Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree6Likes
  • 4 Post By not_Fritz_Argelander
  • 2 Post By OleCuss

Thread: did Sanduleak -69 202 survive SN1987A?

  1. #1
    not_Fritz_Argelander's Avatar
    not_Fritz_Argelander is offline HYPER GIANT
    Points: 184,195, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    365 Days+ Registered Achievement!2 Posts Achievement20 Posts Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!First 1000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Thread Award
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    22,056
    Points
    184,195
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    7,254
    Thanked 46,406x 14,962 Posts
    Blog Entries
    59

    Default did Sanduleak -69 202 survive SN1987A?



    Apparently there is a fringe view that it did and a soi-disant prediction that it will be found. However in order to answer this question one needs to define "survive". A compact remnant such as a neutron star or black hole cannot be counted as survival.

    I say "soi-disant prediction" because a real prediction involves quantitative reasoning and math which are absent from this soi-disant prediction.

    The properties of Sanduleak -69 202 are enumerated from scant observations:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanduleak_-69_202

    The key properties are the initial mass estimate of 20 Msun and initial luminosity of 100,000 Lsun.

    The event of SN1987A is described here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A

    It is key to point out that a burst of neutrino flux was detected slightly (~few hours) before the optical detection just as expected by theory. This indicates that during the event a neutron star was formed. The two pulse nature of the neutrino detection hints at the possibility the the neutron star did not survive. The initial pulse could well be neutronization and the after pulse could be a result of infalling material driving the initial neutron star into a BH. The latter is speculative but based on neutronization timescales and fluid timescales. The delay of 10 seconds for the second neutrino pulse is a good indicator that the neutron star was pushed into a BH by infalling material since the dynamic timescale is on the order of seconds.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_198...rino_emissions

    In addition the neutron star is "missing". Standard theory indicates several possibilities.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_198...g_neutron_star

    Spectroscopically SN1987A is classed as a peculiar type II, a core collapse SN. For Type II SN events the outcomes are listed in a table found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova#Core_collapse

    The outcomes according to current models are: neutron star, black hole, black hole via a temporary neutron star. I think that the double neutrino emission pulse indicates that the black hole via a temporary neutron star is looking pretty good.

    Anyway the survival of Sanduleak -69 202 is not an option.

    Exhaustive searches have been made for any remnant. They are documented in great detail in

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...57/aad739/meta

    Hotspots due to interactions with previous mass loss ejecta of Sanduleak -69 202 and the ISM are described and detailed. No mystery there.

    Optical and Xray observations centered upon an 800 km/s kick radius from the original position of Sanduleak -69 202. ALMA observations characterized the dust. The main conclusion from aggregating all observations and the energy budget are:

    The bolometric limit on the compact object in SN 1987A is 22 Lsun at 8329 days (2009 December) if our line of sight is free of dust and 138 Lsun at 9090 days (2012 January) in the dust-obscured case.
    This is sufficient to rule out survival of Sanduleak -69 202 which you can recall had a luminosity of 100,000 Lsun. Even if you relax the assumptions for the energy budget and look at individual observational constraints (overly conservative unless you are willing to give up on conservation of energy ) the maximum luminosity for the remnant is 1,000 Lsun, ~1% of the original luminosity.

    So whether one eventually finds a black hole or a bizarrely weak magnetic field neutron star, Sanduleak -69 202 is known not to have survived. The amount of dust (measured by ALMA) is insufficient obscure to that degree.
    Last edited by not_Fritz_Argelander; 02-04-2019 at 09:43 PM.
    Scopes: Refractors: Orion ST80 (mods for white light solar), SV ED80 f7 Newtonians: Z12 f5 Catadioptrics: VMC110L, Intes MK66 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binocular Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker III, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5, Orion Sirius EQG

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to not_Fritz_Argelander For This Useful Post:

    bladekeeper (02-05-2019),Gabby76 (02-05-2019),GCoyote (02-05-2019),michael131313 (02-06-2019),sketrip (02-04-2019)

  3. #2
    fractalrocks's Avatar
    fractalrocks is offline Main Sequence
    Points: 5,389, Level: 50
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 161
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    2 Posts Achievement5 Threads Achievement!20 Posts Achievement!50 Posts Achievement!First 1000 Experience Points
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    montreal
    Posts
    160
    Points
    5,389
    Level
    50
    Thanks
    211
    Thanked 82x 41 Posts

    Default Re: did Sanduleak -69 202 survive SN1987A?

