Super Nova Particles Discovered on the Sea Floor

[Dryson]

One of the least likely places you might think astronomers would learn about ancient supernovae is at the bottom of the ocean, but in new research scientists have done just that.
Through the careful analysis of ocean sediment, tiny particles that originated from deep space have settled on the seabed, locking the chemical secrets to super nova processing that would have otherwise remained a mystery.

http://www.space.com/28327-supernov...15093730290049&cmpid=514639_20150203_39825807

I wonder if the particles came from a Super Nova that could have possibly have been partially responsible for the dinosaurs dying off?

Super Nova are powerful explosions triggered when massive stars reach the ends of their lives. During these powerful events, many elements are forged, including elements that are essential for life to thrive — such as iron, potassium and iodine.

Maybe two Super Nova explosions occurred within the time of Earth.

One when the was cooling where the surface had cooled enough to allow water to not evaporate that then mixed the elements from the super nova with water that allowed life to be born.

The second one might have partially have been the cause for the dinosaurs dying off with humans emerging after the ashes had settled.

Hopefully a general location of where the super nova is located can be found and then a distance to Earth measured so that a perimeter can be drawn around the super nova where it might be possible that within the perimeter more habitable planets would be discovered.

 

[Metryq]

I thought the consensus view was that a single asteroid strike killed the dinosaurs. I've never heard the supernova hypothesis before.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

Maybe it was the subspace shock wave from the super nova that knocked the asteroid into the earth, causing the dinosaurs (who, being naughty in the Lord's sight) to snuff it!

 

[Silvercrest]

I wonder if the particles came from a Super Nova that could have possibly have been partially responsible for the dinosaurs dying off?

What do the two have to do with each other? A star goes boom. The only noticeable effect is that hundreds of millions of years later some trace elements fall to Earth. There's no connection to the dinosaurs.

Maybe two Super Nova explosions occurred within the time of Earth.

One when the was cooling where the surface had cooled enough to allow water to not evaporate that then mixed the elements from the super nova with water that allowed life to be born.

Or it could have mixed with those exact same elements that were already here on Earth. You're cutting the complete wrong way with Occam's Razor, laddie.

The second one might have partially have been the cause for the dinosaurs dying off with humans emerging after the ashes had settled.

This sentence betrays a total lack of understanding of scale: 1) of the physical effects likely to be experienced here after a supernova, and 2) of the amount of time between the passing of the dinosaurs and the emergence of man. You do realize there were other life-forms in between, right?

 

[HIjol]

Wonder if the Enterprise picked up any traces of SN Particles when it was submerged on the Planet of the Paper Machè People?

 

[Silvercrest]

^Spock Prime probably picked up SN particles in ST09 (trying to stop a supernova, after all). He's been tracking them all over the Abramsverse ever since.

Maybe it was the subspace shock wave from the super nova that knocked the asteroid into the earth, causing the dinosaurs (who, being naughty in the Lord's sight) to snuff it!

<grin>

I thought the consensus view was that a single asteroid strike killed the dinosaurs. I've never heard the supernova hypothesis before.

That's because it originated with the OP. It wasn't in the article.

 

[Taelon]

Doesn't pretty much every atom on Earth heavier than Oxygen originate from a Supernova?

 

[HIjol]

"...for elements from Iron (Fe) to Uranium (U), these elements get made during rare events called supernovae..."

source: NSF/UCSB School-University Partnership


Robert D. Robot wrote:
Maybe it was the subspace shock wave from the super nova that knocked the asteroid into the earth, causing the dinosaurs (who, being naughty in the Lord's sight) to snuff it!


and HIjol wrote:
"and, yea, Verily did the Lord in his ThunderLizard Wisdom, purge the naughtiness from the souls of the dinosaurs, saying, go you thee and be gone. The God Heston will do you thee Overvoice of Armageddon, and after a time you will be cloned and the Oracle Spielberg will sing of your tale in three parts, with the Goldblum at his side.

 

[Metryq]

I thought the consensus view was that a single asteroid strike killed the dinosaurs. I've never heard the supernova hypothesis before.

That's because it originated with the OP. It wasn't in the article.

I was actually being sarcastic about the OP including the dinosaurs. I know the "one comet killed them all" hypothesis is very popular—many people prefer the sensational—but it doesn't hold up.

 

[farmkid]

Doesn't pretty much every atom on Earth heavier than Oxygen originate from a Supernova?

My first thought when I read the title was "isn't most of the material on the ocean floor (and must of everything else, for that matter) super nova material?"

