Failed supernova in NGC 6946

[DanTrentfield]

So I was reading my Hubble feed this morning over some eggs and sausage when I stumbled across an article about a possible failed supernova in NGC 6946, where the star brightened considerably, but not enough to be classified as a supernova, and after this event it's infared output lessened considerably as well so it could not have simply remained a star hidden behind the dust cloud it created. This star specifically is N6946-BH1, and I find it rather interesting that it may be a black hole even though the star did not go supernova, and I think this could redefine a large section of research on the nature of black holes. I for one think that a new type of celestial body was formed as a result of the event, one which we have not seen before, as we have never witnessed this kind of event before. I personally believe that this could have formed a body with density close to that of a neutron star but without the necessary density to initiate neutron formation, a failed neutron star if you will. I think that this is relative possibility based upon a few basic points: The star did not go supernova completely, which means that it is less likely than most cases of supernovae that a black hole was formed; The infared emissions are too low for it to be a dwarf star (Unless it became a black dwarf); And the infared emissions are too low for it to have retained most of it's mass and or sustained significant nuclear fusion; and to back up this thought these particular objects would be very hard to detect unless they were orbiting stars, and then they would be easy to mistake for planets, and they would not produce gravitational lensing on the same scale as black holes as they would have neither the density or mass of one, making them harder to spot. This is in no way a claim I am making, this post is simply food for thought and this is my thought, Feed your brain and share your thought below.

Edited May 31, 2017 by DanTrentfield

[KipIngram]

Can you give details on your Hubble feed? That sounds like something I'd be interested in.

[Silvestru]

This star specifically is N6946-BH1, and I find it rather interesting that it may be a black hole even though the star did not go supernova, and I think this could redefine a large section of research on the nature of black holes. I for one think that a new type of celestial body was formed as a result of the event, one which we have not seen before, as we have never witnessed this kind of event before. I personally believe that this could have formed a body with density close to that of a neutron star but without the necessary density to initiate neutron formation, a failed neutron star if you will. I think that this is relative possibility based upon a few basic points: The star did not go supernova completely, which means that it is less likely than most cases of supernovae that a black hole was formed; The infared emissions are too low for it to be a dwarf star (Unless it became a black dwarf); And the infrared emissions are too low for it to have retained most of it's mass and or sustained significant nuclear fusion; and to back up this thought these particular objects would be very hard to detect unless they were orbiting stars, and then they would be easy to mistake for planets, and they would not produce gravitational lensing on the same scale as black holes as they would have neither the density or mass of one, making them harder to spot.

 

I think these are not the right points/enough evidence to suggest a black hole. Was "black hole" mentioned in this feed?

[Sensei]

Can you give details on your Hubble feed? That sounds like something I'd be interested in.

https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/opo1719b/

 

http://hubblesite.org/news_release/news/2017-19

Edited June 5, 2017 by Sensei

[Silvestru]

It's obviously not a black hole and actually a Dyson sphere encompassing this star. Scientist have a tendency to go where evidence suggests and overlook the truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

[MigL]

In a large star at the end of its life, when the iron core exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit ( electron degeneracy pressure limit ), there is a rapid collapse. The outer layers collapse as well, and then rebound. The resulting pressure wave can rekindle nuclear processes in these outer layers.

If the amount of fusible material is very large in the outer layers, there will be significant radiation pressure to create a spectacular supernova. If not, the outer layers will just 'sputter' and then collapse as well, settling down into a BH.

Stellar make up is different for differing stars ( gen I, gen II ), and will result in different collapse modes.

Edited June 5, 2017 by MigL

[stefan r]

It's obviously not a black hole and actually a Dyson sphere encompassing this star. Scientist have a tendency to go where evidence suggests and overlook the truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

 

There may be a lot of Dyson spheres. But N6946-BH1 does not look like a Dyson sphere. It got brighter from 2009 to 2015. Constructing Dyson sphere should be lowering the visible radiation. Then it went dark in 2015 and lacks infra-red. A Dyson sphere in construction would increase the infra-red output of a star. N6946-BH1 has a some infra-red emission but it is less than the star had in 2009. There could be hundreds, or millions of Dyson spheres in galaxy NGC6946 but N6946-BH1 is not likely to be one of them.

[Silvestru]

Damn even my sci-fi was debunked.

 

There may be a lot of Dyson spheres. But N6946-BH1 does not look like a Dyson sphere. It got brighter from 2009 to 2015. Constructing Dyson sphere should be lowering the visible radiation. Then it went dark in 2015 and lacks infra-red. A Dyson sphere in construction would increase the infra-red output of a star. N6946-BH1 has a some infra-red emission but it is less than the star had in 2009. There could be hundreds, or millions of Dyson spheres in galaxy NGC6946 but N6946-BH1 is not likely to be one of them.

[DanTrentfield]

Apologies, business consumes my time. Dyson Spheres? Well.... Fermi may have been right. Let's just hope Klingons don't show up now, or worse, the Borg. Also, if we have proof of Dyson spheres does that finally mean that we have concrete proof that structures on the scale of the Death Star are possible? And if so can I get a quote on the cost? How about insurance and a parking spot?

