Magnetars: bigger than the ones on your fridge
February 18, 2005 8:08 PM Subscribe
On March 5, 1979, astronomers saw a burst of gamma rays so strong it swamped their detectors. Another rare burst in 1998 helped confirm the existence of magnetars, intensely powerful magnetic stars, unusual enough that there might only be a dozen or so in the galaxy.
Another one has just been found --when it let off a burst last December that, for a fraction of a second, was brighter than the full moon.
A magnetar close enough to us would wipe away our atmosphere and fry us. I wonder if any such bodies are nearby? I wonder if any are near enough not to do any permanent damage, but are enough to give the planet a larger dose of radiation than we get from the sun, and perhaps trigger a peak in mutation rates every, say, hundreds of thousands of years?
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:27 PM on February 18, 2005
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:27 PM on February 18, 2005
[ this is so much better than those wussy other sciences ]
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 8:49 PM on February 18, 2005
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 8:49 PM on February 18, 2005
The word 'magnetar', however, is just plain silly.
And there are probably googols of them.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:15 PM on February 18, 2005
And there are probably googols of them.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:15 PM on February 18, 2005
Magnetar does sound a little 70s, but it's modeled on pulsar itself (pulsating star) and fits in with a few other such names such as collapsar. Admittedly only one of these, somehow, is euphonious ...
This is very cool -- fortunately they're turning out to be more common than supernovae, but the excitement has to be similar to that of SN 1987A; we'd observed others, but this is the chance to test the theory with a new subject.
posted by dhartung at 9:19 PM on February 18, 2005
This is very cool -- fortunately they're turning out to be more common than supernovae, but the excitement has to be similar to that of SN 1987A; we'd observed others, but this is the chance to test the theory with a new subject.
posted by dhartung at 9:19 PM on February 18, 2005
Yeah, I've been waiting for this to hit MeFi all day. Fortunately, the breadth and depth of the discussion seems to be: "COOL, MAN."
As I understand, "brighter than the moon" is a bit of a misleading way to put it. It occured on the sunny side of the planet and was therefore more or less invisible. Did I get that wrong?
Astronomers, while wonderfully sage and wonderfully detached in a way none of the rest of us can be, are also perpetually in search of funding, and prone to play up the pyrotechnics to some extent.
"If only this had been 1000x times closer, it could have WIPED OUT ALL LIFE ON EARTH"
No hype there :)
posted by scarabic at 11:19 PM on February 18, 2005
As I understand, "brighter than the moon" is a bit of a misleading way to put it. It occured on the sunny side of the planet and was therefore more or less invisible. Did I get that wrong?
Astronomers, while wonderfully sage and wonderfully detached in a way none of the rest of us can be, are also perpetually in search of funding, and prone to play up the pyrotechnics to some extent.
"If only this had been 1000x times closer, it could have WIPED OUT ALL LIFE ON EARTH"
No hype there :)
posted by scarabic at 11:19 PM on February 18, 2005
was brighter than the full moon.
I don't recall this happening. At least I didn't see it. By brighter, do you mean visibly, or in terms of gamma radiation?
posted by BarePaw at 12:16 AM on February 19, 2005
I don't recall this happening. At least I didn't see it. By brighter, do you mean visibly, or in terms of gamma radiation?
posted by BarePaw at 12:16 AM on February 19, 2005
well, enough gamma radiation from a supernova or similar event (within a few hundred light years, give or take) can cause the air to disintegrate (atomically) and glow blue...AND WIPE OUT ALL LIFE ON EARTH!!! It's true. Sure, astronomers tend to play up the big spectacles for extra funding, but who doesen't? (who hasn't come up with a filing scheme that hasn't SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED THE WAY WE DO BUSINESS!!! around raise time?) The thing about astronomers, though, is that they really don't NEED to exaggerate. However, it can seem that way when they're trying to put it in perspective for the fine folks at USAToday...."hmm let's see, the smallest thing this thing could utterly annihilate?...um, the earth?"...
the neatest thing about astronomy is that if you study it long enough you start to get a real sense of the SCALE of things...how each relates to the other. of course so does checking out charles and ray eames' "the powers of ten"
besides, shut up scarabic, magnetars are cool.
posted by sexyrobot at 1:17 AM on February 19, 2005
the neatest thing about astronomy is that if you study it long enough you start to get a real sense of the SCALE of things...how each relates to the other. of course so does checking out charles and ray eames' "the powers of ten"
besides, shut up scarabic, magnetars are cool.
posted by sexyrobot at 1:17 AM on February 19, 2005
oh, and speaking of destroying the earth this is a pretty good diy guide on the subject
'total existence failure'?....heh heh heh
posted by sexyrobot at 1:23 AM on February 19, 2005
'total existence failure'?....heh heh heh
posted by sexyrobot at 1:23 AM on February 19, 2005
From gimonca's last link:
the field is so powerful that it could strip the data off a credit card at a distance of 200,000 kilometres.
"Had this happened within 10 light years of us, it would have severely damaged our atmosphere and possibly have triggered a mass extinction," said lead-author Gaensler.