 

[scotthm]

Hopefully a general location of where the super nova is located can be found

To which super nova do you refer, the one that didn't create life, or the one that didn't kill the dinosaurs?

---------------

 

[Silvercrest]

Yes, that one.

 

[bbjeg]

I wonder if the particles came from a Super Nova that could have possibly have been partially responsible for the dinosaurs dying off?

What do the two have to do with each other? A star goes boom. The only noticeable effect is that hundreds of millions of years later some trace elements fall to Earth. There's no connection to the dinosaurs...

I wish I read this first. I read the OP, wanted to see the facts on the death of dinosaurs, read the article, then read the OP again to see if I missed something, to find out someone posted exactly what I was going to say.

 

[Silvercrest]

I think this is his sense of scale showing through again. He seems to be envisioning a supernova as some localized phenomenon with physical, tangible effects; e.g. "after the ashes had settled."

I'll give him the benefit of possibly not meaning literal ashes, though.

 

[Dryson]

I think this is his sense of scale showing through again. He seems to be envisioning a supernova as some localized phenomenon with physical, tangible effects; e.g. "after the ashes had settled."

I'll give him the benefit of possibly not meaning literal ashes, though.

There would be tangible effects because the space radiation from the super nova would have effected life on Earth very drastically.

So basically what you are saying is go along with what everyone else wants to believe is popular? I watched that special on PBS years ago. It didn't fare to well for the salmon at the end of the river.


How Did the Code Of Life Pass Through Primitive Cells?

Life's origins are a mystery, but every year scientists get a little bit closer to understanding what made life possible on Earth, and possibly on other planets or moons.
We only have one known case study of life so far, on our own planet, but microbial life is considered possible in many other areas around the solar system, such as on Mars, Jupiter's icy moon Europa, and on Enceladus, a moon of Saturn that hosts water-ice-spewing geysers.

Space radiation breaks apart DNA in this artist's conception. Scientists are interested in how information flows between DNA, RNA and proteins.

The only space radiation that I can see being beneficial would be radiation coming from a super nova. A blast from a quasar would break the entire DNA, RNA sequence into pieces never being able to be rebuilt again. But radiation coming from a super nova along with the elements its creates such as lead might have been a factor in human development where lead would have allowed protein connections to be made while it kept other protein connections from not being made that humans developed as a result of.

Maybe what killed the dinosaurs was space radiation that could have caused their DNA and RNA to break down thus causing each new generation of dinosaur to be different from the last.

http://www.space.com/28448-origin-life-code-primitive-cells.html

 

[Silvercrest]

Sorry, Dwight, but you are throwing together a whole bunch of concepts that have nothing to do with each other.

 

[RoJoHen]

If a supernova happened close enough to us that the effects killed the dinosaurs, wouldn't we be living in the middle of a nebula or something?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Maybe two Super Nova explosions occurred within the time of Earth.

One when the was cooling where the surface had cooled enough to allow water to not evaporate that then mixed the elements from the super nova with water that allowed life to be born.

The second one might have partially have been the cause for the dinosaurs dying off with humans emerging after the ashes had settled.

I'd like to point out that there is a world of difference between on the one hand statements like these, that assert that certain scenarios are viable options for things that could have occurred based on what we know, and on the other hand asking whether they are viable options in the form of one or more questions.

Examples:

• Could a supernova have been partially responsible for the transformation of nonliving matter on the primordial Earth into living matter?
• Could a supernova have been partially responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs?

Both of those are, in my view, superior expressions to those quoted from the OP, and the difference is more than superficial. In order to say that something might have occurred, there has to be some evidence that you can cite in support of its occurrence. That does not seem to be the case here with the statements in the OP. Questions, on the other hand, at least are there to be answered and don't themselves assert anything, especially anything unsupported.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I am no longer able to tell if we are being bombarded with bad science or just bad science journalism (or both) but this statement:

But the fact that there is less recent deposition of the heaviest of elements, despite the fact that we know supernovae have erupted nearby, suggests a different formation mechanism may be responsible for plutonium-244 and elements like it.

Is utterly absurd. The much simpler explanation is that the solar system simply hasn't encountered the debris clouds from past supernova explosions, nor that said explosions produced enough plutonium-244 for it to be detectable from the very narrow samples being referred to here.

I suspect that this is actually bad science being pitched, probably by whatever PR specialist wrote the brief for the journalists, as there is NO WAY IN HELL that conclusion "A different mechanism may be responsible" could be even slightly justified by this finding. It's a very thinly veiled attempt to spin a negative result into a positive one and it has the effect of making Anton Wallner sound like a bullshitter.