Which star is the closest red giant to Earth according to The Guardian?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Vanadium 50
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Astronomy Red giant
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the claim made by The Guardian regarding Betelgeuse being the closest red giant to Earth. Participants explore the accuracy of this statement, discuss various candidates for the title of closest red giant, and critique the publication's understanding of stellar classifications.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that Betelgeuse is not the closest red giant, suggesting alternatives such as Aldebaran, Arcturus, Gacrux, and Pollux.
  • One participant claims Gacrux is probably the closest red giant, while another questions why Pollux, which is closer, is not considered.
  • There is a discussion about the terminology used in The Guardian article, particularly the omission of "super" in "red supergiant," which some participants believe may have led to confusion.
  • Participants express skepticism about The Guardian's accuracy in astronomical reporting, with some labeling it as the least accurate publication in this field.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of the article's statements regarding red giants and supernovae, with participants noting that red giants do not undergo supernova explosions.
  • Some participants share personal anecdotes about editorial practices that may lead to inaccuracies in reporting.
  • There is a debate about the importance of distinguishing between main sequence stars and those that are off the main sequence, with differing opinions on what constitutes the most significant distinctions in stellar classification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the accuracy of The Guardian's claim regarding the closest red giant, with multiple competing views on which star holds that title. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of the article's content and the publication's editorial practices.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the definitions and classifications of stars, such as "red giant" versus "red supergiant," are crucial to understanding the discussion. There are also mentions of editorial practices that may contribute to inaccuracies in reporting, but no consensus is reached on the best practices for correction.

  • #31
swampwiz said:
So you are saying that journalists should know this fine distinction?
Why not? First, it's not that fine a distinction, Second, there are plenty of science journalists around who know this. Third, they got into this mess by changing what was in the paper they sourced, and even a non-science journalist should have known better. And finally, they could have fact-checked the final product.

Further, I expect the PF membership to be interested in learning this, if they don't already.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
Stellar classifications are indeed a bit of a mess, because the words can mean so many different things. We probably have to be a bit forgiving.

If one looks at the size and color of the primary star in Capella, it occupies a place in the Hertsprung-Russell diagram that is pretty close to the red giants, just a little hotter and smaller (so is sometimes called a yellow giant, since its spectral type is K0 so almost a G star). But it is much more useful to classify stars based on their evolutionary phase than their size and color, and there the Capella primary is something of an impostor as a red giant-- it is actually a "red clump" star, which means it has started to fuse helium in its core (whereas true red giants have inert degenerate helium cores, so the Capella primary is in a later stage than that, while the Capella secondary is in an earlier stage where it has not yet reached the red giant branch).

So Capella has two main stars that are both close to the red giant branch but one has left and the other hasn't gotten there yet, hence when someone calls Capella a "yellow giant", they are covering a lot of interesting physics about what those stars have done and will do! (On the other hand, calling Betelgeuse a red giant is just wrong, it's nowhere near the right place in the H-R diagram for that, and it is not of the type of star that makes red giants, so it's good that this has been corrected to red supergiant.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Maybe they used out-of-date references, or AI just hasn't updated to that levelyet.
 

Similar threads

Graduate What is GJ 1214 b: A Super-Earth Water World Orbiting a Red Dwarf Star?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
Star-hopping a way home for a superman; astronomers needed
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
12K