What would happen if someone had a telescope and watched Betelgeuse when it goes supernova?












21














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.










share|improve this question


















  • 5




    "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
    Dec 8 at 23:35






  • 11




    @Rob Depends on your reference frame ;) ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity )
    – jpa
    Dec 9 at 13:09
















21














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.










share|improve this question


















  • 5




    "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
    Dec 8 at 23:35






  • 11




    @Rob Depends on your reference frame ;) ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity )
    – jpa
    Dec 9 at 13:09














21












21








21


3





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.










share|improve this question













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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Dec 8 at 21:56









userLTK

15.8k12045




15.8k12045








  • 5




    "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
    Dec 8 at 23:35






  • 11




    @Rob Depends on your reference frame ;) ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity )
    – jpa
    Dec 9 at 13:09














  • 5




    "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
    Dec 8 at 23:35






  • 11




    @Rob Depends on your reference frame ;) ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity )
    – jpa
    Dec 9 at 13:09








5




5




"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
Dec 8 at 23:35




"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
Dec 8 at 23:35




11




11




@Rob Depends on your reference frame ;) ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity )
– jpa
Dec 9 at 13:09




@Rob Depends on your reference frame ;) ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity )
– jpa
Dec 9 at 13:09










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















31














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 light curves taken from Wikipedia:
Luminous output of different types of Supernovae



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 is 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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    This answer explains that the brightness increases gradually, but doesn't seem to answer the question as to whether or not a person watching Betelgeuse would go blind (unless we count "no, it would not be a problem" as the answer).
    – JBentley
    Dec 10 at 13:10






  • 8




    Note that the OP asked if there'd be an "unpleasant surprise" -- the answer is, "No, there would be no surprise." You would not be blinded unless you really wanted to be. Obviously if you stare into a bright enough light with a big enough telescope for a long enough time you can blind yourself in one eye -- you'd have to do it all over again with the other, of course. I don't feel that constitutes a "surprise."
    – Mark Olson
    Dec 10 at 13:44










  • @JBentley It's not fast enough and it's not bright enough to blind you.
    – Florin Andrei
    Dec 10 at 19:03










  • @Mark Olson : Yep. OP is almost surely imagining it being like a camera flashbulb (or perhaps, a nuke?) "suddenly" going off and you are looking into said flashbulb with your telescope. But it's not.
    – The_Sympathizer
    Dec 27 at 10:46



















18














If you insist on observing the exploding Betelgeuse at peak brightness, you could potentially damage your eye. The complete answer enters the realm of physiology. Here I'll discuss the astronomical parts:



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
$$
m = M + mu simeq -10.5.
$$



For these calculations I assume that the Sun is the threshold for damaging your eye (a brief look at the Sun is okay, a longer look will cause permanent damage. But… physiology…). 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.



However, the Sun is an extended source, spanning an angle of roughly $theta_mathrm{Sun} = 32$ arcminutes across. In contrast, Betelgeuse is a point source, which when transferred through the atmosphere and the telescope, is spread out over $theta_mathrm{Bet} sim$ a few square arcseconds. Thus its light will be more concentrated; i.e. it will be much brighter, but it will hit a much smaller area of your retina. However, your eye will also move around, smearing out the light. Not being a physiologist, for the sake of this calculation I assume that the light is smeared out over a disk 1 arcminute across (about the size of a planet seen from Earth).



Thus, the factor $f$ will itself be a factor $(theta_mathrm{Sun} / theta_mathrm{Bet})^2 simeq 1000$ times larger — that is, Betelgeuse is only $sim 3,000$ times dimmer than the Sun.



Hence, for our assumptions your eye will be damaged if you observe exploding Betelgeuse through a telescope with an area $sim 3,000$ larger — or roughly 55 times wider — than your pupil. In bright light, the pupil contracts to roughly 3 mm in diameter, so if observing through a telescope of 16 cm or larger, you could damage your eye.



Based on evolutionary models of Betelgeuse, Dolan et al. (2016) estimate an apparent magnitude of $m=-12.4$, i.e. roughly 6 times brighter than our estimate. This would mean that you only need a 7 cm telescope to damage your eye.



