Starship Asterisk*

neufer wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:09 am

XgeoX wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:38 pm

11211 is a Composite Number and can be factored by any of the following numbers.

All the factors of 11211 :
1, 3, 37, 101, 111, 303, 3737, 11211

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculat ... ulator.php

Warning: it is very addictive!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_prime wrote:
<<Sexy primes are prime numbers that differ from each other by 6.

• Sexy primes below 500 are:
  
  (5,11), (7,13), (11,17), (13,19), (17,23), (23,29), (31,37), (37,43), (41,47), (47,53), (53,59), (61,67), (67,73), (73,79), (83,89), (97,103), (101,107), (103,109), (107,113), (131,137), (151,157), (157,163), (167,173), (173,179), (191,197), (193,199), (223,229), (227,233), (233,239), (251,257), (257,263), (263,269), (271,277), (277,283), (307,313), (311,317), (331,337), (347,353), (353,359), (367,373), (373,379), (383,389), (433,439), (443,449), (457,463), (461,467).

As of October 2019, the largest-known pair of sexy primes was found by P. Kaiser and has 50,539 digits. The primes are:

• p = (520461 × 2⁵⁵⁹³¹+1) × (98569639289 × (520461 × 2⁵⁵⁹³¹-1)²-3)-1
  
  p+6 = (520461 × 2⁵⁵⁹³¹+1) × (98569639289 × (520461 × 2⁵⁵⁹³¹-1)²-3)+5

...............................................................
Sexy primes can be extended to larger constellations.

E.g., triplets of primes (p, p+6, p+12) such that p+18 is composite are called sexy prime triplets.

• Sexy prime triplets below 1,000 are:
  
  (7,13,19), (17,23,29), (31,37,43), (47,53,59), (67,73,79), (97,103,109), (101,107,113), (151,157,163), (167,173,179), (227,233,239), (257,263,269), (271,277,283), (347,353,359), (367,373,379), (557,563,569), (587,593,599), (607,613,619), (647,653,659), (727,733,739), (941,947,953), (971,977,983).

in December Norman Luhn & Gerd Lamprecht & Norman Luhn set a record for the largest-known sexy prime triplet with 10,602 digits:

• p = 2683143625525 x 2³⁵¹⁷⁶+1.
  p+6 = 2683143625525 x 2³⁵¹⁷⁶+7.
  p+12 = 2683143625525 x 2³⁵¹⁷⁶+13.

>>

XgeoX wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:38 pm

11211 is a Composite Number and can be factored by any of the following numbers.

All the factors of 11211 :
1, 3, 37, 101, 111, 303, 3737, 11211

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculat ... ulator.php

Warning: it is very addictive!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_prime wrote:
<<Sexy primes are prime numbers that differ from each other by 6.

• Sexy primes below 500 are:
  
  (5,11), (7,13), (11,17), (13,19), (17,23), (23,29), (31,37), (37,43), (41,47), (47,53), (53,59), (61,67), (67,73), (73,79), (83,89), (97,103), (101,107), (103,109), (107,113), (131,137), (151,157), (157,163), (167,173), (173,179), (191,197), (193,199), (223,229), (227,233), (233,239), (251,257), (257,263), (263,269), (271,277), (277,283), (307,313), (311,317), (331,337), (347,353), (353,359), (367,373), (373,379), (383,389), (433,439), (443,449), (457,463), (461,467).

As of October 2019, the largest-known pair of sexy primes was found by P. Kaiser and has 50,539 digits. The primes are:

• p = (520461 × 2⁵⁵⁹³¹+1) × (98569639289 × (520461 × 2⁵⁵⁹³¹-1)²-3)-1
  
  p+6 = (520461 × 2⁵⁵⁹³¹+1) × (98569639289 × (520461 × 2⁵⁵⁹³¹-1)²-3)+5

...............................................................
Sexy primes can be extended to larger constellations.

E.g., triplets of primes (p, p+6, p+12) such that p+18 is composite are called sexy prime triplets.

• Sexy prime triplets below 1,000 are:
  
  (7,13,19), (17,23,29), (31,37,43), (47,53,59), (67,73,79), (97,103,109), (101,107,113), (151,157,163), (167,173,179), (227,233,239), (257,263,269), (271,277,283), (347,353,359), (367,373,379), (557,563,569), (587,593,599), (607,613,619), (647,653,659), (727,733,739), (941,947,953), (971,977,983).

in December Norman Luhn & Gerd Lamprecht & Norman Luhn set a record for the largest-known sexy prime triplet with 10,602 digits:

• p = 2683143625525 x 2³⁵¹⁷⁶+1.
  p+6 = 2683143625525 x 2³⁵¹⁷⁶+7.
  p+12 = 2683143625525 x 2³⁵¹⁷⁶+13.

