Talk:WHL0137-LS

@IJBall and Drbogdan: The current version is still problematic. The reference should come at the end of the information it supports, not in the middle (in between "billion" and the unit). A simple solution would be to add a dist_ref parameter, I'll try to fix that up in my sandbox. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using present simple.

If the star has died out, shouldn't we use the past to talk about it since it no longer exists?

Most of the article is already written in past tense when referring to the star, except for the first line. It is still proper grammar to say that it "is" the most distant known single star because it currently holds this record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:8879:31A0:5925:FCD0:EEF2:3664 (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can see it now (and probably tomorrow), so "is" seems appropriate. All this talk about what may or may not "have happened to it" is meaningless in the context of relativity, and we should be very careful about how we phrase such speculations to avoid misleading statements. We (astronomers) talk about what we can observe in the present tense, simply because what we can't observe is irrelevant, and not just in a "the cheque is in the post" kind of way. Lithopsian (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, perhaps the supernova sentence should be changed to present tense as well?

"Due to its large mass, the star is likely to explode as a supernova just a few million years after forming."

Not sure if it's necessary or useful to add that this has already happened. Herr Hartmann (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Grimes2 (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-astronomer, I find the current sentence confusing. Using the phrase "likely to have exploded" is a prediction, correct, but it makes more sense to me than using the present simple, when the article is talking about star formation over 12 billion years ago. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could attach a Note to that sentence to explain that the supernova would certainly have already happened. I think any attempt to clarify this within the main body if the article would disrupt the text flow too much. Herr Hartmann (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added this note. If someone with more scientific background knowledge than myself could look over that statement and possibly improve it's wording, that would be appreciated. Herr Hartmann (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you can't observe a supernova, you observe a star. The question is: use future or past tense. For this speculation we should use the past. Grimes2 (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you observe a supernova? It ought to be quite visible, if you happen to look at the right spot at the right time. And if we assume the star's existence to be a thing of the presence, then it's destruction can not possibly be a thing of the past. Herr Hartmann (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding: You can't observe the supernova of Earendel. The likely event is in the future (from the observation standpoint) or in the past. Grimes2 (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current wording represents both options quite well. "Likely to explode" is grammatically present, but it predicts a future event. And the fact that it's actually a past event is explained in the note. Herr Hartmann (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of a note seems to me to be an acknowledgement that the use of the present simple in this case, in the context of an article for general readers, is likely to be confusing. But rather than just change the tense and use the phrase "is likely to have exploded", the proposal now is to keep the present simple and add a note to clarify it. If we use the phrase "is likely to have exploded" we won't need the note. The note is there just to shore up the use of the present simple. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have an additional question: if the present simple is to be used, shouldn't it be used consistently in this paragraph? The opening sentence reads: "Earendel is likely to have between 50 and 100 solar masses." Why is that usage of "likely to have" acceptable? Why is it not in the present simple, since it is just as much a prediction/estimate as the comment about supernova status. If the choice is to use the present simple, then shouldn't it read: "Earendel is likely to be between 50 and 100 solar masses." As mentioned, I don't think the present simple is useful here to a general reader, but if it is to be used, it should be used consistently. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Earendel has between 50 and 100 solar masses according to calculations (or an estimation) by the discoverer." Grimes2 (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In it's current form, the article does consistently use the present tense. It's "likely to have;" not "to have had" or "to have been." This entire discussion bagan with the assumption that, if the supernova already occurred, the whole article ought to be written in the past tense. I think by now it has been made clear that this is not the case. Thus, if the present tense is to be used, it applies to the possible destruction as well. Basically, "likely to have X solar masses" and "likely to explode" are both static properties; and apparently it is scientifically correct to present them as current properties. The note is there to explain the use of the present tense for all the star's properties, it is only attached to the supernova sentence because this is the most likely source of confusion. Herr Hartmann (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to make more sense to use the tense according to the reference frame of the object the article is about, and which is/was doing the shining. Indeed the article slips into the star's reference frame when it says that "The light detected from Earendel was emitted 900 million years after the Big Bang", a time when neither Earth nor the sun nor even the Milky Way existed. One doesn't say that lightning is currently striking because one still hears the thunder. We do say that it takes hours or days for Earth to receive transmissions from probes in the outer solar system, even though from Earth's perspective the probe appears to be transmitting exactly at the time we receive the transmission. Perhaps a compromise would be to say that "the star was likely to explode" since I think everyone can agree that the star did exist in the past, without speculating whether it has actually exploded. Miraculouschaos (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might seem to make more sense, but it is pure speculation to present something unobservable as "current". It is precisely because there is no way to know what is happening in the star's reference frame that we discuss it from our own reference frame, the only one where we can make observations. This is not something purely semantic, it is hard physics caused by the light speed limit. Your lightning analogy is inappropriate because we can observe that the lightning bolt is over even while hearing the thunder. Even there we can only observe the lightning bolt once the light arrives after a tiny time interval. Note that again this is not just sophistry, even if there is another closer observer, they can't give us any more up-to-date information because it will take them longer to reach us than the light itself. Lithopsian (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This star does not exist any more

