles mapped out in space, we can note the absorption lines in the light spectrum which indicates various types of dust and gasses. With this data we can make a rough map of where dust and gasses are floating around. This map will let us look at light from stars and objects that aren't standard candles and figure out how far away they should be to account for the absorption lines we see in their light spectrum.
6) After mapping out many of the nearby galaxies using supernovae as our key standard candle, we notices that is seems that there is a linear correlation between how far away an object is and how fast it is moving away from us (we can tell how fast an object is moving away from us using red-shift). This observation seems to show that the universe is expanding, but more important to the discussion at hand, it gives us another tool with which to estimate and map the distances of objects -- this time at any arbitrary distance.
Using the many of the above methods we can get estimates for how far away objects are, but the margin of error is huge because of all of the assumptions we've made. Plus of minus a magnitude or two is considered fairly precise in astronomical terms. This might have been more of an answer than you bargained for, but there you have it.
This is why I come to /. once in a thousand comments there is one like this.
Thank you!
And the plural of axes is chainsaw.