>>

Ann wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:08 am

Irregular galaxy UGC 12682. Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA.

---

Very good to hear that you are feeling better, Johnny! Then you may be up for this: A "failed supernova" that just may have been something in between a classical nova, where only the newly accreted material on the surface of a white dwarf is blown off, and a type Ia supernova, in which the entire white dwarf annihilates itself.

ESA/Hubble wrote:

In November 2008, 14-year-old Caroline Moore from New York discovered a supernova in UGC 12682. This made her the youngest person at the time to have discovered a supernova. Follow-up observations by professional astronomers of the so-called SN 2008ha showed that it was peculiarly interesting in many different ways: its host galaxy UGC 12682 rarely produces supernovae. It is one of the faintest supernovae ever observed and after the explosion it expanded very slowly, suggesting that the explosion did not release copious amounts of energy as usually expected.

Astronomers have now classified SN 2008ha as a subclass of a Type Ia supernova, which is the explosion of a white dwarf that hungrily accretes matter from a companion star. SN 2008ha may have been the result of a partially failed supernova, explaining why the explosion failed to decimate the whole star.

So SN 2008ha may have been an explosion where a part of the white dwarf was destroyed, but not all of it. Very interesting, if you ask me!

Ann

Ann wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:47 pm I think of it like this. A white dwarf is made of prime fuel. Well, not prime fuel, because only hydrogen is prime fuel, and most white dwarfs are made of helium, carbon and oxygen. (I think.)

So a white dwarf is not made of prime fuel, but "good enough fuel".

Weigh a white dwarf down more than its electron degeneracy can bear, and it will ignite. And then, all that good enough fuel will go ka-poof!!!!

Ann

Hey, I like the number of this post. I missed my 11111th post, but a post number 11211 is not bad, either.

Is it a prime number?

11211 is a Composite Number and can be factored by any of the following numbers.

All the factors of 11211 :
1, 3, 37, 101, 111, 303, 3737, 11211

ESA/Hubble wrote:

In November 2008, 14-year-old Caroline Moore from New York discovered a supernova in UGC 12682. This made her the youngest person at the time to have discovered a supernova. Follow-up observations by professional astronomers of the so-called SN 2008ha showed that it was peculiarly interesting in many different ways: its host galaxy UGC 12682 rarely produces supernovae. It is one of the faintest supernovae ever observed and after the explosion it expanded very slowly, suggesting that the explosion did not release copious amounts of energy as usually expected.

Astronomers have now classified SN 2008ha as a subclass of a Type Ia supernova, which is the explosion of a white dwarf that hungrily accretes matter from a companion star. SN 2008ha may have been the result of a partially failed supernova, explaining why the explosion failed to decimate the whole star.

Ann wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 7:30 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 7:11 pm
Yeah, perhaps it’s still all (and only) about the mass. And perhaps also the accretion rate, since I don’t think of gas accreting in discrete gobs, but in a continual process. I still need to read up on all this stuff, but not today since I’m running on literally zero sleep after an emergency molar tooth extraction late yesterday. Kept fearing I would bleed to death in my sleep, which kept me from falling to it (sleep , that is). TMI?

Sounds pretty awful. Hope you'll have a good night's sleep and feel better tomorrow.

Ann

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 7:11 pm
Yeah, perhaps it’s still all (and only) about the mass. And perhaps also the accretion rate, since I don’t think of gas accreting in discrete gobs, but in a continual process. I still need to read up on all this stuff, but not today since I’m running on literally zero sleep after an emergency molar tooth extraction late yesterday. Kept fearing I would bleed to death in my sleep, which kept me from falling to it (sleep , that is). TMI?

Ann wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:44 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:21 pm

Ann wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:47 pm I think of it like this. A white dwarf is made of prime fuel. Well, not prime fuel, because only hydrogen is prime fuel, and most white dwarfs are made of helium, carbon and oxygen. (I think.)

So a white dwarf is not made of prime fuel, but "good enough fuel".

