What would happen if someone had a telescope and watched Betelgeuse when it goes supernova?
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Would that person go blind?
Neutrino detectors and the abundance of Neutrinos would detect the upcoming visible show about 3 hours before any visible signs, so there would be time to point certain telescopes that could handle the brightness towards it.
I'm curious if an individual with a telescope pointed in that direction would have an unpleasant surprise. Would the scientific community be wise to not announce the massive stellar explosion until after it's visible to avoid potential negative effects from over-eager amateur astronomers.
I realize this is a kind of silly question and it might depend too much on the telescope, but I'm curious.
telescope amateur-observing supernova
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Would that person go blind?
Neutrino detectors and the abundance of Neutrinos would detect the upcoming visible show about 3 hours before any visible signs, so there would be time to point certain telescopes that could handle the brightness towards it.
I'm curious if an individual with a telescope pointed in that direction would have an unpleasant surprise. Would the scientific community be wise to not announce the massive stellar explosion until after it's visible to avoid potential negative effects from over-eager amateur astronomers.
I realize this is a kind of silly question and it might depend too much on the telescope, but I'm curious.
telescope amateur-observing supernova
1
"When it goes ..." - It's 642.5 light years away, so it would need to have already gone supernova over 550 years ago ... But we know what you meant, and Mark's answer is OK, as is the other.
– Rob
5 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Would that person go blind?
Neutrino detectors and the abundance of Neutrinos would detect the upcoming visible show about 3 hours before any visible signs, so there would be time to point certain telescopes that could handle the brightness towards it.
I'm curious if an individual with a telescope pointed in that direction would have an unpleasant surprise. Would the scientific community be wise to not announce the massive stellar explosion until after it's visible to avoid potential negative effects from over-eager amateur astronomers.
I realize this is a kind of silly question and it might depend too much on the telescope, but I'm curious.
telescope amateur-observing supernova
Would that person go blind?
Neutrino detectors and the abundance of Neutrinos would detect the upcoming visible show about 3 hours before any visible signs, so there would be time to point certain telescopes that could handle the brightness towards it.
I'm curious if an individual with a telescope pointed in that direction would have an unpleasant surprise. Would the scientific community be wise to not announce the massive stellar explosion until after it's visible to avoid potential negative effects from over-eager amateur astronomers.
I realize this is a kind of silly question and it might depend too much on the telescope, but I'm curious.
telescope amateur-observing supernova
telescope amateur-observing supernova
asked 7 hours ago
userLTK
15.5k11941
15.5k11941
1
"When it goes ..." - It's 642.5 light years away, so it would need to have already gone supernova over 550 years ago ... But we know what you meant, and Mark's answer is OK, as is the other.
– Rob
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1
"When it goes ..." - It's 642.5 light years away, so it would need to have already gone supernova over 550 years ago ... But we know what you meant, and Mark's answer is OK, as is the other.
– Rob
5 hours ago
1
1
"When it goes ..." - It's 642.5 light years away, so it would need to have already gone supernova over 550 years ago ... But we know what you meant, and Mark's answer is OK, as is the other.
– Rob
5 hours ago
"When it goes ..." - It's 642.5 light years away, so it would need to have already gone supernova over 550 years ago ... But we know what you meant, and Mark's answer is OK, as is the other.
– Rob
5 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
No, it would not be a problem. Supernovae are not at all like flashbulbs -- they brighten over a period of many days and dim again even more slowly. Here are a number of different lightcurves taken from Wikipedia:
The rise is fast on an astronomical scale -- several orders of magnitude over a period of roughly ten days -- but very slow on a human scale. An amateur looking at it would not notice any significant change in brightness, but if the same person came back a few hours later or the next night, the change would be very evident.
As far as we can tell, the reason is that the light at peak brightness is caused by emissions from material blown off by the explosion. For example, in Type 1a SNe, most of the light if from the radioactive decay of the //huge// mass of ejected nickel-56 (half life 6 days).
The Wikipedia article on supernovae is quite good and covers this all in more detail.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Unless you observe it through a 5–10 meter class telescope during peak brightness, you'll be fine.
Betelgeuse will explode as a type II supernova, the typical brightness of which is around $M sim -17$. With a distance of $dsimeq200,mathrm{pc}$, its distance modulus is
$$
mu = 5log(d/mathrm{pc}) - 5 simeq 6.5,
$$
so its apparent magnitude will be
$$
m = M + mu simeq -10.5.
$$
The Sun has an apparent magnitude of $m_odot = -26.7$, i.e. it is $Delta m = 16.2$ magnitudes brighter. In other words, Betelgeuse will be
$$
f = 10^{Delta m/2.5} simeq 3times10^6
$$
times dimmer than the Sun. That means that if you observe Betelgeuse through a telescope with an area three million times larger than your pupil, it will look as bright as the Sun. Taking 6 mm for the diameter of the pupil, that means a telescope of roughly 10.5 meters. Such large telescopes exist, but these are not made for looking through with your naked eye.
