backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 33 comment(s) - last by JimmyC.. on May 25 at 11:45 PM

Scientists say the supernova is only about 140 years old

A supernova can occur in two ways; when the production of energy through nuclear fusion is suddenly stopped or started. Scientists estimate that supernovae occur about every 50 years in a galaxy the size of the Milky Way.

The puzzle for scientists and astronomers is that only six young supernovae have been found in our galaxy and more than 30 are predicted to have occurred at one every 50 years. A scientist named Stephen Reynolds, an astrophysicist at North Carolina State University, and his team have found what they describe as a very young supernova.

The supernova in question is called G1.9+0.3. Scientists predict that the supernova is only about 140 years old. Previously, the youngest supernova known to exist in our Milky Way galaxy was Cassiopeia A discovered in the 17th century.

Reynolds told National Geographic, “Cas A had been the reigning youngest remnant for so long that it took a while to sink in that we had found something less than half its age.”

The reason G1.9+0.3 went undiscovered for so long is that it was obscured by dust. The researchers say if the dust and gas around the supernova hadn’t been so dense that people in the 1800s would have seen the supernova appear in the Sagittarius constellation.

The scientists say that G1.9+0.3 has increased by 16% in the last 22 years, which suggest an age for the supernova of 140 years. The estimated age was arrived at by comparing radio observations from the 1980’s with 2007 images of the object from the Chandra X-Ray Observatory.

Reynolds adds, “Normally, we deal with older remnants and have to work very hard to see even tiny changes. This supernova is getting brighter, which means it's still on its way up. Studying it will go a long way toward filling in gaps in our knowledge of these events and their effect on galaxies."

Reynolds and his team have submitted a proposal for a longer observation period for the G1.9+0.3 supernova using Chandra. Reynolds says, “We've just never had the opportunity to study a remnant in this phase of its life. Now that we know how fast it's changing, it will be useful to re-observe it again and again and watch its evolution—pretty rare for an astronomical event!"


In March of 2008 light and gamma rays from a supernova explosion that occurred billions of years ago finally reached the Earth and set a record for the most distant object from Earth seen with the naked eye



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Just for clarification
By isorfir on 5/15/2008 12:13:24 PM , Rating: 5
The supernova is ~26,000 years away and the light arrived here 140 years ago, so the event started ~26,140 years ago.

It's not improper to say that it's 140 years old, just a little confusing.




RE: Just for clarification
By omnicronx on 5/15/2008 12:56:24 PM , Rating: 1
It may have happened 26000 years ago, but for a scientist this makes little difference from a research perspective. If you were watching that spot 140 years ago with a telescope, it would appear as though it just happened because the light is just reaching earth. If the sun were to go supernova right, the impending explosion would probably hit us before we even saw the flash of light, because it takes approximately 10 minutes for light from the sun to reach earth.


RE: Just for clarification
By Sylar on 5/15/2008 1:01:55 PM , Rating: 3
I may not be an expert in the subject but shouldn't we see the flash before the explosion hits us? If it took 10 mins for the sun to reach earth, it should prob take way longer for the shockwave to hit us, unless you think an explosion is faster than the speed of light.


RE: Just for clarification
By omnicronx on 5/15/2008 1:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
unless you think an explosion is faster than the speed of light.
Ya I don't know what I was thinking on that one..

The explosion expels much or all of a star's material[2] at a velocity of up to a tenth the speed of light, driving a shock wave into the surrounding interstellar medium. This shock wave sweeps up an expanding shell of gas and dust called a supernova remnant.


RE: Just for clarification
By FITCamaro on 5/15/2008 1:15:14 PM , Rating: 5
You'll have enough time to say "Oh shiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! !!" as you start to burn.


RE: Just for clarification
By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/15/2008 1:42:14 PM , Rating: 3
lol


RE: Just for clarification
By PlasmaBomb on 5/15/2008 2:15:38 PM , Rating: 1
That would be one hell of a tan...


