New Type of Supernova Detected as Black Hole Causes Star To Explode (reuters.com) 17
An anonymous reader shares a report: Astronomers have observed the calamitous result of a star that picked the wrong dance partner. They have documented what appears to be a new type of supernova, as stellar explosions are known, that occurred when a massive star tried to swallow a black hole with which it had engaged in a lengthy pas de deux.
The star, which was at least 10 times as massive as our sun, and the black hole, which had a similar mass, were gravitationally bound to one another in what is called a binary system. But as the distance separating them gradually narrowed, the black hole's immense gravitational pull appears to have distorted the star -- stretching it out from its spherical shape -- and siphoned off material before causing it to explode. An AI algorithm detected the event in real time, enabling astronomers to conduct comprehensive observations. Data from four years before the supernova showed bright emissions as the black hole consumed its companion's outer hydrogen layer. The exact mechanism remains uncertain -- either gravitational distortion triggered the star's collapse or the black hole completely tore it apart first. Following the explosion, the black hole consumed residual stellar debris, growing more massive.
The star, which was at least 10 times as massive as our sun, and the black hole, which had a similar mass, were gravitationally bound to one another in what is called a binary system. But as the distance separating them gradually narrowed, the black hole's immense gravitational pull appears to have distorted the star -- stretching it out from its spherical shape -- and siphoned off material before causing it to explode. An AI algorithm detected the event in real time, enabling astronomers to conduct comprehensive observations. Data from four years before the supernova showed bright emissions as the black hole consumed its companion's outer hydrogen layer. The exact mechanism remains uncertain -- either gravitational distortion triggered the star's collapse or the black hole completely tore it apart first. Following the explosion, the black hole consumed residual stellar debris, growing more massive.
Read what they mean, not what they write (Score:3, Funny)
Detecting the supernova as a black hole did not cause it to explode.
The blackhole caused the star to explode. Detecting it doing it was probably not the cause. Unless you apply some weird quantum interpretation of measurement causing things to happen.
Pop philosophy problem (Score:2)
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? *
* - yes.
Re: Pop philosophy problem (Score:2)
ChatGPT:
"Science fiction sometimes imagines trees in domes, on starships, or genetically engineered to live in a vacuum by sealing water inside and using artificial light.
Examples:
The domed forests in Silent Running (1972) orbiting in space.
Some depictions of Dyson trees â" hypothetical organisms that could grow in comets and produce their own pressurized environment. ...
Would a tree falling in a vacuum forest make a sound?
ChatGPT said:
No â" not in the normal sense of âoesound,â because
What they Wrote is not What you Read (Score:2)
Detecting the supernova as a black hole did not cause it to explode.
While you can interpret the headline as saying that a new type of supernova has been detected as a black hole - since a black hole is a supernova remnant - this would be the pre-cursor supernova to the one actually observed and would have be a "regular" supernova, not a new type. However, since this supernova remnant (the Black Hole) did cause a star to explode this interpretation is still close to correct.
The other possible, and correct, interpretation is that a new type of supernova has been detected
Re: (Score:1)
With such a poor command of the English language, I'd hate to read one of your books.
Furthermore, with such arrogance dismissing interesting scientific findings, I'll assume your" knowledge" is entirely constituted of trivialities anyway.
Thanks for letting everyone know what about some worthless dross to avoid, though.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing wrong with the grammar of the title. "New Type of Supernova Detected" is one clause, "as Black Hole Causes Star To Explode" is a second clause. Nothing implying that the detection cause the supernova.
Re: (Score:2)
Change 'as' to 'while' and it would not have been ambiguous.
Real time .... (Score:2)
> An AI algorithm detected the event in real time
Of course "real time" has a bit of a twist to it when you're observing something 700M light years away, in other words an event that actually happened 700M years ago, when multi-cellular life was just emerging on earth.
Re: Real time .... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't "causal ordering" (could A have caused B, per speed of light propagation effects) define a consistent and meaningful event ordering and therefore definition of simultaneity ?
Re: Real time .... (Score:2)
Not quite, because two events outside each otherâ(TM)s light cones cannot be relatively ordered this way. For such events A and B, there are frames of reference in which A was first, frames of reference in which B was first, and frames in which they were simultaneous, but none of these frames can be said to be a privileged âoecorrectâ frame.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but if we're trying to define an absolute event ordering, and concept of simultaneity, based on potential causality, rather than what different observers would see, then isn't just the spacetime location of two events enough?
In other words, for any two hypothetical events at given spacetime positions. we've got a spatial distance and a temporal distance, and we could define a "causal (time) distance" as the spatial distance divided by the speed of light (i.e. minimum time it would take for any causal
Re: (Score:3)
No different from watching anything anywhere ever. There is always a time delay between an event happening, and the signal from the event reaching us. When the delay is short and the event takes much longer to unfold we don't notice and don't feel the urge to point out the time delay in our observations as if it was a significant revelation. Within our solar system this compulsion to point out the time delay between when the observations reach us doesn't usually arise, even though it is equally valid. When
A super nova is not a big nova (Score:2)
"But as the distance separating them gradually narrowed, the black hole's immense gravitational pull appears to have distorted the star -- stretching it out from its spherical shape -- and siphoned off material before causing it to explode."
But it also said "The star, which was at least 10 times as massive as our sun, and the black hole, which had a similar mass"
So how exactly does the black hole have "immense pull" when they are the same mass? Is there a nebula of dust from the star that went black hole?
Re: A super nova is not a big nova (Score:3)
The gravity gradient (degree of warping of space) near a black holeâ(TM)s event horizon is vastly greater than the gravity gradient near (or within) an equivalent-mass star. I believe thatâ(TM)s what theyâ(TM)re talking about.
Re:A super nova is not a big nova (Score:4, Interesting)
"But as the distance separating them gradually narrowed, the black hole's immense gravitational pull appears to have distorted the star -- stretching it out from its spherical shape -- and siphoned off material before causing it to explode."
But it also said "The star, which was at least 10 times as massive as our sun, and the black hole, which had a similar mass"
So how exactly does the black hole have "immense pull" when they are the same mass? Is there a nebula of dust from the star that went black hole? "Siphoned off material.." That's a nova then, not a supernova.
Does the summary say ANYTHING that makes sense?
The immense pull comes from the tiny dimensions of the black hole -- the mass is infinitely more concentrated (about the only situation where you can use the word "infinitely" literally). This was a binary merger event, and when a black hole -- even a smaller one -- merges with another star the black hole swallows the other star. No other outcome is possible.
The merger will begin with the black hole stripping off the outer envelope of the other star, with the absorbed mass causing it to spiral in even closer to the center.
The actual article in The Astrophysical Journal [iop.org] (Slashdot seems to have a policy of only linking to popular press pieces, never original sources.)
No it is a supernova -- it brightness peak was -18.7 which is more than a Type II Supernova and close that of the brighter Type 1a. But not like any other supenova event ever seen because it had a second brightness peak almost as large: -18.5 that were 240 days apart -- the timescale for this system to finally stablilize by completing the black hole's ingestion of the remnants of the other star.
BBC radio pogramme about this story (Score:1)
Ashley Villar
So we discover about 10,000 supernovae every year right now. So we can't, in real time, do detailed investigations of exactly what's happening. So we have to pick and choose our battles. And my group takes the very specialised approach of saying, well, let's capture the most exotic physics. Often, t