    Quote Originally Posted by not_Fritz_Argelander View Post
    Apparently there is a fringe view that it did and a soi-disant prediction that it will be found. However in order to answer this question one needs to define "survive". A compact remnant such as a neutron star or black hole cannot be counted as survival.
    Hi not_Fritz_Argelander,

    what I meant by the fact that Sanduleak -69 202 has survive is that it has survived in the same way a radium atom survives an alpha decay. The radium atom does not autodestruct when it undergoes an alpha decay (neither do stars when they undergo a stellar decay (nova/supernova)). The radium atom becomes a radon atom after "giving birth" to a helium nucleus. The same way, Sanduleak -69 202 "gave birth" to the Mystery spot in February 1987.

    After reading your post, I understand your mathematics point of view stating that : Anyway the survival of Sanduleak -69 202 is not an option. but I don't agree with any of it.

    The star Sanduleak -69 202 did NOT transformed itself into a neutron star neither did it transformed itself into a black hole. That being said, what could possibly be seen as a "neutron star" in regards to this SN1987A, is its Mystery Spot.

    What the James Webb telescope will possibly discover in the infrared in the next few years is a "neutron star" (Mystery Sport) orbiting its "mother" : Sanduleak -69 202.

    "Neutron stars" and "black holes" are the same thing : baby stars that just came out of a bigger star bowels !!! So in regards to the Division hypothesis (that suggests that at every scale of magnitude, the Universe is dividing), every time you see a "neutron star" or a "black hole", you should also see a bigger star (its mother) right next to it. That bigger star is not a "companion" like astronomers like to call them, these stars are "mother stars" that just gave birth to the baby star. Also, the "accretion disk" you see around black holes are not accretion disks, they are "placenta" disks of "bowels" debris that came out of the "mother star".

    And also, I think that stars cools down after giving "birth". If I am right, then their temperature drops and perhaps their luminosity also, I'm not sure.

    Sanduleak -69 202 survived !!! It is still there and it doesn't matter if the mathematics proposes the contrary.

    Do women autodestruct themselves when they give birth to a baby ? Of course not, neither do stars nor atoms.

    We live in a fractal Universe. What is inside of you is a mirror of what is in front of you.

    thanks again for all your help in multiple threads, I am very grateful.

    regards,
    jonathan azoulay
    montreal, Quebec

  4. #3
    not_Fritz_Argelander's Avatar
    not_Fritz_Argelander is offline HYPER GIANT
    Points: 184,195, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    365 Days+ Registered Achievement!2 Posts Achievement20 Posts Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!First 1000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Thread Award
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    22,056
    Points
    184,195
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    7,254
    Thanked 46,406x 14,962 Posts
    Blog Entries
    59

    Default Re: did Sanduleak -69 202 survive SN1987A?

    A radium226 atom that undergoes an alpha decay is no longer a radium, it's a radon222. The radium226 can also emit carbon14 to become lead212. The radium atom doesn't survive, it becomes somethin entirely else.

    The confusion of radioactive decays with supernovae and human childbirth along with denial of the logical power of mathematics indicates untrustworthy thinking. This kind of unreliable reasoning is typical among folks who belong to pseudoscientific cults like The Flat Earth and The Electric Universe.

    There is no mystery about any spots in the area. They are all well understood.

    The mystery is why people believe such falsehoods.
    Scopes: Refractors: Orion ST80 (mods for white light solar), SV ED80 f7 Newtonians: Z12 f5 Catadioptrics: VMC110L, Intes MK66 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binocular Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker III, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5, Orion Sirius EQG

  5. #4
    fractalrocks's Avatar
    fractalrocks is offline Main Sequence
    Points: 5,389, Level: 50
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 161
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    2 Posts Achievement5 Threads Achievement!20 Posts Achievement!50 Posts Achievement!First 1000 Experience Points
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    montreal
    Posts
    160
    Points
    5,389
    Level
    50
    Thanks
    211
    Thanked 82x 41 Posts

    Default Re: did Sanduleak -69 202 survive SN1987A?

