Eta Carinae, Soon To Be a Local Supernova

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.

Schroedingers Nova?

[kylben]

If we never get the news, will it actually have exploded, or not?

Re:

[Kagura]

Way to fall into the editor's trap, trying to spur spurious discussion about whether events outside our lightcone actually happened before they intersected our lightcone. The editors may feel we need help in starting a discussion on many stories.

Re:Schroedingers Nova?

[geekoid]

Don't think you are so important that nothing happens unless you observe it, earthman.

Bad Astronomy?

[sczimme]

I don't know if we should take the word of someone who runs a site called 'Bad Astronomy'...

*checks TFA*

The blue part is an optical image from Hubble, and shows the bipolar lobes of gas ejected when Eta Car had a coughing fit back in the 1840s. That's 20 octillion tons of gas (20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) it ejected at about a million miles per hour, in case you're not getting enough awesome in your diet.

I withdraw the objection. :-)

Re:Bad Astronomy?

[spun]

The Bad Astronomy site started out to debunk nutty astronomical theories, like the Electric Universe theory, or the preposterous notion that the moon landing was faked. It's a pretty decent site.

What makes you tick, pln2bz?

[spun]

You know, I've read your Electric Universe arguments here many times before, and I'm curious. What's your background? What drew you to the EU theory?

I'll tell you the problem I have with the theory, it's the whole, "There is no fusion in stars, it's all electric!" thing. Certainly we don't know everything there is to know about plasma, and certainly the mainstream theories do not have everything nailed down, but come on! The science behind star fusion is so interwoven with all of modern knowledge and technology that if something as major as EU were true, almost everything else we know would have to be false, and all our technology would be very different.

The thing is, the Electric Universe folks make an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If anyone in the EU community had that proof, they would be world famous rather than the marginalized outcasts they are. It's not like there haven't been MAJOR scientific revolutions in the past, it's just that THOSE guys had incontrovertible hard data to back them up.

At first I thought you might just be a clever troll, but your tenacity on this subject goes far beyond the casual interests of a troll. I think you really believe all this, and rather than make me think you are an idiot, which you clearly are not, it makes me very curious about what makes you tick.

Re:

[pln2bz]

Hey, it's my old friend! The memories ... ;)

The real issue at hand here is that the mainstream astrophysicists and enthusiasts today refuse to seriously consider the legitimate issues that Electric Universe Theory proposes. There is so little awareness on the mainstream side that the group as a whole is completely oblivious when an EU Theory is even validated -- which happens far more often than is being accepted. In order to confirm or deny a theory, it's important to first fully digest it. Even if the

Re:

[Short Circuit]

If fusion occurs where and how your sources says it is, it should be a simple matter to perform a laboratory-condition demonstration of this effect. If you can demonstrate fusion without the temperatures found at the center of the sun, I might be less disinclined to believe the EU concept.

Don't tell me none of the labs will touch it, though. At the very least, The EU folks should be capable of annoying "mainstream" scientists enough that some mainstream scientist would perform the experiment. Quantum mec

Re:What makes you tick, pln2bz?

[Cheapy]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

I think any theory on the universe's nature would require extraordinary proof. My theory? Turtles, man. Turtles all the way down.

The mainstream is not objective?

[mangu]

they stack the cards very heavily in favor of mainstream theories. There is absolutely no attempt at objectivity.

So, you think that theories that are widely accepted by the experts in the field are less objective than those theories that are accepted by their creators alone? An interesting definition, I wonder what would you call a "subjective" theory...

Theories are not evaluated on the basis of their merit alone, but rather how well their creators can withstand a relentless series of withering attacks.

Ps

Re:Bad Astronomy?

[Fission86]

This conveniently ignores the fact that Einstein never even mentioned electrodynamics, except in his correspondence with (that expletive) V, and that James Clerk Maxwell demonstrated that e-fields and b-fields are inseparable.

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

Astrophysics continues to be the only field of science where magnetic fields are treated as if they are independent entities that can exist in the absence of electric currents and electric fields.

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.

