Hyper-novae

What if the hyper-nova that was discovered at 6:37 a.m. EST on March
29, 2003, exploded in the Milky Way? I've read that "During the first
minute after the explosion it emitted energy at a rate more than a
million times the combined output of all the stars in the Milky Way."
What would an observer on say, a planet 1000 ly away experience? What
if it exploded on the far side of the Milky Way? How far out would its
gamma ray life-killing balloon extend? Do these things emit enough
gamma rays to potentially destroy all life in a galaxy?



_________________________________

"Take a little 5FU, leucovorin and oxaliplatin for thy stomach's sake." -- 1 Timothy 5:33 (adapted)

I can't give you exact numbers because I don't remember them, and really, it
depends on the size of the nova in question. But they would wipe out life
for up to tens of thousands of light years, possibly more I'm guessing at
maybe 15-25% of our galaxy could be made temporarily (but a long time)
uninahabitable, if it took place in the right location.

They may not be strong enough to directly kill the life forms, but in our
case, it would destroy the ozone in the upper atmosphere, which would kill
us. Not instantly, but quick enough.

I apologize if any of my facts are in error. This is all from memory from
stuff I read a few years ago.

Pete

"Joe-46er" wrote in message
...
What if the hyper-nova that was discovered at 6:37 a.m. EST on March
29, 2003, exploded in the Milky Way? I've read that "During the first
minute after the explosion it emitted energy at a rate more than a
million times the combined output of all the stars in the Milky Way."
What would an observer on say, a planet 1000 ly away experience? What
if it exploded on the far side of the Milky Way? How far out would its
gamma ray life-killing balloon extend? Do these things emit enough
gamma rays to potentially destroy all life in a galaxy?



_________________________________

"Take a little 5FU, leucovorin and oxaliplatin for thy stomach's sake." --
1 Timothy 5:33 (adapted)

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:49:42 +0000, Joe-46er wrote:

What if the hyper-nova that was discovered at 6:37 a.m. EST on March 29,
2003, exploded in the Milky Way? I've read that "During the first minute
after the explosion it emitted energy at a rate more than a million
times the combined output of all the stars in the Milky Way." What would
an observer on say, a planet 1000 ly away experience? What if it
exploded on the far side of the Milky Way? How far out would its gamma
ray life-killing balloon extend? Do these things emit enough gamma rays
to potentially destroy all life in a galaxy?

It will depend on whether the gamma-ray beam strikes a life-bearing planet
or not. As the beams are fairly narrow only a small number of system will
be directly on its path. Various estimates have been published - from
total sterilisation of a galaxy to effects limited only within a radiaus of
300 light year. In fact, all are gestimates as the details of hypernova
(grb) explosions are yet to be worked out.

See the following :

Dar A, Laor A, Shaviv N J, Life Extinctions By Cosmic Ray Bursts,
http://xxx.lanl.gov/archive/astro-ph/9705008

Annis J, An Astrophysical Explanation for the Great Silence,
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9901322,

Melott A L, Lieberman B S, Laird C M, Martin L D, Medvedev M V, Thomas B
C, Cannizzo J K, Gehrels N, Jackman C H, Did a gamma-ray burst initiate
the late Ordovician mass extinction?,
http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309415

Ball P, Gamma-ray burst linked to mass extinction,
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030922/030922-7.html

--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to

Set me straight. Are nuclear weapons considered the harnessing of the sun?
if so, what then if scientists developed weapons based on these novae or
GRBs? Should I be losing any sleep over this?

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Set me straight. Are nuclear weapons considered the harnessing of the
sun?
if so, what then if scientists developed weapons based on these novae or
GRBs? Should I be losing any sleep over this?

As I understand it, stars are fusion based and thermonuclear devices are
fission based. Either way, I would not lose sleep over it.

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

"BenignVanilla" wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Set me straight. Are nuclear weapons considered the harnessing of the
sun?
if so, what then if scientists developed weapons based on these novae or
GRBs? Should I be losing any sleep over this?

As I understand it, stars are fusion based and thermonuclear devices are
fission based. Either way, I would not lose sleep over it.

Hey BV

An A-bomb (Atomic-Bomb, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) is a fission based device.

An H-Bomb (Hydrogen-Bomb, Thermonuclear device, Bikini Atoll, etc.) is a
fusion based device. They use an A-Bomb as, essentially, a "detonation cap".

"John Zinni" wrote in message
. ..
"BenignVanilla" wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Set me straight. Are nuclear weapons considered the harnessing of the
sun?
if so, what then if scientists developed weapons based on these novae
or
GRBs? Should I be losing any sleep over this?

