Talk:Superluminous supernova

message: this article doesn't explain that initially it was believe that gamma ray burst "hypernova" were believed to be a spherical ejection of matter. It was a great mystery, how could a star release so much energy in all directions. It was only later when they realised that the burst was confined to a polar burst that the numbers started to add up. This isn't mention in this article, and was a critical moment the development of an understanding of the universe. I'm not the best writer, so I shall let one of you guys add the info.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.41.15 (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NOTE

message: Maybe it is just me but my reaction to most NASA fantasy drawings is disgust and it has no place in a science article.  Please remove it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.172.13 (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Fantasy NASA drawing should be removed

message: Since no action's occured regarding split I've removed the notice from the article and consolidated all prior discusssions within this section. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge or split first and discuss later

message: All right, if there are no comments on my previous post, then I will go ahead and create
a collapsar page and only once that is done, remove the collapsar stuff on the hypernova
page here.
Hypercott 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsar page 

message: The term collapsar should be described independently from hypernova. I would like to take part of the collapsar
discussion and move it onto a separate Collapsar page. At the same time, I volunteer to fix the science
issues of this article... (I am a supernova/GRB theorists and feel capable of doing it)
Comments?
Hypercott 20:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Split up Hypernova and Collapsar 

message: These articles were tagged for merging by User:Cwolfsheep. Discussion to determine consensus opinion about the merge (if consensus exists) goes here. --Christopher Thomas 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge of [[collapsar]] and hypernova

message: "Hypernova (pl. hypernovae)"
The term nova is the plural of the latin term novum and is in its current singular meaning in no way latin. Why then not novas?--80.146.2.242 22:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nova is here not the neuter plural but the feminine singular - it's originally short for stella nova "new star" - and novae is very much the correct Latin plural. In fact, hypernova, pl hypernovae would be a good neo-Latin word. Orcoteuthis (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypernova spelling

message: I removed a section that was uncited and directly contradicted cited parts of the gamma ray bursts page. Plus I'm pretty sure what was written is just untrue.67.82.47.139 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed section

message: The following still makes me uncomfortable.
:If hypernovae only occur in massive stellar objects at least 40 times the mass of our sun, then the Earth is safe from such an event for the foreseeable future. The closest hypernova candidate, Eta Carinae, is currently over 7,500 light years away.
Perhaps there are sensors faster than light that I know not of, but I would guess that all we know is that 7,500 years ago the star was 7,500 light years away.  Currently it may be a black hole and a bunch of gamma rays.  If it went hypernova 7480 years ago, then I don't think we'd know it yet, but it could affect us in the foreseeable future.  Am I missing something? (Of course it could just as easily be hundreds of millions of years from any such fate.) Dpv 00:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eeweeweew! The only sensible notion here is that Eta Carinae might actually already have exploded (or not), but it won't be very far from the place were we can observe it now, because stars in general don't move in anything near the speed of the light. We will not be taken by surprise by a GRB occurring near us unexpectedly. Any candidate will be clearly visible to us today. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless of course, it is a double neutron star collapsing. But that has nothing to do with hypernovae. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safe for Foreseeable Future 

message: I've removed the following content entirely, as it is already included in the article on gamma ray bursts, which is a more appropriate location.
:Hypothetical scenarios involving Earth
:It has been theorized that the energy released by a hypernova relatively nearby might be capable of causing mass extinctions on Earth. Scientists at NASA and the University of Kansas in 2005 released a study suggesting that a mass extinction on Earth 450 million years ago, known as the Ordovician extinction, could have been triggered by a gamma-ray burst. Hitting the Earth for only ten seconds, a gamma ray outburst caused by a hypernova could deplete up to half of the atmosphere's protective ozone layer. With the ozone layer damaged, ultraviolet radiation from the Sun could kill much of the life on land and near the surface of oceans and lakes, and disrupt Earth's ecology.
:If hypernovae only occur in massive stellar objects at least 40 times the mass of our sun, then the Earth is safe from such an event for the foreseeable future. The closest hypernova candidate, Eta Carinae, is currently over 7,500 light years away.
Mordecai-Mark Mac Low 17:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely done! That GRB modelling belongs to nowhere else than in gamma ray bursts. The theory is malplaced in all other contexts as fringe science, but might be valid as a model for possible GRB consequences. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of extinction section 

message: The book "Death by Black Hole" by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, states that the coinage of the term "Hypernova" belongs to the Princeton astrophysicist, Bohdan Paczynski (p.280), yet this article states otherwise; should it be changed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.186.66 (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coinage 

message: I re-removed the IPC section after DGG put it back in.  The reason is that the collapsars in popular culture all refer to black hole variants, and have nothing to do with the actual physical object / process theorized now.  The fictional usage all appeared prior to the 1993 Woolsey / McFadden application of the name to the accretion disk / jet mechanism black hole gamma burst phenomenon.
If *these* collapsars appeared in popular fiction then the IPC section would make sense, but other unrelated fictional things separately labeled collapsars don't (in my opinion) belong in this article.
Discussion welcome, however ...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The difficulty is that this article used to be called collapsar. The name-change orphaned the list of popular culture references. They should probably be moved to black hole's popular culture section (or another suitable place). Maybe also add a "collapsar redirects here; for the term as applied to black holes in general, see black hole" boilerplate to this article to clarify the situation. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsars in popular culture 

message: The article isn't clear on whether or not the hypernova image (HyperNova1 LG.jpg) is an actual photograph or an artist's rendition. From looking at the NASA page I believe it originally comes from, and the accompanying movie, I get a strong impression that it's an artist's rendition. Yet here, the image author is listed as "Some telescope". Does anyone know for sure? 81.233.98.9 (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypernova image 

message: The first sentence contains the statement that "a type of supernova explosion with an energy of over 100 supernovae (over 1048 joules)".  This would appear to be something of an exaggeration.  The most luminous known supernovae are approximately 15 brighter than a standard type Ia and around 50 times brighter than a typical type II, while most "hypernovae" are around a tenth of that at peak.  Relative energy output is higher due to the extended duration of hypernovae, but still usually short of 100 times.  We should be very careful when referring to "energy output", since different sources refer to different types of energy, for example, explosion energy, neutrino energy, kinetic energy, or radiated energy.  The 10^48 joules referred to here is higher than the energy outputs that are usually quoted for even the brightest hypernovae (eg. 2006gy), although if the (non-observed) neutrino output is included then perhaps it is correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lithopsian (talk • contribs) 11:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Right at the top of the page, there's the text "TWERKTWERKTWERKTWERKTWERKT... ==Gamma-ray bursts==TWERKTWERKTWERKTWERKTWERK...." however on the edit page I can't see it and therefore can't clean up the page.  I can't be the only one seeing this, right? 81.108.18.192 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: . It was a previous revision stuck in the server cache. Purging the page fixed it. — HHHIPPO 21:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  twerktwerktwerk vandalism 

message: A leading question of course, but such a statement has been added to the lead and needs explaining.  The reference given (a wayback machine archive of http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/universe/) is another example of a NASA article that misunderstands, exaggerates, or misrepresents accurate information to create a misleading impression.  In this particular case, the misleading impression was further chinese-whispered into "most powerful events so far discovered in the cosmos" which is just plain wrong.
Here is roughly how the whispers went:
1. Gamma ray bursts (GRBs) can briefly outshine the rest of the sources in the sky at gamma ray wavelengths.  This is a true statement, albeit in the slightly misleading way that a laser can "outshine" the sun when it hits you in the eye, but is not actually more energetic than the sun.
2. Some hypernovae are (or are coincident with, or produce) GRBs.  True, although most likely not all do.
3. The logical jump is then made to say that hypernovae outshine the rest of the objects in the sky.  This is wrong, since a hypernova and a GRB are not the same thing, and we are no longer talking about only gamma ray wavelengths.  If it was true then hypernovae would outshine all other objects at least at some objects whereas they are faint except (occasionally) in gamma rays.
4. Hence a hypernova is not the most powerful event in the cosmos, briefly or otherwise.  It may produce a directional gamma ray source which if it hits the earth is briefly brighter than all other gamma ray sources in the sky (as seen from our vantage point).  Or not, if it doesn't produce a GRB at all, or if it doesn't beam in our direction.  A hypernova is typically a few hundred or a few thousand times as "powerful" (both more luminous and longer lasting) than a standard supernova, hence hundreds of times as bright as one galaxy.  Since there are more than hundreds of galaxies in the universe, you do the math ...
Lithopsian (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at the web page, and, to be frank, there seems to be no misunderstanding, exaggeration, or misrepresentation of accurate information. In fact, there is no mentioning of hypernovae being the most powerful events in the universe on the NASA webpage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonathan100 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are hypernovae the most energetic events in the universe 

message: The article currently contains a mixture of descriptions of superluminous supernovae and hypernovae.  Both are unusually energetic supernovae, but in other respects the terms are used for different objects.  I'm starting to split the articles on the basis of the following definitions: a hypernova being a supernovae having ejecta with an unusually high kinetic energy, both a large mass and a very high velocity; superluminous supernova being a supernovae with unusually high electromagnetic radiation, ie. very bright.  I'll leave this article alone for now, and try to produce a consistent hypernova article.  In the interim there is going to be a lot of duplicate material.  I'll leave the duplication in place, it will make it easier to revert in case this approach is disputed, but if it seems good then someone else could start to cull it from here.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This could take a while.  See Draft:hypernova.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Now at hypernova.  Have at it.  Probably a lot more that could be said there.  This article now needs to be tidied up with hypernova-specific material pruned.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split to [[hypernova]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Pair-instability hypernova. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 13#Pair-instability hypernova until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ~~~~User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pair-instability hypernova" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]