People would be wise to consider that it is now an established fact that there exists an interstellar magnetic field whose origin remains unknown.

I'd like to see how you prove that while staying on this planet/in this solar system.

It's interesting that the site is called "Bad Astronomy" -- as if all discussion on that site is meant purely to confirm existing mainstream theories.

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.

Theories are not evaluated on the basis of their merit alone, but rather how well their creators can withstand a relentless series of withering attacks.

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?

[The Master Control P]

Eh, I'm up for some shits'n'giggles and I've got some time to pass. Of course, the fact that I disagree is certain proof that I am part of "the conspiracy" which is defined as anyone who thinks you're wrong and refuses to immediately acknowledge your obvious correctness.

Arguing that arguments that are not peer-reviewed by mainstream astrophysicists do not count is disingenuous. People who have staked their careers on the mainstream theories will resist every attempt at disruptive paradigm shifts.

Right. The guy who comes up with proof that one of our most basic theories is erroneous will be hated. He most certainly will not be one of the most celebrated scientists of all time like Einstein, and he most definitely will not win a Nobel prize for his insights. Because scientists hate discovering new and remarkable things they didn't know about before. History is full of scientists like John Levy, whose work on asteroid impacts was supressed by The Establishment even after he presented clear and convincing evidence that he was correct... No, wait, asteroid impacts are in every geology and astronomy book today.

The announcement made by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) that the SNO detector has the capability to determine whether solar neutrinos are changing their type en route to Earth is false on its face. There is no way that measurements made at only one end (here on Earth) of a transmission channel (that stretches from the Suns center to Earth) can reveal changes that occur farther up the channel (say, within the Sun itself, or near Mercury or Venus).

Consider a freight train that runs from New York to Chicago. We live in Chicago and are only able to observe the train as it arrives in Chicago. It pulls in with 4 freight cars, 2 tank cars, and 1 flat car. How is it possible, no matter how sophisticated our method of observation, for us to make any conclusions whatever about whether freight cars, tank cars, or flat cars have been added to or subtracted from the train at, say, Cleveland? Moreover, how is it possible to say that freight cars have turned into tank cars or flat cars along the route somewhere?

Horray for superficially plausible but completely incorrect analogies. Regardless of whatever happens to neutrinos on their way to earth, they can't simply disappear. Your analogy is simply wrong, because we do know that matter-energy was not added or lost in the neutrino stream, because neutrinos don't interact with squat. So now, we think we know what the train was like when it left. We know nothing was added or lost, yet the cars aren't what we expected. Is the logical conclusion that the neutrino waveforms changed or that it's all a giant conspiracy?

Sustained nuclear fusion using extreme heat and pressure is a Will-O-the-Wisp (literal meaning - fools fire) that has been desperately sought after for over 50 years. It has never been obtained in any laboratory. Its existence in the Suns core is nothing more than a proclaimed hypothesis. We cannot see into the Sun. We cannot observe what is occurring below the photosphere. The Electric Sun model does indeed include the probability that empirically confirmed nuclear fusion is occurring near the surface of the Sun.

Let me make sure I've got this right... you're comparing the conditions in experimental fusion reactors to those which exist in the core of a star? And then saying that since our fusion reactors don't work, starfusion doesn't work? I'm afraid there are some minor differences, like the fact that the core of a star is compacted to twenty times the density of lead by gravity. There's also the basic fact that energy loss is proportional to area and fusion output to volume, which puts our tiny reactors at a slight disadvantage.

Either you truly don't know these things about fusion physics, which casts doubt on how much else you don't know, or you are intentionally ignoring them.

thanks

[stoolpigeon]

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.
 
could you clear up that 'sun rise' and 'sun set' thing for me as well?

Re:thanks

[IcyNeko]

Sunrise, sunset. Sunrise, sunset. Swiftly flow the days. Seedlings turn overnight to sunflowers, blossoming even as we gaze.

I hope this clears up any further questions.

Re:thanks

[HTH NE1]

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.

could you clear up that 'sun rise' and 'sun set' thing for me as well?

