Talk:Betelgeuse

2023 occultation

The occultation will occur after 01:00 AM of December 12 in UTC time, not December 11. Aminabzz (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I just corrected it again and noted the source, here also: https://www.asteroidoccultation.com/2023_12/1212_319_82912_Summary.txt Pmcc3 (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you. Can Betelgeuse occultation itself have a separate article? Aminabzz (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

FWIW - a related reference may be (or may have been?) helpful I would think atm - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Supernova in tens of years

New study published estimating the star will go supernova in tens of years. See paper here: [1]. Quote from the paper's conclusion:

> We conclude that Betelgeuse should currently be in a late phase (or near the end) of the core car- bon burning. After carbon is exhausted in the core, a core-collapse leading to a supernova explosion is expected in a few tens years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.79.193.2 (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate what the paper says. "Late stage" of the carbon burning can last thousands of years. After that, then there are just a few decades left. Also, important for Wikipedia purposes, it isn't yet accepted for publication. When it is, we can add something to the article. Lithopsian (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure of adding the information, this [2] paper already considers the findings doubtful. VY Canis Majoris (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not even known if Betelgeuse has reached the carbon burning stage. -- Kheider (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. I really don't like people online who constantly jump to conclusions. The Space Enthusiast (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

According to some predictions, Betelgeuse will explode in 140000 years, or earlier. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QgLwpuDGhI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:A931:B1B0:FAB4:760A (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Apart from YouTube is not a reliable source, the video is just (mis-)quoting the same journal paper we have already discussed. Lithopsian (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The color of Betelgeuse

This article describes Betelgeuse as red, but I saw it tonight, and it is in fact yellow in the direction of orange. It's been that color for many years.William11002 (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ve been looking at it in the last few nights. Its still yellow. However if you keep staring — it varies, or twinkles, and will glint other colors: a blue-white, and also a brief flicker of a solid lipstick red.William11002 (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The description of it as a red supergiant is determined by its surface temperature, not by its color. Such stars can be red, orange, or yellow. Though described as "reddish" in the lead paragraphs, see the section on observational history for more on its color. The twinkling and glints of other colors you see are due to effects of viewing the star through the atmosphere. The presence of city lights, etc, can affect viewing the color also. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

If a "Red Supergiant" can be yellow, the article never says that Betelgeuse is yellow. However, the article does describe Betelgeuse as "red" seven times in six sections (!) (in Nascent discoveries,Physical characteristics, Media reporting, Other names, Mythology, After core hydrogen exhaustion). The article also says it’s "distinctly reddish”, has a "red coloration", and a “pronounced "redness". It never says it's yellow, but when I go outside and look at it — it’s yellow. I’m mystified by this — it appears that there is an error, that seems to have a super strong acceptance for some reason. William11002 (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by what professional astronomers state, not by backyard observations. Some stars look greenish to the eye, but aren't actually green - see Green star (astronomy). All stars can be described as cooler and warmer tones of white - they aren't colored like Christmas lights. The planet Mars looks more reddish than any star, but a backyard observer would probably describe it as "pink" rather than red. The Sun is described in astronomical terms and popular culture as "yellow," but as far as human perception is concerned it's a cool white. See color temperature for more on various kinds of white light, and see stellar classification which makes the visually small distinctions between star colors plain. Acroterion (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I always see Betelgeuse as a very saturated red. Stanley Joseph "Stan" (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I like the comments, and have read them and the WP articles mentioned. It’s interesting that a red super giant may not be red and may even be yellow, and also that the color chart in the article Stellar classification appears to have a big range colors — but no red-red. I might disagree that Wikipedia doesn’t go by “backyard observations”, only because the first sentence in this Betelgeuse article is partly based on “what’s visible to the naked eye”.

I’m not finding anything to dispute my sense that it may not be accurate for the article to describe Betelgeuse (seven times) as “red”, and ignore what’s seen not only by the “naked eye”, but in the article’s own illustrations. This article is very “scientific” and because scientists are thought to care a lot about accuracy in most things, I’d like to figure out why red is accepted — despite the evidence. Of course there are sources that don’t say red, and I think this article can be improved. I also like the article Green star (astronomy), when it says “no star really has any color at all”.William11002 (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It might be better for the article to say that "compared to most stars, Betelgeuse is distinctly redder in visual observation." Acroterion (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

And I think you bring up a point that astronomers are not very clear on: that while illustrations and descriptions portray red dwarfs, for instance, as vividly red, someone in proximity to one would perceive it as a warm white rather than red-red.. Acroterion (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Perhaps a pronunciation guide should be offered at the beginning. I've heard some pronounce it, "beetle geese" and others "beetle juice". Thank You. -Anonymous 64.52.139.54 (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

There are a few pronunciations listed in the nomenclature section. 115.188.140.167 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I say it like the movie Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Usual pronunciation in the UK, as used by Patrick Moore, was "bettle-gerz" with a hard G as in Golf. Following the release of The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy in 1978, "Beetle-juice" has become more popular and I think is now almost universal. G7mzh (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Any chance it ALREADY exploded and its flash and shock wave are on the way?

Hate to be a doom-and-BOOM! kinda guy, but hey, I'm a pessimist by nature: since the experts can't for various reasons nail down its correct distance, is it not at least faintly possible that:

(1) it was positioned an even 500 light years out [supposing a number well within the accepted plus-or-minus distance estimates] when (2) it already went supernova 499 years ago in 1525 [three years after Magellan's circumnavigating expedition limped back to Spain, incidentally] and that therefore (3) sometime in 2025 we can expect to watch it instantly flare up, and then many years hence (4) be buffeted (or worse) by the stellar detonation's shock wave?

I hope someone who better understands all this can assure me that there's just NO WAY such a scenario will play out, because I'm losing sleep over this in the meantime.

Thanks in advance for any reassuring words; again, I realize what I'm suggesting is hugely UNLIKELY, but I'd like to know it's instead FLATLY IMPOSSIBLE, given what we already definitely know about this strange star. [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN 2600:1700:B9B0:4500:B410:1586:5924:785D (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia, even on its talk pages, is not a forum for this sort of debate; there are many online astronomical communities for this. To answer your question without getting drawn into a discussion, yes, uncertainties in the lifetime remaining to Betelgeuse make it possible that the time to supernova as observed from Earth is less than its light-time distance, and so the explosion may have "already" happened. —BillC ^talk 08:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The supernova is expected to happen about 90,000 years in the future, so keep calm. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciate your explication and grudging admission of the remote possibility of my doomsyear assertion, BillC...as absolutely UNreassuring as it is!; accordingly, can't see how I can relax anytime over the next 90,000 years or so. Hope I'm not met with a shotgun in my face if I come knocking on your repurposed fallout shelter's door. [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN 2600:1700:B9B0:4500:2101:5010:7B23:8644 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Luminosity margins of error

Joyce et al (2020) contains two values for the (log) luminosity: 4.94+0.06
−0.04 and 4.94+0.10
−0.06. The second one resolves to the values in the starbox: raw value 10^4.94 => 87,096, rounded to 87,100; upper margin 10^5.04 => 109,648 (87,096 + 22,551); lower margin 10^4.88 => 75,858 (87,096 - 11,239). Lithopsian (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

This method of calculating errors is different of my own method. My way of calculating errors is a little different: I divide the logarithm error by the logarithm, then multiply by the real value. The step-by-step is as follows:

 

10^4.94 = about 87,096.

 

0.10/4.94 = 0.020242915.
87,096*0.020242915 = 1763.
1763 is the positive error, so let's find the negative error:

 

0.06/4.94 = 0.012145749.
87,096*0.012145749 = 1,058.
1,058 is the negative error, so the error bars are ⁺¹⁷⁶³
₋₁₀₅₈. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

By "a little different", you mean "wrong", right? You can't divide logarithms and then use that as a proportion of the non-log value. That's not how logarithms work. If you want to approach it in that fashion rather than the somewhat long-winded method I showed for clarity, then the 0.10 (first, positive, margin of error, a difference) already gives the ratio of the upper bound to the mean. So 10^0.10 is 1.259-ish; the upper bound is about 25.9% above the mean. That's the very definition of a logarithm, a difference in the logarithm equates to a ratio of the underlying value. Same for the lower bound, 10^−0.06 is about 0.871, so the lower bound is about 12.9% below the mean. Lithopsian (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Now i know that my method was very wrong, but it appears that some of these errors are in % rather than logarithms. See for example the Arroyo-Torres et al. paper, Table 3 gives the luminosity in watts and in log(L_☉) for AH Scorpii, KW Sgr and UY Sct. I will use AH Scorpii as an example. If we calculate the luminosity logarithm and its errors (5.52±0.26) using your method, it gives 330+270
−150×10³ L_☉. But if we use the luminosity in watts, it give (3.3±8.6)×10³ L_☉. The solar luminosity is equivalent to 3.828×10²⁶ W, and the luminosity of AH Sco is (1.26±0.33)×10³² W. Making the conversions, it give the following values: $${\frac {1.26*10^{32}}{3.828*10^{26}}}=329,153.61$$
$${\frac {0.33*10^{32}}{3.828*10^{26}}}=86,206.9$$. So the rough value should be 329,000±86,000. If we divide 86000 by 329000 it will give 0.26, the same value of the logarithm. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Betelgeuse B?

arXiv:2408.09089, not yet accepted for publication but something to keep an eye on. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)