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."

Comments

It's misquoted

[ErikTheRed]

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!"

Re:It's misquoted

[KevinKnSC]

It bothers me that /. editors missed the obvious headline "Junior-Sized Supernova Discovered by Junior-Sized Astronomer."

No light pollution there

[the_arrow]

It seems like this kid didn't have to worry about light pollution.

Re:No light pollution there

[literaldeluxe]

Standing in a 10m-deep well in the middle of a bright day you will see a piece of night sky, with stars and all, when you look up

I have trouble believing that. Light scatters in the atmosphere; it's not just coming at you in straight lines from each source. Standing in a well doesn't change the fact that the bright, scattered light from the sun or terrestrial sources will reach your eyes and make it impossible to see faint objects. Reducing the amount of peripheral, direct light will improve the situation, but I doubt it will have enough of an impact to be noticeable, and certainly not enough to see "night sky, with stars and all" on a sunny day.

Re:No light pollution there

[Darth_brooks]

That's because she was using a telescope - even a small one negates the problem. Just like observing the sky from the bottom of a well. Standing in a 10m-deep well in the middle of a bright day you will see a piece of night sky, with stars and all, when you look up (well, except when you're on the equator and it's exactly the midday, but that's a corner case of sorts).

[[citation needed]]

Standing at the bottom of a well doesn't magically make the sky dark at midday. Other than a few very bright objects (Venus, maybe Jupiter, maybe the ISS, if it happens to path over the small swatch of sky you could see), I strongly doubt that you'll see anything other than blue sky. I've yet to read a convincing argument (or better, see a convincing picture) that proves the "bottom of a well" hypothesis any better than the "airplane on a treadmill" problem.

The closest explanation I've heard would be that, when viewing at dusk, your eyes would be better adjusted to the low-light conditions, since you've presumably been standing at the bottom of a dark well for a while. Which isn't that much more useful to anyone (short of maybe unwilling friends of Jame Gumb) than sitting in a dark room before going outside.

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.

Re:No light pollution there

[SkyDude]

I'm thinking that you may see stars if you've just arrived at the bottom of a well, but they won't be in the sky. You may also hear bells, birds and a lot of wincing.

Re:No light pollution there

[value_added]

Or possibly the sound of someone mumbling something about lotion.

She got a raw deal...

[jimbudncl]

She discovered it and they didn't even name it after her??? Sue, Caroline, sue!

Sky coverage + Observing Time = Discoveries

[AaronParsons]

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!

Re:Sky coverage + Observing Time = Discoveries

[cwills]

Within the amateur and professional astronomy circles there is a fairly wide known and standard method of reporting astronomical stuff (see http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/cbat.html )

Many deepsky objects (galaxies, nebulae, star clusters) become "well known friends" by amateur astronomers. For example, when ever I'm out observing I will usually do a quick peek at M13 in Hercules, M81, M82 in Ursa Major, or parts of the Veil nebulae in Cygnus when they are visible (just to name a few). I suspect if there was a new supernova in M81 or M82, there is a chance that I would "catch it" by noticing something "odd" (think of it like noticing a new pimple on a friends face). Once something "odd" is noticed, the next step would be to check recent and older photographs of that region. If it's suspected to be "new" then the information is submitted to the IAU Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams according to the instructions listed above. Usually the next step that happens is that the pros might get involved to verify the finding.

There are "rules" on who discovers the object, based mainly on the chronological time that IAU receives the information. Co-discovery of the same object can happen, usually the cut-off is when the IAU sends out the notice that there is a potential new object. In other words, say that I notice a new brightness in M81, I record the information and at 10:15 GMT send it in to the IAU CBAT. Someone else also notices the same object and sends in the information at 10:30 GMT. There is a CBAT notice sent out to subscribers at 10:35 GMT. Any observation after 10:35 would not be considered a discovery.

BTW if you go out to http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/RecentSupernovae.html and look for 2008ha, you will find that there where 2 other people who are listed as discoverers of the same supernova, and it looks like Caroline Moore has been "working" with the same folks because she is also listed with at least one of them on two other recent supernova discoveries.

Re:Sky coverage + Observing Time = Discoveries

[hcdejong]

IAU Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams

Telegrams?

--- have found possible new celestial phenomenon - stop - proof sent as electronumerical photograph following this message - stop - hcdejong - ends
- START teletype-mime-v1.0 - 00011110101 11010101010 101101 110 1110101 0110 1010 10101 0101 1

Re:Sky coverage + Observing Time = Discoveries

[cwills]

I'd give her a little more credit... I don't know all the details but reading the "Caroline's story" it does sound like she was capturing and processing the images herself (with some assistence in getting going and learning what to do). It might have been "Dad's" observatory and such.. but it still looks like she was doing the work. The co-discovery might simply have been the "hey let me check my data as well..".

The setup that some of these SN hunters is fairly automated, they maintain a list of objects that they will check on a routine basis. A group of SN hunters will sometimes pool their resources, share lists, coordinate what objects they are going to check, etc. The scopes can be automated to jump from object to object, take some exposures, then move on to the next object. The processing of the exposures can be partially automated, but it still requires going through them to determine if it's real or an imaging artifict or a cosmic ray on the image. This used to be done by using an optical blink comparitor (an old school optical box set up where you can quickly flip from viewing one photographic plate to another)

Anyway -- Kudos to Caroline. It's a fun hobby that has been keeping me busy since I was 12 and had access to a 10" Newtonian.

It goes both ways!

[dword]

Astronomers say that it may be the weakest supernova ever seen.

Or the strongest nova..

Re:Statement on Society

[LBArrettAnderson]

They're explosions... it only makes sense to relate to things that explode... most exploding things are weapons (and (super)nova).

Awesome

[pluther]

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.

Re:Statement on Society

[ijakings]

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.

Re:Neither Nova nor Supernova

[MozeeToby]

Just another planet firing up their LHC, nothing to see here.

Re:Weakest Supernova?

[kindbud]

A supernova entails core collapse and results in the destruction of the star. A nova is an explosion occurring in the upper level of a star's atmosphere and does not destroy the star. Novas recur in a more or less cyclic fashion, supernovas never recur.

Re:supernova vs nova

[mea37]

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...)

How telescopes "invalidate" light pollution, sorta

[jeffb (2.718)]

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.

Kilonova, Meganova

[Captain Spam]

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.