Can a Supernova Core Reignite as a Smaller Star?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the hypothesis of whether a supernova core can reignite as a smaller star after a supernova event. Participants explore the implications of stellar evolution, the formation of heavy elements, and the conditions necessary for star formation in the context of supernovae and nova events.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a large star could go supernova and the remaining core might accrete a new atmosphere to reignite as a smaller star, although this is questioned.
  • Others argue that supernovae are violent events that typically result in a black hole or neutron star, rather than a smaller stable star.
  • One participant suggests that the formation of heavy elements in our solar system could not solely rely on supernova remnants, as regular large stars also produce essential elements like carbon and oxygen.
  • Another participant questions whether a small nova could prevent or destroy planetary formation around a star.
  • Some participants note that binary star systems may allow for a white dwarf to accumulate mass from a companion star and potentially reignite, presenting a different scenario than that of a supernova core.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the possibility of a supernova core reigniting as a smaller star, with no consensus reached. There is also disagreement regarding the role of supernovae in the formation of heavy elements and the implications for planetary formation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of stellar evolution and the various scenarios that could lead to different outcomes, such as the role of binary systems and the conditions under which nova events occur. There are unresolved questions regarding the specific mechanisms and conditions necessary for the processes discussed.

RedAether
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I know the general accepted theory to the birth of our solar system. One or more nearby stars went supernova and the shock waves caused our gas cloud to collapse forming our solar system. However, i wanted an opinion from those with more knowledge on a hypothesis that seems to make some sense to me.

Could it be possible for a large star to go supernova/nova, and then the remaining core to accrete a new atmosphere from the remains and reignite as a smaller, more stable star? It would seem to me that it would be difficult for our solar system to accumulate the heavy elements that we have just from accepting blown out bits from nearby supernovas. However, if a star underwent a smallish nova early in life and then reignited as a smaller star there would be plenty of material for rocky planet formation like we have now.

Thoughts? I could easily be way off, and would really appreciate any critical comments.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
RedAether said:
One or more nearby stars went supernova and the shock waves caused our gas cloud to collapse forming our solar system.
I don't think the SN is necessary for the gas cloud to collapse - gas clouds pretty much collapse anyway. A lot of the SN theories were the idea that there was something rare and special needed to create our solar system - often promoted by people with a certain creation myth. We now know that solar systems and planets are very common.

Could it be possible for a large star to go supernova/nova, and then the remaining core to accrete a new atmosphere from the remains and reignite as a smaller, more stable star?
A SN is pretty violent. A large star will create a black hole, a smaller progenitor creates a neutron star. There is a class of giant stars that escape the SN fate by expelling a large part of their atmosphere late in their life and ending up as smaller cooler dwarfs


It would seem to me that it would be difficult for our solar system to accumulate the heavy elements that we have just from accepting blown out bits from nearby supernovas.
The early stars in the galaxy were massive low metal stars with very short lives (few 100Myr) that went SN. There were many generations of these before metal rich stars like our sun were formed.

Remember you only need a SN for elements heavier than iron - regular large stars produce the carbon,oxygen, silicon, magnesium that our planet is made from
 
Thanks for the reply. I guess I would like to clarify my basic question. I do understand that SNs create nearly all of the heavy elements, and that before our sun was born many generations of young stars died violent deaths creating a bunch of heavy elements.

However, what i am really trying to get at is this: Is it possible that our sun (or any similar metal rich star like our own) is a direct remnant from a previous small nova event? Or would even a small nova prevent (or destroy) planetary formation around that star?
 
The current model of stellar birth is fairly peaceful (you know besides all the accretion disks and fusion ignition going on). Is there any evidence (for or against) small stellar explosions early in their life cycles?
 
Is it possible that our sun (or any similar metal rich star like our own) is a direct remnant from a previous small nova event?
Read up on nova events.
Those happen if you "accrete a new atmosphere [...] and reignite". What you get is not really "a smaller, more stable star". You get a nova.
 
I don't think the left-over core of a supernova can accumulate enough gas from the explosion remnants to fully reignite - the explosion would have blown them too far away.

However, with binary star systems, it is strongly believed that if one star dies and leaves behind a white dwarf, it can accumulate mass from the other star and then reignite. There are many different versions of this scenario, involving different stellar pairings in the binary, all of which would act differently, I think one combination is believed to be responsible for gamma ray bursts, I think one of the stars has to be a neutron star and the other a red giant, but I don't know for sure.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K