Slashdot Mirror
Betelgeuse To Blow Up Soon — Or Not
rubycodez writes "A wave of 2012-related hoopla has hit the internet about the star that makes the 'right shoulder' of Orion the hunter: Betelgeuse. Astronomer Phil Plait once again puts rumors to rest. The star will indeed explode as a type II supernova, and when it does it will be brighter than Venus when viewed from Earth, though not as bright as the full moon. It will be visible in the night sky for weeks, and could be visible in the day sky for a short time. But that event could happen today or 100,000 years from now, or as much as a million years from now. Since Betelgeuse is over 600 light-years away, its violent death will not harm Earth in any way, but will definitely provide a huge bonanza of scientific information about supernovae. As geeks, we can only hope the core of Betelgeuse undergoes catastrophic failure in our lifetime."
What they're saying is it might have blown up around 600 years ago... or not
it's under construction
Just say its name three times and it'll all be under control.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
What makes this post so interesting is that you were the first person to say it.
During a type II supernova most of the iron stays in the core and isn't cast off.
As geeks, we can only hope the core of Betelgeuse undergoes catastrophic failure in our lifetime.
I dunno. Betelgeuse staying the way it is suits me pretty good. 1). Orion is the most recognizable constellation there is. It's supposed to be a man with outstretched arms, and well, it looks like one -- with his belt, and the 4 brightest stars. Yeah, they're his shoulders and knees, but so what 2). Betelgeuse is a bight star, and it's noticeably red. So it's a good example of star colors. Right next to Aldebaran, Antares, and Sirius, nearby and also red and blue (blue-white) 3). If it blows tomorrow, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy will soon be confusing. Well, more so. And that's a great geek book. Basically, the only people left out seriously will be kids. But seriously, Betelgeuse, is an important tool for teaching children. Not like there's much we can do about it.
The question is, can I make money selling Betelgeuse supernova insurance to the general public?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Driving home one evening, someone said we should hold a party for the death of Betelgeuse, and invite Michael Keaton. My girlfriend responded "Why? Because he's a dying star too?"
Yes. From the viewpoint of an observer passing earth in the direction away from Betelgeuse sufficiently close to light speed, it would be an arbitrary short time between Betelgeuse blowing up and us seeing it (from his view it would also be an arbitrary close distance between earth and Betelgeuse. Also note that in his frame of reference, earth would be flat. :-)
No, the time order of causally related events is the same in all frames of reference. The cause always comes before the effect.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
There is a mistake in thinking like this. You assume an absolute version of time. Relativity shows us that this is not the case. There is no universal time clock, and since nothing can be transmitted faster than light, not even information (barring crazy stuff like quantum entanglement) - it only matters when we observe it. Like the uncertainty principle, all common thinking tells is is that the atom must have a definite position and velocity - but it doesn't because we can't measure it. Same applies here, we can't measure things until the information reaches us, so that is when it happens.
Relativity of simultaneity is not about the time when you see it. It's about the time you get after correcting for the finite time the light needed to get to you.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
No, it's exactly our frame of reference where Betelgeuse is 640 light years away, and it is our frame or reference where it might already have happened up to 640 years ago.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I don't know about Ford Perfect, but Ford Prefect may well have an issue with this.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
Calm down, he's obviously talking about his own inertial reference frame. And within his frame, he's correct.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
From TFA: With all this drama happening 640 light-years away in the constellation of Orion
"With so much drama in the one-OB
It's kinda hard bein' Betel-g-e-u-s-e
But I, somehow, some way
Keep freakin' out the eschatologists like every single day..."
"Like the uncertainty principle, all common thinking tells is is that the atom must have a definite position and velocity - but it doesn't because we can't measure it"
Wrong. You can't measure it because it doesn't. The UP isn't about your ability to measure something. Consider time/energy uncertainty. The faster an excited state decays, the broader the distribution in energies of emitted photons.
46 & 2
We can't measure things until the information reaches us, so that is when it happens.
I think you are misunderstanding relativity, or perhaps just miscommunicating it.
Example: Some cosmic microwave background radiation from the early universe is just reaching Earth today. That doesn't mean that the universe is young "now".
My understanding of relativity is that you can still use distance = speed * time to figure out when an event occurred in your reference frame. You just have to give up the notion that everyone else will agree with you.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
You can run a perfectly valid Newtonian clock-syncing algorithm when all parties are moving relative to each other at much less than the speed of light. That's the case here.
For any speed less than c, you preserve the order of events, and as soon as you say what the distance is, you're committed to talking about a fixed elapsed time because the speed of light is invariant.
The statements "Betelgeuse is 600 light years away" and "We're seeing it as it was 600 years ago" are equally valid. They're both approximately true for anyone who's moving slowly relative to us and Betelgeuse.
Someone in a relativistic starship who's racing the light from the supernova will report a shorter time, because she's just behind the light, and will truthfully report a shorter distance, equal to the (invariant) speed of light times the (her frame) measured time.
Its home is now Corel. I don't think the supernova will have any effect on it.
Oh and MS Word sucks in comparison.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
We can't measure things until the information reaches us, so that is when it happens.
I think you are misunderstanding relativity, or perhaps just miscommunicating it.
Example: Some cosmic microwave background radiation from the early universe is just reaching Earth today. That doesn't mean that the universe is young "now".
My understanding of relativity is that you can still use distance = speed * time to figure out when an event occurred in your reference frame. You just have to give up the notion that everyone else will agree with you.
You misunderstand the grand-parent. What he's saying is that it's senseless to say that Betelgeuse has blown up hundreds of years ago if all the effects from the event can only be felt now. Its light will only reach us now, any (extremely small, imperceptible) gravitational effects would only happen now...if somebody who was closer to the event, and thus noticed it "sooner" tried to warn you about it...you'd only get the message after you've already seen the event yourself.
For all intents and purposes, you may as well treat the event as having happened the moment you've witnessed it.
You cannot comment on what actually is. We can only construct models that accurately predict the outcomes of experiments (i.e. measurements). We cannot say that a microscopic system does not possess specific position and momentum. It's just that we have no basis for claiming these properties without the support of measurements.
You say that the uncertainty principle is not about one's ability to measure something. To what do you think this uncertainty refers?
Your final sentence also seems a bit backward to me. I would say that the more available states, the faster an excited state will decay, on average (i.e. Fermi's Golden Rule). This can be framed as a probability for observing the system in a state other than the initial state -- the more available states the larger the probability of making this observation on each trial. You can also make an ensemble of trials and assess the average decay time, which also fundamentally relies on what we can measure.
It is extremely unlikely that Betelgeuse will produce a gamma-ray burst. The current thinking is that supernovae only produce gamma-ray bursts in stars that have been stripped of their hydrogen envelopes. Betelgeuse still has most of its hydrogen, and there is not enough time to lose it before the supernova is likely to happen. Even if Betelgeuse does produce a gamma-ray burst the bursts occur along the rotation axis of the star, and Betelgeuse's rotation axis is not pointed towards us. Fortunately, we do not have to worry about a gamma-ray burst from Betelgeuse, because it is close enough that such a burst would be rather nasty for us.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
As geeks, we can only hope the core of Betelgeuse undergoes catastrophic failure in our lifetime.
My home plant orbits Betelgeuse, you insensitive clod!
I'm not up on this research, but I think it's a little unclear whether Betelgeuse will turn into a black hole. It all depends on how much mass is left behind after it blows off most of its mass during the supernova explosion. To say this is a difficult computational problem is putting it mildly.
For comparison, the Cygnus X-1 black hole may have come from a star that was originally 40 solar masses in size, while the Crab Nebula's star may have been about 9-11 solar masses. Betelgeuse is about 19 solar masses in size.
I guess we'll find out!
But yes, if it did go black hole, it would be the closest one to us.
"things that are not experienced do not exist?"
Existance is relative.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.