How about this: even though this expected supernova happened thousands of years ago, for all causal purposes, it won't have any effect upon us until we can see it. After all, the speed of light is really just the speed of causality.

So, in a local causal sense, it hasn't happened yet. The distance just means that if we thought to have any influence on it before it happens here, we'd have to have done something thousands of years ago or longer to exert a causal influence.

Re:

[mabhatter654]

What happens if Schroedinger's Cat is is a box between the earth and this supernova and could be destroyed by the radiation wave?

On a side note for all those young earth creationists out there, perhaps the event that will destroy the world has already happened x thousand light years away at the exact moment of creation and we just haven't figured it out yet!

Speed of causality

[Roger W Moore]

After all, the speed of light is really just the speed of causality.

No, the speed of light is the MAXIMUM "speed of causality". A causal connection between events can happen at less than the speed of light. A simple example is hearing thunder sometime after seeing the lightning strike in a thunderstorm. The connection between the two events (lightning flash and the thunder) propagates at ~330 m/s (the speed of sound in air). All relativity tells you is that the connection between two events cannot propag

Re:anywhere from today while i am typing to 10M yr

[stoolpigeon]

And what do we do if the star just vanishes from view [amazon.com] in an instant?

Re:anywhere from today while i am typing to 10M yr

[gardyloo]

I think we should have a telecope permanently aimed at Eta Carinae taking pictures in succesion (aka video).

No way! We'll get arrested for felony wiretapping if we do that.

Don't hold your breath

[MarsDefenseMinister]

We could be waiting to see this supernova theoretically about as long as the pyramids have been standing over the sands of Egypt.

Re:

[ozzee]

We could be waiting to see this supernova theoretically about as long as the pyramids have been standing over the sands of Egypt.

If that is the case, Eta C. should already have gone supernova. We just can't see it yet.

Re:

[Control Group]

If that is the case, Eta C. should already have gone supernova. We just can't see it yet.

Which is an interesting statement, really, since it presupposes some sort of universal timeline on which it has "already" gone supernova. When in fact, there is no universal synchronicity.

Re:

[ozzee]

Which is an interesting statement, really, since it presupposes some sort of universal timeline on which it has "already" gone supernova. When in fact, there is no universal synchronicity.

Does that mean that cat I ran over last night in my car was not necessarily born yet so I didn't really run over it ? Phew, I was having a bit of a guilt trip....

Re:Don't hold your breath

[IWannaBeAnAC]

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:

[MarsDefenseMinister]

How do you know Eta Carinae went supernova during that specific time? We're seeing as it existed 7500 years ago. We're not sure, from what we can see with our eyes right now, that it doesn't depict a supernova 10,000 years from exploding. If that's true, then we'll see the supernova 17,500 years from now.

Re:

[IWannaBeAnAC]

You should RTFA. It is almost at the end of the stellar lifecycle, and has already used up all of its hydrogen. If we don't see it go nova sometime within the next 1000 years, then our theories of stellar evolution are seriously f*cked.

Re:

[IWannaBeAnAC]

The timespan isn't millions of years; the time since the star started shedding nitrogen is only a few hundred years (? I can't be bothered going back to the article - but anyway it is much less than millions).

for a slightly sick analogy, predicting the lifetime of a child at birth is hard to do with any accuracy. Predicting the lifetime of someone dying of cancer is much easier ;-)

Re:

[Ambitwistor]

There is no "center of the universe" or "center of mass of the universe", but there is still a "special" reference frame: the one in which the universe is isotropic (ignoring small anisotropies): it's the one in which the cosmic background radiation would not be blue/redshifted in opposite directions.

That being said, general relativity is largely irrelevant on non-cosmological scales for these purposes.

Re:

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Are you just nitpicking? If momentum has been conserved since the big bang, then there is surely a center of mass frame, and also a center of mass. The frame in which the cosmic background is isotropic might be a better definition, because it would be well-defined even in cases where the center of mass is not (say, if the universe is finite but has a non-trivial topology), but I'd like to know your reasoning for asserting that this is indeed the case [ie. that the center of mass of the universe is not wel

Re:

[ZombieWomble]

Didn't you state the reason yourself? I was under the impression (I keep up with cosmology purely on a popular science level, so it's quite possible I'm not up to date) that most theories of the universe involved a finite universe, but one which lacks spatial boundaries in our common 3 dimensions, which would then ruin any attempt to explicitly define a center of mass.

