PDA

View Full Version : Young Neutron Star Won't Act its Age



Fraser
2006-Jul-07, 05:10 PM
This image, taken by ESA's XMM-Newton observatory, shows the heart of supernova remnant RCW103. This is all that remains of a star that exploded about 2,000 years ago. Although it looks like other supernova remnants, the central neutron star spins much too slowly - 6.7 hours per revolution. A new neutron star normally spins quite rapidly, but then its powerful magnetic field slows it down. But a magnetic field couldn't do that within 2,000 years, as astronomers have observed.

Read the full blog entry (http://www.universetoday.com/2006/07/07/young-neutron-star-wont-act-its-age/)

caedmon
2006-Jul-09, 05:00 PM
The object is 10,000 LY away. Yet, they say it only exploded 2,000 years ago. Um, shouldn't that be 12,000 years ago? If it exploded 2,000 years ago, we should be seeing it for another 8,000 years. Or did I simply read the article incorrectly?

Duane
2006-Jul-10, 04:47 AM
No, you read it correctly, but your confusing a distance measurement with a time measurement. It did explode 12,0000 years ago, but the light from that explosion only reached us 2000 years ago. The light we are seeing now, and which is being used to get these measurements, left the remnant 10000 years ago.

Jerry
2006-Jul-10, 01:59 PM
No, you read it correctly, but your confusing a distance measurement with a time measurement. It did explode 12,0000 years ago, but the light from that explosion only reached us 2000 years ago. The light we are seeing now, and which is being used to get these measurements, left the remnant 10000 years ago.
He's reading it correctly, and it is fair to say Frazier's summary is forgivably inaccurate.

caedmon
2006-Jul-10, 02:20 PM
Okay, just checking. It just struck me as odd, that's all. A more accurate way of stating it would be the explosion was first observed 2,000 years ago, or stating that it exloded 12,000 years ago and letting the reader fill in the aspect of the light reaching us 2,000 years ago.

See! I haven't forgotten everything! I feel better now. I appreciate all of the time and effort in posting the news to the site. Keep up the good work!

Duane
2006-Jul-10, 07:47 PM
He's reading it correctly, and it is fair to say Frazier's summary is forgivably inaccurate.

How so? Perhaps forgivably simplified, but not inaccurate.