Page 1 of 2

Explosions from White Dwarf Star RS Oph (APOD 26 Jul 2006)

Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:20 pm
by Galactic Groove
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060726.html

So regarding the info about it going nova roughly every 20 years and it becoming visible the the unaided eye... I was just wondering if you happened to be watching that area of the sky during the moment that it went nova, would you really see anything dramatic or would it just be another faint spec of light suddenly appearing, hiding itself amongst all the other regular looking stars?

(by dramatic i don't mean being able to see strings of plasma being flung out into space, but rather like someone just turned a flashlight on in your face, a small one at that.... basically would it suddenly outshine all else in the sky)

Also does anyone think this event could be predicted more precisely so that we could observe it on a given night?

regards :D

Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:35 pm
by harry
Hello All


You would easily see it with your eye.

We should look at this,,,,,,,,,,,,,its a once in a life time.

Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 3:12 pm
by Galactic Groove
well if you're already 80 years old it's a once in a lifetime thing :lol:
It says it happens roughly every 20 years so you could see this happen several times throughout your life, it'd be awesome just to catch it once though!

Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:58 pm
by Qev
I doubt you'd see a 'burst of light' or anything particularly spectacular to the unaided eye during one of these nova outbursts. You'd likely observe the star brighten to visibility, to whatever its maximum apparent magnitude is, then slowly fade away again over several days.

Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:29 pm
by Dr. Skeptic
There is a multitude of observations to aid in the understanding of such events.

- Light spectroscopy to identify the energy, speed and change in element composition of the ejected nebula.

- Collect data on neutrino burst, neutrino bursts can precede the visible light of a nova event by ~ .00001%. It is not known if neutrinos bursts precede the nova event or if neutrinos are traveling faster then the electromagnetic radiation.

Watching the event with the naked eye would not be of scientific value :roll: .

Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:30 am
by Qev
Dr. Skeptic wrote:- Collect data on neutrino burst, neutrino bursts can precede the visible light of a nova event by ~ .00001%. It is not known if neutrinos bursts precede the nova event or if neutrinos are traveling faster then the electromagnetic radiation.
Well, it'd have to be the former, since as massy particles, neutrinos are restricted to velocities below that of light.

As far as supernovae go, the neutrinos from the event trail behind the initial burst of light, since over such a long distance, the electromagnetic radiation can easily outpace the neutrinos, despite their near-lightspeed velocities.

Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:06 am
by Dr. Skeptic
First, the evidence of neutrinos having mass is not in.
Second, neutrino detectors have a pattern of increased activity prior to electromagnetic detection of supernovae (novae may not produce enough or additional neutrinos).

Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:14 am
by Qev
Actually, it's pretty much settled that neutrinos have mass. They wouldn't be able to oscillate between flavors if they were massless, and since neutrino oscillation has been observed, that pretty much clinches it (and solves that annoying Solar Neutrino Problem).

I could very well be wrong about the order of detection for neutrinos and optical events in supernovae. I'll hafta look that one up again. :)

Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:12 am
by davehardy
In reply to Galactic Groove, the artist who painted this RS Oph image isn't 80 -- but he is 70! (I should know :) -- see my website). But I'm sorry to say I haven't seen this nova with my own eyes. . .

Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:13 am
by harry
Hello All

Hi Qev,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I'm sorry that I have not spent time on

Info on neutrino http://www.sallymckay.ca/oscillation/neutrinos.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... no.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... o2.html#c2

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... o3.html#c1

Nuclear Synthesis
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... yn.html#c1

Rather than discussing the issue,,,,read about it


http://www2.arnes.si/~gljsentvid10/supn1.html

Code: Select all

In a few minutes the collapsing core is converted from nickel and iron nuclei to mostly alpha particles (helium nuclei). Deprived of support from the core, the overlying mass of the star freefalls. As this mass impacts onto the now largely Helium core it is further compressed and heated. The Helium is then dissociated into the fundamental subatomic particles - protons, neutrons, and electrons; and for a brief time the electrostatic force of the electrons resists the pressure of the star's overlying weight. But this resistance, known as electron degeneracy pressure, is not enough to resist the force of gravity given the tremendous mass of the star. In a white dwarf star electron degeneracy pressure is able overcome by gravity only if the mass is under a limit close to the Chandrasekhar limit. When the core approaches this limit the proton finds itself in a sea of electrons that cause the proton to be unstable against electron capture or "inverse beta decay". Electrons are absorbed into protons transmuting each electron-proton pair into a single neutron and releasing a neutrino in the process. Within fractions of a second the core is converted to a mass of neutrons at near nuclear density -- the core is literally a giant neutron-rich atom! 