Weigh a white dwarf down more than its electron degeneracy can bear, and it will ignite. And then, all that good enough fuel will go ka-poof!!!!

Ann

Hey, I like the number of this post. I missed my 11111th post, but a post number 11211 is not bad, either.

Is it a prime number?

In short: less massive white dwarfs blow off their outer layers in repeated novas as a result of accretion, whereas more massive white dwarfs accumulate enough to collapse under degeneracy pressure and become supernovas, but somehow avoid becoming mere novas. Why can't they also become novas? Why must they wait for more mass and thereby become supernovas?

Wish I knew, Johnny. So let me speculate.

The surface gravity of a white dwarf is very high indeed. So when a gob of gas from a red giant crashes down onto the surface of a white dwarf, it's going to make a big crash indeed. Move over, asteroid that killed the dinosaurs.

Perhaps, if the crash that happens when a gob of gas slams onto the surface of the white dwarf is sufficiently big, maybe the gas that falls onto the surface of the white dwarf will just explode? Like a nova, you know?

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

But if a white dwarf is massive enough to be close to its Chandrasekhar limit, then maybe the entire white dwarf gets sufficiently unsettled to blow itself to smithereens, if just one more gob of gas falls onto it? Like when the obese and sickeningly full Mr. Creosote of Monty Python's The Meaning of Life is persuaded to eat just one after dinner mint and starts vomiting rivers of puke on all and sundry around him.

Ann

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 6:21 pm

Ann wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:47 pm I think of it like this. A white dwarf is made of prime fuel. Well, not prime fuel, because only hydrogen is prime fuel, and most white dwarfs are made of helium, carbon and oxygen. (I think.)

So a white dwarf is not made of prime fuel, but "good enough fuel".

Weigh a white dwarf down more than its electron degeneracy can bear, and it will ignite. And then, all that good enough fuel will go ka-poof!!!!

Ann

Hey, I like the number of this post. I missed my 11111th post, but a post number 11211 is not bad, either.

Is it a prime number?

In short: less massive white dwarfs blow off their outer layers in repeated novas as a result of accretion, whereas more massive white dwarfs accumulate enough to collapse under degeneracy pressure and become supernovas, but somehow avoid becoming mere novas. Why can't they also become novas? Why must they wait for more mass and thereby become supernovas?

Ann wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:47 pm I think of it like this. A white dwarf is made of prime fuel. Well, not prime fuel, because only hydrogen is prime fuel, and most white dwarfs are made of helium, carbon and oxygen. (I think.)

So a white dwarf is not made of prime fuel, but "good enough fuel".

Weigh a white dwarf down more than its electron degeneracy can bear, and it will ignite. And then, all that good enough fuel will go ka-poof!!!!

Ann

Hey, I like the number of this post. I missed my 11111th post, but a post number 11211 is not bad, either.

Is it a prime number?

Ann wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:47 pm I think of it like this. A white dwarf is made of prime fuel. Well, not prime fuel, because only hydrogen is prime fuel, and most white dwarfs are made of helium, carbon and oxygen. (I think.)

So a white dwarf is not made of prime fuel, but "good enough fuel".

Weigh a white dwarf down more than its electron degeneracy can bear, and it will ignite. And then, all that good enough fuel will go ka-poof!!!!

Ann

Hey, I like the number of this post. I missed my 11111th post, but a post number 11211 is not bad, either.

Is it a prime number?

Ann wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:10 am

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:46 pm
'Tis a shame that good ol' Sol won't go out with a bang...just a slow red bloating.

Still not sure of the difference between a nova and a supernova. I gather that a single very massive star can (always?) die in a supernova, but in the wikipedia article for supernova, it also says that a white dwarf and accrete enough matter to go supernova. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova:

Theoretical studies indicate that most supernovae are triggered by one of two basic mechanisms: the sudden re-ignition of nuclear fusion in a degenerate star such as a white dwarf, or the sudden gravitational collapse of a massive star's core. In the first class of events, the object's temperature is raised enough to trigger runaway nuclear fusion, completely disrupting the star. Possible causes are an accumulation of material from a binary companion through accretion, or a stellar merger. In the massive star case, the core of a massive star may undergo sudden collapse, releasing gravitational potential energy as a supernova. While some observed supernovae are more complex than these two simplified theories, the astrophysical mechanics are established and accepted by the astronomical community.