Is there a problem with the tense of this article? The section "Physical properties" says that the light detected from Earendel was emitted 12.9 billion years ago; and that "the star is likely to explode as a supernova just a few million years after forming". That means that this star in fact exploded over 12 billion years ago, and no longer exists. Should the tense of the article reflect that? Is there a Wikipedia policy on this, or an astronomical convention? --MrStoofer (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk: "Using present simple" section. Grimes2 (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the light is only just reaching earth, so relative to us the star is currently "shining". Talking about distant events and working backwards, accounting for all cosmological factors would be more confusing, and isn't convention. Placebodoc (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just an example, most of the stars visible to the naked eye are more light years away than years most of us have lived. Yet, other than an occasional sensationalistic puff piece, we generally refer to them in the present tense when we observe them or calculated their properties. Physicists, when it is relevant, tend to refer to events "when they happen" but with (hopefully) full awareness of the implications of the relativity of simultaneity - this is pragmatic wrt their locations and that of the events they observe. Astronomers are in a somewhat unique position (sic) of being in a fixed location at a relativistically-large distance from the events they observe. Attempting to always reconcile observations with true 4D spacetime coordinates and establishing order and causality of events would be a nightmare. So astronomers by convention refer to events as happening when they are observed, and paradoxes are kept to a minimum. Except occasionally when journalists poke them for a good headline! Lithopsian (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. However, this article has introduced the possibility that the star has already gone nova. That is inherently a prediction, and in an article intended for a general readership, using the present tense for a likely past event can be confusing. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to report a hypothetical concrete event in past/present? We could say: Massive stars of >50 solar masses have a lifetime of a few million years. They can explode as a supernova. Grimes2 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's linked to this star, why is that statement there? Again, speaking as a non-astronomer; the reason for putting that statement in, without linking it to this star, may not be immediately apparent to a general reader. Have to make the connection between the solar mass in the general statement, and this particular star. If the reason for the statement is to make the point that this star would likely go nova, why not say it, rather than an elliptical reference that requires the reader to draw a conclusion? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to merge this topic and "Using present simple" into one? Having the discussion spread out over two topics is kind of a hassle. Herr Hartmann (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

