How many supernova explode every year?
badastronomy.beehiiv.com
badastronomy.beehiiv.com
It's a great looking game though and the first hour or two I had a blast.
The game is definitely a unique experience, but some of the design elements hamper the experience.
Some of the controls were fine, but I found the ship piloting experience to be barely usable and definitely not enjoyable.
There seems to be lots of games that should have been movies or series instead.
The freeform gameplay and incredible ending makes OW easily my pick for best game of all time, even though it’s also my least replayed favorite game.
Even after visiting the Sun Station I didn't believe it and thought it was a narrative red herring....so the ending was a surprise to me. Somehow.
[1] https://universemagazine.com/en/james-webb-comes-closer-to-r...
In my opinion the article was great and is also complete. More cool astronomy facts belong in some other article or format.
Still though the imbalance in those events makes me suspicious that we are missing something.
Also, we're at the tail end of star-forming era. about 95% of all the stars that will be formed, have already been formed.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/life-unbounded/the-s...
That we can observe with current technology, yes.
Theoretically, around 10-100 stars go supernova every single second somewhere in the universe.
So that's cool, but now I'm thinking: the distant galaxies are redshifted and time-dilated in equal proportion, and also more densly packed because the universe was smaller in the past, so I expect the actual rate of supernovas to be significantly smaller than simply multiplying 1/century/galaxy by 1e11 galaxies.
Edit: also I don't know if rate of supernovas changes over history thanks to different steller environments giving the population-1/2/3 generations of stars…
It is substantially easier for us to see supernovae in other galaxies that we're not facing edge-on. And we have a large sample size of such galaxies. That's why our best estimates of supernovae frequency are based on observations of such galaxies, and not on our observations of the Milky Way.
And, less than half that, actually — since we can’t see the other side of the hemisphere
edit: I guess my error might be related to confusing a probability factor with the number of incidents in a period.
edit: The right answer is probably up to 1 in every 10bn stars go supernovae in the universe each year (or 1 in 10bn die and a fraction are supernovae). Thanks: yzydserd and zild3d
Can’t be right, can it? It would make the Sun (over 4 billion years old) an enormous outlier.
It also would mean stars, on average, do not get very old. Over 10% of the stars that the ancient Greeks saw in the sky would have to have gone supernova since then.
Yes. That fact that I'm thinking made me think I was certainly wrong
Numbers are huge. Even tiny ratios mean something like 10-100 stars go supernova every single second somewhere in the universe.
Sounds a lot? Only about 1 star per galaxy goes supernova per century. A lot of galaxies.
Mindblowing.
This analysis really doesn't work. Star lifespan is inversely correlated to size. A star large enough to just barely go supernova is only going to live for ~100M years, and as they get bigger, the lifespans fall rapidly.
(Why? Because gravity is what provides the pressure for fusion to happen, and so more gravity means fusion happens faster. For large stars, the luminosity is something like the mass to the 3.5th power. Also, convection works less well for larger stars, so as stars grow bigger, ever smaller proportion of the star takes any part in the fusion reactions in the core.)
Our universe is finite, so although it is unbounded (lacks edges) there aren't an infinite number of anything in it, galaxies, stars, M&Ms, grains of sand, atoms of hydrogen all finite.
There is no evidence that there are a infinite number of universes. All we know of is the one we exist in. The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posits that there are a very large number of non-interacting "worlds" which may or may not be the same as "universes".
And if you meant "infinity number of galaxies" then that would require an infinite-size universe, and we don't know if that is the case for our universe. It could be, or it could be finite but unbounded.
If you were observer of emptiness and no universe or anything existing then you would say it’s more likely there will be nothing, so probability towards zero.
Not to forget the recursion. There’s likely universes within our elementary particles or our universe is a particle in parent one.
This is a very nonstandard use of the word "likely".
You have so little information that any estimate is effectively arbitrary. Nonetheless I think there's a clear statistical bias between the two choices in both cases.
brings together the fantastic [1] Super-Kamiokande, the [2] IceCube, and other global detectors, to provide early warning of Supernovas.
You can subscribe... https://snews2.org//alert-signup/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube_Neutrino_Observatory
And here is the Gaia data http://gsaweb.ast.cam.ac.uk/alerts/alert/Gaia23bqb/
> When the Vera Rubin survey telescope goes online, it’s expected to see hundreds of thousands of supernovae per year by itself.
> That’s one hundred billion supernovae per century, or a billion per year, or about 30 per second.
7 characters of base26 gives you 8 billion combinations. "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" requires ~1e48 events when going by the actual non base26 scheme. So I wouldn't be worried.
https://wordfinderx.com/blog/languages-ranked-by-letters-in-...
I have no clue as to the accuracy of this website, but accuracy isn't something we strive for when making ridiculous comments on the interwebs, is it?
Japanese could be combined with the Hindi character set to yield base 96, which is fairly convenient. Cyrillic would be harder -- perhaps the best options there would be to drop a character to yield base 32, or perhaps 3 characters to yield base 30.
I'd argue that base 60 is probably the optimal number base for nearly any use (with base 16 or 64 as close second and third for working with binary data). Hindi's 50 characters combined with our 10 Arabic numerals could indeed be a great way to get there.
Which in case of explodey stars is a very good thing indeed!
If you need some existential dread. It's a hypothetical video to portray the rest of the universe, the time speed moving forward doubles every 5 seconds - and it's 29 minutes long...