RE: Just for clarification
By Regs on 5/16/2008 10:06:51 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Just for clarification
By Adonlude on 5/15/2008 5:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
The radiation given off by the Sun's supernova would move at the speed of light and would probably be enough to kill us all before the shockwave reaches us.


RE: Just for clarification
By CollegeTechGuy on 5/15/2008 8:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you will have plenty of time to say oh shit. Seeing how our sun does not have enough mass to go supernova. It will turn into a Red Giant and expand and contract a few times, where it will probably expand to a large enough size to actually consume the Earth. If it doesn't, and we somehow survive this whole process, we will probably burn up in a planetary nebulae as our Sun runs out of fuel to continue burning. If somehow we actually survive this process...we will freeze to death as our sun becomes a White Dwarf and slowly cools off to just a cold hunk of rock.


RE: Just for clarification
By callmeroy on 5/16/2008 11:52:37 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not science guru, but I'm interested in enough as a hobby that I read stories that catch my eye about it, a few books here and there and I can say I geekish watch the Science channel way more than what allows one to be "cool"....

But I have no clue where you base your statement that we'd have plenty of time or the sun can't go supernova. In more than one documentary and article I've seen/read I could have sworn the scientists suggested teh following facts a) They believe teh sun will burn for between 4.5 and 6 billion more years, so if you are still alive for that you lived a long full life anyway so be sad.

b) when the sun does run out of fuel it will, by way of its core, consume itself, the small problem this presents for our solar system is this will result in a massive explosion far greater than even a thousand death stars blowing up in unison.

C) scientists don't believe teh sun will just one day simply "turn off"...it'll be a gradual process that will take likely millions of years before the lights go out completely. Over this million year period - whatever life is on the earth at that time will likely perish from freezing temperatures that make even the anartic look like a tropical paradise in comparison. I hope no one has to use an outhouse during that time...can we say "ouch".

Anyway....that's the story of the sun's end (and ours) as I've learned through books and documentaries over the years.


RE: Just for clarification
By CollegeTechGuy on 5/17/2008 1:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
As i've previously stated, theres not enough mass in our sun to go supernova...hence it can't consume itself. The only "explosion" that will take place is a planetary nebulae, after it goes through its red giant stages.

See the HR Diagram here
http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Images/bt2...

You'll notice the Sun is along the main sequence line in the middle, which is actually the best spot for any star to be. The have a good fuel to burn ratio, the stars in the upper left are the massive fast burning stars that go into supernovas. Our sun will move into the Red Giant phase as it runs out of fuel, slowing down the nuclear reactions taking place cause the sun to expand and contract as it dies. Then in its final days as a red giant it will have a Hydrogen flash, creating a planetary nebulae, ejecting the outer "shell" of the sun...leaving nothing but a hot white core...known as a White Dwarf.

Supernova stars leave either of 2 things, a nuetron star or a black hole. Our star again, does not have enough mass to form either of these.


RE: Just for clarification
By JimmyC on 5/25/2008 11:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
The suckiest thing about our sun becoming a red giant will be the dearth of Superman movies (actually after that last one, it might not be so bad)


RE: Just for clarification
By FaceMaster on 5/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Just for clarification
By Oregonian2 on 5/15/2008 6:50:09 PM , Rating: 1
I think it's more than that. The title says that the youngest supernova in the Milky Way is now known about. I think this is absurd. One may have happened yesterday on the other side of the Milky Way. There's no way they know what the youngest one is. If the title had it's words rearranged, I think it might be proper to say that the youngest known about supernova has been found in the Milky way. But the title as it currently stands doesn't say that.


RE: Just for clarification
By SlyNine on 5/16/2008 12:53:22 AM , Rating: 2
Youngest Discovered Supernova in the Milky Way.


RE: Just for clarification
By Oregonian2 on 5/16/2008 1:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yup! So easy! :-)


RE: Just for clarification
By callmeroy on 5/16/2008 11:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
anal much?


looking in all the wrong places...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/15/2008 1:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
The puzzle for scientists and astronomers is that only six young supernovae have been found in our galaxy....

That's because they are only looking in the front yard of our galaxy. They need to take a look into the back yard, there's tons of them all over the place... :P




RE: looking in all the wrong places...
By littlebitstrouds on 5/15/2008 1:20:36 PM , Rating: 3
Ugh, but when I look towards my backyard with a telescope, my neighbor's take out retraining orders on me... don't they know I'm just looking for supernovas?


RE: looking in all the wrong places...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/15/2008 2:17:45 PM , Rating: 4
lol.... You need to look a little higher up. :)


By P4blo on 5/16/2008 6:39:53 AM , Rating: 1
My neighbour has a lovely pair of supernovas.


RE: looking in all the wrong places...
By fictisiousname on 5/15/2008 4:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
I realize you're joking, yet sadly there is an element of truth in it. SOME neighbors believe light arbitrarily bends and goes through walls to gaze at an immense derrière of a 300 pound...UGLY...woman. ugghh

Oh well. I built a small observatory with high walls and a roof that slides off in order to enjoy my hobby, and called it a "shed" so the HOA didn't have to deal with an unfamiliar term.


By maven81 on 5/15/2008 6:48:30 PM , Rating: 2
Too true, years ago I've had some neighbors assume the same thing, which was amusing as I had an 8" reflector at that point. Had I pointed it at anyone you'd probably see the pores on their skin heh. People flatter themselves.


Lost in Space
By TwistyKat on 5/15/2008 1:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if that's the same SN which almost destroyed the Jupiter 2 and Robinsons in one of those early and memorable episodes?




RE: Lost in Space
By deeznuts on 5/15/2008 1:17:27 PM , Rating: 3
Didn't Starbuck and the Demetrius just see Jupiter when they found that Basestar that they took over?


RE: Lost in Space
By Ringold on 5/15/2008 2:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
That was the trinary star system she'd been going on about; I had to watch it a second time to see all 3 stars.


RE: Lost in Space
By deeznuts on 5/15/2008 5:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just glad the normal Starbuck is back after Gaeda got shot (he's a weasel anyway). Cuckoo starbuck was no good.

And the bald president Oh My. We didn't need to see that!


RE: Lost in Space
By FingerMeElmo87 on 5/15/2008 1:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
"DANGER will robinson, DANGER!!!"


hyped
By GhandiInstinct on 5/15/2008 12:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
There was a secret NASA press conference only for the media yesterday at noon central, and it was hyped to be a huge announcement by NASA.

It ended up being 3 guys trying to convince the media that the discovery of a nearby super nova's age is a breakthrough in astronomy studies and we can now better understand the physics of such things as shock waves.

Why they held a meeting/press conference about this baffles me but it's nothing significant for the majority of the population to think about.




RE: hyped
By maven81 on 5/15/2008 2:42:13 PM , Rating: 5
You mean the same majority of the population that watches American Idol and follows Britney Spears every move?
I say good on NASA, shove science down their throats if they aren't willing to show any sort of wonder, any interest in discovery or even the slightest bit of thirst for knowledge.
Press coverage is exactly what they need...
They land on an Asteroid, explore the moons of Saturn, take images of galaxies colliding, explore Mercury, and on and on, but do you ever hear about this in the media?
If it takes something relatively insignificant to get people to pay more attention to the space program that's not a bad thing.


Firefox Logo
By MrDiSante on 5/15/2008 7:46:49 PM , Rating: 3
Is it just me or does the supernova look a lot like the Firefox logo?




RE: Firefox Logo
By BruceLeet on 5/15/2008 10:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
It's just you, it looks like the Opera logo to me. As Ive looked in the top right corner just now, then the picture, and back again.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki