The JWST and Supernova 1987A

[oldpaddoboy]

The JWST doing its job again. Evidence for a Neutron star at the core of Supernova 1987A. Supernova 1987A was, as the name suggests, seen in 1987, and the first supernova ever seen at least in modern times. 

The following article describes that event and discovery...

https://www.livescience.com/space/cosmology/finally-we-have-the-evidence-james-webb-telescope-spots-neutron-star-hiding-in-wreckage-of-famous-1987-supernova

"'Finally, we have the evidence': James Webb telescope spots neutron star hiding in wreckage of famous 1987 supernova

A neutron star spotted by the James Webb Space Telescope stayed hidden for 37 years while lurking in the wreckage of a stellar explosion, Supernova 1987A.

The NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope has observed the best evidence yet for emission from a neutron star at the site of a well-known and recently-observed supernova. The supernova, known as SN 1987A, occurred 160,000 light-years from Earth in the Large Magellanic Cloud. (Image credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, and C. Fransson (Stockholm University), M. Matsuura (Cardiff University), M. J. Barlow (University College London), P. J. Kavanagh (Maynooth University), J. Larsson (KTH Royal Institute of Technology))

 

"Using the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), astronomers have ended a nearly decade-long game of celestial hide-and-seek after they discovered a neutron star in the wreckage of a stellar explosion.

 

Supernova 1987A represents the remains of an exploded star that once had a mass around 8 to 10 times that of the sun. It is located around 170,000 light-years away in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy neighbor of the Milky Way. Supernova 1987A was first spotted by astronomers 37 years ago in 1987, hence the numerical aspect of its name. As it exploded, Supernova 1987A first showered Earth with ghostly particles called neutrinos and then became visible in bright light. This made it the nearest and brightest supernova seen in the night sky over Earth for around 400 years."

extract: 

"Neutron stars are supported against complete collapse, however, by quantum effects occurring between neutrons in their interiors. These effects prevent the neutrons from cramming together. This so-called "neutron degeneracy pressure" can be overcome if a stellar core has enough mass — or if a neutron star, after its creation, piles on more mass. This would result in the birth of a black hole (if the mass minimum isn't reached, though, it won't happen.)"

Showing its worth again, the JWST continues to refine time lines of the universe, along with incredible revelations such as described in the above article.

 

 

Full article at link.

Edited May 5 by oldpaddoboy

[Dandav]

On 5/5/2024 at 11:21 PM, oldpaddoboy said:

A neutron star spotted by the James Webb Space Telescope stayed hidden for 37 years while lurking in the wreckage of a stellar explosion, Supernova 1987A.

Thanks for this information.

However, why are we so sure that the Neutron star that we see is a direct outcome from the observed supernova in 1987?

This neutron star is located at the Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy neighbor of the Milky Way.

There are billion of neutron stars in the Milky way:

https://www.space.com/22180-neutron-stars.html

NASA estimates that there are as many as a billion neutron stars in our Milky Way 

Therefore, technically, there could be millions of neutron stars at this dwarf galaxy.

We have detected a neutron star at a distance of about 1000 Ly away from us.

In the same token, there is a possibility that the detected neutron star was already there at a distance of 1,000 Ly from this supernova.

So, how do we know for sure that the neutron star that we see from a distance of 170,000 Ly is the direct outcome from that specific supernova which took place in 1987 and not a nearby neutron star that was there long before that date?

 

Edited May 13 by Dandav

[oldpaddoboy]

6 hours ago, Dandav said:

Thanks for this information.

However, why are we so sure that the Neutron star that we see is a direct outcome from the observed supernova in 1987?

 

Just as I have advised you about in the other thread discussing Neutron stars, the results and conclusions reached, are a result of the evidence available. The "nearby" Supernova SN 1987A was visible to the naked eye and its progress and evolution has been under constant observation and research over more then three decades now. In line with the mathematics involved, scientific theory predicted either a Neutron star or a black hole. There is absolutely no reason for mainstream science to doubt this. The final and irrefutable evidence available, and as detailed in the original paper and article, now confirms a neutron star.  If however you have any other as yet unknown and unobserved evidence, suggesting anything else,  then please  follow the scientific methodology, write up a paper with that evidence, and submit it for peer review. Mainstream science would be over joyed at any new information you have. In the meantime, assumptions just don't cut it. 

