Yes. Because if it’s due to go supernova in the next few decades from our point of view, then it has already gone supernova in its own frame of reference, and the light from it is currently enroute. The star is 600 lightyears away.
Hard to say for certain. We’ve never witnessed the death of a star up close before, and it’s difficult to know exactly how much carbon is left, and the time left depends very strongly on the fraction of carbon left, the exact mass of the star, and even the rotational velocity of the star. There were four models evaluated, and presented in Table 2 of the paper, and if we connect this to Figure 6 we can get a rough estimate of the time remaining. From the lower values in models A and B we are close to only 10 years left, but the largest value in D is closer to almost 100 years left. The model C corresponds to about 30 or 40 years left. Though this interpretation is from “eyeballing” the graphs, not any real calculations.
It’s always from our PoV.
We have no idea and no way of knowing what’s actually happening 600 ly. away, right now.
All our measurements are based on what we can observe from here.
So if the paper is calculating supernova in couple of decades, it means the star actually went supernova 600+ years ago.
I might be absolutely wrong though, I don’t really know anything… I just checked how far away it is… but if it has gone supernova already, then we might have a chance to see it? That would be amazing.
There is no way for us to have any information whatsoever about an object until the light (ie, information) has reached us. For all intents and purposes, from our local reference frame, it hasn’t happened until we observe.it.
Yes. Because if it’s due to go supernova in the next few decades from our point of view, then it has already gone supernova in its own frame of reference, and the light from it is currently enroute. The star is 600 lightyears away.
‘a few tens’ - so approximately 30 years, give or take a decade or two?
Hard to say for certain. We’ve never witnessed the death of a star up close before, and it’s difficult to know exactly how much carbon is left, and the time left depends very strongly on the fraction of carbon left, the exact mass of the star, and even the rotational velocity of the star. There were four models evaluated, and presented in Table 2 of the paper, and if we connect this to Figure 6 we can get a rough estimate of the time remaining. From the lower values in models A and B we are close to only 10 years left, but the largest value in D is closer to almost 100 years left. The model C corresponds to about 30 or 40 years left. Though this interpretation is from “eyeballing” the graphs, not any real calculations.
is it from our own point of view or its point of view? other guy said the opposite lol. idk what to believe
It’s always from our PoV.
We have no idea and no way of knowing what’s actually happening 600 ly. away, right now.
All our measurements are based on what we can observe from here.
So if the paper is calculating supernova in couple of decades, it means the star actually went supernova 600+ years ago.
Even if we did have a satellite in orbit around Beetlejuice, its data would take just as long to reach us as the light from the star itself.
This relatively business is annoying. I suggest we just get rid of the whole thing and go back to the ether.
Astronomy is done from the observer’s point of view.
I might be absolutely wrong though, I don’t really know anything… I just checked how far away it is… but if it has gone supernova already, then we might have a chance to see it? That would be amazing.
There is no way for us to have any information whatsoever about an object until the light (ie, information) has reached us. For all intents and purposes, from our local reference frame, it hasn’t happened until we observe.it.
well TIL
This is awesome, I’ll be waiting eagerly to see it.