But the nova article says that a nova is caused by a white dwarf accreting matter. So, when does that process result in a supernova rather than a nova?

GK Persei, nova of 1901, a classical nova. X-ray: NASA/CXC/RIKEN/D.Takei et al; Optical: NASA/STScI; Radio: NRAO/VLA."

---

Artist's impression of a supernova. Source: https://www.supernovae.net.

---

A classical nova is a white dwarf that gets matter dumped on it by a companion until it blows off its outer layers. (More specifically, I think it is the newly acquired mass that gets blown off.) The white dwarf survives.

A supernova type Ia is a white dwarf that gets so much matter dumped on it that it exceeds its Chandrasekhar limit of 1.4 Solar masses. It then undergoes a "deflagaration" (don't ask me) where basically all of its matter is turned into energy (I think). Nothing remains of the white dwarf afterwards, although there will be a supernova remnant where the explosion took place. Which means, I guess, that not all of the white dwarf's mass turned into energy. Maybe. Or not.

Ask the math people to give you details!

Ann

alter-ego wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 4:35 am Yes, the identified blue star is the white dwarf. The linked image shows this star much bluer than the surrounding stars. However, the ID = WD0017+283 in the image description is not correct (does not match Medusa coordinates). The correct white dwarf ID is WD0726+133. Both coordinates and magnitude listings (WD table and Aladin) point to this star. Also, the Uranometria Field Guide lists the central star magnitude = 15.9, and to no surprise, if you look up "Medusa Nebula" in Aladin, the cursor is on the central star.
https://www.pbase.com/jshuder/image/122825657

epitalon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:29 am Hi all,

would you think that one see a crescent shape because the nebula has this actual shape or because one cannot see another part of it, symetrical.
In other words, could the nebula have a rotational symmetry that we could not see or barely see ?

In order to find an answer, I processed the image this way : add both thee color channels, filter high frequencies and then amplify brightness.
The result is here https://postimg.cc/w7QJ9Z5Z:
I can see a bulging vase shape with a mouth at its top.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:46 pm
'Tis a shame that good ol' Sol won't go out with a bang...just a slow red bloating.

Still not sure of the difference between a nova and a supernova. I gather that a single very massive star can (always?) die in a supernova, but in the wikipedia article for supernova, it also says that a white dwarf and accrete enough matter to go supernova. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova:

Theoretical studies indicate that most supernovae are triggered by one of two basic mechanisms: the sudden re-ignition of nuclear fusion in a degenerate star such as a white dwarf, or the sudden gravitational collapse of a massive star's core. In the first class of events, the object's temperature is raised enough to trigger runaway nuclear fusion, completely disrupting the star. Possible causes are an accumulation of material from a binary companion through accretion, or a stellar merger. In the massive star case, the core of a massive star may undergo sudden collapse, releasing gravitational potential energy as a supernova. While some observed supernovae are more complex than these two simplified theories, the astrophysical mechanics are established and accepted by the astronomical community.

But the nova article says that a nova is caused by a white dwarf accreting matter. So, when does that process result in a supernova rather than a nova?

Ann wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:39 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:26 pm

Ann wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:56 pm


I found the arrow pointing to that star too, Johnny. It is here.

But I don't feel convinced that the annotation is correct. The picture that was an APOD on June 12, 2015, is an ESO picture. But if you go to ESO's original page about the Medusa Nebula, you can't find the arrow pointing out that star on that page, or at least I can't.

My guess is that it is another star that is the culprit:

Click to view full size image

I have marked the star that I consider to be the most likely candidate as the central star of the Medusa Nebula. I have picked it because it is the bluest star in the picture, and we expect central stars o planetary nebulas to be very hot and therefore blue.

The star that is the ionizing star of the Medusa Nebula is TYC 776-1339-1. But I have to admit that I could be wrong in identifying TYC 776-1339-1 as the bluest star in the ESO image.

There is a picture of TYC 776-1339-1 on a SIMBAD page, and I don't think that the star that we see at SIMBAD really looks like the very blue star in the APOD. The nebulosity around the star in the APOD doesn't look the way it does at SIMBAD.

So maybe it really is the star by the arrow in the picture you posted, Johnny.

Ann

The SIMBAD pic (which is zoomable!) identifies the brightest star in today's APOD as TYC 776-1339-1:

Click to view full size image

As for the progenitor of the Medusa Nebula, it's either the one pointed to by the white arrow in the ESO pic, or it's the one pointed to by your blue arrow and my red arrow (which point to the same star),... or, it's a different star.

