Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Astronomers say they have witnessed a supernova unfolding in real time   (news.bbc.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

19717 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Aug 2006 at 1:34 AM (9 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



138 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2006-08-31 03:05:04 AM  
...lasts for a period of days to months...

Naw, once you understand how spacetime works, it only lasts about a minute and a half...

www.hostimage.org
 
2006-08-31 03:05:36 AM  
OOh oooh! I have a God Edition bible! oh wait no, that's my collector's edition of Reservoir Dogs. . .
 
2006-08-31 03:05:59 AM  
Ya know, I've always wondered. If the big bang was created from the swirling of cosmic dust and created our universe. Where did the dust come from?

According to theory, it wasn't from a swirling of cosmic dust. It just was. As in a large release of energy (unimaginatively large) started to 'expand' within the confines of its own spacetime. What caused that is a big question in science.
 
2006-08-31 03:06:36 AM  
Lisa Nova?

i45.photobucket.com

/youtube
 
cot
2006-08-31 03:07:20 AM  
So, someone who follows this stuff...

how does this compare to supernova 1987A? were neutrinos detected?
 
2006-08-31 03:07:43 AM  
boop beep
boop beep
boop beep
boop beep
boop beep ...
 
cot
2006-08-31 03:08:39 AM  
superchump: What caused that is a big question in science.

Some would argue that it is a big question outside science.
 
2006-08-31 03:10:59 AM  
Drunken_Rambling Ya know, I've always wondered. If the big bang was created from the swirling of cosmic dust and created our universe. Where did the dust come from?

Oh now you have gone and done it !

Row, row, row your boat Gently down the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, Life is but a dream.
 
2006-08-31 03:13:01 AM  
canusa

Any 400 million year old Farkers who can verify all this?


Pshaw!

Back in my day, we would count ourselves *lucky* to witness a supernova! We had to strike sparks from rocks..and THAT was before the Antidiluvian times, when we was lucky enough to have a moment's peace, without everything being soaked like a sponge and not a spark in sight.

400 million years..?

Your 21st century generation don't know how good you've got it, with yer supernovas and yer regular weather-patterns..!

/turned 40, 3 hours and 11 min ago
//babysat God's older brother
///get off my damn lawn!
 
2006-08-31 03:13:45 AM  
Some would argue that it is a big question outside science.

Copout answers like 'God did it, so that's that!' don't sit well with me. Let the religious bask in their faith. I for one would love to see those in science pursue the answer to the very end.
 
2006-08-31 03:21:03 AM  
I've noticed lately that Antares ( second(?) star in scorpius' tail) seems to be a lot more active than normal. There's a lot more flickering and intensity than i recall.

Any astrononomer types have an explanation ?

/or do i need to have my eyes checked ?
 
2006-08-31 03:21:54 AM  
Drunken_Rambling Ya know, I've always wondered. If the big bang was created from the swirling of cosmic dust and created our universe. Where did the dust come from?

Too much energy lying around...
 
2006-08-31 03:29:58 AM  
Crosshair: True, Undertow101 though you have to look at the fact that the bible was writen by man and has been through many translations. Until I get the "God" edition of the bible I have to accept that fact that some scribe may have screwed up a few thousand years ago and made a typo.

Good point. After some intense Google-Fu it seems like there are many out there who believe certain scriptures in the Bible point to the world being a sphere. Of course, there are just as many people who will point you to scriptures that make the earth sound flat.

It's all in how you interpret it I guess. Hell, there are still people today that insist the world is flat. http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm (pops)
 
2006-08-31 03:32:32 AM  
Live real time?
Seems like it would be more like a pre-recorded live show.
 
2006-08-31 03:33:35 AM  
damn, i was hoping someone actually knew.
 
2006-08-31 03:34:13 AM  

JBPLG "Daniel saw a tree of great height at the center of the earth visible to the earth's farthest bounds."
"I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth."

Flat.

Square.

Rhombus


Upside-down pyramid.
 
2006-08-31 03:41:58 AM  
Whenever I think about the Universe I start to think about how big it is and how maybe it never ends, but then, there has to be something outside of it so I start to think about how it started and what it expanded into. Then I start to wonder why there would be a Universe at all. Then I get dizzy. Usually I just go to sleep after that. That's what I'm going to do now, dizzily go to sleep.
 
2006-08-31 03:43:53 AM  
etv_2k: Live real time?
Seems like it would be more like a pre-recorded live show.


It's on a 7-second delay, in case there's a costume malfunction.
 
2006-08-31 03:44:48 AM  
Crosshair: True, Undertow101 though you have to look at the fact that the bible was writen by man and has been through many translations. Until I get the "God" edition of the bible I have to accept that fact that some scribe may have screwed up a few thousand years ago and made a typo.


Yes, but what is even worse is the guy who intentionally "Revise" parts of the bible, just to get on the religous map. Isn't that the metaphorical equivilent of saying "So God, what you MENT to say was..."
 
2006-08-31 03:47:58 AM  
CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED: canusa

Any 400 million year old Farkers who can verify all this?

Pshaw!


Unfortunately, pshaw is only 24.
 
2006-08-31 03:53:00 AM  
Everybody Supernova
Everybody Supernova

-Feather Pluckin' Insane
 
2006-08-31 03:54:05 AM  
I mean, after all we are just seeing information that was encoded into the photons and electromagnetic particles 400 million years ago, so it really is pre-recorded.
 
2006-08-31 04:00:09 AM  
Sun God: It's on a 7-second delay, in case there's a costume malfunction.

hahahaha
 
2006-08-31 04:00:20 AM  
So what is the theory on what causes the explosion anyways?
Is it the radiation that drives it?
Shockwave?

When the core collapses, the surounding plasma must be pull (maybe stretched) downward.
Does a layer around the core go nuclear?

Well, just if anyone is bored and knows some of the theories.
 
2006-08-31 04:04:59 AM  
Just wait until Betelgeuse goes supernova. No telscope required. And it'll be much more reent since it's a lot lot closer.
 
2006-08-31 04:05:33 AM  
rusty0101

There was no cosmos or dust or time or space. There was a big bang event and then there was that stuff. You can't even say what was before the big bang because there was no time and talking about before a time when there was no time makes no sense (even less sense than this post) As far as I know nothing can ever be known about what happened.
 
2006-08-31 04:11:05 AM  
WhyteRaven -- Ford Prefect said Betelgeuse already has gone supernova. We just have to wait a few centuries for its lethal gamma ray burst to liquefy all life forms on this blue marble of black misery.
 
2006-08-31 04:12:24 AM  
Actually, once you understand how spacetime works, a new fark cliche is born.
 
2006-08-31 04:18:11 AM  
ferrocene: It's champagne super nover in the skyyyy-yyyy-yyyy.

Yeah, me too.
 
2006-08-31 04:19:15 AM  
www.lexx-net.ru
 
2006-08-31 04:19:31 AM  
Actually for anyone that understands space-time.. EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE!
 
2006-08-31 04:26:47 AM  
Out_to_pasture:

What you're likely witnessing is a phenomenon known to astronomers as "seeing". This is caused by the movement particles in the Earth's atmosphere. When the upper levels of the atmosphere are warmer (or when it's more humid), the particles move faster. This can cause the stars in the sky to appear to shimmer or change brightness. Seeing is a bane to amateur astronomers like myself.

This is one of the chief reasons that winter viewing through a personal telescope is generally better than summer, as the humidity tends to be lower. On a great night with little seeing, the stars will hardly waver as you stare at them. Those are the best nights to view the cosmos.
 
2006-08-31 04:28:47 AM  
Note that I should have said, "movement OF particles". Molecules and the stuff like that.

/seeing sucks
//nuke the moon
 
2006-08-31 04:33:20 AM  
etv_2k: So what is the theory on what causes the explosion anyways?

There's a couple kinds of supernova actually each with a slightly different process, I'll stick with the more straightforward of them.

The process stats when a large red giant star runs out of fuel, namely it's fused all the helium it has creating elements up to iron, it collapses. The helium comes from the hydrogen fusion that the star initially operated with. Without the energy of fusion the mass of the star's core collapses in on itself.

As the core of the star collapses the attoms get more and more tightly bunched. Until neutron-nuetron interactions stop it and the repulsive force of those causes the collapsing matter to rebound. That produces a shockwave that blows apart the outer layers of the star. Interestingly what keeps the core from collapsing initially is the repulsion between electrons. But once the mass is too great, that isnt enough and it starts to collapse.

Also what happens during a supernova is heavier elements, that is elements heavier than iron, get formed. All the uranium, gold, mercury etc we have came from a supernova.

Oh as for those neutrons that cause the rebound, they form as protons and electrons merge owing to the extreme pressure. The protons and eletrons merge forming neutrons and neutrinos. the nuetrinos, being almost nassless, can escape from the core taking out some energy which works as part of blowing out the outher layers. How? No one quite knows how the nuetrinos help.
 
2006-08-31 04:42:03 AM  
SkankingMRH: As far as I know nothing can ever be known about what happened.

Maybe, maybe not. There is a theory in M-theory that says the big bang was when two large branes touched. If that were the case we could say quite a bit about what came before. Of course it might not be the case.

crayola3: We just have to wait a few centuries for its lethal gamma ray burst to liquefy all life forms on this blue marble of black misery.

Considering Betelgeuse is only 427 light years away, it would be a short wait. But Given the distance involved, I wouldn't worry about the gamma ray burst. However, when it does go superniova, besides being the end of the constellation Orion, it will totally change the night sky. As in make it very very bright. Bright enough to effect plant growth cycles and such.

It's entirely possible it already has gone supernova. I just hope if it has it was close to 427 years ago. Because then we could see it any day now.
 
