The most accurate mass for Rigel is currently cited as 21 solar masses, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3. This figure is supported by Wikipedia, which references research papers by Przybilla et al. from 2005 and 2010. Various other sources report different masses, ranging from 17 to 24 solar masses, but lack the validation and citation that Wikipedia provides. For precise calculations, especially in contexts like astrophysical modeling or character statistics in battle simulations, using the 21 solar mass figure is recommended.
PREREQUISITESAstronomers, astrophysicists, and anyone involved in scientific calculations requiring accurate stellar mass data, particularly in contexts such as astrophysical modeling or character statistics in gaming scenarios.
Is there a significant spread of age in the various sources you mention? Is there a measure of consistency in the most recent?darkness626 said:Summary: I need an accurate source for Rigel's mass.
I see so many different sources using different masses for Rigel. The most common of the bunch seem to be 17-18 solar masses. There are also a couple that give it 24 Sol masses. One astronomy book even cited it as 23, and another at 20. I cannot stand this discrepancy and would like to know what would be considered the "most accurate" mass for Rigel.
I am doing a relatively important calculation that requires the mass of Rigel. Using the wrong number will change the final result by a fair amount. Much more than a few decimal points.phyzguy said:What do you mean when you say you "cannot stand this discrepancy?" Do you not understand that any measurement has uncertainty? Measuring the mass of a distant star can be difficult. How accurate do you expect the measurements to be?
Of course I understand that all measurements have uncertainty. However not all methods are equal, some are more inaccurate than others.Do you not understand that any measurement has uncertainty?
They don't have to be perfect. I simply wish to know that based on modern science, what the most accurate measurement is. The one most within the margin of error for best accuracy.How accurate do you expect the measurements to be?
One such source is wikipedia, currently listing it as 21 plus or minus 3. I do not know how accurate they are. I'm not sure where Google gets their sources, so I can;t give a date. But, they say 18. I'd assume that these 2 numbers come from before 2005, which is the earliest Wikipedia included that mass. Yet another source from astronomytrek uses 17 masses, with the article being from 2016. Strangely enough, the very article that calls Rigel 17 solar masses, then calls it 24. Seriously? The source citing 20 solar masses is from 1998. Another source: Astropixels, has the star at 17 solar masses. Article was made in 2012. There was yet another source from SolarSystemQuick listing it as 18 solar masses. I'd assume it was published somewhere in the 2010s. Can't give a specific age for the article.Ophiolite said:Is there a significant spread of age in the various sources you mention? Is there a measure of consistency in the most recent?
Do note that you really have just one valid source here, and that is Wikipedia. It's the only one that itself provides sources for its data. The remainder of the pages don't, and as such should not be considered valid. You don't know where their values come from, and there's no way to check outside of emailing the authors. Furthermore, those pages are not affiliated with research institutions, which means it's not a good assumption that they are kept up to date and valid.darkness626 said:One such source is wikipedia, currently listing it as 21 plus or minus 3. I do not know how accurate they are. I'm not sure where Google gets their sources, so I can;t give a date. But, they say 18. I'd assume that these 2 numbers come from before 2005, which is the earliest Wikipedia included that mass. Yet another source from astronomytrek uses 17 masses, with the article being from 2016. Strangely enough, the very article that calls Rigel 17 solar masses, then calls it 24. Seriously? The source citing 20 solar masses is from 1998. Another source: Astropixels, has the star at 17 solar masses. Article was made in 2012. There was yet another source from SolarSystemQuick listing it as 18 solar masses. I'd assume it was published somewhere in the 2010s. Can't give a specific age for the article.
It would appear that 21 solar masses is the average with plus or minus 3 being the margin of error. That probably explains why some of the sources cite it as 18 or 24. In that case, perhaps I should just use 21 as the mean.Bandersnatch said:Do note that you really have just one valid source here, and that is Wikipedia. It's the only one that itself provides sources for its data. The remainder of the pages don't, and as such should not be considered valid. You don't know where their values come from, and there's no way to check outside of emailing the authors. Furthermore, those pages are not affiliated with research institutions, which means it's not a good assumption that they are kept up to date and valid.
The source Wiki cites is itself not a primary one, but refers to papers by Przybilla et al. from 2005 and 2010.
Do you mind satisfying our curiosity; what calculation is that?darkness626 said:I am doing a relatively important calculation that requires the mass of Rigel.
I'm revising a part of the tiering system for Vsbattles. I was looking at the calculation that gave statistics for "baseline" Large Star level and noticed that there wasn't a source for Rigel being 23 solar masses, meanwhile most of them used 17 or 24. Since there were so many differences on the solar mass, I asked around here hoping to find an accurate number to use in the calculation.anorlunda said:Do you mind satisfying our curiosity; what calculation is that?