Slashdot Mirror


'Instant Cosmic Classic' Supernova Discovered

chill sends this quote from a news release by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: "A supernova discovered yesterday is closer to Earth — approximately 21 million light-years away—than any other of its kind in a generation. Astronomers believe they caught the supernova within hours of its explosion, a rare feat made possible with a specialized survey telescope and state-of-the-art computational tools. 'We caught this supernova very soon after explosion. PTF 11kly is getting brighter by the minute. It’s already 20 times brighter than it was yesterday,' said Peter Nugent, the senior scientist at Berkeley Lab who first spotted the supernova. ... the supernova is still getting brighter, and might even be visible with good binoculars in ten days’ time, appearing brighter than any other supernova of its type in the last 30 years."

141 comments

  1. A HUMAN SUPERNOVA !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    POW !!

  2. Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're doomed! Dooooooooooooomed!

  3. The Messiah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    It will appear at full brightness when Steve Jobs passes, and it will lead the faithful to the new Messiah who has inherited his soul.

    1. Re:The Messiah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 haha.

  4. Re:well actually... by Y2KDragon · · Score: 2

    This. But the timing was right to catch the sight of it as the light reached Earth. Still, that's awesomely cool to have had that opportunity.

  5. Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I read a post like this and I can't help but think that even at its nerdiest, science can be really freaking cool.

    1. Re:Cool by JustOK · · Score: 2

      it's supernova cool.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Cool by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      it's supernova cool.

      So not very then?

  6. whoop-de-doo by arth1 · · Score: 0

    So, what they're saying is that if discarding any supernova not of this specific type (type Ia), then there hasn't been any closer for a staggering 20 years?

    What's nice here is how quickly it was accidentally discovered. That will be helpful for studying.

    1. Re:whoop-de-doo by AlecC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's nice here is how quickly it was accidentally discovered. That will be helpful for studying.

      It was no accident: it was discovered by a system specifically set up to do a search of the sky every night looking for changes just like this, It is modern computer-assisted observations that made this possible: computers will do the tedious task of looking at the same bit of sky over and over again looking for changes.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    2. Re:whoop-de-doo by arth1 · · Score: 0

      It's still accidental, in that they don't cover the entire sky.

    3. Re:whoop-de-doo by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1, Redundant

      It's still accidental, in that they don't cover the entire sky.

      Not it is not, if the intention was to monitor and capture events occuring within the area of the sky being covered.

    4. Re:whoop-de-doo by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      It's still accidental, in that they don't cover the entire sky.

      I do not think that "accidental" means what you think it means.

      And here is a question I have not seen asked.

      What do you think "accidental" means?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    5. Re:whoop-de-doo by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      So, what they're saying is that if discarding any supernova not of this specific type (type Ia), then there hasn't been any closer for a staggering 20 years?

      Yeah, what's so exciting about a cosmic event being observed, better than any of it's type has been in 20 years?

      Those astronomers, eh? Getting excited over every single flawless observation of once-in-a-generation events. Honestly, so very uncool.

      I mean honestly, what do the editors of this site think- that the readership is nothing but a bunch of nerds or something?

    6. Re:whoop-de-doo by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      So, what they're saying is that if discarding any supernova not of this specific type (type Ia), then there hasn't been any closer for a staggering 20 years?

      Yes. Why do you think that's no big deal?

      If the answer is because you aren't interested in the subject in general, then that's fine (though I would wonder why you posted). If you are, then it should be clear that 1) The type of supernova matters 2) It being closer than other recent events of this type matters and 3) studying it with the 20 years of new technology and methodology that have been developed since the last event of this type and magnitude matters. That all spells "big deal".

      Yes the rapidity with which they were able to discover and then begin studying it is also a big deal. That is of course largely due to (3) above. So we're studying it earlier and with better instruments than ever before. Both parts of that matter.

      So there you go.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:whoop-de-doo by arth1 · · Score: 1

      "By happenstance" is as good a synonym as any.
      A supernova could have (and possibly has) occurred in the parts of the sky they're not looking.

      Or, to put it another way. If I point my telescope randomly at a small but fairly busy part of the sky and compare images from it every night with my computers in the hope of catching an anomaly, and it happens to catch a supernova, would you say that it wasn't an accidental discovery?

      I have no idea where the supernovas are going to occur, and neither do these guys. Unless they monitor the entire sky, it will be up to chance whether they catch one or not.

    8. Re:whoop-de-doo by jgoemat · · Score: 1

      Accidental means unintentional, usually with undesirable outcomes. Their intention was clearly to find supernovae therefore it was in no way an accident. An accidental discovery would be Hubble taking a picture of the galaxy for other reasons and just happening to catch the supernova. The PTF survey looks at a large part of the sky and has found 858 type Ia supernovae so far.

    9. Re:whoop-de-doo by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Again.
      I really think you should look up what accidental means.
      I do not mean to be a dick, but at a certain point you need to admit you are wrong or at least shut up.
      Defending stupidity only magnifies it.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  7. Astounding! by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Funny

    Astronomers believe they caught the supernova within hours of its explosion, a rare feat made possible with a specialized survey telescope and state-of-the-art computational tools

    An amazingly rare feat, as not only did they catch the supernova right away, they somehow violated the universal speed limit of c in order to do so. Someone call the physics police on "chill" or Soulskill or whoever made that summary.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Astounding! by slim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not a physicist, but I'm given to understand that it's a valid way to look at the universe -- so say something is happening "now" when "now" is the earliest you could detect it given the speed of light.

    2. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > universal speed limit of c

      Careful now; the universal speed limit of c in a vacuum.

      It is quite easy to exceed c in water, for example.

    3. Re:Astounding! by Tynin · · Score: 2

      Astronomers believe they caught the supernova within hours of its explosion, a rare feat made possible with a specialized survey telescope and state-of-the-art computational tools

      An amazingly rare feat, as not only did they catch the supernova right away, they somehow violated the universal speed limit of c in order to do so. Someone call the physics police on "chill" or Soulskill or whoever made that summary.

      It isn't the summary at fault, from TFA:

      Astronomers believe they caught the supernova within hours of its explosion, a rare feat made possible with a specialized survey telescope and state-of-the-art computational tools.

      I think it is assumed that when they say they that found it within hours, they mean they found it within hours of the first light of this event reaching Earth, but since they didn't say so explicitly, I imagine you won't be the only one repeating this like they found something clever.

    4. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's what "c" is, actually: the speed of light in a vacuum. To say it's easy to exceed c in water is to say that it's easy to exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, in water.

    5. Re:Astounding! by immakiku · · Score: 2

      There's no absolute concept of time anyway - it would not be more or less correct to say a few hours rather than a few million light years because it all depends where you are in space-time. Their frame of reference is clearly the earliest at which we could have observed the explosion. Still incredible given we were not expecting it and it's not something that people can just observe without lots of equipment.

    6. Re:Astounding! by AstroMatt · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's nearly always phrased this way. It was discovered within hours of the initial signal of the explosion reaching earth. Matt Wood

    7. Re:Astounding! by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Colonel Sandurz: Try here. Stop.
      Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?
      Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now.
      Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
      Colonel Sandurz: We passed then.
      Dark Helmet: When?
      Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now.
      Dark Helmet: Go back to then.
      Colonel Sandurz: When?
      Dark Helmet: Now.
      Colonel Sandurz: Now?
      Dark Helmet: Now.
      Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
      Dark Helmet: Why?
      Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
      Dark Helmet: When?
      Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
      Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
      Colonel Sandurz: Soon.

    8. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "It is quite easy to exceed c in water, for example."

      Careful with that, English is an ambiguous language. The speed of light in water is slower than the speed of light in a vacuum. Photons in water are slower than in space. Therefore, some particles can travel faster in water than light does in water.

    9. Re:Astounding! by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Do you know that there isn't water in that vacuum? ;)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    10. Re:Astounding! by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I'm not a physicist, but my guess is that the photons aren't any slower in water than they are in a vacuum. It's just that they are "bouncing" from atom to atom, being absorbed and re-emitted, and suffering similar hindrances that the vacuum travelling photon misses out on.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:Astounding! by Mendenhall · · Score: 1

      This is formally a perfectly acceptable way to present the discovery. Two events (points) in Minkowski 4-space which are connected by a ray of light have an invariant time separation tau = delta_t - delta_x /c = 0. To us, it did just happen.