2006-08-31 04:42:12 AM  
Undertow101

Is that site serious? Please tell me that's a joke...
 
2006-08-31 04:43:05 AM  
superchump: Rhombus

I'll see your square and raise you a Hexatetron!
 
2006-08-31 04:43:44 AM  
About the pre-big bang, I'sm still hoping to ask Galactus before he consumes earth.
Or one might think that the information from what caused/preceeded the big bang would still exist, but one would have to look at the entire universe and understand its smallest part through to the big picture, and then the information might be available.
 
2006-08-31 04:44:58 AM  
You would have to be very old, or have a thick skin; a supernova burns everything for light years all around.

Wouldn't want to get too close to one.
 
2006-08-31 04:44:58 AM  
Beneathragingskies

Cool, Thanks for the info.
 
2006-08-31 04:45:49 AM  
WhyteRaven74: Considering Betelgeuse is only 427 light years away, it would be a short wait.

Beetle Juice
Beetle Juice
Beetle Ju....
 
2006-08-31 04:47:26 AM  
e-Macer: Is that site serious? Please tell me that's a joke...

The site he linked to is satirical, but the actual society does exist, sadly.
 
2006-08-31 04:53:27 AM  
WhyteRaven74
ok most of that sounds familiar, but what cuases the rebound.
Can a neutron take up more space then a proton and electron over squashed but not yet merged?
And if a neutron splitting into a proton and electron, releases energy, why would a proton and a neutron merging release energy and not absorb it.
 
2006-08-31 04:56:08 AM  
Actually the worst part would be if a supernova accord somewhat close and one of the poles was pointing our way. That is where the real lethal high energy is.
 
2006-08-31 04:56:27 AM  
e-Macer: Is that site serious? Please tell me that's a joke...

Well, here is the Wiki for the "Flat Earth Society." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society (pops)

Sounds like some people are still pretty serious about it. But those people are about as in touch with reality as Fred Phelps' crew.

On a lighter note, I forgot to pick up beer on the way home from work, but my roomate's girlfriend left a Boone's Farm in the fridge. YAY!!! (sort-of)
 
2006-08-31 05:04:44 AM  
Undertow101

Well drunk is drunk.

/sadly, stoned isn't always stoned.
 
2006-08-31 05:20:01 AM  
If it's anything like my old Chevy Nova, it'll light up the night sky.

/Obscure?
//Better not be...
 
2006-08-31 05:21:54 AM  
WhyteRaven74

Does that mean time was not a result of the event that created the universe? Because, whatever happened to create it (the universe) it makes no sense to say what happened before if there is no time. We can only comprehend and describe if there is time. And if we can't comprehend how can we know? Try describing something with out using time references. I don't know what I'm on about now. I'm scared.
 
2006-08-31 06:06:18 AM  
etv_2k: Can a neutron take up more space then a proton and electron over squashed but not yet merged?

Neutrons are bigger than protons. Electrons effectively have almost zero size, they are almost point particles. Very very light and with very little physical presence.

The process of electrons and protons combing is beta decay in reverse. Instead of the neutron decaying into a proton and electron it goes the other way. But there's an excess of energy involved and that is released in the form of a neutrino.

The repulsion is due to the strong nuclear force, which is what holds nuetrons and protons together and the whole thing is in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle. It states that two particles can never occupy the same state in the same place at the same time. As the neutrons get more tightly squeezed eventually the strong nuclear force starts to cause them to repel. This avoids having two particles in the same space with the same state and the same time. Just a matter of physical law that you squeeze the particles enough they will repel each other.

SkankingMRH: Does that mean time was not a result of the event that created the universe?

Time is the biggest problem in physics. No one has a definition for it that is anything more than a description of it dependent on some local fram of reference. If you go with the bing bang theory that our universe comes from a point of near infinite density and temperature, then our time started with the big bang. But with the brane theory, there has always been time. There has to be because hte brane move through space (not standard space as we know it). Movement requires time so there is time.

To really throw a monkey wrench into it, there's the many worlds/multiverse theories. Which postulate an infinite number of seperate universes.

Oh there's a crazy, perhaps crazy enough, theory that time isn't continuous but rather comes in packets. The smooth continuity of it would thus be an illusion, just like something appearing solid is an illusion.
 
2006-08-31 06:29:08 AM  
SkankingMRH: Does that mean time was not a result of the event that created the universe? Because, whatever happened to create it (the universe) it makes no sense to say what happened before if there is no time. We can only comprehend and describe if there is time. And if we can't comprehend how can we know? Try describing something with out using time references. I don't know what I'm on about now. I'm scared.

WhyteRaven74 already covered part of this, but there is also what's called the Planck time, which is how long it takes a photon to travel across a Plank length, which is the smallest scale at which we can perceive anything. So, there might have been tons of stuff happening prior to how long it took from the beginning of the universe to the Planck time, we just can't ever study it within our universe.
 
Displayed 50 of 138 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report