![]() | Type Ia supernova has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | Type Ia supernova is part of the Classes of supernovae series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 March 2020 and 5 June 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
ThomasDKennedy.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The seed for this article came from the FA'd supernova page. The later had reached 88 Kb, so material needed to be split off. The Type Ia section on the supernova article will be written summary-style. — RJH ( talk) 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In the "Consensus model" page it first stated that the star is unbound. But a subsequent addition said that:
So this is contradictory to me. This reference states that the most favored scenario is the "complete disintegration of a CO white dwarf". Was this a confusion with core-collapse supernovae? — RJH ( talk) 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
References
I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have put the article on hold at this time until the following issues are addressed.
This isn't too much to fix, and I'll leave the article on hold for up to seven days. If you have any questions or when you are done addressing the above issues, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. -- Nehrams2020 18:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have passed this article. Good work on addressing the above issues so quickly. The article is very informative and it was interesting read. I'll probably let another editor review Type II supernova just so there is a difference of opinion in the reviews. Make sure that the article maintains its high quality, and ensure than all new information is properly sourced. As a side note, are there any WikiProjects that this article falls under? If so, please add them to the top, as I'm sure they want to keep track of their GA articles. If you get the chance, please consider helping with the current drive to remove the backlog at GAC. Even if you review just one or two articles, the review waiting time will be reduced for new candidates. Keep up the good work, and I hope you continue to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia! -- Nehrams2020 18:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The following article discusses an unusual mechanism for igniting Type 1a supernovae through tidal disruption by an IMBH in a globular cluster.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)It should be interesting to see if this is observationally confirmed.— RJH ( talk) 19:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Under "Light curve", the text says that "Near the time of maximum luminosity, the spectrum contains lines of intermediate-mass elements from oxygen to calcium" while "The radioactive decay of nickel-56 through cobalt-56 to iron-56 produces high-energy photons which dominate the energy output of the ejecta at intermediate to late times." However the picture says "The peak is primarily due to the decay of Nickel (Ni), while the later stage is powered by Cobalt (Co)." This seems contradictory to me regarding the role of Nickel---or at least confusing enough to warrant clarification. -- Spireguy ( talk) 14:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll clarify: the confusion is about what generates the peak energy. The text seems to say that elements from Oxygen to Calcium are responsible for the emissions near the peak. The picture says that the peak is due to Nickel. That would be contradictory. Perhaps the Oxygen through Calcium lines are absorption lines, due to the outer layers filtering the Nickel-generated emissions? Or maybe they are emission lines, so that they are contributing to the output, but the Nickel-generated emissions are still predominant? Either would make sense logically, but whatever is going on, I think it needs to be spelled out. -- Spireguy ( talk) 03:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Stars, constellations, and clusters" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after I passed it in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would recommend going through all of the citations and updating the access dates and fixing any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 02:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)No issue information yet.— RJH ( talk) 15:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs state the same thing that is covered perfectly well in the first two sections of Type_Ia_supernova. The third paragraph paraphrases the "instability", but the link should suffice, or similar paraphrasing can be added to the Supernova article. The only thing that would be missed if this article were deleted would be some of the links. Długosz ( talk) 20:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This has been cluttering up the article for months. I'm moving it here for aesthetics reasons. — RJH ( talk) 17:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/science/space/23star.html
This may also change the accuracy of the standard candle method according to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.150.32 ( talk) 18:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Just posting this link as it might be useful/interesting for editors of this article. Astronomers Hunt for Ticking Time Bombs Jedikaiti ( talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Good article but there is a glaring omission: the frequency with which this type of supernova occurs. I am not competent to answer this question and have no familiarity with the literature so I won't attempt to make the edit myself. But I'm sure there's someone out there who is competent to make the edit. 154.5.45.119 ( talk) 19:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to see a light curve in this article, but the curve presented doesn't say how many days to the peak, or how long the peak lasts. This interests me because SN 2011fe is in the news, and I'd like to know how long this particular supernova will be visible with small, portable telescopes. Perhaps other readers have the same question. Oaklandguy ( talk) 18:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Interesting information:
Not yet published in a peer reviewed journal though. Regards, RJH ( talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 22 March 2012 as "The merger rate of binary white dwarfs in the galactic disk" [1]-- Gmacks ( talk) 10:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I was curious about the observation of Ia supernova's as evidence for an accelerating expansion. I have been reading up on the subject, and my understanding is that the reason we can use his particular type of supernova as a standard candle is due to the chandrasakar limit. In a binary system, the dense white dwarf pulls on matter from the other star. As matter 'rains' on the white dwarf, the white dwarf can potentially grow to a mass of 1.4 solar masses. At this mass, the star will collapse and supernova. Because of this particular mass of near 1.4 solar masses at collapse, we may infer distance through the observed luminosity of the event. Because mass and distance will determine a stars luminosity, we can infer distance through the intensity of the supernova- (a more intense nova would be nearer to us, a dimmer one would be further). So, the distance to the from observer to the supernova could be calculated through the inverse square law.
The section on light curves stated: "The similarity in the absolute luminosity profiles of nearly all known Type Ia supernovae has led to their use as a secondary[35] standard candle in extragalactic astronomy.[36] The cause of this uniformity in the luminosity curve is still an open question."
The last sentence in particular confuses me. I will research light curves further, but i understood 'this uniformity' as a result of the similar masses of the white dwarves at the point of supernova. [2]
I have also had trouble in wiki research understanding how this particularly proves an accelerating universe. does the supernova spectra redden over time following the spectra? any answers or clarifications would be much appreciated!-- Baleensample ( talk) 01:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
References
Why is angular momentum lost? Thanks. 76.218.104.120 ( talk) 22:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hubble breaks record for furthest supernova. Cheers! Josh, linguist ( talk) 13:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The article states ".. as the white dwarf approaches about 1% of the limit,[11] a period of convection ensues .." but the mass is already over 1.38 Msun and approaching 1.44 Msun. Should this say ".. approaches within about 1% of the limit ..", i.e. ".. approaches about 99% of the limit .."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeDishman ( talk • contribs) 08:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
What happens to the binary partner?
At the end of the observation section it reads "However, later analysis revealed that the CSM is too massive for the single-degenerate scenario, and fits better the core-degenerate scenario".
What is the "CSM"?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Type Ia supernova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The final section seems to be entirely devoted to uncritically advertising a controversial paper (ref. 57) and a media article describing it (ref. 56), both of which have been criticized by some of the leading experts (see e.g. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/no-astronomers-haven-t-decided-dark-energy-is-nonexistent/). This section either needs to be deleted, or to be rewritten to be NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:407F:A350:9DC1:78BB:FE19:498F ( talk) 03:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
"Type Ia supernova differ from Type II supernova ..." should either be "Type Ia supernovae differ from Type II supernovae ..." or "Type Ia supernovas differ from Type II supernovas ..." or "A Type Ia supernova differs from a Type II supernova ...". I won't change it due to the risk of a vandalism ban. -- Felix Tritschler ( talk) 11:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I found the wikilinking in this article perplexing. I think too many rather common words are linkified; and not enough unexplained 'terms of art' are linkified.
For an example illustrating both problems, I was curious to learn more about "carbon-oxygen white dwarfs", which are not explained in the article. Helpfully, the term looks like a link - but it's two links, pointing to Carbon and Oxygen respectively. Anyone who's got this far in this article isn't going to be looking up chemical elements.
So I intend to tighten up the linkification. I'll tread gently. I'm not an expert at all. But there's a lot of outgoing links in the article, ranging from some which are directly helpful and supportive of the article, to others which seem only be useful for students of English as a foreign language (excuse the hyperbole).
[Edit] Hmmm - I wonder if I've stumbled into "religious" territory? I hope not. I read the other day that some people think everything, every word, should be a hyperlink.