Dying Star Betelgeuse Spews Fiery Nebula 574
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."
How soon is soon? (Score:3)
Can we expect Betelgeuse to go supernova in our lifetimes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How soon is soon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's rephrase the question then: Can we expect to observe Betelgeuse going supernove in our lifetimes?
Re:How soon is soon? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Actuarian (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The answer is: no one (yet) knows. The light from the now-supernova of Betelgeuse might get to Earth just as I'm typing this or anytime in the next million years.
Re:How soon is soon? (Score:4, Funny)
"Can we expect to observe Betelgeuse going supernove in our lifetimes?"
Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse!
About now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How soon is soon? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Because material travels faster than light??
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
a massive fuckton of light, right?
Is that the technical term?
Re: (Score:1)
a massive fuckton of light, right?
Is that the technical term?
No. The technical term is an Imperial Fuckton.
Re: (Score:2)
a massive fuckton of light, right?
Is that the technical term?
No. The technical term is an Imperial Fuckton.
If NASA would have just been using Metric Fucktons, we'd have some Astronauts still with us today.
Re: (Score:2)
Massive fucktons are heavy, not light.
Re: (Score:3)
Photons might not have rest mass but they have mass.
Massive fucktons are massive not heavy. Enough high energy photons equal a massive fuckton.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
When will then be now?
Re:How soon is soon? (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Time is an illusion. Especially lunch time.
Re: (Score:2)
Time is an illusion. Lunch time doubly so.
FTFY
Re: (Score:1)
Time is an illusion. Especially lunch time.
Time is a fun house mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what century is this?
Damn it! It's not the fall of the second American Empire but the first. Gonna totally have to re-write my term paper now!
Re:How soon is soon? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Someone please mod parent up some more! Interesting, insightful, AND informative (informative to most here anyway, considering some of the other comments).
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't such thing as a universe time on which events can be noted to have happened.
What really baked my noodle was discovering that theoretically in certain cases, events can be seen occurring in a different order depending on one's viewpoint. And that (in the spirit of Relativity) both these orders are "correct", or rather, there is no definitive order more "correct" than the other.
This doesn't create problems with causality because it can (apparently) only happen in cases where the two events are separated by sufficient distance that neither could possibly have *caused* the other (sin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bah, 640 light years out to be enough for anybody. :-P
And, slightly more on topic, I love some of the verb tenses that arise from contemplating such distances ... "In the future, we will know if the star has already died sometime between 640 years ago and now". It really does hurt my head.
Re: (Score:2)
Send your head back to the designer for refund or repair.
I believe that there are many organisations purporting to represent the designer, and each one of them is potentially liable for their designer's error(s), if they pass on the designs as being fit for use.
If you don'
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like the Vogons decided to reroute that hyperspace bypass! Phew!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm amazed that humans are able to see extra-terrestrial events with such detail.
What's even crazier is that we know more about outer space than we do about our oceans.
Oh, and, maybe...first post?
I truly hate this statement. We DO NOT understand outer space more than our oceans.
We don't understand outer space enough to ask the proper questions. People are making assumptions that planets outside of our solar system are composed of 118 elements, and that is all. (Just another hunk of rock/gas)... This is a dumb assumption to make.
Our oceans are finite, so there are a finite number of questions to ask. Space, to our understanding, is infinite. Therefore, we will never understand outer space as well as
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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 ver
Re: (Score:1)
That doesn't mean that unobservable object/thing/essence/whatever doesn't exist, but it makes no scientific sense to talk about it.
Really? It would appear that a lot of astrophysicist should be told this then cause they seem to have no problem talking about shit we've never observed like its fact.
When someone shows me the video of the big bang, and proof that they were there when it happened, I believe it, until then its just someones imaginary friend. Anything you speculator on without direct observation is pure speculation. They seem to forget that any number of things may have occurred before our observations started that could c
Re: (Score:3)
Astrophysics has as tightly constructed empirical investigations as any laboratory science. See for example, http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item2326793/ [cambridge.org]
That you find astrophysics unpersuasive is itself unpersuasive.
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon dating is calibrated against tree ring and ice layer dates at the short end and other dating methods at the long end.
None of that will convince a young earth creationist, but sane skeptics are pretty much convinced. Changes in Carbon-14 would have to correspond to changes in other longer lived radioisotopes.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop right there... You're doing a Ken Ham, and I'd like you to read this [scienceblogs.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
People are making assumptions that planets outside of our solar system are composed of 118 elements, and that is all. (Just another hunk of rock/gas)... This is a dumb assumption to make.
We've done spectroscopy on extrasolar planets and found that they have lines that match up with known elements and molecules ( http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702507 [arxiv.org] for example, but there's been quite a few more publications since then on the subject). Not a dumb assumption at all.
In fact, just about all the work that has been done on the spectra of objects outside of our immediate neighborhood lines up very, very nicely with the assumption that it's all made of the same stuff. Outside of the more extreme
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
What's even crazier is that we know more about outer space than we do about our oceans.
How is knowledge quantified here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's even crazier is that we know more about outer space than we do about our oceans.
Wrong. We THINK we know more about space than our own oceans.
The reality of it is, almost everything we think we know about space is highly speculative theory based on very bad observations, and we regularly find out that our theories are not only wrong, but were so far from right that its mind blowing that anyone came up with them in the first place.
