Antares and supernova

[satevis]

If, for argument's sake, Antares decided to go with a big old bang, how long before we realise it's happened?

 

[satevis]

Is there, therefore, no way of telling with our super-whizz technology before then?

 

[3488]

Whatever, it would still be visible in FULL DAYLIGHT.<br /><br />Antares / Alpha Scorpii .<br /><br />Spectacular. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[satevis]

Darn, I though someone out there might have something no one else has ever come up with before. So, something in the sky, 600 years after it happens, would slowly get a bit brighter. Antares is quite big - how bright are we talking?

 

[satevis]

Darn, I though someone out there might have something no one else has ever come up with before. So, something in the sky, 600 years after it happens, would slowly get a bit brighter. Antares is quite big - how bright are we talking?

 

[satevis]

Darn, I though someone out there might have something no one else has ever come up with before. So, something in the sky, 600 years after it happens, would slowly get a bit brighter. Antares is quite big - how bright are we talking?

 

[satevis]

Oops, few too many repetitions there. Sorry. So we'd have a a highly luminous object in the sky for many many many years to come...

 

[dragon04]

Years? No... Maybe a couple months, IIRC. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[Saiph]

Well, we'd see some pretty strong indicators that it's <i>going</i> to blow up maybe months, years, or decades before. But the actual event...600 year delay to actually see it happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

600 years yes, but if it blew 599 years and 364 days ago then tomorrows the big day <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

I actually addressed this question in a book I wrote a couple years back. The star I chose was Betelgeuse and I used Sirius to illustrate the time differential.<br /><br />Using Sirius again and rounding its distance to a simple 9 light years...the explosion would probably be preceded by telltale activity and as one poster pointed out here. We would detect that activity first. So lets say we saw something unusual starting to happen tommorow. We'd know it happened in actuality...9 years ago. Then we start observing and a week later, the next sign makes itself evident and of course, we know that happened 9 years ago and so on till the big Nova blast occurs say ten weeks since the initial sign was detected. And of course, that event was 9 years prior to the day the event was witnessed here.<br /><br />If Sirius actually blew...we'd be in deep doo doo. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

Sirius A's mass isn't enough to go supernova and Sirius B (white dwarf companion) is likely too far away to accrete matter from Sirius A when it reaches it's red giant stage.<br /><br />As for stars giving us signs, I present Eta Carinae. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

I agree. I was just using it as an example. I chose Betelgeuse in my graphic novels and even there, I didn't portray it going fully nova. Eta Car is definetely a candidate and in looking at its history and Hubble images, it appeared to me that supernova events may actually be a series of blows in some cases, leading to the big one which is what I portrayed for Betelgeuse.<br /><br />Eta Car may have had a partial event during the 1830s when it became the brightest star in the night sky temporarily. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[satevis]

It just seems strange that there being 100 billion-odd stars in the M Way how come it's so rare that any blow up nearby? Nearby meaning within thousands of light years.

 

[derekmcd]

Define rare. One might consider them rare in human terms simply because they might only be witnessed once every few lifetimes. In galactic terms, however, they occur a quite a normal pace considering the age of the galaxy and our location in the galaxy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[satevis]

Makes sense. So, how accurate can someone describe what we would see here on earth if one exploded say 600 light years away. Would it (when its light hit us) grow in brightness very quickly (would we be bombarded with light) or gradually? Would we know when it was going to appear clearly in the sky?

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">Would it (when its light hit us) grow in brightness very quickly (would we be bombarded with light) or gradually?</font><br /><br />It would be recreated for our eyes at whatever rate the event occurred initially. If it took 5 seconds for a star to go from its inherent luminosity to the brightest object in the galaxy, that's how long it would take for it to happen to us observers.<br /><br />Take Eta Carinae as an example. What we observe right now is what was happening "on scene" roughly 8,000 years ago.<br /><br />The problem is that at a theorized rate of one supernova every hundred years, millenia will have to pass before we can get a reliable sample of dozens of such stars under close and constant observation before we can look at a star and even be able to give a rough guess at when it might light up the night sky.<br /><br />The short answer in the present is <b>no</b>. We won't "know" when a supernova is going to appear before it does, I think. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[Saiph]

well, we can predict when it will occur using those same signs that qso1 mentioned. but that still won't give us a "definite" answer, nor will it give us any significant forewarning (compared to the travel time of the signal).<br /><br />I mean, if it blew up 599, and 51 weeks ago, and we say, "Golly gee whilikers batman! It's acting funny, looks like it might blow up in a week" doesn't really do us any good besides planning some short term research grants. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

"<i>Golly gee whilikers batman! It's acting funny, looks like it might blow up in a week</i>"<br /><br />Should a situation like that occur... every astronomer on the planet will focus their daily attention on it.<br /><br />Problem is... there are, at a minimum, a billion stars in which to focus on.<br /><br />Gauranteed... Betleguise, Eta Car, et al... are observed daily for these very reasons. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

Satevis:<br />Makes sense. So, how accurate can someone describe what we would see here on earth if one exploded say 600 light years away.<br /><br />Me:<br />I'd say with a fairly high degree of accuracy based on what we do know about supernovas. But there will be the inevitable media peices that when written by scientists will have phrases like, "We expected this, didn't expect that"...non scientists will then reinterpret that either as full support or criticism of the scientists putting out the results of their studies.<br /><br />We might be able to say with 60-70% accuracy. OTOH, this was one reason I did a partial supernova. A partial is a concept I have'nt seen much written about. I didn't really think much about them being possible until I decided to feauture a supernova in my graphic novel. I looked into it and found Eta Carinae with its variable output over the past two centuries and wondered if Betel was doing the same or about to do the same.<br /><br />I've been use to hearing that when they blow, they blow. I began to think it depends on the star. You might have two blow at 600 Ly distant but differences in the stars will produce slightly different results. One might be a daytime viewable event and the other viewable only at night.<br /><br />Of course, I cannot answer the question any better than the professionals who work in astronomy daily, its more like I'm just putting my spin on it which is based on my observations of science and the public over the past three decades. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>