    You are absolutely right, the radium atom becomes something entirely else (radon), but it's still "alive", it didn't auto-destruct.

    I'm not denying the logical power of mathematics, I'm denying its use with plain wrong interpretation of observations. Like we agreed in the Cygnus X-1 thread, one of the problem in science is that scientist blends theory, observations and interpretations like it was only one thing and they present it to the public like it was the truth. The layman that reads for example an article about Neutron stars cannot distinguish what are facts (observation) from the theory and interpretation.

    In their two papers in 1934, Zwicky and Baade never used the term "auto-destruction", I'm really curious when this term was explicitly associated with supernovae.

    The fact is that an explosion and an auto-destruction are two different things. But generally, people interpret these two terms as meaning the same thing.

    When I ask people to give me examples of let's say five types of explosions, they always come up with approximately the same answers. They come up with examples that has to do with some kind of human created bombs/grenades/missiles/oil reservoir/etc. that explodes and auto-destruct at the same time. It is very rare that someone comes up with an example about an explosion that has to do with a natural phenomenon. We, human beings have associated explosions with auto-destruction probably because we have in mind World Wars and all kind of massacres that involves bombs. Unfortunately, we make a projection onto nature (ex: nova/supernova) of that association.

    If you remove human beings from Earth, then, there are not many types of explosions that exists. You have atomic disintegration, stellar explosion (nova/supernova/etc.). Some people brought up volcanoes and solar eruptions. If you accept the two last examples, then you admit that explosions in nature, besides stellar explosions, are the product of some kind of asymmetric ejection. And If you admit that, then you are very close to accepting the fact that asymmetric stellar explosions could also represent an ejection of some sort.

    During SN1987A, did Sanduleak -69 202 eject something while it exploded asymmetrically ? YES !!! It is very easy to see : we can still observe a corridor of debris that was ejected, and we also saw, in 1987, the Mystery Spot. Both appeared in the EXACT same direction, like they were ejected from the site of explosion.

    The truth is right in front of man, it is them that are mentally programmed to interpret what they see the way they do.

    Astronomers never saw the star Sanduleak -69 202 auto-destruct, it never happened. Astronomers have no proof whatsoever that this supernova (or any other) are the product of an auto-destruction. They only thing astronomers saw in February of 1987 is a stellar explosion. And if we want to understand the nature of that explosion, we have to compare it with other natural processes that undergo some sort of explosion.

    Personally, I don't know of any natural phenomenon that involves an auto-destruction. Besides, stellar explosions, can someone think of an example?

    regards,
    jonathan

  6. #5
    not_Fritz_Argelander's Avatar
    not_Fritz_Argelander is offline HYPER GIANT
    Points: 184,195, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    365 Days+ Registered Achievement!2 Posts Achievement20 Posts Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!First 1000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Thread Award
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    22,056
    Points
    184,195
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    7,254
    Thanked 46,406x 14,962 Posts
    Blog Entries
    59

    Default Re: did Sanduleak -69 202 survive SN1987A?

    Radon is not alive. Living things self destruct through aging. Supernovae can completely self destruct leaving a gaseous supernova remnant with or without a compact neutron star or black hole remnant.

    As pointed out above there is no compact remnant left for Sanduleak -69 202. Your so called "Mystery Spot" is not a stellar remnant, it's just gaseous ejecta from the explosion interacting with previous mass lost.

    We don't agree at all. Your abuse of logic and denial of facts is very, very sad.
    Scopes: Refractors: Orion ST80 (mods for white light solar), SV ED80 f7 Newtonians: Z12 f5 Catadioptrics: VMC110L, Intes MK66 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binocular Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker III, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5, Orion Sirius EQG

  7. #6
    fractalrocks's Avatar
    fractalrocks is offline Main Sequence
    Points: 5,389, Level: 50
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 161
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    2 Posts Achievement5 Threads Achievement!20 Posts Achievement!50 Posts Achievement!First 1000 Experience Points
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    montreal
    Posts
    160
    Points
    5,389
    Level
    50
    Thanks
    211
    Thanked 82x 41 Posts

    Default Re: did Sanduleak -69 202 survive SN1987A?

