Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Youngest Galactic Supernova Found, But No Aliens

Posted by timothy on Wed May 14, 2008 02:01 PM
from the tax-paid-striptease-from-nasa dept.
Simon Howes writes "After searching for decades, astronomers have found a supernova in our galaxy! So it wasn't little green men we were waiting for. It's located very near the center of the galaxy, about 28,000 light years away, and it's only at most about 140 years old. Quote from Bad Astronomy: 'If you're wondering what all the buzz has been about the past few days over a NASA discovery, then wait no longer. No, it's not aliens or an incoming asteroid. Instead, it's still very cool: astronomers have found the youngest supernova in the Milky Way.'" FiReaNGeL contributes a link to coverage on e! Science News; I think Wired's account of the super-hyped tele-press-conference is the funniest.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Supernova Birth Observed From Orbiting Telescope 94 comments
FiReaNGeL writes "Astronomers have seen the aftermath of spectacular stellar explosions known as supernovae before, but no one had witnessed a star dying in real time — until now. While looking at another object in the spiral galaxy NGC 2770, using NASA's orbiting Swift telescope, scientists detected an extremely luminous blast of X-rays released by a supernova explosion. They alerted 8 other telescopes to turn their eyes on this first-of-its-kind event. 'We were looking at another, older supernova in the galaxy, when the one now known as SN 2008D went off. We would have missed it if it weren't for Swift's real-time capabilities, wide field of view, and numerous instruments.'" Bad Astronomy has an excellent, well-illustrated story about the discovery as well. I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property contributes a link to the BBC's coverage, and adds a nugget gleaned from Ars Technica: "SN 2007uy's collapse caused an X-ray burst of about 10^39 joules, most likely due to the 'shock break out' when the energy of the core's collapse finally reached the neutron star's surface."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Kingrames (858416) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:02PM (#23407794)
    Younger than America, that's actually really impressive.
    • Re:140 Years old (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Azaril (1046456) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:04PM (#23407818) Homepage
      It would be, if wasn't actually 28140 years old.
        • Re:140 Years old (Score:5, Informative)

          by Tango42 (662363) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @04:18PM (#23409956)
          Time dilation? We're talking about light, if you can define time dilation for light-like observers at all (which you can't, really) it would be infinite. The light is 0 years old. So, yeah, I guess that qualifies as less than 28140...
    • The write-up says:

      about 28,000 light years away, and it's only at most about 140 years old

      If we are observing it (the light, that left the start 28000 years ago) now, the start must be about 28140 years old...

      • Wake me when they've discovered how Everything evolved from Nothing.
        No, no, everything exploded from Nothing. Get it right. Sheesh.
        • by peragrin (659227) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @03:02PM (#23408800)
          <quote> Wake me when they've discovered how Everything evolved from Nothing.

          No, no, everything exploded from Nothing. Get it right. Sheesh.</quote><br>Well first a daddy universe explodes into a momma universe and new life is formed. 9 billion years later that little universe thinks it is the center of everything.
      • by NotBornYesterday (1093817) * on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:22PM (#23408162) Journal
        That issue has been solved! Scientists recently found the missing link between inanimate, lifeless matter and the first primitive protozoa: an Anonymous Coward fossil.
      • Simple. Nothing is just a definition. By positing Nothing, it's opposite, Everything, must also exist. In true Nothingness, there are no definitions or boundaries, but there is also no lack of definitions or boundaries because the lack of something is a definition or boundary. The true void contains every possibility as well as the lack thereof. Duh.
  • by Mikkeles (698461) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:03PM (#23407806)
    If it's 140 yrs old, then it can't be farther than 140 ly for us to know about it ??!!?
    • You beat me to it!!!! Nothing travels faster than light, wouldn't it have to be 28,140 years old???
    • So it's a trick super-hyped announcement! They're telling us that they only discovered a supernova, which is ok. What they are actually telling us through this feigned mistake, is that they've discovered ftl technology!

      Either that or they made an error converting AD years to light years. I hear they have problems with conversions.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      RTFA

      This makes the original explosion the most recent supernova in the Galaxy, as measured in Earth's time-frame (referring to when events are observable at Earth).
    • by kalirion (728907) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:22PM (#23408154)
      We are seeing a 140 year old supernova. Just like someone looking at my baby pictures will be seeing a 3 month old kalirion.
      • y'know... somebody throwing facts at you can really suck the joy out of a facetious remark like that.... I think it's safe to say that just about everybody who reads Slashdot has the necessary smarts (if not the knowledge) to realize that the article was meaning to say that the light left a supernova which was 140 years old and travelled 28,000 LY to reach us. The humour in the situation comes from the contrast between what they say, and what they mean.

        But explaining that takes away from the humour in sayin
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Relativity actually defines, in a sense, the age of an event relative to your own perspective. The "causal" perspective is the only one that really matters. From our causal perspective, the supernova is 140 years old.
    • by Jesus_666 (702802) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:56PM (#23408722)
      They used a very fast telescope.
  • distance vs age? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by forsetti (158019) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:05PM (#23407852)
    Wait -- if it is 28,000 light years away, but only 140 years old .... does that mean we won't see it for another 27,860 years? Or, did it actually occur 28,140 years ago and we could see it 140 years ago?
    • Re:distance vs age? (Score:5, Informative)

      by theelectron (973857) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:14PM (#23408002)
      After reading the articles, you are correct. It is actually over 26,000 years old, we were just able to see in in the last 140 years.
      • After reading the articles, you are correct

        Blasphemer.

        It is actually over 26,000 years old, we were just able to see in in the last 140 years.

        Well, it's 26,000 years old from our perspective -- but from it's perspective, it's only 140 years old from the perspective of the evidence. Remember, it's traveling at the speed of light, so time has stopped.

        Or something like that, I didn't bother to RTFToR either.

    • by rossdee (243626) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:17PM (#23408058)
      In space, all news is old news.
      • Re:distance vs age? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ZeroExistenZ (721849) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:26PM (#23408230)
        This is just in! A first alien message! It's estimated to be 500,000 light years away and even more radio year.

        After years of crunching our most heavy quantum computers, we decoded;
        "HELP. WE ARE THE LAST KNOWN SURVIVING SPECIES IN THIS UNIVERSE. HELP. THEY FINALLY HAVE CREATED WEAPONS OF MASS... - NO CARRIER.".
      • Yeah, but how long until the dupe is posted? Or is it posted already and we just can't see it yet?
    • > ...does that mean we won't see it for another 27,860 years?

      Nothing travels faster than light. We won't know anything at all about this supernova for 28,860 years.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:20PM (#23408102)
    All you need to do is divide the light years away by the smarmy posts about the speed of light in /.

    In our case, 28000 ly/200 smartass speed of light posts = 140 years ago.

    The more posts we get, the later it happens. Pretty soon, NASA will be able to predict the future! (Don't ask me about the math in that)

  • by loose electron (699583) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:22PM (#23408166) Homepage
    "The supernova explosion occurred about 140 years ago, making it the most recent supernova in the Milky Way as measured in Earth's time frame. Previously, the last known galactic supernova occurred around 1680, based on studying the expansion of its remnant Cassiopeia A."

    What that statement means is from the observational perspective of the earth. If it is a 1000 light years away, and we see the event here and now, then it occurred now "as measured in Earth's Time Frame" but actually from the distance, we know the event occurred a 1000 years ago.

  • Why did some asshat call in to the NASA teleconference and ask about moon crickets, and when the hell did that become a racial slur?
    • "Aside from the couple of loonies, I think that went quite well."

      How much does it suck to have to say that during the announcement of your career.
    • Why did some asshat call in to the NASA teleconference and ask about moon crickets, and when the hell did that become a racial slur?
      I dunno. You'd have to ask those stupid moon crickets that question.

    • The term "cricket" surfaced in a racial-discrimination lawsuit in Denver in the 1970s, as code for black patrons at a certain disco. Their doorman was overheard calling his management on his walkie-talkie and discussing how many "crickets" he should admit to the club.

      rj
  • Not so overdue (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EricWright (16803) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:28PM (#23408260)
    Several different "experts" have predicted that the Milky Way should have at least one supernova every 100 years. Of course, the question has been why we hadn't seen one since 1604. I guess this ... ahem, sheds new light on the issue. As Dr. Reynolds puts it, there's too much interstellar 'gunk' out there.

    Disclosure: Dr. Reynolds was co-chair of my thesis committee, but I was doing computational astrophysics, not observational.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      The rate I heard was once every 30 years. This is the kind of explosion that LIGO and others are waiting for, since this would be a pretty easy target for observing gravitational waves. This one was at 28k lightyear or about 8 kiloparsec. LIGO has been running last year with a 'detection horizon' of about 15 Megaparsec, so this one was really at spitting distance. This is the reason why the gravitational wave community does an effort to keep at least one interferometer running at all times by scheduling th
  • composite image (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    That composite image looks strangely like the firefox logo.

  • by cybrpnk2 (579066) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:31PM (#23408332) Homepage
    NASA is wrong in saying this new supernova is the "youngest" - it is actually just the MOST RECENTLY OBSERVED. The Crab Nebula supernova [wikipedia.org] has it beat as "youngest", exploding occuring only 6500 years ago (and observed less than 300 years ago, in 1731) instead of exploding 28,000 years ago (and observed in 2008).
    • by TigerNut (718742) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:48PM (#23408578) Homepage Journal
      The supernova associated with the Crab Nebula was observed and recorded by the Chinese and the Arabs in 1054. It was only in 1731 that the nebula itself was charted by Western astronomers and even later that it became M1 in Messier's catalog.
    • I think the point here is that we are recording digital images of a star as it was only 140 years after it exploded. As opposed to the crab, for which we have digital images 6500 years after it exploded. Regardless of how old the supernova "actually" is now, what matters is that the data we have shown it at age 140. Whereas for the crab, the data we have show it at age 6500.

      NASA is wrong in saying this new supernova is the "youngest" - it is actually just the MOST RECENTLY OBSERVED. The Crab Nebula supernov

  • by amstrad (60839) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @02:37PM (#23408396)
    People need to read about relativity of simultaneity [wikipedia.org] before trying to be smart asses and making laymen comments about events at large distances.
  • And I'm posting because there is no "Moron" mod.

    This is seriously one of the stupidest discussions I've ever seen on /. Every post is either repeating something from the article, making a pedantic loser comment on the "140 years" line, or explaining to the morons the whole concept of "Frame of Reference."

    It's what I'd expect from a society where people prank call a scientific conference. Nice one, guys.
    • /me calls CERN

      me: Excuse me. Is you Large Hadron Collider running?

      CERN: Why yes, it is.

      me: Well, you better go catch it.
  • 28,000 light years away equates rougly to 164.6 quadrillion miles. While I'm certain that the scientists are using their very best methodologies and calculations, isn't attempting to measure the age of a supernova that far away down to the year it occurred analogous to attempting to sex a fruit fly perched on a rock in the Sea of Tranquility?
    • o.O if it's 28,000 light years away that already implies that what we see now happened 28,000 years ago. It took 28,000 years for the light from that event to reach us.
      • To further clarify, in case I misunderstood your original question, figuring out that the supernova is 140 years old took a few years of observation and measurements. Given what we do know about supernovae, I suppose it's not that difficult to estimate the age of one based on its current state and how quickly it's changing.
  • Dupe! (Score:5, Funny)

    by STrinity (723872) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @03:16PM (#23409018) Homepage
    First posted August 1868:

    Natural philosophers studying the heavens have spotted a stellar nova some 7000 light leagues distance. The light from this exploding star emanated some 24000 years before the birth of Our Lord. This has caused some confusion among scholars, as this would require the star to have combusted some 20 millennia before the creation of the Universe. Philosophers are also unable to theorize what may have made the star explode, though one possibility is a build-up of gas deep within the star's anthracite core.

    This is certainly the biggest bang since Mr. Wilkes' curtain call during "Our American Cousin".
  • "The discovery addresses a lack of recent supernova in our galaxy."

    This makes it sound like the galaxy's going to suffer incontinence or flaking nebulae if it doesn't get enough supernovae.

    (disclaimer: this is a joke, I know what he means. I shouldn't have to add this, but this is slashdot)
  • by Acheron (2182) on Wednesday May 14 2008, @03:59PM (#23409636)
    Now every time I read a /. headline, I'm going to be adding "But No Aliens" to it in my head. *sigh*
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      As with all these article, it is talking when the light became available for us here on Earth to see.
    • It the supernova went off 140 years ago at a distance of 26,000 LY, there would be no way for us to know about it.

      You're missing the point. Obviously, NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has a working Time Machine which they've been keeping secret - until now. (Someone's getting fired...!)

    • The only Epic Fail is you.

      They were looking for the most recent Visible super nova.
      With in that context they are exactly right.

    • We wouldn't need to find a supernova that went off only 140 years ago, it would be close enough that we could probably see it with the naked eye... before it blinded us and gave us a nice deep black gamma ray tan.

      A supernova within about 100 light years or so of Earth would probably cause an extinction event at the same time it was detected. NASA's announcement would be very exciting indeed, except for the little detail that, there'd probably be no one around to give it.