Astronomers Find Type Ia Supernova Just Waiting to Happen

by Nancy Atkinson on November 17, 2009

The expanding shell  around V445 Puppis.  Credit:  ESO
Type Ia supernovae are a mystery because no one can predict when or where one might occur. But astronomers are hedging their bets on V445 Puppis. A so-called “vampire white dwarf” that underwent a nova outburst after gulping down part of its companion’s matter in 2000, now, it appears this double star system is a prime candidate for exploding. “Whether V445 Puppis will eventually explode as a supernova, or if the current nova outburst has pre-empted that pathway by ejecting too much matter back into space is still unclear,” said Patrick Woudt, from the University of Cape Town and lead author of the paper reporting the results. “But we have here a pretty good suspect for a future Type Ia supernova!”

This is the first, and so far only nova showing no evidence at all for hydrogen, and provides the first evidence for an outburst on the surface of a white dwarf dominated by helium. “This is critical, as we know that Type Ia supernovae lack hydrogen,” said Danny Steeghs, from the University of Warwick, UK, “and the companion star in V445 Pup fits this nicely by also lacking hydrogen, instead dumping mainly helium gas onto the white dwarf.”

Click here to watch a movie of the expanding shell of V445 Puppis.

The astronomers have determined the system is about 25,000 light-years from the Sun, and it has an intrinsic brightness of over 10,000 times our Sun. This implies that the vampire white dwarf in this system has a high mass that is near its fatal limit and is still simultaneously being fed by its companion at a high rate.

“One of the major problems in modern astrophysics is the fact that we still do not know exactly what kinds of stellar system explode as a Type Ia supernova,” said Woudt, “As these supernovae play a crucial role in showing that the Universe’s expansion is currently accelerating, pushed by a mysterious dark energy, it is rather embarrassing.”

Shell around V445 Puppis  (March 2005). Credit: ESO

Shell around V445 Puppis (March 2005). Credit: ESO


Woudt and his team used the ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) to obtain very sharp images of V445 Puppis over a time span of two years. The images show a bipolar shell, initially with a very narrow waist, with lobes on each side. Two knots are also seen at both the extreme ends of the shell, which appear to move at about 30 million kilometers per hour. The shell — unlike any previously observed for a nova — is itself moving at about 24 million kilometers per hour. A thick disc of dust, which must have been produced during the last outburst, obscures the two central stars.

As Steeghs said, one defining characteristic of Type Ia supernovae is the lack of hydrogen in their spectrum. Yet hydrogen is the most common chemical element in the Universe. Such supernovae most likely arise in systems composed of two stars, one of them being the end product of the life of sun-like stars, or white dwarfs. When such white dwarfs, acting as stellar vampires that suck matter from their companion, become heavier than a given limit, they become unstable and explode.

The build-up is not a simple process. As the white dwarf cannibalizes its prey, matter accumulates on its surface. If this layer becomes too dense, it becomes unstable and erupts as a nova. These controlled, mini-explosions eject part of the accumulated matter back into space. The crucial question is thus to know whether the white dwarf can manage to gain weight despite the outburst, that is, if some of the matter taken from the companion stays on the white dwarf, so that it will eventually become heavy enough to explode as a supernova.

Read the team’s paper.

Source: ESO

  • Nereid2

    Intersting find, HSBC.

    As chance would have it, I have a copy of that document, and a most remarkable document it is!

    Have you ever seen an astrophysics paper, on stars (of any kind) that is completely devoid of numbers? Well, this one by Thornhill comes close; the mechanisms (or processes) proposed (to be responsible for SN1987A) are described only with words … no equations, not even any numbers*.

    It gets worse.

    There seems to be no attempt to show any connection between ‘theory’ and observations, except ‘bunny rabbit pictures’ (‘oh look, this cloud looks like a bunny rabbit!’).

    It gets even worse.

    The foundation of the idea presented is, yep, you guessed it, Electric Sun … and yep, you guessed it, no equations, no calculations, no estimates, no attempt to match ‘theory’ to observations.

    In short, the very antithesis of science.

    FWIW, IIRC, the publication of this document caused some consternation among IEEE members …

    * one exception: ’28′ and ’56′

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Figured. Thornhill is the core source of the problem here. I’ve been gathering evidence, and it is no doubt the source of much of Anaconda’s central protestations – he almost paraphrases it, but sadly doesn’t understand it – and as you say here – nor does Thornhill.

    I also love the description of the idea of the presumed “new plasma cosmology.”

    Keep that paper at hand – Sorley and Anaconda use it as their manifesto.

