Dying Star Betelgeuse Spews Fiery Nebula

astroengine writes "Betelgeuse is dying a nasty death. The star is in the final, violent stages of its life, shedding vast amounts of stellar material into space as it quickly approaches a supernova demise. But now, with the help of the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope, Betelgeuse's extended nebula has come to light. Comprised of silica and alumina dust, ESO astronomers have been able to image the nebula in infrared wavelengths for the first time. This is the most detailed view we've ever had of the imminent death of a titanic red supergiant star."

Comments

How soon is soon?

[Hatta]

Can we expect Betelgeuse to go supernova in our lifetimes?

Re:How soon is soon?

[Infiniti2000]

Well actually, it already happened years ago (thousands, millions?). So soon may already be in the past... depending on where we are at the time....

my monkey brain hurts

Do you not realize that Betelgeuse is only 640 light-years away? I.e., if it went supernova more than 640 years ago, we would know? Monkey brain indeed.

Re:How soon is soon?

[Joce640k]

According to Wikipedia it's about 640 light years away so that's the maximum delay before we see it die.

It also says "Betelgeuse is expected to explode as a type II supernova, possibly within the next million years" so it doesn't seem to have happened yet.

Re:How soon is soon?

[MozeeToby]

It generally makes more sense to think about the timing of individual events in terms of when the event's light cone gets to us. Granted, Betelgeuse is in a similar reference frame to us, but that doesn't change the fact that there's no such thing as simultaneity at astronomical scales. The exact time it happened relative to earth isn't the same time it happened relative to somewhere else, and even the apparent time on Earth would be different if measured by an observer moving in one direction or another relative to Earth.

Re:How soon is soon?

[icebike]

In the Future Semiconditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional tense, yes it would, but in the present tense (on-book haventa forewhen presooning returningwenta retrohome) its a toss up.

Re:How soon is soon?

[jfmiller]

Let's rephrase the question then: Can we expect to observe Betelgeuse going supernove in our lifetimes?

Re:How soon is soon?

[arth1]

According to Wikipedia it's about 640 light years away so that's the maximum delay before we see it die.

I'd argue that the star hasn't died yet until the information about its demise could theoretically have reached the observer.

There isn't such thing as a universe time on which events can be noted to have happened. Time is always a local phenomenon.
If you were to travel with the photons from Betelguese to Earth (impossible as it is), your journey would take 640 years from the point of view of someone infinitely far away with an infinitely powerful telescope, but from your point of view, it would not - the explosion just happened for you.

Re:How soon is soon?

[Anonymous Coward]

... you are aware that supernovas give off... how shall I put this delicately... a massive fuckton of light, right?

Re:How soon is soon?

[Pausanias]

It has a roughly uniform chance of supernova within the next million years. So one in a million chance that it will go off this year.

Re:How soon is soon?

[nospam007]

"Can we expect to observe Betelgeuse going supernove in our lifetimes?"

Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse!
About now.

Re:How soon is soon?

[HornWumpus]

Photons might not have rest mass but they have mass.

Massive fucktons are massive not heavy. Enough high energy photons equal a massive fuckton.

I've got mixed feelings

[93 Escort Wagon]

I've always loved looking at the stars, and a sky without Orion will be somewhat diminished. But, since this is going to happen anyway, I'd really like to see a spectacular supernova in my lifetime!

Re:I've got mixed feelings

[Teancum]

From a statical and historical perspective, we've been in an unseasonably long drought of supernovas throughout the sky in general. There may be some reasons for that which can be speculated based upon some theories for the position of our sun through the Milky Way, but it could be like tossing a coin ten times in a row and getting heads all of the time. Several supernovas have been visible to the naked eye in the past, including a couple that could even be seen during the day or even bright enough to cast a shadow (you could see) at night.

The interesting thing about Betelgeuse is that it has already been a fairly well studied star for some time, in part because it is "relatively" close and one of the brighter stars in our night sky even without it going nova. I guarantee that if it would go supernova, it would be something that would be heavily studied.

That said, a really close supernova (within 1000 light-years) would likely cause some fits for many astronomers because their telescopes would be too sensitive to be able to accurately do much in terms of photographing the actual supernova. A supernova like SN 1987A is generally much more preferred as you can use high power telescopes where the light doesn't overwhelm the instruments yet the object can still be studied in some considerable detail.

An interesting list of supernova candidates is on the wiki where it is noted several stars that are anticipated to go supernova in the next million years or so. It is certainly an interesting list of stars, of which Betelgeuse is on that list.

Old news

[PPH]

What's wrong with Slashdot editing these days? This happened 640 years ago. And you're only posting now?

Re:Old news

[ColdWetDog]

What's wrong with Slashdot editing these days? This happened 640 years ago. And you're only posting now?

We've been complaining that all this AJAX crap is slowing things down, but this is ridiculous!

Re:Old News

[Joce640k]

Um, it's 640 light years away...

Re:Old news

[Anonymous Coward]

640 years ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:Old news

[Xtifr]

This happened 640 years ago.

Plus or minus 150 years! I know you were joking, but this seems like an opportune moment to point out that Betelgeuse's size and associated blobbiness has made it extremely hard to get an accurate parallax. Note that the margin of error (300 ly) is nearly half the estimated distance! I don't believe that there's another star anywhere near as close which has as much uncertainty about its distance. Also note that it's only in the last couple of decades that we've even been able to pin it down this closely! Estimates during most of the 20c. ranged from 120 ly to 1300! The Gaia mission in 2013 should finally resolve most of the remaining uncertainty.

What?

[canajin56]

Comprised of silica and alumina dust, ESO astronomers have been able to image the nebula in infrared wavelengths for the first time.

The ESO astronomers are made of silica and alumina dust?

Re:What?

[starfishsystems]

Bzzt. Back of the class. The "astronomers" are the subject of the sentence. "Infrared wavelengths" is the indirect object. In this example, it's clear that the adjectival phrase binds to the subject. There's no syntactic ambiguity about it whatsoever.

Re:What?

[TrisexualPuppy]

The astronomers are the indirect object, putting the 'comprised of' descriptor onto the direct object, which is the Nebula.

Umm, excuse me. ESO astronomers is NOT an indirect object. ESO astronomers is the subject of have been which is a linking verb. Just so that you know, linking verbs don't have DOs or IDOs. They have predicate nominatives and predicate adjectives. Comprised of silica and alumina dust is a phrase that is used adjectivally and is intended to modify nebula. However, since the phrase was placed in the front of the sentence, at best, it is dangling. As the phrase is placed now, it modifies astronomers. Whoever modded up the parent needs to go back to grade school.

Re:What?

[Xtifr]

I was with you till your penultimate sentence. The prhase doesn't modify astronomers. English tolerates a certain amount of danglingness, though it severely lowers the register. You wouldn't use that ordering in formal writing, and it's awkward even in casual, but its meaning is clear from context. Of course, relying on context to disambiguate your modifiers is a serious disservice to your readers, and most grade school teachers (who believe in a far more rigid and Platonic version of English than the one that actually exists) would call it wrong, but, in fact, it's merely lame.

I still prefer this sort of dangling modifier to the awkwardness that results from using ambiguous verbs in sentences like "BP caps ruptured well, but more hurdles remain" or "May axes labour police beat pledge", even though Miss Thistlebottom would be hard-pressed to find a rules-based objection to these.

That said, I agree with everything else you said. The person who tried to claim that "astronomers" was the indirect object must have been on drugs. But faced with the imminent loss of a prominent and beautiful star from our sky, I find it hard to get too worked up about language nits. I spent the winter and spring checking Betelgeuse every night too see if it was still there, till it disappeared behind the sun. I'm excited at the prospect (however remote) of seeing a supernova that's visible with the naked eye, but saddened that it has to be this star which offers the prospect.

Bioexorcist

[operagost]

Once it's gone, if you call its name three times it'll pop right back!

Re:Awesome

[starfishsystems]

I'm amazed that humans are able to see extra-terrestrial events with such detail.

Ah, that's where you're mistaken. You have to read the article carefully. It says that the ESO astronomers are "comprised of silica and alumina dust." They're not human at all!

Re:Worried

[Ukab the Great]

Good News: they won't panic, as they're hoopy froods who know where their towels are.
Bad News: Earth has the largest supply of towels in 1000 light-years, so we can expect an invasion any day.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't the point that we DO know more about outer space than we do about our oceans (in terms of raw data available)

NOT

that we WILL know more about outer space than we can ever about our oceans at some unspecified point in the future as your argument concludes.

while your conclusion is probably correct it doesn't relate to the original statement.

Re:Awesome

[jawtheshark]

People are making assumptions that planets outside of our solar system are composed of 118 elements, and that is all. This is a dumb assumption to make.

May I ask why it is a dumb assumption to make, that everything existing is composed of the matter we know? Many elements (like gold) are made in events like these: supernovas, as normal stellar fusion allows only elements up to iron to be synthesized within stars.

What do you suggest anything else is made of? Antimatter? Why? It's not impossible, but very improbable and on top of that it wouldn't change all that much except we'd better never get into direct contact with such material.

Also keep in mind that from the scientific point of view, anything we cannot observe is indistinguishable from not existing. That doesn't mean that unobservable object/thing/essence/whatever doesn't exist, but it makes no scientific sense to talk about it. If the object/thing/essence/whatever finally is observed, then we can talk. Our Universe is defined by what we can observe. So if there is something that is so far away that it hasn't reached us yet by electromagnetic radiation (basically, "what we can observe"), it doesn't exist in our universe.

And OT:

[Culture20]

28 spam ACs posted in succession... distributed AC posting? That could make it painful to read at less than 1 (I usually read at -1).

Re:Betelgeuse...what's in a name

[devjoe]

The similarity is intentional. The name of the film was based on one possible pronunciation of the name of the star.

Re:Awesome

[rlseaman]

Astrophysics has as tightly constructed empirical investigations as any laboratory science. See for example, http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item2326793/

That you find astrophysics unpersuasive is itself unpersuasive.

Re:Awesome

[jawtheshark]

Anything you speculator on without direct observation is pure speculation.

Stop right there... You're doing a Ken Ham, and I'd like you to read this