    12. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen, man. Hypothetically...

      If we have an array of instruments, on a satellite in orbit, pointed at the sun, and then a Coronal Mass Ejection spews highly energetic charged particles in our direction, and we just *HAPPEN* to shut off the instrument, and lock down a protective shield over the instrument, *BEFORE* it was possible to be aware of the event, just beating the eight minute lag time between the occurrence of solar events, and the arrival of their effects to earth, by a narrow margin of mere seconds, thereby SAVING the instrument from irreparable damage, would you not consider that good luck?

    13. Re:Astounding! by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Neither am I, but I'm having to deal with a lot of time and space recently. Even the light we observe from the sun is 8 minutes old. To add insult to injury, gravity has an effect on the rate at which time runs, so an atomic clock at sea level will start to diverge from an atomic clock on a mountain. And our sensory data has a non-zero processing time. All of which makes it astoundingly difficult to even find out when "now" is, much less use that information for anything before it becomes "then."

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    14. Re:Astounding! by GNious · · Score: 2

      Somehow I think it must be REALLY boring watching a sun-rise with you.
      (hint: in your world, they already happened 8 minutes ago)

    15. Re:Astounding! by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      When will Then be Now?

    16. Re:Astounding! by owlstead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "It is quite easy to exceed c in water, for example."

      I'll take you up on that. Crate of beer?

    17. Re:Astounding! by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      I'm not a physicist,

      Agreed.

      they are "bouncing" from atom to atom, being absorbed and re-emitted

      No.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    18. Re:Astounding! by AlecC · · Score: 2

      I don't think that is true. I think changes in the dielectric constants actually change the rate at which electromagnetic waves propagate in transparent materials. If photons were bouncing off atoms, they would not keep travelling in the same direction, so water would be translucent rather than transparent.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    19. Re:Astounding! by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 3, Informative

      +1 Informative.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    20. Re:Astounding! by Talderas · · Score: 2

      Soon.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    21. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soon

    22. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Last time I got water in my vacuum, it broke.

    23. Re:Astounding! by aevan · · Score: 1

      Soon

    24. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the light is not old at all. It just takes 8 minutes to get here. ;)

    25. Re:Astounding! by pegdhcp · · Score: 2

      It is long time past my wave theory classes, but I believe you are right. The proof of speed change in different mediums was (as far as I can remember) based on wave model not on particle model and it is a general proof, that, it is applicable to light and other wave forms..

    26. Re:Astounding! by Amouth · · Score: 2

      i always loved that when our star dies - it will take 8min 30sec before we find out. also that given the nearest start is >4 years.. so right now there could be nothing out there, we just don't know it yet.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    27. Re:Astounding! by mpkovak · · Score: 1

      Soon(tm)

    28. Re:Astounding! by mrsurb · · Score: 2

      In his world, there's no such thing as a sunrise, only a rotating earth.

    29. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Sunrise is the earth turning to allow you to see the sun. That the light you see left the sun 8 minutes ago doesn't change that it becoming visible happens right now, as the earth turns right now.

    30. Re:Astounding! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      Maybe gravity and other forces have an effect on how fast matter decays, possibly as gravitational drag affects particles with mass such as neutrons ... you know, like how they "Proved" relativity by putting a clock on a plane and firing afterburners, and saying it ran slower than the clock on the ground. Has nothing to do with the Gs applied to the clock.

    31. Re:Astounding! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      EPR radar maybe.

    32. Re:Astounding! by Megane · · Score: 1

      It is quite easy to exceed c in water, for example.

      I'm okay with that as long as you don't p in the pool.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    33. Re:Astounding! by Toonol · · Score: 2

      But at whatever speed, is C still the limit? If light through water travels at 95% of its vacuum speed, can other particles travel through water at between 95% to 100% of C?

      My hunch is no, but the universe doesn't always respect my hunches.

