APOD: The Case of the Missing Supernova... (2012 Jan 12)

[APOD Robot]

The Case of the Missing Supernova Companion

Explanation: Where's the other star? At the center of this supernova remnant should be the companion star to the star that blew up. Identifying this star is important for understanding just how Type Ia supernova detonate, which in turn could lead to a better understanding of why the brightness of such explosions are so predictable, which in turn is key to calibrating the entire nature of our universe. The trouble is that even a careful inspection of the center of SNR 0509-67.5 has not found any star at all. This indicates that the companion is intrinsically very faint -- much more faint that many types of bright giant stars that had been previous candidates. In fact, the implication is that the companion star might have to be a faint white dwarf, similar to -- but less massive than -- the star that detonated. SNR 0509-67.5 is shown above in both visible light, shining in red as imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope, and X-ray light, shown in false-color green as imaged by the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Putting your cursor over the picture will highlight the central required location for the missing companion star.

<< Previous APOD

Discuss Any APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

[bystander]

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=22292
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=22346
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=22728
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=26450

[Beyond]

Well, so much for that mystery!

[islader2]

Put me down for a quark body==I might go down in history {or massive ridicule now}.

[Ann]

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... s/2012/06/ wrote:

Hubble Solves Mystery on Source of Supernova in Nearby Galaxy

The cause of SNR 0509-67.5 can best be explained by two tightly orbiting white dwarf stars spiraling closer and closer until they collided and exploded.

These results are being reported today at the meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Austin, Texas. A paper on the results will be published in the January 12 issue of the science journal Nature.

If the two white dwarfs collided and merged, chances are that both stars were obliterated.

Thanks for the link, bystander. Yes, you saw it too, Beyond.

Ann

[DeityFreeCola]

I think that a lot of these supernova take on an hourglass shape because of vortex mechanics. A perspective makes it look different.
Also... that gravity had a weak point in the polar regions of a highly spinning object. Hence, stellar ejections from even black holes. Light does escape in this case as obviously visible as we have images of it.

[Beyond]

Yes, you saw it too, Beyond

Yes, but now i have a bit of a mystery myself. When i saw it, there was only one -view topic- posted. Now there are four. But it is early in the morning here.

[500pesos]

If the origin of the nebula was two white dwarf stars spiraling into each other and exploding leaving nothing (or nothing visible) behind, shouldn't then the nebula have a more elaborate shape, say, like the cat's eye nebula?
This one is round like an orange!

[Ann]

If the origin of the nebula was two white dwarf stars spiraling into each other and exploding leaving nothing (or nothing visible) behind, shouldn't then the nebula have a more elaborate shape, say, like the cat's eye nebula?
This one is round like an orange!

I find the extremely "round and regular" shape of the supernova remnant peculiar, too. I would have thought that such a titanic explosion should have left a more "tattered" and irregular remnant behind.

Perhaps the striking "roundness" is a product of persepctive, so that the remnant might have looked more irregular if we had viewed it from another direction. Or perhaps this supernova remnant really is as delicately bubble-shaped as it appears to be. If so, the explosion must have been extremely symmetrical and "isotropic" - similar in all directions.

Ann

[K1NS]

The Spanish and Portuguese were firmly entrenched in South America well before 1600, and there were even universities established by then. I predict that, as historians comb through journals and other records, someone is going to find a reference to a "new star" in the LMC around that time, maybe written by a priest or monk.

[FloridaMike]

This discussion beggs the question: Could a companion star be reduced in mass to a point where fission is no longer possible? If so, would we see anything different than we are looking at here?

[zbvhs]

Why is it necessary or should be expected that a companion was present?

[Byork]

I wanna discuss the nature of the universe. Somehow, I just don't think the big bang theory correctly describes the nature of the universe. I believe the universe consists of two components: the matter universe and the anti-matter universe. Presence of anti-matter was identified in nuclear accelerator experiments leaving scientists wondering why anti-matter occurs freely throughout the universe. Elaborate theories were proposed attempting to explain why the universe is built of matter and not anti-matter. The issue of the missing anti may be fully explained by a universe consisting of the two components - matter and anti-matter. I do not believe the anti-matter component of the universe would exist in another dimension-it would exist in the same dimension as the matter component.

[orin stepanek]

Maybe we are looking at the open end of an hourglass or tubular shaped remnant like a planetary nebula!

[dddavids]

Putting your cursor over the picture will highlight the central required location for the missing companion star.

Could anybody explain to me why the red hydrogen "bubble" is not spherical or why the "central required location" is not in the center of the 2-D image projection? If I measure on my screen from the overlaid circle to the brightest part of the red hydrogen circle, it is 8 cm on the right and 8.7 cm on the left. Is this just a distortion from my computer monitor?

[Irishman]

Why is it necessary or should be expected that a companion was present?

Because it has been identified as a Type Ia supernova. That kind of supernova is caused by a white dwarf getting mass from a companion star and then exploding. Thus the requisite that there be a companion star. If there is no companion star, then it would not be a Type Ia supernova. The characteristics would be different.

Elaborate theories were proposed attempting to explain why the universe is built of matter and not anti-matter. The issue of the missing anti may be fully explained by a universe consisting of the two components - matter and anti-matter. I do not believe the anti-matter component of the universe would exist in another dimension-it would exist in the same dimension as the matter component.

The problem is that matter and antimatter do not behave well in close vicinity. They tend to EXPLODE! Really violently. So there cannot be the same amount of antimatter in our universe evenly dispersed with the matter. The whole universe would rapidly convert the matter and antimatter into energy, and disappear. The existence of the universe means your supposition is wrong.

[Chris Peterson]

If the two white dwarfs collided and merged, chances are that both stars were obliterated.

What does "obliterated" mean in this context?

[Freddie Krueger]

I’m not an astrophysicist, I’m just a dumbass country lawyer with a hobbyist’s interest in astronomy, so please pardon my stupidity.

But why couldn’t the companion “star” instead be a couple of brown dwarfs or gas giant planets? If the original (exploded) white dwarf was in the range of 1.3 solar masses already, then a couple of planets (which we all are beginning to see as common in the universe) in close orbit could surrender enough mass to kick-start a 1a, and of course the close-in gas giants would simply become part of the expanding shell...

Sorry for the interruption; I'll return to working on something I actually understand...

[Wolf Kotenberg]

Is it possible the two original stars got together and mutually assured their destruction ? The cosmos is constantly surprising human kind, as if the great one is having fun with the insignificant ones ? From what I read recently, comet Lovejoy should never have survived its recent encounter with our star.

[Lee]

Noting the many wave forms on the right and the solid image on the left, consider that a wind of particles from the left may have affected the total distribution. The star to the upper left of the center could have been the companion star.

[FloridaMike]

... The star to the upper left of the center could have been the companion star.

I am confident that the EXPERTS who pronounced the star missing, may have in fact, considered the obvious.

[bystander]

This discussion beggs the question: Could a companion star be reduced in mass to a point where fission is no longer possible? If so, would we see anything different than we are looking at here?

Stars merge atoms (fusion) not split them (fission). White dwarfs are thought to be at the end of their life cycle and have run out of fuel to continue fusion, but are still hot enough to be seen.

[fletch]

what is that small black dot about half-way up between center of supernova at 12:00 o'clock position?

[Air4ce]

I did not quite follow why it is that supernovae always have a companion star.

My (basic) understanding is that a star goes nova as a consequence of consuming its own fuel. This would appear to be an internal process, independent of a companion star.

I'm a history major. What am I missing?

Thanks all

Air4ce

[JohnD]

We have previously heard, possibly on APOD, of anomalously fast moving stars.
An example is RX J0822-4300, " currently moving away from the center of the Puppis A supernova remnant at over 3 million miles per hour " as the Wiki has it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RX_J0822-4300
If there is a variation in the usual mechanism of a supernova that ejects the neutron star, could this have removed the remnant from SNR 0509-67.5 ?

JOhn