Type II 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 II 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The body of this article was formed from a section of the FA'd supernova page. The material was copied here primarily to reduce the length of the supernova article. This should allow for expansion of the content. — RJH ( talk) 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This article was just started? Nice work! Trevor GH5 21:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 30, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Esurnir 00:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 3, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — Esurnir 19:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Article says: "When the core's size exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit, degeneracy pressure can no longer support it, and catastrophic collapse ensues."
From my understanding, electron degeneracy pressure rises with density. New electrons crammed into each cubic meter get higher and higher speeds just because lower energy levels are all taken by electrons which were already there. This fails when new electron's energy is so high that it can fuse with proton (ordinarily it is not possible, e + p weigh less than n). Such electron "disappears", it no longer contributes to degeneracy pressure. Density starts to rise fast, more electrons fuse.
That's how degeneracy pressure fails. If this description is correct, can it be added to the article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.207.196 ( talk • contribs)
The middle C humming model for patching the missing link between core collapse and explosion HERE. Use or dismiss at your option, while I dig into other matters. Said: Rursus ( ☻) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The onion star picture seems to be incorrect. Oxigen inside Neon? I don't think so. Dauto ( talk) 19:56, 21 February 2009 (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 its passing 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) 02:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
"Type II supernova, or core-collapse supernova" starts the article. But Type II supernovae is one of several types of core-collapse supernova, other ones being type Ib and Ic supernovae. I think the article confuses type II supernova, defined by absolute magnitude, light curve and spectrum, with core collapse supernova, which is defined by the physical mechanism of the explosion. This article is actually about core collapse supernovae, not about Type II supernovae. This article is incorrectly written, as well as the article on type Ib and Ic supernovae. Core collapse supernovae is a theoretical model that can be compared to something like "super-chandrasekhar white dwarf collapse supernovae" (not a term, please find the correct term!), while type II supernovae is an observation criteria classification compares to type I supernovae, and the latter is further subdivided. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 20:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Why doesn't this article say anything about how bright a type II supernova can be? We see a nice luminosity curve, but nothing about how bright the darn things tend to be. I came here hoping for some information on that. John Baez ( talk)
Until I read this article I thought I had understood the Chandrasekhar limit as being about 1.4 times the mass of the Sun. This article, however, says that the Chandrasekhar limit relates to the mass of the iron core within a star, and the star itself must be about 9 solar masses to obtain an iron core of 1.44 solar masses. Glad I read it!! And I guess it must be so.
The first sentence of this article is misleading. A type II supernova is *not* a subtype of a cataclysmic variable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderd ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Just curious if anyone thinks this too, but it looks like a face in the center of the supernovae remnant! Does anyone else see this? Syntheticalconnections ( talk) 02:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
"Eventually, as the hydrogen at the core is exhausted, fusion starts to slow down and gravity causes the core to contract."
Actually burning hydrogen into helium causes the core to heat up because it is more dense. This is why old Sol is getting brighter all the time. Hcobb ( talk) 23:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the introduction especially and a few places elsewhere are not clear and unambiguous to a general reader. A few points are obscure, some are apparently misleading. Poor readability is one of the most common criticisms of Wikipedia's current articles. I've tried to improve it and been reverted on some points, hence bringing it here for discussion. Specific draft edits:
Previous | As edited | Rationale | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | When the mass of the iron core exceeds 1.44 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit), a sudden implosion ensues. | In stars of this mass, electron degeneracy is unable to counter gravity. When silicon burning has ceased and the mass of the core reaches the
Chandrasekhar limit (1.44 solar masses), a or: ... a cataclysmic implosion of the core takes place within seconds. |
|
2 | ...that result in the formation of neutrons and neutrinos from the reversed beta-decay process | ...that result in the formation of neutrons and neutrinos (due to reversed beta-decay) and brief but exceedingly high energy production of neutrinos and gamma rays |
|
3 | The energy of this expanding shock wave is sufficient to detach the surrounding stellar material, forming a supernova explosion. | [add] ... while the shock wave and extreme conditions briefly allows the production of elements heavier than iron. |
|
4 | It belongs to a sub-category of cataclysmic variable star known as a core-collapse supernova | ? | Highly confusing. Presumably the meaning is "Type II supernovae [the subjects of this article] are one of several kinds of core-collapse supernova. They are classified as cataclysmic variable stars". Needs rewriting to explain what exactly this is trying to say. |
5 | This continues until nickel-56 is produced (which decays radioactively into cobalt-56 and then iron-56 over the course of a few months). | This continues until iron-52 and nickel-56 are produced via the silicon-burning process ....... Nickel-56 decays radioactively into cobalt-56 and then iron-56 however this process has a half-life of months, and the silicon burning cycle lasts only days, so it has little impact. | Clarifies the two places iron arises, as a fusion product and as a decay product. As currently written suggests that the iron in the core is created by decay of Ni-56 over a period of "months". |
6 | iron core | nickel/iron core | Accuracy - a few places imply the core becomes pure iron |
7 | A star must have at least 9 times the mass of the Sun for this type of explosion | [add] ... and (it is believed) not more than 40 - 50 times ... | As stated the introduction implies all stars > 9 M can produce a supernova, which is incorrect; it isn't believed to happen beyond a certain size. |
FT2 ( Talk | email) 23:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
My primary concern here is that the lead satisfy the WP:LEAD policy, which requires that it be a summary of the article, rather than detailing information not in the body. Beyond that, I have a few issues with your suggested changes:
Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 15:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest an alternative wording for item 1:
I think this addresses both of our concerns. Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay I think I've addressed most if not all of the concerns. Thank you for all the useful input. Hopefully these compromise changes are to everybody's satisfaction; if not please say so. There is still a need to add in a paragraph or two about the O + NE + MG core supernova for stars below 10 solar masses. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
article says very roughly 4 solar masses; here are a few references, all NASA, saying 1.3-2.5, or 1.4-3.2
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/science/neutron_stars.html http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/learning_center/ASM/journey/neutron_star.html http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/millisecond_pulsar.html http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/010607a.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.201.80.240 ( talk) 13:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
As discussed at times on this page and elsewhere, type Ib/c and type II supernovae are only slight variants of the same thing: a core collapse supernova. Most of the things that could be said about one apply to the other. So here is a proposal to merge the two pages. Lithopsian ( talk) 19:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
No, bad idea. Astronomers treat them as distinct entities; so should we. -- 101.119.14.206 ( talk) 06:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This article states that silicon burning process of a star with 25 lasts about 5 days. Silicon burning process article states that silicon-burning process of (mass of the star not defined) lasts less than a day. Can someone find out which one of it is true and how much does the duration of silicon-burning process differ from stars of 10 to 120 ? -- Artman40 ( talk) 11:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
-- Gary Dee 18:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Before this article was split from Supernova, this edit added a ref, which came with it in the split. So far as I can tell, it does not support the statement for which it is cited. Could someone please double-check? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Type II 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) 21:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding:
But that source has SN 1987 in its title. How can it then be a theoretical concept first (that is at least how it can be read - complete separation of the theoretical concept and the application of the theoretical concept)?
If the theoretical concept was inspired by SN 1987, isn't it misleading?
-- Mortense ( talk) 19:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The known energy source is not sufficient (Liebendorfer et al. 2008). Aldebarium does not allow to cite them, nor the known additional energy sources (my version of 00:25, 28 May 2022) because "much of the content was based on non-notable source material." Earlier Woosley & Heger (2007), which is a notable source of material cited 700+ times, noted that the energy source is not known, but Lithopsian does not allow it either because the energy source is known (correct! See sources in (not allowed) references in my version of 00:25, 28 May 2022). What is left after the combined forbiddings seem to me "Catch 22" and "Eyes Wide Shut" together: Ignoring the problem. Netsivi ( talk) 20:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Type II 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 II 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The body of this article was formed from a section of the FA'd supernova page. The material was copied here primarily to reduce the length of the supernova article. This should allow for expansion of the content. — RJH ( talk) 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This article was just started? Nice work! Trevor GH5 21:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 30, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Esurnir 00:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 3, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — Esurnir 19:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Article says: "When the core's size exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit, degeneracy pressure can no longer support it, and catastrophic collapse ensues."
From my understanding, electron degeneracy pressure rises with density. New electrons crammed into each cubic meter get higher and higher speeds just because lower energy levels are all taken by electrons which were already there. This fails when new electron's energy is so high that it can fuse with proton (ordinarily it is not possible, e + p weigh less than n). Such electron "disappears", it no longer contributes to degeneracy pressure. Density starts to rise fast, more electrons fuse.
That's how degeneracy pressure fails. If this description is correct, can it be added to the article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.207.196 ( talk • contribs)
The middle C humming model for patching the missing link between core collapse and explosion HERE. Use or dismiss at your option, while I dig into other matters. Said: Rursus ( ☻) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The onion star picture seems to be incorrect. Oxigen inside Neon? I don't think so. Dauto ( talk) 19:56, 21 February 2009 (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 its passing 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) 02:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
"Type II supernova, or core-collapse supernova" starts the article. But Type II supernovae is one of several types of core-collapse supernova, other ones being type Ib and Ic supernovae. I think the article confuses type II supernova, defined by absolute magnitude, light curve and spectrum, with core collapse supernova, which is defined by the physical mechanism of the explosion. This article is actually about core collapse supernovae, not about Type II supernovae. This article is incorrectly written, as well as the article on type Ib and Ic supernovae. Core collapse supernovae is a theoretical model that can be compared to something like "super-chandrasekhar white dwarf collapse supernovae" (not a term, please find the correct term!), while type II supernovae is an observation criteria classification compares to type I supernovae, and the latter is further subdivided. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 20:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Why doesn't this article say anything about how bright a type II supernova can be? We see a nice luminosity curve, but nothing about how bright the darn things tend to be. I came here hoping for some information on that. John Baez ( talk)
Until I read this article I thought I had understood the Chandrasekhar limit as being about 1.4 times the mass of the Sun. This article, however, says that the Chandrasekhar limit relates to the mass of the iron core within a star, and the star itself must be about 9 solar masses to obtain an iron core of 1.44 solar masses. Glad I read it!! And I guess it must be so.
The first sentence of this article is misleading. A type II supernova is *not* a subtype of a cataclysmic variable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderd ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Just curious if anyone thinks this too, but it looks like a face in the center of the supernovae remnant! Does anyone else see this? Syntheticalconnections ( talk) 02:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
"Eventually, as the hydrogen at the core is exhausted, fusion starts to slow down and gravity causes the core to contract."
Actually burning hydrogen into helium causes the core to heat up because it is more dense. This is why old Sol is getting brighter all the time. Hcobb ( talk) 23:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the introduction especially and a few places elsewhere are not clear and unambiguous to a general reader. A few points are obscure, some are apparently misleading. Poor readability is one of the most common criticisms of Wikipedia's current articles. I've tried to improve it and been reverted on some points, hence bringing it here for discussion. Specific draft edits:
Previous | As edited | Rationale | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | When the mass of the iron core exceeds 1.44 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit), a sudden implosion ensues. | In stars of this mass, electron degeneracy is unable to counter gravity. When silicon burning has ceased and the mass of the core reaches the
Chandrasekhar limit (1.44 solar masses), a or: ... a cataclysmic implosion of the core takes place within seconds. |
|
2 | ...that result in the formation of neutrons and neutrinos from the reversed beta-decay process | ...that result in the formation of neutrons and neutrinos (due to reversed beta-decay) and brief but exceedingly high energy production of neutrinos and gamma rays |
|
3 | The energy of this expanding shock wave is sufficient to detach the surrounding stellar material, forming a supernova explosion. | [add] ... while the shock wave and extreme conditions briefly allows the production of elements heavier than iron. |
|
4 | It belongs to a sub-category of cataclysmic variable star known as a core-collapse supernova | ? | Highly confusing. Presumably the meaning is "Type II supernovae [the subjects of this article] are one of several kinds of core-collapse supernova. They are classified as cataclysmic variable stars". Needs rewriting to explain what exactly this is trying to say. |
5 | This continues until nickel-56 is produced (which decays radioactively into cobalt-56 and then iron-56 over the course of a few months). | This continues until iron-52 and nickel-56 are produced via the silicon-burning process ....... Nickel-56 decays radioactively into cobalt-56 and then iron-56 however this process has a half-life of months, and the silicon burning cycle lasts only days, so it has little impact. | Clarifies the two places iron arises, as a fusion product and as a decay product. As currently written suggests that the iron in the core is created by decay of Ni-56 over a period of "months". |
6 | iron core | nickel/iron core | Accuracy - a few places imply the core becomes pure iron |
7 | A star must have at least 9 times the mass of the Sun for this type of explosion | [add] ... and (it is believed) not more than 40 - 50 times ... | As stated the introduction implies all stars > 9 M can produce a supernova, which is incorrect; it isn't believed to happen beyond a certain size. |
FT2 ( Talk | email) 23:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
My primary concern here is that the lead satisfy the WP:LEAD policy, which requires that it be a summary of the article, rather than detailing information not in the body. Beyond that, I have a few issues with your suggested changes:
Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 15:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest an alternative wording for item 1:
I think this addresses both of our concerns. Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay I think I've addressed most if not all of the concerns. Thank you for all the useful input. Hopefully these compromise changes are to everybody's satisfaction; if not please say so. There is still a need to add in a paragraph or two about the O + NE + MG core supernova for stars below 10 solar masses. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
article says very roughly 4 solar masses; here are a few references, all NASA, saying 1.3-2.5, or 1.4-3.2
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/science/neutron_stars.html http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/learning_center/ASM/journey/neutron_star.html http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/millisecond_pulsar.html http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/010607a.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.201.80.240 ( talk) 13:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
As discussed at times on this page and elsewhere, type Ib/c and type II supernovae are only slight variants of the same thing: a core collapse supernova. Most of the things that could be said about one apply to the other. So here is a proposal to merge the two pages. Lithopsian ( talk) 19:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
No, bad idea. Astronomers treat them as distinct entities; so should we. -- 101.119.14.206 ( talk) 06:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This article states that silicon burning process of a star with 25 lasts about 5 days. Silicon burning process article states that silicon-burning process of (mass of the star not defined) lasts less than a day. Can someone find out which one of it is true and how much does the duration of silicon-burning process differ from stars of 10 to 120 ? -- Artman40 ( talk) 11:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
-- Gary Dee 18:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Before this article was split from Supernova, this edit added a ref, which came with it in the split. So far as I can tell, it does not support the statement for which it is cited. Could someone please double-check? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Type II 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) 21:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding:
But that source has SN 1987 in its title. How can it then be a theoretical concept first (that is at least how it can be read - complete separation of the theoretical concept and the application of the theoretical concept)?
If the theoretical concept was inspired by SN 1987, isn't it misleading?
-- Mortense ( talk) 19:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The known energy source is not sufficient (Liebendorfer et al. 2008). Aldebarium does not allow to cite them, nor the known additional energy sources (my version of 00:25, 28 May 2022) because "much of the content was based on non-notable source material." Earlier Woosley & Heger (2007), which is a notable source of material cited 700+ times, noted that the energy source is not known, but Lithopsian does not allow it either because the energy source is known (correct! See sources in (not allowed) references in my version of 00:25, 28 May 2022). What is left after the combined forbiddings seem to me "Catch 22" and "Eyes Wide Shut" together: Ignoring the problem. Netsivi ( talk) 20:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)