[HN Gopher] Astronomers Watched a Star Disappear. Now JWST Might...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Astronomers Watched a Star Disappear. Now JWST Might Have Some
       Answers
        
       Author : Brajeshwar
       Score  : 96 points
       Date   : 2023-10-05 16:17 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.universetoday.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.universetoday.com)
        
       | marricks wrote:
       | Reading the article I figured this event was in our galaxy but
       | it's 22 million light years away! Makes sense that other
       | telescopes couldn't resolve it.
        
         | suzzer99 wrote:
         | The Milky Way is only 100k light years across. So one of those
         | two things can't be true. The article says: "N6946-BH1 is in a
         | galaxy 22 million light-years away". So it's a different
         | galaxy.
        
           | furyofantares wrote:
           | Yep! That's what they're saying - that they had mistakenly
           | thought it was in the Milky Way until they saw that it's 22
           | million light years away.
        
           | KMag wrote:
           | I think the GP was just ambiguous with their wording. I think
           | they meant "I originally thought this was within our galaxy,
           | but later discovered it was 22 million light-years away."
        
       | jdiez17 wrote:
       | A Dark Forest strike?
        
         | ASalazarMX wrote:
         | The article says
         | 
         | > [..] a more likely model is that the 2009 brightening was
         | caused by a stellar merger. What appeared to be a bright
         | massive star was a star system that brightened as two stars
         | merged, then faded.
         | 
         | But wouldn't it be cool if this was because someone brute-
         | forced the nine billion names of god?
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God
        
         | teekert wrote:
         | Perhaps some civilization created a Dyson sphere. Or perhaps a
         | technologically advanced civilization contained an overly
         | aggressive species.
        
           | jowea wrote:
           | From what I understand an actual Dyson shell completely
           | covering a star is probably out of reach of even such a
           | civilization. Would a Dyson swarm make the star disappear?
        
           | bloopernova wrote:
           | Spoilers!
           | 
           | Excellent books, I've read them like a dozen times.
        
           | vkou wrote:
           | A Dyson sphere wouldn't cause the star to significantly
           | brighten and then wink out all at once.
        
             | sillywalk wrote:
             | In the book Pandora's Star (see comment above), the Dyson
             | sphere wasn't physical, it was some sort of energy-type
             | shield.
        
               | teekert wrote:
               | You got the reference ;) First thing I thought: if we had
               | wormholes we could observe the event again.
               | 
               | And indeed, the brightening is Probably from the
               | construction phase of the sphere.
        
             | bell-cot wrote:
             | During final assembly of the Dyson sphere, the
             | astrodynamics contractor cranks the to-be-enclosed star's
             | fusion rate way up - to brake the infall of the segments of
             | the spherical shell with light pressure. Then, once all the
             | shoring joints between the segments pass their load/shear
             | inspections, the general contractor clears the AC to drop
             | the fusion rate back to nominal.
             | 
             | From a distance, the now-enclosed star seems to wink out in
             | a very brief time.
        
         | CobrastanJorji wrote:
         | Or maybe a Pandora's Star scenario!
        
           | bloopernova wrote:
           | I've read those 2 books like a dozen times. It might be time
           | for another reading lol.
           | 
           | For those unfamiliar: Pandora's Star is by Peter F Hamilton.
           | It details humanity's encounter with a star system that is
           | completely enclosed in an impenetrable exotic matter/energy
           | shell. It's fantastic sci-fi, a great adventure with fun
           | characters, loads of bizarre future stuff, and very cool
           | action.
           | 
           | Highly, highly recommend!
        
             | RHSman2 wrote:
             | Will check it out!
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | snakeyjake wrote:
         | >Dark Forest
         | 
         | Dark Forest makes no sense.
         | 
         | If you are an intelligence capable of faster-than-light
         | interstellar travel, capable of snuffing out stars, capable of
         | collapsing dimensions-- you don't care about anyone else.
         | Nobody's going to compete with you for resources.
         | 
         | Scarcity no longer exists. All you care about is energy and you
         | have mastered it. Energy is practically infinite to you. You
         | can sit off to the side of black holes or neutron stars
         | harvesting energy from their relativistic jets.
         | 
         | Finding or controlling a consistent supply of physical matter,
         | least of all individual stars and planets, is no longer
         | relevant to you. You can just pluck individual hydrogen atoms
         | out of the interstellar void and rearrange them using your
         | sources of near-infinite energy to transform them into million-
         | kilometer-wide cubes of whatever you want.
         | 
         | If someone makes it to your level of mastery of the cosmos, you
         | would just share the locations of any of the other several
         | hundred billion sources of free and limitless energy.
         | 
         | You ain't killing a star because an inhabitant of one of its
         | planets might take your planet over. You haven't needed to live
         | on planets for billions of years. You can construct atomically-
         | perfect structures of arbitrary size and composition out of
         | what we perceive to be the nothingness of space.
         | 
         | You don't need dirt.
        
           | Tronno wrote:
           | Humans kill wasps even though we landed on the moon.
        
             | SllX wrote:
             | Wasps and humans live different lives inside a closed
             | ecosystem with finite resources and energy. The
             | hypothetical civilization the parent is describing is
             | further away from us technologically than we are from
             | wasps.
        
