Closest Supernova in 25 Years Is a 'Cosmic Classic,' Astronomers Say "One of the rarest event."
#1 Posted 31 August 2011 - 05:22 PM
Also according to some sources you could see it with binoculars when it reaches its peak.
His video about it.
http://news.yahoo.co...-160802895.html
Astronomers have spotted the closest supernova in a generation — and in a week or so, stargazers with a good pair of binoculars might be able to see it, too.
The supernova, or exploded star, flared up Tuesday night (Aug. 23) in the Pinwheel Galaxy, just 21 million light-years from Earth. It's the closest star explosion of its type observed since 1986, and astronomers around the world are already scrambling to train their instruments on it.
Researchers said they think they caught the supernova, named PTF 11kly, within hours of its explosion. [Photo of the new supernova PTF 11kly]
"PTF 11kly is getting brighter by the minute. It’s already 20 times brighter than it was yesterday," Peter Nugent, of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley, said in a statement yesterday (Aug. 25).
"Observing PTF 11kly unfold should be a wild ride," added Nugent, who was the first person to spot the supernova. "It is an instant cosmic classic."
Peering at the Big Dipper
The supernova was discovered using the Palomar Transient Factory survey, which employs a robotic telescope at Palomar Observatory in Southern California. [Photos of Great Supernova Explosions]
The survey spotted PTF 11kly blazing up in the Big Dipper, otherwise known as the constellation Ursa Major. It is a Type Ia supernova. These explosions are thought to occur when a dying star called a white dwarf exceeds its weight limit (by accreting mass from a stellar companion, or merging with another white dwarf) and goes boom.
"Type Ia supernovae are the kind we use to measure the expansion of the universe," said Mark Sullivan of Oxford University, who was among the first scientists to follow up on the supernova detection. "Seeing one explode so close by allows us to study these events in unprecedented detail."
A rare skywatching treat
Researchers will be watching the supernova evolve over the next couple of weeks. Catching it so early in its formation and evolution is a rare treat, researchers said.
"We are finding new clues to solving the mystery of the origin of these supernovae that has perplexed us for 70 years," said Andrew Howell of UC Santa Barbara. "Despite looking at thousands of supernovae, I’ve never seen anything like this before."
This is the closest Type Ia supernova astronomers have observed since 1986, researchers said. And it's getting brighter by the day. Soon, it may even be bright enough to see with binoculars.
"The best time to see this exploding star will be just after evening twilight in the Northern Hemisphere in a week or so," Sullivan said. "You’ll need dark skies and a good pair of binoculars, although a small telescope would be even better."
#2 Posted 31 August 2011 - 10:39 PM
#3 Posted 31 August 2011 - 11:37 PM
Example if something happens to our sun it will take us 8 minutes to realize it because it takes the sun's light 8 minutes to reach us.
If Eta Carinae explodes now it will take us 7,500-8,000 years to see its explosion outshinning the sun, able to read a book at night and more.
#4 Posted 31 August 2011 - 11:57 PM
#5 Posted 01 September 2011 - 12:05 AM
#6 Posted 01 September 2011 - 02:45 AM
#7 Posted 01 September 2011 - 04:25 AM
It's a common conception that the speed of light is the 'universe's speed limit' and that nothing can travel faster, however, due to relativity, the speed of light is only a local phenomenon. In the very very early days of the universe, the boundaries of the universe actually expanded faster than the speed of light, so there may be a way to break the light barrier (as opposed to the sound barrier.) Of course this is all theoretical. On a side note, I found it interesting that in Issac Asimov's novel Nemesis, he made it that when objects traveled faster than light, gravity is reversed, and repels instead of attracts, but of course that's fiction.
What I personally find depressing is that eventually all the hydrogen which fuels all the stars, is going to converted into heavier elements, until all the stars burn out. Kind of like in the Dr Who episode Utopia. Apparently it's after that that the universe is going to start collapsing into a big crunch. Still, I'm hopeful that humanity will find a way to escape this universe before then. If this universe exists, surely there could be others. However there's no guarantee that the laws of physics would be anything alike. Gravity, magnetism, momentum, electromagnetic waves, and subatomic particles could behave in completely different ways, in which case we're screwed unless we either adapt, or form some kind of protective bubble.
This post has been edited by Micky C: 01 September 2011 - 04:34 AM
#8 Posted 01 September 2011 - 06:48 AM
Micky C, on 01 September 2011 - 04:25 AM, said:
That doesn't sound right. It's not like the speed of light is different in other galaxies.
Micky C, on 01 September 2011 - 04:25 AM, said:
Even without a big crunch, it would eventually become impossible to sustain life, or so I have been told.
Micky C, on 01 September 2011 - 04:25 AM, said:
In my opinion that hope crosses the line between optimism and sheer fantasy. The problem (I see it) has to do with what it means to be another universe. If someplace were physically accessible to us, no matter how remote, then by definition it would be part of our universe. Other universes are reasonable to conjecture about but are not possible to actually get to.
