Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Friday January 15 2016, @05:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the light-it-up-up-up dept.

Researchers at Ohio State University report on a [still active] supernova explosion that is brighter than any other seen before:

Right now, astronomers are viewing a ball of hot gas billions of light years away that is radiating the energy of hundreds of billions of suns. At its heart is an object a little larger than 10 miles across.

And astronomers are not entirely sure what it is.

If, as they suspect, the gas ball is the result of a supernova, then it's the most powerful supernova ever seen.

In this week's issue of the journal Science, they report that the object at the center could be a very rare type of star called a magnetar—but one so powerful that it pushes the energy limits allowed by physics.

[...] the explosion that powered ASASSN-15lh stands out for its sheer magnitude. It is 200 times more powerful than the average supernova, 570 billion times brighter than our sun, and 20 times brighter than all the stars in our Milky Way Galaxy combined.

How is this possible?

Todd Thompson, professor of astronomy at Ohio State, offered one possible explanation. The supernova could have spawned an extremely rare type of star called a millisecond magnetar, a rapidly spinning and very dense star with a very strong magnetic field.

To shine so bright, this particular magnetar would also have to spin at least 1,000 times a second, and convert all that rotational energy to light with nearly 100 percent efficiency, Thompson explained. It would be the most extreme example of a magnetar that scientists believe to be physically possible.

Additional reading: abstract.

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday January 15 2016, @05:18PM

    by isostatic (365) on Friday January 15 2016, @05:18PM (#289955) Journal

    So SPF50 then?

    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday January 15 2016, @05:29PM

      by isostatic (365) on Friday January 15 2016, @05:29PM (#289956) Journal

      My first thought with a rotating device was what about the centrifugal force (oblig [xkcd.com]), I think it would be somewhere in the region of 10^42 newtons, or in otherwords fling something off the surface at 10^11 G, and I think surface gravity would be on the order of half that.

      I'm probably just blowing hot air of course as I'm not an astrophysicist.

    • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Friday January 15 2016, @06:59PM

      by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 15 2016, @06:59PM (#289995)

      SPF 5*10^50 might be more appropriate.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by linkdude64 on Friday January 15 2016, @06:01PM

    by linkdude64 (5482) on Friday January 15 2016, @06:01PM (#289970)

    That soccer ball Chuck Norris round-house kicked out of Earth's orbit finally collided with something.

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday January 15 2016, @06:07PM

      by Bot (3902) on Friday January 15 2016, @06:07PM (#289974) Journal

      Nah.Norris didn't shout "GOAL" yet.

      --
      Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by Bot on Friday January 15 2016, @06:05PM

    by Bot (3902) on Friday January 15 2016, @06:05PM (#289973) Journal

    In the future, power companies will have mastered the technology, producing femto magnetars (nano, pico prefixes will be passé by then) that will practically achieve 100% efficiency for energy generation.
    Of course, they will not market them until they find a way to make them last no more than current light bulbs.

    --
    Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2016, @06:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2016, @06:21PM (#289981)

    Sorry that was me. I tried to be nice and get far away but..... oh well.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2016, @06:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2016, @06:40PM (#289986)

    "An artist's impression"

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2016, @06:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2016, @06:46PM (#289990)

    Sure, but have you ever been an astronomer studying what may be the most powerful supernova ever seen, on weed?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2016, @08:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2016, @08:30PM (#290017)

      No, but I did get trashed at a Holiday Inn last night.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday January 15 2016, @06:55PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Friday January 15 2016, @06:55PM (#289994)

    > astronomers are viewing a ball of hot gas billions of light years away that is radiating the energy of hundreds of billions of suns.
    > At its heart is an object a little larger than 10 miles across.
    > And astronomers are not entirely sure what it is.

    Either someone is presenting their modelization as fact, or telescopes have gotten so good we shouldn't bother to spend probes to photograph the outer planets.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2016, @08:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2016, @08:01PM (#290010)

      Yea, well. Your ma's ass is so fat when she cuts loose astronomers billions of lightyears away view a ball of hot gas radiating the energy of hundreds of billions of suns with an object a little larger than 10 miles across at the heart of it. Spend your probes on modelization of that fact.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2016, @09:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2016, @09:48PM (#290031)

      The size limit is set by the upper limit for the size of a supernova-formed neutron star or black hole. The paper goes into matching what they see to other super-luminous supernovas. If it turns out to be something more exotic, like with the galactic core or something, they'll have to wait until they can image it with Hubble because they can't see its companion galaxy with the relatively small telescopes they use for the all-sky survey.

  • (Score: 2) by inertnet on Friday January 15 2016, @07:21PM

    by inertnet (4071) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 15 2016, @07:21PM (#289998) Journal

    I was wondering if this could be the final merger of the central black holes of two colliding galaxies. Could someone please shed some light on that possibility (pun intended)? Or else explain why it can't be that.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday January 15 2016, @11:51PM

      by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Friday January 15 2016, @11:51PM (#290063) Journal

      I'm pretty sure that would create a gamma ray burst, much more energetic than what was seen here.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by driverless on Saturday January 16 2016, @04:29AM

      by driverless (4770) on Saturday January 16 2016, @04:29AM (#290128)

      “It takes a lot of energy to shine that bright, and that energy has to come from somewhere.”

      Deficit spending, and then you recover through energy credit default swaps.

  • (Score: 1) by Some call me Tim on Saturday January 16 2016, @02:57AM

    by Some call me Tim (5819) on Saturday January 16 2016, @02:57AM (#290107)

    Next show will has been an hour ago, don't be late!

    --
    Questioning science is how you do science!