Hubble Discovers New Supernova in Cygnus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philosophaie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Supernova
AI Thread Summary
Hubble has observed a new object in Cygnus, initially thought to be a supernova but later identified as a protoplanetary nebula, IRAS 20068+4051. This nebula forms when a star exhausts its lighter fuel, shedding outer layers, and may eventually take on a more spherical shape due to radiation pressure. The discussion highlights the distinction between planetary nebulae and supernova remnants, noting that planetary nebulae are created from stars less than 8 solar masses, while supernovae result from more massive stars. The term "planetary nebula" is misleading, as these nebulae have no relation to planets; they are merely named for their appearance. Understanding these differences is crucial for grasping stellar evolution and the lifecycle of stars.
Philosophaie
Messages
456
Reaction score
0
Hubble viewed a new Supernova in the constellation Cygnus, IRAS 20068+4051. It's current view from Hubble shows a spiral. Will this increase in size or remain a spiral?

http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/potw1030a/
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
It's not a supernova. It is a protoplanetary nebula, formed when a star uses up much of its lighter fuel and cools, blowing off its outer layers. Eventually, radiation pressure from the host star may herd the dusts and gases into a more spherical arrangement.
 
My mistake. Many Nebulas are created by the exploding of a star.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebula

This case is an exception. It is formed by the exploding of a planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula

This is newsworthy just the same. I will alter my question some. What is the difference in size and shape of a Nebula created by a Supernova and one created by a planetary explosion?
 
No, it is not the exploding of a planet. It is the evolution of a star.

Planetary nebulae have nothing to do with planets. They were called that because they often appeared round, faint, and uniform as seen from Earth. Such nebulae had nothing to do with planets (repeat) - they are an evolutionary stage of stars that are NOT going to explode as super novae.
 
Philosophaie said:
My mistake. Many Nebulas are created by the exploding of a star.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebula

This case is an exception. It is formed by the exploding of a planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula

This is newsworthy just the same. I will alter my question some. What is the difference in size and shape of a Nebula created by a Supernova and one created by a planetary explosion?

Planetary Nebulae are caused by star death, but they are different from a supernova as they have different end results. A star less than 8 solar masses will lose its outer layers as a planetary nebula, and the core will become a hot, white dwarf, which will eventually cool into a black dwarf.
Stars greather than 8 solar masses will undergo a supernova, when the outer layers of the star cast off and the core collapses to form a neutron star or a black hole if the core is sufficiently massive.

Strangely, planetary nebulae don't actually have anything to do with planets and are only named such because Herschel thought the nebulae he observed resembled Uranus. Basically Astronomer's have a strange property wherre they refuse to throw anything away, hence the messy tuning fork for galaxies, the seemingly bizarre order of stellar classifications, and the backwards scale for magnitude.
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top