If the star at the green cross in the interactive AladinLite view is TYC 776-1339-1, then I'd say that TYC 776-1339-1 is definitely not the ionizing star of the Medusa nebula.

For one thing, it is too bright, bright enough to have a Tycho designation. And it's not particularly blue, and, worse, it's not strikingly ultraviolet.

I checked what Wikipedia would write about the well-know Helix Nebula, to see if it would mention the Helix's central star. Bear in mind that the Helix Nebula is at a distance of some 700 light-years (or even a bit closer), making the Medusa Nebula more than twice as distant from us as the Helix.

So you would expect the central star of the Helix Nebula to be a bit brighter, or at least as bright, as the central star of the Medusa Nebula.

Well, lo and behold. My software, Guide, identifies a stellar source at the center of the Helix Nebula, which is faint 14th magnitude. Bear in mind that TYC 776-1339-1 is an 11th magnitude star.

I tried to find out some more about the Helix's central star. Wikipedia has extremely little to say about it. But I found this paper that said that the designation of the central star of the Helix Nebula is WD 2226-210. Thanks to that designation, I could find the star on Simbad.

Well, the star is a little brighter than my software gives it credit for, but it is still much fainter (in visible light) than TYC 776-1339-1. Also note that Simbad calls WD 2226-210 a planetary nebula, but it has nothing special to say about TYC 776-1339-1. In short, TYC 776-1339-1 is just an ordinary star, nothing special.

Also note how blue WD 2226-210 really is. Its brightness in ultraviolet is 11.894, its brightness in B is 13.158, and its brightness in V is 13.524. That's actually a whopping difference between B and V. No ordinary stars are that blue!

So, Johnny, I think you and I can agree that the central star of the Medusa Nebula is indeed the very blue star that both you and I singled out.

Ann

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:26 pm

Ann wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:56 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:10 pm

Got it! And my prior guess was wrong. From another APOD - https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150612.htm - it points to this pic that has an arrow:

Central Star of The Medusa Nebula

---

I found the arrow pointing to that star too, Johnny. It is here.

But I don't feel convinced that the annotation is correct. The picture that was an APOD on June 12, 2015, is an ESO picture. But if you go to ESO's original page about the Medusa Nebula, you can't find the arrow pointing out that star on that page, or at least I can't.

My guess is that it is another star that is the culprit:

Click to view full size image

I have marked the star that I consider to be the most likely candidate as the central star of the Medusa Nebula. I have picked it because it is the bluest star in the picture, and we expect central stars o planetary nebulas to be very hot and therefore blue.

The star that is the ionizing star of the Medusa Nebula is TYC 776-1339-1. But I have to admit that I could be wrong in identifying TYC 776-1339-1 as the bluest star in the ESO image.

There is a picture of TYC 776-1339-1 on a SIMBAD page, and I don't think that the star that we see at SIMBAD really looks like the very blue star in the APOD. The nebulosity around the star in the APOD doesn't look the way it does at SIMBAD.

So maybe it really is the star by the arrow in the picture you posted, Johnny.

Ann

The SIMBAD pic (which is zoomable!) identifies the brightest star in today's APOD as TYC 776-1339-1:

Click to view full size image

As for the progenitor of the Medusa Nebula, it's either the one pointed to by the white arrow in the ESO pic, or it's the one pointed to by your blue arrow and my red arrow (which point to the same star),... or, it's a different star.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:46 pm 'Tis a shame that good ol' Sol won't go out with a bang...just a slow red bloating.

Still not sure of the difference between a nova and a supernova. I gather that a single very massive star can (always?) die in a supernova, but in the wikipedia article for supernova, it also says that a white dwarf and accrete enough matter to go supernova. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova:

Theoretical studies indicate that most supernovae are triggered by one of two basic mechanisms: the sudden re-ignition of nuclear fusion in a degenerate star such as a white dwarf, or the sudden gravitational collapse of a massive star's core. In the first class of events, the object's temperature is raised enough to trigger runaway nuclear fusion, completely disrupting the star. Possible causes are an accumulation of material from a binary companion through accretion, or a stellar merger. In the massive star case, the core of a massive star may undergo sudden collapse, releasing gravitational potential energy as a supernova. While some observed supernovae are more complex than these two simplified theories, the astrophysical mechanics are established and accepted by the astronomical community.

