Talk:Nova

Old talk

Shouldn't "Nova" lead to a disambiguation page first (from the search bar) rather than giving the option of disambiguation from here? Seems cumbersome.--Lazarus Plus 00:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

---

There are three novae listed with magnitudes greater than 7.0. Should those be removed from the table so that the bright novae are only those visible to the naked eye? (mag<6.0) 12.221.81.96 04:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I think that this is distinct from a supernova, actually. From the Supernova article:

"Type Ia: They don't have Helium, and present a line belonging to Silicon. They are generally though to be caused by the explosion of a white dwarf, at or close to the Chandrasekhar limit.

One possibility is that the white dwarf was orbiting a moderately massive star. The dwarf pulls matter from its companion to the point that it reaches the Chandrasekhar limit. The dwarf collapses into a neutron star or black hole, and the collapse causes the remaining carbon and oxygen atoms in it to fuse."

Both involve white dwarfs, but there is a very large difference between the sort of explosion a stellar mass collapsing into a neutron star or black hole would produce and the sort of explosion the mere fusion of a few teratons of hydrogen would produce. Hence the super in supernova.

Don't have time to dig up an actual reference right at this very moment, though.

I'd trust you. :) The thing is, though, the page is not just talking about a nova, but a final explosion which rips the white dwarf apart. As far as I know, this should happen basically when the novating star reaches the Chandrasekhar limit, and so would be identical to a type Ia supernova. Except, thinking about it, for that bit about silicon - a naked core should easily be able to destroy itself with a helium or carbon flash. Hmm. I guess I'll change it back, and leave this as a note that further research is needed.

---

The distinction is an important one. A nova can occur over and over, as the orbiting white dwarf sucks material from its companion star and ignites it, boom!. A Ia supernova sucks matter from its companion, yes, but the key is that it sucks so much that it goes over the Chandrasekhar limit and BOOM! It's far more energetic, and the majority of the energy comes from a different source (the body of the white dwarf).

If you want a simple rule of thumb, a nova can (and often does) occur multiple times, while a Type Ia supernova -- well, to quote Daffy Duck, "You only get to see this trick once". -- Paul Drye

---

and believed that it was a "new star." They didn't just believe that it was a new star. It was a new star. It is simply the definition of star has changed. It should read and considered it a new star. Ezra Wax

There appears to be a size consideration dividing "stars likely go through a nova stage" and "stars likely to become supernovae." Can this be included?

What the ancients believed

The sentence below, pasted from paragraph 3, sentence 2, is irrelevant and distracting from the point of the paragraph.

<The ancients refused to believe that the "fixed stars" could show any changes, and considered these occurrences to be objects close to the earth. >

Thanks, Dave

Question

Isn't a nova a death of a solar mass star, e.g. our sun will die as a nova? — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 22:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Not according to this article's definition. The sun article says "In about 5 billion years, the Sun will evolve into a red giant and then a white dwarf, creating a planetary nebula in the process." - mako 00:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

interstellar material

The article says:

Spectroscopic observation of nova ejecta nebulae has shown that they are enriched in elements such as helium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, neon, and magnesium.[1] Though it would seem that the contributions of novae to the Galaxy might be large over astronomical time scales, this is not the case; in fact, novae supply only 1/50th the amount of material to the interstellar medium as supernovae do, and only 1/200th that of red giant and supergiant stars.

But the red giant and supergiant articles don't mention it at all. Shoundn't they?

Also the article doesn't say what elements are ejected. Is it just H and He, or does any of the He fuse to make heavier elements? --Djfeldman 14:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition

A nova (pl. novae) is a cataclysmic nuclear explosion caused by the accretion of hydrogen onto the surface of a white dwarf star.
Google (define:nova) seems to say that a nova is not the explosion (the event) but rather the star (the object) that explodes.--82.76.37.57 13:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think nova refers both to the explosion and the visible (or perhaps 'observable') object itself (i.e. the star producing the nova/e). Probably depends on whether you're an astronomer (object) or astrophysicist (explosion). Can anyone confirm? Keramos 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nova List

The magnitude listed for V1280 Scorpii does not agree with the page for that Nova -- which is it, or is this page talking about something else? -- BillTrost

About ancient novae, I would like to point out two things.

1. The oracle bone text is NOT from 1400 BC. It is from the late 2nd millennium BC, but we don't know the exact age. And in all probability, it was inscribed after the start of the late Shang dynasty. In that case the earliest possible date is probably somewhere in the interval 1350-1300 BC. Which is well after 1400 BC.

If this object was a nova at all, the problem is then that the object may easily have been a supernova rather than a classical nova.

And if you ask those few people who can read oracle bone texts, you will find that it is not clear how to read this text.

2. Another ancient nova has been missed completely. Z Camelopardalis was recorded by the Chinese in October-November, 77 BC. My reference for this identification is Nature, 2007, July 19, page 251. Taking into account how nearby Z Camelopardalis is situated, the nova would in all probability had been even brighter than V603 Aquilae was in 1918. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.116.38 (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to make a separate article of that list. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Done! Reason: I want to write a little about different kind of novae, and the list was making the article ugly. And WP:BOLD. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Explosion?