Eta C is not 7500 light years away for me

[benhocking]

I'm traveling close to the speed of light, you insensitive clod! In fact, I'm traveling so fast, that the Lorentz contraction has resulted in Eta C being only a light day away. Ergo, it is very unlikely that in my inertial frame of reference that it has already gone supernova! That was the point that the GP was trying to make. Also, it's special relativity that tells us how the passage of time depends on your velocity in space, whereas general relativity also tells us how it is affected by acceleration and

Re:

[IWannaBeAnAC]

No, even in that case Eta C has already gone supernova. It might only take you one day to get to Eta C in your frame of reference, but in the frame of reference of Eta C (or the frame of reference of the Earth, for that matter) it will take very close to 7,500 years. Since it already went nova at least 6,500 years ago, you will be at least 14,000 years too late if you wanted to see it up close.

Re:

[Planesdragon]

When in fact, there is no universal synchronicity.

Just because we're not able to perceive or measure it, or that it's not useful on a relativistic scale, doesn't mean it's doesn't exist.

"From the local frame of the universe as a whole" is a fine theoretical basis to correct the "reality isn't really real" line that relativity and quantum mechanics lead freshmen down.

Gamma Rays

[turgid]

So, do I need to build a lead-lined concrete bunker in my garden?

Re:

[kungfoofairy]

According to TFA, it's tilted 40 degrees away from us so we won't get hit.

Re:Gamma Rays

[PieSquared]

Stars rotate on an axis. I'm not an astrophysicist, but I'd assume that most of the radiation and gasses would go either in the direction of the axis or in the plane perpendicular to it. I mean, there is a *huge* amount of angular momentum that has to be preserved when you consider mass and the speed of rotation.

So yea, kinda like the death star explosion in the remake. Or maybe perpendicular to that. Once again, not an astrophysicist.

Re:

[spun]

I'm no astrophysicist, but from what I understand, because of the magnetic fields most of the dangerous crap exits from the poles.

Re:Gamma Rays

[kenaaker]

The lobes in the picture show the path followed by the material from previous outbursts. That material is guided by the magnetic field around the star, to the axis of rotation of the magnetic field, which generally lines up with the axis of rotation of the star. Because of the angular momentum of the star, it should maintain that orientation and any new outbursts should go in the same direction as the previous burst.

Re:

[rubycodez]

but it is funny how astonomers say the explosion will "probably" go along the axis of rotation as the previous 19th century "belch" did (see wikipedia or nasa's web page). If "probably" is true, then things outside our atmosphere get fried, like sattelites, astrounauts on missions, etc. No big deal. But suppose that thing blows spherically, then the gamma dose will be many times greater and you'll be wanting a lead jock strap if you're male.

Re:Gamma Rays

[The Bad Astronomer]

There are several forces that direct the outflow of an explosion. In this case, it's the rotation of the star coupled with its magnetic fields. When the core collapses, it forms a black hole. The inner parts of the star collapse down too, forming a flattened disk around the BH. The disk rotates quickly, and has ferocious magnetic fields. It's also incredibly hot. This forces material outward, along the poles of the disk. Two beams of energy and matter erupt out, forming what we call a gamma-ray burst. We're pretty sure this will be along the same axis as those two lobes which blew out in the 1800s. So they'll miss us. If the star explodes as a regular old supernova, it's too far away to do any damage; they have to be withing about 100 light years to harm us. I have references for all this, but I won't list them here. I'm writing a chapter in my next book about it... :-)

MOD PARENT UP - Author of TFA, smart guy

[halcyon1234]

I don't normally MPU, but I'm out of mod points, and the above post is kinda buried-- and kinda informative.