    34. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but since they didn't say so explicitly

      I knew when I saw the title most of the discussion would be people saying about how the event happened 21 million years ago and not now as if they were the first in the world to ever make that observation. This is why I stopped hanging out with major geeks in real life- the endless, pointless, mind-numbing pedantry.

    35. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always.

    36. Re:Astounding! by black+soap · · Score: 1

      According to the tour at McDonald Observatory, the light takes many many centuries to get from the center of the sun to the outside, but then under 8 minutes to get all the way to Earth.

    37. Re:Astounding! by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Now is there any data on what the star was doing 3 days ago, so we might have hints what an imminent-supernova might look like? That would mean the next one we could catch even earlier.

    38. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, I missed it.

    39. Re:Astounding! by Truth+is+life · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's what causes Cherenkov radiation (the "blue glow" of nuclear reactors in cooling water pools).

    40. Re:Astounding! by Langalf · · Score: 1

      Cherenkov radiation.

    41. Re:Astounding! by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      I think you're getting confused with the speed of sea.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    42. Re:Astounding! by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, this is how it was explained to me in high-school physics in the USA. I am not saying you are wrong. I have run into enough absolute, unquestionable "facts" that ended up being false to understand this might be one of the more minor ones.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    43. Re:Astounding! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      This isnt 'major geek' pedantry, it's 'slashdot-marks-it-insightful' nitpickery. What's amazing is people actually consider this a low signal-to-noise ratio.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    44. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck is crap like this modded funny?

    45. Re:Astounding! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Careful now; the universal speed limit of c in a vacuum.

      c is defined as the speed of light in a vacuum.

      The speed of light in other mediums can be different, but c is always c.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    46. Re:Astounding! by md65536 · · Score: 1

      yesterday

    47. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wibbly wobbly timey wimey... it's hard to keep it all straight.

    48. Re:Astounding! by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I would go so far as to say that not only is dkleinsc wrong about now in that he is intentionally missing the intent of the word "Now" in context, but is wrong on what now means at all. Since as far as modern science knows, information cannot move faster than the speed of light, no event can really be said to be happening "now". The best you could ever say is "maybe now". The meaning of the word in the article isn't just a "valid" way to look at the universe. It is darn near the ONLY way to view the universe, and with using the word "now" to mean that earliest you could detect it given the speed of light, the word becomes virtually unusable in our language.

    49. Re:Astounding! by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should have used one of these http://rainbowsystem.com/?gclid=CIDg6eq67aoCFcYUKgodLjW3PQ

    50. Re:Astounding! by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      A better analogy would be...

      If you just happen to look out your front door to see if the mailman is coming, and you keep doing that throughout the day, is it "lucky" that you just *HAPPEN* to get up and walk over to the door *BEFORE* it was possible to know that the mailman had arrived. Would you consider that good luck?

    51. Re:Astounding! by flogger · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck is crap like this modded funny?

      Now it is modded "Informative." Happy?

      --
      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
      "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
      -- The Doctor, "Doctor
    52. Re:Astounding! by NexusJedi · · Score: 1

      Neither am I, but I'm having to deal with a lot of time and space recently.

      Tell me about it. Seems like I've been dealing with time and space forever. No matter where I go, all hours of the day, it's time and space! Even on the weekends, time and space! I just can't get away from it.

    53. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a physicist, but I'm given to understand that it's a valid way to look at the universe -- so say something is happening "now" when "now" is the earliest you could detect it given the speed of light.

      I am a physics (and I do astronomy as well). Unless you're either doing cosmology (looking at the universe as a whole) or galactic evolution (where distance=time is the whole point) we normally ignore time delay. "Now" is when the observation is made. For a galaxy a few hundred million light-years away, the distance is so small it has virtually no practical significance. This silliness about time=distance crops up every time /. does an astronomy piece and every dweeb in a high-school science class tries to show off how pedantic he/she/it can be.

      We saw the light Tuesday night [the night of the 23/24th], and therefore, as far as any working scientist is concerned, the supernova is few days old.

      -JS

    54. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the tour at McDonald Observatory, the light takes many many centuries to get from the center of the sun to the outside, but then under 8 minutes to get all the way to Earth.

