Early images of Supernova captured

looks like a painting of an eye, 'modern art'.

 

The supernova itself seems so insignificant, just a little now-you-see-it, now-you-don't blip, down in the corner. Quite a big place we're in...

 

"The Star" by Author C. Clarke was an interesting short story.

https://sites.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/TheStar.pdf

 

For a second there I was really worried. It would take a very close supernova to make an Environmental Discussion, and it would not be good news. This is really FHOP news.

 

I disagree. The galaxy and associated supernova are part of our environment, at least in this part of the multiverse...

 

It is some other galaxy.

 

It could loosely be argued that understanding supernovas and others 'stars gone wrong' could be of use here on earth/ There are numerous stars within shootin' distance.

However, if a star is about to give earth an aggressive bath. Knowing of warning signs would help how exactly?

Last clickbait headline you'll ever read. Go hide in a deep hole now. Others?

Gotta say it always seems odd to read about 'supersonic' out there is space. It is electrons (and possibly other particles with mass) getting accelerated to near lightspeed by absurd magnetic fields. But sonic boom is not an appealing analogy.

==
"Alex Filippenko" Have seen this fella do a lot of astronomy explaining on TV and he does it well.

==
16 inch telescope, 80 million light years. That's some really good imaging even if a SN had not bombed the photo.

==
Not so many people are set up for photos like this. Far fewer than, say, smart phoners who still miss Bigfoot, etc.

 

Too be fair, bigfoot is smaller and moving. (and I suspect, farther away)

 

A few hundred stars are within 100 light years of earth, none known (to me) to be frisky as SN or gamma-ray bursters. GRB endanger life at longer ranges but still they do not seem to be problems over realistic time.

No, it is 'local' solar-system rocks that could do real harm. If ever we end self risk with carbon on carbon violence, those will still come zinging in, once in a while.

 

<deleted>

 

So it was a Type 2 supernova, commonly associated with these rich in spectra and heating shockwaves. That means that the parent star was a supergiant, which is one of the most luminous types, and hence very massive... what I took away from this is, knowing that astronomers are still tasked with the puzzle of solving "What is dark matter?" Well until that very massive supergiant exploded, it seemed to be little more than in the gas and dust of the spiral arm (according to the images that I saw in that article). Perhaps we are missing more OB associations than we previously had accounted for, and if that's the case, then OB associations would account for more significant variance in dark matter than previously thought.

 

Apparently this is quite a discovery and the professional astronomers are able to get a lot of data out of it, there will apparently be an article in Nature soon.

 

article in Nature

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25151

 

Yes, I'd imagine matter and space between us and an event should have some effect on empirical data observed of the event.
It also gives pause to imagine when the event actually took place in relation to when it was seen on this planet.
Further, as I look at the cosmos I see bodies spinning in an orderly manner in relation to other bodies that can be seen on a macroscopic scale.
In my mind I see atomic structures in much the same light, bodies spinning in an orderly manner in relation to other bodies measured on microscopic scale.
Again further, on the atomic scale even matter that we can see and detect in our human world as solid mass has large spaces between the bodies/particles of the atomic structure in relation to each other.
How far in each direction does this similarity persist?

I once fed negative coordinates into a julia set generator with a resulting image appearing as a twin spiral that immediately reminded me of what I imagine a blastema would look like if I could see that.

 

speed of light@17. Telescopes broadly defined can 'see' from infrared to gamma-ray. That's about 12 orders of magnitude of wavelength. You'd need accurate time-keeping with separate telescopes. Or mount both on the same rig. Then, be looking at some faraway event with a sudden change in flux. Then you'd know the answer.

I'm not aware of this being a high priority for space astronomers. But maybe?

atomic structures@18. I hope we are not referring to (the model of) electrons orbiting nucleus here. Actual probability distributions of electrons vs. nucleus are not like that.

Textbooks? I know, I know...

 

To some extent, this was already measured with last year's neutron star collision event, detected first by the LIGO network. Gravitational waves, gamma rays, X-rays, UV, visible light, IR, and various radio waves were observed.

Was this our only thread?:
Interesting semantics in Scientific American | PriusChat