Live data from Hacker News

How to See a Supernova This Weekend From Your Backyard

wired.com

31–35 of 35 posts

Re: How to See a Supernova This Weekend From Your Backyard

#31
post #20
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's nonsensical. There is a meaningful way in which it is in the past. Even if you turn yourself into photons, match positions with the supernova remnants, then return to physical form, the supernova is going to evolve though time for quite a ways beyond the current state we observe it in before your physical form has its rendezvous, even if the trip has zero duration for you. Putting a specific time s…

If you set a reference point, then I think it's perfectly sensical to say two events happen simultaneously or "now," but without a set reference point those notions are completely nonsensical. Most educated people understand the principle of relativity (which states that the laws of physics behave consistent in all frames of reference) and the fact that the speed of light is constant regardless of your frame of refer…

I fear you don't actually undestand several core concept of special relativity, among these past, present, causality and simultaneity. Of these, only the last one is relative to the reference frame. Temporal ordering of events is absolute for events that are causally related, if event A is in the past of event B, which is defined as event B being able to observe event A or any of its consequences, then event A happens before event B in every frame of reference. Only the time difference between A and B depends on the frame of reference (for an observer at rest relative to the microwave background, there are 21 million years between the supernova and our observation of it, but a neutrino emitted by the nova passes though the earth only moments after it was created in its own reference frame, as it travels almost at the speed of light relatie to the nova and the earth). Likewise, we say that B is in the future of A if B can observe A or any of its consequences.

Only in the case that neither A can observe B nor B can observe A, which we denote by saying that the events are in their relative present, the ordering becomes relative to the frame of refrence, but that case is irrelevant in the present discussion, as we can observe the nova and so have established the fact that it (or at least its beginning) is in our past. Note that its maximum, which is predicted to be observable around next friday, is in our present (we can not influence nor observe it yet), while our observation of it is in our future (we can still make plans for where to watch it), at least until next friday, when both of these events simultaneously move into our past.

Re: How to See a Supernova This Weekend From Your Backyard

#32
post #30

People might be interested to know that this story is indicative of a sea change in astronomy. It has become apparent that there is a lot of variability in the nighttime sky, and we now have the technical means to discover lots of new things. One major factor in this change has been the advent of wide-angle surveys, that repeat often enough to find variable sources like SN's, blazars, asteroids, lensing events, etc.,…

In a funny way it seems like Astronomy is catching up to particle physics. Once you add automation there becomes far to many data points to do anything but compare a model with outside events and look for discrepancy's that suggest either all models are wrong or one model is more accurate than other related models.

Re: How to See a Supernova This Weekend From Your Backyard

#33
Reading things like this always brings me back to the Fermi Paradox [1]. There are lots of stars in our galaxy. Our observation of many nearby planetary systems and our understanding of the chemistry of life suggests life should be relatively common but we've seen no evidence of it.

While life (on Earth) is at times incredibly resilient it's also really fragile. A supernova such as this must essentially sterilize space for light years around it and it bathes its neighbourhood in gamma radiation. Did this kill off some nascent civilization? Supernovas seem to be relatively rare (compared to the number of stars) but think: over billions of years what are the odds that such a thing--or something equally as deadly such as an asteroid or comet impact--won't happen?

Space in incomprehensibly vast. The energy required to travel to even the nearest star systems seems... prohibitive.

I'm inclined to think that there are also simply too many of us on this planet, a problem that we'll either correct or will be corrected for us as resources start to run out in the next century or two [2].

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

[2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Re: How to See a Supernova This Weekend From Your Backyard

#34
post #32
post #30

People might be interested to know that this story is indicative of a sea change in astronomy. It has become apparent that there is a lot of variability in the nighttime sky, and we now have the technical means to discover lots of new things. One major factor in this change has been the advent of wide-angle surveys, that repeat often enough to find variable sources like SN's, blazars, asteroids, lensing events, etc.,…

In a funny way it seems like Astronomy is catching up to particle physics. Once you add automation there becomes far to many data points to do anything but compare a model with outside events and look for discrepancy's that suggest either all models are wrong or one model is more accurate than other related models.

There's definitely a parallel in the data demands of, say, LHC and LSST.

Besides automation, another key thing is the element of time. It means there's scientific value in re-surveying the sky. Ever since gamma ray bursts, the time scale has been shrinking.

Re: How to See a Supernova This Weekend From Your Backyard

#35
post #20
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's nonsensical. There is a meaningful way in which it is in the past. Even if you turn yourself into photons, match positions with the supernova remnants, then return to physical form, the supernova is going to evolve though time for quite a ways beyond the current state we observe it in before your physical form has its rendezvous, even if the trip has zero duration for you. Putting a specific time s…

If you set a reference point, then I think it's perfectly sensical to say two events happen simultaneously or "now," but without a set reference point those notions are completely nonsensical. Most educated people understand the principle of relativity (which states that the laws of physics behave consistent in all frames of reference) and the fact that the speed of light is constant regardless of your frame of refer…

fhars is correct. I'll say that you're getting closer than most people get to these concepts, but you seem to have mistaken partial ordering for no ordering. There is still a partial ordering of events, and we can now say that the supernova is in our past without ambiguity.
Post reply on HN