      Light energy does, the light is absorbed and re-radiated countless times during that century.

    55. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, our star will grow slightly before death. *

      * slightly in this case means that it will expand and swallow the inner planets like Mars and Tellus.

    56. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To use the sun as a reference is a bit odd since the universe does not rotate around the sun.
      I think I am going to usa an egocentric worldview. Earth doesn't move relative to my position so it must be the sun that rises.

      Perhaps we should use a matremcentric worldview instead because of the larger mass.

    57. Re:Astounding! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just missed it.

    58. Re:Astounding! by Nyder · · Score: 1

      +1 Informative.

      Yes, only on slashdot could that post get (at my time of posting) +4 Informative.

      --
      Be seeing you...
  8. Real-time brightness graph? by Frans+Faase · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anybody found a website where it is possible to follow the progression of the supernova in (near) real-time? A brightness graph would be interesting.

    1. Re:Real-time brightness graph? by m.ducharme · · Score: 4, Funny

      And while you're at it, can you find one that isn't full of ferocious nerds arguing about the semantics of Relativity?

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    2. Re:Real-time brightness graph? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I object your usage of big 'R' in Relativity!

    3. Re:Real-time brightness graph? by Shag · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest Rochester Astronomy's bright supernova page:

      http://www.rochesterastronomy.org/snimages/

      I'm not sure everybody's data will end up there right away, but a lot of people will be observing, so collectively you might get close to what you want. :)

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    4. Re:Real-time brightness graph? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      That sounds boring.

    5. Re:Real-time brightness graph? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Not if you're lucky.

  9. Re:well actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes... It went nova when our ancestors were still flinging their poo from trees, at giant cats that wanted to eat them!

    Nice to see we haven't changed much in the time it took the light to get here.

  10. Weeeh! I thought it said 21 Light years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    21 Light years would cause an Earth Extinction event!

  11. wall paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    set M101 to the desktop wallpaper, pity I cannot get a live updating image, but there are some awesome photos of the galaxy outthere

  12. Re:well actually... by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

    Ok, so every time a discussion about this comes up somebody points out this weird bit of relativity that says, it's actually happening from our frame of reference right now.

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
  13. Thank god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At First glance, I though the opening sentence reads "a supermarket close to earth". Must be tired!

  14. Re:well actually... by mangu · · Score: 2

    it's actually happening from our frame of reference right now.

    Correction: It's happening in those photons' frame of reference right now.

  15. Close, like real close by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is close enough that you can see it with a good amateur telescope. The supernova will brighten over time, probably hitting its brightest point sometime in the middle of September. As it brightens it might even be possible to see it with a cheap telescope or a pair of binoculars.

    One thing that is important to realize is that this supernova is Type Ia, not Type II. Type II supernovae are what most people are thinking of when they think of a supernova (that is, death of a massive star). A Type Ia supernova instead occurs in a binary system where one of the stars is a white dwarf. The white dwarf slowly steals away mass from the other star until the white dwarf gets too big to be stable, around 1.4 times the mass of the sun. Then it experiences collapse in a way that is essentially similar to that of the Type II supernova.

    This supernova was very close to us. One thing that could be very promising is if this left any neutrino signature above the background level. Neutrinos are very hard to detect, the major detectors are things like IceCube http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube_Neutrino_Observatory or Super-K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande which have very large containers of water or some other substance and you then carefully try to detect the very rare neutrino interactions over all the background radiation (neutrinos are very ghostly and don't interact very much. You have billions of them going through you all the time and you don't even notice). This has only happened with one supernova before SN 1987A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A which was bright enough and close enough to be seen by the naked eye. One really cool thing about this was that we actually recorded the neutrino burst for SN 1987A before the light arrived (three hours before). At this point, most people get shocked because they know that nothing travels faster than the speed of light. What happened was that in a Type II supernova neutrino burst occurs at the very beginning of the supernova process, but the light has to work its way out of the whole star. This actually allows us to potentially detect supernova before they happen, and there's now an early warning network with the major neutrino detectors so astronomers can get a heads-up if a type II is about to happen so they know where to point the telescopes. http://snews.bnl.gov/ Since the neutrino flux drops off quickly (like 1/r^2), supernovae need to be very close to us for to be able to pick out the neutrinos over all the solar neutrinos and general background junk. I don't fully understand the dynamics of Type Ia supernova (and I'm not an astronomer or an astrophysicist) but my impression is that there's also reason to believe that type Ia will produce fewer neutrinos than a Type II supernova. Between that and the distance, this supernova was probably too far away for us to detect any neutrinos.I suspect that the people who run the major detectors are probably looking over their data for the last few days very carefully to see if they can pick up any signal that the regular automated systems missed.

