Starship Asterisk*

Oh wow, that's so interesting!!! :jumping up and down:

A red continuum, eh? Deep Na D absorption? A young, reddened Type Ia supernova? That sure makes sense. Without having seen a picture of the supernova (and hence knowing nothing about its location inside M82), I'm going to assume that the super-explosion took place fairly close to the region of rampant star formation near the galaxy's center. This region of star formation is extremely reddened from our point of view. Can you spot the young star clusters in this Hubble image of M82? All right, yes, you can spot some clusters in the disk, but it is very hard to see the clusters near the center of the galaxy, and that is because of the tremendous amounts of dust in this area.

M82 really is a very dusty galaxy. Its B (blue) magnitude is 9.161 ± 0.263, but its far infrared magnitude is 5.584 - about three and a half magnitudes brighter! This sort of "relationship" between the B and the far infrared magnitude can only mean that the galaxy is full of dust. Compare these values with the B and far infrared magnitudes of M82's neighbour, M81. The B magnitude of M81 is 7.849 ± 0.100. but its far infrared magnitude is 8.595. M81 is fainter in far infrared that in blue light and is likely quite poor in dust.

So, indeed, M82 is remarkably dusty. Therefore the supernova in M82 is most likely seen through a curtain of dust.

I can't help it, but I really like seeing that M82 has got a supernova that fits its host galaxy perfectly!!!

EDIT: Ah! Owlice has posted images of the supernova which show that the exploding star is not located close to the galaxy's center. Well, there is enough dust in M82 to go around, that much is certain.

Ann

Ann wrote:Without having seen a picture of the supernova (and hence knowing nothing about its location inside M82), I'm going to assume that the super-explosion took place fairly close to the region of rampant star formation near the galaxy's center.

Ann, might you please consider looking for information first rather than assuming and then speculating wildly? This supernova is all over astronomy news sites; Google is your friend.

owlice wrote:

Ann wrote:
Without having seen a picture of the supernova (and hence knowing nothing about its location inside M82), I'm going to assume that the super-explosion took place fairly close to the region of rampant star formation near the galaxy's center.

Ann, might you please consider looking for information first rather than assuming and then speculating wildly? This supernova is all over astronomy news sites; Google is your friend.

The fun of science in general (and the Starship Asterisk* in particular) is that speculating wildly is permitted at first since it encourages contemplation, corrections and finally much better speculating. The downside of science in general (and the Starship Asterisk* in particular) is that often discourages wild speculation and seeks to lecture us by rote: "Back off, folks, nothing to question here; leave this to the professionals."

neufer wrote:

owlice wrote:

Ann wrote:
Without having seen a picture of the supernova (and hence knowing nothing about its location inside M82), I'm going to assume that the super-explosion took place fairly close to the region of rampant star formation near the galaxy's center.

Ann, might you please consider looking for information first rather than assuming and then speculating wildly? This supernova is all over astronomy news sites; Google is your friend.

The fun of science in general (and the Starship Asterisk* in particular) is that speculating wildly is permitted at first since it encourages contemplation, corrections and finally much better speculating. The downside of science in general (and the Starship Asterisk* in particular) is that often discourages wild speculation and seeks to lecture us by rote: "Back off, folks, nothing to question here; leave this to the professionals."

Ah, yes, no reason to check one's assumptions for validity before speculating wildly on them; how silly of me to suggest doing so.

I have never suggested that only professionals post here, neufer; how could I, after all?

Margarita, thanks for the links.

My first post included an edit where I made it clear that the supernova is not located where I first assumed it to be. I also included a link to your supernova thread at the Observation Deck, owlice. So anyone reading through my post and making use of the link will know that the supernova is not where I thought it would be, and they will also know where, in fact, it is.

The reason why I left my speculation in the rest of my post is that M82 is such an extreme galaxy, and I thought that my bit of speculation helped to point that out. To me, a supernova is not only a product of its progenitor star, but also of its progenitor galaxy.

Thank you for starting the thread both here and at the Observation Deck, owlice. I'm looking forward to more news about the supernova, and more pictures of it!

Ann

owlice wrote:

neufer wrote:
The fun of science in general (and the Starship Asterisk* in particular) is that speculating wildly is permitted at first since it encourages contemplation, corrections and finally much better speculating. The downside of science in general (and the Starship Asterisk* in particular) is that often discourages wild speculation and seeks to lecture us by rote: "Back off, folks, nothing to question here; leave this to the professionals."

Ah, yes, no reason to check one's assumptions for validity before speculating wildly on them; how silly of me to suggest doing so.

Chris hardly ever looks stuff up before posting. (Perhaps he thinks that's cheating.)

Ann, at least, seems to look stuff up in her own special information cache.

owlice wrote:
I have never suggested that only professionals post here, neufer; how could I, after all?

We are talking about speculating not simply posting.

Wild speculation from people who adamantly refuse to be reasoned with (e.g., Oxfordians) is one thing
but speculation from people who are willing to learn is quite another.