In the meantime and in support of the status quo and original estatic A article.....

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adj5796

Editor’s summary

"The nearby supernova SN 1987A was visible to the naked eye, and its evolution has been observed over the ensuing decades. The explosion is thought to have produced a neutron star or black hole, but none has been directly detected. Fransson et al. observed a remnant of SN 1987A using near- and mid-infrared integral field spectroscopy. They identified emission lines of ionized argon that appear only near the center of the remnant. Photoionization models show that the line ratios and velocities can be explained by ionizing radiation from a neutron star illuminating gas from the inner parts of the exploded star. —Keith T. Smith"

 

Abstract

"The nearby Supernova 1987A was accompanied by a burst of neutrino emission, which indicates that a compact object (a neutron star or black hole) was formed in the explosion. There has been no direct observation of this compact object. In this work, we observe the supernova remnant with JWST spectroscopy, finding narrow infrared emission lines of argon and sulfur. The line emission is spatially unresolved and blueshifted in velocity relative to the supernova rest frame. We interpret the lines as gas illuminated by a source of ionizing photons located close to the center of the expanding ejecta. Photoionization models show that the line ratios are consistent with ionization by a cooling neutron star or a pulsar wind nebula. The velocity shift could be evidence for a neutron star natal kick."

 

More at link............................

 

 

Edited May 13 by oldpaddoboy

[oldpaddoboy]

6 hours ago, Dandav said:

So, how do we know for sure that the neutron star that we see from a distance of 170,000 Ly is the direct outcome from that specific supernova which took place in 1987 and not a nearby neutron star that was there long before that date?

Scientific theories while always based on the best current observational and experimental evidence available, still remain scientific theories, that are open due to the possiblllty of new evidence that may re-enforce the theory, add to it, modify it, change it somewhat, or even have it completely scrapped. Scientific theories are never set in stone. When I was a child in the fifties, we had three competing theories for the evolution of the universe, the big bang, steady state, and oscillating models. With the discovery of the CMBR and other evidence, the big bang arose to prominence, while the others fell by the wayside. Others like the Electric/Plasma universe models were totally debunked. In other words, any doubts you have with regards to the accepted mainstream model/theory, needs to be supported and the proper procedure and scientific method followed. 

Hope that helps.

Edited May 13 by oldpaddoboy

[Dandav]

23 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

Just as I have advised you about in the other thread discussing Neutron stars, the results and conclusions reached, are a result of the evidence available.

Are you sure about it?

 1. Twisting the observation:

In the title of the article, it is stated:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adj5796

"Emission lines due to ionizing radiation from a compact object in the remnant of Supernova 1987A"

We might think that they observed ionizing radiation from a compact object.

In reality they have observed:

" In this work, we observe the supernova remnant with JWST spectroscopy, finding narrow infrared emission lines of argon and sulfur. "

What is the meaning of that observation?

"The only narrow emission components from the ejecta that we identified are from Ar and S, which are both produced by the nuclear burning (fusion) of O and Si."

So, the narrow infrared emission lines of argon (Ar)and sulfur (S) are both produced by the nuclear burning (fusion) activity.

In other word, they observe narrow infrared emission which is a direct outcome from fusion activity. Hence, In that star there is a fusion activity that ejects infrared emission lines of argon (Ar)and sulfur (S).

This by itself proves that it can't be a neutron star, as it is not expected for a neutron star to have any sort of fusion activity.

However, in order to support the idea of neutron star, they twist the observation by claiming:

"We interpret the lines as gas illuminated by a source of ionizing photons located close to the center of the expanding ejecta. Photoionization models show that the line ratios are consistent with ionization by a cooling neutron star or a pulsar wind nebula"

It is also stated that:

"A neutrino burst was detected coinciding with SN 1987A (5–7);"

Neutrino burst is another indication for a fusion activity.

