<p>I know that if a supernova were to happen in the galactic Core, the dust there would prevent the visible light from it from reaching us, so if one were to have occurred there in say 1900, we wouldn't have initially noitced it.
But nowadays we'd detect it via other wavelengths of light as well as by its neutrinos (like we did with SN 1987A).</p>
<p>When's the most recent time that we could fail to notice a supernova for at least a few years after it happened?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-01T10:27:16.900Z
I suspect the answer is the same as your other question:  about 1982 when IMB was online. Other potential imaging options (X-rays, IR) either were also in their infancy or not available before 1982.  I wonder if still today we could "miss" a supernova that coincidentally happened behind the sun, so the neutrino flux appears like a statistical fluke of solar neutrinos.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-01T18:47:11.113Z
@James: no, because we don't need directionality to detect a supernova neutrino burst, the spike in time is sufficient. (And the energy spectrum and flavor composition would be different too) In any case only SuperK has that directionality information.
rfl
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-03T02:49:26.310Z
@rfl Maybe. ;) Yes, the Sun is mostly transparent to neutrinos, but supernova neutrinos are extremely energetic, so they have a higher interaction cross-section, making them easier to detect, but also increasing the probability that the Sun "detects" them before we do (and of course even our best detectors only manage to catch a tiny fraction of the neutrinos passing through them). OTOH, supernovae emit a thermal mixture of neutrinos and antineutrinos, whereas normal stellar processes don't produce antineutrinos. https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/563986/123208
PM 2Ring
<supernova><neutrinos>
When's the most recent time that we could have missed a supernova?
blademan9999
# When's the most recent time that we could have missed a supernova?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-06-01)

I know that if a supernova were to happen in the galactic Core, the dust there would prevent the visible light from it from reaching us, so if one were to have occurred there in say 1900, we wouldn't have initially noitced it.
But nowadays we'd detect it via other wavelengths of light as well as by its neutrinos (like we did with SN 1987A).

When's the most recent time that we could fail to notice a supernova for at least a few years after it happened?

**Tags:** supernova, neutrinos

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I suspect the answer is the same as your other question:  about 1982 when IMB was online. Other potential imaging options (X-rays, IR) either were also in their infancy or not available before 1982.  I wonder if still today we could "miss" a supernova that coincidentally happened behind the sun, so the neutrino flux appears like a statistical fluke of solar neutrinos.  
> **username_2**: @username_1: no, because we don't need directionality to detect a supernova neutrino burst, the spike in time is sufficient. (And the energy spectrum and flavor composition would be different too) In any case only SuperK has that directionality information.  
> **username_3**: @username_2 Maybe. ;) Yes, the Sun is mostly transparent to neutrinos, but supernova neutrinos are extremely energetic, so they have a higher interaction cross-section, making them easier to detect, but also increasing the probability that the Sun "detects" them before we do (and of course even our best detectors only manage to catch a tiny fraction of the neutrinos passing through them). OTOH, supernovae emit a thermal mixture of neutrinos and antineutrinos, whereas normal stellar processes don't produce antineutrinos. https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/563986/123208  

---

## 0 answers

