{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/7/2013 8:55:27 AM
6
This is a damn good thread Sesto. Nicely done. Actually answering questions with legitimate, thoughtful answers.
Kudos to you.
OT: I was wondering: since most models of the cosmos and life on earth at some point assume a supernova to make the heavier materials on earth, plus get the molecular cloud stirring so it eventually accretes into a solar system; are any astronomers now actively looking for a progenitor supernova remnant? Or remnants? In that, relatively close by neutron stars which might explain where precisely our atoms and molecules come from? Or since it would have happened at least 4.6 billion years ago, do they assume such systems would be so far away or out of our progenitor nebula by now that they assume they won't find them? I would think that in order to substantiate the model, concrete evidence, and an idea of where we actually came from would be necessary.
English
-
I think it really boils down to the fact that space is pretty huge. Trying to find something like a remnant of a progenitor supernova would be pretty difficult, even with our advances technology. Added with the fact that the thickness of the molecular cloud in the solar system, they might not even be able to see it with their molecular gyroscope. Overall I think it would be best to get concrete evidence, but our technology limits as to what we can achieve in our current state. For now we will have to stick with forming models and theorizing. [spoiler]i feel bad because you said this was a good thread, but i have literally no idea what you just asked and i couldn't find a good answer on google so i just made up a bunch of crap[/spoiler]
-
Edited by A3LeggedBurrito: 12/8/2013 5:48:41 AMThat's a pretty interesting question. I think this sort of thing would be very difficult for astronomers to figure out. Probably the best way would be to find the remnant core of the supernova, whether it's a white dwarf or a neutron (not) star, and compare it's age to the age of the sun, but there's two problems with this. For one thing, white dwarfs and neutron (not) stars are hard to detect, especially at great distances (probably like the one which created the sun), since they are so small. Secondly, we don't know exactly which direction to look, though the disk of the galaxy would be a good place to start since it is the largest star-forming region. So, yeah. I think that would be pretty unlikely. EDIT: Now that I think of it, if our solar system were created by a Type Ia supernova, the age of the white dwarf that caused it would not be very helpful in determining when the supernova actually occurred, at least not in any way I can think of. I don't know if we would even be able to know if it caused a supernova at all.
-
As far as I know our parent nebula is no where around us if it even exists anymore. I think they assume it's works the same as the countless other nebula we see forming stars and planets.
-
Yeah I have read that astronomers think the nebula which spawned us has been gone at least 4 billion years. Though the supernovae remnants that spawned us, and got us moving should be out there somewhere (assuming they where Type II). I read an paper by an astronomer which said that any stars which might have spawned from our parent nebula are also probably well out of the system now too. So I would then presume that whatever spawned us would also be so far away as to be undetectable or at least untraceable to our origins given that frame work. I just have not read anything by anyone stating that. As its, as far as I can tell, an open question, I thought I'd give sesto a chance to shine.
-
Edited by Ultra: 12/8/2013 4:38:36 AMNo experiment can prove anyone right, but one experiment can prove anyone wrong. The problem with modern science is what we 'know' is theorized from visual evidence and usually visual evidence alone, and attempting to apply factors we have come to know on Earth on an entirely different frontier with much more extreme and numerable variables and even in cases in which we can not properly identify a variable because we are limited in how we are capable of experimenting from so far away. I'd have to agree that we simply can not accurately determine our parent nebula. Then again I can not say I am the most savvy on astronomical type science, all I really know is from common sense.
-
[quote]I thought I'd give sesto a chance to shine.[/quote] Waiting on you Sesto.
