Supernova Shrapnel Found In Meteorite

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supernova Shrapnel Found In Meteorite

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday September 9, 2010 @04:52AM from the just-missed-the-dinosaurs dept.

coondoggie writes "Talk about finding a needle in a cosmic haystack. Scientists this week said they found microscopic shrapnel in a meteorite of a star they say exploded around the birth of our solar system 4.5 billion years ago."

105 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The wonders of science... by grub · 2010-09-09 04:52 · Score: 5, Funny

Remarkable!

Think of the odds: this meteorite landed 146 years ago in 1864.

What are the chances that something would be flying around the solar system for nearly 4.5 billion years then hit this wee planet which was Created only 5854 years earlier?

Most amazing indeed.

--
Trolling is a art,
1. Re:The wonders of science... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 04:57 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Magnets, how do they work?
2. Re:The wonders of science... by s122604 · 2010-09-09 04:58 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  The universe was created 6000 years ago too.
  The 4.5 billion figure, for any object terrestrial, or extra-terrestrial, is the product of a duped mind, duped by Satan himself; bound, like Satan himself to writhe eternally in the lake of fire
  
  Not to worry Mr. snarky intellectual, in that pool, there is always "room for one more"
3. Re:The wonders of science... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 05:00 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  I had no idea how much I as a white man respected Malcolm X until I learned that he wanted all the niggers to go back to Africa. What a capital idea! Why don't we have more black leaders who feel that way? Besides, it'd be a boon for the airline industry.
  
  What a completely rational response. Hey nigger, don't like it here? Think The Man is draggin' you down? Go the fuck back to Africa.
  
  If my great, great great grandpappy only knew that things would turn out this way, he'd have picked his own damn cotton.
4. Re:The wonders of science... by DamienRBlack · 2010-09-09 05:04 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  My troll detector must be fuzzy from lack of sleep. I've got the mod points but I just can't decide if you're funny or trolling or heaven forbid, serious.
5. Re:The wonders of science... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 05:10 · Score: 0, Interesting
  
  The comment was just stupid. Not really funny. Mod it back down.
6. Re:The wonders of science... by SL+Baur · 2010-09-09 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Meh. Think of it another way. Every element other than Hydrogen and Helium was created in the bowels of a star. So, another supernova projectile vomited just in time for one of its chunks to reach our solar system as it was being formed.
  Hmmm. Kind of cool coincidence actually.
7. Re:The wonders of science... by TitusC3v5 · 2010-09-09 05:13 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  TFA was really sparse on details. It didn't even say what kind of super powers it would give us if we came in contact with it.
  
  --
  And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
8. Re:The wonders of science... by AffidavitDonda · 2010-09-09 05:28 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  it will give you Hemolysis and survival of autologous red blood cells salvaged after cemented and uncemented total hip arthroplasty
9. Re:The wonders of science... by dilvish_the_damned · 2010-09-09 05:32 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  The universe was created 6000 years ago too. The 4.5 billion figure, for any object terrestrial, or extra-terrestrial, is the product of a duped mind, duped by Satan himself; bound, like Satan himself to writhe eternally in the lake of fire
  So its to be Phoenix then?
  
  --
  I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
10. Re:The wonders of science... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  What imbecile moderator called this "Troll"? Are we now supposed to be PC to the religious whack-job crowd? In other words, some literal-Bible-believer will come by and take the bait and get all huffy, etc. therefore this is a troll?
  No, it is funny. Getting offended because someone mocks your belief of Creation being 6k years old happens because of your stupid belief. Not because the OP is mocking a legitimate viewpoint.
11. Re:The wonders of science... by neongrau · 2010-09-09 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  well if he intended to be funny or ironic he should have written his comment that way.
  
