Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Youngest galactic supernova (not aliens) found

by Bad Astronomy

Reposted from:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/05/14/youngest-galactic-supernova-not-aliens-found/

Youngest galactic supernova (not aliens) found

If you're wondering what all the buzz has been about the past few days over a NASA discovery, then wait no longer. No, it's not aliens or an incoming asteroid. Instead, it's still very cool: astronomers have found the youngest supernova in the Milky Way.

First, before I explain, here's the photo of the newest galactic family member:



It kind of looks like a baby head swaddled in a blanket. Or a really bad drawing of Caesar. Anyway, seriously, this is a big deal. Why?

When a star like the Sun dies, it blows off a lot of its outer layers, leaving behind a dense hot object called a white dwarf (FYI, I have a more detailed description of all this here). If the star is binary — it has a companion — then the immense gravity of the white dwarf can draw material off its mate, and that matter will pile up on the surface of the dwarf. If enough piles up at just the right rate, it can ignite in a thermonuclear fire. This sets off a chain reaction, and the entire star self-destructs. This creates an immense amount of energy — as much energy is released every second as the Sun emits for billions of years — and an octillion tons of gas is launched violently into space at a large fraction of the speed of light.

The event is so titanic that it can be seen clear across the Universe, and of course you don't want one to happen too close*. But somewhat close is good: we can study them better.

We know how many stars like this there are in our galaxy (as well as massive stars which can also explode, although using a different mechanism), and we know roughly how long they live, so we should be able to predict how often one should go off. The answer is, about three per century, more or less.

But observationally, it's been more less than more. That is, the last one we know of that blew up in the galaxy was over 400 years ago. That's been a major pain for astronomers; statistically speaking, it's a little weird that we haven't seen one since the 1600s.

But that's changed. After searching for literally decades, astronomers have found a supernova in our galaxy! It's official name is G1.9+0.3, which doesn't exactly make your heart sing, I know. But it's very cool. It's a remnant, the expanding gaseous debris from a supernova blast. It's located very near the center of the galaxy, about 28,000 light years away, and it's only at most about 140 years old.

The false-color image above shows the remnant as seen by the orbiting Chandra X-Ray Observatory, and the ground-based Very Large (radio) Array in New Mexico. To give you a sense of scale, the object is about 13 light years across, or 80 trillion miles end-to-end. The orange crinkly stuff is extremely hot — millions of degrees hot — X-ray emitting gas, generated by vast magnetic fields in the gas. The bluer material is smoother radio wave emission also dominated by magnetic forces.

Together, they paint an interesting picture of this explosion. For one thing, it looks like a ring, or a smoke bubble. That's a clear sign that it's actually a shell of material, and not a solid sphere. A filled sphere of gas would be brightest in the middle and fainter near the edges (because we're seeing more bright material when we look through the center of a sphere as opposed to near the edge), but a shell has the opposite behavior.

For another, it's asymmetric: the gas is not expanding in a perfect sphere. Either it's slamming into gas that existed outside the star before it blew up, or the explosion wasn't perfectly spherical. That tells astronomers quite a bit about the physics of the explosion mechanism.

How do we know it's young? Ah, an excellent question! I love this part: we've seen this sucker expand!

Here are two radio images of the remnant taken 23 years apart:



See how it's gotten bigger over time? By measuring that expansion and knowing the time elapsed between the two pictures, we can extrapolate backwards to see how old the object is. If you do the math, all that gas was in one point about 140 +/- 30 years ago. That's actually an upper limit to the age: it may have been less than that, if the expansion is slowing over time due to the material slamming into gas floating in space. That's likely; that region of the galaxy is pretty thick with dust and gas.

In other words, this thing went off around the time of the American Civil War.

So that's how we know it's the youngest we've ever seen. But there's more! We know the distance to the remnant as well. The amount of dust and gas between us and it can be measured and compared to known maps of the galaxy, kind of like knowing how far away distant mountains are by the amount of haziness you see between you and them. Combining the distance with the expansion measured means we can get a real velocity for the gas, and it's a whopper: 14,000 kilometers per second, or 5% the speed of light! That's fast. The amount of energy released in a supernova is numbing.

So you may also ask, why didn't anyone see this thing when it went off? All things being equal, at that distance it should have been as bright as Venus in our skies, visible even in daylight! But all things are not equal: all the gas and dust between us and it absorb visible light, making this object almost totally invisible. It might have been visible to someone using a good telescope a century or more ago when the explosion took place, but that astronomer would have had to have been looking at just the right spot, and noticed a very faint star that wasn't there a few weeks before — and this object sits in a part of the sky loaded with faint stars. It would be like noticing a new grain of sand on the beach. Unlikely, and in fact no one did notice.

