Talk:Betelgeuse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured articleBetelgeuse is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 26, 2012.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 18, 2010Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

the tenth-brightest star in the night sky - incorrect[edit]

Betelgeuse is the 10th brightest star in the sky including the Sun. If we consider the night sky, it is the 9th brightest star, excluding the Sun. So correction needed in the 1st paragraph.

N Sanu / എന്‍ സാനു / एन सानू 07:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The list article (linked in the lead) shows Betelgeuse as the 10th-brightest in the night sky. Other sources may differ, but you'll need to show them. Betelgeuse is also variable over a fairly large range and may be anything from about 5th to 20th brightest at any particular time. Lithopsian (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems strange to me that the article claims a fairly precise ranking given Betelgeuse's variability. Perhaps something less precise would make more sense? TowardsTheLight (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The body of the article discusses that, at extremes, it can be the 6th-brightest or 20th-brightest. We should summarise that in the lead in some way that is concise, not too detailed, but not misleading. It could be argued that the current lead fails on one count by being misleading. Lithopsian (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily brightness watch - BetelBot[edit]

Currently at 156% normal brightness and rising. See the Betelgeuse Status bot on Twitter. Tayste (edits) 20:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 occultation[edit]

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)[reply]

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

FWIW - a related reference[1] may be (or may have been?) helpful I would think atm - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sigismondi, Costantino (9 December 2023). "The occultation of Betelgeuse by Leona: recovering the stellar surface brightness of a red supergiant, with a diffuse telescope, on Dec 12 1:12 UT". The Astronomer's Telegram. Archived from the original on 11 December 2023. Retrieved 11 December 2023.

Supernova in tens of years[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed. It is not even known if Betelgeuse has reached the carbon burning stage. -- Kheider (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
According to some predictions, Betelgeuse will explode in 140000 years, or earlier. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The color of Betelgeuse[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Pronunciation?[edit]

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)[reply]

There are a few pronunciations listed in the nomenclature section. 115.188.140.167 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I say it like the movie Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]