  "if you don't want your beliefs ridiculed you shouldn't have such funny beliefs"
12. Re:The wonders of science... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  This was funny. Mods are in league with Lucifer.
13. Re:The wonders of science... by corbettw · 2010-09-09 07:00 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  What an oddly specific power.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
14. Re:The wonders of science... by c++0xFF · 2010-09-09 08:15 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  What are the chances that something would be flying around
  the solar system for nearly 4.5 billion years then hit this wee planet which
  was Created only 5854 years earlier?
  Easy: 50%. Either it'll happen or it won't. Pretty good odds, I'd say.
15. Re:The wonders of science... by c6gunner · 2010-09-09 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Easy: 50%. Either it'll happen or it won't. Pretty good odds, I'd say.
  *facepalm*
  This is why most people should never gamble.
16. Re:The wonders of science... by c++0xFF · 2010-09-09 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-30-2009/large-hadron-collider
  "I'm not sure that's how probability works, Walter."
17. Re:The wonders of science... by c6gunner · 2010-09-09 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Those cocksuckers don't allow Canadians to view their clips.
18. Re:The wonders of science... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  Fag
19. Re:The wonders of science... by internettoughguy · 2010-09-09 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Holy fuck, and he's a science teacher too.
  Then again when I was at high school we had a relief teacher (history) who was convinced that the ancient Egyptians discovered New Zealand before the Maori. He was a Canadian chap who would demonstrate iaido with metre rules, and was taken aback when we weren't impressed by the fact that his shoes were "Nikeees".
20. Re:The wonders of science... by mujadaddy · 2010-09-10 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Insightful?
  
  --
  Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
  "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
21. Re:The wonders of science... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  Every element other than Hydrogen and Helium was created in the bowels of a star.
  Big bang nucleosynthesis also produced a lot of lithium and beryllium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis
  Nuclear spallation produces a small amount of heavy elements from lighter ones, too.
  Most of the elements heavier than iron are produced in the outer layers shocked by stellar explosions in e.g. supernovae ("supernova nucleosynthesis") rather than in "the bowels" of a star in proper hydrostatic equilibrium ("stellar nucleosynthesis"), although one could argue about stars sufficiently massive to have non-negligible degenerate matter phases at the lowest gravitational potentials, which may have layers of very heavy elements at slightly higher gravitational potentials. Lots of elements are more likely to be the decay products of the elements produced in those shocks than formed directly by them.
Any files left? by MrEricSir · 2010-09-09 04:56 · Score: 4, Funny

Were they able to recover any files from Suprnova?

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
1. Re:Any files left? by mark72005 · 2010-09-09 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  just some champagne
I would consider it to be 'dust'.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 04:57 · Score: 0

'Shrapnel' in the scale of a supernova would equate to a planet.
1. Re:I would consider it to be 'dust'.. by Hognoxious · 2010-09-09 06:29 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Great. Now Pluto ranks below shrapnel.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
OH NOES! by garyisabusyguy · 2010-09-09 04:59 · Score: 2, Funny

The Supernova matter will now corrupt our Solar system and makes us goes Supernova too!

--
Wherever You Go, There You Are
1. Re:OH NOES! by Jurily · 2010-09-09 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  The Supernova matter will now corrupt our Solar system and makes us goes Supernova too!
  Quick, sue the sun before it's too late!
2. Re:OH NOES! by Jesus_666 · 2010-09-09 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Not if we can reinforce the sun's fusion the only way we know: We complete ITER, crank it up to maximum and shoot it into the sun.
  
  --
  USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
3. Re:OH NOES! by Martin+Blank · 2010-09-09 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  Have you contacted Michael Bay with this idea? It sounds like you have the script completed. It just needs another 103 minutes of special effects.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
4. Re:OH NOES! by MrEricSir · 2010-09-09 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  Does Megan Fox count as a special effect?
  
  --
  There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Extreme sharpshooting by Drakkenmensch · 2010-09-09 04:59 · Score: 1, Interesting

Imagine shooting blindly at the sky, and your bullet making it to a life sustaining planet billions of miles away by sheer blind luck. Not even Davy Crockett could pull off a shot like that!
1. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by Defenestrar · 2010-09-09 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yes he could! Because he has the moral superiority to never miss (he would have waited for Greedo to shoot first)!
2. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by eln · 2010-09-09 05:11 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  This is why you should never shoot blindly into the sky. Sure you think it's harmless, but your great-great-great-great(etc)-grandparents won't think it's so funny when they get attacked out of the blue by an alien race from another star system seeking revenge for your errant shot that just happened to kill their beloved leader. Your celebratory gunfire after your local sports team wins some meaningless (from a pan-galactic perspective) competition could end up sparking an interstellar war.
3. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by jackpot777 · 2010-09-09 05:13 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Sounds impressive, until you think of how many of these fragments were flying around in all directions.
  Think of it as a More Dakka situation of stellar proportions.
  
