digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at badastronomy.com

Birth cry of a supernova

badastronomy.com — Very, very cool news today: for the first time in history, astronomers have unambiguously observed the exact moment when a star explodes.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bbqsalad, on 05/22/2008, -1/+12Very cool indeed!
  • tewas, on 05/22/2008, -0/+19Thats a lucky shot and it looks beautiful. I wonder if someone can make video from series of pictures. That should be cool
  • AgonThalia, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6Brilliant and amazing
  • pyro12, on 05/22/2008, -0/+24All because a telescope happened to be looking at the right galaxy during the 5 MINUTE window of opportunity. I'd like to know what the odds against THAT were!
    • BadAstronomer, on 05/22/2008, -1/+14Seriously very small. The X-Ray Telescope on Swift has a narrow field of view, so it's not like it was seeing hundreds of galaxies at the same time. Had Alicia gotten her time a day or two before or a day or two later this wouldn't have been seen.
      • DeskFlyer, on 05/22/2008, -13/+1Thanks, Captain Obvious. ;)
      • cerejota, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5Deskflyer: did your mom hug enough?

        - Corporal Obvious
        • DeskFlyer, on 05/22/2008, -2/+3Ah jeez....looks like I was drunk-posting again last night, so bury as necessary. If you take a look at my comment history it is easy to tell when there are a few beers in me
        • TheGuruStud, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2You sleep less than 2 hrs after being drunk?

          mmmkay....
        • DeskFlyer, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1Hmmm... I just noticed that and thought I posted it last night. I think I'm just having a bad case of dumb today. Which isn't really all that unusual.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6Never tell me the odds!
    • rblancarte, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1The sky is 41,253 degrees ^ 2. What is the field of vision of the Swift X-Ray Telescope?
  • DeskFlyer, on 05/22/2008, -0/+20What a fantastic read. Kudos to Phil for making it so easy for laymen like me to understand exactly what is going on in an event like this and more importantly, providing rich context that conveys the importance of it. This is seriously cool stuff.
  • BadAstronomer, on 05/22/2008, -0/+45Thanks everyone! I appreciate the comments. I spent a bit longer writing this one up than usual, so it's nice to see it getting Dugg. :-)
    • cerejota, on 05/22/2008, -1/+14Thank *YOU*, sir. Your blog is one reason the intertubes are EPIC WIN.
    • ethomas046, on 05/22/2008, -0/+11I always enjoy reading your posts. Thanks for the hard work - fascinating stuff!
    • gkwillie, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6The extra time you spent on this one was well worth it. 100% fascinating and insightful. It is always a pleasure to read your blog. Keep up the stellar work!
    • papusman, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6I was actually wondering what all the hubbub was about, as, like you mentioned, I thought we had observed MANY supernovas. So thanks a lot for clearing that up for an ignorant space buff like me! Great article, man.
    • Terr01, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Minor correction: It did not explode on January 9th 2008. We did not see it "as it happened".

      Instead of finding out "days or weeks later", we are finding out 84 million years later.

      Were that not the case I'm pretty sure we'd dislike all the hard x-rays.
      • cerejota, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2Next time, make it funny, not sanctimonious. We all know this.
        • Terr01, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Obviously you've never seen me really do sanctimonious, let alone condescending.
  • fhernand, on 05/22/2008, -2/+66OLD OLD OLD, this happened eons ago..
    • cerejota, on 05/22/2008, -6/+3This is the smartest comment in Digg evah!

      For the first time I am using "LOL" literally...
    • Felix118, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Hahaha!! good one =P
    • Terr01, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Yeah, the article is incorrect:

      "NGC 2770 is a galaxy at the relatively close distance of 84 million light years away. On January 9, 2008, a massive star in it exploded, and instead of finding out days or weeks later, astronomers caught it in the act, right at the moment, in flagrante delicto. "

      On January 9, 2008, MINUS 84 MILLION YEARS, it exploded, and FINDING OUT 84 MILLION YEARS LATER, astronomers saw it in the act.

      (This is, of course, assuming we don't have a moving frame of reference :P)
  • dmark77, on 05/22/2008, -5/+3The new digg comment system put this comment in the wrong article, so I am editing this useless comment as "Bull Semen" wouldn't apply to this article.
  • Supernova36, on 05/22/2008, -7/+2LoLZ th4t r my nam3!11!!!
  • prleet, on 05/22/2008, -4/+2Still 84 million years ago
  • Armstrong3, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1I always read these universe things thinking some big breakthrough is going to happen. Then two min later I realize it won't.
    • cerejota, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3this is HUGE, the amount of data this produced will take years to fully analyze, and furthermore, instead of theoretical models will will have raw data from the wild. This is incredible, way up there with extra solar planets.
  • leerayIG88, on 05/22/2008, -5/+2Is it girl? Boy?
    /hugs/
  • ehodkin, on 05/22/2008, -7/+2Exactly! I don't see how Obama can't win now.

    Seriously though, very cool, breath of fresh air in these overly politcal times on Digg.
    • subliminalurge, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2You complain about the "overly political times on Digg", and yet YOU were the one to introduce politics into an astronomy discussion.

      One giant facepalm for you.
  • dvgeoster9, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3down already :( mirror pls
  • uptwolait, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6I've been following astronomy for years hoping to someday read a story like this. Awesome!
    • cerejota, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4Indeed. I mean, one cannot understate the importance of this. Just the sheer mathematical odds against this happening so early into our exploration of space is incredible...
  • CrazedLeper, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Video or it didn't happen. Just kidding! Actually, I'm not. I was kind of hoping to "see" it; that would be uber-cool.
  • mrzisme, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Like Keanu Reeves, all I have to say is....whoa
  • hansolo007, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4Talk about looking the right place at the right time.