#9 Posted 01 September 2011 - 08:00 AM
DeeperThought, on 01 September 2011 - 06:48 AM, said:
Micky C, on 01 September 2011 - 04:25 AM, said:
That doesn't sound right. It's not like the speed of light is different in other galaxies.
According to relativity, it's more the other way around: the speed of light is a constant anywhere, and other physical quantities like the length and the passing of time depend on the relative speed of two observers. Check out this for a visualisation.
Also:
There was once a Lady of Wright
Who travelled much faster than light
She departed one day
In a relative way
And arrived on the previous night
(Due to Hawking?)
#10 Posted 01 September 2011 - 12:06 PM
#11 Posted 01 September 2011 - 02:56 PM
#12 Posted 01 September 2011 - 06:28 PM
Ripemanewone, on 01 September 2011 - 02:56 PM, said:
I'm pretty good with Quantum Physics and have no clue about Buddhism; could you elaborate how those two merge?
#13 Posted 02 September 2011 - 01:03 PM
Hank, on 01 September 2011 - 06:28 PM, said:
Well they both ways of interperting the very nature of reality, Buddism states that everything is one and so does quantum mechanics as we understand it. They do disagree on many aspects also as would any old religion incapable of easily evolving.
This Buddhist concept of reality is often met with disapproval and considered incomprehensible. But there are modern modes of thought with points of contact. For instance: there is a discussion in quantum physics about fundamental reality. What is fundamental in quantum physics: particles, waves, field of force, law of nature, mindsets or information? Quantum physics came to a result that is expressed by the key words of complementarity, interaction and entanglement. According to these concepts there are no independent but complementary quantum objects; they are at the same time waves and particles. Quantum objects interact with others, and they are even entangled when they are separated in a far distance. Without being observed philosophically, quantum physics has created a physical concept of reality. According to that concept the fundamental reality is an interaction of systems that interact with other systems and with their own components. This physical concept of reality does not agree upon the four approaches mentioned before. If the fundamental reality consists of dependent systems, then its basics can neither be independent and objective laws of nature nor independent subjective models of thought. The fundamental reality cannot be a mystic entity nor can it consist of information only.
The concepts of reality in Buddhism surprisingly parallel quantum physics.
I copied and pasted that from a lecture to save me the trouble of wording it, as its pretty mental stuff, but there is lots of information out there, some of the theorys get really crazy, like that the universe is pure conciousness and that we can actully control it in many ways, Im listen to a lot of theorys about reality, there is nothing more interesting imo.
Ps. Check out Schrodingers Cat.
This post has been edited by Ripemanewone: 02 September 2011 - 01:04 PM
#14 Posted 02 September 2011 - 02:14 PM
Quote
A google search reveals that it is part of an abstract by Christian Thomas Kohl. It's a good idea to credit people for their work, whenever possible.
From what I was able to uncover, he no scientific background. That doesn't mean he is wrong, but it's worth bearing in mind since he makes claims about physics.
#15 Posted 02 September 2011 - 02:45 PM
DeeperThought, on 02 September 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:
From what I was able to uncover, he no scientific background. That doesn't mean he is wrong, but it's worth bearing in mind since he makes claims about physics.
Yeah, I forgot that, anyway there are a load of serious phsicists who delve into quantum mechanics, the problem is they discovered things that break physics as we think we know them, so they scare a lot of the more conservative guys out there, things like how a particle will change when it is being observed, meaning that conciousness actually can affect matter which incredible as it is only opens a whole new buch of headaches for physicists.
#16 Posted 02 September 2011 - 03:11 PM
Ripemanewone, on 02 September 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:
I think that's a perfect example of comparing apples and oranges. Maybe oranges have something to do with stars because they're both round objects?
To put it simply, Buddhism has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Unlike scientists who do rigorous research, Buddha just got high and thought he had it all figured out. Too bad he didn't OD.
Ripemanewone, on 02 September 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:
Uh, seems like you have no idea what you're talking about. You're probably referring to the uncertainty principle which, of course, doesn't state that consciousness affects matter but that finding out, say, the position of a particle requires shooting the particle with particles which in turn has an effect on the observed particle.
#17 Posted 02 September 2011 - 03:53 PM
Ripemanewone, on 02 September 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:
OK, I know the cat, I'm now more confused.
So I quote the man himself
To the physicist I wish to emphasize that in my opinion, and contrary to the opinion upheld in some quarters, quantum indeterminacy plays no biologically relevant role in them, except perhaps by enhancing their purely accidental character in such events as meiosis, natural and X-rayinduced mutation and so on -and this is in any case obvious and well recognized. For the sake of argument, let me regard this as a fact, as I believe every unbiased biologist would, if there were not the well-known, unpleasant feeling about 'declaring oneself to be a pure mechanism'. For it is deemed to contradict Free Will as in warranted by direct introspection.
from
What is life by Erwin Schrödinger
One can ask questions like is the tree still there if I ain't looking at it, or simply accept that the act of looking has nothing to do with the tree or reality.
b.t.w. I understand the math of quatum physics not the subject itself.