However, 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 you have plenty of time to look away.






share|improve this answer



















  • 2




    I'm not sure this is the right calculation. Betelgeuse subtends only a tiny angle, meaning that when it's in focus all its light is focused on effectively a single point on the retina, whereas the sun's light is spread over an area. I'd be surprised if that didn't make it dangerous when using a much smaller telescope.
    – Nathaniel
    Dec 10 at 8:07










  • Additionally, this answer assumes that the brightness of the sun is the minimum required to go blind. For a complete answer, we should probably consider how much brightness the human eye can withstand without being blinded. It could be the case that a much smaller telescope than the one you propose is sufficient.
    – JBentley
    Dec 10 at 13:12












  • @Nathaniel Yes, you're right. I'm not sure what the completely correct approach would be. A point source — which when seen through the atmosphere would span a few square arcsec — would be much brighter, but damage only a tiny fraction of your eye.
    – pela
    Dec 10 at 14:08










  • @JBentley That's true, that's an assumption. But considering that you can actually look at the Sun for a brief period of time without permanently damaging your eye, I think makes this threshold okay, at least for an order-of-magnitude estimate.
    – pela
    Dec 10 at 14:13






  • 2




    I edited to take into account these very relevant comments.
    – pela
    Dec 10 at 15:17



















3














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!






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Does it matter that the brightness comparable to the moon will be concentrated in a star-sized point?
    – Barmar
    Dec 10 at 5:25










  • I am not qualified to say. I will speculate that its intensity will be diffused quite a bit by all the dust & gas between us and Betelgeuse -- it's 640 light-years away. On the other hand, the moon looks extremely bright in my own telescope. Bright enough to dazzle the eyes quite a bit.
    – S. Imp
    Dec 10 at 18:15










  • I assumed you'd already included the diffusion in your estimate of the apparent magnitude.
    – Barmar
    Dec 10 at 19:15










  • My calculation was a simple one. I simply assumed that Betelgeuse might increase in brightness by a million, and converted that increase to apparent magnitude. Check the third paragraph here. This sort of sidesteps complicated diffusion calculations by just assuming diffusion will not change if the thing gets brighter.
    – S. Imp
    Dec 10 at 20:09










  • That seems like a reasonable assumption for broad estimates like this. In reality, diffusion is probably dependent on light wavelength, which I assume changes during supernova. But if we're just dealing with orders of magnitude, it's probably not significant.
    – Barmar
    Dec 10 at 20:13











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "514"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















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

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









31














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 light curves taken from Wikipedia:
Luminous output of different types of Supernovae



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 is 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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    This answer explains that the brightness increases gradually, but doesn't seem to answer the question as to whether or not a person watching Betelgeuse would go blind (unless we count "no, it would not be a problem" as the answer).
    – JBentley
    Dec 10 at 13:10






  • 8




    Note that the OP asked if there'd be an "unpleasant surprise" -- the answer is, "No, there would be no surprise." You would not be blinded unless you really wanted to be. Obviously if you stare into a bright enough light with a big enough telescope for a long enough time you can blind yourself in one eye -- you'd have to do it all over again with the other, of course. I don't feel that constitutes a "surprise."
    – Mark Olson
    Dec 10 at 13:44










  • @JBentley It's not fast enough and it's not bright enough to blind you.
    – Florin Andrei
    Dec 10 at 19:03










  • @Mark Olson : Yep. OP is almost surely imagining it being like a camera flashbulb (or perhaps, a nuke?) "suddenly" going off and you are looking into said flashbulb with your telescope. But it's not.
    – The_Sympathizer
    Dec 27 at 10:46
















31














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 light curves taken from Wikipedia:
Luminous output of different types of Supernovae



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 is 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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    This answer explains that the brightness increases gradually, but doesn't seem to answer the question as to whether or not a person watching Betelgeuse would go blind (unless we count "no, it would not be a problem" as the answer).
    – JBentley
    Dec 10 at 13:10






  • 8




    Note that the OP asked if there'd be an "unpleasant surprise" -- the answer is, "No, there would be no surprise." You would not be blinded unless you really wanted to be. Obviously if you stare into a bright enough light with a big enough telescope for a long enough time you can blind yourself in one eye -- you'd have to do it all over again with the other, of course. I don't feel that constitutes a "surprise."
    – Mark Olson
    Dec 10 at 13:44










  • @JBentley It's not fast enough and it's not bright enough to blind you.
    – Florin Andrei
    Dec 10 at 19:03