The good news, he noted, is that the nearest known magnetar to Earth, 1E 2259+586, is about 13,000 light years away.
I didn't bother to figure out what " 10,000 trillion trillion watts" is in scientific notation, partly because I don't know if they were using British trillions.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:23 AM on February 19, 2005
the field is so powerful that it could strip the data off a credit card at a distance of 200,000 kilometres.
"Had this happened within 10 light years of us, it would have severely damaged our atmosphere and possibly have triggered a mass extinction," said lead-author Gaensler.
The good news, he noted, is that the nearest known magnetar to Earth, 1E 2259+586, is about 13,000 light years away.
I didn't bother to figure out what " 10,000 trillion trillion watts" is in scientific notation, partly because I don't know if they were using British trillions.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:23 AM on February 19, 2005
Dude, I am totally learning to play the magnetar.
posted by Eideteker at 6:56 AM on February 19, 2005
posted by Eideteker at 6:56 AM on February 19, 2005
From a couple of the news stories, it sounds like the "brighter than the full moon" was for less than a second.
posted by gimonca at 8:28 AM on February 19, 2005
posted by gimonca at 8:28 AM on February 19, 2005
...you start to get a real sense of the SCALE of things...
...astronomers... really don't NEED to exaggerate.
If memory serves me, I recall reading (years ago) that when a neutron star explodes, it releases 100 times more energy in ten seconds, from an area the size of a small city, than our sun has given off in 13 billion years.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:36 AM on February 19, 2005
...astronomers... really don't NEED to exaggerate.
If memory serves me, I recall reading (years ago) that when a neutron star explodes, it releases 100 times more energy in ten seconds, from an area the size of a small city, than our sun has given off in 13 billion years.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:36 AM on February 19, 2005
Cool, man.
No, seriously - Cool!
The surface is relatively cool, I would love to examine some of the neutron crystal on the surface since heat isn't as much of a problem.
Of course the gravity and magnetic field might be a problem.
That and all the other forms of radiation.
50,000 light years is kind of close, but it doesn't look like anything in our 'living room' might 'splode like that.
Of course, that's the thing isn't it, you don't see them until it happens. But 10 light years? Man that's right in your face...astronomically speaking.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:44 AM on February 19, 2005
No, seriously - Cool!
The surface is relatively cool, I would love to examine some of the neutron crystal on the surface since heat isn't as much of a problem.
Of course the gravity and magnetic field might be a problem.
That and all the other forms of radiation.
50,000 light years is kind of close, but it doesn't look like anything in our 'living room' might 'splode like that.
Of course, that's the thing isn't it, you don't see them until it happens. But 10 light years? Man that's right in your face...astronomically speaking.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:44 AM on February 19, 2005
Eideteker: The magnetar is a Polish instrument, no?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:52 AM on February 19, 2005
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:52 AM on February 19, 2005
By the Power of Magnetar, we shall avenge!
posted by five fresh fish at 9:51 AM on February 19, 2005
posted by five fresh fish at 9:51 AM on February 19, 2005
The Paper in question, requires pdf to view whole text.
posted by apathy0o0 at 10:02 AM on February 19, 2005
posted by apathy0o0 at 10:02 AM on February 19, 2005
Smedleyman, you bring up something I was thinking about since reading about this in the paper, that the explosion took place 50,000 years ago.
posted by billsaysthis at 12:20 PM on February 19, 2005
posted by billsaysthis at 12:20 PM on February 19, 2005
also, trip on this... the brightness of an object decreases as the inverse square of the distance from it...i.e. if 1 foot away from a light bulb is brightness '1' then 2 feet away, it's brightness 1/4, 4 feet 1/16th, etc....1/n^2.....ok, 50,000light years away...as bright as the full moon, which is 1 light SECOND away....damn that's bright....
ok, so here's the question...say you are vacationing at 1 a.u. (astronomical unit...the average distance from the earth to the sun) from this magnetar when it trips the isinglass at the end of the fuse...what spf would be required to prevent sunburn...
or should i have put this on ask mefi?
posted by sexyrobot at 1:25 PM on February 19, 2005
ok, so here's the question...say you are vacationing at 1 a.u. (astronomical unit...the average distance from the earth to the sun) from this magnetar when it trips the isinglass at the end of the fuse...what spf would be required to prevent sunburn...
or should i have put this on ask mefi?
posted by sexyrobot at 1:25 PM on February 19, 2005
The 2026 Chrysler Magnetar...with front/side radiation shielding and supernova traction control.
posted by QuestionableSwami at 2:20 PM on February 19, 2005
posted by QuestionableSwami at 2:20 PM on February 19, 2005
LOL
posted by billsaysthis at 4:52 PM on February 19, 2005
posted by billsaysthis at 4:52 PM on February 19, 2005
He was the one with the magnets, right?
Christ, I can never tell the difference between any of the Masters of the Universe villains.
posted by Coda at 12:25 AM on February 20, 2005
Christ, I can never tell the difference between any of the Masters of the Universe villains.
posted by Coda at 12:25 AM on February 20, 2005
« Older It's providin not-aid an discomfort to America. | Bunnies Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by nyterrant at 8:24 PM on February 18, 2005