  --
  Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
4. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by Nadaka · 2010-09-09 05:13 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Davy Crocket didn't have > 2 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 tons of bullets either.
5. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by tom17 · 2010-09-09 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Now grab a handful of sand and try throwing it in the direction of a target *without* hitting it.
6. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by martas · 2010-09-09 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  well yeah, but if fuckloads of people on fuckloads of planets were shooting fuckloads of bullets into the sky, the chances of one of them getting to that planet might not be so tiny... with less profanity, what i'm saying is "multiplying a small number by a large number can lead to a medium number".
  
  --
  weinersmith
7. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by tibit · 2010-09-09 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you. My first sig!
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
8. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by rcamera · 2010-09-09 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  done. i bet you're wondering where all that sand came from... it was ME!
  
  --
  Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
9. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by Tynin · 2010-09-09 05:25 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It is too late, the first shot in the intergalactic war has already been fired!!!
10. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by srussia · 2010-09-09 05:26 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Davy Crocket didn't have > 2 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 tons of bullets either.
  Apparently, Wilt Chamberlain did. This is like finding one of his kids.
  
  --
  Set your phasers on "funky"!
11. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by Zenaku · 2010-09-09 05:27 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  My great-great-great-great(etc)-grandparents are all dead already, so they probably won't be troubled by it.
  
  --
  If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
12. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by eln · 2010-09-09 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah um...that was totally intentional because the future is actually entirely populated by people from the distance past due to a freak time machine accident. Yeah, that's the ticket.
13. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by Anne_Nonymous · 2010-09-09 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  >> Imagine shooting blindly at the sky, and your bullet making it to a life sustaining planet billions of miles away
  I'm pretty sure every 9 year-old with a flashlight has done this at least once.
14. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by jellomizer · 2010-09-09 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  except for the fact that 100% of the bullets fell back down to their respective planents
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
15. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by The+MAZZTer · 2010-09-09 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but there are a LOT of bullets and a LOT of shooters
16. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by martas · 2010-09-09 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  well yeah, we're talking about bullets shot from hypothetical guns capable of escaping a planet's and star's orbit.
  
  --
  weinersmith
17. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by Coren22 · 2010-09-09 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  OMG, that article just made my day.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
18. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by smooth+wombat · 2010-09-09 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  >> Imagine shooting blindly at the sky, and your bullet making it to a life sustaining planet billions of miles away
  
  I'm pretty sure every 9 year-old with a flashlight has done this at least once.
  
  Guilty as charged.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
19. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  >> Imagine shooting blindly at the sky, and your bullet making it to a life sustaining planet billions of miles away
  I'm pretty sure every 9 year-old with a flashlight has done this at least once.
  Massless photons are not bullets, you fuckass.
20. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by mark72005 · 2010-09-09 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Carl Sagan once said that it's impossible to actually write out all the names of his children, as this would require more space than the universe provides.
21. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by gstoddart · 2010-09-09 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine shooting blindly at the sky, and your bullet making it to a life sustaining planet billions of miles away by sheer blind luck. Not even Davy Crockett could pull off a shot like that!
  And, now imagine the sheer number of stars which have gone supernova and sprayed stuff all over the place which eventually collided with planets and whatever else is out there.
  Most of the elements that make up our bodies had be to created in stars that eventually died. The fact that we are made up of the leftovers from dead stars tells me that this isn't so much blind luck, as statistically inevitable. Stars have been exploding and sending stuff throughout the universe for a hell of a long time.
  Now, finding it and identifying it for what it is seems pretty wild. But, if we're made up of star stuff, the fact that there is more of it isn't really that big of a shock.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
22. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't matter what the guns are capable of as long as all the bullets fall back to the ground.
23. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by osu-neko · 2010-09-09 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Carl Sagan once said that it's impossible to actually write out all the names of his children, as this would require more space than the universe provides.
  Was this before or after smokin' a doobie?
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
24. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  Fry? Is that you?
25. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by damien_kane · 2010-09-09 08:12 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  You jest, but, that shot was observed by the aliens who have a station on the dark side of the moon.
  That base was erected (similar to NORAD) as an early warning/observation post.
  Via subspace/ftl data transmission, they have warned the beings on their home planet (99.99~ light years away) that Sol-3 has launched a pre-emptive strike with a single death ray.
  First response was, of course, to send enough ordinance towards earth that we will assuredly be destroyed.
  We will be attacked by the alien life-forms, and any survivors will assume the aliens attacked us without provocation. when it hits us in a few hundred years. It's really too bad we didn't figure out how to hit them with something bigger than a single laser beam.
26. Re:Extreme sharpshooting by StuartHankins · 2010-09-09 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Chuck Norris was wandering the universe looking for asses to kick, got bored, and shot it.
  
  I bet you're glad he hit Earth and not Uranus.
Supernova Shrapnel??? by snookerhog · 2010-09-09 05:02 · Score: 3, Informative

no I didn't RTFA and it has been a while since my last astrophysics class, but isn't any atom heavier than Fe technically supernova shrapnel? I always understood that supernovas were the only place that there was enough energy to make these heavier atoms, no?
1. Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? by radtea · 2010-09-09 05:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  isn't any atom heavier than Fe technically supernova shrapnel?
  Not if you consider "shrapnel" to mean "fragments that are small but not gaseous". The point here is that a nanoscale grain of chromium54 has been found, which suggests it cooled out of the supernova gas cloud and was driven into the meteroite during a collision, so it is a more-or-less pristine piece of supernova condensate that has not been processed further, the way the iron on Earth has, for example.
  That's a fairly interesting find, I'd say.
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
2. Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? by jackpot777 · 2010-09-09 05:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  We are all made of stars.
  
  --
  Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
3. Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? by Sponge+Bath · 2010-09-09 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  ...pristine piece of supernova condensate
  De Beers has found its new premium wedding ring stone to part consumers from their money.
4. Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_process
  Iron is merely the heaviest product of fusion in stellar nucleosynthesis.
  Heavier metals are produced through neutron capture, as evidenced by technetium in stars. (My layman's understanding)
5. Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? by ImprovOmega · 2010-09-09 08:56 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  isn't any atom heavier than Fe technically supernova shrapnel?
  Iron is kind of a ground-state on the periodic table. Below that, more energy is required to keep an atom together (hence, why fusion works to release energy), above that it takes less energy to have the atom be smaller (hence, why fission *also* releases energy). Iron is the direction everything trends towards. When every last drop of energy has been squeezed out of the universe, the final super-massive black hole of everything will be made up of a giant ball of iron.
6. Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? by geekoid · 2010-09-09 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  All the stars are made from me!
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
7. Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? by garyisabusyguy · 2010-09-09 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  Not really, first off IANAA, in the case of larger stars, the first step is to move towards iron.
  However, massive stars have enough, um, mass to compress the matter into Neutronium, which may have been the result of iron being compressed, but no longer holds any of the characteristics of iron, seeing as it no longer holds electrons in orbit around the neutron
  Black Holes would then be further compressed beyond neutronium, and would contain no attributes of Iron, although much of the contents of the Black Hole may have at one time been Iron.
  
  --
  Wherever You Go, There You Are
8. Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? by Raenex · 2010-09-09 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  When every last drop of energy has been squeezed out of the universe, the final super-massive black hole of everything will be made up of a giant ball of iron.
  Just a layman's view here, but that is wrong. Current theories state that the energy in the Universe is a constant. Also, given the accelerated expansion, there shouldn't be a single black hole left, but many isolated ones where the galaxies used to be. I'll pass on the "ball of iron" bit.
9. Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? by snookerhog · 2010-09-10 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  remember thou art rust and unto rust thou shalt return
10. Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 23:01 · Score: 0
  