[beecee]

4 hours ago, DanTrentfield said:

Apologies, business consumes my time. Dyson Spheres? Well.... Fermi may have been right. Let's just hope Klingons don't show up now, or worse, the Borg. Also, if we have proof of Dyson spheres does that finally mean that we have concrete proof that structures on the scale of the Death Star are possible? And if so can I get a quote on the cost? How about insurance and a parking spot?

The near infinite extent and content, plus the time and distance are the barriers that will most likely inhibit any contact between species within the foreseeable future.

Although I certainly hope [and many scientists now believe] that some convincing extraordinary evidence will be forthcoming to show ETL does exist, somewhere, sometime and before I kick the bucket. Fermi, I'm near certain was wrong. 

[Area54]

8 hours ago, beecee said:

 Fermi, I'm near certain was wrong. 

Since all he did was ask a question, how do you arrive at the conclusion he was almost certainly wrong?

 

Meanwhile, back on topic, Dan said " I personally believe that this could have formed a body with density close to that of a neutron star but without the necessary density to initiate neutron formation, a failed neutron star if you will. "

Dan, do you have any quantitative data to support this belief?

Edited August 15, 2017 by Area54

[DanTrentfield]

On 8/15/2017 at 4:14 AM, Area54 said:

Since all he did was ask a question, how do you arrive at the conclusion he was almost certainly wrong?

 

Meanwhile, back on topic, Dan said " I personally believe that this could have formed a body with density close to that of a neutron star but without the necessary density to initiate neutron formation, a failed neutron star if you will. "

Dan, do you have any quantitative data to support this belief?

Of course not. That is speculation upon my part because I find the idea intriguing and curiosity gets the better of me. If anything this is most likely possible however the actual outcome of being a "Failed neutron star" would be far different than I would ever predict. It would probably turn into a black dwarf or a very strange white dwarf with unstable outer layers. I rest my point as I have too little experience and information in terms of cosmology and astronomy to make an accurate hypothesis upon this at current, so please excuse my speculation.

[Moontanman]

On 5/31/2017 at 3:48 PM, DanTrentfield said:

So I was reading my Hubble feed this morning over some eggs and sausage when I stumbled across an article about a possible failed supernova in NGC 6946, where the star brightened considerably, but not enough to be classified as a supernova, and after this event it's infared output lessened considerably as well so it could not have simply remained a star hidden behind the dust cloud it created. This star specifically is N6946-BH1, and I find it rather interesting that it may be a black hole even though the star did not go supernova, and I think this could redefine a large section of research on the nature of black holes. I for one think that a new type of celestial body was formed as a result of the event, one which we have not seen before, as we have never witnessed this kind of event before. I personally believe that this could have formed a body with density close to that of a neutron star but without the necessary density to initiate neutron formation, a failed neutron star if you will. I think that this is relative possibility based upon a few basic points: The star did not go supernova completely, which means that it is less likely than most cases of supernovae that a black hole was formed; The infared emissions are too low for it to be a dwarf star (Unless it became a black dwarf); And the infared emissions are too low for it to have retained most of it's mass and or sustained significant nuclear fusion; and to back up this thought these particular objects would be very hard to detect unless they were orbiting stars, and then they would be easy to mistake for planets, and they would not produce gravitational lensing on the same scale as black holes as they would have neither the density or mass of one, making them harder to spot. This is in no way a claim I am making, this post is simply food for thought and this is my thought, Feed your brain and share your thought below.

There are some theoretical possibilities from a quark star to a preon star. It would appear there is a official possibility.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N6946-BH1

Quote

N6946-BH1 is a disappearing red supergiant star in another galaxy, NGC 6946, on the northern border of the constellation of Cygnus. The star was 25 times the mass of the sun, and was 20 million light years distant from Earth. In March through to May 2009 the star brightened to several million solar luminosities, but by 2015 it had disappeared from optical view. In the mid and near infrared an object is still visible, however, it is fading away with a brightness proportional to t−4/3. The brightening was insufficient to be a supernova, and is called a failed supernova.[1]

The star's coordinates were at RA 20:35:27.56 and Dec +60:08:08.29. The brightness of the star, given by its apparent magnitude in different colour bands on 2 July 2005 is given by R = 21, V = 21, B = 22, U = 23.[1] Prior to the optical outburst the star was about 100,000 times as bright as the sun. After the outburst it was invisible in the visual band, but has declined to 5000 times as bright as the sun in infrared radiation.[1]

N6946-BH1 failed supernova (artist's impression)

One hypothesis is that the core of the star collapsed to form a black hole. The collapsing matter formed a burst of neutrinos that lowered the total mass of the star by a fraction of a percent. This caused a shock wave that blasted out the star's envelope to make it brighter.[3]

Observed type II supernovae do not originate from stars with initial masses greater than about 18 M☉, and the rate of large star formation appears to exceed the rate of supernovae. The suspicion is that something else is happening to these extra large stars. Failed supernovae and black hole formation is one proposed explanation.[1] If this event indeed reflected the formation of a black hole, it is the first time that black hole formation has been observed.[4]

 

[DanTrentfield]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

There are some theoretical possibilities from a quark star to a preon star. It would appear there is a official possibility.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N6946-BH1

 

Most intriguing. It appears I may after all be partially correct in my assumption that this isn't something we have seen before.