While dumping matter into a black hole destroys the matter, it doesn’t destroy the mass. It just confines all of the mass in one place. Powering your Birch World is just a matter of using the Penrose process to extract energy from the black hole for the next few million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years (about 3×10¹⁰⁴ years give or take a few). The stars will only last for about a million trillion years (10²⁰ years plus or minus a bit), so this plan extends your your lifetime by a factor of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years.
Maximal extension perhaps, but not quite forever. Forever takes a lot more work.
I liked the DS9 episode where the mutants realized that the universe was collapsing into the Big Crunch, so they demanded “antigravity generators, lots of them!” Their cosmology was wrong, but only because the show had the misfortune to be written in the past. Their enthusiasm was great :)
Living forever is such a strange desire, considering that complex life has existed on earth for just a fraction of the time it has existed, and humanity even less than that. I recommend watching the Kurtzgesagt video called All of History in one hour (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7TUe5w6RHo&t=3670s). It displays all of earths history in one hour, and humanity is merely a few seconds of it.
Earth is ~4.5 billion years old, that's 4500000000 years, and in 1300000000 years it will be uninhabitable by humans, and in another 4.5 billion years (roughly 3.2 billion years after becoming uninhabitable) it will be engulfed by the sun.
Assuming humanity manages interstellar space flight you could possibly escape earth and live somewhere else until that also dies, but in case it is not practical or possible, you get to enjoy 3.2 billion years of literally choking and being burned alive on earth.
Assuming you did escape earth (or you're immortal so escaping doesn't matter) In 1000000000000 years the last star will be born, and in 100000000000000 years the last star will die out.
You now have an extremely long time to enjoy suffocating in hard vacuum with your body being boiled by the low pressure, and all in complete darkness until the heat death of the universe occurs in roughly 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years
Please read this article first before damning yourself to an unimaginable hell.
Spotted the republican
If you ask /dev/random "What is 2+2?", that question makes no sense as /dev/random does not listen to you and just spits out random binary output.
Go and disagree with /dev/random.
Much worse than that, the universe is enormous and it is expanding faster than the maximum possible velocity, as a result such a clock could never complete a single tick.
For a single bacteria cell, our timeframes must seem immense too.
I’m not saying it’s particularly likely, but it’s a trap to think that just because you can’t fathom the scales that makes it impossible. The universe is huge and very very old. It can afford to wait what is a long time to us for something to happen.
I do think you’re likely right in practice though, and that it is too long for the universe to be an organism. But who knows. We already know that mathematically speaking the heat death of the universe looks identical to a very zoomed in big bang, maybe we just need to zoom out a few billion orders of magnitude to see the big picture, where the vast distances and time scales we see appear as little more than micrometers and microseconds apart…
The scales involved are vastly different than the minor difference in scales between bacteria and us - we don't have to worry about the speed of light for anything that we currently consider alive.
As a non-astronomer, that number still always boggles my mind.
> Also, with the universe expanding, the observable size will reduce over a long time period.
Also boggles my mind. Also makes me think of doctor who when the stars start disappearing. I need to rewatch that...
Unless there's something big we're missing. Maybe the cores of stars contain the final ingredient required for DNA formation or something.
“Might it be the discovery of a distant civilization and our common cosmic origins that finally drives home the message of the bond among all humans? Whether we’re born in San Francisco or Sudan or close to the heart of the Milky Way Galaxy, we are the products of a billion-year lineage of wandering stardust. We, all of us, are what happens when a primordial mixture of hydrogen and helium evolves for so long that it begins to ask where it came from.”
source: https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_tarter_join_the_seti_search (@ 3:02)
> THIRTY SUPERNOVAE PER SECOND, over the entire observable Universe.
> So you should view this fleeting world—
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream,
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.
1) When was the last supernova observed in our own galaxy?
2) How close would one have to be to be observed with the naked eye?
> Can you spot Supernova 2021 axdf?
Are you supposed to be able to spot the supernova?
All I've noticed is a couple of small stars that disappear in the latter photo, but this mostly seems to be because it's more blurry.
Tens of thousands a year is one an hour!
There are so many supernovae you really could bounce too close to one and that would end your trip real quick
2^64 planck times is 9.9e-25 seconds. Planck times are really tiny.
2^64 nanoseconds is 584 years.
The context was timestamps -- I (playfully) figured out how many bits we'd need to count Planck times before the expected heat death of the universe, thus being truly future proof. I was expecting the answer to be a rediculous number, but in fact it was more in the "not efficient, but definitely feasible" range.
Floating point gets us there too, of course, but it has its own drawbacks and it isn't nearly as funny.
These are tiny numbers given that we're quite possibly dealing with infinity in both time and space. I judge it one of the stronger arguments in favour of the universe being constructed (or, more likely, there is a lot out there we can't see). If god built a universe numbers like 1 supernova a century make some sense for artistic value.
As I understand it, a frozen image will remain for a time and fade, growing increasingly red shifted.
What amazes me is how young the universe is compared to life. The universe is only about 4 times as old as life on Earth.
We'd expect that the mathematicians would need to come up with a new notation to represent the age of the universe.
The fact that we are part of that life introduces some nasty sampling biases, but if we find even one more planet that shows a similar ratio, the implications will be that life is ubiquitous.
A century being the amount of time it takes earth, one specific planet to orbit its star 100 times? What about all the other planets and stars?
All the other stars and planets would have the same experience, though their local orbital periods might result in different units of expression being more convenient.
Of course, as we leave our galaxy they would also be in significantly different reference frames and perhaps experience the rate differently as a result. We are assuming that, statistically, our relative velocity is not special and they see roughly the same relationship between red shift and distance that we do.
Our galaxy is to the observable universe as a tenth of a second is to your entire lifetime.