  No, the energy in the universe is certainly not constant, and that's because of the metric expansion of space.
  More space is being created all the time outside of gravitationally bound objects like galaxy superclusters. If gauge theories are accurate (and they agree very very well with observation and experiment) then the lower energy limit must be bounded from below (to preserve unitarity etc.) and therefore there is a small vacuum expectation energy. Even less rigorously, the new space being created still has lots of particles appearing and annihilating at random, and those processes are energetic.
  Additionally if current interpretations of observation that there is a small acceleration of the expansion of the universe, that also implies an ongoing increase in the total energy of the universe, since the increase in expansion works against gravitation and gravitation is equivalent to a negative energy. Consider a massive uniform hollow sphere far from any other massive objects, and at rest. Inside the spherical shell any object in freefall will feel no acceleration attributable to gravitation because of the inverse square law. So the gravitational potential energy inside the spherical shell is zero, since there is nowhere for an object in free fall to fall to. Outside the surface of the spherical shell, however, the gravitational potential energy is higher because an object can potentially fall towards the surface. Now let's gravitationally collapse the shell *uniformly*. The collapse does work (in the physics sense) by radiating away energy, or alternatively you could tie a rope or attach a rail to the outer or inner surface of the shell and use that to turn an electric generator. That is, you can extract energy from the collapsing shell. As the shell contracts, you "create" space outside the shell that did not exist, or alternatively, you "move" space from inside the shell to outside the shell. This "new" space just outside the contracting shell has a nonzero gravitational potential whereas the "old" space that was inside the shell had none. Creating a higher gravitational potential, therefore, is a source of energy. Since the new space being created between galactic clusters is empty of large dense structures of normal matter (and also because of how it affects spectroscopy) it has a relatively high gravitational potential. Therefore whatever is producing the new space in the metric expansion of space is a source of energy. We call it "dark energy" because we don't know much about it, kind of like the "dark ages" are called that because they are not well documented, or "dark Africa" was used when Europeans had no maps and little knowledge abou tthe interior of the continent.
  The conservation of energy generalizes in General Relativity to a conservation of mass-energy-gravity-inertia; in an expanding universe the space-time curvature of the higher gravitational potential is offset by the equivalent of acceleration of all the gravitationally bound structures (superclusters) away from each other, and in an accelerating expansion the "new" vacuum should have the energy to act as a counter-term. There's a couple really big questions raised by observations on that front, but there is still no reason for a general relativist to worry about modelling space-time as a smooth manifold, to start adding parameters, or to stop asking questions about the evolution of the metric. It's a bit more worrisome for the standard model, though (new massive but low-interacting particles, etc).
  Isolated black holes didn't require accelerated expansion; treating the cosmological constant as inertia would do the trick. Accelerated expansion may separate the more weakly gravitationally bound systems from one another rather than allowing them to collapse into superstructure black holes; so at some far future limit, maybe some tenuous gas clouds, possibly even stray individual molecules may eventually occupy their own Hubble volumes, along with all those isolated galactic (and galaxy c
Sounds like by Spiflicator · 2010-09-09 05:05 · Score: 0

somebody is using an aimbot.
Krypton by Perl-Pusher · 2010-09-09 05:06 · Score: 1

Of course it came here. Don't you read comics?
Sharapova found? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 05:07 · Score: 0

Sharapova found in Meteorite???
1. Re:Sharapova found? by CarpetShark · 2010-09-09 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  I think you must have read that wrong. Sharapova was found in a haystack, going supernova as she gave birth to a solar system.
2. Re:Sharapova found? by CityZen · 2010-09-09 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  No Sharapova herself, but a fragment from the tennis ball of one of her serves that went high.
Readability by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 05:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Scientists this week said they found microscopic shrapnel in a meteorite of a star they say exploded around the birth of our solar system 4.5 billion years ago."
You know, editors, that sentence would be a lot more readable if it were phrased: "Scientists this week said they found, embedded in a meteorite, microscopic shrapnel from a star they say exploded around the birth of our solar system 4.5 billion years ago"
I had to do a double-take because of "meteorite of a star they say exploded". I didn't know stars had meteorites!
1. Re:Readability by tibit · 2010-09-09 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  I concur.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Torrents? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 05:08 · Score: 0

Wahhh? They had torrents that long ago...?
Lots of supernova remnants around by GlobalEcho · 2010-09-09 05:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Everything on this earth heavier than lead (atomic number 82) comes from supernovae. And most of the other heavy stuff (heavier than iron) comes from them as well.
So we live among a lot of supernova remnants.
1. Re:Lots of supernova remnants around by kurokame · 2010-09-09 07:33 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Almost right. You can only really make those heavier elements through processes which occur during a supernova, yes. But although lighter elements (say, carbon) can be made during normal stellar lifetimes...how are you going to get it out?
  I found a supernova remnant this morning. It was my foot.
  The article is a little less than clear about the actual research that occurred, as usual. From the sound of it, I suspect that what they found was discrete ejecta - a blob of material which recognizably came from a specific supernova which had not mixed with other material. This is cool since it gives us a sample which we can study in that specific context.
2. Re:Lots of supernova remnants around by hAckz0r · 2010-09-09 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, quite a remarkable /. story, I agree. Just imagine, supernova shrapnel embedded in supernova shrapnel? Read all about it! Just like hitting a bullet with a bullet one might think! And it landed here? Wow, What are the odds /. readers?
  Only, there are only more of these kinds of bullets/shrapnel flying around the Universe than we can possibly count, so who would ever think think that one would ever have landed here, after a collision, in only a few, say 14.7 Billion years? Um, Oh, forgot, isn't that like what we are standing on? One Supernovae Shrapnel after another is what it took to build our planet isn't it? Let me guess, they didn't collide when they landed here ho so very gently under the influence of gravitation? After all, anything 'harder' or 'heavier' than hydrogen, helium, and lithium came from the same place, a Supernova, according to the current Big Bang theorist. That should put the "faint traces of a supernova" from the fine article somewhat in perspective for most.
3. Re:Lots of supernova remnants around by Tablizer · 2010-09-09 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Everything on this earth heavier than lead (atomic number 82) comes from supernovae.
  Slashdotter: "Darling, I present for your lovely finger this shiny remnant of a giant supernova that blasted into space billions of years ago in a heated nuclear fireball."
  Fiance: "If you put it that way, I don't want your stupid space-barf ring!" (*kling*)
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
4. Re:Lots of supernova remnants around by dotancohen · 2010-09-09 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Everything on this earth heavier than lead (atomic number 82) comes from supernovae.
  Slashdotter: "Darling, I present for your lovely finger this shiny remnant of a giant supernova that blasted into space billions of years ago in a heated nuclear fireball."
  Fiance: "If you put it that way, I don't want your stupid space-barf ring!" (*kling*)
  
  Carbon (diamond) is #8, far below lead. That's normal stellar fusion (once most of the hydrogen's burned up, at least), not supernova.
  
  --
  It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
5. Re:Lots of supernova remnants around by aXis100 · 2010-09-09 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, no-one builds rings out heavy elements like gold or anything.
  Whoosh!
6. Re:Lots of supernova remnants around by Martin+Blank · 2010-09-09 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  The earth is made up of (in order of occurrence in the crust) oxygen, silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, and everything else (each of which constitutes under 1% of the crust). All of those are at or under the atomic number of iron, so all of them are the products of fusion, not necessarily from supernovae. They could have been blasted off from red giants, for example, which don't have to go supernova.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Shrapnel of a star in a meteorite? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 05:22 · Score: 0

Or did the meteorite come from the star, and they found shrapnel from that meteorite?
I know we've gotten to the point where we just copy a paragraph from the article for the summary on /. but can't we at least choose a paragraph that isn't misleading and wrong due to poor grammar?
How about this one instead:
The findings suggest that a supernova sprayed a mass of finely grained particles into the cloud of gas and dust that gave birth to the solar system 4.5 billion years ago, [...] the early solar system sorted these grains by size and led them to become [...] the meteorites and planets[...].
I did no writing! It was easy! Oh, I suppose I did have to read the paragraph, and boy, was it a long one.
1. Re:Shrapnel of a star in a meteorite? by mbone · 2010-09-09 05:55 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The idea is that the supernova exploded, send out a shell of gas (as supernovas do), and that this shell of gas mixed into the nebula forming the solar system, giving us lots of heavy elements, and highly amplified concentrations (but still trace amounts) of various isotopes coming from the decay of very radioactive isotopes only formed in supernova. Since these particular supernova products decay rapidly, in general galactic matter they would be hard to find, so finding their decay products is a clear sign of proximity to a supernova event.
  The particles in question here are 100 nanometers across, and presumably condensed as the supernova shell cooled. Calling them "Shrapnel" is misleading - they would make a virus look huge. I would call them smoke particles, but they are even smaller than that.
2. Re:Shrapnel of a star in a meteorite? by mbone · 2010-09-09 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and then later larger bodies like the parent meteorite formed, and included these nanoparticles, probably as dust captured by surfaces.
yeah... sure. by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2010-09-09 05:23 · Score: 1

