New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

The Biggest Bang Theory: Astronomers Confirm a New Type of Supernova

A new type of supernova is forcing astronomers to rethink the lives of the biggest stars

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

When our sun comes to its ending in five billion years or so, it will fade into a quiescent white dwarf. Bigger stars go out with a bang—those with more than 10 times the mass of our sun collapse with enough vigor to spark a supernova, one of the most energetic events in the universe. For decades astronomers have suspected the existence of a type of stellar explosion that is bigger still—a “pair-instability” supernova, with 100 times more energy than an ordinary supernova. In the past year two teams of astronomers have finally found it, redrawing in a stroke the limit of how big things can be in this universe of ours.

All stars balance gravity with pressure. As light elements such as hydrogen fuse in a star’s core, the reactions generate photons that press outward, counteracting the pull of gravity. In larger stars, pressure at the core is high enough to fuse heavier elements such as oxygen and carbon, creating more photons. But in stars bigger than 100 solar masses or so, there’s a hitch. When oxygen ions begin to fuse with one another, the reaction releases photons that are so energetic, they spontaneously trans­mute into electron-positron pairs. With no photons, there’s no outward pressure—and the star begins to collapse.

One of two things can happen next. The collapse can create even more pressure, reigniting enough oxygen to create a burst of energy. This burst is enough to toss off the outer layers of the star but not enough to create a full supernova. The cycle can repeat itself in pulses—astronomers call this case a “pulsational” pair-instability supernova—until the star loses enough mass to end its life in an ordinary supernova. A team led by the California Institute of Technology’s Robert M. Quimby announced it had identified one of these and has submitted a paper for publication.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


If the star is really big—and here we’re talking more than 130 solar masses—the collapse happens so fast and gathers so much inertia that even fusing oxygen can’t stop it. So much energy develops in such a little space that eventually the whole thing blows up, leaving no remnant behind. This is “the real deal, the big stuff,” says Avishay Gal-Yam, an astronomer at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, whose team claims in a recent paper in Nature to have discovered the first full-fledged pair-instability supernova (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group).

Before the findings, most astronomers had argued that gigantic stars in nearby galaxies slough off much of their mass before dying out, precluding a pair-instability supernova. These ideas are being reconsidered, now that these biggest of explosions have announced themselves in spectacular fashion. 

Michael Moyer is the editor in charge of physics and space coverage at Scientific American. Previously he spent eight years at Popular Science magazine, where he was the articles editor. He was awarded the 2005 American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award for his article "Journey to the 10th Dimension," and has appeared on CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox and the Discovery Channel. He studied physics at the University of California at Berkeley and at Columbia University.

More by Michael Moyer
Scientific American Magazine Vol 303 Issue 4This article was published with the title “The Biggest Bang Theory: Astronomers Confirm a New Type of Supernova” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 303 No. 4 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican102010-2YIBxSiB3t6kJFREewrex9

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe