Eta Carinae, Soon To Be a Local Supernova 317
da4 writes "Phil Plait over at Bad Astronomy has a great article about Eta Car, a star approx 7,500 light years away from us that's ready to supernova sometime Real Soon Now." Larger versions of the Hubble-Chandra image of Eta Car are available at the Chandra site. Of course when astronomers say it's "about to explode," they really mean it probably exploded 6,500 to 7,500 years ago and we're awaiting the news.
Re:Gamma Rays (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bad Astronomy? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Gamma Rays (Score:4, Informative)
So yea, kinda like the death star explosion in the remake. Or maybe perpendicular to that. Once again, not an astrophysicist.
Re:Gamma Rays (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I hope no one died. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Gamma Rays (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Don't hold your breath (Score:5, Informative)
Argh, I was going to moderate this thread, but when I saw this post I felt I should reply instead.
Eta C surely has gone supernova already. General relativity tells us that the passage of time depends on your movements in space, but it doesn't forbit the presence of some 'special' reference frame in which one can consistently give an age on events that happen in the universe. That special reference frame would be the one based on the center of the universe - in effect, the center of mass frame. But even without such a special frame, we can certainly give a precise timeline between any two events no matter how separated they are or how they move. General relativity allows the exact calculation, it just won't be a constant timeline with time moving at the same rate for all observers.
For the case of Eta C, it is located at a distance of 7500 lightyears away, so the light we see from it now left Eta C 7500 years ago. Since we will surely see it go supernova sometime within the next 1000 years, there is no doubt at all that Eta C went supernova sometime between 6500 and 7500 years ago. General relativity doesn't even come into it, it is already clear just from the finite velocity of light.
Re:Gamma Rays (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If we detected it today. . . (Score:5, Informative)
Or, maybe you're thinking of SN 1054 [wikipedia.org], which according to Wikipedia may have been described by Irish monastic monks, but was later corrupted into a story of the Antichrist.
Re:How fast are the gamma rays moving? (Score:3, Informative)
In short, gamma radiation is light. Just very, very high frequency light.
Re:Gamma Rays (Score:1, Informative)
The inverse square law is always in effect. Lasers dissipate over distance just like sunlight - you can focus a laser down to a tight beam, but it still covers some number of microsteradians of spherical angle. So the area covered will increase as the square of the distance, so the energy per unit area goes as the inverse square.
Re:Gamma Rays (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Eta C is not 7500 light years away for me (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bipolar Symmetric Objects (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bad Astronomy? (Score:4, Informative)
I hate to tell you this dude, but Einstein wrote a little paper called "On the Electodynamics of Moving Bodies" perhaps you've heard of it?
Also, Maxwell never said electric fields and magnetic fields were INSEPERABLE, just that they were connected
Also, the reason electric fields can be thought of independantly from magnetic fields, on an astrophysical scale, is that electric fields can extend infinitely from an electric monopole and magnetic fields must return to their source, which i might add has no monopole associated. Pick up an E&M book (i suggest Griffith's, it's pretty good), you might learn what Maxwell's equations actually mean.
I'd like to see how you prove that while staying on this planet/in this solar system.
Every time someone starts talking about an alternate theory of physics they always have the exact same reaction when people don't believe them "oh, you're a fool for trusting the old ways, blah blah blah." There's a reason these theories are mainstream, they're testable and retestable.
Yes, you are correct, but this is the way of doing things, since nothing can ever be absolutely proven within a finite amount of time (see universe time scale of infinity), a good bet of what is most probable is the best we can ever hope for. And a relentless attack on theories is a good way to do this, if a theory is found lacking, it might be completely wrong or just in need of a tweak. Currently the Standard Model is in one of these categories as it unifies the strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces, where as gravity is unadressed. And string theory might just be in the other (it's untestable, thus cannot be proven or disproven), but that's another story all-together.
Re:Bad Astronomy? (Score:2, Informative)
Lord, deliver us from morons like you.