Astronomers discover a new kind of supernovaMarch 26, 2013

Mar 26, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Astronomy

This artist's conception shows the suspected progenitor of a new kind of supernova called type Iax.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 12 of12

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

Nuneaton

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Mar 27, 2013
 
Appears to be a description of a class of Nova.

He shell flashes of Novae should be rarer than H shell flashes but the result should be similar as the nuclear runaway occurring in the shell starts at a higher density and temperature and lofts the outer parts of the star off the surface forming a nebula.

May be similar to the slow novae occurring in low mass white dwarves and symbiotic stars where they are being dumped on by the red giant companion. R Aquarii may have prevuiously been a nova of this type.

It now is a Mira star and accreting hot WD surrounded by an interesting nebula.

More interesting would be supernovae produced by accretion of mass onto a massive O Ne Mg white dwarf orbited by a B type companion such as the WD in the Phi persei system. A WD core collapse ignition type 1 supernova in this case would be fainter than usual as it's core contains no C.

Have a nice day: Ag
SUPERTRAMP

Hurricane, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Apr 6, 2013
 
Adrian Godsafe MSc wrote:
Appears to be a description of a class of Nova.
He shell flashes of Novae should be rarer than H shell flashes but the result should be similar as the nuclear runaway occurring in the shell starts at a higher density and temperature and lofts the outer parts of the star off the surface forming a nebula.
May be similar to the slow novae occurring in low mass white dwarves and symbiotic stars where they are being dumped on by the red giant companion. R Aquarii may have prevuiously been a nova of this type.
It now is a Mira star and accreting hot WD surrounded by an interesting nebula.
More interesting would be supernovae produced by accretion of mass onto a massive O Ne Mg white dwarf orbited by a B type companion such as the WD in the Phi persei system. A WD core collapse ignition type 1 supernova in this case would be fainter than usual as it's core contains no C.
Have a nice day: Ag
What do you think dark energy is comprised of? Is it antimatter or an undiscovered class of exotic particles? 1089

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

Nuneaton

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Apr 8, 2013
 
SUPERTRAMP wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think dark energy is comprised of? Is it antimatter or an undiscovered class of exotic particles? 1089
Probably a ptolemaic epicycle as a result of a math model not in tune with the reality of the situation.

Note for example: The big bang theory is based on creationism of Judeo christian type (as in universe as ordained by god). What is actually seen is a time view rather than an expanding sphere, sadly einsteinian spactime involves a distortion of time by mass (whoops).
Note for other example: another view of the "Big Bang" involves the brane universe (as in cypress hill) in which case the event horizon @ time zero is rather bigger than a small dot, and we see with increasing time an ever increasing view of the event horizon inner edge as time goes on (our view of the big bang is then actually a big crunch).
For 3rd example: any result including a "big bang" will result in oscillations resulting in domains of matter, and antimatter. This will of course create interesting results as the brightest part of the "first light" image of the CMB will in that case be areas (now voids) where matter & antimatter contents are equal(!).

Appears that the universal scale astronomy requires a Copernican review. This is likely to involve factoring in quantum effects which play merry hell with classical physics on small timescales and small lengths of space & time. With that done a lot of the epicycles now present in the math will likely disappear.

Have a nice day: Ag
SUPERTRAMP

Hurricane, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Apr 8, 2013
 
This might appear as a stupid question but have you ever grown roses? When you go to dead head them you cut below the spent blooms. They then bud out again by multiplying.I've often wondered if all matter does likewise. Thus, the multi universe theory where one gives rise to two, two to four, four to eight. Im new at this , keep it in simple terms if you dont mind sharing you knowledge.

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

Nuneaton

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Apr 10, 2013
 
SUPERTRAMP wrote:
This might appear as a stupid question but have you ever grown roses? When you go to dead head them you cut below the spent blooms. They then bud out again by multiplying.I've often wondered if all matter does likewise. Thus, the multi universe theory where one gives rise to two, two to four, four to eight. Im new at this , keep it in simple terms if you dont mind sharing you knowledge.
Probably not a rose but nice ref to the Dark tower novels of Sai King.

Have a nice day: Ag
THE LAST WARRIOR POET

Hurricane, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Apr 10, 2013
 
Adrian Godsafe MSc wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably not a rose but nice ref to the Dark tower novels of Sai King.
Have a nice day: Ag
Do you think string theory is valid or is it a half hearted attempt to bring gravity into the g.u.t.? What exactly is gravity as far as trying to envision it ?

