This has been known about for quite a while now though. Beteguese could have already gone Supernova and we wouldn't even know about it...Not sure if it'd really appear as a second sun, although I imagine they'd be some pretty funky things happening up in the magnetosphere.

Also, last estimate I heard is that it could go tomorrow or in 10,000 years, so don't hold your breath.

Deleted User 108965

1096 Posts

January 22 2011 04:32 GMT

#122

im not saying it will happen, but how freakin cool would that be?

Simberto

Germany11312 Posts

January 22 2011 04:58 GMT

#123

On January 22 2011 12:29 neobowman wrote:
I'm surprised they can predict a star's lifetime to within a period of years. I'd imagine they'd have to narrow it down to centuaries at the most accurate.

I am pretty sure they can`t.

I bet that dialog between the scientist and the journalist guy went something like this.

S"So, based on our current models, we estimate that Betelgeuse could go supernova soon, speaking in astronomic timeframes."

J"What does that mean?"

S"Some time between now, and in a million years" (I obviously don´t know the exact timeframes since i am no astronomer.

J (smelling blood)"So it could go of in 2012?"

S"Well...yes, theoretically, but that is pretty improbable"

Journalist proceeds to write an article about how Betelgeuse will probably go Supernova in 2012 and be a second sun, and cover us in Gold and Uranium.

As to all that talking about time, and stuff that happened a long time ago, far far away, and so on: If you accept the relativistic idea that it is impossible for information to travel faster than light, it is most simple to assume that, while something technically happened a long time ago, it only becomes relevant once its event sphere, which propagates with the speed of light, reaches us, since before that time, it can not affect us. So until someone figures out some form of FTL communications, and we stay on earth stationary, it is much simpler to assume that stuff happens the moment we are able to watch it. That spares just a lot of confusion. Sure, you could always calculate the travel time of light, and try to feel smart by saying "Oh, yeah, the whateverthingy at betelgeuse of 14xx" "Hö, never heard of it" "Well how could you, we only just saw it yesterday" But this achieves nothing but produce confusion.

If you had observatories spread out over some lightyears, you would need to standardize the data regarding the time the light was send out, instead of when it arrives, but until then, the only reason to do so is to be a smartass. But having observatories spread out over several lightyears would probably produce a lot of other problems, too, so no need to worry until someone actually does that.

wherebugsgo

Japan10647 Posts

January 22 2011 05:08 GMT

#124

Lol the article is so misleading.

I read it earlier (and the picture is pretty misleading too)

If Betelgeuse goes supernova, we'll see something in the sky that's a bit brighter than the moon. We'll probably see it during the day too, but it's not gonna be a second sun by any means.

mixXanber

United States96 Posts

January 22 2011 05:11 GMT

#125

I thought the light from the star will take Betelgeuse 600 years to get here, so does that mean we will get a second sun in 600 years? Or am I an idiot and reading something wrong.

micronesia

United States24565 Posts

January 22 2011 05:13 GMT

#126

On January 22 2011 14:11 mixXanber wrote:
I thought the light from the star will take Betelgeuse 600 years to get here, so does that mean we will get a second sun in 600 years? Or am I an idiot and reading something wrong.

It does take the light a long time to get here but we don't know when the supernova will actually occur. If it occurred 599 years ago then we wouldn't have any way of knowing since that's 1 year less than the quote of 600 years for the time it takes light to reach Earth. In that example, in one year's time we will witness the change in the sky.

MassHysteria

United States3678 Posts

January 22 2011 06:03 GMT

#127

The last link on the OP explains everything clearer. The article quoted in the OP is very misleading...

SwiftSpear

Canada355 Posts

January 22 2011 09:22 GMT

#128

Ya, "second sun" is total BS. The experts are saying it will be somewhere from slightly dimmer than the full moon to slightly brighter. That's ASTONISHINGLY bright for a star, but it's VERY far from daylight still.

mikado

Australia407 Posts

January 22 2011 12:26 GMT

#129

^ Ironic.

User was warned for this post

BLINKOFF

United States79 Posts

January 22 2011 19:37 GMT

#130

At first I thought we were actually getting another sun, but then I read the thread and was like :/

Still, great read

Retgery

Canada1229 Posts

January 22 2011 19:46 GMT

#131

So basically we might get to see a Super Nova, in our lifetime, with no negative impacts on our planet. I'm very excited for this. Is betelgeuse in the range to create a black hole, I always thought stars required a certian amuont of mass to form a black hole.

Rotodyne

United States2263 Posts

January 22 2011 19:48 GMT

#132

Upon reading this article I had a feeling about how shoddily written and seemed useless. I was glad to quickly see Empyrean's post.

Kuzmorgo

Hungary1058 Posts

January 22 2011 19:55 GMT

#133

Meh, It would be nice to see a supernova, just because it's so rare, and hard to observe. But I'm afraid we are not going to be so lucky. I don't know how this 2012 thing came up, I wouldn't be surprised if the jurnalists made that number up. Or forced the scientist to agree on the possibility of this happening in 2 years. I am no physicist, so I don't exactly know everything about supernovas, but its hard to imagine that given all the speculative theorems surrounding it (its hard to study something that can be observed rarely, and is far far away

), I dont think that a physicist would make such precise assumptions so easily...

NearPerfection

232 Posts

January 22 2011 19:56 GMT

#134

Finally the a scientific probability of something interesting happening.

~ava

Canada378 Posts

January 22 2011 20:07 GMT

#135

In the last week I've read articles about how the zodiac 'needs a 13th sign' and how we will get a supernova in 2012. I think both were the result of the malicious reinterpretation of a respected scientist's words in order to sensationalize and sell newspapers. The scientist actually said this supernova could happen anytime in the next million years. Referring to the article about the zodiac, the astronomer in that interview only pointed out that the constellations have shifted in the last 3000+ years because of precession.

Its really disappointing to see these journalists waste scientists' time by conducting the interview and then leaving them with increased phone calls and a PR mess to clean up. Many scientists are naive and are just trying to educate anybody that is curious. I feel that journalists are just taking advantage of this and are failing their mandate to ALSO educate people about real news.

LanTAs

United States1091 Posts

January 22 2011 20:40 GMT

#136

hey man this article is pretty cool, will be interesting if we can see a second sun for a while. i wonder what will happen for two weeks!

vlovo

Netherlands18 Posts

January 22 2011 20:49 GMT

#137

well i think its about time

3clipse

Canada2555 Posts

January 22 2011 21:08 GMT

#138

It would be mindblowingly cool if this actually occurs within our lifetimes. *fingers crossed*

Sceptor87

Canada266 Posts

January 22 2011 23:16 GMT

#139

Good articles. Except for the sensationalist tripe ones that blow it out of proportion and say doomsday is upon us. Run for the hills. Fuck your wives for the last time.

It sure as hell won't turn day to night, but a star that massive really could be easily visible in the daytime. And who knows what it could mean in billions of years. This single star alone going supernova could cement life on other planets. It will create other stars for the night sky. It's not anything to fear. Now if it was our star, Sol, on the other hand... yeah. But we'd already be dead anyways.

But in other news, I hate the media. Skewing the words like that is just pathetic.