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.

(Physics World)   +1a   (physicsworld.com) divider line 36
    More: Cool, Stellar evolution, solar masses, potential energy, Chandrasekhar, gravitational collapse, Type Ia, white dwarfs, Institute of Science  
•       •       •

7727 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Feb 2013 at 6:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-16 06:38:11 PM  
Blah, Blah, Blah... numberwang!
 
2013-02-16 07:06:56 PM  
www.brobible.com

What a Chandraskehar  investigating a broken limit may look like.
 
2013-02-16 07:15:42 PM  
I C what you did there, subby. I C it all II-L.

/golf clap
 
2013-02-16 07:39:30 PM  
So if type Ia supernovae may be Ia+ does that mean the theory of expansion is in doubt? There could be a few relived physicists if it is.
 
2013-02-16 07:44:33 PM  
Iä! Iä! Shub-Niggurath!
 
2013-02-16 07:52:47 PM  
I coughed up a supernovae like that this morning.
 
2013-02-16 08:05:47 PM  
Wasn't there also an article published recently that stated to the effect of "accreting additional matter also speeds up the rotation and that helps push some above the limit."
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-16 08:08:15 PM  
So if type Ia supernovae may be Ia+ does that mean the theory of expansion is in doubt? There could be a few relived physicists if it is.

I'd be relieved if I knew I wasn't going to be ripped apart finer than the subatomic level in 5 billion years.
 
2013-02-16 08:24:59 PM  
i151.photobucket.com
"So if the white dwarfs are really bigger than we thought, will they kill all the black dwarfs and the Vietnamese?"
 
2013-02-16 08:44:22 PM  
Boring. Call me when Betelgeuse blows up..
 
2013-02-16 08:52:02 PM  

jamspoon: So if type Ia supernovae may be Ia+ does that mean the theory of expansion is in doubt? There could be a few relived physicists if it is.


At the end of the article they discuss this.  And no, it probably doesn't mess up dark energy related calculations.  Such weird supernovae are likely too rare to account for dark energy observations, and it is pretty easy to pick out these supernovae and remove them.

I suppose you could argue that these strange supernovae could have been more numerous in the early universe, which would mess things up.  So it needs to be looked into.  But the bottom line is that, from what we know, this doesn't really do much to dark energy calculations.
 
2013-02-16 08:54:03 PM  

ZAZ: I'd be relieved if I knew I wasn't going to be ripped apart finer than the subatomic level in 5 billion years.


I'd be pretty happy knowing I was going to be around for 5 billion years in order to be ripped apart.
 
2013-02-16 09:01:54 PM  
They just keep finding more dangerous crap the more they look!

Astronomers are the true terrorists.
 
2013-02-16 09:55:49 PM  
Link won't open on mobile. I sad.
 
2013-02-16 10:00:29 PM  
Mother of God
 
2013-02-16 10:40:38 PM  
www.miataturbo.net
 
2013-02-16 11:28:27 PM  

mark12A: Boring. Call me when Betelgeuse blows up..


He just turned into that snake thing and went for Winona Ryder.

What? I'm watching ABC Family. It's a good film.
 
2013-02-17 12:10:09 AM  

Jackpot777: mark12A: Boring. Call me when Betelgeuse blows up..

He just turned into that snake thing and went for Winona Ryder.

What? I'm watching ABC Family. It's a good film.


After this thread, I think I will be watching one or both of those. Ooh! Maybe Big Trouble in Little China or the Fifth Element!
 
2013-02-17 12:31:20 AM  
fta Such fields, they reason, could stabilize a white dwarf of mass up to 2.58 solar masses by a process known as Landau quantization.

It works every time

img.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-17 12:42:05 AM  

SpdrJay: They just keep finding more dangerous crap the more they look!

Astronomers are the true terrorists.


Just got back from hosting a public astronomy observation, so I got a kick out of this reply.

\used to be an amateur astronomer, 'til I took a Nagler to the knee
\\that would actually really hurt
 
2013-02-17 01:25:00 AM  
I kinda study SNe Ia and find the super-Chandrasekhar-mass ones interesting, so I'm getting a kick out of this.