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino

"A solar neutrino is a neutrino originating from nuclear fusion in the Sun's core,"

Therefore, we have clear observation for fusion activity at that star.

So, why those scientists totally twist the real meaning of those observations?

Why they refuse to understand that what they see is what there is?

As they clearly observe emission of fusion activity, then this star has a fusion activity.

Now it is their obligation is to find out what kind of star should eject this kind of fusion emission.

Please be aware that in the article the scientists use this neutrino burst as an indication for Neutron star.

"A neutrino burst was detected coinciding with SN 1987A (5–7); its duration indicates that the compact object is probably a NS (8).

But the idea that the neutrino burst duration indicates that the compact object is NS is clearly incorrect as it is the first time that neutrinos observed from a supernova:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

"in the first real-time observation of neutrinos from the SN 1987A supernova in the nearby Large Magellanic Cloud. These efforts marked the beginning of neutrino astronomy.[35]"

So, how could it be that for the first real-time neutrinos had been observed from a supernova and suddenly that observation is considered as an indication for NS (although it is stated "probably" a NS and not just a NS)

2. Ignore the redshift emission:

It seems that they only focus on the blue shifted emission:

"The line emission is spatially unresolved and blueshifted in velocity relative to the supernova rest frame."

But they have totally ignored the redshifted emission:

" In the NIRSpec data, we detected the [Ca iv] line at 3.207 μm (fig. S5); however, its velocity is shifted to the red and its maximum emission is located slightly north of the [Ar vi] peak, so it might be unrelated to the argon lines (10).

They use the word "might"

Hence, the redshifted emission might be unrelated to the argon lines, but in the same token we can say that they "might" be related.

Even if it is unrelated to the argon lines, how do we know for sure that it isn't related to some other kind of matter?

So, can we agree that this redshifted emission "might" be important to our understanding about the structure of that star but those scientists have decided to ignore it?

3. what kind of object is it?

In the article they have started with the idea that it could be a neutron star or Black hole.

A compact object, such as a neutron star (NS) or black hole (BH), is expected to be located in the central region but has not been observed.

 They also discuss about black star:

Black stars are the observed luminosities (Table 1) for the [S iii], [S iv], [Ar ii], and [Ar vi] lines, with error bars showing 1σ uncertainties, which are mostly smaller than the symbol size. 

I wonder if there is a star that is called black star or is it just a typo error and the idea was black hole.

They even consider other options:

We also considered five other possibilities (supplementary text): ionization by radioactive 44Ti; excitation produced by x-rays from the ejecta and circumstellar medium interaction; a surviving companion star; reflection of the narrow line emission from the ER collision by dust; or emission from an ingoing, reverse shock. All five possibilities were excluded.

However, they don't explain why all those five possibilities were excluded and why they didn't consider other possibility as a compact star with fusion activity or even a quark star. 

4.  Why not Black Hole?

We consider a BH unlikely because the progenitor star of SN 1987A is thought to have had a total mass of ≲20 𝑀⊙ and an Fe core mass of ≲2 𝑀⊙ (22). The explosion ejected at least 0.07 𝑀⊙ of 56Ni (23). That leaves less core mass remaining than would be required to form a BH, which is ≳2.2 𝑀⊙ (24).

What does it mean: "the progenitor star of SN 1987A is thought to have had a total mass of ≲20 𝑀⊙?

They clearly couldn't measure the mass of the progenitor star (before the supernova).

Hence, why they claim that its total mass was ≲20 𝑀⊙

They also claim that core mass remaining which is required to form a BH is ≳2.2 𝑀⊙

However, they don't claim that they have measured its mass.

Therefore, why they are sure that its current mass is below 2.2 𝑀⊙?

I wonder how could they eliminate the idea of a BH without that important information?

could it be that they have used those estimations just in order to fit this observation to the theory of a neutron star?

5. Scientific theories:

22 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

Scientific theories while always based on the best current observational and experimental evidence available, still remain scientific theories, that are open due to the possiblllty of new evidence that may re-enforce the theory, add to it, modify it, change it somewhat, or even have it completely scrapped. Scientific theories are never set in stone

Why those scientists refuse to understand that what they see is what we have?

Why they twist the observation?

As they clearly observe a fusion activity emission (argon (Ar)and sulfur (S) and neutrino), then this star has a fusion activity.

Therefore, it surely can't be considered as a neutron star as fusion activity isn't expected in that kind of star.

My message to those scientists is as follow:

Sorry, it is forbidden to twist the observation in order to meet a theory even if we all wish to justify the current Scientific theories.

Please be aware that: Scientific theories are never set in stone.

Edited Tuesday at 08:14 PM by Dandav

[oldpaddoboy]

1 hour ago, Dandav said:

Are you sure about it?

I don't need to be sure about anything with regards to science. I do though have a general trust in science, scientists, and the scientific method in establishing our view of the universe and the knowledge that goes with it.

1 hour ago, Dandav said:

 1. Twisting the observation:

In the title of the article, it is stated:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adj5796

"Emission lines due to ionizing radiation from a compact object in the remnant of Supernova 1987A"

We might think that they observed ionizing radiation from a compact object.

In reality they have observed:

" In this work, we observe the supernova remnant with JWST spectroscopy, finding narrow infrared emission lines of argon and sulfur. "

What is the meaning of that observation?

"The only narrow emission components from the ejecta that we identified are from Ar and S, which are both produced by the nuclear burning (fusion) of O and Si."

So, the narrow infrared emission lines of argon (Ar)and sulfur (S) are both produced by the nuclear burning (fusion) activity.

In other word, they observe narrow infrared emission which is a direct outcome from fusion activity. Hence, In that star there is a fusion activity that ejects infrared emission lines of argon (Ar)and sulfur (S).

This by itself proves that it can't be a neutron star, as it is not expected for a neutron star to have any sort of fusion activity.

However, in order to support the idea of neutron star, they twist the observation by claiming:

"We interpret the lines as gas illuminated by a source of ionizing photons located close to the center of the expanding ejecta. Photoionization models show that the line ratios are consistent with ionization by a cooling neutron star or a pulsar wind nebula"

It is also stated that:eutrino burst as an indication for Neutron star.

"A neutrino burst was detected coinciding with SN 1987A (5–7); its duration indicates that the compact object is probably a NS (8).

But the idea that the neutrino burst duration indicates that the compact object is NS is clearly incorrect as it is the first time that neutrinos observed from a supernova:

Is that right? So then you obviously will write up a scientific paper for peer review, revealing all the underhanded, dishonest tactics used by respected mainstream cosmologists. And then we will of course see you in Stockholm in November for your Nobel. 😁

1 hour ago, Dandav said:

 

 

5. Scientific theories:

Why those scientists refuse to understand that what they see is what we have?

Why they twist the observation?

As they clearly observe a fusion activity emission (argon (Ar)and sulfur (S) and neutrino), then this star has a fusion activity.

Therefore, it surely can't be considered as a neutron star as fusion activity isn't expected in that kind of star.

My message to those scientists is as follow:

Sorry, it is forbidden to twist the observation in order to meet a theory even if we all wish to justify the current Scientific theories.

Please be aware that: Scientific theories are never set in stone.

Perhaps in realty it is you who is "twisting the data" Perhaps...no obviously you have some as yet alternative hypothesis at the core of your continued raging against Neutron stars. Again, is that anything to do with you supporting the long ago defunct electric/Plasma universe hypothetical? Again, with all due respect, your claims, assumptions and accusations, are pretty arrogant. Particularly so, when you have constantly ignored my suggestion, (based on your misplaced confidence) of writing up a scientific paper for peer review. A paper with evidence highlighting the twisting of data and observations and of course supporting your own view with evidence. And your dismissal of the mathematics supporting the mainstream definition of Neutron stars, is even more arrogant as well as rather silly.

I have previously given a reasonable outline of what a scientific theory is and what it entails. You should also understand, that science and scientific theories are forever being tested, updated, re-enforced, added to etc. The current definition of Neutron stars is obviously because the greater bulk of that degenerate matter are neutrons. This is supported by the maths. 

Also I have not answered in detail all of the claims and accusations and assumptions made in your lengthy post. Suffice to say you simply appear to have a bee in your bonnet with regards to the mainstream view, that appears now to be approaching fanatical status, and crossing over from the other thread to this  thread I started for interest sake. 

Edited Tuesday at 09:40 PM by oldpaddoboy

[oldpaddoboy]

1 hour ago, Dandav said:

Please be aware that: Scientific theories are never set in stone.

Correct of course and exactly what I have told you in other posts. But remember, hypotheticals, assumptions unsupported accusations and refusal to acknowledge the maths involved and the scientific method, do not even make the grade and can be summarily dismissed out of hand. . 

[Dandav]

12 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

I don't need to be sure about anything with regards to science. I do though have a general trust in science, scientists, and the scientific method in establishing our view of the universe and the knowledge that goes with it.

We should trust the science, but they shouldn't offer wrong data or twist the meaning of the observation.

Just to make it clear -

I do not claim that the idea of Neutron stars or Black holes are incorrect and I do not reject the entire math.

All I claim is that it is a severe mistake to believe that there are no other possibilities in the universe:

 

12 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

Perhaps in realty it is you who is "twisting the data"

Wrong.
If you believe that I have twisted the data, then would you kindly specify which data did I twist:

1.  narrow infrared emission lines of argon and sulfur

14 hours ago, Dandav said:

" In this work, we observe the supernova remnant with JWST spectroscopy, finding narrow infrared emission lines of argon and sulfur. "

Do you confirm that the scientists have observed narrow infrared emission lines of argon and sulfur.

Yes or no please.

2. Neutrinos

14 hours ago, Dandav said:

"in the first real-time observation of neutrinos from the SN 1987A supernova in the nearby Large Magellanic Cloud. These efforts marked the beginning of neutrino astronomy.[35]"

Do you confirm that we observe neutrinos from the SN 1987A supernova?

Yes or no please

3.  Indication for Fusion activity

14 hours ago, Dandav said:

"The only narrow emission components from the ejecta that we identified are from Ar and S, which are both produced by the nuclear burning (fusion) of O and Si."

Do you confirm that the narrow emission components from the ejecta that we identified as Ar and S are indication for nuclear burning (fusion) activity?

14 hours ago, Dandav said:

"A solar neutrino is a neutrino originating from nuclear fusion in the Sun's core,"

Do you also confirm that the neutrinos which we observe means - fusion activity?

In other words - the observation proves that the star at the core of the supernova has severe fusion activity.

Yes or no please

3. Mass of the progenitor star

Do you confirm that there is no possibility for the science comunity to measure the total mass of the progenitor star (before the supernova)?

Hence, their data about a total progenitor star mass of 20 solar mass could be wrong.

Yes or no please?

If so, how can we fully trust them?

5. Message or messanger

12 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

Again, with all due respect, your claims, assumptions and accusations, are pretty arrogant.

Would you kindly advise which one of the above claims should be considered as arrogant accusation?

Could it be that instead of dealing with the message which I have highlighted, it is easier to deal with the messenger?

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:26 AM by Dandav

[oldpaddoboy]

57 minutes ago, Dandav said:

We should trust the science, but they shouldn't offer wrong data or twist the meaning of the observation.

They are neither offering the wrong data nor twisting meanings. Despite your baseless assumptions. 

57 minutes ago, Dandav said:

I do not claim that the idea of Neutron stars or Black holes are incorrect and I do not reject the entire math.

All I claim is that it is a severe mistake to believe that there are no other possibilities in the universe:

 

And I reject your baseless claims, and obviously you also believe the mainstream science will also reject your interpretations, otherwise you would be challenging it with a proper paper for peer review. Are they really saying there is no other possibility? Are you sure you are not twisting words to suit your agenda? What they say is that according to the latest present findings, the conclusions reached are the valid ones at this time. Or words to that effect.  Please re-read what I have informed you with regards to what a scientific theory is and what it entails.

57 minutes ago, Dandav said:

Wrong.
If you believe that I have twisted the data, then would you kindly specify which data did I twist:

No right. For the obvious reasons why you are so reluctant in following the scientific method and submitting a science paper, refuting the mainstream findings. In essence again, I simply believe you have a "bee in your bonnet" with regards to mainstream science. You have a procedure to follow. Or accept that you are pissing into the wind.

57 minutes ago, Dandav said:

1.  narrow infrared emission lines of argon and sulfur

Do you confirm that the scientists have observed narrow infrared emission lines of argon and sulfur.

Yes or no please.

Please shelve your arrogance and do not ask me for yes or no answers.  I have already told you that I see no reason to distance myself from the mainstream position. That stands in this thread, as well as the other one where you were learning nothing and simply repeating yourself. You have a procedure. Follow it. 

57 minutes ago, Dandav said:

Do you confirm that there is no possibility for the science comunity to measure the total mass of the progenitor star (before the supernova)?

Hence, their data about a total progenitor star mass of 20 solar mass could be wrong.

Yes or no please?

Please read the article and the paper. 

57 minutes ago, Dandav said:

If so, how can we fully trust them?

I have far more trust in a reputable science article and paper, then I have of any Tom, Dick or Harry, or similar key board warriors, on a social media science forum, unless of course that forum has a certified astronomer/Cosmologist, offering an opinion. As I have informed you more then once now, mainstream science and science in general is always a work in progress, and scientific theories remain as our best estimation at any given time, at least until further data either re-enforces the theory, ( as this article does) adds to it, modifies it, changes it, or even sees it scrapped. 

57 minutes ago, Dandav said:

Would you kindly advise which one of the above claims should be considered as arrogant accusation?

Could it be that instead of dealing with the message which I have highlighted, it is easier to deal with the messenger?

The message you convey, basically refuting a peer reviewed article is arrogant to say the least. Particularly when you continually dismiss and ignore all I have said about scientific theories the scientific method, and your rejection of the indispensable mathematics. Rejection of the maths, imo anyway, totally places your thoughts and claims and assumptions, in the alternate hypothetical category. On dealing with the messenger...you have posted many times your rejection of these claims...you have made the claims...you have made the unsupported assumptions...you have and are voicing your opposition to this article and the mainstream view in the other thread. Were you forced to express yourself this way? What can I say?...  

Edited Wednesday at 11:16 AM by oldpaddoboy

[oldpaddoboy]

Here are a couple of papers detailing the data and research undertaken with SN 1987A.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.06078

NS 1987A in SN 1987A

ABSTRACT:

"The possible detection of a compact object in the remnant of SN 1987A presents an unprecedented opportunity to follow its early evolution. The suspected detection stems from an excess of infrared emission from a dust blob near the compact object’s predicted position. The infrared excess could be due to the decay of isotopes like 44Ti, accretion luminosity from a neutron star or black hole, magnetospheric emission or a wind originating from the spindown of a pulsar, or thermal emission from an embedded, cooling neutron star (NS 1987A). It is shown that the last possibility is the most plausible as the other explanations are disfavored by other observations and/or require fine-tuning of parameters. Not only are there indications the dust blob overlaps the predicted location of a kicked compact remnant, but its excess luminosity also matches the expected thermal power of a 30 year old neutron star. Furthermore, models of cooling neutron stars within the Minimal Cooling paradigm readily fit both NS 1987A and Cas A, the next-youngest known neutron star. If correct, a long heat transport timescale in the crust and a large effective stellar temperature are favored, implying relatively limited crustal n-1S0 superfluidity and an envelope with a thick layer of light elements, respectively. If the locations don’t overlap, then pulsar spindown or accretion might be more likely, but the pulsar’s period and magnetic field or the accretion rate must be rather finely tuned. In this case, NS 1987A may have enhanced cooling and/or a heavy-element envelope."

Full paper at link: 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.02960

High angular resolution ALMA images of dust and molecules in the SN 1987A ejecta

ABSTRACT:

"We present high angular resolution (∼80 mas) ALMA continuum images of the SN 1987A system, together with CO J=2→1, J=6→5, and SiO J=5→4 to J=7→6 images, which clearly resolve the ejecta (dust continuum and molecules) and ring (synchrotron continuum) components. Dust in the ejecta is asymmetric and clumpy, and overall the dust fills the spatial void seen in Hα images, filling that region with material from heavier elements. The dust clumps generally fill the space where CO J=6→5 is fainter, tentatively indicating that these dust clumps and CO are locationally and chemically linked. In these regions, carbonaceous dust grains might have formed after dissociation of CO. The dust grains would have cooled by radiation, and subsequent collisions of grains with gas would also cool the gas, suppressing the CO J=6→5 intensity. The data show a dust peak spatially coincident with the molecular hole seen in previous ALMA CO J=2→1 and SiO J=5→4 images. That dust peak, combined with CO and SiO line spectra, suggests that the dust and gas could be at higher temperatures than the surrounding material, though higher density cannot be totally excluded. One of the possibilities is that a compact source provides additional heat at that location. Fits to the far-infrared– millimeter spectral energy distribution give ejecta dust temperatures of 18–23K. We revise the ejecta dust mass to Mdust = 0.2 − 0.4M for carbon or silicate grains, or a maximum of < 0.7M for a mixture of grain species, using the predicted nucleosynthesis yields as an upper limit."

Full paper at link:

 

The papers represent reputable scientific opinions based on the evidence available and of course the indispensable relevant mathematics. I have also not read either  paper fully, but post both as an example of the scientific methodology, how scientific theories work, and the possible models that relate to the original article on SN 1987A and Neutron stars and exotic matter in general. 

 

[OceanBreeze]

On 5/15/2024 at 5:18 PM, Dandav said:

We should trust the science, but they shouldn't offer wrong data or twist the meaning of the observation.

Just to make it clear -

I do not claim that the idea of Neutron stars or Black holes are incorrect and I do not reject the entire math.

All I claim is that it is a severe mistake to believe that there are no other possibilities in the universe:

 

Wrong.
If you believe that I have twisted the data, then would you kindly specify which data did I twist:

1.  narrow infrared emission lines of argon and sulfur

Do you confirm that the scientists have observed narrow infrared emission lines of argon and sulfur.

Yes or no please.

2. Neutrinos

Do you confirm that we observe neutrinos from the SN 1987A supernova?

Yes or no please

3.  Indication for Fusion activity

Do you confirm that the narrow emission components from the ejecta that we identified as Ar and S are indication for nuclear burning (fusion) activity?

Do you also confirm that the neutrinos which we observe means - fusion activity?

In other words - the observation proves that the star at the core of the supernova has severe fusion activity.

Yes or no please

3. Mass of the progenitor star

Do you confirm that there is no possibility for the science comunity to measure the total mass of the progenitor star (before the supernova)?

Hence, their data about a total progenitor star mass of 20 solar mass could be wrong.

Yes or no please?

If so, how can we fully trust them?

5. Message or messanger

Would you kindly advise which one of the above claims should be considered as arrogant accusation?

Could it be that instead of dealing with the message which I have highlighted, it is easier to deal with the messenger?

 

 

Dandav, I agree with oldpaddoboy that this post, in particular, is not only arrogant but also annoying and in violation of several of our Rules:

First of all, you are cross-posting--that is, posting highly similar posts in more than one thread. oldpaddoboy started this thread about the James Webb Space Telescope detecting evidence of a neutron star which stayed hidden for 37 years in the wreckage of Supernova 1987A.

You turned it into a continuation of your baseless challenging of mainstream science, which is another rules violation:

Keep posting with an obvious agenda (like wanting to debunk science) without having proper contradictory evidence.

I am sure I can find even more violations, such as generally being rude and annoying, but I think I have identified enough to give you a warning.

From this point on Please follow our site rules - we really don't like to ban people.