Slashdot Mirror
Junior-Sized Supernova Discovered By New York Teen
Matt_dk writes "In November 2008, Caroline Moore, a 14-year-old student from upstate New York, discovered a supernova in a nearby galaxy, making her the youngest person ever to do so. Additional observations determined that the object, called SN 2008ha, is a new type of stellar explosion, 1000 times more powerful than a nova but 1000 times less powerful than a supernova. Astronomers say that it may be the weakest supernova ever seen."
What actually happened is that the astronomers were told that a 14-year-old child found a supernova that they'd all missed, and they groaned "Oh, that's weak!"
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
It seems like this kid didn't have to worry about light pollution.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Is that because you torched it in anger after it "no va"?
She discovered it and they didn't even name it after her??? Sue, Caroline, sue!
The cool thing is that in astronomy, we're still miles from having full sky coverage 24/7. This means that even if you have a (relatively) small telescope, you can still see things the big ones can't just by looking somewhere no one else is at a particular time.
I wish they described how the discovered got funneled up to the supernova scientists on the paper published on it. She must have been with someone who really knew that the "new star" she saw there wasn't supposed to be there, and that person deserves some credit, too!
Astronomers say that it may be the weakest supernova ever seen.
Or the strongest nova..
No; that was in a galaxy, far, far away.
This was in a nearby galaxy.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Pet Peeve Alert:
Weakest Supernova or STRONGEST NOVA?
I'm mean seriously, a star exploding is a star exploding. Mario or Super Mario. He's still a fat plumber who eats shrooms...
I bet if the highly paid scientists found it they'd be touting the "Strongest NOVA ever see discovered" where as some plucky kid finds it they're like "umm weakest Super nova ever...."
Word play is fun...
It is almost like asking "Is it an A- or a B+" or the musical types the whole sharp flat deal...
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
They're explosions... it only makes sense to relate to things that explode... most exploding things are weapons (and (super)nova).
While the article, and many commenters so far have remarked on the irony of the youngest amateur astronomer finding the smallest supernova, it's pretty remarkable that what she actually found was a completely new astronomical phenomenon.
From what I understand, the mechanisms behind novae and supernovae are pretty well understood. But this is something new altogether. According to the article, they're not even sure it's an actual supernova. Nobody has ever seen this exact behavior in a star before. We're going to learn a lot from this, and it would be pretty damn remarkable even if the discoverer hadn't been a 14 year old amateur.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
I would much prefer a "How many Librarys of Congress can the explosion blow up" System. So for example this Nova can blow up 1000 times more librarys of congress than a regular Nova.
Just another planet firing up their LHC, nothing to see here.
Next they'll wanna vote
Test me and I will chronicle your pain - The Archivist (Diablo 3)
Well, yes...
The thing to realize is, in spite of their related names, a nova and a supernova are fundamentally different phenomena. They happen to have enough similarity (esp. in what's observed) to be named as though a "supernova" were just a nova only bigger, but that obscures huge differences in what's really going on.
AFAIK, neither phenomenon would be expected to produce this kind of mid-range result. Possibly it's a different kind of event altogether. (Must... resist... LHC joke...)
Also, please explain how using a telescope magically invalidates light pollution. If I follow your line of reasoning, I should be able to use a pair of binoculars to get a crystal clear view out of a dirty window.
You're right that the "bottom of a well" claim is bogus, but you miss the boat in this last paragraph.
A telescope collects more light than the naked eye, and it also magnifies the image of what you're seeing. If you're looking at an extended object -- a nebula, a planet, or a patch of light-polluted sky -- this magnification spreads the object's light over a wider area, making it dimmer. Stars, though, are still effectively point sources, so they just look brighter.
So, looking for stars in a light-polluted sky is easier with a telescope, because it makes the stars appear brighter relative to their background. With nebulae, comets, or other extended objects, especially where the object's apparent brightness doesn't exceed the sky's apparent brightness, the telescope doesn't help much at all.
As for the binoculars and the dirty window, well, the dirt would be out-of-focus for the binoculars, so they might help a little. Mostly, though, the analogy is a poor fit. Light pollution is effectively radiating from clear sky, not blocking light as smog or clouds would do.
Additional observations determined that the object, called SN 2008ha, is a new type of stellar explosion, 1000 times more powerful than a nova but 1000 times less powerful than a supernova.
Well, I'm glad to see celestial phenomena follow the metric system, at least. I propose we name this a kilonova and rename the supernova to a meganova.
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
There's small chance of seeing even the moon, let alone the milkyway [cosmosmagazine.com] in any major US city.
Huh? Which city have you been to where the ambient light pollution is brighter than the moon?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
chemistry, physics, biochemistry, computer science, mathematics, etc.
you need to slave almost your whole life, be at the top of your mental game, have tons of education under your belt, and you need extremely expensive instruments (well, not math)
but to make an important contribution to astronomy, you just need to look up with a cheap introductory level hobbyist telescope available at walmart, and some passion
that's amazing
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Huh? Which city have you been to where the ambient light pollution is brighter than the moon?
He probably lives in LA, where it's not a matter of the light pollution being brighter than the moon, but of the moon not being bright enough to penetrate the smog. Ask a 1st Grader what color the sky is, and they'll enthusiastically answer "brown!"
The enemies of Democracy are