Dunno whether their idea will be more provable than the idea of two white dwarves merging ("double-degenerate") and thus exceeding the limit, which I've heard a lot before.

/SN2007if is my (friend Richard's)  homeboy.
 
2013-02-17 03:40:42 AM  

Notabunny: fta Such fields, they reason, could stabilize a white dwarf of massup to 2.58 solar masses by a process known as Landau quantization.

It works every time

[img.photobucket.com image 384x303]


www.hitchcockwiki.com
 
2013-02-17 04:02:48 AM  

mark12A: Boring. Call me when Betelgeuse blows up..


Ha! that's nothing! Wait until VY Canis Majoris goes hypernova--that will be worth watching.
 
2013-02-17 06:40:45 AM  
img1.etsystatic.com
 
2013-02-17 08:53:40 AM  

GentlemanJ: mark12A: Boring. Call me when Betelgeuse blows up..

Ha! that's nothing! Wait until VY Canis Majoris goes hypernova--that will be worth watching.


Or R136a1--265 solar masses of hypernova goodness.
 
2013-02-17 01:33:10 PM  

GypsyJoker: SpdrJay: They just keep finding more dangerous crap the more they look!

Astronomers are the true terrorists.

Just got back from hosting a public astronomy observation, so I got a kick out of this reply.

\used to be an amateur astronomer, 'til I took a Nagler to the knee
\\that would actually really hurt


THAT was funny! +1 clear observation night for you.
 
2013-02-17 02:00:29 PM  

GentlemanJ: mark12A: Boring. Call me when Betelgeuse blows up..

Ha! that's nothing! Wait until VY Canis Majoris goes hypernova--that will be worth watching.


VY Canis Majoris is really large, but not really massive.  It's actually not that impressive.  Even its upper-end estimation is not in the top-100 of stars we measured.  Cluster R136-A alone has about 20 stars, each of which is about 4 times more massive than VYCM.
 
2013-02-17 02:02:15 PM  

eyeq360: GentlemanJ: mark12A: Boring. Call me when Betelgeuse blows up..

Ha! that's nothing! Wait until VY Canis Majoris goes hypernova--that will be worth watching.

Or R136a1--265 solar masses of hypernova goodness.


Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if it hasn't already gone and we're just waiting for the light to get here.

/We're actually quite overdue for a Supernova, and we really kind of don't want one within a couple of hundred light years of us.
 
2013-02-17 02:38:48 PM  

vygramul: eyeq360: GentlemanJ: mark12A: Boring. Call me when Betelgeuse blows up..

Ha! that's nothing! Wait until VY Canis Majoris goes hypernova--that will be worth watching.

Or R136a1--265 solar masses of hypernova goodness.

Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if it hasn't already gone and we're just waiting for the light to get here.

/We're actually quite overdue for a Supernova, and we really kind of don't want one within a couple of hundred light years of us.


R136a1, if we do see it go nova, would be a real sight.
What do you think about Eta Carinae?  I'm thinking that it might have already gone nova, given its past history of brightening and the nebula surrounding it.  Seems almost like the star that went boom as supernova 1987A.
 
2013-02-17 03:20:14 PM  

eyeq360: vygramul: eyeq360: GentlemanJ: mark12A: Boring. Call me when Betelgeuse blows up..

Ha! that's nothing! Wait until VY Canis Majoris goes hypernova--that will be worth watching.

Or R136a1--265 solar masses of hypernova goodness.

Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if it hasn't already gone and we're just waiting for the light to get here.

/We're actually quite overdue for a Supernova, and we really kind of don't want one within a couple of hundred light years of us.

R136a1, if we do see it go nova, would be a real sight.
What do you think about Eta Carinae?  I'm thinking that it might have already gone nova, given its past history of brightening and the nebula surrounding it.  Seems almost like the star that went boom as supernova 1987A.


That kind of speculation is beyond my expertise.  Were it to go, however, we would be somewhat concerned and worried what its effects on us would be, given that it's less than 10,000 LY away.  Luckily, we're not in line with its rotation axis or whoever is pointed at it when the GRB got here would be lucky.  They'd die the quick death.
 
2013-02-17 03:24:15 PM  

vygramul: eyeq360: vygramul: eyeq360: GentlemanJ: mark12A: Boring. Call me when Betelgeuse blows up..

Ha! that's nothing! Wait until VY Canis Majoris goes hypernova--that will be worth watching.

Or R136a1--265 solar masses of hypernova goodness.

Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if it hasn't already gone and we're just waiting for the light to get here.

/We're actually quite overdue for a Supernova, and we really kind of don't want one within a couple of hundred light years of us.

R136a1, if we do see it go nova, would be a real sight.
What do you think about Eta Carinae?  I'm thinking that it might have already gone nova, given its past history of brightening and the nebula surrounding it.  Seems almost like the star that went boom as supernova 1987A.

That kind of speculation is beyond my expertise.  Were it to go, however, we would be somewhat concerned and worried what its effects on us would be, given that it's less than 10,000 LY away.  Luckily, we're not in line with its rotation axis or whoever is pointed at it when the GRB got here would be lucky.  They'd die the quick death.


Reminds me of a NOVA episode talking about supergiant black holes.  I'd hate to be a planet in the line of the jets when it consumes a few stars or two.
 
2013-02-17 10:54:27 PM  

vygramul: /We're actually quite overdue for a Supernova, and we really kind of don't want one within a couple of hundred light years of us.


Overdue in what way?  Do you mean ones within the Milky Way?   We find new ones all the time outside it, sometimes even in galaxies familiar to observational astronomers - there've been two in the Whirlpool Galaxy since 2000, right?  IncludingSN 2011dh  a couple years ago.
 
2013-02-17 11:14:05 PM  

dbirchall: vygramul: /We're actually quite overdue for a Supernova, and we really kind of don't want one within a couple of hundred light years of us.

Overdue in what way?  Do you mean ones within the Milky Way?   We find new ones all the time outside it, sometimes even in galaxies familiar to observational astronomers - there've been two in the Whirlpool Galaxy since 2000, right?  IncludingSN 2011dh  a couple years ago.


In the Milky Way.
 
2013-02-17 11:41:10 PM  

dbirchall: vygramul: /We're actually quite overdue for a Supernova, and we really kind of don't want one within a couple of hundred light years of us.

Overdue in what way?  Do you mean ones within the Milky Way?   We find new ones all the time outside it, sometimes even in galaxies familiar to observational astronomers - there've been two in the Whirlpool Galaxy since 2000, right?  IncludingSN 2011dh  a couple years ago.


My sketch of sn2011iv in NGC 1404. 1404 is the smaller galaxy; NGC 1399 is the larger.  (Both are ellipticals, in the Fornax Galaxy Cluster.)  North is to the bottom, west to the left; the supernova is the star on NGC 1404's NW side.  The star on the galaxy's SE side is a field star.

i1079.photobucket.com

Other data:

Observation date: 12/17/11
Observation site: Cheney Rd. flying field, Pittsburg, IL (37* 44' 42" N, 88* 53' 12" W)
Time of sketch: 7:43-8:16 PM
Seeing: III-IV (Antoniadi)
Transparency: average (4/6)
ZLM: 5.5
Conditions: 39* F; wet, humid

Equipment:
12.5" Discovery truss-style Dobsonian
14mm Explore Scientific 82* eyepiece
Magnification: 105x
TFOV: 48'
 
2013-02-18 05:45:48 AM  
GypsyJoker:
i1079.photobucket.com

Nice!  Host is at what, Z=.006?  That's pretty close - well, 65 million light-years. I don't think my collaboration followed that one; we're .03 < Z < .07 and the cosmologists call  that "nearby!"  Which star is the SN seems obvious to me, but I've seen a heck of a lot of SN+host images over the last half-dozen years... so your explanation is probably quite useful for people who have lives. ;)
 
2013-02-18 12:22:14 PM  
... +2b Destruct?
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report