Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Supernova Shrapnel Found In Meteorite

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the just-missed-the-dinosaurs dept.

Space 105

coondoggie writes "Talk about finding a needle in a cosmic haystack. Scientists this week said they found microscopic shrapnel in a meteorite of a star they say exploded around the birth of our solar system 4.5 billion years ago."

cancel ×

105 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The wonders of science... (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#33523884)


Remarkable!

Think of the odds: this meteorite landed 146 years ago in 1864.

What are the chances that something would be flying around the solar system for nearly 4.5 billion years then hit this wee planet which was Created only 5854 years earlier?

Most amazing indeed.

Re:The wonders of science... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33523956)

Magnets, how do they work?

Re:The wonders of science... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33524008)

I had no idea how much I as a white man respected Malcolm X until I learned that he wanted all the niggers to go back to Africa. What a capital idea! Why don't we have more black leaders who feel that way? Besides, it'd be a boon for the airline industry.

What a completely rational response. Hey nigger, don't like it here? Think The Man is draggin' you down? Go the fuck back to Africa.

If my great, great great grandpappy only knew that things would turn out this way, he'd have picked his own damn cotton.

Re:The wonders of science... (0, Flamebait)

s122604 (1018036) | more than 3 years ago | (#33523976)

The universe was created 6000 years ago too.
The 4.5 billion figure, for any object terrestrial, or extra-terrestrial, is the product of a duped mind, duped by Satan himself; bound, like Satan himself to writhe eternally in the lake of fire

Not to worry Mr. snarky intellectual, in that pool, there is always "room for one more"

Re:The wonders of science... (1, Interesting)

DamienRBlack (1165691) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524076)

My troll detector must be fuzzy from lack of sleep. I've got the mod points but I just can't decide if you're funny or trolling or heaven forbid, serious.

Re:The wonders of science... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33524184)

The comment was just stupid. Not really funny. Mod it back down.

Re:The wonders of science... (2, Funny)

dilvish_the_damned (167205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524522)

The universe was created 6000 years ago too. The 4.5 billion figure, for any object terrestrial, or extra-terrestrial, is the product of a duped mind, duped by Satan himself; bound, like Satan himself to writhe eternally in the lake of fire

So its to be Phoenix then?

Re:The wonders of science... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33524720)

What imbecile moderator called this "Troll"? Are we now supposed to be PC to the religious whack-job crowd? In other words, some literal-Bible-believer will come by and take the bait and get all huffy, etc. therefore this is a troll?

No, it is funny. Getting offended because someone mocks your belief of Creation being 6k years old happens because of your stupid belief. Not because the OP is mocking a legitimate viewpoint.

Re:The wonders of science... (1)

neongrau (1032968) | more than 3 years ago | (#33525372)

well if he intended to be funny or ironic he should have written his comment that way.

"if you don't want your beliefs ridiculed you shouldn't have such funny beliefs"

Re:The wonders of science... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33525470)

This was funny. Mods are in league with Lucifer.

Re:The wonders of science... (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524202)

Meh. Think of it another way. Every element other than Hydrogen and Helium was created in the bowels of a star. So, another supernova projectile vomited just in time for one of its chunks to reach our solar system as it was being formed.

Hmmm. Kind of cool coincidence actually.

Re:The wonders of science... (5, Funny)

TitusC3v5 (608284) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524222)

TFA was really sparse on details. It didn't even say what kind of super powers it would give us if we came in contact with it.

Re:The wonders of science... (5, Funny)

AffidavitDonda (1736752) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524470)

it will give you Hemolysis and survival of autologous red blood cells salvaged after cemented and uncemented total hip arthroplasty

Re:The wonders of science... (4, Funny)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#33525900)

What an oddly specific power.

Re:The wonders of science... (5, Funny)

c++0xFF (1758032) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526892)

What are the chances that something would be flying around
the solar system for nearly 4.5 billion years then hit this wee planet which
was Created only 5854 years earlier?