If a nova is an explosion, why does the article skip that little detail? What is a nova like? The article says how it happens, but skips everything after it begins to happen. What actually happens during a nova? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.40.210.222 (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. More information needs to be added about the ACTUAL NOVA PROCESS. --216.165.95.64 (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The article did have section "Development" which described the process; which was blanked in 2008 without anyone noticing (!); and has just now been restored by an alert editor. -84user (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Milky Way vs. Andromeda

Is it really true that more novae are discovered in the Andromeda Galaxy than in the Milky Way (25 vs. 10 per year, according to the article)? I'd expect it would be easier to find them in our own galaxy, if they occur on a similar scale in both galaxies...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My "guess" would be that the dust lanes of the Milky Way obstruct our view of many local Nova while we have a nice outside view of M31. -- Kheider (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Fast Nova

As of Apr 2010, it seems that the term is still "Fast Nova".[1] -- Kheider (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Useless section

I made some minor corrections in the article that seemed necessary to me as I was translating it into Portuguese. Additionally, I suggest the English version editors evaluate the need for keeping the section with the title "Bright novae since 1890". The text says nothing and the number doesn't match with the information in other parts of the article. Claudio M Souza (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and this is after 5 years. WiIl fix. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I just wanted to look up the comic book hero Nova but instead I got this. I even looked it up and it still went to the same link... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.237.119 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and I'm not at all surprised to hear that you got lost. You believe that the topic is not primary and expected to see the dab page here. Same goes for me, and there's only way to solve the problem: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Some Gadget Geek (talk • contribs) 16:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedurally not moved as no rationale given; also WP:SNOW. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

---

• Nova → Nova (star)
• Nova (disambiguation) → Nova

– As per above. Feel free to suggest a better name if you prefer. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• SOME GADGET GEEK, why should this move? GregKaye 19:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• Strong procedural oppose and close nominator gives no rationale, and doesn't even have a preference for the rename target. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless: what would be the article with which this one would compete for primary topic? I can't find it. --JorisvS (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as nova relating to star is clearly primary topic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Novae may account for the majority of non-primordial lithium

According to two independent research groups, novae may be responsible for the generation of 80% of the non-primordial lithium. It could be interesting adding that information to the article. Original story is here . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:1437:1300:9D1:3A91:5B41:ED60 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Umm. Perhaps. Most lithium is formed in stars by spallation. The processes of spallation also occurs with supernovae, thought something to do with magnetic fields, and for novae therefore this shouldn't be a surprise. I think such information might be too detailed and esoteric for this article, especially as it is highly theoretical.

As for the post here, please consider becoming a registered user, and it make contact between editors much easier. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nova. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100408150756/http://www.supernovae.net/novae.html to http://www.supernovae.net/novae.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Occurrence. Observed.

This article says (probably) 50 per year (in Milky Way). In List of novae in the Milky Way galaxy it says probably 40 Nova per year, but only 10 observed. In [Supernova] it says probably 3 per century (in the Milky Way). So 1500 times as common?

Is there a phenomenon that is bigger/ brighter than a nova, yet not a supernova? MBG02 (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Explosion?

(See #7 Above, 2009.) Is a Nova always an explosion? Can the rapid runaway ignition by fusion just be a “burning”, without “explosion”? MBG02 (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

the 'ignition' is the explosion - if you were somehow able to be in the local vicinity of this phenomenon, you'd be calling it an explosion!  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.26.134 (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Nova vs 1a supernova

What's the difference between a nova and a type 1a supernova?67.71.87.215 (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2020

Courtesy notification: for the closed move request please see Talk:Novae (fortress)#Requested move 29 June 2020. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

To summarise, since it isn't obvious: it was requested that the article previously at Novae (about the Roman fortress) should be moved to Novae (fortress) so that novae could become a redirect here. The discussion was mixed, followed by a non-admin closure of "no consensus" (ie. no change and no move). This was then submitted as a move review where that closure was decisively overturned. The Roman fortress article is now at Novae (fortress) and novae redirects here. Lithopsian (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Discuss empowerment of marginalized community as an issue liberation theology should address in Africa today

102.167.66.23 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

A couple of apparent inconsistencies...

Number 1:

• Under Occurrence rate and astrophysical significance, in subsection Subtypes: Different rates of brightness decline are noted.

• But in Novae as distance indicators: "Novae also have roughly the same absolute magnitude 15 days after their peak..."

Number 2:

• In Occurrence rate and astrophysical significance: "Astronomers theorize...that most, if not all, novae recur."

• But in Recurrent novae: "...it is estimated that as many as a quarter of nova systems experience multiple eruptions."

Can someone with more knowledge and/or research skill than I have please reconcile these and perhaps make appropriate changes to the article? Thanks! — HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Recurrent novae table--color coding?

In the table of recurrent novae, in the column for the time since the last occurrence, does anybody reading this know what the two colors indicate? Uporządnicki (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)