It can be seen now because we have more advanced instruments these days. X-rays and radio waves are not as affected by intervening glop in the galaxy, and pass right on through. That's why we can see it at all; even in big optical telescopes G1.9+0.3 is totally invisible.

So there you go. This object will be heavily studied now, I'm sure, because it's the youngest such explosion we can see up close. It may help us understand how white dwarfs explode, and what the environment is like near the center of the galaxy, and how gas behaves when it violently expands in such a place.

And, well, it's just cool. It's been a mystery for a long time why we haven't seen any young remnants — we expect there to be 60 of them younger than 2000 years, but only 10 are known — and now that we've seen this one we know they're out there, but really just a pain to detect. You can bet that astronomers will look even harder for more of them now that we know they exist.

Comments 1 - 36 of 36 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #180245 by Solarium Solaris on May 14, 2008 at 12:34 pm

 avatarIf they just discovered this how do they have a 25 year old image of it? Just wondering.

Other Comments by Solarium Solaris

2. Comment #180251 by phatbat on May 14, 2008 at 12:39 pm

 avatar1. Comment #180245 by Solarium Solaris

If they just discovered this how do they have a 25 year old image of it? Just wondering.


Good point. I don't know either.

Also, if it's 28,000 light years away how could anyone have seen it so soon after the event. Surely the light would take 28000 years to get here, or am i being stupid?

Other Comments by phatbat

3. Comment #180253 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 14, 2008 at 12:40 pm

 avatarPhotobucket

Especially the clarification of "Not Aliens". Thanks...big help. ;)

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

4. Comment #180255 by kram50 on May 14, 2008 at 12:41 pm

I'm not much of an astronomy buff, but I do find the subject very interesting indeed.
It truly is amazing the discoveries that have been made, and look how far we have come ...now where are the fleas?

Other Comments by kram50

5. Comment #180256 by RevJimBob on May 14, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Surely it is 28,140 years old. The light reached Earth at the time of the American Civil War, but had already been travelling for 28000 years.

Other Comments by RevJimBob

6. Comment #180259 by bluebird on May 14, 2008 at 12:50 pm

 avatar(the supernova)
"it's very cool, it's extremely hot", which is it?! :))

Delightfully enthusiastic, and informative article.

Other Comments by bluebird

7. Comment #180264 by Geodesic17 on May 14, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Like RevJimBob said, but rephrased, just add the number of light years to the estimated time of the event. The phrasing is a matter of perspective. From our perspective, it happened (became visable) about 150 years ago.

They didn't "just discover it". They just calculated the expansion from the center based off the distance the gas has traveled from the center in 23 years.

Other Comments by Geodesic17

8. Comment #180265 by ACJames on May 14, 2008 at 12:56 pm

 avatarThey had to take that second picture to measure the speed of the gases, and hence determine the age of that particular super nova.

So while they had a picture of it, they couldn't know its age until they had a second picture to compare it to. This second picture scientifically confirms its young age.

Other Comments by ACJames

9. Comment #180266 by noodly_noodleson on May 14, 2008 at 12:57 pm

RevJimBob,

No no no. God created the supernova with the light already most of the way to earth, so that the soldiers would look up into the sky and know His divine will.

Other Comments by noodly_noodleson

10. Comment #180267 by condorito on May 14, 2008 at 12:57 pm


Also, if it's 28,000 light years away how could anyone have seen it so soon after the event. Surely the light would take 28000 years to get here, or am i being stupid? "


I also feel like I'm missing somthing here.


Surely it is 28,140 years old. The light reached Earth at the time of the American Civil War, but had already been travelling for 28000 years.


I think this is it, right?

Other Comments by condorito

11. Comment #180268 by evolver23 on May 14, 2008 at 12:58 pm

I'm not positive, but perhaps the reason they have a 23 year old picture of it is because telescopes were scanning the sky 23 years ago as they do today, taking pictures of deep space as they went, but there were way too many photos for humans to individually examine (kind of like why thousands of users are helping galaxy zoo find interesting galactic bodies). Then, when someone finally viewed this and knew the exact coordinates, they could look back at past photos of the same coordinate that had always been there but never previously seen by human eyes.

Other Comments by evolver23

12. Comment #180270 by Tezcatlipoca on May 14, 2008 at 1:01 pm

 avatarI think they had a discussion over at bad astronomy on why it is correct to say it happened 140 years ago as oppossed to saying 28140 years ago in the comments section of the article. Something to do with einsteinian vs newtonian physics or sumpin'

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

13. Comment #180271 by Geodesic17 on May 14, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Evolver23,

I don't know. But if you read the article, they couldn't date the event without a second photo to calculate the rate of change in the distribution of gas.

Other Comments by Geodesic17

14. Comment #180279 by Solarium Solaris on May 14, 2008 at 1:33 pm

 avatarGeodesic, I don't think you understood me. Are you saying that astronomers always knew this supernova was there but just now found out its age?

