starstrickenSF

Hey Emma! It's fantastic to hear you want to pursue astrophysics! I do theoretical astrophysics (rather than observation) so I actually haven't found any galaxies- but I do get to model supernova explosions! I was actually horrible at math until the middle of high school, when I started getting tutored and spending loads of time on it. Don't get too bogged down in the math-- enjoy star gazing and staring at the sky and I promise the math will fall into place! Feel free to PM me if you'd like to chat more :).

Yup. Absolutely. I would give anything to be able to visit Mars, or travel to other stars. That's ultimately what got me interested in studying space--not the math or the technical aspects, but looking up at the night sky and thinking about what's out there. On one hand, we are very lucky to live during a time with the technology to model stars and view distant galaxies. But it's definitely bittersweet.

No, not in danger! And yes, definitely the light show of the century. We'll be able to see it at night and during the day--we'll have shadows at night, and it'll be brighter than the moon. But we won't be in danger of any debris, or x-rays, or gamma rays. We'll just see something beautiful in the night sky.

Yes, it will go supernova! Though we don't think it will form a black hole, it potentially could. Stellar deaths are dependent on the mass of the star, and how much material is left after the explosion. If there's less than 3 solar masses of material left over, it'll probably become a neutron star (and that's what I'm betting on). If there's more than 3 solar masses, it could form a black hole. That's one of the reasons why it's important to try and gauge how massive Betelgeuse is--it will ultimately determine its fate.

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. This is definitely a problem. 3D hydrodynamic simulations are beginning to become more widely used, but they still require a lot more computer power and time. When we started this investigation 5 years ago, I don't even think 3D simulations were an option. But, to be fair, we don't even understand how to accurately model convection and magnetohydrodynamics in a 3D simulation. Sure, it's probably more accurate than a 1D problem, but how much more? Convection is something MESA has developed pretty robustly over the past few years, but magnetic fields are certainly an issue that would need a 3D code. Bottom line, we'll need further investigation. We found that it's extremely difficult to match the observed parameters (radius, temp, rotational velocity) with the models that MESA produced--and if that's the case, maybe we're not treating rotational velocity (or convection) correctly.