Junior-Sized Supernova Discovered By New York Teen 154
Matt_dk writes "In November 2008, Caroline Moore, a 14-year-old student from upstate New York, discovered a supernova in a nearby galaxy, making her the youngest person ever to do so. Additional observations determined that the object, called SN 2008ha, is a new type of stellar explosion, 1000 times more powerful than a nova but 1000 times less powerful than a supernova. Astronomers say that it may be the weakest supernova ever seen."
Re:No light pollution there (Score:3, Informative)
Your post got me curious if this was true or not (whether looking from the botttom of a well would allow one to see stars) as its much more intuitive to have the lens be the primary mechanism for telescope than simply the tube. I don't think it is. Snopes actually has an article on whether this is true and under what conditions could one even hypothesize it is true:
http://www.snopes.com/science/well.asp [snopes.com]
Re:Weakest Supernova? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No light pollution there (Score:1, Informative)
What in the holy hell are you blathering about? The daytime sky is blue regardless of whether or not you're looking at it through a tube. OK, maybe if your telescope is about 100km long so it sticks right out of the atmosphere and is air tight so you can maintain a vacuum inside. The color comes from the sunlight scattered by the air itself, and there's a lot of it between yourself and outer space so the brightness of this scattered sunlight is sufficient to drown out any stars and planets, with the occasional exception of Venus.
Re:No light pollution there (Score:4, Informative)
That's because she was using a telescope - even a small one negates the problem. Just like observing the sky from the bottom of a well. Standing in a 10m-deep well in the middle of a bright day you will see a piece of night sky, with stars and all, when you look up (well, except when you're on the equator and it's exactly the midday, but that's a corner case of sorts).
[[citation needed]]
Standing at the bottom of a well doesn't magically make the sky dark at midday. Other than a few very bright objects (Venus, maybe Jupiter, maybe the ISS, if it happens to path over the small swatch of sky you could see), I strongly doubt that you'll see anything other than blue sky. I've yet to read a convincing argument (or better, see a convincing picture) that proves the "bottom of a well" hypothesis any better than the "airplane on a treadmill" problem.
The closest explanation I've heard would be that, when viewing at dusk, your eyes would be better adjusted to the low-light conditions, since you've presumably been standing at the bottom of a dark well for a while. Which isn't that much more useful to anyone (short of maybe unwilling friends of Jame Gumb) than sitting in a dark room before going outside.
Also, please explain how using a telescope magically invalidates light pollution. If I follow your line of reasoning, I should be able to use a pair of binoculars to get a crystal clear view out of a dirty window.
Re:Weakest Supernova? (Score:5, Informative)
A supernova entails core collapse and results in the destruction of the star. A nova is an explosion occurring in the upper level of a star's atmosphere and does not destroy the star. Novas recur in a more or less cyclic fashion, supernovas never recur.
How telescopes "invalidate" light pollution, sorta (Score:5, Informative)
Also, please explain how using a telescope magically invalidates light pollution. If I follow your line of reasoning, I should be able to use a pair of binoculars to get a crystal clear view out of a dirty window.
You're right that the "bottom of a well" claim is bogus, but you miss the boat in this last paragraph.
A telescope collects more light than the naked eye, and it also magnifies the image of what you're seeing. If you're looking at an extended object -- a nebula, a planet, or a patch of light-polluted sky -- this magnification spreads the object's light over a wider area, making it dimmer. Stars, though, are still effectively point sources, so they just look brighter.
So, looking for stars in a light-polluted sky is easier with a telescope, because it makes the stars appear brighter relative to their background. With nebulae, comets, or other extended objects, especially where the object's apparent brightness doesn't exceed the sky's apparent brightness, the telescope doesn't help much at all.
As for the binoculars and the dirty window, well, the dirt would be out-of-focus for the binoculars, so they might help a little. Mostly, though, the analogy is a poor fit. Light pollution is effectively radiating from clear sky, not blocking light as smog or clouds would do.
Re:Sky coverage + Observing Time = Discoveries (Score:5, Informative)
Within the amateur and professional astronomy circles there is a fairly wide known and standard method of reporting astronomical stuff (see http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/cbat.html [harvard.edu] )
Many deepsky objects (galaxies, nebulae, star clusters) become "well known friends" by amateur astronomers. For example, when ever I'm out observing I will usually do a quick peek at M13 in Hercules, M81, M82 in Ursa Major, or parts of the Veil nebulae in Cygnus when they are visible (just to name a few). I suspect if there was a new supernova in M81 or M82, there is a chance that I would "catch it" by noticing something "odd" (think of it like noticing a new pimple on a friends face). Once something "odd" is noticed, the next step would be to check recent and older photographs of that region. If it's suspected to be "new" then the information is submitted to the IAU Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams according to the instructions listed above. Usually the next step that happens is that the pros might get involved to verify the finding.
There are "rules" on who discovers the object, based mainly on the chronological time that IAU receives the information. Co-discovery of the same object can happen, usually the cut-off is when the IAU sends out the notice that there is a potential new object. In other words, say that I notice a new brightness in M81, I record the information and at 10:15 GMT send it in to the IAU CBAT. Someone else also notices the same object and sends in the information at 10:30 GMT. There is a CBAT notice sent out to subscribers at 10:35 GMT. Any observation after 10:35 would not be considered a discovery.
BTW if you go out to http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/RecentSupernovae.html [harvard.edu] and look for 2008ha, you will find that there where 2 other people who are listed as discoverers of the same supernova, and it looks like Caroline Moore has been "working" with the same folks because she is also listed with at least one of them on two other recent supernova discoveries.
Re:Weakest Supernova? (Score:2, Informative)