Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What is the opposite of a supernova

  1. Apr 16, 2012 #1
    this is my first post-is there such a thing as an opposite of a supernova

    and what is hydrostatic equilibrium

    does it prevent a star from collapsing

    lastly what is the moon considered?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 16, 2012 #2
    opposite of a supernova? No I don't think there's any kind of "direct" opposite thing to the supernova. The closest you could come to the opposite would be the formation of a star... I guess.

    Hydrostatic equilibrium is a balance of forces. One force is due to gravity, and the other force is due to the gaseous nature of a star. The force of gravity tries to pull everything in the star towards the center. The pressure force is exerted outwards, like how the air in a balloon pushes the rubber outwards.

    These two forces balance each other and the star remains stable, so yeah it prevents the star from collapsing.

    The moon is considered a natural satellite.
     
  4. Apr 16, 2012 #3
    thank you

    i think you are right
    my guess was a cloud of gas
    what you said makes sense
    now is there a word that describes the process of a star forming
     
  5. Apr 16, 2012 #4
    not really, star formation is what it's called. There is a thing called a protostar, which is what a star is before it starts fusing Hydrogen in its core.
     
  6. Apr 16, 2012 #5
    i know nothing about this stuff so i was looking it up on the internet and i ran across this site-wilkapedia was somewhat helpful

    when or after a supernova occurs is the star then "dead" and not considered a star

    thank you for your time and answers
     
  7. Apr 16, 2012 #6
    a star is considered to not be a "star" anymore when nuclear fusion is no longer going on inside of it. After a supernova, a star will have stopped fusing in its core. Most stars end up as white dwarves. They are slowly cooling over time and this lasts for many billions of years, I think maybe even trillions of years, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

    The life cycle of a star is highly dependent on the mass that it starts out with, wikipedia should tell you that.
     
  8. Apr 16, 2012 #7

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    One fusion ceases inside a star it forms a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole. These are known as stellar remnants, aka "dead stars".
     
  9. Apr 16, 2012 #8
    all fascinating stuff

    i have read a bunch of stuff now

    black holes will they capture any light?and yet they are invisble to the naked eye
    and so a star gives off energy and a black hole consumes energy
    why is all this stuff happening
    that is an argument for god i suppose
    not really sure of that
    it looks like the universe is doing a whole lot of creating

    so i guess a supernova's opposite is a protostar-its probably the best answer

    we are in a major supernova drought
    the most interesting thing to me is the moment where a star is beginning to evolve from or in the nebulae
    and both the death and birth phases apparently involve collapsing gravitational forces
    obviously over my head
     
  10. Apr 17, 2012 #9

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Core collapse supernova are rare because their monster sized precursor stars are also rare. And even mammoth stars still live many millions of years before they go boom. Type 1 supernove are also rare because it takes billions of years for a white dwarf to form, they must have a fairly massive, nearby companion star [not altogether rare], and it takes many millions of years for them to steal enough material to achieve detonation mass [the Chandrasekhar limit].
     
  11. Apr 18, 2012 #10

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That depends on what you mean by "invisible". The black hole would be readily visible if there is sufficient background light for it to warp and you are close enough to it. It is true that it gives off effectively zero visible light on its own, and any infalling light that passes the even horizon can no longer escape. Any light that gets close to the event horizon, but does not pass through, has it's path altered, causing the warping of background light I mentioned.

    Black holes "should" give off energy in the form of Hawking Radiation. This has yet to be observed, but it is widely accepted by most scientists.

    What do you mean we are in a supernova drought?
     
  12. Apr 18, 2012 #11
    it has been since 1604 since a supernova has been observed from earth with the naked eye
    500 years-now that might be a couple of seconds in stellar time but not to my own internal clock
     
  13. Apr 18, 2012 #12
    sounds like group think to me-the info coming in is coming from the same telescope

    a lot of people seem positive of what it is

    -we still know little but still act like we understand a lot-
    the definition of most human beings
     
  14. Apr 18, 2012 #13
    we've seen a lot of supernovae and from many different telescopes ;)

    we don't need to see a supernova with the naked eye to learn anything about it, either

    we see supernovae from other galaxies with telescopes and learn a lot about them that way. In fact, type 1a supernovae are one of the things that are used to determine distances to galaxies. And they were used to show that the universe has been expanding over time.

    don't worry, we know a lot about them, but there is still a lot to learn
     
  15. Apr 18, 2012 #14
    the creative act isnt it a thing of beauty and knowledge and thought often get in the way
    so many know what is known and few create
    the suspension of conscious thinking important
     
  16. Apr 18, 2012 #15
    the knowing i mean black holes not supernovae
     
  17. Apr 18, 2012 #16
    Scientists aren't robots. Believe me when I say that science would not advance whatsoever if scientists went around assuming that they know everything already. In fact, scientists go around thinking that they know diddly squat about the universe.

    Creativity and science go hand in hand. How do you think we came up with the idea of a black hole in the first place, or a supernova? If you were to go out and just look with your eyes at the sky, would it be obvious to you that a star that suddenly increased in brightness to a huge degree was a star like our own that was EXPLODING? Or that there are things like black holes?

    Scientists are very creative people, just not in the same way that an artist is. It's a different kind of creativity.
     
  18. Apr 18, 2012 #17

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I suspect that you don't really know much about creativity, people, or science if you believe this.
     
  19. Apr 18, 2012 #18
    maybe i dont know what creativity is
    i am okay with that

    often problems seem very difficult to solve
    what gets in the way

    lets take sports-i have seen very little creativity when people play sports
    and lets go with art-again few artists achieve astounding creative styles
    few people invent or discover groundbreaking items or ideas
     
  20. Apr 18, 2012 #19
    I think you should do a little research into scientific advances in the past 100 years before you say there is a lack of creativity in science ;)
     
  21. Apr 19, 2012 #20
    am i saying that?

    i am saying that compared to the number of humans on the planet discoveries inventions new ideas creative activities are few and far between

    in fact some of them are by accident

    and my apologies if science is one of the few endeavors that isnt atleast partially controlled by group think
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook