Editing 2878: Supernova

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 16: Line 16:
 
However, this comic reimagines the shape of a light curve graph to depict the relationship between the distance of supernovae from Earth, and the consequent happiness of astronomers, which happens to take a similar form. The further away the supernova occurs, the less detail can be learned from it, so the graph beyond the maximum happiness distance appears to show an {{wiktionary|asymptotic}} approach to less and less astronomer happiness. On the other hand, a {{w|near-earth supernova}} close enough to flood the Earth with significant amounts of gamma and X-ray radiation might be considered ''too'' close. Its radiation could destroy life on Earth, or at least significantly harm the biosphere, which would be a bad thing.{{cn}} Astronomers (and many others) would be really unhappy if that happened, shown as a sharp drop in happiness towards smaller distances and negative happiness values for a supernova that is very close. In fact, if a supernova were to instantly destroy Earth, or kill off all life on it, astronomers may no longer be able to be happy or unhappy (depending on your theological/spiritual feelings), so distance values close to zero have undefined astronomer happiness values.
 
However, this comic reimagines the shape of a light curve graph to depict the relationship between the distance of supernovae from Earth, and the consequent happiness of astronomers, which happens to take a similar form. The further away the supernova occurs, the less detail can be learned from it, so the graph beyond the maximum happiness distance appears to show an {{wiktionary|asymptotic}} approach to less and less astronomer happiness. On the other hand, a {{w|near-earth supernova}} close enough to flood the Earth with significant amounts of gamma and X-ray radiation might be considered ''too'' close. Its radiation could destroy life on Earth, or at least significantly harm the biosphere, which would be a bad thing.{{cn}} Astronomers (and many others) would be really unhappy if that happened, shown as a sharp drop in happiness towards smaller distances and negative happiness values for a supernova that is very close. In fact, if a supernova were to instantly destroy Earth, or kill off all life on it, astronomers may no longer be able to be happy or unhappy (depending on your theological/spiritual feelings), so distance values close to zero have undefined astronomer happiness values.
  
βˆ’
Many astronomers watch and study the stars in the night sky, even those that don't change appreciably over human timescales, but observing and recording such a huge event would be interesting for many reasons. Humans can observe some supernovae with the naked eye, especially if they occur within {{w|Milky Way|our own galaxy}}. A potential supernova in the news lately is {{w|Betelgeuse}}, a {{w|red giant}} star that is the left shoulder in the constellation Orion. About 430 light years from the Sun, it has been pulsating, dimming and brightening over exceedingly short time scales compared to the tens of millions of years such a big star is expected to burn. Betelgeuse should be far enough away from Earth that the inevitable explosion would be safe enough for life on Earth (although [https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/earth-danger-betelgeuse-supernova some assessments] are not so sure), but it ''will'' outshine all other stars in the night sky, competing with the Moon, and could even be visible during daytime. This would be a dream come true for many astronomers and something obvious to others interested in the night sky. In the first [[:Category:Stargazing | Stargazing]] comic, [[1644: Stargazing | 1644]], the wish that it goes supernova (in [[Randall|Randall's]] lifetime) is clearly expressed.
+
Many astronomers watch and study the stars in the night sky, even those that don't change appreciably over human timescales, but observing and recording such a huge event would be interesting for many reasons. Humans can observe some supernovae with the naked eye, especially if they occur within {{w|Milky Way|our own galaxy}}. A potential supernova in the news lately is {{w|Betelgeuse}}, a {{w|red giant}} star that is the left shoulder in the constellation Orion. About 430 light years from the Sun, it has been pulsating, dimming and brightening over exceedingly short time scales compared to the tens of millions of years such a big star is expected to burn. Betelgeuse should be far enough away from Earth that the inevitable explosion would be safe enough for life on Earth (although [https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/earth-danger-betelgeuse-supernova some assessments] are not so sure), but it ''will'' outshine all other stars in the night sky, possibly competing with the Moon, and could even be visible during daytime. This would be a dream come true for many astronomers and something obvious to others interested in the night sky. In the first [[:Category:Stargazing | Stargazing]] comic, [[1644: Stargazing | 1644]], the wish that it goes supernova (in [[Randall|Randall's]] lifetime) is clearly expressed.
  
βˆ’
Since this ''should'' be safe for us, and since it would be a spectacle not seen at least since the start of recorded history, and unlikely to be seen again by human eyes, this would make astronomers very happy, not just from all they could learn, but also from all the increased interest in gazing at the sky with the 'new' star (and then seeing what happens to it next).
+
Since this ''should'' be safe for us, and since it would be a spectacle not seen for hundreds of years here on Earth, this would make astronomers very happy, not just from all they could learn, but also from all the increased interest in gazing at the sky with the 'new' star (and then seeing what happens to it next).
 
There are thought to be about three supernovae occurring per century within our own galaxy (most of which are much further away than Betelgeuse), and many other galaxies within which a supernova explosion can be detected. These remain useful to see, and are often studied as intensively as possible, but have decreasing amounts of thrill to them and are harder to notice/record in the early stages of the explosion (or immediately before, to add even more understanding).
 
There are thought to be about three supernovae occurring per century within our own galaxy (most of which are much further away than Betelgeuse), and many other galaxies within which a supernova explosion can be detected. These remain useful to see, and are often studied as intensively as possible, but have decreasing amounts of thrill to them and are harder to notice/record in the early stages of the explosion (or immediately before, to add even more understanding).
  

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)