    Where else did he get the quote;

    “The answer is easy to explain: The processes governoring the processes are the same. The Z- pinch process constrains both how a star forms and how it ends. In the ending senario, the current is increased until the circuit overloads and explodes, i.e., exploding double layers.”

    Not only is he a fraud and dishonest, he’s now also a plagiarist as well!

  • Nereid2

    HSBC: that text string is not in the Thornhill document, nor is any decent-sized contiguous subset.

    According to Google, the only place on the internet with it is here, in this UT story comment section.

    Perhaps the EU cult has gone underground? Perhaps, instead of posting stuff in the open, on the hollowscience or thunderdolts websites, leading cult members get emails from the cult leaders, replete with text strings like this?

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    I’ve actually seen these seen these words on Thuberbolts.info, which is conducted by Thornhill.

    The words “exploding double layers” apparently are attributed to Alfen.

    What is interesting is the article “Electric Sun Verifies”

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb
  • Nereid2

    Tom Bridgman demolishes the first, here

    The second reads very much like the IEEE document … mostly “bunny rabbit science”.

  • Lawrence B. Crowell

    Dr Flimmer,

    In one sense we might consider the question of “where did the big bang come from” as maybe inappropriate. However, the configuration for the universe is clearly involved with quantum mechanics. The universe has a vacuum energy associated with a Ricci curvature. This manifests itself in what we call dark energy. The vacuum quantum field configuration for this universe is such that it can quantum tunnel some element of this vacuum energy into a spacetime “bubble.” This vacuum configuration the sets the inflation of this bubble and there is an associated spacetime cosmology — a new universe. This is the whole idea of the multiverse, which at least seems to have some merit to it as at least telling us something about the quantum nature of the partition function or path integral of the universe. So we might of course presume that our observable universe is due to a vacuum bubble tunneling in the string/M-bulk to inflate into spacetime we now call our cosmology. So we then have some idea of what is the origin of our whole spacetime universe, though this is not exactly for everything. However. in the entire superspace these bubbles may have a range of time directions, so in total there is a timelessness to the system. What we observe as time is a local orientation of fields, similar to say an induced Hall current by a magnetization fluctuation. The recent findings of B-modes in the CMB by the Planck spacecraft are supportive of inflationary cosmology. Yet inflationary cosmology as a purely local theory has serious deficiencies, which are corrected for by extending this into supergravity & strings with multiverse interpretations. These are very fascinating things to work on and to ponder.

    Of course many regard these as over speculative, yet in general our perspectives on the universe have consistently expanded. It was only 500 years ago that in the western world it was though the universe was centered around the Earth, as the biggest thing in it, with concentric spheres bearing the celestial realm extending maybe some 10s of thousands of kilometers out. At the time of Newton the universe consisted of the solar system and the “fixed stars” out at uncertain distances, Eiinstein saw the universe as encompassing the Milky Way, then came Hubble, then with inflationary cosmology are pocket regions or universes, and the multiverse and then … . The universe refuses to be bounded by what we can impose.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  • http://www.nancyatkinson.com Nancy Atkinson

    Hey folks — don’t feed the trolls and they might go away.

  • Anaconda

    The question that raised this series of interesting comments was whether Z – pinch processes related to stars near exploding (instant post) and star processes in general was “my personal theories”.

    The research by Crumb and Nereid2 shows it is not “my personal theory”.

    Ironically, considering the subtext of the discussion, I associate myself with the final sentence in Lawrence B. Crowell’s comment:

    “The universe refuses to be bounded by what we can impose.”

    Obviously, we differ on almost everything else, but at least we can agree on that one sentence.

    I add the following passage and source link to Crumb’s and Nereid2′s research:

    “Space plasma researchers and pulse power engineers have long speculated that the progenitor of intense auroras, protoplanetary and planetary nebula, and supernovae is the Z- pinch, as both display the temporal, morphological, and radiation properties that are found in high-energy density plasma produced in laboratory and extreme high current explosive test experiments.” — A. L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory

    http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/Editorial-IEEETPSAug07-CosmicPlasma.pdf

    These are not my “personal theories”.

  • DrFlimmer

    @ Lawrence B. Crowell

    Thanks a lot. My knowledge about these topics (of which you are obviously an expert ;) ) is rather rudimentary. My intention was to state that quantum mechanics “helps” us to avoid things like singularities. At some point Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle wants to play, too. But I also think that, before we can really dig into such problems, we need a theory of quantum gravity.

