Is Betelgeuse about to go Supernova?

a reply to: LABTECH767

Of course, if our descendants have mastered how to leave one solar system and travel to and colonize another, then it could just be that the lifespan of the neighborhood star is of far less concern than the real estate around it. They left once; they can always just pick up and move on again.

a reply to: ketsuko

Really speaking we already have figured out way's, all of them are sublight speed multi generation trip's though such as using large asteroid's (iron nicken condrite one's provide good inherent protection from radiation though shielding would still be needed), hollowing them out and creating artificial world's inside of them were generations could live out there lives on such long journey's to the stars.

It is really just a matter of need, if we never see the need to do something like this then by the time where is a need it will already be far too late, we have plenty of time yet though, perhaps somewhere between 500 million to 2.5 billion years (without artificial climate alteration's to cool and control our planet) before we need to find another world to live on or adapt to a hotter and hotter world.

Of course it is all just fantasy for now, our life's spans are so short in comparison to these event's while we can put numbers to them grasping them actually in our mindset is another thing entirely.

Of course another science fiction speculation postulates the potential for robotic machines with bank's of genetic information to be sent out into the cosmos were when finding a suitable planet they would then turn it earth like and recreate eco-system's by synthetically recreating life from the computerized gene bank's, this level of technology is - almost - within our grasp but it would seem a soulless way to colonize distant world's - even though they would be our carbon copy's would those people really be our children?.

The VLT has two “photos” (I think it was visible light, but I could be wrong), that shows the star deforming.

Stars seem to binge and purge before they supernova.

That is what we may be seeing as it dims.

Cool thing is, all we need to do is wait.

ETA: They say it does supernova that we would see it the daytime!! Besides Venus that would be cool! (Right Phage?)

My understanding of viewing distant stars was

When they say is it about to blow, they really mean did it blow however long ago and we're about to see it in the sky because our perspective of it is already in the distant past.

Something about the speed of light? I don't know. Can we detect its energy in real time while only being able to view the image from the past?

originally posted by: FlyingSquirrel
Something about the speed of light? I don't know. Can we detect its energy in real time while only being able to view the image from the past?

The image travels at the speed of light (since it's light), and the energy travels at the speed of light too, actually light is a form of energy, though there are also other forms of energy outside the visible spectrum, all of which travel at the speed of light. So everything we see on a star 640 light years away happened 640 years ago.

Yes.

It just depends on your definition of 'about'.

I really hope it blows up in my lifetime.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

In fairness, it's' always been a little deformed. At least within human memory (and astronomy).

a reply to: Riffrafter

I would like to add that Betelgeuses' dimming is not unprecedented

I have here with me a copy of Burnham's Celestial Handbook.
On page 1290 is states of Betelgeuse...

At minimum brightness, as in 1927 and 1941, the magnitude may drop below 1.2, a change of light intensity of about 2 times.

On Page 1291 there is a chart depicting other peaks and minima between 1930 and 1961.


It has reference to even deeper minima and extreme variation in the early 1800s by Sir John Herschel

The variations of Alpha Orionis, which were most striking and unequivocal in the years 1836--1840, within the years since elapsed became much less conspicuous...

On Spaceweather.com today there is a story about Betelgeuse's changing shape and accompanying gas clouds.

I would rather see it stay there than explode IMO...

-Driver

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Yes.

It just depends on your definition of 'about'.

Yep. In astronomical terms, "today" and "100,000 years from now" are pretty much the same thing.

originally posted by: Riffrafter

Betelgeuse has been very volatile lately, and astronomers are watching to determine if it's terminal or just going through a phase.

Although it would probably look spectacular, I'd hate to see Betelgeuse go if for no other reason than I love the name.
Seriously, it's one of the most recognizable stars in our sky...

I thought you were going to talk about Buttigieg, don't say either name three times in a row... just saying...

For fun because this popped up in my YouTube recommendations. Who says they don't watch what we do here? /cue X-Files them

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Supposedly it ate a companion in the past.

Maybe we should stop fat shaming Betelgeuse!

People do love to exaggerate

if it went Supernova, it would produce a flash of about 10^38 W which would die off as time progresses.

Per square meter at a distance of 640LY that is about 0.5W/m3 and lets not forget that the power dies off after the initial flash.

The energy we get from the sun, the standard solar flux is about 1361 W

So if you think an increase of 0.03% is enough to 'burn off our atmosphere' then, you need to re-evaluate your numbers.


What will happen is that the neutrino detectors around the world will basically observe lots of events in a short period... then astronomers will see it go pop about a minute or so later.

originally posted by: ErosA433
What will happen is that the neutrino detectors around the world will basically observe lots of events in a short period... then astronomers will see it go pop about a minute or so later.

Thanks for giving me a reason to look this up! Today I learned that neutrinos escape from the core of an exploding star before the photons of light do.

I say "learned", but it made sense to me (even though I never specifically though about it) given the fact that neutrinos pass through the outer layers of a star more easily than a photon trying to get through those same layers, and certainly faster than the physical shock wave.

So, yeah, It makes sense that a surge of neutrinos emanating from the core of star in the midst of a supernova would get out first before the visible light photons or the shock wave.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: ErosA433
What will happen is that the neutrino detectors around the world will basically observe lots of events in a short period... then astronomers will see it go pop about a minute or so later.

Thanks for giving me a reason to look this up! Today I learned that neutrinos escape from the core of an exploding star before the photons of light do.

I say "learned", but it made sense to me (even though I never specifically though about it) given the fact that neutrinos pass through the outer layers of a star more easily than a photon trying to get through those same layers, and certainly faster than the physical shock wave.

So, yeah, It makes sense that a surge of neutrinos emanating from the core of star in the midst of a supernova would get out first before the visible light photons or the shock wave.

The neutrinos are actually what drive the explosion of the supernova so many neutrinos you get outward pressure.

originally posted by: RazorV66
So what you are saying is the gamma ray burst with reach us at the exact same time we see the star explode?

From what I understand, the gamma rays will be moving a teensy bit faster than the light, so the gamma ray sensors will pick up a burst following very, very shortly by light. Probably not enough time to send out an alert or anything.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: RazorV66
So what you are saying is the gamma ray burst with reach us at the exact same time we see the star explode?

From what I understand, the gamma rays will be moving a teensy bit faster than the light, so the gamma ray sensors will pick up a burst following very, very shortly by light. Probably not enough time to send out an alert or anything.

Gamma Rays are "light" in the context of "speed of light", so they don't travel any faster than any other light.

As Eros and Box of Rain said, what reaches us before the light in a supernova are the neutrinos, not because they travel faster than light, but because when the core collapses, neutrinos can pass right through the outer layers of the collapsing star while the photons can't, so it takes the photons (light) somewhat longer to leave the supernova.

a reply to: E38Driver

The whole follow up is it seems to be a cycle (dimming, possibly the deformation as well).

Thanks for keeping us honest using such a thing called “science” that not only observed this before but predicted that the dimming would end about the the day that it would).

That is why science is cool!

It can predict things based on what is known!

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Looks like they're saying something was in front of it.
Namely, stardust. Apparently, as red supergaints often do, it released some hot gas material from inside which cooled once it reached the outside as dust, blocking some of the visible light.

It looks stable and happy now. Well, as stable as a dying star can look.

Science is rad.