Re:

[QuoteMstr]

Holy cow, I didn't know you read Slashdot! I'm impressed, sir. :-)

Re:

[geekoid]

Scientist are always conservative when they talk publicly, it's the nature of the business
Now, get them to talk over a beer and pizza, it's a different matter.

Re:

[The Bad Astronomer]

Oh, I prefer vodka or tequila, but the point is still true. :) It's not so much that we talk conservatively, as it is that people tend to tale whatever small thing you say and run with it. At least in my case that's true! I try to lay things out pretty clearly if I can. I think Eta has maybe a few hundred years left before it blows, tops, but others might give it longer. The point is, *we don't know*. But it'll be cool when it does explode. Woohoo!

Re:

[Intron]

Note that the lobes appear to be tilted away from us by about 40 degrees or so. That's a good thing. When stars like Eta Carinae explode, they tend to shoot of beams of energy and matter that, at its distance of 7500 light years, could kill every living thing on Earth. But since it's pointed away from us, all we'll get is a spectacular light show.

Matter won't get here for quite a while, but the X-Rays, etc. will get here at the same time as the pretty light. For the energy to be enough to kill us at 750

Re:

[Control Group]

For the energy to be enough to kill us at 7500 light years, and the inverse square law to be in effect

That's kind of the point: the inverse square law isn't in effect, because the energy isn't radiated in all directions. This star is of a type that, when it goes nova, tends to emit its energy in a couple of highly directional beams.

Re:Gamma Rays

[secPM_MS]

There is good reason to believe that eta carniae will emit a powerfull gamma ray burst when it collapses. Since the axis of rotation is not pointed anywhere near us, we are at no risk from the gamma beam. It is also possible that it is massive enough to suffer a pair creation supernovae. A recent supernovae of this type in a presumed LBV (luminus blue variable) was ~ 100 X brighter than most core collapse supernovae. Regardless, it is to far away from us to create any type of radiation hazard or even cause problems with perturbing the day - night balance.

Re:

[IWannaBeAnAC]

But the inverse square law still applies, because the beams still spread out with a diameter that is proportional to distance. This applies even to the best focused laser beams; although then the spreading of the beam is very small, it is not zero and the energy density still follows the inverse square law.

Re:Gamma Rays

[niceone]

So, do I need to build a lead-lined concrete bunker in my garden?

You don't have a lead-lined bunker in your garden already? You must be new around here.

Re:

[flyingfsck]

Yup, be sure to build it right under your pyramid and keep wearing that armadillo hat and asbestos underwear... :)

Relative Time

[profplump]

Apparently da4 discovered some new non-relative timescale that's consistent throughout the universe without respect to position or velocity. That seems much more noteworthy than this supernova thing.

Re:

[Tatarize]

Hm. If such a thing is constant then that star blew up years ago. It's seven thousand years away after all.

Re:

[wsherman]

Apparently da4 discovered some new non-relative timescale that's consistent throughout the universe without respect to position or velocity.

It's an interesting point that an entity in a different frame of reference would not have quite the same ideas about space-time coordinates of this supernova happen but when you're reading an article written on earth for an entirely earth-based audience then it's pretty clear that the article is using space-time coordinates relative to the earth's frame of reference.

Al

Re:

[profplump]

If Eta Car is in our frame of reference then the explosion happens more or less when we see it, by definition. If Eta Car is not in our frame of reference then the comparison is not so simple.

Re:

[wsherman]

If Eta Car is in our frame of reference then the explosion happens more or less when we see it, by definition.

Well, we would still take into account the speed of light and the distance to Eta Car (relative to our reference frame). If Eta Car is 7,000 light years away (relative to our reference frame) and we observe the explosion now then, in our reference frame, the explosion happened 7,000 years ago.

There are standard definitions of the passage of time on earth so the time is not a problem, specifically.

Re:

[wsherman]

But that's not the same as Eta Car's frame.

That's definitely an interesting point. Without knowing Eta Carinae's relative velocity and acceleration, it's possible that from Eta Carinae's perspective (frame of reference), the earth will observe the supernova 6,000 years after it happens but from the earth's perspective (frame of reference), the earth will observe the supernova 7,000 years after it happens.

