Powerful Supernova May Be Related To Death Spasms of First Stars 136
necro81 writes "The New York Times is reporting on a discovery from a team of UC Berkley researchers, who may have discovered the brightest stellar explosion ever observed. Observations of the cataclysmic explosion of a 100- to 200-solar-mass star began last September, based on data from the Chandra X-ray Observatory. The researchers believe that the explosion is similar to the death spasms of the first stars in the universe. The super-massive star's collapse is believed to have been so energetic as to create unstable electron-positron pairs that tore the star apart before it could collapse into a black hole — seeding the universe with heavier elements."
Re:Time-lapse video? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the NASA page. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Eta Carinae (Score:5, Informative)
From here [freeinternetpress.com]:
So it's not too bad, it would probably just miss us.
Re:we should we believe the astrophysicists now? (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't this what academic research is (in theory) all about? The search for better understanding, enabling us to revise our theories of how the universe (or some small subset of it) works?
Find the simplest theory that fits all the observations. New data may mean you need a new theory, or that you need to revise your current theory. I don't understand the problem you have, unless it's just with the arrogance of some theorists who claim to have found the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. I say, let them be arrogant -- when they are disproved, they'll fall harder for it.
Re:Actually, it's T E X A S (Score:4, Informative)
From the article:
The discovery was made by Robert Quimby, a University of Texas graduate student, who was using a small robotic telescope at McDonald Observatory near Fort Davis, Tex., to troll for supernovasRe:Oddity (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps it "happens" when its light-cone intersects ours? The question with this interpretation is, where does our light-cone start?
Time is relative, and over distances of at least the order of a light second (186,000+ miles), it is difficult to think about correctly.
Re:Eta Carinae (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oddity (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Kinda OT, but I thought I'd say... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Time-lapse video? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Time-lapse video? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, most of the radiation comes out as neutrinos. Only 1% comes out in forms we can detect at all...
Re:Here's the NASA page. (Score:2, Informative)
Here's the paper about it [arxiv.org].
From the abstract: ... but we argue that any known mechanism ... requires a very massive progenitor star... SN 2006gy is the first supernova for which we have good reason to suspect a pair-instability explosion... SN 2006gy also suggests that the most massive stars can create brilliant supernovae instead of dying ignominious deaths through direct collapse to a black hole. If such a fate is common among the most massive stars, then supernovae from Population III stars in the early universe will be more numerous than
previously believed.
Interesting stuff!We report our discovery and early observations of the peculiar Type IIn supernova SN 2006gy... It is not yet clear what powers the enormous luminosity
Re:heavy elements (Score:2, Informative)
Re:heavy elements (Score:2, Informative)
I hope you like physics, though. The chart of nuclides can be a bit confusing at first.
Re:Oddity (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Eta Carinae (Score:3, Informative)
If you neglect angular momentum (i.e., for only moderately rotating stars), the current predictions are that pair creation supernovae are the normal mechanism for stars with a low metalicity and immediately pre-supernova mass from about 140 to about 260 solar masses. If you look at the webpage in the summary http://astro.berkeley.edu/~soffner/imgsf8.html [berkeley.edu] it shows the metalicity / mass behavior estimates. Also see http://www.ucolick.org/~alex/firststars/ [ucolick.org], particularly the diagram at the bottom. It shows the no angular momentum low metalicity stellar behavior: 8-25 Solar Masses, you get a neutron star. 25-50ish, you get a neutron star that then reabsorbs enough of the source star's mass via fallback to become a black hole. 50-100, you get a direct collapse to a black hole. From 100 to 130 solar masses, the pair production mechanism kicks in and pulses a few times, ejecting mass, and then it falls below 100 SM from the ejections and should collapse to a black hole on the next pulse. From 130 or 140 up to about 250 or 260 (depends on whose paper/numbers), pair production doesn't pulse, it goes bang, and the explosion generates enough energy to gravitationally unbind the whole star (blow it completely apart, no or little remnant). Above the 250/260 point, they predict that pair production happens but it just direct collapses essentially the whole star to a black hole, not fusions off to explosion as in the slightly smaller ones.
Re:Time-lapse video? (Score:3, Informative)
The answer lies in whether you count neutrinos as radiation or not. What I should have stated in my original post was that the vast majority of the energy released in supernoave comes out in the form of neutrinos, which we have a really really hard time detecting...
Wikipedia is correct as to the source of photons that we detect. I counted neutrinos as a form of radiation in my earlier statement (since in my mind, that's what they effectively are), but neutrinos are not photons. Hence, there is no discrepancy. Basically, when we take the energy difference between the potential energy of a star before and after a Type II SNa (like this one) and check that against the energy we see from photons, we are only seeing 1% of the energy that should be coming out in all forms of light. The rest of the energy is believed to escape in the form of neutrinos.
Re:Time-lapse video? (Score:4, Informative)
"
The core implodes at velocities reaching 70,000 km/s (0.23c),[40] resulting in a rapid increase in temperature and density. Through photodissociation, gamma rays decompose the iron into helium nuclei and free neutrons. The conditions also cause electrons and protons to merge through inverse beta decay, producing neutrons and electron neutrinos. About 1046 joules of gravitational energy are converted into a ten-second burst of neutrinos.[41] These carry away energy from the core and accelerate the collapse, while some neutrinos are absorbed by the star's outer layers and begin the supernova explosion.[42]
The inner core eventually reaches a density comparable to that of an atomic nucleus, where the collapse is halted. The infalling matter then rebounds, producing a shock wave that propagates outward. This expanding shock can stall in the outer core as energy is lost through the dissociation of heavy elements. However, through a process that is not clearly understood, the shock reabsorbs 1044 Joules[a] (1 foe) of energy, producing an explosion.[43]"
You might have stumbled upon this part of the article while getting to the part you quoted. 10^44 joule ->explosion, 10^46 joule -> neutrino burst.
->only 1% is visible.
Re:E.L.E (Score:2, Informative)
1.It depends on how much matter is dispersed between us and the supernova(plasma,dust,stars,etc)
2.The estimate of mass and star composition are correct.
3.The mechanism of supernova production is well understood.(not really:the electron-positron pair supernova is new)
4.GRB angle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_2006gy [wikipedia.org]
Similarity to Eta Carinae
Eta Carinae ( Carinae or Car) is a highly luminous hypergiant star located approximately 7,500 light years from Earth in the Milky Way galaxy. It is estimated to be similar in size to the star which became SN2006gy. Dave Pooley, one of the discoverers of SN2006gy, says that if Eta Carinae exploded in a similar fashion, it would be bright enough that one could read by its light. However, Pooley estimates the likelihood of the star exploding in the near future as small, with a minimal risk to life on Earth.[4]