    My point was to show that Anaconda treats the different “theories” with different standards. It is useless to try to explain the implications of QM to him. He will neither listen nor learn.
    According to his knowledge, BB and PC face at some point a fundamental problem. But he accepts it for PC and not for the BB. And this is dishonest!
    That was my intention.

    Still: Thanks for the explanation. Truly fascinating!

  • ND

    Nancy Atkinson is right. Anaconda is looking for a heated debate. He loves it. And we keep engaging him out of habit. His drive is to rub into other people’s faces on how wrong they are and he thrives on this. It’s personal and it’s clear from his dishonest tactics. I think it’s time to cut Anaconda loose and let him live in his delusions of scientific adequacy.

    DrFlimmer says “My point was to show that Anaconda treats the different “theories” with different standards. It is useless to try to explain the implications of QM to him. He will neither listen nor learn.”

    Yes because he has taken sides when there should be none in science. For him there is an us vs them. It’s belief for him. And this kind of mentality is infuriating and drives some of us to debate him.

  • Anaconda

    For what it’s worth, here is an image that resembles the image at the head of the post:

    The image provides a visual example of a cylindrical Z – pinch for the hypothesis outlined by Dr. Anthony Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory, in the proceeding link:

    http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Planetary%20nebula%20M2-9.jpg

  • Nereid2

    @Torbjorn Larsson OM: I’m not familiar with Deutsch, but I certainly agree that a black box predictor is both useless (as science) and does not exist (at least in astrophysics).

    You commented on “quantitative”; perhaps it’s worth expanding a bit on it …

    First, I want to be clear that I’m not talking about any other part of science, just astrophysics (which, perforce, includes a great deal of physics … but not all of it).

    Second, I want to emphasise the key role of objective, independently verifiable astronomical observations … an (astrophysics) explanation can only be convincing if addresses all such, relevant, observations (this is, thus, a necessary, but not sufficient, condition; consistency is also necessary).

    But why must all convincing explanations be quantitative?

    Because the observations that any such explanation seeks to satisfactorily address are themselves quantitative!

    Take what almost all of astronomy is about … the detection of photons/electromagnetic radiation. At its most basic, an astronomical observation is a 2D, time-varying, SED (spectral energy distribution) (polarisation may also be applicable) … and it’s all data, quantitative data.

    Turn this around … an explanation along the lines of “the progenitor of [phenomenon A] is [mechanism B], as both display the temporal, morphological, and radiation properties that are found in [phenomenon C]” is not a convincing explanation, and can never be (unless and until “the temporal, morphological, and radiation properties” are quantified).

    I agree that to be convincing, an explanation also needs to have a (successful!) predictive component …

  • Nereid2

    @ND: yes, that’s the classic description of a troll … and the most important thing to remember, concerning trolls, is to not feed them.

  • Nereid2

    @Anaconda: my last attempt to engage you in a discussion …

    I repeat my offer, made many times, now: I am more than willing to have a science-based discussion with you; however, I will only do so if you agree to put the time and effort in to establishing common understanding on which any such discussion must be based. To that end, I have proposed – also several times now – that we first work on consistency as an essential component.

    If you’re OK with this, then please say so explicitly; if not, or if you don’t respond explicitly, then I will not respond to any further comments you may make, here in UT story comments.

    With one exception: I am interested to hear your comments on what I wrote concerning ‘convincing explanation’ (in astrophysics).

  • Lawrence B. Crowell

    ND is largely right. Unless Anaconda is restricted by the powers at UT he will continue this. It is about endorphines, which give people a certain rush when they feel they have scored some sort of coup. Maybe if he is just ignored this will tamp down.

    Dr Flimmer, I am sort of an expert. I read the papers and have in the past published a few on these issues. I read the papers by those who regularly publish on these matters. I will say that to be honest there is a lot of confusion out there. Yet this is to be expected from a topic like this at the frontiers of knowledge. I am working on a sort of “Magnum Opus” on this, which might in the end crash and burn for all I know. I think there is an underlying basis to current string and M-theoretic models.

    LC

  • Anaconda

    @ Nereid2:

    Nereid2 wrote: “With one exception: I am interested to hear your comments on what I wrote concerning ‘convincing explanation’ (in astrophysics).”

    First, if you looked at the link from which the cited passage was drawn, you would know it was a summary statement from a caption for two images side-by-side that led off the article.

    Obviously, it was not meant as a quantitative exercise. Rather, it was offered to demonstrate that the Z- pinch approach is not my “personal theory”.

    Second, regarding your “quantitative” passage:

    Yes, ultimately quantitative precision is desirable, even necessary for high resolution physical understanding and predictive power.

    But the failure to apply the correct model is fatal.

    Qualitative understanding has its place in the building steps to ultimate scientific understanding.

    It does not matter how precise the quantitative observations & measurements are if the wrong model is applied to the observations & measurements — something already stated in my comments on this post.

    If the qualitative understanding is faulty then faulty analysis & interpretations and conclusions will result.

    Also, if the observations & measurements relationship to the physical forces acting on object is misinterpreted then it doesn’t matter how precise the quantification is — it will still be wrong.

    Also, if the presumed physical forces that are quantified do not represent the active physical forces on the object, again, quantification alone will not result in a correct physical understanding of the object.

    The above statements are different ways to say the same thing, Namely: if the model is wrong, quantified precision won’t correct it.

    Astronomy has made a number of assumptions and those control the conclusions.

    And even when the observations & measurements by astronomy’s own conventions falsify the model, ad hocs are added to save the model from being falsified.

    As regarding your offer: It is hollow. it is simply an offer to accept your model and accept the analysis & interpretation that flow from that model and to accept what certain observations & measurements mean and agreeing to your definition of which observations & measurements are important and which are not.

    That is not discussion, that is dictation and non-productive.

    I don’t accept your model and its corresponding conventions. And apparently you don’t accept my model and its corresponding conventions.

    So, it comes down to which model makes more sense based on the scientific evidence and known physical relationships.

    Of which we have sharp disagreements.

    The surprises and anomalies reported by astronomers and fudge factors required to make the conventional model work suggest proper weight is presently not being applied to the various observations & measurements and other observations & measurements are being misinterpreted at this point in time by astronomers.

    So far, considering what is known of the solar system by in situ observation & measurement and what is known of plasma behavior as learned through plasma physics experiments as suggested by Dr. Anthony Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory, in the above linked article by same and others’ work, the Plasma Cosmology model is the correct model.

    Once the correct model is applied, correct analysis & interpretation will flow from present quantified observation & measurement and new ideas for further observations & measurements will flow from that to test the validity of the prior conclusions resulting in increased quantification which will produce higher resolution understanding & predictive power.

  • Nereid2

    @Anaconda: thanks for responding so quickly, and, in the case of my offer, so clearly.

    I also appreciate your comments on my few words on ‘convincing explanatioin’.

    One last thing, perhaps, for you to consider: how does one go about deciding if a model* is “correct”? or, perhaps, is “wrong”? Is there a method – or, maybe, methods – by which any such decision can be said to be objective? independently verifiable?

    Have a nice life.

    * OK, two: what is a “model”?

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Here is another interesting and very relevant to the discussion here arivx paper;

    “Magnetic Field Evolution of White Dwarfs in Strongly Interacting Binary Star Systems” Potter and Tout

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3657

    Yet another gravity “only” mode…

  • IVAN3MAN

    Anaconda:

    No, [the Z-pinch is] a well documented phenomenon in high energy plasma physics.

    I am aware of that, but what I meant by “magical”, when I referred to the “Z-pinch”, was that, on this planet Earth, the Z-pinch requires some source of power: in lightning, it is convection currents building up a static charge in clouds; in the laboratory, it is from a generator and/or bank of capacitors — but what about in space…?

    I suggest that you read this article, “The Con-Artist Physics of “Ocean’s Eleven”“, from which this extract (emphasis mine) is taken from:

    [T]he filmmakers themselves did not realize that their [Z-pinch] pulls off the ultimate swindle. As portrayed in the movie, the [Z-pinch] apparently violates the most fundamental principle of physics, the conservation of energy, which says that energy can be converted from one form to another, but never created out of thin air.

    The same principle of physics applies to the vacuum of space in the Universe.

    Furthermore, since you did not answer my question, the reason why it’s so bloody difficult, if not impossible, to achieve fusion with a Z-pinch is that the plasma within a Z-pinch quickly becomes unstable and breaks up before it can compressed to these levels, and applying the current more quickly, with a large bank of capacitors, simply makes it break up faster. The analogy is like trying to squeeze jelly in your clenched fist: the tighter your fingers — like the magnetic field lines — try to squeeze the jelly, the more it will squeeze out from between your fingers; it is the same problem with plasma, which is why it results in instability.

    That’s why I referred to the ‘cosmic Z-pinch’ as “magical”; how is it that this phenomenon can just occur spontaneously in space and ‘power’ the “Electric Sun” and stars, but controlled fusion cannot easily be achieved in perfectly controlled laboratory conditions here on Earth?

    Nevertheless, you still expect us to buy your bloody “he’s not dead, he’s ‘resting’” parrot!

Previous post:

Next post: