Talk:Supernova

Effect of rotation eg on core-collapse or GRB

Can we say anything on how the rotation rate of the progenitor might affect core-collapse supernovae, eg. might it affect the strength or beam open angle of a GRB ? - Rod57 (talk)

Do you have any WP:RS pertaining to that information? if you post it , an editor might look further into it.MaximusEditor (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Pick a spelling

The article contains a mix of British and American spelling-isms. The general rule is to pick one and stick to it, going with the predominant spelling style unless there are compelling reasons otherwise. What do people think is the predominant style at the moment? Lithopsian (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I say this as an American - I strongly believe the entirety of Wikipedia should be converted to "British" spelling (which is a bit of a misnomer; the same spelling is used in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the rest of both the English-speaking world and most of the rest of the world when writing in English.) The majority of the world's English speakers spell it "colour" and "realise". (While on the topic, I'd also like to see Imperial measurements expunged from science-based articles!)

However, if the general rule is to pick one and stick with it, I'd go with whichever spelling convention is currently in the majority of the article. Khardankov (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Standardized (sic) in British spelling and tagged. Might be more to fix. 2A02:C7F:7428:D200:D41E:8807:3458:2B32 (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Old galaxies

Under "Current Models", it is mentioned that "older, more distant" galaxies have lower metallicity. I find this use of "older" confusing. Surely, it is younger galaxies that have low metallicity, and distant galaxies are young galaxies as we see them now? Sure, distant galaxies will be old by the time we see them, if they're even still around, but that's not relevant to the context, right? Acquirium (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Request

Please create an edit notice for the article, placing in it the template {{British English|form=editnotice}} Thank you--2A02:C7F:7428:D200:D41E:8807:3458:2B32 (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 14:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

There is very significant uncited text in this article. If this is not addressed, a featured article review may be needed. Hog Farm _Talk 17:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Hog Farm's assessment above. There are lots of areas that have uncited text, and there are also some short paragraphs that should be better formatted. Is anyone willing to address concerns, or should we prepare this article for an FAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Electron-capture supernovae 2018zd

We have a type III supernova now. I think we should separate Type III into it's own section and cover 2018zd. paper, Anton Petrov youtube video Daniel Santos (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Stellar mergers

As reported below, another cause seems to be merger of a large star and a neutron start or black hole. Is this in the article ? (It's very long, & I haven't time to read every paragraph). <https://www.popsci.com/space/rare-supernova-merger-observed>

<https://www.space.com/new-type-supernova-star-merger>

The Yeti (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Steady State Universe

In a Steady State Universe, stellar explosions must be conserved. The same star explodes over and over again. It somehow quickly gains enough mass to overwhelm the energy-mass equilibrium of the star, meaning the star builds up energy-mass until the star explodes. Equilibrium is thereby regained, the mass ejected from the explosion eventually falls at once back into the star, and the runaway instability repeats itself. I assume that the expansion of mass powers stars not fusion reactions, which are incompatible with Steady State. (This expansion is relatively non generalist).GuildCompounder (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

"Radio supernova" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Radio supernova. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 12#Radio supernova until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"Supernova 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Supernova 2. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 12#Supernova 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Red supergiant problem

The concept of the red supergiant problem was mentioned very briefly in this article, now slightly less briefly. It now has its own article which I feel is unhelpful out of context and not sufficiently notable in its own right. Hence, redirect it here and expand if necessary. Lithopsian (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Merged. Lithopsian (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The energy balance of supernova type II

A fusion of iron does not release energy, contrary to what is written on Wikipedia. This is a major error. Instead, a fusion of iron demands energy. It is accepted that what happens is not a fusion of iron, but the disintegration of iron to helium and then to hydrogen. However, the disintegration of iron also demands energy. Considering the accepted known processes, there exists a huge energy deficiency. If so, no explosion of type II supernova should occur. However, thousands of supernovae explosions were observed. This is why supernova type II is listed in the list of unsolved problems in physics. Actually, the non-trivial solution to the energy balance of supernova type II is given in the free peer-reviewed paper (2015)

https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/615/1/012012

Netsivi (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia say this? Lithopsian (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

In “core collapse” section: “The collapse may cause violent expulsion of the outer layers of the star resulting in a supernova, or the release of gravitational potential energy may be insufficient…”, later described in the section: “failed supernova.” Netsivi (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Also "from fusion rendering the star incapable of counteracting its own gravity, usually occurring after the fusion of iron in a star’s core, releasing gravitational potential energy as a supernova."

Netsivi (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I've changed that sentence in the lead, it was overly vague about the collapse mechanism and still managed to imply some things that aren't correct. The rest of it I don't see. The section you mention, and the text you quote, doesn't discuss iron fusion anywhere. If you just want to promote the theory in the paper you mentioned, try editing the article and see what people think. Or just edit the sections you think are a problem anyway, instead of trying to have people guess what it is you really want to say. If you can't edit this article because of protections, then you can do it in your own sandbox. Otherwise this just seems like pin the tail on the donkey. Lithopsian (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)