New supernova likely arose from massive Wolf-Rayet star

May 22, 2014 by Elizabeth Howell, Universe Today
M1-67 is the youngest wind-nebula around a Wolf-Rayet star, called WR124, in our Galaxy. Credit: ESO

They've been identified as possible causes for supernovae for a while, but until now, there was a lack of evidence linking massive Wolf-Rayet stars to these star explosions. A new study was able to find a "likely" link between this star type and a supernova called SN 2013cu, however.

"When the  exploded, it flash ionized its immediate surroundings, giving the astronomers a direct glimpse of the progenitor star's chemistry. This opportunity lasts only for a day before the supernovablast wave sweeps the ionization away. So it's crucial to rapidly respond to a young supernova discovery to get the flash spectrum in the nick of time," the Carnegie Institution for Science wrote in a statement.

"The observations found evidence of composition and shape that aligns with that of a nitrogen-rich Wolf-Rayet star. What's more, the likely experienced an increased loss of mass shortly before the explosion, which is consistent with model predictions for Wolf-Rayet explosions."

The star type is known for lacking hydrogen (in comparison to other )—which makes it easy to identify spectrally—and being large (upwards of 20 times more massive than our Sun), hot and breezy, with fierce stellar winds that can reach more than 1,000 kilometres per second. This particular supernova was spotted by the Palomar 48-inch telescope in California, and the "likely " was found about 15 hours after the explosion.

NGC 3199 – Credit: Ken Crawford

Researchers also noted that the new technique, called "flash spectroscopy", allows them to look at stars over a range of about 100 megaparsecs or more than 325 million light years—about five times further than what previous observations with the Hubble Space Telescope revealed.

The research was published in Nature. It was led by Avishay Gal-Yam of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel.

Explore further: Confirmed: Stellar behemoth self-destructs in a Type IIb supernova

More information: phys.org/news/2014-05-stellar-… s-iib-supernova.html

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Hubble eyes a smoldering star

Sep 23, 2013

(Phys.org) —This new image, snapped by NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, shows the star HD 184738, also known as Campbell's hydrogen star. It is surrounded by plumes of reddish gas—the fiery red and orange ...

Hubble catches stellar explosions in NGC 6984

Nov 08, 2013

Supernovae are intensely bright objects. They are formed when a star reaches the end of its life with a dramatic explosion, expelling most of its material out into space.

Recommended for you

The Great Cold Spot in the cosmic microwave background

Sep 19, 2014

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal afterglow of the primordial fireball we call the big bang. One of the striking features of the CMB is how remarkably uniform it is. Still, there are some ...

Mystery of rare five-hour space explosion explained

Sep 17, 2014

Next week in St. Petersburg, Russia, scientists on an international team that includes Penn State University astronomers will present a paper that provides a simple explanation for mysterious ultra-long gamma-ray ...

User comments : 20

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

aram_ga
1 / 5 (10) May 22, 2014
=== Check this video on YouTube "100 reasons why evolution is stupid" by Kent Hovind and also "Young Earth - Young Universe " by Spike Psarris.
Dr_toad
May 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (7) May 22, 2014
Then check out something in the library about how to be civil to people who disagree with you...
Dr_toad
May 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) May 23, 2014
Excuse me? Are you a fundie as well, therefore stupid too?


No I'm an atheist and I was talking to both of you, but your hostile defensiveness shows clearly that you believe my point has merit.

The first comment to this article was from someone untouched by reason or intellect. YEC has no merit to anyone but the sheep that populate churches, and if I remember correctly, this is supposed to be a science site, not a forum for drive-by religious insanity.

Please piss off, jerk.

How was that? Nice and civil, hm?


I couldn't have asked for a better illustration of my point. Thank you.

rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (7) May 23, 2014
Excuse me? Are you a fundie as well, therefore stupid too?


No I'm an atheist and I was talking to both of you, but your hostile defensiveness shows clearly that you believe my point has merit.

The first comment to this article was from someone untouched by reason or intellect. YEC has no merit to anyone but the sheep that populate churches, and if I remember correctly, this is supposed to be a science site, not a forum for drive-by religious insanity.

Please piss off, jerk.

How was that? Nice and civil, hm?


I couldn't have asked for a better illustration of my point. Thank you.


No one is under any obligation to be civil towards people who come on to a science site to spew their religious propaganda that has no relation to the article.

Anyone who does so can and should expect ridicule in exchange for their ridiculous and unsolicited B.S.

I don't go on religious websites to tell people how stupid they are, though that does sound entertaining.
TechnoCreed
4 / 5 (5) May 23, 2014
@Modernmystic

Although I agree with you concerning civility, I will point out that aram_ga's comment is totally unrelated to the article. To be unwelcomming to spammers is an understandable reaction.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
No one is under any obligation to be civil towards people who come on to a science site to spew their religious propaganda that has no relation to the article.


No one is under any obligation not to urinate in their pants in public either. Most people over a certain age and maturity level manage to refrain from it. In any case I agree with your opinion on obligations.

Anyone who does so can and should expect ridicule in exchange for their ridiculous and unsolicited B.S.


Whenever someone uses the word "should" I thank them for their perspective and opinion and move on.

I don't go on religious websites to tell people how stupid they are, though that does sound entertaining.


Well you'd be factually incorrect to do so.There are a huge percentage of religious people who are quite intelligent. To suggest otherwise is to belie blatant ignorance and bigotry.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
@Modernmystic

Although I agree with you concerning civility, I will point out that aram_ga's comment is totally unrelated to the article. To be unwelcomming to spammers is an understandable reaction.


I couldn't agree more, and I will say that when we without faith are so blatantly caustic to those of faith we solidify their opinions and give them a sense that they must be correct if they disagree with people who are so obviously immature. This of course is bigotry as well, but so much of the human race works that way it's hard to deny.

I speak about those who may have read the comment and themselves not commented.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (4) May 23, 2014
@MM
"I don't go on religious websites to tell people how stupid they are, though that does sound entertaining. "

"Well you'd be factually incorrect to do so.There are a huge percentage of religious people who are quite intelligent. To suggest otherwise is to belie blatant ignorance and bigotry."

That comment was based on: "100 reasons why evolution is stupid" Thus suggesting that those who support evolutionary theory are stupid. Are you suggesting religious groups contain a higher percentage of intelligent people than those interested in science?
And I'll remind you that aram_ga, started the whole thing and given all the grief in world caused by religion, calling them stupid is small potatoes and frankly, religions and religious people have earned any disrespect they get irregardless of their supposed intelligence.
If you don't believe me, check this out. http://phys.org/n...eum.html

"blatant ignorance and bigotry." that defines religion perfectly
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
That comment was based on: "100 reasons why evolution is stupid" Thus suggesting that those who support evolutionary theory are stupid.


I'd contend they're ignorant or afraid, not stupid (though some may be but not for that reason alone). Plenty of intelligent scientists believed in creationism. True, not many do now, but your logic is obviously fallacious. Believing in creationism does not equate to stupidity.

Are you suggesting religious groups contain a higher percentage of intelligent people than those interested in science?


I don't consider the two mutually exclusive. I reject the very premise. However, since the vast majority of people on the planet are religious then by sheer statistics without doubt there are MORE intelligent religious people than atheistic. As a "per capita" percentage I'd say that atheistic groups are probably more "intelligent" depending on your definition and criteria. If categorization of people and statistics of that kind interest you.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
And I'll remind you that aram_ga, started the whole thing and given all the grief in world caused by religion, calling them stupid is small potatoes and frankly, religions and religious people have earned any disrespect they get irregardless of their supposed intelligence.


So, "we" will continue to disrespect them for their beliefs and "they" us. Let's see how that works out for all of us. How's it been going so far?

"blatant ignorance and bigotry." that defines religion perfectly


I agree literally. It doesn't define all religious people perfectly. That's a bit too much equivocation.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (4) May 23, 2014
@MM

You and I will agree to disagree on this point:

"Believing in creationism does not equate to stupidity."
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
@MM

You and I will agree to disagree on this point:

"Believing in creationism does not equate to stupidity."


Indeed.