As for neutrinos,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,they have mass and are able to travel at the speed of light,,,,,,,,,,but not in all situations.

Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:55 pm
by Dr. Skeptic
There is inadequate information on the quantum properties of neutrinos to discern between the interactions of the three types neutrinos and other matter, assigning a mass is "one" interpretation of the data. Regardless, if a neutrino has mass, it is many magnitude less than that of a photon.

The supernova event 1987A, the neutrino detectors recorded a culmination of hits 16 to 18 hours previous to any optical detection.

Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:08 pm
by orin stepanek
here's a little imput on the neutrinow. http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/neutrino.html
Sounds like a very little; mass wise. :?
Orin

Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:56 pm
by Qev
Dr. Skeptic wrote:There is inadequate information on the quantum properties of neutrinos to discern between the interactions of the three types neutrinos and other matter, assigning a mass is "one" interpretation of the data. Regardless, if a neutrino has mass, it is many magnitude less than that of a photon.
Photons have zero rest mass, actually.
The supernova event 1987A, the neutrino detectors recorded a culmination of hits 16 to 18 hours previous to any optical detection.
That actually makes sense, now that I think about it. The neutrino pulse is less interactive with the material of the exploding star than the EM radiation, and so should escape before the EM does. Neat!

Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:17 pm
by Dr. Skeptic
Photons have zero rest mass, actually.
Using the same qualifiers, neutrinos are also massless.

Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:16 am
by Qev
I'm not sure I follow that. Neutrinos have, according to current observation, a small, but non-zero rest mass, which is what's meant by them 'having mass'. It's really the only meaningful concept of mass for a subatomic particle.

Now, it's entirely possible for a photon to carry more energy than a neutrino, certainly, but that's not dealing with rest mass. :)

Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:50 pm
by Dr. Skeptic
The Mass of a photon is a "Relativistic Mass" which depends upon its wavelength. The mass of a neutrino may also have only a relativistic mass, it parallels the concept of "is a photon a wave or a particle?" it depends on analytical technique.

For those who wish to read more:

http://www.autodynamics.org/main/index. ... tion=53:47

RS Ophiuchi

Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:06 pm
by davehardy
With respect, I thought this discussion was supposed to be on my (Wednesday's) APOD image of RS Ophiuchi -- not the mass of neutrinos! :roll:

Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:54 am
by Qev
What? This is the Internet! You can't expect us to stay on topic! ;)

RS Ophiuchi

Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:42 am
by davehardy
That's true, Qev. But you try painting a neutrino! :cry:

Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:17 pm
by harry
Thank you for the link Dr Skeptic

http://www.autodynamics.org/main/index. ... tion=53:47

I like it.

and yours also Orin.

Re: RS Ophiuchi

Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:07 pm
by Qev
davehardy wrote:That's true, Qev. But you try painting a neutrino! :cry:
I've tried! I can't find a fine-enough brush, though! :lol:

Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:16 pm
by Qev
harry wrote:Thank you for the link Dr Skeptic

http://www.autodynamics.org/main/index. ... tion=53:47

I like it.

and yours also Orin.
You do realize that autodynamics is utter bunk, don't you? :)

Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:22 pm
by Dr. Skeptic
You do realize that autodynamics is utter bunk, don't you?
Good websites can be right 90% of the time.

Bad websites can be wrong 90% of the time.

90% right ≠ 100% right

90% wrong ≠ 100% wrong

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:18 am
by harry
Hello Qev

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,what is bunk?

If I like something it does not make it right.

Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:11 am
by Qev
Autodynamics just screams 'pseudoscience'. Every time someone does an experiment with results that contradict it, its supporters come out invariably insisting that the experiment was done wrong. That's never a good sign. :)