Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Supernova Detonates In Empty Space 188

Posted by kdawson from the no-one-can-hear-you-explode dept.
mlimber tips a story in New Scientist about a powerful cosmic explosion that has astronomers scratching their heads. It apparently resulted from a supernova detonating in empty space, far from any galaxy. Researchers propose that the exploding star was in the gas trail yanked out of a galaxy when it passed or began merging with another. Quoting the lead author of the study: "Even if the galaxies have stopped forming stars, in the tidal tails you can trigger new episodes of star formation [not to mention detonation]." The research will be published in the Astrophysical Journal.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Supernova Detonates In Empty Space More

Supernova Detonates In Empty Space

Comments Filter:

  • /me looks shifty (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @12:05PM (#21766302) Homepage Journal
    I didn't do it!

  • My vote? (Score:5, Funny)

    by NitroWolf ( 72977 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @12:05PM (#21766306)
    My vote is that it was a starship that had a critical engine failure.

    It gives me hope and lets me sleep at night. Don't destroy my dream :(

  • Sounds like... (Score:4, Funny)

    by wiggles ( 30088 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @12:06PM (#21766308)
    ...an interstellar war. Some alien species just lit off a nuke the size of a supernova. At least, it would be bad ass if that were the case.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by iocat ( 572367 )
      Wasn't there just a galaxy to galaxy destructive jet of super heated plasma? Clearly we're witness the results of an interstellar war so vast that it even percolates down to our level.
    • Those damn Russians!

      This is why we need a SuperNova Defense Shield!

      Someone get Oliver Wendall Jones on the line, now!

  • Two Words (Score:5, Funny)

    by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <wgrother@optonline . n et> on Thursday December 20, 2007 @12:07PM (#21766326) Journal

    Death Star

  • SG-1 destroyed the last of the Goa'uld.
  • What is the sound of a supernova exploding in an empty space? ... if there is no one there to hear it?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by sm62704 ( 957197 )
      "In space, no-one can hear you scream." Even if you're a star in its last agonizing moments of life.

      The only movie to ever do justice to the silent reality of outer space was 2001: A Space Oddesy and its sequel, 2010: The Search For More Money
      • While I like your funny subtitle to 2010, they put sound in space as well. 2001 stands alone.

        Examples: Wire sounds when moving between ships, tornado sounds from the monolith, sound of the engines thrusting, burning sounds during aerobreaking (although I can kinda buy that one).

      • Don't forget Serenity
    • If you can hear me exploding, you're toast sucker!

  • Well that's just wonderful. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Peter Trepan ( 572016 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @12:14PM (#21766410)
    I already had to worry about terrorists, killer bees, violent video games, and the War on Christmas, and now I have to worry about random supernovas in empty space.

    :checks the sky for supernovas before walking outside:

  • Far from any galaxy? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by calebt3 ( 1098475 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @12:14PM (#21766414)
    How far can a star get from its home galaxy during it's lifetime? Especially one large enough to make a supernova: don't those have even shorter lifespans?
    Even if it could escape the galaxy, how would it get far enough to make it questionable about what galaxy it came from?

    • Re:Far from any galaxy? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by octopus72 ( 936841 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @12:22PM (#21766516)
      No, it was not the star that "left" the galaxy, but the gas that later formed it.
      The gas compression period should last long enough for the matter to escape from vincinity of it's mother galaxy.
    • Perhaps it was traveling at relativistic speeds, not unlike a certain neutron star [wikipedia.org]... Or maybe not. :)

    • hypervelocity star (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MyNymWasTaken ( 879908 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @12:40PM (#21766744)
      It could've been a hypervelocity star [harvard.edu].
      • Reading through the article you linked, I would say that that may be a possibility. There are currently two hypervelocity stars (4x larger than our sun) that are over 100,000 light years outside our galaxy.

        It seems that they occur when a binary system is ripped apart by the supermassive blackhole in the center of a galaxy, ejecting one of the two into intergalactic space.

        I don't see why this couldn't happen to a star with a mass large enough to become a supernova. For this supernova, I wonder if it was
        • Maybe it originally didn't mass enough, but was relativistically pushed into critical mass. That'd be pretty damn cool.
          • Relativistic mass doesn't matter. The threshold for a supernova is entirely a question of rest mass. Otherwise, whether a nova had occurred at all, or not would depend on the frame of reference, and not just when it occurred. Now if it was moving so fast relative to us that significant time dilation occurred, so that the star could already have been a star when it was ejected, and lived long enough to get that far from a galaxy before it supernovaed, that would indeed be cool. Also pretty obvious, because t
        • Galactic center black holes usually have masses of a billion sun-like stars or more, so there's definitely enough energy available to accelerate even the largest known stars (like VV Cephei or VY Canis Majoris) to the hypervelocity category. VV Cephei is about 100 solar masses, and is actually in a binary pair with a large blue-white star that is still on its own main sequence, so it's just the kind of star that could end up in a spectacular post-ejection supernova event if only it and its partner were at t
        • One problem with that:
          The speed of the stars will me _much_ less than c.
          That means to get into "empty space", it should have at least a couple billion years of time to coast.

          Stars heavy enough to go supernova dont live that long. They can be happy to get a few 100 millions of ago before they detonate.

  • I read the article, and understood that a star among many others has been ejected out of its galaxy, something relatively usual, and that at the end of its life, it supernovaed. I can understand that scientists would be amazed by the unusualness of such an event, but what's puzzling about it? What is that to explain that is unexplained?

    • Re:What's puzzling? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zarhan ( 415465 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @12:32PM (#21766646)
      Ok, I am not a professional astronomer, but here's my take on it.

      Problem is that stars that blow up as supernovas are big. Very big. Especially since this one hints that it was so big to collapse into a black hole (based on the gamma ray burst).

      Big stars don't live long. Only millions of years, instead of billions like our sun (or tens of billions like red dwarfs..).

      Nearest galaxy was about 100000 light-years away. You don't get a star from there to the current location in just a few million years.

      So, the star must have *formed*, burned, and blown up in intergalactic space.

      • Re:What's puzzling? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @01:13PM (#21767178)
        Sort of. There are two galaxies 160,000 light years apart. The gamma ray burst came from a spot in between them. Since both are about 9 billion light years away, it's a bit hard to make out fine details. Since, as you say, giant stars don't normally form in intergalactic space, the hypothesis is that the galaxies collided and are now separating, dragging streams of material between them. Stars can and do form (copiously) in that disturbed material, which is not really in intergalactic space, but rather a deformed part of these two galaxies that's just too faint to see.

        They're doing deeper field observations now to try and detect the material dragged out by these galaxies colliding.
        • Since the two galaxies were so close, is it possible they acted like a gravitation lens and the explosion is not where we are actually seeing it?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )
            To act as a gravitational lens the galaxies would have to be some distance in front of the explosion and more or less on the line between us and it. They're to the side and believed to be about the same distance away.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Atario ( 673917 )
          Imagine being on a planet orbiting such a star. The sky would be more-or-less empty except for two big swirling galaxies on opposite sides of the sky. That would look awesome.

          Of course, it would suck when you realized you would have very few other stars it would be plausible to visit.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )
            Well, we've got one big galaxy on one side of us and another one speeding towards us on the other side. If you can wait about a billion years we'll be in much the same position, except there will be LOTS of stars to go visit. Unfortunately there will also be lots of supernovae exploding around us as the two galaxies interact.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Hatta ( 162192 )
        Big stars don't live long. Only millions of years, instead of billions like our sun (or tens of billions like red dwarfs..).

        Nearest galaxy was about 100000 light-years away. You don't get a star from there to the current location in just a few million years.

        You do if the star is traveling at c/10.

    • Re:What's puzzling? (Score:4, Informative)

      by UtucXul ( 658400 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @12:34PM (#21766670) Homepage
      I haven't read the article (or the paper it talks about), but since I'm an astronomer, I think I have an idea what the strange thing about this is.

      Only massive stars end with a supernova, and massive stars are very short-lived. So generally, while a low mass star like our sun is likely to be found far from where it was born, massive stars usually are only found close to where they were born (since they don't live long enough to travel far). But, stars are usually born in dense areas in galaxies (so the space between galaxies would be a very unlikely place for star formation to happen).

      So that is most likely why this is considered an odd case.

      • What about relitivistic effects? What if said star was massive enough to end in a super nova. Now if said star was flung out of its parent galaxy by say an enounter with a super massive black hole. Could that not accelerate said star to a fast enough speed for relitivistic effects to take hold? This would slow time down for the star allowing it to live longer than its normal lifespan.

        Just something I pulled out of my ass. I'm pretty sure it's bullshit but I would like a second opinion.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by UtucXul ( 658400 )
          Interesting idea, but I'm pretty sure that even with a supermassive black hole, you would not be able to accelerate a whole star to any relativistic speeds. I work on models involving jets from AGN which are accelerated to relativistic speeds by supermassive black holes, and those are made up of individual particles (maybe electrons and positrons, but it isn't totally clear). So it looks like that is about the biggest thing you can accelerate that fast. Plus, if something gets close enough to actually ge

          • I'm thinking along those lines also. It seems that if a star was to get that close to a super massive it would be tore apart instead of accelerated. Oh well, I did think it was a neat idea.

          • Also such a star crossing at close to relativistic speeds would have one hell of a red shift. That would be impossible to miss. I also think the halo from the gas would form like a comets tail instead of round.

  • "Empty Space" = Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BoRegardless ( 721219 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @12:15PM (#21766426)
    It should have been written as "...Exploded in space outside any galaxy or identified solar system".

    Picky yes, but it gets tiring reading "news" where the writers of the public blurbs just don't know enough to get the details right.
    • It should have been written as "...Exploded in space outside any galaxy or identified solar system".

      "Galaxy" and "solar system" are on such vastly different scales that what you wrote is pretty meaningless too. It's like asking if something happened "in Denver, or in Asia?"

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by volpe ( 58112 )
        Not only that, but the star couldn't have been *inside* a solar system. The star (and any orbiting planets, if there were any, and there's no way of knowing) WAS a solar system.
    • If you think journalists are bad, you should try talking to rap artists. They keep talking about superstars, when there is no such designation. They probably mean super giants, but who can say? Also, they keep getting confused with simple distinctions, I mean stuff that should be completely freakin' obvious, like intergalactic vs. planetary. I had this intergalactic/planetary, planetary/intergalactig debate with these three rappers (I mean, they were white dudes, but they were still trying to rap) for l

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )
      actually, by definition space is empty.
  • There's something wrong with the aggregation theory for supernovae. This sure sounde more like the gravitational collapse model.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dmatos ( 232892 )
      It's currently only the type Ia supernovas that are hypothesized to be triggered by aggregation of stellar material up to the Chandrasekhar limit. Types Ib, Ic, and II are all currently thought to be due to gravitational collapse. And even if this was a type Ia supernova, to quote the article:

      Spectral observations did show, however, that the burst, called GRB 070125, had exploded within a small pocket of dense gas.

      Just because it's not part of a galaxy, doesn't mean it's completely empty.

  • Oblig. Futurama (Score:5, Funny)

    by PetoskeyGuy ( 648788 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @12:15PM (#21766432)
    Oh... the JEDI are going to feel this one!

  • I'm guessing (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20, 2007 @12:15PM (#21766436)
    It wasn't exactly empty space.

  • Connecting the Dots (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheLazySci-FiAuthor ( 1089561 ) <thelazyscifiauthor@gmail.com> on Thursday December 20, 2007 @12:27PM (#21766582) Homepage Journal
    This universe is amazing in all the ways it runs. Supernovas are inevitable, obviously, and thus the new elements they create are destined to be dispersed. Astronomy has shown that these heavier elements inevitably form into new stars and planets. Physics shows that these elements inevitably form molecules. Chemistry shows that the molecules inevitably bind together to form complex substances. Biology shows that these complex substances will further form replicate themselves.

    We began by connecting the dots in the sky to form images of heroes, gods and monsters. Who knew that when we finally connected them all together it would be a picture of ourselves?

  • Makes you wonder (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hal_Porter ( 817932 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @12:32PM (#21766628)
    Maybe Fred Hoyle was right after all

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang [wikipedia.org]

    While having no argument with the Lemaître theory, (later confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations) that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. An atheist, he found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be philosophically troubling, as many argue that a beginning implies a cause, and thus a creator (see kalam cosmological argument).[4] Instead, Hoyle, along with Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi (with whom he had worked on radar in World War II), argued for the universe as being in a "steady state". The theory tried to explain how the universe could be eternal and essentially unchanging while still having the galaxies we observe moving away from each other. The theory hinged on the creation of matter between galaxies over time, so that even though galaxies get further apart, new ones that develop between them fill the space they leave. The resulting universe is in a "steady state" in the same manner that a flowing river is - the individual water molecules are moving away but the overall river remains the same.
    I guess you could imagine white holes [wikipedia.org] spewing out matter from black holes into the void between the galaxies in a sort of mini big bang. I guess if we had lots of little bangs instead of one big one it would explain why the universe is flat and homogenous - you wouldn't need to have an inflationary period [wikipedia.org] to flatten things like you do after one big bang. The cosmic microwave background radiation [wikipedia.org] would thus come from all these white holes over eternity rather than one big bang.

    Matter is conserved in one universe too, which seems neat. Black holes gobble it up and white holes spit it out. In the big bang model, something spooky connects black holes in one universe to big bangs in a different one. Or maybe matter isn't conserved at all.

  • Brand New Technology (Score:5, Funny)

    by SWad ( 454879 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @01:07PM (#21767108)
    It was really a chain-reaction of a distant planet using new small portable reactors to power local neighborhoods.
  • Funny I felt a vast disturbance in the force that day. It was as if a gazillion worms suddenly cried out and then there was silence!