  • @Mark Olson : Yep. OP is almost surely imagining it being like a camera flashbulb (or perhaps, a nuke?) "suddenly" going off and you are looking into said flashbulb with your telescope. But it's not.
    – The_Sympathizer
    Dec 27 at 10:46














31












31








31






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 light curves taken from Wikipedia:
Luminous output of different types of Supernovae



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 is 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.






share|improve this answer














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 light curves taken from Wikipedia:
Luminous output of different types of Supernovae



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 is 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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Dec 10 at 1:51









CJ Dennis

1946




1946










answered Dec 8 at 23:22









Mark Olson

4,548818




4,548818








  • 1




    This answer explains that the brightness increases gradually, but doesn't seem to answer the question as to whether or not a person watching Betelgeuse would go blind (unless we count "no, it would not be a problem" as the answer).
    – JBentley
    Dec 10 at 13:10






  • 8




    Note that the OP asked if there'd be an "unpleasant surprise" -- the answer is, "No, there would be no surprise." You would not be blinded unless you really wanted to be. Obviously if you stare into a bright enough light with a big enough telescope for a long enough time you can blind yourself in one eye -- you'd have to do it all over again with the other, of course. I don't feel that constitutes a "surprise."
    – Mark Olson
    Dec 10 at 13:44










  • @JBentley It's not fast enough and it's not bright enough to blind you.
    – Florin Andrei
    Dec 10 at 19:03










  • @Mark Olson : Yep. OP is almost surely imagining it being like a camera flashbulb (or perhaps, a nuke?) "suddenly" going off and you are looking into said flashbulb with your telescope. But it's not.
    – The_Sympathizer
    Dec 27 at 10:46














  • 1




    This answer explains that the brightness increases gradually, but doesn't seem to answer the question as to whether or not a person watching Betelgeuse would go blind (unless we count "no, it would not be a problem" as the answer).
    – JBentley
    Dec 10 at 13:10






  • 8




    Note that the OP asked if there'd be an "unpleasant surprise" -- the answer is, "No, there would be no surprise." You would not be blinded unless you really wanted to be. Obviously if you stare into a bright enough light with a big enough telescope for a long enough time you can blind yourself in one eye -- you'd have to do it all over again with the other, of course. I don't feel that constitutes a "surprise."
    – Mark Olson
    Dec 10 at 13:44










  • @JBentley It's not fast enough and it's not bright enough to blind you.
    – Florin Andrei
    Dec 10 at 19:03










  • @Mark Olson : Yep. OP is almost surely imagining it being like a camera flashbulb (or perhaps, a nuke?) "suddenly" going off and you are looking into said flashbulb with your telescope. But it's not.
    – The_Sympathizer
    Dec 27 at 10:46








1




1




This answer explains that the brightness increases gradually, but doesn't seem to answer the question as to whether or not a person watching Betelgeuse would go blind (unless we count "no, it would not be a problem" as the answer).
– JBentley
Dec 10 at 13:10




This answer explains that the brightness increases gradually, but doesn't seem to answer the question as to whether or not a person watching Betelgeuse would go blind (unless we count "no, it would not be a problem" as the answer).
– JBentley
Dec 10 at 13:10




8




8




Note that the OP asked if there'd be an "unpleasant surprise" -- the answer is, "No, there would be no surprise." You would not be blinded unless you really wanted to be. Obviously if you stare into a bright enough light with a big enough telescope for a long enough time you can blind yourself in one eye -- you'd have to do it all over again with the other, of course. I don't feel that constitutes a "surprise."
– Mark Olson
Dec 10 at 13:44




Note that the OP asked if there'd be an "unpleasant surprise" -- the answer is, "No, there would be no surprise." You would not be blinded unless you really wanted to be. Obviously if you stare into a bright enough light with a big enough telescope for a long enough time you can blind yourself in one eye -- you'd have to do it all over again with the other, of course. I don't feel that constitutes a "surprise."
– Mark Olson
Dec 10 at 13:44












@JBentley It's not fast enough and it's not bright enough to blind you.
– Florin Andrei
Dec 10 at 19:03




@JBentley It's not fast enough and it's not bright enough to blind you.
– Florin Andrei
Dec 10 at 19:03












@Mark Olson : Yep. OP is almost surely imagining it being like a camera flashbulb (or perhaps, a nuke?) "suddenly" going off and you are looking into said flashbulb with your telescope. But it's not.
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 27 at 10:46




@Mark Olson : Yep. OP is almost surely imagining it being like a camera flashbulb (or perhaps, a nuke?) "suddenly" going off and you are looking into said flashbulb with your telescope. But it's not.
– The_Sympathizer
Dec 27 at 10:46











18














If you insist on observing the exploding Betelgeuse at peak brightness, you could potentially damage your eye. The complete answer enters the realm of physiology. Here I'll discuss the astronomical parts:



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
$$
m = M + mu simeq -10.5.
$$



For these calculations I assume that the Sun is the threshold for damaging your eye (a brief look at the Sun is okay, a longer look will cause permanent damage. But… physiology…). 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.



However, the Sun is an extended source, spanning an angle of roughly $theta_mathrm{Sun} = 32$ arcminutes across. In contrast, Betelgeuse is a point source, which when transferred through the atmosphere and the telescope, is spread out over $theta_mathrm{Bet} sim$ a few square arcseconds. Thus its light will be more concentrated; i.e. it will be much brighter, but it will hit a much smaller area of your retina. However, your eye will also move around, smearing out the light. Not being a physiologist, for the sake of this calculation I assume that the light is smeared out over a disk 1 arcminute across (about the size of a planet seen from Earth).



Thus, the factor $f$ will itself be a factor $(theta_mathrm{Sun} / theta_mathrm{Bet})^2 simeq 1000$ times larger — that is, Betelgeuse is only $sim 3,000$ times dimmer than the Sun.



Hence, for our assumptions your eye will be damaged if you observe exploding Betelgeuse through a telescope with an area $sim 3,000$ larger — or roughly 55 times wider — than your pupil. In bright light, the pupil contracts to roughly 3 mm in diameter, so if observing through a telescope of 16 cm or larger, you could damage your eye.



Based on evolutionary models of Betelgeuse, Dolan et al. (2016) estimate an apparent magnitude of $m=-12.4$, i.e. roughly 6 times brighter than our estimate. This would mean that you only need a 7 cm telescope to damage your eye.



However, 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 you have plenty of time to look away.






share|improve this answer



















  • 2




    I'm not sure this is the right calculation. Betelgeuse subtends only a tiny angle, meaning that when it's in focus all its light is focused on effectively a single point on the retina, whereas the sun's light is spread over an area. I'd be surprised if that didn't make it dangerous when using a much smaller telescope.
    – Nathaniel
    Dec 10 at 8:07










  • Additionally, this answer assumes that the brightness of the sun is the minimum required to go blind. For a complete answer, we should probably consider how much brightness the human eye can withstand without being blinded. It could be the case that a much smaller telescope than the one you propose is sufficient.
    – JBentley
    Dec 10 at 13:12












  • @Nathaniel Yes, you're right. I'm not sure what the completely correct approach would be. A point source — which when seen through the atmosphere would span a few square arcsec — would be much brighter, but damage only a tiny fraction of your eye.
    – pela
    Dec 10 at 14:08










  • @JBentley That's true, that's an assumption. But considering that you can actually look at the Sun for a brief period of time without permanently damaging your eye, I think makes this threshold okay, at least for an order-of-magnitude estimate.
    – pela
    Dec 10 at 14:13






  • 2




    I edited to take into account these very relevant comments.
    – pela
    Dec 10 at 15:17
















18














If you insist on observing the exploding Betelgeuse at peak brightness, you could potentially damage your eye. The complete answer enters the realm of physiology. Here I'll discuss the astronomical parts:



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
$$
m = M + mu simeq -10.5.
$$



For these calculations I assume that the Sun is the threshold for damaging your eye (a brief look at the Sun is okay, a longer look will cause permanent damage. But… physiology…). 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.



However, the Sun is an extended source, spanning an angle of roughly $theta_mathrm{Sun} = 32$ arcminutes across. In contrast, Betelgeuse is a point source, which when transferred through the atmosphere and the telescope, is spread out over $theta_mathrm{Bet} sim$ a few square arcseconds. Thus its light will be more concentrated; i.e. it will be much brighter, but it will hit a much smaller area of your retina. However, your eye will also move around, smearing out the light. Not being a physiologist, for the sake of this calculation I assume that the light is smeared out over a disk 1 arcminute across (about the size of a planet seen from Earth).



Thus, the factor $f$ will itself be a factor $(theta_mathrm{Sun} / theta_mathrm{Bet})^2 simeq 1000$ times larger — that is, Betelgeuse is only $sim 3,000$ times dimmer than the Sun.



Hence, for our assumptions your eye will be damaged if you observe exploding Betelgeuse through a telescope with an area $sim 3,000$ larger — or roughly 55 times wider — than your pupil. In bright light, the pupil contracts to roughly 3 mm in diameter, so if observing through a telescope of 16 cm or larger, you could damage your eye.



Based on evolutionary models of Betelgeuse, Dolan et al. (2016) estimate an apparent magnitude of $m=-12.4$, i.e. roughly 6 times brighter than our estimate. This would mean that you only need a 7 cm telescope to damage your eye.



However, 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 you have plenty of time to look away.






share|improve this answer



















  • 2




    I'm not sure this is the right calculation. Betelgeuse subtends only a tiny angle, meaning that when it's in focus all its light is focused on effectively a single point on the retina, whereas the sun's light is spread over an area. I'd be surprised if that didn't make it dangerous when using a much smaller telescope.
    – Nathaniel
    Dec 10 at 8:07










  • Additionally, this answer assumes that the brightness of the sun is the minimum required to go blind. For a complete answer, we should probably consider how much brightness the human eye can withstand without being blinded. It could be the case that a much smaller telescope than the one you propose is sufficient.
    – JBentley
    Dec 10 at 13:12












  • @Nathaniel Yes, you're right. I'm not sure what the completely correct approach would be. A point source — which when seen through the atmosphere would span a few square arcsec — would be much brighter, but damage only a tiny fraction of your eye.
    – pela
    Dec 10 at 14:08










  • @JBentley That's true, that's an assumption. But considering that you can actually look at the Sun for a brief period of time without permanently damaging your eye, I think makes this threshold okay, at least for an order-of-magnitude estimate.
    – pela
    Dec 10 at 14:13






  • 2




    I edited to take into account these very relevant comments.
    – pela
    Dec 10 at 15:17














18












18








18






If you insist on observing the exploding Betelgeuse at peak brightness, you could potentially damage your eye. The complete answer enters the realm of physiology. Here I'll discuss the astronomical parts:



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
$$
m = M + mu simeq -10.5.
$$



For these calculations I assume that the Sun is the threshold for damaging your eye (a brief look at the Sun is okay, a longer look will cause permanent damage. But… physiology…). 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.



However, the Sun is an extended source, spanning an angle of roughly $theta_mathrm{Sun} = 32$ arcminutes across. In contrast, Betelgeuse is a point source, which when transferred through the atmosphere and the telescope, is spread out over $theta_mathrm{Bet} sim$ a few square arcseconds. Thus its light will be more concentrated; i.e. it will be much brighter, but it will hit a much smaller area of your retina. However, your eye will also move around, smearing out the light. Not being a physiologist, for the sake of this calculation I assume that the light is smeared out over a disk 1 arcminute across (about the size of a planet seen from Earth).



Thus, the factor $f$ will itself be a factor $(theta_mathrm{Sun} / theta_mathrm{Bet})^2 simeq 1000$ times larger — that is, Betelgeuse is only $sim 3,000$ times dimmer than the Sun.



Hence, for our assumptions your eye will be damaged if you observe exploding Betelgeuse through a telescope with an area $sim 3,000$ larger — or roughly 55 times wider — than your pupil. In bright light, the pupil contracts to roughly 3 mm in diameter, so if observing through a telescope of 16 cm or larger, you could damage your eye.



Based on evolutionary models of Betelgeuse, Dolan et al. (2016) estimate an apparent magnitude of $m=-12.4$, i.e. roughly 6 times brighter than our estimate. This would mean that you only need a 7 cm telescope to damage your eye.



However, 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 you have plenty of time to look away.






share|improve this answer














If you insist on observing the exploding Betelgeuse at peak brightness, you could potentially damage your eye. The complete answer enters the realm of physiology. Here I'll discuss the astronomical parts:



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
$$
m = M + mu simeq -10.5.
$$



For these calculations I assume that the Sun is the threshold for damaging your eye (a brief look at the Sun is okay, a longer look will cause permanent damage. But… physiology…). 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.



However, the Sun is an extended source, spanning an angle of roughly $theta_mathrm{Sun} = 32$ arcminutes across. In contrast, Betelgeuse is a point source, which when transferred through the atmosphere and the telescope, is spread out over $theta_mathrm{Bet} sim$ a few square arcseconds. Thus its light will be more concentrated; i.e. it will be much brighter, but it will hit a much smaller area of your retina. However, your eye will also move around, smearing out the light. Not being a physiologist, for the sake of this calculation I assume that the light is smeared out over a disk 1 arcminute across (about the size of a planet seen from Earth).



Thus, the factor $f$ will itself be a factor $(theta_mathrm{Sun} / theta_mathrm{Bet})^2 simeq 1000$ times larger — that is, Betelgeuse is only $sim 3,000$ times dimmer than the Sun.



Hence, for our assumptions your eye will be damaged if you observe exploding Betelgeuse through a telescope with an area $sim 3,000$ larger — or roughly 55 times wider — than your pupil. In bright light, the pupil contracts to roughly 3 mm in diameter, so if observing through a telescope of 16 cm or larger, you could damage your eye.



Based on evolutionary models of Betelgeuse, Dolan et al. (2016) estimate an apparent magnitude of $m=-12.4$, i.e. roughly 6 times brighter than our estimate. This would mean that you only need a 7 cm telescope to damage your eye.



However, 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 you have plenty of time to look away.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Dec 11 at 9:55

























answered Dec 8 at 23:57









pela

17.2k3661




17.2k3661








  • 2




    I'm not sure this is the right calculation. Betelgeuse subtends only a tiny angle, meaning that when it's in focus all its light is focused on effectively a single point on the retina, whereas the sun's light is spread over an area. I'd be surprised if that didn't make it dangerous when using a much smaller telescope.
    – Nathaniel
    Dec 10 at 8:07










  • Additionally, this answer assumes that the brightness of the sun is the minimum required to go blind. For a complete answer, we should probably consider how much brightness the human eye can withstand without being blinded. It could be the case that a much smaller telescope than the one you propose is sufficient.
    – JBentley
    Dec 10 at 13:12












  • @Nathaniel Yes, you're right. I'm not sure what the completely correct approach would be. A point source — which when seen through the atmosphere would span a few square arcsec — would be much brighter, but damage only a tiny fraction of your eye.
    – pela
    Dec 10 at 14:08










  • @JBentley That's true, that's an assumption. But considering that you can actually look at the Sun for a brief period of time without permanently damaging your eye, I think makes this threshold okay, at least for an order-of-magnitude estimate.
    – pela
    Dec 10 at 14:13






  • 2




    I edited to take into account these very relevant comments.
    – pela
    Dec 10 at 15:17














  • 2




    I'm not sure this is the right calculation. Betelgeuse subtends only a tiny angle, meaning that when it's in focus all its light is focused on effectively a single point on the retina, whereas the sun's light is spread over an area. I'd be surprised if that didn't make it dangerous when using a much smaller telescope.
    – Nathaniel
    Dec 10 at 8:07










  • Additionally, this answer assumes that the brightness of the sun is the minimum required to go blind. For a complete answer, we should probably consider how much brightness the human eye can withstand without being blinded. It could be the case that a much smaller telescope than the one you propose is sufficient.
    – JBentley
    Dec 10 at 13:12












  • @Nathaniel Yes, you're right. I'm not sure what the completely correct approach would be. A point source — which when seen through the atmosphere would span a few square arcsec — would be much brighter, but damage only a tiny fraction of your eye.
    – pela
    Dec 10 at 14:08










  • @JBentley That's true, that's an assumption. But considering that you can actually look at the Sun for a brief period of time without permanently damaging your eye, I think makes this threshold okay, at least for an order-of-magnitude estimate.
    – pela
    Dec 10 at 14:13






  • 2




    I edited to take into account these very relevant comments.
    – pela
    Dec 10 at 15:17








2




2




I'm not sure this is the right calculation. Betelgeuse subtends only a tiny angle, meaning that when it's in focus all its light is focused on effectively a single point on the retina, whereas the sun's light is spread over an area. I'd be surprised if that didn't make it dangerous when using a much smaller telescope.
– Nathaniel
Dec 10 at 8:07




I'm not sure this is the right calculation. Betelgeuse subtends only a tiny angle, meaning that when it's in focus all its light is focused on effectively a single point on the retina, whereas the sun's light is spread over an area. I'd be surprised if that didn't make it dangerous when using a much smaller telescope.
– Nathaniel
Dec 10 at 8:07












Additionally, this answer assumes that the brightness of the sun is the minimum required to go blind. For a complete answer, we should probably consider how much brightness the human eye can withstand without being blinded. It could be the case that a much smaller telescope than the one you propose is sufficient.
– JBentley
Dec 10 at 13:12






Additionally, this answer assumes that the brightness of the sun is the minimum required to go blind. For a complete answer, we should probably consider how much brightness the human eye can withstand without being blinded. It could be the case that a much smaller telescope than the one you propose is sufficient.
– JBentley
Dec 10 at 13:12














@Nathaniel Yes, you're right. I'm not sure what the completely correct approach would be. A point source — which when seen through the atmosphere would span a few square arcsec — would be much brighter, but damage only a tiny fraction of your eye.
– pela
Dec 10 at 14:08




@Nathaniel Yes, you're right. I'm not sure what the completely correct approach would be. A point source — which when seen through the atmosphere would span a few square arcsec — would be much brighter, but damage only a tiny fraction of your eye.
– pela
Dec 10 at 14:08












@JBentley That's true, that's an assumption. But considering that you can actually look at the Sun for a brief period of time without permanently damaging your eye, I think makes this threshold okay, at least for an order-of-magnitude estimate.
– pela
Dec 10 at 14:13




@JBentley That's true, that's an assumption. But considering that you can actually look at the Sun for a brief period of time without permanently damaging your eye, I think makes this threshold okay, at least for an order-of-magnitude estimate.
– pela
Dec 10 at 14:13




2




2




I edited to take into account these very relevant comments.
– pela
Dec 10 at 15:17




I edited to take into account these very relevant comments.
– pela
Dec 10 at 15:17











3














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!






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Does it matter that the brightness comparable to the moon will be concentrated in a star-sized point?
    – Barmar
    Dec 10 at 5:25










  • I am not qualified to say. I will speculate that its intensity will be diffused quite a bit by all the dust & gas between us and Betelgeuse -- it's 640 light-years away. On the other hand, the moon looks extremely bright in my own telescope. Bright enough to dazzle the eyes quite a bit.
    – S. Imp
    Dec 10 at 18:15










  • I assumed you'd already included the diffusion in your estimate of the apparent magnitude.
    – Barmar
    Dec 10 at 19:15










  • My calculation was a simple one. I simply assumed that Betelgeuse might increase in brightness by a million, and converted that increase to apparent magnitude. Check the third paragraph here. This sort of sidesteps complicated diffusion calculations by just assuming diffusion will not change if the thing gets brighter.
    – S. Imp
    Dec 10 at 20:09










  • That seems like a reasonable assumption for broad estimates like this. In reality, diffusion is probably dependent on light wavelength, which I assume changes during supernova. But if we're just dealing with orders of magnitude, it's probably not significant.
    – Barmar
    Dec 10 at 20:13
















3














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!






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Does it matter that the brightness comparable to the moon will be concentrated in a star-sized point?
    – Barmar
    Dec 10 at 5:25










  • I am not qualified to say. I will speculate that its intensity will be diffused quite a bit by all the dust & gas between us and Betelgeuse -- it's 640 light-years away. On the other hand, the moon looks extremely bright in my own telescope. Bright enough to dazzle the eyes quite a bit.
    – S. Imp
    Dec 10 at 18:15










  • I assumed you'd already included the diffusion in your estimate of the apparent magnitude.
    – Barmar
    Dec 10 at 19:15










  • My calculation was a simple one. I simply assumed that Betelgeuse might increase in brightness by a million, and converted that increase to apparent magnitude. Check the third paragraph here. This sort of sidesteps complicated diffusion calculations by just assuming diffusion will not change if the thing gets brighter.
    – S. Imp
    Dec 10 at 20:09










  • That seems like a reasonable assumption for broad estimates like this. In reality, diffusion is probably dependent on light wavelength, which I assume changes during supernova. But if we're just dealing with orders of magnitude, it's probably not significant.
    – Barmar
    Dec 10 at 20:13














3












3








3






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!






share|improve this answer












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!







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Dec 8 at 22:52









S. Imp

1586




1586








  • 1




    Does it matter that the brightness comparable to the moon will be concentrated in a star-sized point?
    – Barmar
    Dec 10 at 5:25










  • I am not qualified to say. I will speculate that its intensity will be diffused quite a bit by all the dust & gas between us and Betelgeuse -- it's 640 light-years away. On the other hand, the moon looks extremely bright in my own telescope. Bright enough to dazzle the eyes quite a bit.
    – S. Imp
    Dec 10 at 18:15










  • I assumed you'd already included the diffusion in your estimate of the apparent magnitude.
    – Barmar
    Dec 10 at 19:15










  • My calculation was a simple one. I simply assumed that Betelgeuse might increase in brightness by a million, and converted that increase to apparent magnitude. Check the third paragraph here. This sort of sidesteps complicated diffusion calculations by just assuming diffusion will not change if the thing gets brighter.
    – S. Imp
    Dec 10 at 20:09










  • That seems like a reasonable assumption for broad estimates like this. In reality, diffusion is probably dependent on light wavelength, which I assume changes during supernova. But if we're just dealing with orders of magnitude, it's probably not significant.
    – Barmar
    Dec 10 at 20:13














  • 1




    Does it matter that the brightness comparable to the moon will be concentrated in a star-sized point?
    – Barmar
    Dec 10 at 5:25










  • I am not qualified to say. I will speculate that its intensity will be diffused quite a bit by all the dust & gas between us and Betelgeuse -- it's 640 light-years away. On the other hand, the moon looks extremely bright in my own telescope. Bright enough to dazzle the eyes quite a bit.
    – S. Imp
    Dec 10 at 18:15










  • I assumed you'd already included the diffusion in your estimate of the apparent magnitude.
    – Barmar
    Dec 10 at 19:15










  • My calculation was a simple one. I simply assumed that Betelgeuse might increase in brightness by a million, and converted that increase to apparent magnitude. Check the third paragraph here. This sort of sidesteps complicated diffusion calculations by just assuming diffusion will not change if the thing gets brighter.
    – S. Imp
    Dec 10 at 20:09










  • That seems like a reasonable assumption for broad estimates like this. In reality, diffusion is probably dependent on light wavelength, which I assume changes during supernova. But if we're just dealing with orders of magnitude, it's probably not significant.
    – Barmar
    Dec 10 at 20:13








1




1




Does it matter that the brightness comparable to the moon will be concentrated in a star-sized point?
– Barmar
Dec 10 at 5:25




Does it matter that the brightness comparable to the moon will be concentrated in a star-sized point?
– Barmar
Dec 10 at 5:25












I am not qualified to say. I will speculate that its intensity will be diffused quite a bit by all the dust & gas between us and Betelgeuse -- it's 640 light-years away. On the other hand, the moon looks extremely bright in my own telescope. Bright enough to dazzle the eyes quite a bit.
– S. Imp
Dec 10 at 18:15




I am not qualified to say. I will speculate that its intensity will be diffused quite a bit by all the dust & gas between us and Betelgeuse -- it's 640 light-years away. On the other hand, the moon looks extremely bright in my own telescope. Bright enough to dazzle the eyes quite a bit.
– S. Imp
Dec 10 at 18:15












I assumed you'd already included the diffusion in your estimate of the apparent magnitude.
– Barmar
Dec 10 at 19:15




I assumed you'd already included the diffusion in your estimate of the apparent magnitude.
– Barmar
Dec 10 at 19:15












My calculation was a simple one. I simply assumed that Betelgeuse might increase in brightness by a million, and converted that increase to apparent magnitude. Check the third paragraph here. This sort of sidesteps complicated diffusion calculations by just assuming diffusion will not change if the thing gets brighter.
– S. Imp
Dec 10 at 20:09




My calculation was a simple one. I simply assumed that Betelgeuse might increase in brightness by a million, and converted that increase to apparent magnitude. Check the third paragraph here. This sort of sidesteps complicated diffusion calculations by just assuming diffusion will not change if the thing gets brighter.
– S. Imp
Dec 10 at 20:09












That seems like a reasonable assumption for broad estimates like this. In reality, diffusion is probably dependent on light wavelength, which I assume changes during supernova. But if we're just dealing with orders of magnitude, it's probably not significant.
– Barmar
Dec 10 at 20:13




That seems like a reasonable assumption for broad estimates like this. In reality, diffusion is probably dependent on light wavelength, which I assume changes during supernova. But if we're just dealing with orders of magnitude, it's probably not significant.
– Barmar
Dec 10 at 20:13


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

Puebla de Zaragoza

Musa