    Well explained BadAstronomer!
  • Shamrulezz, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0Awesome
  • bjs3171, on 05/22/2008, -6/+1Does this mean the Big Bang Theory could actually become a fact soon?
    • cwmather, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0This has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory.
  • Bilabrin, on 05/22/2008, -3/+4"On January 9, 2008, a massive star in it exploded, and instead of finding out days or weeks later, astronomers caught it in the act, right at the moment, in flagrante delicto."

    Wrong, happened 84 million years ago.

    /being "that guy"
  • skyz, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6the iron in your blood and mine came from the dissolution of stars through the process of super nova

    the carbon atom was the result of the death of the first stars (which were composed of hydrogen and helium)

    so when you get caught up in: 'do i look good enough' 'am i cool enough' and so on and so forth remember this: you are literally stardust
  • CaptainM4d, on 05/22/2008, -1/+12I really like what he said at the end:

    "You should understand something else here, too. As the blast wave moves through the gas of the star, the elements in that gas undergo an explosive fusion, creating new, heavier elements. Elements like iron, calcium, and gold. The hemoglobin in your blood, the bones in your body, and the wedding ring on your finger — all of these can trace their lineage back to a star that exploded like SN2008D. Every heavy element in the Universe was created in such an event, in the heart and fury of a supernova.

    We owe our very existence to stars that explode.

    That’s why work like this is important. Through science like this we can determine our own origins, from the hydrogen that formed a millisecond after the Big Bang, through elements built up in normal stars like the Sun, through heavy elements created in supernovae… to us.

    That’s where science leads. We look out to the farthest reaches of the Universe, and we wind up seeing ourselves."
  • liljay2k, on 05/22/2008, -0/+8Birth cry of a supernova is the correct description of the agony I had in the bathroom this morning.
  • sindex, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Stellar!

    Sorry, I couldn't resist.
    Seriously though, this is one of the most amazing things I've read about this year. Truly epic. One question though - didn't the Chinese record a supernova in 1054? I mean, I know they had no technology like we have now, but isn't it a bit off to say this is the first time we've witnessed "the" moment? I guess it's certainly the first time we've witnessed the X-ray burst for sure. Oh well, maybe I'm splitting hairs. Simply amazing, anyway. Kudos to Bad Astronomy for explaining it, as always, in such layman's terms.
    • billbugger, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3no, because they saw the visible light. Visible light has been seen many times. What this caught was the X-ray burst... basically the actual explosion, not the aftermath (visible light spectrum).
  • uniformeddate, on 05/22/2008, -8/+0http://www.UniformedDate.com A free date place for u find ur military girl/boy
    • bbqsalad, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Oh cool thanks for the link let me just place my foot in your ass..
  • timthe1st, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2The exact moment a star explodes? You mean exactly 84million years or whatever afterward:P
    • ghoppe, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Nope. Time depends on location. Information cannot travel faster than light. To our frame of reference, it is correct to say we observed the supernova at the exact moment it exploded.

      If *our* sun were to explode *right now*, would it matter that it took the light ~8 minutes to reach us?

      • Terr01, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1You may as well say that just because you didn't get the phone call about your grandfather dying, he didn't die until you heard the news.

        Or, better yet:

        If we were looking at it at the "exact moment" it exploded, and the distance is the same, then logically that means that light from the event travelled faster than the speed of light to get to us, to the tune of at least 84-million-light-years per second.
        • Fordi, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Observed and captured the exact moment when the star exploded. Not present for it.
  • fzammetti, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1"I’ve explained before how massive stars explode. After a few million years of generating energy by fusing light elements into heavier ones..."

    I'm going to ask this instead of say it because, hell, *I* might be wrong, but isn't "a few million years" a bit off? I mean, I don't doubt there are some stars with lifespans measured in the millions of years, and I know that the more massive they are the shorter-lived they are, but is this statement not... as accurate as it could be? Shouldn't it be "a few billion years"? Especially if we're talking typical massive stars, talking in generalities, as the statement appears intended to be taken.

    Now, if I'm wrong, I'm looking forward to the opportunity to learn something :)
    • Fordi, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Nah you're right. He got the timescale all wrong. It should be on the order of tens of billions of years.
  • Enrickey, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1So I was taking a course in astrophysics this semester, and my professor claimed that "No supernova has ever been observed since the invention of the telescope." BUT THIS WAS DISCOVERED IN JANUARY. How could he lie to us like that?
    • Fordi, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Ignorance != malice. If your professor claimed that, it just means that he wasn't aware of this recent observation.

      "No supernova has ever been observed since the invention of the telescope."

      Oh, wait... the wording of that... your professor is either stupid for getting the grammar decidedly wrong, stupid for not following the last 100 years of his own field, or lying.
      • Enrickey, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1He meant that no star has never been caught in the act of supernova'ing, they've only witnessed it when it's too late to learn all the interesting stuff about the process.

        Did you honestly not notice extreme amounts of sarcasm present?
  • pershingdriver, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0Brilliant
  • billbugger, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1This may help:
    http://btc.montana.edu/ceres/html/Rare/rareearthac ...
  • Emachine, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1youtube link or it didn't happen..
  • yujie, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Whos are the parents?
  • Telvin, on 05/22/2008, -1/+0i've read that literally all the iron in the solar system, on earth, and in every one of our bodies, was created when a primordial star went supernova. that's just totally crazy, i think.
  • Fordi, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Buried as inaccurate. There's no evidence whatsoever that this 'superstar' isn't just another sequin on God's cloak.

    Digg me down if you're in on the liberal cosmos conspiracy.
  • bat-21, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Shouldn't it be death cry of a supernova?
  • foltaggio, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2NGC? OGC!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.