The way I took the article was that astronomers just became aware that this supernova exists. So if they only recently discovered its existence, how do they have an old image of it?

Other Comments by Solarium Solaris

15. Comment #180287 by rod-the-farmer on May 14, 2008 at 1:48 pm

 avatar140 years, see, I told you the universe and the earth were only 6,000 light years old. (sarcasm off)

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

16. Comment #180291 by Geodesic17 on May 14, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Solarium,

That is a good question. I don't know. Either they had the picture and just started looking at it, or they "just discovered that it is the oldest". The language used here should be cleared up.

Other Comments by Geodesic17

17. Comment #180295 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 2:02 pm

 avatarVery cool.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

18. Comment #180300 by RevJimBob on May 14, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Iain M Banks in Look to Windward (I think)plays with the idea of light from an exploding sun taking millennia to reach a distant star and the fact that the Culture have faster than light travel - the locals wait for the light to reach them knowing the war which created the explosion ended millennia ago.

Other Comments by RevJimBob

19. Comment #180307 by BNCbright on May 14, 2008 at 2:33 pm

 avatarCould someone please give me a very quick physics 101 on the following quotation:

"When a star like the Sun dies, it blows off a lot of its outer layers, leaving behind a dense hot object called a white dwarf. If the star is binary then the immense gravity of the white dwarf can draw material off its mate, and that matter will pile up on the surface of the dwarf."

I thought that the gravity of an object was proportional to its mass. If a star throws off it's outer layers, then surely it's mass decreases. How therefore does it's gravitational force increase (i.e. how is it now able to pull matter off it's mate when it wasn't previously, when it had less mass).

If someone could please give a quick explanation on where my (limited!) understanding is flawed I'd be very grateful.

Cheers,

BNC

Other Comments by BNCbright

20. Comment #180310 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 2:37 pm

 avatarBNCbright-

stars are balanced between the expansive effect of the fusion and the contracting gravitational effect of its mass. With the outer burning layers blown off, the inner layers are cooler, and gravity wins the battle. It collapses inwards. The key thing is the star becomes very dense as the matter is compacted around the core. That's why neutron stars (for instance) have savage gravity when they are comparatively small.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

21. Comment #180344 by BNCbright on May 14, 2008 at 4:14 pm

 avatarQuetzal-

Thankyou for that answer, but I'm still confused; I understand why the star becomes denser as a result of blowing off outer layers (now), but there is still no more mass; does gravity increase for a given mass as that mass gets denser? I.e. does a Neutron star have a stronger gravitational force than a 'normal', larger star of the same mass?

BNC

Other Comments by BNCbright

22. Comment #180348 by Rational_G on May 14, 2008 at 4:30 pm

 avatarThe explosion happened 28,140 years ago.

Since the star is approximately 28,000 light years away - the light from the explosion took 28,000 years to arrive here. This arrival occurred about 140 years ago. So the initial "boom" was visible (with the right instruments) from Earth starting 140 years ago. What we see now is how it looked 140 years after the explosion- which makes it the youngest (least time after the explosion) of any supernova remnant in the Milky Way galaxy.

I suspect the Chandra X Ray telescope found it - and its location matched up with radio VLA images - they went back and retrieved the 25 year old radio data - since now they know what it is!

Other Comments by Rational_G

23. Comment #180352 by Rawhard Dickins on May 14, 2008 at 4:36 pm

 avatarPaah! This news is 28000 years old!

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

24. Comment #180376 by HeathenAngel on May 14, 2008 at 5:30 pm

 avatarHar har. ;P

I have saved the pic to my hd, hope no one minds.. and it is now replacing my "House" wallpaper for a time. It is an awesome (using the original meaning of the word "awesome"--thank you Eddie Izzard) thing to see.

Other Comments by HeathenAngel

25. Comment #180392 by T4Baxter on May 14, 2008 at 7:18 pm

"does gravity increase for a given mass as that mass gets denser?"

Yes it does, the same amount of mass of higher density (taking up less 'space') has a greater effect on the curvature of space time, gravity is relative to the geometry of space.

Other Comments by T4Baxter

26. Comment #180394 by mesomodel on May 14, 2008 at 7:29 pm

 avatar

"does gravity increase for a given mass as that mass gets denser?"

Yes it does, the same amount of mass of higher density (taking up less 'space') has a greater effect on the curvature of space time, gravity is relative to the geometry of space.

You need to define what you mean by gravity. Gravitational attraction is strictly a function of mass not density, as given by the universal law of gravitation:

Force = GmM/r^2, where G is the universal gravitation constant, m and M are the two masses with mutual attraction, and r is the distance between them.

The gravitation of a neutron star is the same as the star prior to collapse as long as the mass remains the same. The neutron star is much more dense, having more mass packed into a smaller space, and will generally have slightly less mass due to blow-off during collapse.

However, since you can get close to a neutron star (before going into it), the distance r can be smaller than for a regular star. This causes the gravitational force at the surface to be larger for the neutron star. Usually "gravity" refers to the gravitational force at the surface.

Other Comments by mesomodel

27. Comment #180402 by Rational_G on May 14, 2008 at 7:51 pm

 avatarGravity does not increase for a given mass as it gets denser. A sphere of mass M has the same gravitational force no matter the size of the sphere. If the mass is the same, the force only depends on your distance from the center of the sphere.

So the white dwarf doesn't attract mass any greater than before if the mass didn't change.

It may slowly accrete mass from a companion however, since it is no longer a star with an active stellar wind and especially if the companion starts belching out its own mass. The white dwarf is composed entirely of degenerate electrons, and if it starts accreting mass, once it gets more mass than the "Chandrashakar limit". it'll blow. It is because all white dwarfs blow up just as they reach this limit, they blow up in a consistent manner with consistent brightness, making them excellent "standard candles" for distance measurements which helps calibrate the cosmic expansion rate which tells us the universe is accelerating!

The Chandra x ray telescope which discovered this object is named after Chandrashakar. These white dwarf supernova are called Type 1A

Other Comments by Rational_G

28. Comment #180427 by LeeC on May 14, 2008 at 10:08 pm

 avatarThat's a cool picture of a SNR

Other Comments by LeeC

29. Comment #180428 by mesomodel on May 14, 2008 at 10:13 pm

 avatarRational_G

Gravity does not increase for a given mass as it gets denser. A sphere of mass M has the same gravitational force no matter the size of the sphere. If the mass is the same, the force only depends on your distance from the center of the sphere.

So the white dwarf doesn't attract mass any greater than before if the mass didn't change.


Again, I think you need to define what you mean by gravity. If you mean surface gravity, then it does increase, because the star has shrunk, and the distance r is smaller. Thus, any mass that falls on the surface from a companion star will experience a stronger gravitational force than when the star was larger.

I agree that it won't gravitationally attract mass any differently than before, but since the neutron star is smaller in size, it will hold onto the mass it does attract due to stronger surface gravity.

Other Comments by mesomodel

30. Comment #180469 by Ygern on May 15, 2008 at 3:30 am

Links to older pictures (1985)
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2008/g19/more.html

NASA's Chandra site article on the story
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/photos08-062.html

Other Comments by Ygern

31. Comment #180472 by MAVERICKMAN on May 15, 2008 at 3:50 am

 avatarYou can find all the answers to your questions about the above article here --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova

Other Comments by MAVERICKMAN

32. Comment #180474 by Konradius on May 15, 2008 at 3:57 am

I am reminded in this thread of the old joke of a museum attendant who told of a dinosaur that it was 70,000,007 years old.
"Well, they told me it was 70 million years old when I started working here 7 years ago".

Obviously the 28000 lightyears is an approximation and could be 27500 or 28500, losing the 140 years in the deviation.

On the other hand as I understand it, for the light itself no time has passed in transit. (As light travels at the speed of light time is slowed to a full stop)

Other Comments by Konradius

33. Comment #180476 by bluebird on May 15, 2008 at 4:00 am

 avatarNASA has E newsletters; they arrive 2-3 times a week:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/14may_galactichunt.htm?list1083504

Other Comments by bluebird

34. Comment #180483 by Azven on May 15, 2008 at 4:54 am

 avatarI remember Isaac Asimov calculating that there ought to be 3 [visible] supernovas in our galaxy every thousand years, and commenting that, in the last thousand years, all three had occured before the invention of the telescope.

Now this is a very old calculation and it's pretty near certain that his assumptions have changed, but what ever the figure, isn't it a shame that our Victorian antecedents missed another one just because of a bit of dust?

Other Comments by Azven

35. Comment #180655 by rwrjunior on May 15, 2008 at 1:08 pm

http://news.ncsu.edu/news/2008/05/084-tpreynolds.php

Here's a link to the original press release from the university in North Carolina where the researcher did his work.

Other Comments by rwrjunior

36. Comment #180709 by chuckgoecke on May 15, 2008 at 3:30 pm

 avatarI think the coolest thing about these super novae is how they pert-abate the surrounding clouds of gas and dust, blowing some areas clean, and piling stuff up in others, almost like a wind does to dust in the desert. Where the stuff piles up, new solar nebula start forming, and the asymmetrical movements within it get amplified by the ensuing gravitational condensation, and it starts to rotate. Pretty soon, there is a new star and bright shiny new planets!

Other Comments by chuckgoecke
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: