It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Somewhere in the Milky Way, a massive old star is about to die a spectacular death. As its nuclear fuel runs out, the star begins to collapse under its own tremendous weight. Crushing pressure triggers new nuclear reactions, setting the stage for a terrifying blast. And then... nothing happens.
At least that's what supercomputers have been telling astrophysicists for decades. Many of the best computer models of supernovas fail to produce an explosion. At the end of the simulation, gravity wins the day and the star simply collapses.
Clearly, physicists are missing something.
"We don't fully understand how supernovas of massive stars work yet," says Fiona Harrison, an astrophysicist at the California Institute of Technology.
To figure out what’s going on, Harrison and colleagues would like to examine the inside of a real supernova while it's exploding. That's not possible, so they're doing the next best thing.
Using a telescope named "NuSTAR" --short for Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array -- they'll be scanning the debris from supernovas as soon as possible after the blast.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by needlenight
We think we know so much, when we know nothing.
Uhg... I'm sick and tired of this line...
Originally posted by Hellhound604
(...) That is how science works. It is an iterative process, you observe, you hypothesize, you test the hypothesis. Unless your tests confirm your observations, you still have a hypothesis.
Sorry, just got to pick at this. SCIENCE is not SENTIENT to THINK for itself. Therefore SCIENCE cannot know jack squat.
"Science KNOWS it doesn't know everything, or else it would stop."