And fortunately this kind of bigotry won't be around for long as the trend is clearly moving towards more secular and scientific worldviews of the origins of the cosmos and humanity. It will go away in spite of attitudes like yours, not because of them.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 23, 2014
No one is under any obligation not to urinate in their pants in public either. Most people over a certain age and maturity level manage to refrain from it
@modernmystic
might I also point out that the same method is used for training youth not to urinate in their pants (fear of public humiliation).
just a thought, but... Shouldn't this indicate that trolls/spammers deserve the humiliation they receive unless they work towards presenting a legitimate argument in a mature fashion?
After all, the troll/spammer mentality is also indicative of immaturity as well as the inability to functionally consider an argument, as well as the complete lack of viable argument

but again, this is IMHO and from a decidedly old school perspective
cont'd...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) May 23, 2014
I'd contend they're ignorant or afraid, not stupid (though some may be but not for that reason alone)
@MM
cont'd
I must contest this statement. First of all, anyone now-a-days is exposed to education as well as the internet, to the point where it even affects Amish and other strict Mennonite, as well as cult religions behaviors. The exposure to information as well as the ability to verify legitimate science, enjoy and share the reality of physics, etc means that anyone above a certain age, who is mature enough to comprehend data and analysis, who denies the reality of empirical data and science for the unforgiving and strict structure of a religion has no right to be considered ignorant of basic science, therefore should be considered stupid.
it is the acceptance of more complicated science that ignorance comes into play. but ANYONE who believes in Creation "science" gets exposed to science, and then taught to IGNORE empirical data for faith reasons: therefore they ARE stupid
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) May 23, 2014
You and I will agree to disagree on this point:
"Believing in creationism does not equate to stupidity."
Indeed.
@MM
whereas there are rules for civility in public, and I can understand your point about civility, I still think that, IMHO, anyone taught science and then told to disregard empirical knowledge for the sake of a religion is far from ignorant, but displays what is commonly referred to as "stupidity" in that they HAVE the information available, and they have the ability to verify said data, but they systematically IGNORE said reality for the sake of a religion, faith, or follow blindly the leadership of a known manipulative organization (religion)
therefore I would have to contend that rockwolf1000, TechnoCreed and Dr_toad are fully justified in their behavior as well as disdain for aram_ga's blatant stupidity as well as the posting of said stupidity on a public pop-sci site where everyone can share in it with no expectation of privacy
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
@ Captain Stumpy

Stop! Thief!

You took the words right outta my mouth.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
might I also point out that the same method is used for training youth not to urinate in their pants (fear of public humiliation).
just a thought, but... Shouldn't this indicate that trolls/spammers deserve the humiliation they receive unless they work towards presenting a legitimate argument in a mature fashion?


As does Dr. Toad of course. Which, in a very subtle way I was doing. One is no better than the other. Unless you actually do consider his response a mature one, as you indicated you very well may.

I must contest this statement.


I meet many intelligent people on this board who are exposed to the facts on nuclear power and insist it isn't a safe form of power. Does that make them stupid? They just disagree with you. I'm baffled at how an irrational belief so threatens otherwise rational people into fits of hysterical hostility. No, they're not stupid people. They make up the vast majority of humanity. I appreciate your opinion on the matter though.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
I guess it all depends on how you define stupid though. We could be quibbling over definitions.

Is it stupid to insult people for believing in Santa Claus or just bad form? Maybe neither, I guess it just depends on your perspective, culture, upbringing, etc.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2014
I guess it all depends on how you define stupid though. We could be quibbling over definitions.

Is it stupid to insult people for believing in Santa Claus or just bad form? Maybe neither, I guess it just depends on your perspective, culture, upbringing, etc.


Now you're suggesting Santa isn't real?!? I think you forgot to eat your Wheaties today. LOL
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) May 23, 2014
Is it stupid to insult people for believing in Santa Claus or just bad form?
@MM
wait... Santa's not real? ...
but seriously: this is a PERFECT example of what I was talking about above. How do you handle a 7 yr old believing in Santa vs. a 23 yr old? the belief is tied directly to the maturity level of the individual in most societies. The 7 yr old may be humored, but the 23 yr old will be treated with derision and scorn

the same policy should apply to public sites where trolls post stupidity. public humiliation due to their insistence of remaining immature as well as inability to formulate a logical, strong argument for the interpretation of reality. it is not a "fit of hysterical hostility", but a public denouncement of the immature as well as blatantly stupid. There is a difference between stupid and ignorant: ignorant did NOT know/learn, stupid IGNORES the information available to spout inanity or fallacious claims.