What is dead may never die

Astronomers discovered a bizarre "zombie" star that went supernova not just once, but twice.
By Jake Parks | Published: Wednesday, November 08, 2017

In this artists concept of a supernova, an expanding shell of dust and gas is blown outward, away from the stars dense, white-dwarf
core. Most supernovae explode just once, which ends their lives for good. However, iPTF14hls appears to have gone supernova twice
in just 60 years.
NASA/ESA/STSCI/G. Bacon

To quote the rst line of a letter published today in the journal Nature, Every supernova so far observed has been
considered to be the terminal explosion of a star. In other words, when a massive star blows itself up, it should
remain dead. This is something astronomers have witnessed thousands of times before with absolutely no
exceptions.

That is, until now.

For the rst time, astronomers have discovered a star that has gone supernova more than once. This so-called
zombie star which exploded at least twice in the last 60 years alone has baffled scientists by challenging
many of the existing theories about how massive stars end their lives.

This supernova breaks everything we thought we knew about how they work, said the studys lead author Iair
Arcavi, a NASA Einstein Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of California-Santa Barbara and Las Cumbres
Observatory, in a press release. Its the biggest puzzle Ive encountered in almost a decade of studying stellar
explosions.

The undying star, named iPTF14hls, was rst discovered in September 2014 by the Palomar Transient Factory (PTF),
a fully automated, wide-eld survey designed to spot cosmic objects that vary in brightness over time such as
variable stars, transient objects, and, of course, supernovae.

Over the course of two years, iPTF14hls grew and dropped in brightness at least ve times. Most supernovae remain bright for around
100 days before fading for good.
LCO/S. Wilkinson

When the international team of astronomers rst spotted the explosion, a spectral analysis indicated it was just a
run-of-the-mill, Type II-P supernova whose brightness would likely fade after about 100 days. Supernova iPTF14hls,
on the other hand, had a different plan.

Although Supernova iPTF14hls initially faded after its 2014 explosion, within a few months it began to mysteriously
grow brighter again. Over the course of three years, iPTF14hls fluctuated between bright and dim at least ve
separate times.

This [was] one of those head-scratcher type of events, said co-author Peter Nugent, a senior scientist at Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory. At rst we thought it was completely normal and boring. Then it just kept staying
bright, and not changing, for month after month.

When the astronomers realized iPTF14hls was not an average supernova, they decided to go back and search
through archival data. The researchers were flabbergasted when they found that in 1954, another explosion was
recorded in the exact same location as iPTF14hls. Somehow, the star survived its rst explosion, waited 60 years,
and then exploded again.

An image taken by the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey reveals a possible explosion in 1954 at the exact location of iPTF14hls (left). It
is not seen in the later image taken in 1993 (right).
POSS/DSS/LCO/S. Wilkinson

Although researchers are still uncertain what caused iPTF14hls to go supernova twice, one theory is that the
zombie star is actually a pulsation pair instability supernova.

According to this theory, it is possible that this was the result of a star so massive and hot that it generated
antimatter in its core, said co-author Daniel Kasen, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of
California-Berkeley. That would cause the star to go violently unstable, and undergo repeated bright eruptions over
periods of years. The authors of the study calculated that before the rst explosion, the star was at least 50 times
as massive as the Sun (and likely larger).

These explosions were only expected to be seen in the early universe and should be extinct today, said co-author
Andy Howell, leader of the LCO supernova group. This is like nding a dinosaur still alive today. If you found one,
you would question whether it truly was a dinosaur.

Using LCOs global telescope network, which is specically designed for sustained observations, astronomers will
continue to monitor iPTF14hls for changes in brightness over time.

We could not have kept tabs on iPTF14hls for this long and collected data that challenges all existing supernova
theories if it werent for the global telescope network, said Arcavi. I cant wait to see what well nd by continuing to
look at the sky in the new ways that such a setup allows.

5 JOIN THE DISCUSSION

Read and share your comments on this article

Comment on this article

 Want to leave a comment?
Only registered members of Astronomy.com are allowed to comment on this article. Registration is FREE
and only takes a couple minutes.

Login or Register now.

5 comments

Most recent | Oldest to newest

Added 2 days ago

Colin Padthai

Okay. http://www.keckobservatory.org/recent/entry/LCO_supernova?
utm_content=buffer23d6a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2017/018510/star-would-not-die

Added 2 days ago

Colin Padthai

Ach! Need to redo my notes. Pair-instability pulsation occurs in low-metallicity stars of 100-130Msolar, continuing periodically
until you're left with a c.100Msolar core. 130-250Msolar stars blow themselves to bits, not even leaving a black hole or pulsar
behind. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair-instability_supernova

Added 2 days ago

Colin Padthai

Is there any reason why this can't be a pair-instability supernova(130-250 Msolar, low to moderate metallicity)? Those will repeat,
throwing off mass until they get below the threshold for pair-production(~130Msolar), at which point the former, metal-enriched
core of the star lives on as a Wolf-Rayet.

Added 3 days ago

Dennis Parker

What if the event is not self contained and is being acted upon by some outside force. Think "deathstar" target practice... Or
maybe not.

Added 3 days ago

Amanda Jones

Despite that this is the rst time witnessing a zombie star, I would consider it highly likely this takes place often in the universe.
I nd it hard to say something is dead. I say this because the rst law of thermodynamics (Law of Conservation of Energy) tells
us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That energy remains - whether transferred, in another form... or my
theory...maintained.