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."

33 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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

    5. 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.

    6. 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?

    7. 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)

    8. 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?

    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Re:Astounding! by Talderas · · Score: 2

      Soon.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    12. 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..

    13. 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.'
    14. Re:Astounding! by mrsurb · · Score: 2

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

    15. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. Re:Cool by JustOK · · Score: 2

    it's supernova cool.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  5. 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.

  6. 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 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: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.
  8. 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.

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

    That's not so much a correction as a BRAINMELTINGHELPME

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
  10. 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?