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

Nuneaton

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Apr 15, 2013
 
THE LAST WARRIOR POET wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think string theory is valid or is it a half hearted attempt to bring gravity into the g.u.t.? What exactly is gravity as far as trying to envision it ?
Difficult to say.

String theory appears to be an attempt to run a quantum mechanical model. One item of note for particles in quantum mechanics is that particles are also waves which hold mass in the waveform (under E=M*c^2) This interesting equation also implies that photons are NOT massless, but have a mass equivalent to a 2D object rather than a 3D one, with the e(M equivalent) held in the wavelength.

The result of applying a mass bound in a waveform is that particle-antiparticle annihilation results from a cancelling out of the binding waveform in which the m contained in the particles becomes E, which then radiates out as photons and probably also neutrinos, which appear to have a larger net mass than a photon and a very similar waveform.

The bit that bakes everybody's noodle is that photons appear to communicate with the electroweak force, and neutrinos appear to communicate with the strong nuclear force, and appear to have 3 forms rather than just the one with them alternating between the 3 types. To add some cheese to the noodles the neutrino flavours may have something to do with the fact that there are 3 types of leptons of increasing mass and also 3 types of quarks of increasing mass.

Problem with string theory is its prediction that the lowest energy objects in the universe should decay into smaller particles. In reality this does not happen because to become smaller particles, energy needs to be added. This is especially true in the case of protons, predicted to spontaneously decay into pions by kicking out one of its quarks. The result would have far higher energy than the initial protons so as a result the proton decay is not seen and the universe (in our locality), is full of them.

The other problem with string theory is that it does not limit itself to low mass objects. Result in that case would be a universe populated with supermassive black holes & lots of debris left over. Practical views on the matter show that Black holes grow in situ in dense star clusters and match the size of the containing galaxy unless the galaxy has been stripped in a large cluster by a high speed interpenetrating collision. String theory does not also explain the edge effects surrounding both event horizons (the black hole behaves in similar manner to a giant baryon and has nuclear decay modes to match), and the edges of the particle waves of both individual particles and also atoms (clusters of particles of lower energy than the sum of the individual particles).

Seems to be a nice idea but does not appear to match up to the guts of the universe per se.

Have a nice day: Ag

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

Nuneaton

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Apr 15, 2013
 
THE LAST WARRIOR POET wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think string theory is valid or is it a half hearted attempt to bring gravity into the g.u.t.? What exactly is gravity as far as trying to envision it ?
Gravity is a different question.

It does not appear to be a feature of any strings and is instead a feature of the M.

As E=M*C^2 and the mass/energy of physics is conserved, mass condenses and photons & neutrinos radiate. The overall M in these reactions remains the same. ie. annihilate an electron and a positron & the result is 2 gamma rays of equal energy to the mass of the original particles. The mass is not lost, and is now E.

Another noodle baker is that a gamma ray equivalent in mass to an electron or positron may become an electron or positron in conditions where an electron or positron is locally missing @ the time.

This is one of the fun bits that indicates that photons have a mass equivalent.

This fact of conservation of M & E indicates that gravity will have a major effect in the universe as a whole despite at the quantum level the effects being negligible, and despite the fact that initial annihilation of particles with equivalent antiparticles gave a rather bright albeit redshifted background glow on the inside edge of our time bubble view.

Cramming gravity into quantum mechanics is very difficult. The big problem is that gravity will redshift photons which are our measuring yardstick, and gravity depends on M which may definitely NOT be things that we would expect (see the noodle baking bit above). The other problem is that as photons are affected by quantum mechanics a fair quantity of the increase in redshift with distance may have nothing at all to do with mass and instead be an entanglement at quantum level with either the electro weak force carrier that emitted the photon, OR an interaction with another photon that got in the way of the one we see at the detector. For the real teethgrinder bit we may in fact get BOTH at the same time.

This bit needs sorting out before the math curve of redshift gets plugged in. Currently the universe exponential math curve (either big bang(slowing expansion) or Membrane(increasing condensation), is in danger of becoming a flat constant, as a result of the math and the mass associated with the galactic and quantum levels.

As for mass; An expanding universe according to a redshift should evaporate galaxy clusters as they will all fly out in spiral orbits and miss each other. In reality at all levels and distances, precisely the opposite effect is seen and the galaxies tend to be condensing into large clusters and eventually pile up into a big bugger right in the middle (the cD). Even the local group appears subject to condensation into a single object.

