Could Antimatter Be Powering Super-Luminous Supernovae?

[Fraser]

Explosions are almost always cool, and supernovae are some of the most spectacular and violent explosions in the Universe. In 2006, the supernova SN 2006gy wowed scientists with a light show that was 10 times as luminous as the average supernova, challenging the traditional model of exactly how an exploding star creates a supernova. ...

Read the full blog entry

[John Mendenhall]

Seriously, AntiMatter SuperNova (AMSN) makes a good acronym.

[qeveren]

I thought pair-instability lead to a pressure drop, triggering collapse and a thermonuclear explosion. It seems unlikely to me that antimatter could accumulate and then explode inside the star.

[Ignoramus]

Another hypothesis formulated as fact ("this what happens..."). Very unprofessional!
What about the impact of this on the Dark Energy hypothesis?

[Jerry]

I'm a little skeptical of the theory-preceding-the-event statement. 2006gy is not the first super luminous event, there have been quite a number of hypernova.

In 2006, the supernova SN 2006gy wowed scientists with a light show that was 10 times as luminous as the average supernova, challenging the traditional model of exactly how an exploding star creates a supernova.

That is exactly what happened: Mainstream theory and the interpretation of the most distant events requires that this type of event does not occur. Since it did, several important assumptions are wrong.

Astronomers suspect that the cause is the repeated production of antimatter in the core of the star.

Astronomers are hypothesizing that a more-on-less on the shelf model works, but there are several other possible models - super rotators, binary or tierary events. Once again the basic model has failed, and it indicates there are likely false premises within the standard supernova precursor models.

Events like this challenge fundamental assumptions. In this case we no longer have a well-defined, well-constrained mechanism for type Ia events: The standard candles we are barely able to indentify photometrically at great distances are likely 1000 watt bulbs rather than 100. To assume otherwise is foolish.

[Ignoramus]

The standard candles we are barely able to indentify photometrically at great distances are likely 1000 watt bulbs rather than 100. To assume otherwise is foolish.

Jerry, Does this imply a different value for the "Cosmological Constant" or di I see the wrong implications.

[Jerry]

Jerry, Does this imply a different value for the "Cosmological Constant" or di I see the wrong implications.

Yes to both questions. If more distant supernova are on the average more luminous, this throws the confidence in the distance scaling factors out the window. Without adjusting other parameters, the cosmological constant would be impossibly large.