But the nova article says that a nova is caused by a white dwarf accreting matter. So, when does that process result in a supernova rather than a nova?

Ann wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:56 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:10 pm

Monque wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 5:59 pm ...Also trying to figure out which star is being referred to...

Got it! And my prior guess was wrong. From another APOD - https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150612.htm - it points to this pic that has an arrow:

Central Star of The Medusa Nebula

---

I found the arrow pointing to that star too, Johnny. It is here.

But I don't feel convinced that the annotation is correct. The picture that was an APOD on June 12, 2015, is an ESO picture. But if you go to ESO's original page about the Medusa Nebula, you can't find the arrow pointing out that star on that page, or at least I can't.

My guess is that it is another star that is the culprit:


Central star of Medusa Nebula ESO.png

I have marked the star that I consider to be the most likely candidate as the central star of the Medusa Nebula. I have picked it because it is the bluest star in the picture, and we expect central stars o planetary nebulas to be very hot and therefore blue.

The star that is the ionizing star of the Medusa Nebula is TYC 776-1339-1. But I have to admit that I could be wrong in identifying TYC 776-1339-1 as the bluest star in the ESO image.

There is a picture of TYC 776-1339-1 on a SIMBAD page, and I don't think that the star that we see at SIMBAD really looks like the very blue star in the APOD. The nebulosity around the star in the APOD doesn't look the way it does at SIMBAD.

So maybe it really is the star by the arrow in the picture you posted, Johnny.

Ann

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:10 pm

Monque wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 5:59 pm ...Also trying to figure out which star is being referred to...

Got it! And my prior guess was wrong. From another APOD - https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150612.htm - it points to this pic that has an arrow:

Central Star of The Medusa Nebula

---

Ann wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:11 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 4:34 pm

Fred the Cat wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:45 pm Inhabitants of Earth may need to catch a wave and sail on out of here.

Very interesting extension of the light sail idea! But still a bit impractical for us to have to wait until our Sun goes nova

Our Sun will not go nova.

Wikipedia wrote:

A nova (plural novae or novas) is a transient astronomical event that causes the sudden appearance of a bright, apparently "new" star, that slowly fades over several weeks or many months. Causes of the dramatic appearance of a nova vary, depending on the circumstances of the two progenitor stars.

Our Sun is a singleton, or at least it has left its birth siblings far behind (or in front of it, or sideways, or above or below it), so it has no nearby companion star that can feed matter onto it after it becomes a white dwarf and make it have a nova explosion.

Therefore it definitely can't go supernova, either. Unless, that is, a (preferably evolved and swollen) star was to cross paths with the white dwarf Sun and become locked in a sufficiently tight binary that it can feed mass onto the degenerate "skeleton" of our star.

But you've got to remember that we expect a white dwarf to be as massive as circa 1.4 Solar masses if it is going to be able to explode. Our Sun weighs just 1.0 Solar masses, and it is likely to shed quite a lot more mass during its red giant stage before it becomes a white dwarf. Perhaps it will weigh just 0.5 Solar masses when it settles down into white dwarfhood.

So the prospects of out Sun ever accreting so much mass from a possible future companion that it can ever become massive enough to explode as a supernova, or undergo a milder nova explosion, seem to be dim.

Ann

Theoretical studies indicate that most supernovae are triggered by one of two basic mechanisms: the sudden re-ignition of nuclear fusion in a degenerate star such as a white dwarf, or the sudden gravitational collapse of a massive star's core. In the first class of events, the object's temperature is raised enough to trigger runaway nuclear fusion, completely disrupting the star. Possible causes are an accumulation of material from a binary companion through accretion, or a stellar merger. In the massive star case, the core of a massive star may undergo sudden collapse, releasing gravitational potential energy as a supernova. While some observed supernovae are more complex than these two simplified theories, the astrophysical mechanics are established and accepted by the astronomical community.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 4:34 pm

Fred the Cat wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:45 pm Inhabitants of Earth may need to catch a wave and sail on out of here.

Very interesting extension of the light sail idea! But still a bit impractical for us to have to wait until our Sun goes nova

Wikipedia wrote:

A nova (plural novae or novas) is a transient astronomical event that causes the sudden appearance of a bright, apparently "new" star, that slowly fades over several weeks or many months. Causes of the dramatic appearance of a nova vary, depending on the circumstances of the two progenitor stars.