It appears that the math model is wrong, hence the review requirement.

Have a nice day: Ag
THE LAST WARRIOR POET

Hurricane, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Apr 15, 2013
 
Ever thought of publishing a book? I'd buy it.
I like your approach. As a matter of fact i've always felt there's been a need to introduce high school students to this field of study. This is where the future lies in science and most havent a clue. Even teachers are at a loss when it comes to teaching it. It should be made a mandatory and separate part of high school curriculum across the nation instead of being a part of general science.

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

Nuneaton

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Apr 17, 2013
 
THE LAST WARRIOR POET wrote:
Ever thought of publishing a book? I'd buy it.
I like your approach. As a matter of fact i've always felt there's been a need to introduce high school students to this field of study. This is where the future lies in science and most havent a clue. Even teachers are at a loss when it comes to teaching it. It should be made a mandatory and separate part of high school curriculum across the nation instead of being a part of general science.
There have been several books written on the subject already, hence the proliferation of models based on either the large, or small aspects of the cosmological results.

The result leaves a plethora of different models which turn out to be extraordinarily useful in producing hiit series sci fi novels & TV shows but when looked at closely have no bearing on other aspects of cosmology per se.

In large part the situation has become so disjointed that the result fails to explain some interesting results visible in the sky @ large. For example the galaxy in the avatar pic was initially an E0 giant elliptical galaxy formed from the collision & merger of 2 giant galaxies in the early history of the local area.
The current shape (an Sa spiral about to become an Sab spiral with external & internal spiral arms), is a result of an effect of quantum mechanics applied to the supermassive black hole in the middle via math from Stephen hawking.
The initially formed from increment supermassive black hole has a low precession rate as a result of the merger of the 2 original core supermassive black holes of the initial galaxies. The interesting bit however is the quantum mechanic aspects resulting in Hawking radiation & also the spin of the black hole. The result is an event horizon surrounded by a huge number of particles & anti particles resulting from quantum mechanical effects coupled with the quantum waveform of the event horizon itself @ the planck temperature with the result that the black hole behaves as a giant baryon & undergoes nuclear decay modes via both strong & electroweak nuclear forces. The result is the classic hawking radiation around a black hole event horizon. The mode of formation of the black hole is that it rotates @ or very close to c. The result is that the particles & radiation produced by hawking radiation zips around the black hole prograde to spin before dropping back into the event horizon & stirring the pot.

The result is a ferocious prograde to spin dynamo magnetic field (which, very close to the event horizon produces a prograde accretion disc), which at distance produces a VERY STRONG drag & spin effect on gas, dust, ions & plasma which is dragged prograde to the spin of the black hole. The result is that outside of the black hole the gravitational effects & drag & spin effects of orbiting gas & dust results in condensation into an equatorial drag & spin disc where new stars form equatorial to the black hole and locked to its precession rate. This disc only thickens into a ring (that pretty black bar) where the drag & spin effect peters out & the gravity of the surrounds takes over. In the Sombrero galaxy (M104) that distance is an approximate diameter of 50,000 light years for a black hole of 980 million solar masses. Since stars are ALSO made of ionised plasma, the stars in prograde orbit within the drag & spin radius have their orbits circularised. Those stars in retrograde orbits within the drag & spin radius have momentum removed from their orbits and eventually drop into the black hole in the core. The effect is of course strongest @ the equator & weakest @ the pole.
The drag & spin effect which is a natural result of Hawking radiation around black holes has as a result turned an original E0 giant elliptical galaxy back into a spiral with a lenticular stellar distribution. This has been staring astronomers in the face since black holes were initially characterised and nobody has seen fit to recognise it yet.

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

Nuneaton

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Apr 17, 2013
 
That above charming treatise explains why in large part there has NOT been a unifying book on the subject of cosmology. ie. not all of the effects have actually been discovered & characterised yet.

The result is currently a series of models very close to those of ancient religions explaining aspects such as the sky & things in it; (some make real fun reading & are as captivating as a good sci fi novel, some of the cosmological models are equally fun reading...).

The absence of teaching a single cosmological model in school is a singularly very bad idea as a result of there being...

a): Rather a lot of them to choose from (with musical accompaniment to suit).

b): A serious problem in the fact that the universally taught model of cosmology may be dead flat wrong (very likely).

c): religious wars breaking out over which happens to be the best cosmological model; (results being a punch up, the TOE going in hard, GUTs everywhere, and lots of blue lights turning up. Obviously it would be a high energy event, and a few of the participants will spend time in a hole.