  • Supernova != Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) (Score:5, Informative)

    by LionMan ( 18384 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .niets.oel.> on Thursday December 20, 2007 @01:20PM (#21767270) Homepage Journal
    As clearly stated in the article, this was not a supernova (SN), but rather a gamma ray burst (GRB). The network of satellites referred to all trigger on high energy gamma rays, and look for the afterglow of the event which caused the trigger. The time scale of GRBs is typically on the order of seconds. Core collapse SNe, by comparison, are optically visible and have a brightening and fading timescale on the order of days or tens of days.
    Much more is understood of core collapse SNe than the progenitors of GRBs. One of the leading models for short GRB progenitors is the binary inspiral of two massive, compact objects, at least one of them being a neutron star. Obviously we can't resolve the region that the GRB came from, but from the above model, it's inferred that there is a region dense in stars out there, rather than just one isolated star. The second piece of evidence is that the afterglow was actually visible: this afterglow is most likely from shock waves in the interstellar gas, having associated high densities and temperatures, glowing in the optical or xray. If there was no gas by the progenitor of the GRB, there would not have been an afterglow (or the model is wrong).
    The slashdot title was therefore wrong in two ways: this was not a SN event, and it was not in empty space - it was just not in a host galaxy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cally ( 10873 )
      I suspect that even if it were in a clear host galaxy, it would still have taken place in empty space. Empty apart from the vast ball of exploding hydrogen nuclei and plasma and that.
  • This being the 30th anniversary of Monty Python's Michael Palin first discussing the "Life of Brian" draft at Oxford, and Christmas being nigh, that nova can only mean there are three wise men are en route to Bethlehem, bearing gold and frankincense, and leading a balm on a leash.

    • 3 wise men... blah blah blah... follow star
      I never figured out how could anyone fall for that shit: stars rotate daily in the sky. If the 3 'wise' men had followed your average supernova, they would have reversed course twice daily. And if they had followed a shooting star, it would have been over in 15 seconds at the most. So what's the take of the people who love wasting their time trying to mix water and oil... I mean, science and religion ?
      • Star following does not necessitate tracking the path of the star across the night sky. It is generally based on where a certain star appears on the horizon. Read up on traditional Polynesian/Micronesian navigation for the details.
  • ... a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_holes">white hole</a> or something related could look that way?

    Lets see it in a positive way... is better a supernova in empty space than one close to an habited (?) planet.
  • an industrial accident.

  • It was Captain Kirk! (Score:3, Funny)

    by quickpick ( 1021471 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @01:51PM (#21767838)
    He wasn't about to allow Federation Technology to fall into the hands of the evil Klingon Empire...with this in mind Kirk uttered the ominious phrase, "0-0-0-Destruct-1", at which point the computer said in its sexiest voice, "Shatner...I've always loved you...I can't believe this is how it has to end...but...at least...I had you inside me...TIME UNTIL AUTO-DESTRUCT 00:01:00"
    Before the Captain could respond his communicator chirped.
    "Captain, this is Hikaru Sulu aboard the USS Excelsior, we are ready to beam you aboard your new command Captain."
    The Computer was furious, "BILL! HOW COULD YOU?! AFTER ALL THOSE SEASONS AND MOVIES TOGETHER...HOW...*SOB*TIME UNTIL AUTO-DESTRUCT 00:00:53"
    Kirk replied, "Computer...I'm sorry...but this...is...over. I have...WE have...to explore other options and I've explored all your strange new worlds...now...its time...for me to...to seek out new life forms...and new...sexy-civilizations..."
    In a malevolent move the computer shut the doors and the turbolift ceased to operate..."Kirk...The cake...is a lie. Aw FUCK IT.TIME UNTIL AUTO-DESTRUCT 00:00:10"
    Kirk had barely enough time to curse.."KAHHHHHHHHHHN! no wait...*poof*"
    Meanwhile back on Earth a couple of astronomers were scanning the sky.. "Hey, did you see that?"
    "See it, did you smell it?"
  • Perhaps a Power dying deep in the Transcend?
  • Wow, these things sound dangerous. I better get rid of the one I've got stored in the garage.

    What category should I use in eBay?

  • ...unless their famous hulls could survive the explosion of their travelling sun.

  • Just imagine living on a planet orbiting a star, so far from any galaxy or other stars that the night sky has no visible objects in it. What if your planet was the only one and you had no moon? Yeah, the odds are low, but there's nothing that says it's impossible. Imagine civilization without the inspiration of stars and astronomy--unless somebody invented a telescope powerful enough for astronomy, but without stars to inspire them in the first place, would that happen? And even if it did, they'd only s

  • Watch for me near the devil-star!

Slashdot Top Deals

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!

Close