I suppose that from a scientific perspective, there is a certain appeal to choosing a frame of referenc

Re:

[IWannaBeAnAC]

I wouldn't give him much credit for the discovery. The timescale doesn't need to be consistent throughout the universe, just between Earth and Eta C. And that is no problem - it is precisely analogous to communication over a slow medium (say, a war zone where your only communication from the frontline is a runner that takes half an hour to travel the distance. If you get a note saying "help, we are going to be annihilated in 10 minutes", then you don't need to use general relativity to figure that that t

Re:

[profplump]

Both your battlefield parties are in more or less the same frame of reference as they are only separated by a few miles; their limitation in communication speed is artificial and *not* related to some fundamental physical limit like the local speed of light in a vacuum. That's not the case with light coming through space from a very distant object. The timescale is different because of the distance itself, not just our relative speed.

Re:

[IWannaBeAnAC]

I think you are wrong here; you are thinking of time dilation effects, but unless the objects are moving very quickly with respect to each other then they are more or less in the same inertial frame of reference and there is no time dilation. The distance per se has nothing to do with it. Of course, if Eta C is moving at close to the speed of light relative to us, then it is a different story.

Re:

[profplump]

My apologizes to d4a.

Ummm...

[TheSHAD0W]

All I can say is, if you see Al Gore, Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky wearing robes and riding camels... run like hell.

Re:Ummm...

[rossz]

That was funny. If I had any moderation points left I would have given you one.

Re:

[EricTheGreen]

Shouldn't we do that anyway, supernova or not?

"Soon"

[Alsee]

Just to clarify for everyone, this supernova is "soon" as in (quoting Dubya Bush [whitehouse.gov]) "I'd like to get our troops out as soon as possible. But the definition of 'as soon as possible' is depending upon victory in Iraq".

-

When will it explode?

[dfn5]

they really mean it probably exploded 6,500 to 7,500 years ago and we're awaiting the news.

When?
Now.
Now?
Now.
I can't
Why?
We missed it.
When?
Just now.
When will then be now?
Soon!

Re:

[flyingfsck]

You missed 'now now' and 'now then', but you already scored 10 bonus points for the use of 'just now'. :)

Define "soon"

[ducomputergeek]

As in we'll get to see the bang in a year? A decade? A Century?

A hundred years is a blink of the eye to the universe.

Re:

[Goaway]

A hundred years is a blink of the eye to the universe.

Yes, you're getting it now.

Re:

[Sponge Bath]

...blink of the eye to the universe.

And humans are... eye crust?
Bummer.

Re:

[Brad1138]

How to correlate "soon" in respect to the universe with a Slashdotter.....? Ah...

How soon will you get laid? Should be similar.

Neutron emissions

[Weaselmancer]

IIRC, one of the ways that life could be wiped out on this planet is if a nearby star goes supernova and bakes us with the neutron output.

Obviously, this isn't the case with this star or people would be emptying their IRAs and going to Rio - but I have to wonder. Will there be any impact here on Earth from the explosion?

Re:

[Mattintosh]

Will there be any impact here on Earth from the explosion?

Doubtful. Stars contain little or no solid matter, and the likelihood of a cosmic cueball (planet chunks, anyone? let's hope it's not kryptonite, I'd rather "kryp" tomorrow) coming our way is roughly zero.

Perhaps you meant "effect" rather than "impact". In that case, yes. We will recieve a tiny slice of its output of visible-spectrum radiation, an infintesimally small amount of "harmful" radiation, and some good scientific fodder. Oh, and if Hubble's

Re:

[WrongMonkey]

Note that the lobes appear to be tilted away from us by about 40 degrees or so. That's a good thing. When stars like Eta Carinae explode, they tend to shoot of beams of energy and matter that, at its distance of 7500 light years, could kill every living thing on Earth. But since it's pointed away from us, all we'll get is a spectacular light show.

It could potentially wipe out life on Earth, but its pointed in the wrong direction...hopefully.

Preview

[tygt]

Maybe we should be keeping our eyes open for a blast of tachyons [wikipedia.org] ahead of the light show ;)

I hope no one died.

[0p7imu5_P2im3]

I just hope that any local civilizations had advanced far enough to escape that horrible fate.

At the rate we're going, what with news of Congress living up to their name (opposite of progress) with regard to exploration the exploration of Mars, we won't escape the fate of our solar system.

Re:I hope no one died.

[spun]

Eta Carinae is so large, it is almost too big to be a star. It has been blowing itself apart every now and then since it was born. I find it unlikely in the extreme that any life could have developed nearby. I doubt the system even has planets.

Re:

[Chris Burke]

I'm not sure, but I think that according to Star Control II that Eta Carinae did have planets, and at least some of them hosted alien life forms.

Re:

[halcyon1234]

Yes, but the Star Control II Eta Carinae isn't the same star:

Defined long ago by Chenjesu stargazers, the constellations are now accepted by all Alliance races as the standard. Due to the great difficulty in pronouncing the Chenjesu language, each race has translated the names into their own tongue. When it came time for Earth to adopt this system, the United Nations decided to use traditional astrological designations, assigned at random. This has caused some confusion, but it is considered preferable to

Re:

[Chris Burke]

Heh. I also like the part about "The positions are based on HyperSpace coordinates, which may be unsettling to some students of TrueSpace astronomy". All in all a humorous way to account for taking our section of the galaxy and making it 2D, and a joke I didn't appreciate having only played the Ur-Quan Masters OSS version of SC2.

Re:

[lawpoop]

Unless that type of life is unlike what we know as life, and arose in the energy the star was throwing off, perhaps feeding off of it, like green plants feed off energy our star throws off.

Re:

[geekoid]

don't open your mind so much that your brains fall out.

Re:

[lawpoop]

Hey, energy beings don't have brains ;)

Re:

[The Real Nem]

I'm not sure how fast this "force" thing moves, but no one seems to have felt a great disturbance in it yet...

Re:

[Reality Master 101]

I just hope that any local civilizations had advanced far enough to escape that horrible fate.

Don't worry, the probability of other intelligent life in this galaxy is pretty much zero [wikipedia.org].

At the rate we're going, what with news of Congress living up to their name (opposite of progress) with regard to exploration the exploration of Mars, we won't escape the fate of our solar system.

Several things to say about this:

1) Colonization of other planets in this solar system will NEVER happen. And I mean nev

Re:

[WhiteWolf666]

Local civilizations?

Err... Buddy?

That's us.

In the cosmic scheme of things, 7500 ly is not far. Think of it this way; if we're wrong, and something bizarre happened, and one of the "gamma ray bursts" is aimed at us rather than another direction, by the time we visually see the hypernova we'll be dying and/or dead.

As it is, assuming that the gamma ray blasts follow its rotational axis, we'll be fine on the planet, but anything we've put into space has a good chance at being toast.

The unfortunate part is that

It's all Carter's fault

[FrostedWheat]

"You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water."

Real Soon Now

[Jugalator]

Keep in mind that on a cosmolical scale, that could be within 10,000 years or so, a few nuclear wars and greenhouse disasters later. ;-)

Seeing Eta Carinae for yourself

[spaceyhackerlady]

The southern hemisphere sky has lots of goodies that us northern types don't get to see, and the Eta Carinae region is one of them. The nebula is slightly larger than the Orion Nebula as seen from Earth, but slightly dimmer. To me it looks like a flower blooming in space. It is accompanied by zillions of other nebulae and star clusters.

The Milky Way through Centaurus and Carina is why astronomers often go to places like Australia for their vacations. I've taken a telescope to Costa Rica several times myself, and while the view isn't as good as it is in Australia, it's a lot less travel. The only thing we really miss out on from Costa Rica are the Magellanic Clouds, which look far better from New South Wales than they do from Guanacaste. The vague smudges down at the Tico horizon are detached pieces of the Milky Way in the Aussie country sky.