               | blacksmith_tb wrote:
               | I think real problem with the Dark Forest hypothesis is
               | that it assumes alien civilizations at a very high level
               | of technical development would somehow have not also made
               | any sort of moral or ethical progress. Even humans, in a
               | few thousand years have gone from winner-take-all, kill
               | 'em all, to universal human rights, rules of war, etc.
               | (sure, we aren't doing a perfect job, but we clearly have
               | made some progress - by the time we're sending ships to
               | other stars, I'd like to think we'll be farther along
               | yet).
        
           | CodeAndCuffs wrote:
           | Plenty of people kill for no reason. I wouldn't rule out the
           | idea of a non human lifeform doing the same.
           | 
           | I'm not saying I agree with the dark forest. I just wanted to
           | assert that the dark forest idea isn't limited to "we have
           | something they want". It could also include. "They're jerks"
        
           | sebzim4500 wrote:
           | >Scarcity no longer exists. All you care about is energy and
           | you have mastered it. Energy is practically infinite to you.
           | 
           | I'm not convinced. There is a big difference between infinite
           | and merely very large. I think the demand for energy will
           | grow with the supply, as it has for us.
        
             | snakeyjake wrote:
             | >I think the demand for energy will grow with the supply,
             | as it has for us.
             | 
             | I think if we apply what is happening on Earth that is not
             | going to be true.
             | 
             | It seems as though per-capita energy consumption increases
             | to a certain point, and then stops. In the US it peaked in
             | the 1970s and has fallen such that even with the
             | intervening population increases US energy demand has
             | barely increased.
             | 
             | Depending on who is counting energy consumption (this is
             | all sources of energy not just utility electricity) either
             | peaked or plateaued in 2017-2018.
             | 
             | In the US, EU, and Japan energy consumption is decreasing
             | (and it is decreasing faster than population loss in
             | Japan). There are a number of reasons for this but mostly
             | it's efficiency improvements-- which still count!
             | 
             | I think there is only so much consumption that a TYPICAL
             | human being can do. Only so much heating and cooling, only
             | so much travel, only so many hot showers. Everyone gets to
             | that point, and then stops. They don't reach that level and
             | start setting up tesla coils for funsies.
             | 
             | Once they reach that apex, efficiency improvements start to
             | decrease overall consumption.
             | 
             | If population predictions pan out and a shift to more
             | efficient energy production and storage techniques
             | continue, I'm willing to bet that in a century the world
             | will be using less energy than it is today.
             | 
             | Same thing for hyper-dimensional interstellar megagods.
             | There are only so many 100km x 100km x 100km cubes of
             | atomically-pure gold one needs in their collection.
        
               | pbh101 wrote:
               | Look at what people make in MineCraft. If people had the
               | ability to do that in real worlds, they would. In
               | addition to the effect you describe, I think energy
               | consumption would grow with ergonomics/facility of use.
        
               | midasuni wrote:
               | US per capita consumption doesn't count imported foods
               | though. If it costs 1MWh to build a dohicky in China and
               | that's imported into the US, you don't add 1MWh to US
               | consumption (and remove it from China)
        
           | Tepix wrote:
           | > If someone makes it to your level of mastery of the cosmos,
           | you would just share the locations of any of the other
           | several hundred billion sources of free and limitless energy.
           | 
           | I'm not sure that's true. Evolution is competitive. An
           | advanced race may decide to remove potential competitors
           | before they become a threat.
        
           | Shaanie wrote:
           | That's a lot of assumptions which may or may not be true,
           | however likely they may seem. There's no telling how another
           | life form may reason, hell it might not even reason at all -
           | perhaps it's some kind of space fungi or virus which
           | traverses space to inhabit planets capable of supporting
           | life. Not that I think the dark forest theory is likely, but
           | I wouldn't say it makes no sense.
        
       | ck2 wrote:
       | Oh a "failed supernova" would be fascinating
       | 
       | There have only been two in our galaxy in relatively modern
       | history, 19th century
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova#Observation_history
        
         | nsxwolf wrote:
         | Imaging becoming a black hole without getting to explode first.
         | It would be a huge letdown. I imagine it must be like when
         | you're just about to sneeze, but then can't. Getting all bright
         | like that, here's your moment after billions of years...
         | then... nothing.
        
           | em-bee wrote:
           | or a balloon that doesn't pop but just deflates
        
             | spacecadet wrote:
             | Except it formed a black hole?
        
       | eps wrote:
       | > Astronomers watched a star disappear
       | 
       | I sure hope one of them wasn't called Dudley Bose [1].
       | 
       | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Saga
        
         | distract8901 wrote:
         | We should absolutely, without question go poking at it. Surely
         | there won't be any consequences
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | perihelions wrote:
       | https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.16121
       | 
       | Figure 8 looks weird, how they fit a parameterized model to 3
       | points?
        
         | queuebert wrote:
         | It's the molecular emission spectrum of PAH (polycyclic
         | aromatic hydrocarbons) plus a blackbody. Both of these are
         | known quite well to atmospheric scientists. The only thing to
         | fit was how much of each to add and what the total flux
         | normalization was.
         | 
         | (The blackbody is a smooth single hump, while the PAH spectrum
         | are the jagged atomic and molecular lines coming from quantum
         | mechanical effects, which have discrete energies.)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-10-05 23:01 UTC)