    1. Re:Close, like real close by Hatta · · Score: 2

      This supernova was very close to us.

      It's in another galaxy. Are these things really so rare that the closest one we've ever seen is in another galaxy?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Close, like real close by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

      The last one we saw in our galaxy was in 1604 so yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_Nova. They are more common than that. so there probably have been supernova in our galaxy. But given our position in the galaxy there's a large part of our galaxy where if a supernova happens we weren't that likely to see if (because there are so many stars and dust in the way). That's not the case as much since we have much better, larger telescopes. But yeah, they are pretty rare.

    3. Re:Close, like real close by AlecC · · Score: 2

      This supernova was very close to us.

      It's in another galaxy. Are these things really so rare that the closest one we've ever seen is in another galaxy?

      Yes, within the time of modern instruments. The last one in this galaxy was Kepler's Supernova in 1604. However, we sould expect about 0ne every 50 years, so we are having a bit of a drought,

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    4. Re:Close, like real close by StupendousMan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Alas, we shouldn't expect any neutrinos to be detected from this event. I am an astronomer who studies supernovae, and the Type Ia events --- those due to a runaway thermonuclear reaction inside a white dwarf --- do _not_ produce the same sort of giant burst of neutrinos as core-collapse events.

      In addition, this supernova is much, much farther away than SN 1987A. This event, in M101, is about 6400 kpc away, while SN 1987A was only about 50 kpc away. So, in very rough terms, the new SN is about 100 times farther away ... which means than the flux of particles from it will be about 100*100 = 10,000 times weaker than that from an object at the distance of SN 1987A. We only detected about 30-40 neutrinos in total from SN 1987A, so, even if this new supernova was a core-collapse event (which it isn't), we might only expect 40/10,000 = 0.004 neutrinos to be detected.

      Yes, yes, today's neutrino detectors are larger than the ones operating in 1987. However, I don't think they could make up this sort of difference. And remember, a Type Ia supernova doesn't produce as many neutrinos to start with.

      But this should be a good object for people to see through telescopes or (possibly) binoculars!

      --
      Michael Richmond "This is the heart that broke my finger."
      mwrsps@rit.edu http://stupendous.rit.edu
    5. Re:Close, like real close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the insightful post. Probably one of the more informative posts I've read around here in a long time. Much better than that Joshua retard who gave us the Discovery Channel version of the event.

    6. Re:Close, like real close by Kentari · · Score: 3, Informative

      At least 2 have occured but have gone unnoticed at the time: The Cas A supernova remnant is about 350 years old, discovered as a radio source in 1947 and supernova remnant G1.9+0.3 which is less than 150 years old but only discovered using radio telescopes in 1984.

    7. Re:Close, like real close by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Thanks. That helps clarify things a lot.

    8. Re:Close, like real close by Ed_1024 · · Score: 1

      But this should be a good object for people to see through telescopes or (possibly) binoculars!

      Do not look into supernova with remaining eye!

      (Sorry, I'm in Japan today and was reminded of that saying by the bad English on the kettle...)

    9. Re:Close, like real close by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      This event, in M101

      But this should be a good object for people to see through telescopes or (possibly) binoculars!

      Oh hell yeah! I was worried I wouldn't be able to see it, but M101 is up at night now. I'm so pointing my C11 at it. Too bad that's right in the direction of the worst light pollution.

      Is the light from this type of supernova amenable to the use of any amateur visible-light filters? I'd buy one just for this event if so. =D

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:Close, like real close by poena.dare · · Score: 1

      I wish it was only 21 miles from DC.

    11. Re:Close, like real close by habig · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, today's neutrino detectors are larger than the ones operating in 1987. However, I don't think they could make up this sort of difference.

      Correct, it's a simple matter of 1/r^2 geometry. SN1987A was at 51.4 kpc. M101 is at 6.5 Mpc. So even if this was a core-collapse supernova (which it's not), we would see only 62-millionths of the signal as we did in 1987. Our detectors are bigger, but only 50 times bigger. We're still three orders of magnitude away from seeing this one with neutrinos.

      Even a neutrino producing SN in the next big galaxy neighbor we have (M31 in Andromeda) would only give us about one neutrino event in our biggest detector (Super-K), which likely would go unnoticed. On the other hand, pretty much anything in our own galaxy or its small satellites will produce a huge signal. Space is a big, empty place.

      And if you're curious and eager to learn about that once-a-century event before your slightly less-geeky buddies, check out the Supernova Early Warning System, sign up to get an email when we see neutrinos from a "nearby" supernova. Just don't hold your breath while waiting.

  16. Is it dangerous? by unik · · Score: 0

    Oh ... ....Mai. ..... Agaw!

    --
    "You won't eat our meat, but you'll glue with our feet.." --Some cow
  17. But, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it happened 21 million years ago! It's old news!

  18. completely incorrect by slashmydots · · Score: 0

    Astronomers believe they caught the supernova within hours of its explosion

    Actually it happened about 21 million years ago and the light is just getting here now.

    1. Re:completely incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the light got here 21 million years ago and Slashdot is just reporting on it now.

    2. Re:completely incorrect by AlecC · · Score: 1

      Which, in a relativistic way of thinking, makes it now: now in 4D spacetime is the set of point from which light travelling by the shortest path would reach us at a single instant.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    3. Re:completely incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, this is exactly the same as the first comment.

      Second, the way the article is phrased is not incorrect (as mentioned in response the earlier post). It's happening now from our frame of reference.

    4. Re:completely incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not. In relativity, the speed of light is a finite constant c, speed = distance / time, but computing c using 21 Mly / (now - now) would give infinity.

  19. Danger to earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Type Ia supernovae are thought to be potentially the most dangerous if they occur close enough to the Earth. Because these supernovae arise from dim, common white dwarf stars, it is likely that a supernova that can affect the Earth will occur unpredictably and in a star system that is not well studied. One theory suggests that a Type Ia supernova would have to be closer than a thousand parsecs (3300 light-years) to affect the Earth.[108]

    [108]: http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/snrisks.txt

    Well, at least we have 20+ yrs left :)

    1. Re:Danger to earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow I missed the million in 21 million light years. ROFL Whatever...

    2. Re:Danger to earth? by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 1

      You also forgot to login before posting.

      --
      Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
  20. As fast as i could... by alendit · · Score: 1

    Came here to say "In b4 'It was 21 Mio years ago!'". Unfortunately, my message could travel only that fast....

    But seriously, guys, relativity isn't exactly "breaking news" today. Everyone knows that it takes a year for light to travel a light-year (DUH!). Don't you have any other way, to show you intellectual superiority?

    1. Re:As fast as i could... by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 1

      Your theory about the velocity of light seems interesting. Care to tell me more?

      --
      Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
  21. 1987 Called by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 2

    the supernova is still getting brighter, and might even be visible with good binoculars in ten days’ time, appearing brighter than any other supernova of its type in the last 30 years.

    SN 1987A called to remind about its naked eye visibility.

    --
    Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    1. Re:1987 Called by alendit · · Score: 5, Informative

      the supernova is still getting brighter, and might even be visible with good binoculars in ten days’ time, appearing brighter than any other supernova of its type in the last 30 years.

      SN 1987A was a Type II supernova, this one ist Type Ia.

    2. Re:1987 Called by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think a lot of people are disregarding this supernova. True the Type II explosions tend to produce experts in supernovae. But it should be remembered that Type I explosions still scare people. My wife and I were on the couch last night and suddenly we were both like, "Did you feel that? It felt like a burst of neutrinos coming out of the ceiling!" Which surprised me because I just had the roofers here last week laying down Spanish tile to keep fermions out.

