Talk:Supernova

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Supernova is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 3, 2007.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 • Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Next supernova

Do astronomers have any vague idea as to which star will go supernova next and when?--Just James 23:09, 9 October 2006 (GMT+10:00)

unfortunately for astronomers, astrophysics and astroparticle physics there is no known model able to predict which star or when a star will become a supernova, as far as I know... Tatonzolo 10:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Very vaguely, candidates 'local' to us would include Rho Cassiopeiae [1], Betelgeuse [2], Antares [3], Eta Carinae [4], or even this Kitt Peak Downes star [5] Vague here can mean sometime between now and the next 10000 years (except for the last listed). There is one possible predictor [6] The Yeti 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
don't expect to point your telescope to the sky and observe one, like an ecclipse or a planet or something. Sorry, we're not there yet Aax.nox 13:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Convection interval for type Ia

The paper titled On the C/O Enrichment of Novae Ejecta gives a time scale of 103 years for the period between the onset of "envelope convection" and the runaway. A second paper On Heavy Element Enrichment in Classical Novae lists 6.9 × 104 years for one of the three scenarios. Am I reading this at all correctly? These values appear to be 1-2 orders of magnitude larger than the 100 years listed in this article. Is there a better reference for that result? Thanks! — RJH (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Hillebrandt/Niemeyer 2000 paper gives an estimate of ~1000 years, so I used that for now. — RJH (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asymmetry

I added a section on supernova asymmetry, based on the various references I could dig up. (Induced in part by a recent Sky&Telescope article.) But it would be appreciated if the content could be reviewed by an expert on the subject. Thank you! — RJH (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article length & summary style

This article is becoming quite long and likely needs to have some material spun off into daughter articles, per WP:SS. As candidates I was thinking of having "Type Ia supernova" and "Type II supernova" sub-pages, with shorter summaries on the main Supernova page. Doing so will provide room for more details coverage of those sub-types. Does anybody find this objectionable? — RJH (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. If I find some time, I'll help. Nick Mks 19:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I was waiting to see how the FAC would resolve before proceding. Likely it can be spun out at a later date when more detail needs to be added. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the article is too long. The amount of readable prose is fine. If you are using the byte size (currently 85K), that isn't a good measure because of how much space is taken up by the citations. The citations don't count towards the Wikipedia:Article size "readable prose". The Mad Genius 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay. In the future, though, we may still want to add separate articles on the supernovae class if more depth is needed. — RJH (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it can always be split out if it becomes necessary. I was just making the point that the size of the current article is fine. The Mad Genius 01:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I understood your point, as I indicated by the word "Okay". Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Doesn't the figure that appears at the beginning of the Type II section have Oxygen and Neon switched?

No I believe it's correct. See Image talk:Evolved star fusion shells.png. — RJH (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The non-English language editions of this article include some attractive graphics that could potentially be used here.

These light curves are available from the Spanish language page:

The German page also has a detailed chart of type Ia supernovae:

However I'm somewhat doubtful of licensing of the later page. I found a copy on a NASA site at one time, but the image also credited the author so it's not clear that the illustration is in the public domain. — RJH (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. — RJH (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The light curve image is a bit dubious, why have an axis scaled in terms of solar units and not have any numbers on it at all, it seems very pointless, it should just be in terms of L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.132.32 (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a heck of a time trying to upload a photo file into the Supernova entry in the Type I sub-category. I've never done this before, and started at "how to upload a file into an article" - but then ran into all kinds of very confusing instructions after I'd uploaded it. So I started all over and went through the procedure for uploading a federal government file (NASA). That was successful - but then I ran into the first file I'd uploaded which is now a duplicate that I can't seem to delete. The And now I'm told one or the other of the identical files will be speedy-deleted, although I have provided the copyright info -which seems to have disappeared after first having appeared when I clicked on the photo for an enlarged version - the URL for the photo is http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/swift_supernova.html. The instructions are needlessly confusing for a newbie, with all kinds of caveats and surprise requirements. All I know is that the file is legitimate and in the public domain, and is a worthy and very timely contribution to the article on Supernovas. This has taken me quite a long time and I don't know what to do next. I hope someone who knows what they're doing can straighten it all out for me. It's late and my brain hurts. Thanks very much. Wlegro (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The other problem with the picture in the article is that it doesn't include the identifying numbers showing where the two supernovae are in the right-hand photo. This is probably because I clicked on that photo on the NASA site to enlarge it and then uploaded that - but I didn't notice at the time that the enlargement didn't include the identifiers while the thumb does. I gave the URL for the photo in my first note above - if anyone wants to do it properly it would help the readers to see where in the galaxy 2008D is (in the right-side photo) to compare it to the exploding star on the left. Argh. And I just noticed this is a gold star article. Or was. Wlegro (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, first of all this isn't the place for complaints about the image upload process. If you are having difficulty following the instructions, try Help:Contents/Images and media. There should be a pull-down menu on the image upload page that allows you to select NASA. Secondly, if the image is from NASA, I suggest uploading it to the Commons rather than wikipedia. In this case it looks like a diplicate is already present, so I modified the Commons image to add the correct license template.—RJH (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, thanks for whatever you did - did you also rewrite the caption so it wasn't so long? If so, thanks for that, too. The duplicate is my fault for not doing it right the first time, and I am unable to delete it. The problem now is that file link goes to the duplicate without the copyright - I don't know why since I uploaded the file onto Commons after I discovered the issue with copyright documentation, so I thought the link would go to the correct version. Now I've gotten a message on Commons that the copyright license isn't right though it's plainly in sight http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Supernova_2008D.jpg. - I'm told that I posted only a template, not a license. So I give up. It's taking too much of my time, sorry to say, and I find the instructions user-unfriendly.
As far as where to explain my problems goes, I posted these issues wherever it seemed logical to me. Wikipedia is very user-friendly when it comes to looking things up, but not when it comes to contributing more than text. Wlegro (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes I did modify the caption slightly and added a pair of citations. I also added the image to the Type Ib and Ic supernovae page. If you have some general WP comments, you might start at one of the Village Pump forums on the Wikipedia:Community Portal. Somebody should be able to direct you from there.—RJH (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The NASA image included the locations of the two supernovae in white text, which didn't accompany the photo on uploading.Wlegro (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed statement

Large-scale, multi-dimensional computing simulations are being planned that will model supernovae explosions in much greater detail, which could help explain many of the observables.[1] However, these simulations have not been able to be undertaken because computers are not yet powerful enough. To date, calculations have been made in both one and two dimensions.

This is incorrect. The Max Planck Group has been doing 3d supernova simulations for some time, as has Mezzacappa et. al at Oak Ridge. The problem with 3-d simulations is that there is a computational tradeoff between modelling the hydro and the neutrino simulations.

Roadrunner 22:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That paragraph was bound to get outdated at some point. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced revisions

The following statements have been added to the article which I believe should have some type of published reference:

  • The neutrinos escape from the core, carrying away energy and further accelerating the collapse, which proceeds over a timescale of one-tenth a second.
  • More recent models have invokes a combination of asymmetry or magnetic fields to attempt to produce an explosion.
  • However, the lack of a good model to connect the pre-explosion star with the post-explosion has left many open questions, such as the exactly which stars will form neutron stars and which ones will form black holes, and statistical production rates of these objects, the role that supernova play in the creation of r-process elements.

Any suggestions? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

These have not been sourced. I stripped them out so that the page can retain it's FA rating. If some references turn up, these can always be added back in. — RJH (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time

I heard that if a star went supernova and it was 7 light years away, it would be 7 years til we would notice that it went supernova. Is that true?68.110.232.148 20:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Light from the supernova travels at the speed of light. --Christopher Thomas 21:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is true! Some more facts are if it is a number of light years that is how many light years it would take for us to see. Not only that (correct me if im wrong) but that is true for any thing. That is why astronomers are trying to look deeper and deeper in to space because if they do that they can see into the past. So if they look ^ billion years in to the past they see the big bang. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.75.158.145 (talk • contribs) on 01:16, 1 April 2007.