As I understand it, stars are fusion based and thermonuclear devices are
fission based. Either way, I would not lose sleep over it.

Hey BV

An A-bomb (Atomic-Bomb, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) is a fission based device.

An H-Bomb (Hydrogen-Bomb, Thermonuclear device, Bikini Atoll, etc.) is a
fusion based device. They use an A-Bomb as, essentially, a "detonation
cap".

John...I stand corrected, but only partially. The bombs dropped in Japan
were of two different types. I just saw a special on this on TLC. I tried to
find a good page but am not google'ing very well today.

Here is one, that is not bad:
http://chemsite.lsrhs.net/e_Nuclear/bombs.html. The Hiroshima bomb was an
A-bomb. The Nagasaki bomb was an H-bomb. The TLC special discussed this and
said that the A-bomb dropped was the first and was never tested because at
that point in history we did not have enough plutonium to test with. We only
had enough for one bomb. Talk about practicing on the final. LOL.


BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

"BenignVanilla" wrote in message
...

John...I stand corrected, but only partially. The bombs dropped in Japan
were of two different types. I just saw a special on this on TLC. I tried
to
find a good page but am not google'ing very well today.

Here is one, that is not bad:
http://chemsite.lsrhs.net/e_Nuclear/bombs.html. The Hiroshima bomb was an
A-bomb. The Nagasaki bomb was an H-bomb. The TLC special discussed this
and
said that the A-bomb dropped was the first and was never tested because at
that point in history we did not have enough plutonium to test with. We
only
had enough for one bomb. Talk about practicing on the final. LOL.

Hey BV

The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were indeed two different types
of bombs, but they were two different types of A-bombs. The one dropped on
Nagasaki was definitely not an H-bomb.

From the site you reference ...

"Atom bombs are made from either Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239 which fission
spontaneously."

"Below is a picture of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan during the
second world war.
Inside the bomb are two pieces of Uranium. At the moment of explosion the
two pieces are brought together causing there to be enough fissioning
uranium atoms to cause an out of control chain reaction."

"The nuclear bomb dropped on Nagasaki three days later is depicted below is
a plutonium bomb"


and on H-bombs ...

"Hydrogen bombs use fusion instead of fission to generate their explosions."

"In order to get the hydrogen atoms to fuse together, a fission type atom
bomb must be exploded first, generating the intense heat and pressure
necessary to fuse the hydrogen atoms."

"BenignVanilla" wrote in message
...

John...I stand corrected, but only partially. The bombs dropped in Japan
were of two different types. I just saw a special on this on TLC. I tried
to
find a good page but am not google'ing very well today.

They were both fission bombs, one used a uranium isotope, and the other an
isotope of plutonium. The first (reported) fusion bomb test was by the USA
in 1952.

DaveL


Here is one, that is not bad:
http://chemsite.lsrhs.net/e_Nuclear/bombs.html. The Hiroshima bomb was an
A-bomb. The Nagasaki bomb was an H-bomb. The TLC special discussed this
and
said that the A-bomb dropped was the first and was never tested because at
that point in history we did not have enough plutonium to test with. We
only
had enough for one bomb. Talk about practicing on the final. LOL.


BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 9:57:21 -0600, BenignVanilla wrote
(in message ):

From: "BenignVanilla"
Reply-To: "BenignVanilla"
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy


"John Zinni" wrote in message
. ..
"BenignVanilla" wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Set me straight. Are nuclear weapons considered the harnessing of the
sun?
if so, what then if scientists developed weapons based on these novae or
GRBs? Should I be losing any sleep over this?

As I understand it, stars are fusion based and thermonuclear devices are
fission based. Either way, I would not lose sleep over it.

Hey BV

An A-bomb (Atomic-Bomb, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) is a fission based device.

An H-Bomb (Hydrogen-Bomb, Thermonuclear device, Bikini Atoll, etc.) is a
fusion based device. They use an A-Bomb as, essentially, a "detonation
cap".

John...I stand corrected, but only partially. The bombs dropped in Japan
were of two different types. I just saw a special on this on TLC. I tried to
find a good page but am not google'ing very well today.

Here is one, that is not bad:
http://chemsite.lsrhs.net/e_Nuclear/bombs.html. The Hiroshima bomb was an
A-bomb. The Nagasaki bomb was an H-bomb.

snip

Sorry, but both bombs were a-bombs. Neither one was an h-bomb, we did not
have a working h-bomb until the early 50's, if I remember correctly.

--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness

"Nothing can stand up to atheistic critical examination. You guys are the
proctologists of Religion." - angelicusrex