The definition of scientist is being soiled by these kinds of finds.
I think what they mean to say is... "At least that we think it might be"
1. Re:yeah... sure. by osu-neko · 2010-09-09 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  The definition of scientist is being soiled by these kinds of finds.
  I think what they mean to say is... "At least that we think it might be"
  It would get kinda tedious for scientists to end every sentence that way. Better to simply educate people in school about what science is, and thus they understand that every single statement any scientist makes (or for that matter, any statement any intellectually honest person makes) has that implied.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Might be a nitpick but... by Draque · 2010-09-09 05:26 · Score: 1

This might be a nitpick, but isn't *all* solid matter shrapnel from supernovas?
1. Re:Might be a nitpick but... by PocariSweat1991 · 2010-09-09 06:11 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Yes, but only supernovae from the Champagne region in Françe may call themselves Champagne supernovae.
2. Re:Might be a nitpick but... by osu-neko · 2010-09-09 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  This might be a nitpick, but isn't *all* solid matter shrapnel from supernovas?
  Most of it comes from supernovas. Most of is, however, would not be considered "shrapnel". What's unique here is the formation and preservation of bits of fresh supernova condensate.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
But can you name the supernova? by Xtifr · 2010-09-09 05:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

I didn't RTFA yet either (and I'm hoping to find something a little more reliable/interesting/useful than a NetworkWorld blog), but, reading between the lines of the summary, I think the point is not so much that it comes from a supernova, but that they identified the particular supernova. Which would be pretty amazing. Of course, given the accuracy of detail in a typical slashdot summary, this could actually turn out to be a story about anything from a new supernova being discovered in a distant galaxy to a new exploit in some brand of router whose name sounds like "supernova". :)
Has no one else noticed by wiredog · 2010-09-09 05:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

that "Supernova Shrapnel" would be an excellent name for a rock band?

--

Best Slashdot Co
1. Re:Has no one else noticed by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  You mean for either one of the Gallagher brothers? "talentless twats" would equally suffice.
2. Re:Has no one else noticed by hawkfish · 2010-09-10 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  that "Supernova Shrapnel" would be an excellent name for a rock band?
  I'm sure that Dave Barry has...
  
  --
  You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
Homeland Security response by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 05:47 · Score: 0

Homeland Security has declared the super nova explosion the earliest known terrorist attack. In response they have requested 50 billion in additional funding to prepare for the super nova threat!
Not exactly new by mbone · 2010-09-09 05:49 · Score: 1

Finding Chromium 54 in 100 nanometer diameter nanoparticles is new, and pretty cool (although I would not want to be the one operating the tweezers !), but the basic isotopic evidence for a nearby supernova just before (and possibly causing) the formation of the solar system is decades old.
1. Re:Not exactly new by ascari · 2010-09-09 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  It's better than new! It's from the future!Last time I downloaded Chromium in August it was at version 7.0 and not even Google can produce releases at that rate. Chromium 54.0 is scheduled for 2016 I think.
Which Supernova? by Doc+Ruby · 2010-09-09 06:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Which supernova did this shrapnel originate in? Is it still around somewhere, 4.5Gy later? Do we know where it was, or even which direction in today's sky it would be if it were still there?

--
--
make install -not war
1. Re:Which Supernova? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 07:43 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I'm no expert, but I think the question "which supernova this comes from?" is pointless. 4.5 billion years has passed and the remains of this supernova are probably all around half the galaxy. And they are now in form of other stars or planets, or gas clouds in interstellar space. Chances are, it is already mixed with other matter present and the only intact pieces of it are in the form of such grains.
2. Re:Which Supernova? by ascari · 2010-09-09 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  I used to know but I forgot. You can forget a lot in 4.5 Gy, see.
Did anybody else misread the article title as... by Snufu · 2010-09-09 09:16 · Score: 1

"Super Sharapova Found in Meteorite"? And, would this be a good thing or a bad thing?
I might be stupid but... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:34 · Score: 0

Wouldn't all the matter in the universe be roughly the age of the universe?
Look around you by jandersen · 2010-09-09 20:13 · Score: 1

Talk about finding a needle in a cosmic haystack.
I don't know - most elements heavier than iron (or carbon or something like that) were created in a supernova, since their creation by fusion require energy rather than releasing it. So, in a way, we are all full of "supernova shrapnel".