We have had a major problem with religion in science already (there may be intelligent design but in large part it applies to electronic tech & engineering rather than religion).

Thus far; the best bit to do in teaching is to concentrate on the obvious bits, and quote the problems when it comes to edge effects @ the margins. This is especially so when it comes to cosmology as the bits happening @ great distance are as easy to explain @ characterise as the bits happening @ particle level such as in chemistry (molecular & ionic bonding) & nuclear energy levels in atoms.

My result has been to apply the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle" to all of the effects around the edges until proven otherwise (such as in the interesting bit with M104). This results in a distinct uncertainty over whether something in the models is actually right, and also whether that something is what has actually been described.

This approach has led to a few interesting side effects; ie. the classical Communists AND the tel-evangelists have as a result been screwed up & thrown in the same bin, as also have the national socialists. Ho Hum... That's humans for you, the possibility of intelligent life on Earth is ALSO subject to the same uncertainty principle.
My mention of it here is the tailoring of their model into cosmology (The communists preferring a steady state with all in order, the Tel Evangelists wanting a big bang as ordained by God, and the National socialists wanting a big crunch in a universe of empty space with bits in surrounded by rock (reports state there is an bloody great big tree in there somewhere).
Obviously somebody is wrong out of those three.

UNtil there is actually a consensus of opinion on all the science papers so far (several different models in use already) the result should remain general science.

Since I am not actually doing anything & the moment I would be perfectly happy to act as a referee to stop the punch up getting out of hand...

Oops, almost forgot...

The drag & spin effect of black holes such as has been seen in the Avatar pic has been seen in many other aspects and the only variation has been the size of the black hole involved & its rate of precession.
cD galaxies in the core of galaxy clusters have an always polar set of radio jets when they are being dumped on by stars and the central black hole gets the munchies. The drag & spin effect is the reason for this always polar jet production, the orientation of which only changes after collision with another black hole.
Small core black holes in galaxies such as our own precess in all 3 axes (disco mode), as an echo of their formation. Unmerged black holes in giant galaxies continue to precess & the precession & drag & spin funnels material into the black hole resulting in periodic quasar activity (NGC 5128).

These effects can be seen over large distances & times from radio views.

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

Nuneaton

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Apr 17, 2013
 
That should just about sum up the state of affairs.

It makes sci fi reading & researching ancient history real fun & games (real fun stories). Sorting out the truth from the fiction is in some cases a real challenge.

A good example being the Atlantis story, which was a minoan town (they called themselves something different according to Egyptian script), built on a regrowth lava dome complex in the caldera of Thera volcano. The volcano had another catastrophic eruption around 1650BC and sunk the town & the bulk of inhabitants under a new caldera topped by densely welded rhyodacite tuff, and outer towns on the flanks buried by pumice and outflow ash flow tuffs totalling about 65Km3. The result producing major tsunami of Krakatau type, the destruction of the minoan civilisation on Crete, and an island unreachable for decades due to rafts of floating pumice eroded off the shoreline.

The Minoans during the collapse had a temple excavated and a human sacrifice victim was found in it, along with a priest & offering bowl flattened & forgotten by a cave in during a large earthquake.
For students of ancient religion it appears to have something to do with the ending of the worship of Cronos & the advent of the worship of Jove (a Mycaenian God adopted by the Greeks). The appearance of a Poseidonic trident symbol also appears to be Mycaenian in origin and was carved into the double axe head symbol of Minoan times.
The Greek gods of the legends appear to date back to both Minoan & Mycaenian times and were adopted by the later Greeks (& then renamed by the Romans to further confuse issues). Many of these ancient world gods were also present in the mideast adding to lots of confusion with monotheic practitioners in the fertile crescent.

The island is currently listed as Santorini (the ancient greeks called it Thera (beast, the 'a' on the end probably indicates it was female).

A substantial amount of Americans in particular still believe Atlantis to be a large landmass formerly positioned in Mid Atlantic, despite the story being local Greek city state in origin.
A substantial amount of (and in many cases the same Americans) still worship one of the ancient greek pantheon gods adopted by a monotheistic religion in the mideast (possibly more than one).

Result is a bloody good story, but the truth bit is not easy to see at first glance.

That is why Cosmology in particular should remain general science, and also why religious education should go in the same generality bin as a result of the same problems and the same trouble caused by the edge effects.

Have a nice day: Ag

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 12 of12
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••