Most of our space knowledge, ESPECIALLY about how stars work is based entirely on someones imagination in inventing some formulas that appear to match reality
Re: (Score:2)
You have a bit of a point, but be very careful claiming that we found anything that "completely proves every accepted theory of live[sic] wrong, overnight" -- for there have been no such discoveries. For your statement to be true, the life would need to be truly extraordinary -- not using DNA and/or RNA, not using common energetic cycles, etc. I'm all ears to citations as to the contrary, but so far you're just way ahead of yourself. You have good intentions, but you know, hell is paved with those.
Re: (Score:2)
That life as we know it is carbon based and needs water and oxygen is far more than just "theory". So far, fact fits theory. Even extremophiles are carbon based. When and if the facts prove theory wrong, the theory is modified or discarded.
Science is always changing. That's how it works. If science didn't work, engineering wouldn't work and that computer you're typing on wouldn't exist.
Re: (Score:1)
Unless you are claiming that we do not understand the basic nature of 80% to 90% of the matter in the ocean, that is a bald-faced lie.
I've got mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
This was the basis of one of Fred Hoyle's many novels based on the science of the time. (He was an astrophysicist and used fiction as a means of exploring the implications of the science.) In short, his theory was that the supernova would cause such severe global change that it would essentially end civilization and borderline-end humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Today is Fred Hoyle's birthday, it turns out.
http://www.todayinsci.com/6/6_24.htm [todayinsci.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
betelgeuse is in orion's armpit, so it's only going to blow his arm off
luckily for orion the star that's going to blow isn't the one at the tip of his dick:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Orion_constelation_PP3_map_PL.jpg [wikimedia.org]
oh wait... M42 already IS a nebula. he's already blown his interstellar load
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/nebulae/m42.html [atlasoftheuniverse.com]
cosmic spooge
apparently orion gets too easily sexually excited when he's hunting
wait, i'm sorry, it's not his dick, it's his SWORD
http://upload.wi [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 cas
Old news (Score:5, Funny)
What's wrong with Slashdot editing these days? This happened 640 years ago. And you're only posting now?
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Old news (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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 [wikipedia.org] in 2013 should finally resolve most of the remaining uncertainty.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty impressive, but Deneb is estimated to be two to three times as far away as Betelgeuse, and the margin of error in that estimate is a smaller percentage of the total distance (just over 1/3 rather than just under 1/2). Still a good example, though. Thanks!
What? (Score:5, Funny)
The ESO astronomers are made of silica and alumina dust?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The astronomers are the indirect object, putting the 'comprised of' descriptor onto the direct object, which is the Nebula.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct.
Now, as for "comprised of"...
(activates light saber)
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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 o
Re: (Score:2)
All yaall grammarians can kiss my pasty white ass. Hold the tongue.
I'm telling off this whole inbread tree of pendantic morons with one post.
Cousin post grammarians can kiss my dogs furry black ass. You better pet him first or he will bite you.
Re: (Score:2)
The astronomers are the indirect object, putting the 'comprised of' descriptor onto the direct object, which is the Nebula.
"Comprised of" is always wrong. As a general rule, you can use comprise where you use contain, and in the same way. "Contained of" should jar anyone's language ear.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes! That should be obvious.
Re: (Score:1)
The ESO astronomers are made of silica and alumina dust?
Anthony Weiner imaged himself, too.
Re: (Score:2)
The ESO astronomers are made of silica and alumina dust?
Har har. They should have known without even looking that it's made of beetle juice.
Bioexorcist (Score:2)
Worried (Score:1)
Re:Worried (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
That is only for Hitchhikers. Hopefully most of them have pearl sensitive sunglasses so when they get vaporized they will have a relaxed last few minutes towards it... In the dark...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, I got something like that and it goes dark everytime I need to look at Perl code. So I figured they are Perl Sensitive Sunglasses.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all that much - it was already basically wiped out by the Great Collapsing Hrung Disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
It has already been destroyed, in Sidereal year 03758. Did you not read the book at all? A collapsing Hrung destroyed it, hence he never learned to pronounce his name in his native tongue and his father died of shame soon after.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Great_Collapsing_Hrung_Disaster_of_Galactic_Sidereal_Year_03758 [wikia.com]
Poor Mr. Prefect (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, since the collapsing hrung destroyed it long before the supernovea will. His planet is already destroyed, the supernova won't do anything to whats left that matters to Ford, especially if he's stuck in another reality again.
Orion (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Betelgeuse...what's in a name (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
We can always bring it back: (Score:1)
And OT: (Score:3)
Obligatory Hitchhiker's comment: (Score:2)
It's a good thing Ford Prefect left home.
Re: (Score:3)
Um, it's 640 light years away...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the AC has an extra-laggy connection.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that means they won't know we know what they know until 640 years from now.
Unless they know what the speed of light is, then they know we know what they know now.
Just knowing the speed of light means it's not a limit to your knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
Congrats, the Universe is much smaller than you think it is.
That's a really rare condition...
Re: (Score:2)
Space is big. REALLY big. I mean, you can't imagine how amazingly big it is (or how microscopically insignifigant we are). Asimov wrote "pebble in the sky", he should have named it "dust mote in the sky". Niven and Pournelle were closer with "The mote in God''s eye", as far as sci fi titles were concerned, but that's still far bigger than the reality of a star (let alone a planet) compared to the universe.
Re: (Score:1)
The ESO instrument is the Very Large Telescope (VLT). The VLA (Very Large Array) is a radio telescope in New Mexico.
The entire second page is Score 0 comments, and this was the only one that wasn't spam. Replying just so that it's not lost amid the noise.