The Cosmos is a huge place and with each year astronomers are discovering new things which are pushing the boundaries of the cosmos that much further. Astronomers working for the Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS) have made a startling discovery of two extraordinarily dazzling and bright supernovae. The supernovae is some 10 billion light years away and is hundreds of times more luminous that the brightest known supernovas. The findings have been published in the latest edition of the Astrophysical Journal.

The extreme luminosity of the supernovas have puzzled astronomers who are unable to fathom the cause of the luminosity, The supernova seem to be powered by the collapse of the star to become a black hole or a neutron star but this does not explain its extreme luminosity. The supernovas were discovered in 2006 and 2007. Scientists were not able to understand what they were nor could they measure their distances from the earth.

Superluminous Supernovae

Lead author D. Andrew Howell, a staff scientist at Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network (LCOGT) and adjunct faculty at UC Santa Barbara explained, “At first, we had no idea what these things were, even whether they were supernovae or whether they were in our galaxy or a distant one. I showed the observations at a conference, and everyone was baffled. Nobody guessed they were distant supernovae because it would have made the energies mind-bogglingly large. We thought it was impossible.”

The newly discovered supernovae were christened as SNLS-06D4eu. The SNLS-06D4eu is the most distant and also one of the most luminous of a spate class of supernova, the luminous supernovae. The latest discovery happens to be one of the supernovae subclass which is devoid of any hydrogen.

According to new studies the supernovae could be formed by the creation of a magnetar. A magnetar is an extraordinary magnetized neutron start which is pinning at an incredible spin at a rate of hundreds of times per second. A magnetar is beleivd to have the mass of a sun which has been condensed to the size of a city. The magnetar has a magnetic field o a strength which is hundred trillion times the magnetic field of the earth.

Since its discovery in 2009 only a handful of such superluminous supernovae have been identified. Models of supernovae  have been created by Co-author Daniel Kasen from UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab which explained that these celestial bodies have been formed by explosions of a star rich in carbon and oxygen and about the size of our sun. The star could be larger than what it is today but ejected its outer layers long before remaining with only a small and naked core.

What makes these supernovae unique is its intense rotation and when it died the core spun and became a magnetar . The intense spin could be the cause of the intense magnetic field.

16 Responses

  1. And Begin

    Google is a website on the internet. Google: St. Thomas Aquinas proof of the existence of God. Please advise what proof or proofs are incorrect. I have many brain cells left to use.

  2. BB

    All observable evidence points to the conclusion that belief in Christianity kills brain cells.

  3. Krishna

    If bibilists had their way Earth would have been the center of the universe. Remember Galileo was arrested for saying that earth revolved around the sun, Even Darwin had to contemplate his arrest and delayed the release of his book. Science and religion should not be mixed. Both have their places and are in their own universe.

  4. And Begin

    What proof do you have that humans are not capable of discovering ansers to questions about infinity and eternity?

  5. Glider Flyboy

    I once observed two young children in their backyard. They were attempting to build something out of pieces of wood, nails, screws, and glue. They said that they’re making a rocket that is going to the moon.

    Many of the statements on this page remind me of those two children.

    The children were not capable of building such a rocket, but they claimed that they could.
    Humans are not capable of discovering answers to questions about infinity and eternity. When they refuse to accept that limitation they create fictional answers and label them non-fiction.

  6. Atanacio Luna

    Dear MeriK,
    Without context your post is cryptic babble; it is an interesting implication of a reply, but really no context. Suitable for a tweet, but who has time for that? What do you mean? I know there is are big holes in Babu’s comment but what? Not my area of study but interesting if you can expand a bit.

  7. D. M. Urquidi

    It seems that the Maya are ahead of us all. They have embedded the complete story of the birth to the death of a star that became a super nova. That information was compiled in the Popol Vuh, the bible of the Maya, within many, many years of watching the stars.

  8. A J Foster

    I am of the opinion that nothing comes from nothing. I think that something was present before the (big bang) that orchestrated the change of one form of energy into what we now perceive as matter. One day we may be able to detect a remnant of this energy and understand, or perhaps what form of energy is being produced from our decay. Matter as we know it is not all that exists. We have not discovered the ALL just yet. We, with out propensity for technology and inventions will probably destroy ourselves due to our slow progress in intellect and morality. As for the religious aspect I think God is the power of the Cosmos. It is reactionary to what is placed against it.

  9. Neil Tevepaugh

    Babu thinks Hawkings is not thinking rational? Babu spouts crap which he think explains the Universe.

  10. Hal Nash

    Mr Raganathan, you used the word “believes” when referring to Stephen Hawking’s views on the creation of the universe. Please note: scientists DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING… at least when it comes to science. “BELIEF” has no place in science or when thinking in scientific terms. Scientists may “think” this or that, but none of them “believe” anything when it comes to science. If something has “belief” as a part of it, then whatever it is, it isn’t science.

    Religionists have tried now for about 400+ years to refute the process of science. Science, indeed, as Carl Sagan said, is a candle in the dark. Religion is rather being in total darkness. I’ll go with the candle in the dark, please. Save your proselytizing for church and other superstitious activities please. Thank you.

  11. merrick

    Dear Babu–
    If you are going to pontificate on such matters in a Western context you really should familiarize yourself with Spinoza’s magnificatio-ad-absurdem of God, Kant’s transcendental arguments, and, perhaps, the history of what one might term neo-Platonic foundationalism, culminating in the collapse of positivism.

    Pragmatism–the doctrine that knowledge has cash value if not supernatural foundations–is an adequate replacement for supernaturalism.

  12. Babu G. Ranganathan

    SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ETERNAL because it could not have sustained itself eternally due to the law of entropy (increasing net energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein showed that space, matter, and time all are physical and all had a beginning. Space even produces particles because it’s actually something, not nothing. Even time had a beginning! Time is not eternal.

    The law of entropy doesn’t allow the universe to be eternal. If the universe were eternal, everything, including time (which modern science has shown is as physical as mass and space), would have become totally entropied by now and the entire universe would have ended in a uniform heat death a long, long time ago. The fact that this hasn’t happened already is powerful evidence for a beginning to the universe.

    Popular atheistic scientist Stephen Hawking admits that the universe had a beginning and came from nothing but he believes that nothing became something by a natural process yet to be discovered. That’s not rational thinking at all, and it also would be making the effect greater than its cause to say that nothing created something. The beginning had to be of supernatural origin because natural laws and processes do not have the ability to bring something into existence from nothing. What about the Higgs boson (the so-called “God Particle”)? The Higgs boson does not create mass from nothing, but rather it converts energy into mass. Einstein showed that all matter is some form of energy.

    The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence and power for the origin and order of the universe. Where did God come from? Obviously, unlike the universe, God’s nature doesn’t require a beginning.

    EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn’t mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws may explain how the order in the universe works and operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

    WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports.

    Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

    Babu G. Ranganathan*
    (B.A. Bible/Biology)


    *I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I’ve been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who in The East” for my writings on religion and science.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.