Easy: 50%. Either it'll happen or it won't. Pretty good odds, I'd say.

Re:The wonders of science... (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#33527160)

Easy: 50%. Either it'll happen or it won't. Pretty good odds, I'd say.

*facepalm*

This is why most people should never gamble.

Re:The wonders of science... (1)

c++0xFF (1758032) | more than 3 years ago | (#33527312)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-30-2009/large-hadron-collider [thedailyshow.com]

"I'm not sure that's how probability works, Walter."

Re:The wonders of science... (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#33527528)

Those cocksuckers don't allow Canadians to view their clips.

Re:The wonders of science... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33527940)

Fag

Re:The wonders of science... (1)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 3 years ago | (#33528444)

Holy fuck, and he's a science teacher too.

Then again when I was at high school we had a relief teacher (history) who was convinced that the ancient Egyptians discovered New Zealand before the Maori. He was a Canadian chap who would demonstrate iaido with metre rules, and was taken aback when we weren't impressed by the fact that his shoes were "Nikeees".

Any files left? (4, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33523938)

Were they able to recover any files from Suprnova?

OH NOES! (2, Funny)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33523982)

The Supernova matter will now corrupt our Solar system and makes us goes Supernova too!

Re:OH NOES! (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524606)

The Supernova matter will now corrupt our Solar system and makes us goes Supernova too!

Quick, sue the sun before it's too late!

Re:OH NOES! (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526556)

Not if we can reinforce the sun's fusion the only way we know: We complete ITER, crank it up to maximum and shoot it into the sun.

Re:OH NOES! (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 3 years ago | (#33529892)

Have you contacted Michael Bay with this idea? It sounds like you have the script completed. It just needs another 103 minutes of special effects.

Re:OH NOES! (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33531292)

Does Megan Fox count as a special effect?

Re:Any files left? (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33525068)

just some champagne

I would consider it to be 'dust'.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33523960)

'Shrapnel' in the scale of a supernova would equate to a planet.

Re:I would consider it to be 'dust'.. (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#33525404)

Great. Now Pluto ranks below shrapnel.

Extreme sharpshooting (1, Interesting)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#33523990)

Imagine shooting blindly at the sky, and your bullet making it to a life sustaining planet billions of miles away by sheer blind luck. Not even Davy Crockett could pull off a shot like that!

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524194)

Oh yes he could! Because he has the moral superiority to never miss (he would have waited for Greedo to shoot first)!

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524200)

This is why you should never shoot blindly into the sky. Sure you think it's harmless, but your great-great-great-great(etc)-grandparents won't think it's so funny when they get attacked out of the blue by an alien race from another star system seeking revenge for your errant shot that just happened to kill their beloved leader. Your celebratory gunfire after your local sports team wins some meaningless (from a pan-galactic perspective) competition could end up sparking an interstellar war.

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (3, Funny)

Tynin (634655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524416)

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (2, Funny)

damien_kane (519267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526872)

You jest, but, that shot was observed by the aliens who have a station on the dark side of the moon.
That base was erected (similar to NORAD) as an early warning/observation post.
Via subspace/ftl data transmission, they have warned the beings on their home planet (99.99~ light years away) that Sol-3 has launched a pre-emptive strike with a single death ray.
First response was, of course, to send enough ordinance towards earth that we will assuredly be destroyed.
We will be attacked by the alien life-forms, and any survivors will assume the aliens attacked us without provocation. when it hits us in a few hundred years. It's really too bad we didn't figure out how to hit them with something bigger than a single laser beam.

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (2, Interesting)

Zenaku (821866) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524458)

My great-great-great-great(etc)-grandparents are all dead already, so they probably won't be troubled by it.

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (1)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524476)

Yeah um...that was totally intentional because the future is actually entirely populated by people from the distance past due to a freak time machine accident. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526676)

Fry? Is that you?

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (2, Funny)

jackpot777 (1159971) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524226)

Sounds impressive, until you think of how many of these fragments were flying around in all directions.

Think of it as a More Dakka [tvtropes.org] situation of stellar proportions.

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524730)

OMG, that article just made my day.

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (5, Interesting)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524234)

Davy Crocket didn't have > 2 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 tons of bullets either.

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524324)

Thank you. My first sig!

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (2, Funny)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524440)

Davy Crocket didn't have > 2 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 tons of bullets either.

Apparently, Wilt Chamberlain did. This is like finding one of his kids.

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33525090)

Carl Sagan once said that it's impossible to actually write out all the names of his children, as this would require more space than the universe provides.

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526560)

Carl Sagan once said that it's impossible to actually write out all the names of his children, as this would require more space than the universe provides.

Was this before or after smokin' a doobie?

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524258)

Now grab a handful of sand and try throwing it in the direction of a target *without* hitting it.

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (1)

rcamera (517595) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524392)

done. i bet you're wondering where all that sand came from... it was ME!

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524268)

well yeah, but if fuckloads of people on fuckloads of planets were shooting fuckloads of bullets into the sky, the chances of one of them getting to that planet might not be so tiny... with less profanity, what i'm saying is "multiplying a small number by a large number can lead to a medium number".

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524516)

except for the fact that 100% of the bullets fell back down to their respective planents

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524608)

well yeah, we're talking about bullets shot from hypothetical guns capable of escaping a planet's and star's orbit.

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526282)

It doesn't matter what the guns are capable of as long as all the bullets fall back to the ground.

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524502)

>> Imagine shooting blindly at the sky, and your bullet making it to a life sustaining planet billions of miles away

I'm pretty sure every 9 year-old with a flashlight has done this at least once.

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524904)

>> Imagine shooting blindly at the sky, and your bullet making it to a life sustaining planet billions of miles away

I'm pretty sure every 9 year-old with a flashlight has done this at least once.

Guilty as charged.

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33525026)

>> Imagine shooting blindly at the sky, and your bullet making it to a life sustaining planet billions of miles away

I'm pretty sure every 9 year-old with a flashlight has done this at least once.

Massless photons are not bullets, you fuckass.

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524538)

Yes, but there are a LOT of bullets and a LOT of shooters

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#33525828)

Imagine shooting blindly at the sky, and your bullet making it to a life sustaining planet billions of miles away by sheer blind luck. Not even Davy Crockett could pull off a shot like that!

And, now imagine the sheer number of stars which have gone supernova and sprayed stuff all over the place which eventually collided with planets and whatever else is out there.

Most of the elements that make up our bodies had be to created in stars that eventually died. The fact that we are made up of the leftovers from dead stars tells me that this isn't so much blind luck, as statistically inevitable. Stars have been exploding and sending stuff throughout the universe for a hell of a long time.

Now, finding it and identifying it for what it is seems pretty wild. But, if we're made up of star stuff, the fact that there is more of it isn't really that big of a shock.

Re:Extreme sharpshooting (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 3 years ago | (#33527026)

Chuck Norris was wandering the universe looking for asses to kick, got bored, and shot it.

I bet you're glad he hit Earth and not Uranus.

Supernova Shrapnel??? (3, Informative)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524030)

no I didn't RTFA and it has been a while since my last astrophysics class, but isn't any atom heavier than Fe technically supernova shrapnel? I always understood that supernovas were the only place that there was enough energy to make these heavier atoms, no?

Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? (5, Informative)

radtea (464814) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524236)

isn't any atom heavier than Fe technically supernova shrapnel?

Not if you consider "shrapnel" to mean "fragments that are small but not gaseous". The point here is that a nanoscale grain of chromium54 has been found, which suggests it cooled out of the supernova gas cloud and was driven into the meteroite during a collision, so it is a more-or-less pristine piece of supernova condensate that has not been processed further, the way the iron on Earth has, for example.

That's a fairly interesting find, I'd say.

Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#33525132)

...pristine piece of supernova condensate

De Beers has found its new premium wedding ring stone to part consumers from their money.

Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? (2, Informative)

jackpot777 (1159971) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524276)

We are all made of stars.

Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33528984)

All the stars are made from me!

But can you name the supernova? (2, Interesting)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524448)

I didn't RTFA yet either (and I'm hoping to find something a little more reliable/interesting/useful than a NetworkWorld blog), but, reading between the lines of the summary, I think the point is not so much that it comes from a supernova, but that they identified the particular supernova. Which would be pretty amazing. Of course, given the accuracy of detail in a typical slashdot summary, this could actually turn out to be a story about anything from a new supernova being discovered in a distant galaxy to a new exploit in some brand of router whose name sounds like "supernova". :)

Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33525158)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_process [wikipedia.org]

Iron is merely the heaviest product of fusion in stellar nucleosynthesis.

Heavier metals are produced through neutron capture, as evidenced by technetium in stars. (My layman's understanding)

Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? (5, Interesting)

ImprovOmega (744717) | more than 3 years ago | (#33527342)

isn't any atom heavier than Fe technically supernova shrapnel?

Iron is kind of a ground-state on the periodic table. Below that, more energy is required to keep an atom together (hence, why fusion works to release energy), above that it takes less energy to have the atom be smaller (hence, why fission *also* releases energy). Iron is the direction everything trends towards. When every last drop of energy has been squeezed out of the universe, the final super-massive black hole of everything will be made up of a giant ball of iron.

Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? (0)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33529258)

Not really, first off IANAA, in the case of larger stars, the first step is to move towards iron.
However, massive stars have enough, um, mass to compress the matter into Neutronium, which may have been the result of iron being compressed, but no longer holds any of the characteristics of iron, seeing as it no longer holds electrons in orbit around the neutron

Black Holes would then be further compressed beyond neutronium, and would contain no attributes of Iron, although much of the contents of the Black Hole may have at one time been Iron.

Re:Supernova Shrapnel??? (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33530122)

When every last drop of energy has been squeezed out of the universe, the final super-massive black hole of everything will be made up of a giant ball of iron.

Just a layman's view here, but that is wrong. Current theories state that the energy in the Universe is a constant. Also, given the accelerated expansion, there shouldn't be a single black hole left, but many isolated ones where the galaxies used to be. I'll pass on the "ball of iron" bit.

Sounds like (1)

Spiflicator (64611) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524086)

somebody is using an aimbot.

Krypton (1)

Perl-Pusher (555592) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524102)

Of course it came here. Don't you read comics?

Sharapova found? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33524122)

Sharapova found in Meteorite???

Re:Sharapova found? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524464)

I think you must have read that wrong. Sharapova was found in a haystack, going supernova as she gave birth to a solar system.

Re:Sharapova found? (1)

CityZen (464761) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526174)

No Sharapova herself, but a fragment from the tennis ball of one of her serves that went high.

Readability (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33524138)

Scientists this week said they found microscopic shrapnel in a meteorite of a star they say exploded around the birth of our solar system 4.5 billion years ago."

You know, editors, that sentence would be a lot more readable if it were phrased: "Scientists this week said they found, embedded in a meteorite, microscopic shrapnel from a star they say exploded around the birth of our solar system 4.5 billion years ago"

I had to do a double-take because of "meteorite of a star they say exploded". I didn't know stars had meteorites!

Re:Readability (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524370)

I concur.

Torrents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33524162)

Wahhh? They had torrents that long ago...?

Lots of supernova remnants around (3, Interesting)

GlobalEcho (26240) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524254)

Everything on this earth heavier than lead (atomic number 82) comes from supernovae. And most of the other heavy stuff (heavier than iron) comes from them as well.

So we live among a lot of supernova remnants.

Re:Lots of supernova remnants around (4, Informative)

kurokame (1764228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526380)

Almost right. You can only really make those heavier elements through processes which occur during a supernova, yes. But although lighter elements (say, carbon) can be made during normal stellar lifetimes...how are you going to get it out?

