Talk:List of largest stars

References?

Feb. 23, 2007: There is NO references to be found in SIMBAD or STScI star catalogs for the two stars: Y1 Aurigae J Cassiopeiae.

If valid source material can be given, with RA and DEC - it would be most helpful. Otherwise I am thinking these are typos and we need to figure out exactly what stars these are SUPPOSE to be.

JjB-54

I'm agree with you. No ref mentions J Cassiopeiae (Maybe it has exploded into a supernova) but, I think Y1 Aurigae means Y Aurigae (Spectral type=F5-F9) (It is one of largest F-type supergiants with a radius around 511 solar radii (711,005,400 km)). It was just a typo. Gotorn 999999 (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, Y1 Aurigae and J Cassiopeiae do not exist because those are not variable star designations.--Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction Antares/Betelgeuse

Betelgeuse [...] if it were placed at the center of our solar system, its outer surface would possibly extend to the orbit of Jupiter.

Antares [...] with a diameter of approximately 1.33 × 10^9 km. I.e., if in place of our sun, it would slightly more than encompass the average orbit of Mars.

... and yet Antares is larger than Betelgeuse !

Somebody please check & correct.

Memo

Betelgeuse's size is variable (between 500-800 Sol's), so the 650 size is an average. I think the Jupiter statement just refers to the max size of 800, so Antares is correctly listed above Betelgeuse, as this is fixed at 700. The Solar radius is 0.0046 AU, giving Antares a diameter of 3.25 AU and Betelgeuse 3 AU (r=650) or 3.72 (r=800).

*The distance to Mars varries from 1.4 AU (min.) to 1.7 AU (max.)

*The distance to Ceres varries from 2.5 AU (min.) to 3 AU (max.)

*The distance to Jupiter varries from 4.95 AU (min.) to 5.46 AU (max.)

So actually, neither the Mars- or the Jupiter statement is correct, both stars are between these two. Patrick1982 14:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Today, Betelgeuse has been confirmed to be larger than Antares (883). Estimates include 887 +_ 203, 950, and 1180. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Relations between Solar radius and Orbital radius of planets

Solar radius(R) = 6.96 × 10⁵ km.

Astronomical unit(AU) = 1.49597870691 × 10⁸km = 214.9 Solar radius.

List of orbital radius of planets

Planet	(AU)	solar radius = 1.0	example stars
Mercury	0.31 - 0.47	66 - 100	Rigel(70)
Venus	0.73 - 0.73	156 - 158
Earth	0.98 - 1.02	211 - 219	Deneb(220)
Mars	1.38 - 1.67	297 - 358
			Alpha Herculis(460) Betelgeuse(650) Antares(700)
Jupiter	4.95 - 5.46	1064 - 1173
			VV Cephei (1600-1900)
Saturn	9.02 - 10.05	1939 - 2161	VY Canis Majoris (1800-2100)
Uranus	18.29 - 20.10	3930 - 4320
Neptune	29.81 - 30.33	6408 - 6519

Kometsuga 11:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Herculis can extend past the orbit of Mars at ~280. Antares can reach past the Asteroid belt at 883, Betelgeuse can reach past Jupiter at 1180, and VY Canis Majoris is now only 1420 (Jupiter's orbit). UY Scuti extends to Saturn at 1708 +_ 192. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

historical list

Perhaps a list of stars historically considered to be the largest should be added?

For instance, apparently the dark companion of Epsilon Aurigae was hailed as the largest (diameter) known star, incorrectly attributed to being a star, in 1970... (it's not considered a star anymore, rather more likely a dust disc around a binary pair)

• Ottawa Citizen, Ask Andy: The Biggest Star, American Family Features, Fri 27 Nov 1970, p.44

Here are the former largest star record-holders:

UY Scuti - 1900 (2015-)

Westerlund - 2544 (2014)

NML Cygni - 2208.5 (2013)

VY Canis Majoris - 2252 (2007-2012)

VV Cephei A - 1900 (1998-2007)

Mu Cephei (Herschel's Garnet Star) - 1420 (1970-1998)

Epsilon Aurigae B - 3000 (actually a dusk torus, not a star) (-1970) -Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

65.94.47.63 (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

New largest star?

Westerlund 1-26 has been moved to the top of the list. The data listed for this star is even more uncertain than the previous entry NML Cygni, little more than a guess if you read the journals in detail. I'd appreciate someone checking into the papers to see if the listed sizes can be supported. There are three references given and one of them clearly gives data for temperature and luminosity that equate to the upper bound, although it doesn't actually specify a diameter and the uncertainties around the (probably variable) temperature and luminosity are high. For all my searching through the other two references I can't see where the lower bound comes from. I suspect I was the person that originally typed in those two numbers. Given that I (or someone else) didn't also put W1-26 at the top of the table, I wonder if the lower bound was a typo of a smaller number. Lithopsian (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It really matters for every number you type, though, especially if there are a dozen or more stars battling to the first place. As it was said, these stars undergo strong mass loss emitting clouds of masses that make their size measurement very doubtful to impossible. Of course, we must state the exact rankings of the following stars. Pretty much sure though that some stars have upper diameter estimates of surprisingly large sizes, like KY Cygni. It can be as large as VY Canis Majoris at 1,420 × Sun, or it could be the "Mother of All Stars" at an outstaggering 2,850 × Sun. Assuming its highest estimate is correct can blow out all stars in the list, even Westerlund 1-26's highest estimate is correct. But funny it's 7th now. That's how we need to apply in here, critical thinking. We pin down all possibilities. We can't just type a star in here and apply its diameter without looking at possible chances. If we only look at the star's higher estimates and put it here, it can be pretty sure though that we access wrong information, especially if we don't look at reliable journals. But I'm really respected to you because you type your words with sources. ==Johndric Valdez (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)==

Westerlund 1-26 is such a mysterious star. They don't know the size of it. They think it could be larger then UY Scuti (1951-2544) or smaller (1530), but the size is unconfirmed. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits and NML Cygni

Niyet' has been editing size for NML Cygni to be 1650 R_☉, both in this article and in NML Cygni. I have reverted edits altering the size of NML Cygni from 1,183 to 1,650 R_☉ as the source cited, De beck, shows 1,183 R_☉. However the article is wrong according to the source for NML Cygni. Regards— ~ The Omega Infinite CyberSpace Alpha X 16:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not the same person as Niyet', even though I have the same opinions as him. Where did you get the 2208.5 size for 2013 and the 1650 size for 2014-? --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

1430 solar radii

I had to change KY Cygni back to 1420 solar radii if you don't mind. How the heck did it get 1430 solar radii and Wikipedia let it remain that way? First of all, there is no evidence of that slightly changed size and secondly, when I went inside the page, it says 1420 solar radii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V255 Canis Majoris (talk • contribs) 01:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC) New Sizes: (2017)

I think it was just a typo. Gotorn 999999 (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Mock Pages

Niyet' has created a mock article of List of Largest Stars in his sandbox which is visible to public. I have put a warning sign there about using it. For some reason, Butters is at the top of the list at 2.1 googol solar radii?!?!?!?! Niyet' has already been accused of vandalizing Wikipedia by Ynoss and Lithopsian, so I think this is his revenge but mock pages need to stop. Um, Niyet', what are you doing? --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

There is wide latitude on the allowed content in user sandboxes. However, there is still the guiding principle that they are there for Wikipedia purposes, not simply as a convenient hosting space. Some sandbox uses are explicitly banned and will be quickly removed, such as abuse, copyright infringement, and circumventing the removal of pages or blocking of a user. The sandbox pages are marked so that they should not be included in search engine results, although they are always publicly viewable by following links from within Wikipedia. There is a process for proposing the deletion of userspace pages. Lithopsian (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL: Wrong. It was Niyet' who really accused me, Lithopsian and even Space Infinite of vandalizing Wikipedia not us, and he also accused me of saying that UY Scuti is 2,208.5 solar radii.

This is 2a01:e35:8bcd:7270:3cce:5df0:c854:3c48 who makes UY Scuti 2,208.5 R_☉ not me.

See: https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liste_d%27%C3%A9toiles_par_taille_d%C3%A9croissante&diff=prev&oldid=138026661 <-- UY Scuti size exaggeration. Thank you— Ynoss du 44 Pro ★ ✉ / _CONTRIBS 16:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Historical records and upper estimates

I think we should add the largest size that a star has achieved to the list. For example, Eta Carinae at the height of the great eruption would be 1 400 solar radii. I have also found sites and other Wikipedia pages (on different languages) that claim R136a1 to be over 1 300 solar radii. What do you think? --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Who says that R136a1 is 1,300 solar radii? Gotorn 999999 (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

R136(a) was once thought to be a single star with enormous luminosity, and presumably a very large size although I haven't seen any formal calculations. Those thoughts were clearly wrong, and reflecting them in this table would be misleading. Picking unsustainable and meaningless sizes, for example of a supernova at some point, would similarly be misleading and picking a "size" for a supernova imposter explosion that wasn't directly observed would be nearly as bad. I'm struggling to think of a single example where there is a reliable modern calculation of a sustained historical size of a star that might go in this table. Perhaps someone wants to make a list of how badly wrong people were about some astronomical facts 100 years ago? Lithopsian (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not trying to say that R136a1 is strictly 1 300 solar radii, I know that R136a1 is only 32.1 solar radii. However, I actually found a ref for it:

Not just "not strictly 1,300", but not 1,300 R_☉ at all. Your ref links to nothing but I know the paper you mean. I can't see anywhere that gives that radius. There is a mention that R136a was once mistaken for a 1,000 M_☉+ star, but the important word there is "mistaken". Feel free to start an article about mistaken beliefs in the past, but this doesn't seem to be the place for them. If you do want to go that route, it is worth noting that the original "discovery" papers for R136a as a super-massive star give a radius of ~90 R_☉, not even close to 1,300. Also, it is often conveniently forgotten that other papers from the same era contradicted those results and claimed (correctly, it turns out) that R136a would be resolved into multiple stars just like the cores of other dense massive clusters. Boring news is easily forgotten. Lithopsian (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

690 solar radii

Should V354 Cephei still remain on the top 5 since the others are following their least estimate? BC Cygni followed its 856 solar radii. KW Sagittarii followed its 1009 solar radii. V354 Cephei was stated to be 690-1520 solar radii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V255 Canis Majoris (talk • contribs) 16:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Stars are sorted by the lowest given radius. However, 690 R_☉ for the size of V354 Cep is calculated using a temperature and a luminosity from two different published papers, which makes it pretty dubious for use in Wikipedia (see WP:SYNTHESIS), so who knows whether it will last. Lithopsian (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Theta Muscae Ac and XX Persei

I have seen several sources about Theta Muscae Ac having a size larger than Antares. That would be ~900 R☉ like what Niyet' said. However, it is not on the list as some of you said 452 R☉. In Universe Sandbox 2 it has a size of 288 R☉, while in Celestia it has a size of 14 R☉. I have also seen XX Persei have a size of 1 300 R☉, while some of you said 570 R☉. Which is the right one? --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

570 R_☉ for the size of XX Persei is calculated using a temperature and a luminosity. Thank you— Ynoss du 44 Pro ★ ✉ / _CONTRIBS 22:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with calculating a radius from a bolometric luminosity and effective temperature, but it would be best to add a note that this has been done. Since a calculated value will not appear in any reference, it is likely to get deleted. I notice that a radius based on the temperature and luminosity currently in the XX Per article would be 710, not 570 R_☉. One more reason for showing your working so someone doesn't just think it is rubbish and give it the chop. Lithopsian (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable reference ;) Nor is Universe Sandbox. I wouldn't even call Celestia a reliable reference, although it is based on reliable science plus a few assumptions and simplifications. Reliable references include, in order of preference: peer-reviewed publications; books (real ones, not self-published); press releases from NASA, ESA, Caltech, etc. although they tend to be just paraphrasing and exaggerating published research; some web sites, but not many. Everything else is likely to be made up or copied from Wikipedia, and neither is a reliable reference. The normal Wikipedia preference for secondary sources tends to be suspended for scientific data involving ongoing research. Secondary sources such as books tend to be hopelessly out of date, although there are some review papers that can be useful. Therefore primary sources need to be used, but always consider which ones. Newer is generally better, but watch out for a recent paper that just copied a value from a much older study, or is throwing out a random guess as a passing assumption. Best is a paper with a precis of previous research and then a solid derivation of the value you want. Lithopsian (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I would not call Celestia 1.6.1 a reliable reference either because some of the stars there have their sizes exaggerated:

VV Cephei A - 370 R☉ (what the?)

Mu Cephei - 3870 R☉ (SAY WHAT!?!?!?!? STARS CAN'T EVEN BE THAT BIG!)

RW Cephei - 110 R☉

P Cygni - 1900 R☉

--Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It also made VY Canis Majoris to be EVEN 7,720 R_☉ (WTF!?!?!?!? THE STARS CAN'T EVEN THAT BIG) (Larger than both stars that are not real (Shadron Soul and VY Masses Majoris)), this size is extremely wrong because the star size limit is 2,600 solar radii. Thank you—Ynoss THE OFFICIAL ★ ^{✉ discussion} / _CONTRIBS 18:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYSG8VQUjjI (names are in portuguese) that star at the end though...

--Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)