[edit] SN2006gy

There are a few recent papers on SN2006gy, the most luminous supernova yet observed. In one paper by Smith et al, it is proposed that SN2006gy came from an LBV progenitor similar to Eta Carinae. In this paper, they propose that SN2006gy's extreme luminosity resulted from a Pair-instability supernova, i.e. one where a black hole is not formed and all the mass from the stellar explosion is returned to the interstellar medium. It can occur because of the creation/annihilation of electron-positron pairs that prevent collapse into a black hole according to http://astro.berkeley.edu/~soffner/imgsf8.html. This type of SN has extremely important implications for the early universe. However, my understanding of this SN type is limited to what I've just said. I think it's important enough to include on this page, but is there an expert who could add some details? --Keflavich 02:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is already pretty bloated, so I'm not sure that every corner case needs to be included. Perhaps SN2006gy should have it's own page first so that the details can be clarified? — RJH (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the topic now has it's own page. I've merged the SN2006gy entry on this article to the more appropriate history of supernova observation page. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That's reasonable, but I still think there needs to be a section on pair-instability supernovae. I'm going to copy the very brief section from the sn2006gy article and make a new pair-instability article, but it will need work. --Keflavich 22:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay the page has been thinned down now. Perhaps we should have a brief "Trigger mechanisms" sub-section just before the "Core collapse" discussion? (I.e. covering (1) exceeding Chandrasekhar limit; (2) pair-instability and (3) photo-disintegration.) — RJH (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It would seem SN2006gy has to some extent rewritten the rule book. Despite being a type II is peak brightness was at least 10 times higher than any other known supernova and the bightness was sustained for a far greater time than is usual. Even now, many months after discovery, it is still putting out roughly the same energy as the peak energy output of the second most powerful supernova ever observed. It is postulated that the massive ammounts of energy needed to fuel this outburst came from matter/antimatter anihilation, driven by gamma rays. I'd be interested to know the current estimates for the ammount of energy released in this event - it may even be in the solar mass range. --LiamE 21:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forked articles / references

As was discussed earlier, the content of the Type Ia material has been spun off into a separate main article. It has been replaced with a relatively brief summary. This should help reduce the size of this article, which is well over the recommended length. — RJH (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The same has been done with the Type II material. Both articles are now at good article status. There should be plenty of room for expansion on those sub-pages. (Hint. ;-) — RJH (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there anyway of spinning the references off or compacting them ? As they take about a third of the page now! The Yeti 02:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The references are required for the Featured Article status of this article. They are already in small font. Besides, a decent set of references may be useful for somebody who wants to study the topic further. — RJH (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not on about removing them, and I understand their importance. It was more that is there some way in Wikipedia to hive them off onto another page ? Or hiding them as a default, unless a user wants to open them ? The Yeti 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The ArticleHistory template at the top of this talk page uses a compaction mechanism. (The hide/show link.) So something like that could probably be configured into the reference templates, if you can get consensus. — RJH (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems this is something that'll have to be looked at by the powers that be, as, particularly for scientific articles, the references can run as long as the main part of the article. However, its beyond my capabilities to create your suggestion, nor do I know where to raise this. Why isn't there a Wikipedia for Wikipedia ?!! Or a search box solely for Wikipedian terminology - the hours I waste trying to find a WP: or the right discussion page in order to see how something is done or to clarify/query something ...! The Yeti 01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
When I don't know where else to turn, I usually start with the village pump. In this case, however, you could also add a comment to the Template talk:Reflist page. But you won't necessarily get agreement. — RJH (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red giants and Supernova Ia

The second paragraph in the section on Supernova Ia states that accretion from a red giant on a white dwarf is resposible for the explosion. This claim is not supported by references and appears to be wrong. To my knowledge there is currently no consensus regarding progenerators of this type of supernova. They can be: WD+WD merges; accretion from MS stars, helium WDs, sdB stars etc. In fact, many supersoft X-ray source, which are also probable ancestors of Ia supernovas, contain MS stars and heavy WDs (~1.37 solar). So this paragraph should be seriously modified.Ruslik 08:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Type Ia supernova page covers alternate mechanisms in the Type_Ia_supernova#Formation section, although it appears incomplete. This page just has a summary-style description of the most likely mechanism. — RJH (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The mechanism involving red giants doesn't appear to be the most likely from peer reviewed literature.Ruslik 07:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • So how accurate is this SAO page? The literature I saw didn't seem to favor the double-degenerate model listed. Perhaps this wikipedia article should just make brief mentions of the various favored progenitor models? — RJH (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The page is as accurate as it states that 'at least some SNIa are the result of accretion from a giant star'. However the double-degenerate model hasn't been disapproved, it's just less favoured now and many scientist continue to pursue it [7][8]. In the single degenerate model different stars can be secondaries: helium WDs[9][10](the latter reference has an especially good scheme of possible channels leading to SNIa explosions), subdwarf B (sdB) stars[11][12], MS stars (some supersoft X-ray sources[13] [14] and U Sco type recurrent novae[15][16]). In fact in many published works red giants are disfavoured as possible secondaries in SNIa progenirators [17][18]. The recent SNIIa events SN 2002ic and 2006GY can be aslo explained without red giants using so called I+1/2 model or in DD model [19][20]. Since there is no consensus regarding the model of SNIa (except that it probably results from an explosion of a carbon oxygen WD that managed somehow to acquire mass equal to CS limit), the wikipedia article should only make brief mentions of the various progenitor models without going into details (with appropriate referecnes).Ruslik 11:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I didn't want to discard the red giant-white dwarf example because it is commonly given on many web sites. But I rearranged the text somewhat to allow for other possibilities. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
            • The current edition is good. However it should be mentioned that the white dwarf need to have carbon oxygen composition otherwise (O Ne Mg) it will collapse into a NS. Also the energy of the explosion is overestimated. Assuming the mass of WD 1.4 solar, composition 50% carbon (and 50% oxygen) and 100% conversion into Fe one obtains 2.5×1044 J (this corresponds to ~0.8 Mev per nucleon). The real value is 1-2×1044 J.[21] Ruslik 07:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Done. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct spelling

Is it supernova or supernovae? at the beginning of the article it says supernova but after that in most of the section it says supernovae which one is the correct one? I didn't want to correct it because it appears a supernovae in most of the article

Amoscare 08:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Amoscare

Supernovae is the plural form of supernova. --Keflavich 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

All right thank you I was going to change it to supernova hehe

Amoscare 23:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Amoscare

[edit] Naming convention

I noticed that in the naming convention section it states there are four historical supernovae denoted by the year of discovery alone, but this list doesn't include the earlier mentioned SN 185, which would predate them all. I know precious little on this subject and will leave it to the experts to clarify.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aax.nox (talk • contribs)

I removed the word "four" and inserted SN 185. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifying edit summary

Regarding this edit summary, please note that RJHall posted to my talk page at 17:36, July 29, 2007 (UTC), I responded at within minutes, at 17:41, July 29, 2007 (UTC), and I archived my talk page at the end of the month, 18:23, on July 31, 2007. I responded immediately, and he had two days to read my response which is now in my archives. Further, I raised the comma question at WP:MOSNUM and was informed that I was correct. I don't "blank" comments, and I'm surprised to see such aggression over commas because I helped prepare the article for the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated core collapses

This article says "As the star evolves, it undergoes repeated stages where fusion in the core stops, and the core collapses until the pressure and temperature is sufficient to begin the next stage of fusion, reigniting to halt collapse." I assume that the helium flash is the first such stage? Anyway, what I'm wondering is how apparent such "collapses" are to astronomical observers - can you readily see a change in the star on a human time scale and say that it just entered the helium burning stage, etc.?

The other question I have is one of those really stupid ones... I've read the answer but I still don't understand, though. How does it work that a star, by means of burning up all its easy fuel, becomes hotter and larger and with a higher core pressure than a star that still has this fuel available? 204.186.60.84 03:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

2nd Q 1st: Generally, when stars become larger, they also becomes cooler (not hotter), if the energy production remains the same. That's logical. But red giants, starting to consume helium, have a higher energy production, in a smaller volume than when consuming hydrogen, so they also becomes red and more luminous. The pressures and temperatures needed for helium to burn are higher, so by some hydrostatic logic that I don't exactly understand, the higher preasures in the core creates lower pressures at the star surface, thus a red giant.
1st Q 2nd: One can't readily see in what stage of evolution a star is, since the burning cores are unavailable for observations, but the astronomers are able to make qualified guesses. Stars at the main sequence (lum class V) are regarded as hydrogen core burners. Subgiants (lum class IV) are regarded as hydrogen shell burners accreting helium at the core. Giants (III) are regarded as helium core burners. AGB stars with increasing heavy metal and carbon atmospheric abundance, are believed to be helium shell burners - so the late helium shell burners are carbon stars, and so very easy to distinguish. But regarding carbon burning and above: a 25 Msun star is expected to spend 600 years of its life burning carbon, while burning hydrogen and helium takes 7500000 years. This means statistically, that among 25 Msun stars (who aren't common), one specimen in 12500 is a carbon burner. Among lower mass stars they're still fewer down to nonexistent. Carbon, neon, oxygen and silicon burners are very hard to find, and then detect, since their mode of burning haven't much time to affect their atmospheric characteristics. Cheap shrinkwrap neutrino detectors would be the sweet dream of any astrophysicist, since then the star cores can be observed directly. (Anyone - correct me if I'm wrong!) Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 07:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

Congrats to the featuredness for this article, editors!! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 07:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] is this a bit condensed

"A massive star may cease to generate energy from the nuclear fusion of atoms in its core, and collapse under the force of its own gravity to form a neutron star or black hole." It doesn't quite get across how the supernova happens, is not the small dense object the residue after the bang? I'm not sure I have a good phrase for it, but that might be improved? Coriolise 11:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're right. Is this a better mini-synopsis?
"A massive star may cease to generate energy from the nuclear fusion of atoms in its core, and collapse under the force of its own gravity. The result is an explosion of sub-atomic reactions at the core that tears apart the star, leaving behind a neutron star or black hole as a residue."
— RJH (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No remaining core?

I thought I read somewhere (can't find it now) that there was a type of supernova thought to leave no core behind. Was my mind making that up, or did I really read that somewhere? Djfeldman 14:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of a Type Ia supernova, which is the detonation of a white dwarf instead of a star. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 14:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think you are referring to Pair-instability supernovae. Anynobody 09:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plasma

removed that the supernova is made of plasma. The remnant neutron star of the type II supernova is not plasma.

Roadrunner 19:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decay rates

The article contained the text:

These light curves have an average decay rate of 0.008 magnitudes per day; much lower than the decay rate for Type I supernovae. Type II are sub-divided into two classes, depending on whether there is a plateau in their light curve (Type II-P) or a linear decay rate (Type II-L). The net decay rate is lower at 0.012 magnitudes per day for Type II-L compared to 0.0075 magnitudes per day for Type II-P.

Interpreting the graph, and considering the values of the numbers, I believe that the word "lower" should be replaced by "higher", and I have so done. That is, the rate of decay is higher, though, of course, this leads to the brightness of the remnant being lower.

If I have misinterpreted, please feel free to revert, though I would appreciate being told what I have misunderstood. Thanks --King Hildebrand 20:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Type II timing contradiction?

  • Woolsey and Janka - "the last burning phase — silicon burning — lasts only two weeks."
  • [22] [23] (uni lecture notes) - "Silicon burning duration, 1 day"

Can someone definitively sort the current theoretical timings and durations out for this and related articles? Thanks! FT2 (Talk | email) 11:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Woosley and Janka give an 18d period for a 15-solar mass star. The lecture pages give the period for a 25-solar mass star. So they are not inconsistent. For more detail, have a look at page 1020 of: http://www.astrosen.unam.mx/~richer/docencia/astrofisica1/woosleyetal2002.pdf
— RJH (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unnatural Supernova

Is there any possibility or even a proof of unnatural ways cause supernova happens like caused by bomb or something which suddenly blows up a star? Study on this star killer might be useful if someday in the future we found a star too close to our planetary system that could highly affect our planetary system so we have to kill that star. Ovdl (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I imagine it would be much easier (energy-wise) just to push a 100km-diameter asteroid into the path of the Earth than to try to explode a star. That would be enough to finish us off. Otherwise you'd need to cause a collision with a 1.4 solar mass compact object, which would take a lot of energy to move around. But, of course, a super-advanced alien race would have physical knowledge far beyond our own, so how would we even know how to look? Personally I wouldn't worry about it. We're too busy finishing ourselves off to sweat things like that.—RJH (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Betelgeuses Supernova

Betelgeuses supernova will form a light that will be about 4 million times the light of the sun. ɰ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.32.168 (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supernovae in fiction

Possible merge into this article, as it stands, Supernovae in fiction is unlikely to survive on its own in its current state SGGH speak! 16:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) Precedent is for "X in fiction" pages, where X is a scientific article, to be placed in separate articles. (2) This material is not properly cited, whereas supernova is an FA rated article. The addition of this material would subject the supernova page to an FAR and possibly demotion. So it would need to be stripped out. (3) Strictly speaking, yours does not seem to be a good reason for a merge. If the material is properly cited then the fiction article should stand by itself. If it is not, then it doesn't belong here. (4) The article is longer than the suggested length already. Significant amounts of material have been spun off into separate articles in order to shrink it down. (C.f. Type Ia supernova, Type Ib and Ic supernovae andType II supernova.) I don't think a merge would be beneficial in this respect. —RJH (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

The following statement seems to undergo a lot of re-wording:

They are extremely luminous and cause a burst of radiation that often briefly outshines an entire galaxy before fading from view over several weeks or months.

It is flawed because galaxies come in many dimensions, so it could just as easily say "always", rather than "often" or "may". The original wording was as follows:

A supernova usually causes a brief burst of radiation which may briefly outshine its entire host galaxy before fading from view over several weeks or months.

Is there a better wording that would serve this purpose and say something more useful? Perhaps "outshine the largest known galaxies" or some such.—RJH (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)