I What Milky Way stars could go supernova to < +3 at any time?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on which Milky Way stars could potentially go supernova and reach an apparent magnitude of +3 or brighter at their peak brightness. While Betelgeuse is often mentioned, other candidates like Sher 25 and Eta Carinae are highlighted as likely to explode soon. The conversation also touches on the capabilities of observatories to respond quickly to such events, noting that factors like distance and equipment availability play significant roles. Additionally, the Supernova Early Warning System is mentioned as a tool that could provide advance notice of a supernova, as demonstrated by the neutrinos detected from SN1987A. Overall, the thread emphasizes the uncertainty surrounding supernova predictions and the vast number of potential progenitor stars.
swampwiz
Messages
567
Reaction score
83
(I use +3 as the cutoff as that seems to be the limit of easily visible stars.) Yes, I know that Betelgeuse could go up in a < -10 blaze of glory, but I wonder what other ones are out there.

On a side note, how fast could the big observatories move to it to observe it? And how quickly would it be noticed at all?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
physicshelp21 said:
There are many stars that are visible to the naked eye and have an apparent magnitude of +3 or brighter. Some examples include Sirius, Canopus, Alpha Centauri A and B, Vega, Capella, Arcturus, and Rigel. There are also many other stars that are visible to the naked eye but have an apparent magnitude fainter than +3.

Regarding your second question, the speed at which observatories could move to observe Betelgeuse depends on a number of factors, including the distance to the star, the location of the observatories, and the availability of suitable telescopes and other equipment. Betelgeuse is located approximately 642.5 light-years from Earth, which means that it would take a very long time for a spacecraft or other astronomical observatory to travel there.
I hope it helped.
I meant what stars could go as bright as +3 at the peak of their supernova, not current stars.

This weird answer sounds like it was generated by a bot.
 
swampwiz said:
This weird answer sounds like it was generated by a bot.
Some people think that's funny.

You're not going to get a list.

First, your magnitude is not constraining. SN1987a wasn't even in our galaxy and it was brighter than 3.

Next, there are thousands upon thousands of stars who are likely progenitors. If we get on average one SN every 30 years and could tell within 30,000 years when one was nearing the end (and we can't) that would be a thousand stars. Of these many thousands of stars, most don't have names, just catalog numbers, and some are obscured by dust and gas.

You want some possibilities: Sher 25 and Eta Carinae are likely to go "soon".
 
swampwiz said:
(I use +3 as the cutoff as that seems to be the limit of easily visible stars.) Yes, I know that Betelgeuse could go up in a < -10 blaze of glory, but I wonder what other ones are out there.

On a side note, how fast could the big observatories move to it to observe it? And how quickly would it be noticed at all?

https://snews2.org/

The Super Nova Early Warning System is designed to give electromagnetic telescopes a warning ahead of the supernova's light.

The principle was first demonstrated when neutrinos from supernova SN1987a preceded that explosion's light by two to three hours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A

Thanks,

Cerenkov.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top