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."
If it's anything like my old Chevy Nova... (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A note on geography: upstate New York is not NYC. It's the rest of the state, some of it is far enough away from the light polution [darksky.org] that there is a chance see stars. There's small chance of seeing even the moon, let alone the milkyway [cosmosmagazine.com] in any major US city.
It's a shame. There's no good reason we have to spend good money shining light up into the sky, rather than keeping it on the ground where we paid for it to be. In a lot of areas a good case could be made to put the streetlights on timers and cut
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's small chance of seeing even the moon, let alone the milkyway [cosmosmagazine.com] in any major US city.
Huh? Which city have you been to where the ambient light pollution is brighter than the moon?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Huh? Which city have you been to where the ambient light pollution is brighter than the moon?
He probably lives in LA, where it's not a matter of the light pollution being brighter than the moon, but of the moon not being bright enough to penetrate the smog. Ask a 1st Grader what color the sky is, and they'll enthusiastically answer "brown!"
Re: (Score:2)
Vegas? :)
Perhaps he meant New Moon? (Score:2)
It's very difficult to see the New Moon (most of the illumination of the thing being from 'Earth Shine'), especially when there's any light pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
Which city have you been to where the ambient light pollution is brighter than the moon?
Central Tokyo comes pretty close.
Re: (Score:2)
That would probably be the only one that makes sense, I would bet that the light pollution in central Tokyo is among the worst in the world, I can't seem to find any rankings. But even there I would imagine that you could still see the moon. Still, the GP claimed this:
There's small chance of seeing even the moon, let alone the milkyway in any major US city.
There's no way that's true, there's not a single US city (let alone "any major" US city) where you can't see the moon because of light pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
Had the fuel line nicked by the fan blade on my '72 RS Nova. Happened just as I pulled up to a 7-11. All this white mist/smoke came out from under the hood, I turned off the car, got out and opened up the hood.
Whoosh!
Nothing like nice cloud of fuel suddenly igniting. It burned itself out but I was enough to fry my eye brows/eye lashes.
So yeah, Nova's can be kinda' bright. Not so much the drivers, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Did this kid discover the supernova by recklessly smacking his principal's telescope? Because I think I've seen that before [wikipedia.org].
It's misquoted (Score:4, Funny)
What actually happened is that the astronomers were told that a 14-year-old child found a supernova that they'd all missed, and they groaned "Oh, that's weak!"
Re:It's misquoted (Score:5, Funny)
It bothers me that /. editors missed the obvious headline "Junior-Sized Supernova Discovered by Junior-Sized Astronomer."
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to super-sized astronomers finding supernovas?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you go to doctors to get healed, you obviously live in a reality distortion.
They are there to make money. If you are healthy, you will not come anymore, meaning they will not get any money.
That's just how the system works. You get money for threating people. But it stops when you heal them.
If you want real help, try an university clinic, where the geeks of the medical sector live, and they really gain respect from healing people.
And learn as much as you can yourself.
No light pollution there (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems like this kid didn't have to worry about light pollution [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Also, I'd like to know whether she actually SAW the transition happen, or did she notice something that wasn't there a few days ago? And then when she knew that something was different, did she call someone? Tell the papers? Tell her parents? (who must also need to know some
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like this kid didn't have to worry about light pollution.
She didn't have to worry about heavy pollution either!
(cricket noises)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
I have trouble believing that. Light scatters in the atmosphere; it's not just coming at you in straight lines from each source. Standing in a well doesn't change the fact that the bright, scattered light from the sun or terrestrial sources will reach your eyes and make it impossible to see faint objects. Reducing the amount of peripheral, direct light will improve the situation, but I doubt it will have enough of an impact to be noticeable, and certainly not enough to see "night sky, with stars and all" on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Telescopes don't negate the problem but they do help to lessen it to a certain extent.
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.
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: (Score:2)
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.
Is this a joke? Light pollution turns the sky an awful pink-ish gray from what would otherwise be black, zodiacal light notwithstanding. That being the case, how exactly would it be easier to see a point source of light against a lighter background versus a darker background? (The answer? It's not. In fact, astronomers often use the limiting magnitude [wikipedia.org] of stars vi
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Is this a joke? Light pollution turns the sky an awful pink-ish gray from what would otherwise be black, zodiacal light notwithstanding. That being the case, how exactly would it be easier to see a point source of light against a lighter background versus a darker background?
Looking for stars in a light-polluted sky is easier with a telescope than it is without a telescope, because the telescope increases the apparent brightness of the stars relative to the brightness of their background. I'm sorry that I wasn't repetitive enough to head off your rant. Looking for stars is easier in a non-light-polluted sky, of course, whether you're using a telescope or not.
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.
Ludicrous! This is clearly being spoken by a person who has never looked through a telescope in their entire life.
Heh. There's quite a bit more to telescopes than just "looking through" one. But even if that's all you're doing, you
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.discovery.com%2Feve%2Fforums%2Fa%2Ftpc%2Ff%2F9401967776%2Fm%2F4441931059%2Fp%2F1&ei=zFExSqSyCI3IM-SW8bcH&usg=AFQjCNGBDa_lhIqo7aMlf9mOwSzvz2S0WA&sig2=CJKLPWxEDIZ-So8xqly3aA [google.com]
The plane takes off. Its powered by the prop pushing against the air, it is a word problems for idiots. Jesus the internets are stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Using a small telescope as opposed to a large one, is more beneficial in light polluted areas, since you will be receiving less light-pollution in the 'bucket', brightness of the object in question, remains the same, so the ratio of brightness/light pollution is higher, yielding a brighter image.
Huh? Larger aperture means you get more light, both from the object and the sky.
Re:No light pollution there (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No light pollution there (Score:5, Funny)
Or possibly the sound of someone mumbling something about lotion.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First, the "bottom of a well" story is false. Some discussion here: http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q241.html [astronomycafe.net] as well as at snopes. Got a piece of pipe? Try it for yourself.
Second, light pollution of the night sky is a massive problem for astronomers. The lights of Los Angeles reduced the Griffith Observatory to a tourist attraction, and the city of San Diego spent a bucket of money on shielded lighting to mitigate what it was doing to the Palomar installation.
rj
Re: (Score:2)
supernova vs nova (Score:1)
And things between wasn't discovered?
The universe is wonderful.
Re:supernova vs nova (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, yes...
The thing to realize is, in spite of their related names, a nova and a supernova are fundamentally different phenomena. They happen to have enough similarity (esp. in what's observed) to be named as though a "supernova" were just a nova only bigger, but that obscures huge differences in what's really going on.
AFAIK, neither phenomenon would be expected to produce this kind of mid-range result. Possibly it's a different kind of event altogether. (Must... resist... LHC joke...)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still surprised, though, that thus far down the discussion, no one has managed to observe that this must have been a kilonova.
Well "super" isn't an SI prefix, so it doesn't match.
Since this is better than a regular nova, but not as cool as a supernova, I hereby suggest "neatonova".
So the weakest supernova to date ... (Score:1)
Neat.
She got a raw deal... (Score:3, Funny)
Neither Nova nor Supernova (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No; that was in a galaxy, far, far away.
This was in a nearby galaxy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Neither Nova nor Supernova (Score:5, Funny)
Just another planet firing up their LHC, nothing to see here.
Re: (Score:2)
Just another planet firing up their LHC, nothing to see here.
anymore...
Sky coverage + Observing Time = Discoveries (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish they described how the discovered got funneled up to the supernova scientists on the paper published on it. She must have been with someone who really knew that the "new star" she saw there wasn't supposed to be there, and that person deserves some credit, too!
Re: (Score:2)
She just pointed the telescope at the sky and waited long enough. I believe that if you wait enough, you're bound to seeing something unique because there's lots of stuff out there that only comes out every once in a while. This sounds like a crazy idea, so who would believe it, right? There must have been someone who understood that it was possible, someone with astronomy knowledge. That's who deserves some credit!
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:Sky coverage + Observing Time = Discoveries (Score:5, Funny)
IAU Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams
Telegrams?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Indeed, she is working on Tim Puckett's search team. Tim Puckett is a very driven amateur supernova hunter who collaborates with a number of other observers, like Jack Newton, who is the other co-discoverer listed. They collect massive amounts of data each night with semi and full automatic telescopes Basically they don't have the time to sift through all of it. Hence they created a search team of amateurs looking through their data. Caroline was part of this search team. Tim Puckett and his team have disco
Re:Sky coverage + Observing Time = Discoveries (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd give her a little more credit... I don't know all the details but reading the "Caroline's story" it does sound like she was capturing and processing the images herself (with some assistence in getting going and learning what to do). It might have been "Dad's" observatory and such.. but it still looks like she was doing the work. The co-discovery might simply have been the "hey let me check my data as well..".
The setup that some of these SN hunters is fairly automated, they maintain a list of objects that they will check on a routine basis. A group of SN hunters will sometimes pool their resources, share lists, coordinate what objects they are going to check, etc. The scopes can be automated to jump from object to object, take some exposures, then move on to the next object. The processing of the exposures can be partially automated, but it still requires going through them to determine if it's real or an imaging artifict or a cosmic ray on the image. This used to be done by using an optical blink comparitor (an old school optical box set up where you can quickly flip from viewing one photographic plate to another)
Anyway -- Kudos to Caroline. It's a fun hobby that has been keeping me busy since I was 12 and had access to a 10" Newtonian.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe they find a supernova on 1 image out of 9000
You mean she looked at OVER 9000 IMAGES?
Re: (Score:2)
She shares the hobby with her dad. There's some more on that part of the story, along with a picture of her rig, here: http://www.areavoices.com/astrobob/?blog=37663 [areavoices.com]
[transcript from Caroline's discovery] (Score:1)
"No thanks, could I just have a junior super nova salad, to go?"
"Would you like to biggie size that?"
"....."
It goes both ways! (Score:5, Insightful)
Astronomers say that it may be the weakest supernova ever seen.
Or the strongest nova..
Re: (Score:2)
This [slashdot.org] (hey, it's a citation), guy actually pointed out that it's not quite that way.
In other news... (Score:2)
From TFA:The peculiar object effectively bridged the gap between a nova (a nuclear explosion on the surface of an old, compact star called a white dwarf) and a type Ia supernova (the destructive death of a white dwarf caused by a runaway nuclear reaction starting deep in the star). SN 2008ha likely was a failed supernova where the explosion was unable to destroy the entire star. âoeIf a normal supernova is a nuclear bomb, then SN 2008ha is a bunker buster,â sai
Weakest Supernova? (Score:2, Insightful)
Pet Peeve Alert:
Weakest Supernova or STRONGEST NOVA?
I'm mean seriously, a star exploding is a star exploding. Mario or Super Mario. He's still a fat plumber who eats shrooms...
I bet if the highly paid scientists found it they'd be touting the "Strongest NOVA ever see discovered" where as some plucky kid finds it they're like "umm weakest Super nova ever...."
Word play is fun...
It is almost like asking "Is it an A- or a B+" or the musical types the whole sharp flat deal...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But it still goes boom right? Err wait no sound... well actually... no.. but there would be a pressure wave... no air to carry it... DAMN YOU SCI-FI CHANNEL!!
Re: (Score:2)
But doesn't the supernova's material often fall back inward, creating some kind of a smaller star, such as a neutron star or a black hole? I remember reading that the diff between a nova and a supernova is that a super results in a black-hole, while a nova only results in a small star or a neutron star.
Naw. A nova just involves an explosion due to rapid fusion of hydrogen on the surface of the star which still leaves the star intact. A supernova is the complete collapse of the core of a star when the star
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
An A- is quite distinct from a B+. Neighbouring, but different. An f sharp is quite different from a g flat in function, and only sounds identical if your hearing is mediocre. A supernova and a nova work on quite different lines, and in fact there are several types of each. And please, resist the temptation of tagging this as "mininova"... it's most definitely either a maxinova, or else a mini-supernova.
[obligatory lawn reference]
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly don't know. Some days I am just in the mood to burn karma and I fail miserably. I was shooting for Funny actually.
Not the same note? (Score:2)
An f sharp is quite different from a g flat in function, and only sounds identical if your hearing is mediocre
So if I hear middle F# (369.99 Hz) and middle Gb (369.99 Hz) as the same note (when middle C=261.63Hz [mtu.edu]), my hearing is mediocre?
Wow, that's just... wow.
Re: (Score:2)
Weakest Supernova or STRONGEST NOVA?
I'm mean seriously, a star exploding is a star exploding
When you've seen one redwood, you've seen 'em all, eh?
Here's a quote from the first article a Google search turned up: But if SN2008ha is a Type II supernova, where did the hydrogen go? The answer might be mass loss. Some stars are so massive and luminous that they lose their outer hydrogen layers in strong outflowing stellar winds. And because they're so massive, their cores collapse into a black hole without transfering energy to the outer layers of the star, which may explain the low luminosity of th
Re: (Score:2)
Pet Peeve Alert:
Weakest Supernova or STRONGEST NOVA?
I'm mean seriously, a star exploding is a star exploding.
Nova and Super Nova are completely different phenomena. It is confusing that they are both called Nova, but that's the name they were given when they were just lights in the sky, and we didn't have proper models for what we were looking at.
A nova is a white dwarf in a binary system that collects gas from the neighbor and occasionally blows it top. A supernova is a huge star collapsing down to a neutron star and releasing a lot of energy in the process.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
But they are different physical phenomenons, in the nova, only hydrogen burns, in a type Ia supernova, carbon burns (type Ia, Ic and II doesn't come from whote dwarves). So it makes sense to distinguish between powerful novae and weak supernovae, even if they can have the same luminosity.
fair enough
Re: (Score:2)
Pet Peeve Alert:
Weakest Supernova or STRONGEST NOVA?
They can tell the difference between a Nova and a Supernova by the light curves. The two distinctly different events have different brightening curves as the explosion proceeds, so they can tell which one it is no matter how far away or how bright or dim, as long as they catch it early enough in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
It is almost like asking "Is it an A- or a B+" or the musical types the whole sharp flat deal...
n-sharp and (n+1)-flat are only the same in some quite specific tunings. Admittedly, those are the most widely used
nowadays, but by no means the only ones. Have a look at musical tuning theories before you make fun of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I am old enough where every AC\DC song sounds the same. Do you honestly think studying tuning theory is going to correct my musical bias? :) Hell at the rate I am going John Tesh and Ozzie will sound the same in a few years :)
Anyways I am too old and cranky to become a music major at this age...
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with your statement. A Supernova is the violent death of a star, a Nova is the sudden brightness of a star caused by a sudden temperature rise, the star itself doesn't die. At one point in history, Supernovas were thought to be brighter Novas (which is why it was name SuperNova), but that was proven to be wrong.
As the discussions have rolled on the SuperNova is gone when complete, Nova still remain and may repeatedly go Nova again.
I wonder where a magnatar falls into this mix...
Co(s)mic classification (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
While the article, and many commenters so far have remarked on the irony of the youngest amateur astronomer finding the smallest supernova, it's pretty remarkable that what she actually found was a completely new astronomical phenomenon.
From what I understand, the mechanisms behind novae and supernovae are pretty well understood. But this is something new altogether. According to the article, they're not even sure it's an actual supernova. Nobody has ever seen this exact behavior in a star before. We're going to learn a lot from this, and it would be pretty damn remarkable even if the discoverer hadn't been a 14 year old amateur.
Re: (Score:2)
As Gregg Easterbrook has been known to write, it's the massive explosions of an interstellar war.
I can do one better (Score:2)
discovered a supernova in a nearby galaxy, making her the youngest person ever to do so
She may be the youngest to find a supernova in another galaxy, but I'll do better yet by watching for the first supernova in our solar sytem. We'll see who's laughing then!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Supernova Junior: now only $0.99 at Burger King
I think Taco Bell beat them to it - at least it felt like a supernova in my bowel the last time I ate a Taco Bell product. . .
Kilonova, Meganova (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Well, I'm glad to see celestial phenomena follow the metric system, at least. I propose we name this a kilonova and rename the supernova to a meganova.
to make an important contribution to (Score:3, Insightful)
chemistry, physics, biochemistry, computer science, mathematics, etc.
you need to slave almost your whole life, be at the top of your mental game, have tons of education under your belt, and you need extremely expensive instruments (well, not math)
but to make an important contribution to astronomy, you just need to look up with a cheap introductory level hobbyist telescope available at walmart, and some passion
that's amazing
Re: (Score:2)
and you need extremely expensive instruments (well, not math)
A large portion of modern math is done with the aid of supercomputers.
I propose calling it... (Score:2)
I propose calling it a giganova.
Re:Statement on Society (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The analogy of choice is generally a car analogy. In this case they eschewed that for one more relevant, the largest explosion most humans can imagine. I suppose they could have chosen something like eruptions of mega volcanoes like Krakatoa, but even those are generally compared to nuclear bombs for scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
average person
This is Slashdot. 'Average people' don't come into it. Most Slashdotters could probably tell you the difference between a Teller-Ullam design and an Implosion Trigger, because high-energy physics is interesting, rather than because everyone has a desire to nuke everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Kirstey Alley inside the Astrodome on an ice cream binge?
Re: (Score:2)
Give it another year.
rj
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Australia is a continent...
This might be a Nova, or a Supernova, or something else, but in any case, nova and supernova work very differently - it is not just a matter of degree.
Re: (Score:2)