Based on evolutionary models of Betelgeuse, Dolan et al. (2016) estimate an apparent magnitude of $m=-12.4$. This would mean that you'd need a 4.5 meter telescope, which still wouldn't be one meant for your naked eye.
Moreover, as Mark writes in his answer, supernovae don't increase to their peak brightness in matters of seconds, but rather in matters days (roughly half a mag per day), so there is no real risk.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Brightness varies inversely with the square of the distance. Betelgeuse is about 642.5 light years away and has an apparent magnitude of 0.42. My grasp of apparent magnitude concepts is a bit wobbly, but I believe if it grew a million times as bright, it might have an apparent magnitude of -14.5 or so, which is a lot more like the brightness of the moon than the sun.
Given the great distance, the decrease in brightness due to distance, and the countless amounts of dust & gas between earth and Betelgeuse, I think you'd probably be fine. You might be dazzled by its brightness -- a bit like looking at a light bulb, I imagine -- but I doubt it would cause any physical harm.
EDIT: I hope a real astronomer sounds off here. I'm not sure what kind of supernova we might expect from Betelgeuse, but apparently supernovas (supernovae?) can achieve a theoretical brightness equal to 5 trillion suns!
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
No, it would not be a problem. Supernovae are not at all like flashbulbs -- they brighten over a period of many days and dim again even more slowly. Here are a number of different lightcurves taken from Wikipedia:
The rise is fast on an astronomical scale -- several orders of magnitude over a period of roughly ten days -- but very slow on a human scale. An amateur looking at it would not notice any significant change in brightness, but if the same person came back a few hours later or the next night, the change would be very evident.
As far as we can tell, the reason is that the light at peak brightness is caused by emissions from material blown off by the explosion. For example, in Type 1a SNe, most of the light if from the radioactive decay of the //huge// mass of ejected nickel-56 (half life 6 days).
The Wikipedia article on supernovae is quite good and covers this all in more detail.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
No, it would not be a problem. Supernovae are not at all like flashbulbs -- they brighten over a period of many days and dim again even more slowly. Here are a number of different lightcurves taken from Wikipedia:
The rise is fast on an astronomical scale -- several orders of magnitude over a period of roughly ten days -- but very slow on a human scale. An amateur looking at it would not notice any significant change in brightness, but if the same person came back a few hours later or the next night, the change would be very evident.
As far as we can tell, the reason is that the light at peak brightness is caused by emissions from material blown off by the explosion. For example, in Type 1a SNe, most of the light if from the radioactive decay of the //huge// mass of ejected nickel-56 (half life 6 days).
The Wikipedia article on supernovae is quite good and covers this all in more detail.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
No, it would not be a problem. Supernovae are not at all like flashbulbs -- they brighten over a period of many days and dim again even more slowly. Here are a number of different lightcurves taken from Wikipedia:
The rise is fast on an astronomical scale -- several orders of magnitude over a period of roughly ten days -- but very slow on a human scale. An amateur looking at it would not notice any significant change in brightness, but if the same person came back a few hours later or the next night, the change would be very evident.
As far as we can tell, the reason is that the light at peak brightness is caused by emissions from material blown off by the explosion. For example, in Type 1a SNe, most of the light if from the radioactive decay of the //huge// mass of ejected nickel-56 (half life 6 days).
The Wikipedia article on supernovae is quite good and covers this all in more detail.
No, it would not be a problem. Supernovae are not at all like flashbulbs -- they brighten over a period of many days and dim again even more slowly. Here are a number of different lightcurves taken from Wikipedia:
The rise is fast on an astronomical scale -- several orders of magnitude over a period of roughly ten days -- but very slow on a human scale. An amateur looking at it would not notice any significant change in brightness, but if the same person came back a few hours later or the next night, the change would be very evident.
As far as we can tell, the reason is that the light at peak brightness is caused by emissions from material blown off by the explosion. For example, in Type 1a SNe, most of the light if from the radioactive decay of the //huge// mass of ejected nickel-56 (half life 6 days).
The Wikipedia article on supernovae is quite good and covers this all in more detail.
answered 6 hours ago
Mark Olson
4,158717
4,158717
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Unless you observe it through a 5–10 meter class telescope during peak brightness, you'll be fine.
Betelgeuse will explode as a type II supernova, the typical brightness of which is around $M sim -17$. With a distance of $dsimeq200,mathrm{pc}$, its distance modulus is
$$
mu = 5log(d/mathrm{pc}) - 5 simeq 6.5,
$$
so its apparent magnitude will be
$$
m = M + mu simeq -10.5.
$$
The Sun has an apparent magnitude of $m_odot = -26.7$, i.e. it is $Delta m = 16.2$ magnitudes brighter. In other words, Betelgeuse will be
$$
f = 10^{Delta m/2.5} simeq 3times10^6
$$
times dimmer than the Sun. That means that if you observe Betelgeuse through a telescope with an area three million times larger than your pupil, it will look as bright as the Sun. Taking 6 mm for the diameter of the pupil, that means a telescope of roughly 10.5 meters. Such large telescopes exist, but these are not made for looking through with your naked eye.
Based on evolutionary models of Betelgeuse, Dolan et al. (2016) estimate an apparent magnitude of $m=-12.4$. This would mean that you'd need a 4.5 meter telescope, which still wouldn't be one meant for your naked eye.
Moreover, as Mark writes in his answer, supernovae don't increase to their peak brightness in matters of seconds, but rather in matters days (roughly half a mag per day), so there is no real risk.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Unless you observe it through a 5–10 meter class telescope during peak brightness, you'll be fine.
Betelgeuse will explode as a type II supernova, the typical brightness of which is around $M sim -17$. With a distance of $dsimeq200,mathrm{pc}$, its distance modulus is
$$
mu = 5log(d/mathrm{pc}) - 5 simeq 6.5,
$$
so its apparent magnitude will be
$$
m = M + mu simeq -10.5.
$$
The Sun has an apparent magnitude of $m_odot = -26.7$, i.e. it is $Delta m = 16.2$ magnitudes brighter. In other words, Betelgeuse will be
$$
f = 10^{Delta m/2.5} simeq 3times10^6
$$
times dimmer than the Sun. That means that if you observe Betelgeuse through a telescope with an area three million times larger than your pupil, it will look as bright as the Sun. Taking 6 mm for the diameter of the pupil, that means a telescope of roughly 10.5 meters. Such large telescopes exist, but these are not made for looking through with your naked eye.
Based on evolutionary models of Betelgeuse, Dolan et al. (2016) estimate an apparent magnitude of $m=-12.4$. This would mean that you'd need a 4.5 meter telescope, which still wouldn't be one meant for your naked eye.
Moreover, as Mark writes in his answer, supernovae don't increase to their peak brightness in matters of seconds, but rather in matters days (roughly half a mag per day), so there is no real risk.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Unless you observe it through a 5–10 meter class telescope during peak brightness, you'll be fine.
Betelgeuse will explode as a type II supernova, the typical brightness of which is around $M sim -17$. With a distance of $dsimeq200,mathrm{pc}$, its distance modulus is
$$
mu = 5log(d/mathrm{pc}) - 5 simeq 6.5,
$$
so its apparent magnitude will be
$$
m = M + mu simeq -10.5.
$$
The Sun has an apparent magnitude of $m_odot = -26.7$, i.e. it is $Delta m = 16.2$ magnitudes brighter. In other words, Betelgeuse will be
$$
f = 10^{Delta m/2.5} simeq 3times10^6
$$
times dimmer than the Sun. That means that if you observe Betelgeuse through a telescope with an area three million times larger than your pupil, it will look as bright as the Sun. Taking 6 mm for the diameter of the pupil, that means a telescope of roughly 10.5 meters. Such large telescopes exist, but these are not made for looking through with your naked eye.
Based on evolutionary models of Betelgeuse, Dolan et al. (2016) estimate an apparent magnitude of $m=-12.4$. This would mean that you'd need a 4.5 meter telescope, which still wouldn't be one meant for your naked eye.
Moreover, as Mark writes in his answer, supernovae don't increase to their peak brightness in matters of seconds, but rather in matters days (roughly half a mag per day), so there is no real risk.
Unless you observe it through a 5–10 meter class telescope during peak brightness, you'll be fine.
Betelgeuse will explode as a type II supernova, the typical brightness of which is around $M sim -17$. With a distance of $dsimeq200,mathrm{pc}$, its distance modulus is
$$
mu = 5log(d/mathrm{pc}) - 5 simeq 6.5,
$$
so its apparent magnitude will be
$$
m = M + mu simeq -10.5.
$$
The Sun has an apparent magnitude of $m_odot = -26.7$, i.e. it is $Delta m = 16.2$ magnitudes brighter. In other words, Betelgeuse will be
$$
f = 10^{Delta m/2.5} simeq 3times10^6
$$
times dimmer than the Sun. That means that if you observe Betelgeuse through a telescope with an area three million times larger than your pupil, it will look as bright as the Sun. Taking 6 mm for the diameter of the pupil, that means a telescope of roughly 10.5 meters. Such large telescopes exist, but these are not made for looking through with your naked eye.
Based on evolutionary models of Betelgeuse, Dolan et al. (2016) estimate an apparent magnitude of $m=-12.4$. This would mean that you'd need a 4.5 meter telescope, which still wouldn't be one meant for your naked eye.
Moreover, as Mark writes in his answer, supernovae don't increase to their peak brightness in matters of seconds, but rather in matters days (roughly half a mag per day), so there is no real risk.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
pela
16.8k3660
16.8k3660
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Brightness varies inversely with the square of the distance. Betelgeuse is about 642.5 light years away and has an apparent magnitude of 0.42. My grasp of apparent magnitude concepts is a bit wobbly, but I believe if it grew a million times as bright, it might have an apparent magnitude of -14.5 or so, which is a lot more like the brightness of the moon than the sun.
Given the great distance, the decrease in brightness due to distance, and the countless amounts of dust & gas between earth and Betelgeuse, I think you'd probably be fine. You might be dazzled by its brightness -- a bit like looking at a light bulb, I imagine -- but I doubt it would cause any physical harm.
EDIT: I hope a real astronomer sounds off here. I'm not sure what kind of supernova we might expect from Betelgeuse, but apparently supernovas (supernovae?) can achieve a theoretical brightness equal to 5 trillion suns!
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Brightness varies inversely with the square of the distance. Betelgeuse is about 642.5 light years away and has an apparent magnitude of 0.42. My grasp of apparent magnitude concepts is a bit wobbly, but I believe if it grew a million times as bright, it might have an apparent magnitude of -14.5 or so, which is a lot more like the brightness of the moon than the sun.
Given the great distance, the decrease in brightness due to distance, and the countless amounts of dust & gas between earth and Betelgeuse, I think you'd probably be fine. You might be dazzled by its brightness -- a bit like looking at a light bulb, I imagine -- but I doubt it would cause any physical harm.
EDIT: I hope a real astronomer sounds off here. I'm not sure what kind of supernova we might expect from Betelgeuse, but apparently supernovas (supernovae?) can achieve a theoretical brightness equal to 5 trillion suns!
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Brightness varies inversely with the square of the distance. Betelgeuse is about 642.5 light years away and has an apparent magnitude of 0.42. My grasp of apparent magnitude concepts is a bit wobbly, but I believe if it grew a million times as bright, it might have an apparent magnitude of -14.5 or so, which is a lot more like the brightness of the moon than the sun.
Given the great distance, the decrease in brightness due to distance, and the countless amounts of dust & gas between earth and Betelgeuse, I think you'd probably be fine. You might be dazzled by its brightness -- a bit like looking at a light bulb, I imagine -- but I doubt it would cause any physical harm.
EDIT: I hope a real astronomer sounds off here. I'm not sure what kind of supernova we might expect from Betelgeuse, but apparently supernovas (supernovae?) can achieve a theoretical brightness equal to 5 trillion suns!
Brightness varies inversely with the square of the distance. Betelgeuse is about 642.5 light years away and has an apparent magnitude of 0.42. My grasp of apparent magnitude concepts is a bit wobbly, but I believe if it grew a million times as bright, it might have an apparent magnitude of -14.5 or so, which is a lot more like the brightness of the moon than the sun.
Given the great distance, the decrease in brightness due to distance, and the countless amounts of dust & gas between earth and Betelgeuse, I think you'd probably be fine. You might be dazzled by its brightness -- a bit like looking at a light bulb, I imagine -- but I doubt it would cause any physical harm.
EDIT: I hope a real astronomer sounds off here. I'm not sure what kind of supernova we might expect from Betelgeuse, but apparently supernovas (supernovae?) can achieve a theoretical brightness equal to 5 trillion suns!
answered 6 hours ago
S. Imp
1185
1185
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Astronomy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f28677%2fwhat-would-happen-if-someone-had-a-telescope-and-watched-betelgeuse-when-it-goes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
"When it goes ..." - It's 642.5 light years away, so it would need to have already gone supernova over 550 years ago ... But we know what you meant, and Mark's answer is OK, as is the other.
– Rob
5 hours ago