solution to the tense issue

@

found some (but not all) info at this fandom —usernamekiran (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a good laugh; the Hitchikers guide's a classic. As far as we are concerned, however, the simple solution is to use verb tense according to the frame of reference from which we are observing the object, i.e. present day earth. So the star "is" currently shining" and will (within a few million years) explode into a supernova or other interesting astronomic phenomenon. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but if we use our simplistic tense(s), then it would be like disrespecting all the hardwork of Dr. Streetmentioner —usernamekiran (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to remove this sentence. It gives the impression that Earendel has a good chance of being a Pop III star, which is not true. Earendel is probably not a Pop III star. It may be a Pop II (2nd generation) star but unlikely a Pop III (1st generation). Pop III stars are expected to form much earlier (approx 500 million years earlier) on and live only a few million years. JWST will offer more clues about the true nature of Earendel (Pop II vs Pop III) but as of now, with current data the sentence above is more than questionable. I would instead mention that Earendel could potentially be a Pop III star, but this is unlikely and quote the authors which in the Nature paper say "...the probability of Earendel being a zero-metallicity population III star is low,..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemolari (talk • contribs) 11:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is changing quickly: I see "Although unlikely, Earendel has a small probability of being a population III star, meaning it contains almost no elements other than primordial hydrogen and helium" which I think is a good summary and not given undue prominence in the article. I could quibble slightly with the grammar, but I'm sure it will come good. Lithopsian (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted directly from the source cited for the pop. III statement: "If follow-up studies find that Earendel is only made up of primordial hydrogen and helium, it would be the first evidence for the legendary Population III stars, which are hypothesized to be the very first stars born after the big bang." This sounds extremely hypothetical, which again raises the question whether this sentence should be included at all. Herr Hartmann (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the Hubble people say the star "is positioned along a ripple in spacetime that gives it extreme magnification". However, the Hubble people don't necessary communicate concepts perfectly, nor (I would guess) are they immune from gee-whizism same as anybody.

I find this confusing. Is there an actual difference in... not just space, but spacetime, I guess... such that, say, time behaves differently in some way around this star? Or space -- is it possible to travel between two points without going thru the intervening space, or something, in the area of this star?

I don't think so... I think it's just gravitation lensing, which is sort of mundane. My spyglass bends light to make things seem closer too, I wouldn't describe it as making a ripple in spacetime. Unless we can work in a better explanation I'm inclined to remove this confusing phrase. Herostratus (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand (I'm no astronomer): Its a Gravitational wave that causes the lensing effect. It has nothing to do with an optical lens out of glass. Grimes2 (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understand it (I'm not an astronomer either), for gravitational lensing to occur, the "ripple" must be located on a direct line in between the observer (Earth) and the object (in this case: Earendel). So, the description of Earendel's position "along the ripple" seems to be over-simplified to the point of being completely wrong. Herr Hartmann (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a poor choice of words to describe what is happening. The star itself is (was) not positioned at or near any special spacetime feature that could be described as a ripple. At best, the visible image of the star falls on an arc which is a gravitationally-lensed image of a star cluster, but still a stretch to call that a ripple in spacetime. Lithopsian (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if someone else already created such an article (??). Would be interesting to see an alphabetic list of this sort of names, such as WHL0137-LS's nickname Earendel. DannyCaes (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No nicknames, but List of proper names of stars (IAU) Grimes2 (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's indeed an interesting list (rather odd new starnames since 2019!), although I'm looking for a huge alphabetic list full of (nick)names such as (for example): Bear Paw Galaxy or Lemon Slice Nebula. DannyCaes (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that at the time of the big bang the coordinates of Aerendel and the coordinates of earth coincided, Aerendel must have had a speed of twice the speed of light (relative lo an earth observer) to reach a distance of 28 billion lightyears in 14 billion years. How can this be if special relativity does not allow a relative speed of more than the speed of light? 92.109.166.101 (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• See Comoving and proper distances and Expansion of the universe. To quote the latter "As the spatial part of the universe's spacetime metric increases in scale, objects become more distant from one another at ever-increasing speeds. While objects within space cannot travel faster than light, this limitation does not apply to the effects of changes in the metric itself." Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term "magnification line" (see dashed line in image) should be explained, maybe in a corresponding article. Especially together with the loop in that line an explanation is IMHO necessary. At least I found no easy available explanation. 2001:16B8:2651:B000:F016:A915:60FC:5C4F (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JWST have published an image of the star. Thread here: [4] close-up comparison here: [5] (Hubble left, JWST right; red line indicates). Fig (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims this is the most distant imaged star snd also claims it could become a supernova. But it should explain how we know it's not actually (or at least was 13 billion years ago) a star and not a supernova? In other words, if supernovas only last a few months and this was first seen years ago it cannot be a supernova. But if it's actually just a star I find it unlikely that it could be brighter than the rest of its host galaxy, even if that galaxy is smeared out by the lensing. Paulhummerman (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]