    3. Re:1987 Called by Ed_1024 · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how wrong you can be... The neutrinos actually came up through the floor from the other side of the planet ;)

    4. Re:1987 Called by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      And the Spanish tile just reflected them, doubling their exposure! The fools!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:1987 Called by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. What would our cross section be if we had to compete with everything under the floor? You don't know where we live.

      And we were paying attention to the momentum vectors we were seeing. They were coming in with a general direction that went around like a clock- we both noticed that. We were paying attention to make sure it wasn't a terrestrial source because there's a wireless network in this neighborhood broadcasting an SSID of "breeder_reactor_bitch" but the neutrinos were coming in through the walls a little while later and in fact they knocked some of our books off the shelves when they did that. So I called my mother right away and told her I was OK and the neutrinos hadn't harmed us.

  22. Re:well actually... by FredFredrickson · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's not so much a correction as a BRAINMELTINGHELPME

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
  23. correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Astronomers believe they caught the supernova within hours of its explosion

    Well 21 million years and 20 hours to be more precise.

  24. Re:well actually... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    Everything a photon experiences is happening right now from the photons frame of reference.

  25. Just then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just then then was now, now it isn't.

  26. Re:well actually... by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

    And right here. The universe is a small place if you are a photon.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  27. Re:well actually... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

    Not really. There's infinitely much of the universe that the photon can never reach, because from its frame of reference it only travels in a perfectly straight line.

  28. Re:well actually... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

    21 million years ago called, it wants its photons back.

  29. How long by Stan92057 · · Score: 0

    How long before pieces of the planet/sun/star reach earth? I imagine the planet/sun/star wasn't totally vaporized?

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  30. In relativity, you talk about events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In relativity, you talk about events and that event has a spacetime point. That event where the supernova happened was hours before the event where we spotted it and took a look.

    It's only in non-relativity you can talk about that event happening 21 million years ago.

    It's only assholes who like to show off how dumb science is and how smart they are that get this wrong.

    Unfortunately, they seem to have sprung out of the woodwork here.

    1. Re:In relativity, you talk about events by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 1

      But YOU, Mr. Anonymous Coward are the paladin of justice who comes to set the record straight, right?

      --
      Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
  31. Re:well actually... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    caught the supernova within hours of its explosion

    Plus 21 million years!

    Plus the supernova wasn't actually "caught", it would be hard to find a baseball glove big enough...

  32. Re:well actually... by mr1911 · · Score: 1

    Just like you have always been a jackass, but since your post just reached me, you are a jackass now.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
  33. not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We caught this supernova very soon after explosion."

    veeery soon, like 21 million years later....when you look in space you look back in time

  34. Zoidberg quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the candy hearts poured into the fiery quasar, a wondrous thing happened, why not. They vaporized into a mystical love radiation that spread across the universe, destroying many, many planets, including two gangster planets and a cowboy world. But one planet was exactly the right distance to see the romantic rays but not be destroyed by them: Earth. So all over the world couples stood together in joy. And me, Zoidberg. And no one could have been happier unless it would have also been Valentine's Day. What? It was? Hooray.

  35. Within hours? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Um, this supernova happened 21 million years ago. How could they have possibly caught it within hours of the explosion as the summary claims?

  36. Alpha Orionis! Alpha Orionis! Alpha Orionis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats the show I want to see! Not some Poser star that got too big for it britches by stealing from its neighbors pantry! Bah! Wake me when something gets as bright as Jupiter or Venus.

  37. Living in the here and now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reading the posts on the now and then, something startling occurs to me. As soon as it is now, it becomes then. At infinitum, therefore, now does not exist and since we should exist ‘NOW’ . We don’t exist either. My question to all lawyers out there is – Can I use this as a defense for not paying my loans back?

  38. Huh?!? by sjames · · Score: 1

    How did a supernova throw a pie? They don't even have arms!>/p>

    OH! coSmic!

  39. Re:You can never step in the same river twice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And his buddies stole my car!