My first view of the Eta Carinae region was with binoculars from St. Kilda Beach in Melbourne. It's not something one quickly forgets.

...laura

Hubble image of nebula

[novus ordo]

I was looking for a nice desktop image and happened to come upon this [hubblesite.org] panorama of Carina Nebula. This supernova is clearly visible(not fake colored x-ray) in the image, it is about 1/4 from the left side and in the middle of the picture just left of the big blob of dust. Curiously it has some sort of crosshairs on it, probably an optical illusion but nontheless interesting.

Bipolar Symmetric Objects

[pln2bz]

There's something that doesn't quite follow with this article. The article states that we are only in danger when the bipolar configuration faces us. However, when the bipolar morphology faces us, it will look just like a sphere. The other lobe will be obstructed by the one closest to us. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but how often do we see spherical objects in space as being identified as a bipolar configuration pointing at us?

Couldn't a person make a pretty convincing argument that the bipolar configuration is in fact the primary configuration of all such objects, and that anything that looks like a sphere to us is in fact just the bipolar configuration pointing at us?

Re:Bipolar Symmetric Objects

[The Bad Astronomer]

That's an astute question. Perfect spheres are hard to come by in astronomy, though they're out there (Abell 39 is probably the best example: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0101/abell3 9_wiyn_big.jpg [nasa.gov]). The famous Ring Nebula (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060625.html) is an object that people thought was a ring, but it turns out to be barrel-shaped and pointed at us. That happened a lot. Bipolar objects are very common, since lots of objects either spin or have disks, which shapes the outflow into two lobes of some kind.

That's not a star . . .

[StefanJ]

It's a very, very large gamma ray laser, created by a very patient race with an enemy living in a globular cluster whose orbit around the galaxy will take it into the path of the polar emission stream.

The other pole's stream will be redirected with a vibrating unobtanium mirror and used to paint advertising slogans in a gas cloud on the edge of the Lesser Magellanic Cloud.

Re:

[moore.dustin]

How thinned out would the lobes be? Probably nothing major by the time it got here? Assuming it spreads out to infinity in all directions. I would think that our magnetic field could handle it by the time it got here. Just a guess of course, perhaps someone can chime in with some knowledge.

Re:

[brunascle]

my guess is, if you need a telescope in space to see it, you'll be fine.

Re:

[SpryGuy]

A few nights of having a star in the night sky that is brighter than the moon, perhaps?

And lets not forget all the religious fanatics taking it as a sign, and panicking, and causing social unrest or upheaval around the globe.

Re:If we detected it today. . .

[Chris Burke]

You may be thinking of SN 1006 [wikipedia.org], the brightest supernova in recorded history. It was significantly brighter than Venus, though not as bright as the moon. It was bright enough to be easily seen during the day, and was bright enough to read by at night. This event was documented in Chinese, Egyptian, Middle Eastern, Swiss, and even North Americans records, as one would expect of something so amazing. Yet it is conspicuously absent from any other European writings, and the common story (i.e. i can't coroborate at all, may be apocryphal) is that the Church and their "perfect unchanging universe" doctrine made it heresy to even acknowledge that the thing was even there.

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:

[AxemRed]

I have read about this star before as well as other supernovas or stars that are likely to turn into supernovas soon. From what I remember, a supernova poses no threat unless the poles of the star are pointed towards us. It just makes a really bright "star" in the sky for a short amount of time. If one of the poles of the star is pointed at us, we get hit by a burst of gamma rays. The gamma rays destroy the ozone layer, and then the sun's UV kills large amounts of life on Earth.

Re:

[spun]

Let me introduce you to a thing called the Internet. You can use it to look up facts and dispel ignorance. Well, I can use it that way, anyhow. Evidently you can't. Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_radiation [wikipedia.org]

In short, gamma radiation is light. Just very, very high frequency light.

Re:

[geekoid]

only the southern hemisphere ;)

Re:

[Bender Unit 22]

Cool, by looking at the search result, combined with another answer I got, I think it must actually be Jupiter. So it's a planet. :)

Thanks.