Slashdot Mirror
Astronomers Successfully Predict Appearance of Supernova
schwit1 writes: For the first time ever astronomers have been able to predict and photograph the appearance of a supernova, its light focused by the gravitational lensing caused by a galaxy and the dark matter that surrounds it: "The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has captured the image of the first-ever predicted supernova explosion. The reappearance of the Refsdal supernova was calculated from different models of the galaxy cluster whose immense gravity is warping the supernova's light." What makes this significant is that the prediction models were based on the theory of gravitational lensing and required the presence of dark matter to work. That they worked and were successful in predicting the appearance of this gravitationally bent light (bent by the dark matter it passed through) is a very strong confirmation of both concepts.
They didn't predict that a supernova was about to happen. They'd already seen the supernova happening in its ghost image created by gravitational lensing. They predicted where another image of the supernova would turn up.
It is a quite interesting thing being able to "re-watch" a Supernova from the beginning because the light has multiple paths towards Earth so we got a "warning" when it will happen.
The problem with a lot of Supernova explosions is that we often don't know what happened in the early phase (until it became bright enough to be noticed in wide-field pictures). It is most likely "a little bit" too far away to learn what type of star has exploded, but it still a great opportunity.
ESA Hubble Space Telescope has captured the image of the first-ever predicted supernova explosion. ... What makes this significant is that the prediction models were based on the theory of gravitational lensing and required the presence of dark matter to work.
The important part here seems like confirmation of testable predictions made by Dark Matter theories. That's how science works: you have to make a falsifiable theory that makes testable predictions. Those predictions are then tested, to lend evidence toward or against the theories. This is key evidence in favor of Dark Matter.
I wonder whether they could have used modified Newtonian dynamics to have made the same prediction.
That is to say, I don't see how this prediction leans to either side in the dark matter vs MOND question.
You DO know what MOND stands for, right? So go ahead, change newtonian dynamics so that this effect will appear and that it comports with all the other evidence.
And, no, you're not allowed to go "It's changed by this value in that region of space, and by different values elsewhere", because that's not MOND, that's making shit up.
If you can't see, but you haven't looked, then why is telling anyone you can't see of any use or purpose whatsoever, other than to proclaim you're too dumb to think?
It is a quite interesting thing being able to "re-watch" a Supernova from the beginning because the light has multiple paths towards Earth so we got a "warning" when it will happen.
I though we were able to notice supernovas a short time in advance of when they occurred visually because neutrinos from the explosion make it out of the star well in advance of the other stuff. (So we see a few neutrinos and can tell the supernova is about to be visible).
Can someone confirm or deny? It's been a long time since I took astrophysics.
You. And nobody else. Making shit up, I see.
No, MOND would require it change differently from DM because DM can clump and coalesce, whereas MOND must be universal.
Now, stop pissing about and instead of whining about some frigging "fine structure" or waving your hands over "Oh, it COULD work, 'cos I don't see how it doesn't (cos I aint looked)", and start putting down here right now the modification to newtonian dynamics and the calculations to fit the rotation curves of the galaxies, the CMB and this event here.
And remember, that change must be unviersal. Not "Well, it changes by adding 0.000437 when its around the Andromeda galaxy, 0.0003248 when it's around the Virgo galaxy M60, and 0.019923 between us and that supernova!", because that's dumbassery.
Obligatory SMBC http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3958
This is how journalism works today. It is, believe it or not, now "acceptable" to spin a boring fact into a completely false (but of course sensational) story -- and even scorn those who point out the obvious self-serving lie.