I found a supernova remnant this morning. It was my foot.

The article is a little less than clear about the actual research that occurred, as usual. From the sound of it, I suspect that what they found was discrete ejecta - a blob of material which recognizably came from a specific supernova which had not mixed with other material. This is cool since it gives us a sample which we can study in that specific context.

Re:Lots of supernova remnants around (1)

hAckz0r (989977) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526832)

Yes, quite a remarkable /. story, I agree. Just imagine, supernova shrapnel embedded in supernova shrapnel? Read all about it! Just like hitting a bullet with a bullet one might think! And it landed here? Wow, What are the odds /. readers?

Only, there are only more of these kinds of bullets/shrapnel flying around the Universe than we can possibly count, so who would ever think think that one would ever have landed here, after a collision, in only a few, say 14.7 Billion years? Um, Oh, forgot, isn't that like what we are standing on? One Supernovae Shrapnel after another is what it took to build our planet isn't it? Let me guess, they didn't collide when they landed here ho so very gently under the influence of gravitation? After all, anything 'harder' or 'heavier' than hydrogen, helium, and lithium came from the same place, a Supernova, according to the current Big Bang theorist. That should put the "faint traces of a supernova" from the fine article somewhat in perspective for most.

Re:Lots of supernova remnants around (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 3 years ago | (#33530104)

The earth is made up of (in order of occurrence in the crust) oxygen, silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, and everything else (each of which constitutes under 1% of the crust). All of those are at or under the atomic number of iron, so all of them are the products of fusion, not necessarily from supernovae. They could have been blasted off from red giants, for example, which don't have to go supernova.

Re:Lots of supernova remnants around (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526934)

Everything on this earth heavier than lead (atomic number 82) comes from supernovae.

Slashdotter: "Darling, I present for your lovely finger this shiny remnant of a giant supernova that blasted into space billions of years ago in a heated nuclear fireball."

Fiance: "If you put it that way, I don't want your stupid space-barf ring!" (*kling*)
   

Re:Lots of supernova remnants around (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 3 years ago | (#33529032)

Everything on this earth heavier than lead (atomic number 82) comes from supernovae.

Slashdotter: "Darling, I present for your lovely finger this shiny remnant of a giant supernova that blasted into space billions of years ago in a heated nuclear fireball."

Fiance: "If you put it that way, I don't want your stupid space-barf ring!" (*kling*)

 

Carbon (diamond) is #8, far below lead. That's normal stellar fusion (once most of the hydrogen's burned up, at least), not supernova.

Re:Lots of supernova remnants around (1)

aXis100 (690904) | more than 3 years ago | (#33529522)

Yeah, no-one builds rings out heavy elements like gold or anything.

Whoosh!

Shrapnel of a star in a meteorite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33524378)

Or did the meteorite come from the star, and they found shrapnel from that meteorite?

I know we've gotten to the point where we just copy a paragraph from the article for the summary on /. but can't we at least choose a paragraph that isn't misleading and wrong due to poor grammar?

How about this one instead:
The findings suggest that a supernova sprayed a mass of finely grained particles into the cloud of gas and dust that gave birth to the solar system 4.5 billion years ago, [...] the early solar system sorted these grains by size and led them to become [...] the meteorites and planets[...].

I did no writing! It was easy! Oh, I suppose I did have to read the paragraph, and boy, was it a long one.

Re:Shrapnel of a star in a meteorite? (2, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524870)

The idea is that the supernova exploded, send out a shell of gas (as supernovas do), and that this shell of gas mixed into the nebula forming the solar system, giving us lots of heavy elements, and highly amplified concentrations (but still trace amounts) of various isotopes coming from the decay of very radioactive isotopes only formed in supernova. Since these particular supernova products decay rapidly, in general galactic matter they would be hard to find, so finding their decay products is a clear sign of proximity to a supernova event.

The particles in question here are 100 nanometers across, and presumably condensed as the supernova shell cooled. Calling them "Shrapnel" is misleading - they would make a virus look huge. I would call them smoke particles, but they are even smaller than that.

Re:Shrapnel of a star in a meteorite? (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524880)

Oh, and then later larger bodies like the parent meteorite formed, and included these nanoparticles, probably as dust captured by surfaces.

yeah... sure. (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524382)

The definition of scientist is being soiled by these kinds of finds.

I think what they mean to say is... "At least that we think it might be"

Re:yeah... sure. (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526652)

The definition of scientist is being soiled by these kinds of finds.

I think what they mean to say is... "At least that we think it might be"

It would get kinda tedious for scientists to end every sentence that way. Better to simply educate people in school about what science is, and thus they understand that every single statement any scientist makes (or for that matter, any statement any intellectually honest person makes) has that implied.

Might be a nitpick but... (1)

Draque (1367509) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524436)

This might be a nitpick, but isn't *all* solid matter shrapnel from supernovas?

Re:Might be a nitpick but... (2, Funny)

PocariSweat1991 (1651929) | more than 3 years ago | (#33525102)

Yes, but only supernovae from the Champagne region in Françe may call themselves Champagne supernovae.

Re:Might be a nitpick but... (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 3 years ago | (#33526686)

This might be a nitpick, but isn't *all* solid matter shrapnel from supernovas?

Most of it comes from supernovas. Most of is, however, would not be considered "shrapnel". What's unique here is the formation and preservation of bits of fresh supernova condensate.

Has no one else noticed (2, Interesting)

wiredog (43288) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524510)

that "Supernova Shrapnel" would be an excellent name for a rock band?

Re:Has no one else noticed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33525128)

You mean for either one of the Gallagher brothers? "talentless twats" would equally suffice.

Homeland Security response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33524790)

Homeland Security has declared the super nova explosion the earliest known terrorist attack. In response they have requested 50 billion in additional funding to prepare for the super nova threat!

Not exactly new (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33524812)

Finding Chromium 54 in 100 nanometer diameter nanoparticles is new, and pretty cool (although I would not want to be the one operating the tweezers !), but the basic isotopic evidence for a nearby supernova just before (and possibly causing) the formation of the solar system is decades old.

Re:Not exactly new (1)

ascari (1400977) | more than 3 years ago | (#33528926)

It's better than new! It's from the future!Last time I downloaded Chromium in August it was at version 7.0 and not even Google can produce releases at that rate. Chromium 54.0 is scheduled for 2016 I think.

Which Supernova? (2, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33525074)

Which supernova did this shrapnel originate in? Is it still around somewhere, 4.5Gy later? Do we know where it was, or even which direction in today's sky it would be if it were still there?

Re:Which Supernova? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33526514)

I'm no expert, but I think the question "which supernova this comes from?" is pointless. 4.5 billion years has passed and the remains of this supernova are probably all around half the galaxy. And they are now in form of other stars or planets, or gas clouds in interstellar space. Chances are, it is already mixed with other matter present and the only intact pieces of it are in the form of such grains.

Re:Which Supernova? (1)

ascari (1400977) | more than 3 years ago | (#33528932)

I used to know but I forgot. You can forget a lot in 4.5 Gy, see.

Did anybody else misread the article title as... (1)

Snufu (1049644) | more than 3 years ago | (#33527560)

"Super Sharapova Found in Meteorite"? And, would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

I might be stupid but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33530942)

Wouldn't all the matter in the universe be roughly the age of the universe?

Look around you (1)

jandersen (462034) | more than 3 years ago | (#33531574)

Talk about finding a needle in a cosmic haystack.

I don't know - most elements heavier than iron (or carbon or something like that) were created in a supernova, since their creation by fusion require energy rather than releasing it. So, in a way, we are all full of "supernova shrapnel".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>