    Hi not_Fritz_Argelander,

    I'm not abusing of any logic. I think in terms of fractals so my thoughts are very different from mainstream thinking.

    Again, astronomers thinks that an explosion has to lead to an auto-destruction. That's a false assumption. I'm repeating myself, but besides human created bombs, I don't know of any natural phenomenon where an explosion leads to an auto-destruction. Can someone give me one example (please don't mention stellar explosions as we still don't know the nature of these explosions).

    It seems to me that it is astronomers that are abusing of the human association : explosion/auto-destruction. That association doesn't seem to exist in nature.

    Nature transforms itself, it doesn't self-destruct.

    You are mentioning that I'm denying facts ??? What fact(s) did I deny ? What I am actually denying are the astronomers interpretations of things, not facts.

    You again mentioned the Electric Universe, have you finally written a detailed dissection of the Electric Universe ideas ?

    You are right again, we don't agree at all. But it is fine with me, scientific progress happens only when people stops repeating what's in the books (and what the teacher says) and starts thinking by themselves.

    I have the greatest respect for you, thanks again for all your help (and I appreciate you being very direct and honest about my hypothesis).

    regards,
    jonathan
    Last edited by fractalrocks; 11-09-2019 at 06:29 PM.

  8. #7
    not_Fritz_Argelander's Avatar
    not_Fritz_Argelander is offline HYPER GIANT
    Points: 184,195, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    365 Days+ Registered Achievement!2 Posts Achievement20 Posts Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!First 1000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Thread Award
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    22,056
    Points
    184,195
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    7,254
    Thanked 46,406x 14,962 Posts
    Blog Entries
    59

    Default Re: did Sanduleak -69 202 survive SN1987A?

    Fractals are not universally applicable, therefore insisting dogmatically on so called "fractal thinking" is an abuse of logic.

    The interpretation of Sanduleak's self destruction is factual, based on data and illuminated by physics. That needs mathematics which you deny.

    Your assertion that nature transforms itself and does not self destruct is falsified by radioactive decay, supernovae, and the aging process of living things.

    I am content with the following assessment of the cranky trollery that is the Electric Universe. There is no need for me to waste my time writing something on it.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe

    Could the mods please close this waste of electrons?
    Scopes: Refractors: Orion ST80 (mods for white light solar), SV ED80 f7 Newtonians: Z12 f5 Catadioptrics: VMC110L, Intes MK66 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binocular Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker III, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5, Orion Sirius EQG

  9. #8
    OleCuss's Avatar
    OleCuss is offline Curmudgeon
    Points: 61,950, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 38.0%
    Achievements:
    200+ Posts Achievement!First 1000 Experience Points400+ Posts Achievement365 Days+ Registered Achievement!Got three Friends
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Central California, USA
    Posts
    12,092
    Points
    61,950
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    2,215
    Thanked 5,447x 3,561 Posts

    Default Re: did Sanduleak -69 202 survive SN1987A?

    Having had relevant training and experience I'd note that destruction which arises from within and results in an effective loss of the item as previously identified is rampant.

    Stars in particular have been established to "explode". The evidence on that is actually quite clear beyond reasonable doubt unless one invokes a truly vast conspiracy.

    This thread has no legitimate purpose at this time and its closure was necessary.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    XX12G and XT8; 10 inch LX200GPS;
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    8SE; Tele Vue NP-101is (Petzval apochromat); Meade LS-8; WO GT-71; AVX and Losmandy G-11 mounts.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Sn1987a
    By TheFatKitty in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-24-2017, 01:52 PM
  2. Is this the first picture of SN1987A ?
    By fractalrocks in forum Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-07-2016, 10:36 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-20-2015, 11:39 PM
  4. SN1987A film ?
    By JOHN PAZMINO in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-18-2009, 03:42 PM
  5. SN1987a
    By JonnyCab« in forum General Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-25-2003, 06:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin« Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin«
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:45 PM.