Talk:Betelgeuse

Supernova in near future

Someone gave me a news paper clipping (I don't know the paper, sorry) that claimed it was probable that Betelgeuse could supernova within the next year or two, is there any major consensus here or just some journalism, the same article said it could still be within millions of years88.111.136.247 (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Could be millions, could have happened already, with the EMR but days away. Nobody knows. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that on the news too. Wondered why it came up now. The evidence cited by the sceintist in the news byte was the shrinking, but that is discussed in the article; there was no new news stuff. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

So Should not someone give this fact(that the explosion is probable in next few years) in main page itself ? It is otherwise confusing as if they are talking about some other star. 121.247.218.225 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not probable in the next few years. Evidently a reporter misunderstood an astronomer - the report I saw on CNN said "it could be as early as 2012 or not for millions of years", which indicated a significant gap of understanding on the part of the reporter (It could be as early as now). There is no news here, just the stuff years to decades old about shrinkage and that it will eventually blow, which is already well documented in the article. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tarl.Neustaedter. While you were posting this reply, I was searching for other news articles for Betelguese. All that gibberish I came across explains this event happening in next 2-3 years created unwanted flurry. Stricter policing needs to be implemented to control media's dissemination of hype of this kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.218.225 (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is just cialtrornalismo (cialtroneria + giornalismo) as we say in Italy. Anyway the article is this: http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/tatooines-twin-suns-coming-to-a-planet-near-you-just-as-soon-as-betelgeuse-explodes/story-fn5fsgyc-1225991009247
Greetings from Italy :-) --2.40.25.178 (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The talk that its going to go Supernova, could be a cover up, for all the planet X hype. I mean if planet X exists, and becomes visible to everyone, what better way to hide that it really does exist? Just say the star has gone Supernova!!!! Cmark304 (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusing density comparison

I noticed this recent edit changed 10 to the power of minus five to ten to the power of minus three to make the sentence read:

If we compare such star matter to the density of ordinary air at sea level, the ratio is roughly 1.286 × 10⁻³

This would then claim that Betelgeuse's density is about one 800th that of sea level air.

However, note 7 contradicts this with:

Betelgeuse density ≈ 3.680 ×10³¹ kg ÷ (2.335 × 10²⁷ km3 × 10⁹) ≈ 1.576 ×10−5 kg/m3

...

Calculations for the Earth's atmosphere:

...

Atmospheric Density ≈ 5.148 × 10¹⁸ kg ÷ 4.200 × 10⁰⁹ km3 × 10⁹ ≈ 1.226 kg/m3.

The ratio is clearly 10⁻⁵ and not 10⁻³.

I therefore edited the text in an initial attempt to avoid future confusion, but more needs to be done. The reader was likely confused by the unclear language, ambiguous mathematical syntax and switching from kilometres (km) to metres (m) and mixing of kilogram (kg) and gram (g). I suggest the explanation should stick to kg and m exclusively, avoid abbreviations and use parentheses to avoid ambiguity. -84user (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Which millennium?

Solving the riddle of mass-loss will be the key to knowing when a supernova might occur, an event expected anytime in the next million years, with some speculation it could even occur in the next millennium.

Why not in this millennium?80.141.222.102 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Betelgeuse bigger than Antares?

According to Wikipedia, Betelgeuse is bigger than Antares. Böri (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is "according to Wikipedia". Wikipedia is a tertiary source, _always_ check references.

That said, Antares is listed in SINBAD as being about 600 ly away, and A. Richichi reports an angular diameter 41.3 milliarcsecond, measured by lunar occultation. Betelgeuse is listed at about the same distance, and Harper et.al. report a slightly larger angular diameter of 42-44 milliarcseconds. That leads to a larger physical dimension for Betelgeuse.

In summary, what we know indicates they are of comparable size given the error margins we have. Betelgeuse is probably larger (and is seen as larger from our vantage point), but our uncertainty about distance is larger than the perceived diameter differences.

Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Astronomers Believe the Supernova will happen soon

I believe that they were Australian, and they were saying that the star will go boom in time for 2012, making it as if we had 2 suns in the sky. Is that worth making a section about, or at least additional info in regards to it's supernova candidacy? - Guest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.115.203 (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's at least a 0.000001% chance it will explode next year. ;-) But there's already a section on the topic of supernova candidacy. See also Don't Panic! Betelgeuse Won't Explode in 2012. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

parallax

the text must be in error, for the distance calculation using parallax. the distance in parsecs is 1 divided by the parallax angle in arcseconds,[1] which for 0.180 arcseconds would work out to 5.55 parsecs, not 56.. I went hunting through the reference given, but could not find the calculation in the external text, whereas I did find "We find that the photocenter changes with viewing angle at the fraction of a milliarcsecond level, while the change with VLA frequency in a given snapshot is smaller". So I am fixing the text to '0.0180' arcseconds. - 174.137.243.141 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)