#18 Posted 02 September 2011 - 03:59 PM
Mikko_Sandt, on 02 September 2011 - 03:11 PM, said:
Uh, seems like you have no idea what you're talking about. You're probably referring to the uncertainty principle which, of course, doesn't state that consciousness affects matter but that finding out, say, the position of a particle requires shooting the particle with particles which in turn has an effect on the observed particle.
Nope its you who has no idea what Im talking about, check out the cat. Im not an expert so I could be wrong but I think I am not, anyway I just like learning this stuff for my own entertainment.
This is an interesting video, sure it may not be true we cannot be certain yet, but it feels right doesnt it?
http://youtu.be/y9bVd3BspIQ
This post has been edited by Ripemanewone: 02 September 2011 - 04:03 PM
#19 Posted 02 September 2011 - 04:10 PM
Ripemanewone, on 02 September 2011 - 03:59 PM, said:
Uh, I'm familiar with the cat thing so I'm not going to check it out. I'd ask you to provide an explanation of the experiment and its relevance to this discussion just to see if you know what you're talking about but you'd probably just end up quoting wikipedia or some Buddhist.
#20 Posted 02 September 2011 - 04:15 PM
Mikko_Sandt, on 02 September 2011 - 04:10 PM, said:
I did and I did not, you wont know until you actually check the forum.
But like I said Im not an expert.
This post has been edited by Ripemanewone: 02 September 2011 - 04:17 PM
#21 Posted 03 September 2011 - 05:03 PM
Thunderf00t uploaded the video of the type Ia supernova.
Vid showed was Nothing in July and then in Aug was the big flash.
#22 Posted 03 September 2011 - 05:34 PM
#23 Posted 04 September 2011 - 04:03 AM
rasmus thorup, on 03 September 2011 - 05:34 PM, said:
I don't think I have anything to live for now. And you can't really say "human race has nothing to live for" since we don't have a hive mind. Some people have something to live for, some don't.
This post has been edited by Helel: 04 September 2011 - 12:17 PM
#24 Posted 04 September 2011 - 10:51 AM
Helel, on 04 September 2011 - 04:03 AM, said:
Whats wrong with living for yourself or even just to see what happens next, even Hawking has something to live for and if I was in his shoes Id prefer a pillow over the head while sleeping. You live because you are born, its your duty. Anyways you can always make yourself better tomorrow than you are today, that alone is something to live for.
#25 Posted 04 September 2011 - 12:22 PM
And it's not anyone's duty to live just because they were born.
#26 Posted 04 September 2011 - 12:30 PM
Ripemanewone, on 04 September 2011 - 10:51 AM, said:
It gets harder to do that as you get older.
#27 Posted 05 September 2011 - 07:06 AM
#28 Posted 05 September 2011 - 11:39 AM
hundreds of Millions of generations in the lifespan of a star like our sun.
A human lifespan takes trillions of bacteria generations.
Just like we're a red dwarf star to the bacterias burning for trillions of years before it blinks out.
Too bad bacteria as we know of has no conscious to say is depressing to die quickly without seeing a human born, aging and dying.
#29 Posted 05 September 2011 - 12:36 PM
DeeperThought, on 04 September 2011 - 12:30 PM, said:
Haha, yeah I guess, but unless you are peanutbutter and jelly rubbing mad or have a horrible disease like alzheimers you can still build your mind and understanding of your reality even as a very old man. My father is 70 and studying for a phd right now, sharp as a new knife still. Also doing thing that are harder makes you harder.
And Zaxtor, yes some people believe existence is fractal like, a problem most humans have is that they think that reality starts and ends with them, when its all just relative. Remember we used to think the sun revolved around the earth, I wonder what the universe revolves around, if anything? Even atoms seem like mini solar systems.
This post has been edited by Ripemanewone: 05 September 2011 - 12:38 PM
#30 Posted 05 September 2011 - 03:02 PM
Ripemanewone, on 02 September 2011 - 04:15 PM, said:
But like I said Im not an expert.
---
This is an interesting video, sure it may not be true we cannot be certain yet, but it feels right doesnt it?
http://youtu.be/y9bVd3BspIQ
What forum?
I checked the video. I don't understand how you could have come to the conclusion that "it feels right". It's got a bunch of people throwing vague terms around, mixing them with some technical jargon. They make no specific arguments. It's complete nonsense. Look at the audience at the beginning of the video when Lynch is talking: it's like they're hypnotized. And the speakers have charismatic qualities. Religion is opium for the masses indeed.
http://www.plasticbr...aton.com/?id=52