This Wikipedia article about Scholz's Star doesn't make sense

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the visibility of Scholz's Star as described in a Wikipedia article, particularly in relation to its apparent magnitude and the implications for prehistoric visibility. Participants explore the discrepancies between the Wikipedia article and a Medium article, questioning the accuracy of claims regarding naked-eye visibility and the context of historical observation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the Wikipedia article states Scholz's Star would have had an apparent magnitude of about 11.4, which is not visible to the naked eye, suggesting a misunderstanding of visibility claims.
  • Another participant agrees that the Wikipedia article does not claim naked-eye visibility, but rather indicates where the star would have been located in the sky with proper equipment.
  • A different participant points out that the Medium article implies naked-eye visibility, creating confusion about the visibility of the star.
  • One participant mentions the uncertainty in the current distance to Scholz's Star and its brightness, indicating that for it to be visible, it would need to be significantly closer.
  • Another participant critiques the lead picture in the Medium article as potentially misleading and irrelevant to the content, suggesting editorial inaccuracies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the interpretation of visibility claims between the Wikipedia and Medium articles. There is no consensus on the accuracy of the Medium article's implications about naked-eye visibility.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight uncertainties related to the distance and brightness of Scholz's Star, which affect visibility claims. There is also mention of potential editorial errors in the Medium article that may contribute to confusion.

swampwiz
Messages
567
Reaction score
83
TL;DR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholz%27s_Star
I was reading this article @ Medium, which shows our Neanderthal (3K or so times removed) cousin looking at Scholz's Star:



And then the Wikipedia article about it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholz's_Star

which says:

At closest approach the system would have had an apparent magnitude of about 11.4, and would have been best viewed from high latitudes in the northern hemisphere.

Prehistoric folks most certainly did NOT have access to telescopes, and heck, I couldn't even see a magnitude 10 star with my 12X binoculars under perfect dark-sky conditions.

What am I missing here?
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
As far as I can tell, the Wiki article isn't saying anything about it actually being naked-eye visible to anyone at the time, but just refers to where in the sky it would have been found if you had the proper equipment to do so.
 
Janus said:
As far as I can tell, the Wiki article isn't saying anything about it actually being naked-eye visible to anyone at the time, but just refers to where in the sky it would have been found if you had the proper equipment to do so.

It sure looks like the Medium article says it could have been seen by the unaided eye.
 
I can't see the Medium article, but Ethan Siegal has made mistakes in the past. acknowledged them, but has not corrected the article. I agree with Janus on the Wikipedia article.

There is kind of a 20-30% uncertainty on (present) distance, with a corresponding uncertainty on brightness, but to be visible, it would need to be really, really close. Like a light-month.
 
The article itself says nothing about it. The lead picture really has nothing to do with the article and was likely added by some editor to "punch up" the piece and didn't know that it was inaccurate.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: swampwiz