![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
It seems to me that this table really must require a reference of some sort for bolometric luminosity, before a star is accepted for display. I'm not going to wage war on the data we have (yet), but a reasonable step in that direction would be to try to get the most luminous candidates documented within a short time, say a week or a month, or else deleted. Thanks -- Wwheaton ( talk) 20:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I see that we have had a couple of pairs of edit reverts recently over the status of Eta Carinae. Neither its (currently listed) low luminosity (5,500,000 solar L; M = -12.1) nor its reverted higher L (55,000,000×solar) have any supporting references at all. I hope every one of the brighter entries in that table will soon be supported by a reliable source, in order for anyone to be able to take the table as a whole very seriously. It is clear that the 1843 magnitude could only be (roughly) in the V band, so we really do not know the bolometric absolute magnitude at that time very accurately. Also, it is now believed to be a binary, which confuses things a little, though probably does not the 1843 luminosity very much. Anyhow, please supply some supporting reference when adding material to this table, otherwise it just becomes silly. I also exhort editors to discuss complex situations here on the talk page rather than just reverting without explanation in the edit summary or here. Thanks, Wwheaton ( talk) 03:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
In demoting Zeta Puppis (cited in link), I noticed that this article is using visible and bolometric magnitudes randomly. Deneb down under 50,000 solar? Please ONLY use bolometric magnitude estimates! Wayne Hardman ( talk) 23:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think all stars with positive bolometric luminosity magnitude values should be removed, and the list should be limited to a maximum of 100 stars unless a good cut-off point exists to slightly extend or slightly contract the number listed. 100 is an arbitrary limit, but a commonly used one, so should be acceptable. As for allowing only negative values... if it's positive, it isn't very luminous, now is it? 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 08:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The information about very first star listed on this table looks dubious to me, based upon:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I'm not sure I completely trust the data in the linked space.com article. It says that LBV 1806-20 "shines up to 40 million times brighter than the Sun", but 40 million is 107.6; the paper lists luminosities of 106 or 106.3. This entry's luminosity appears in excess by an order of magnitude at least.— RJH ( talk) 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a criteria for list membership. In order for a star to be included, it must satisfy at least one of the following minima:
What do you think? (Granted the first two are semi-redundant, but it may be that only one or the other is available.) This will, of course, significantly truncate the current content.— RJH ( talk) 22:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
After reading this discussion, I decided to take the bull by the horns and impose a cutoff of a bolometric luminosity of at least 105 solar luminosities (which, using Mbol(Sun)=4.75, is equivalent to an absolute bolometric magnitude of −7.75 or lower.) Removed entries are still accessible in the history. The idea of a mass cutoff is not a good one as the list is of most luminous and not most massive stars. Of course, I agree with Will Wheaton's point that we must have references certifying the luminosity of any list member. I left a few familiar stars in with Lbol below the threshold for comparison. Spacepotato ( talk) 03:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The first star in this list is given an Mbol of −12.2. The only source I could find for this value was the Tim Thompson web site:
(I suggest perhaps trying to check with stellar expert and author James Kaler's on his site & via the following books & articles : Kaler, James B., ‘Extreme Stars’, Cambridge University Press, 2001. Kaler, James B., ’The Hundred Greatest Stars’, Copernicus books, 2002. Kaler, James, "Hypergiants", Astronomy March 1994, Kalmbach publishing co. Kaler, James B., Astronomy, May 1991, "The Brightest Stars in the Galaxy.", Kalmbach publishing Co. - ed = StevoR. PS. I agree 40 million x L solar sounds massively excessive for LBV 1806-20. Around 4-6 mil. would seem a more reasonable guesstimate to me. Maybe an "extra zero" error & really 4 million?)
His web site lists him as a physicist at the JPL. However, all the journal sources I checked based their values on:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)who gave an approximate value for Mbol of −11 after correction for reddening. It might help if we had a corroborative journal article confirming the −12.2 value, but I haven't been able to turn one up. I checked all of the references Tim Thompson listed, but they showed only −11 (where the data existed). Any ideas? This star doesn't even have a properly defined spectral class.— RJH ( talk) 19:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The brightest star in the table is listed as 6,000,000 solar units, but the first sentence following the table reads: "Note that even the most luminous star (40 million times the luminosity of the Sun) is much less luminous than extragalactic objects like quasars" I'm wondering if the values in the table have been updated, but not that piece of text. I don't know enough on the subject to know which is correct, just that someone should probably reconcile the two values. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.67.163 ( talk) 00:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
What is the bolometric luminosity of Zeta Puppis ? 360 000 solar units as cited in this article or 790 000 solor units as cited in the article Zeta Puppis? Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 21:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This object was recently added, but I think it may not be quite well enough established to merit inclusion here yet. I have two problems, the main one being that as far as I could see from the space.com article, it is based on a conference talk, with as yet no refereed paper in the literature. My second objection is just that it is in another (albeit nearby) galaxy, and allowing distant candidates without limit obviously opens the door to "stars" that appear to be single observationally, but which turn out to be multiple later. This actually happened previously, in the 1970s I think, for the whole R136 cluster, which was first claimed to be a single super-luminous star. Then it was resolved into a cluster (by HST, I presume) with several tight clumps. So it is a sore subject.
The VLT folks have been doing a fantastic job with adaptive optics and interferometry lately, and I think it is quite likely that this report is valid and will be confirmed soon. Anyway, I would like to wait at least until we have a reference to a peer-reviewed publication to look at. (Less good would be a "press release" web source from ESO or the VLT, which should give some more details that might be convincing, like spectroscopic evidence that it is not a tight binary.) Even better would be independent confirming observations or third-party commentary, which I would expect soon.
This list article is inevitably plagued with poorly characterized and referenced candidates. If we do not exercise tight and conservative control over it, it will very soon become simply meaningless. There are other objects listed needing better (or any...) sourcing, and we need to fix or remove those too, but I believe that is a poor reason to fail to deal with this one, especially as it would be the celebrity, at the top of the list.
I would also like to propose a maximum distance rule for this article, to prevent our listing extragalactic false candidates again and again. Because observations are rapidly improving (with no end in sight) and because even very rare and distant examples are of great fundamental interest, I think any distance limit would need to be revised upwards now and then as the instruments improve; the day will come when we will have optical interferometric arrays in space that will change all the rules we now live by. For now I think the LMC & SMC (& nearer dwarf satellites of the Milky Way) are probably OK, and soon the entire Local Group likely will be too. Wwheaton ( talk) 19:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
There is now an ESO press release giving a reference to a paper by Crowther et al in Monthly Notices of the RAS; preprint available here. I do not have time to read it at the moment, but assuming it looks convincing, I have no objection to restoring R136a1 to the head of the table. If anyone else does this, please also add the reference, and remove the duplicate entry for it half a dozen lines down in the table. Thanks. Wwheaton ( talk) 23:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Since this page is titled "Most Luminous Stars", and since the stars are arranged in order of bolometric luminosity, I would think that "Bolometric Luminosity" should be the first column (not the last). I would think "Apparent Magnitude" should be the last column, since that figure is really incidental to a star's absolute magnitude. I would be glad to make this edit, but I wanted to see if there's agreement among those of you who are more invested in this page. Niobrara ( talk) 20:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently the distance given is 20,000 l.y. However, Simbad seems to estimate a distance of 1125 parsecs, which is considerably less. Niobrara ( talk) 21:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I intend to move the cutoff point for the table to 1,000,000 times solar luminosity. The list is moderately complete above that level, woefully patchy below it. Any star below that level which isn't a household name will be deleted and the rest highlighted in pink. Niobara will then delete half the ones I thought were household names ;) Speak now or forever hold your peace. Lithopsian ( talk) 11:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
A block at the bottom of the table is headed with the statement "The following well-known stars are listed for the purpose of comparison", yet all the stars listed between "Pismis 24-17" and "θ1 Ori C" seem relatively (or utterly) obscure, while all the stars listed after Betelgeuse are indeed well known.
I cut the first range (preserved and displayed below) and I invite anyone so inclined to restore individual deleted entries that can honestly be called "well-known". Please don't just revert the whole edit! Harold f ( talk) 21:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Pismis 24-17 | 891,000 | −10.1 | 5,600 | 11.84 |
Cygnus OB2-#8C | 870,000 | −10.1 | 5000 | 13.25 |
Cygnus OB2-#11 | 790,000 | −10.0 | 5000 | |
Pismis 24-1SW | 646,000 | −9.8 | 5,600 | 10.43 (Pismis 24-1 total for three components) |
HD 33579 (in LMC) | 650,000 | −9.7 | 160,000 | 9.13 |
P Cygni | 610,000 | −9.7 | 5,900 | 4.8 |
ρ Cas | 550,000 | −9.6 | 12,000 | 4.1 to 6.2 |
VY CMa | 450,000 [1] | −9.4 | 4900 | 6.5 to 9.6 |
ε Ori | 380,000 | −9.2 | 1300 | 1.70 |
KW Sgr | 370,000 | −9.17 | 10,000 | 8.9 |
ζ Pup | 360,000 | −9.0 | 1090 | 2.21 |
V354 Cep | 360,000 | −9.15 | 9000 | 10.82 to 11.35 |
RW Cep | 350,000 | −9.11 | 11,500 | 6.52 |
μ Cep (the Garnet Star) | 340,000 | −9.08 | 1900 | 4.04 |
VV Cep A | 315,000 | −9.0 | 2400 | 4.91 |
WOH G64 (in LMC) | 280,000 | 163,000 | ||
KY Cyg | 270,000 | −8.84 | 5000 | |
Plaskett's Star A | 224,000 | −8.6 | 6600 | 6.06 (A + B) |
θ1 Ori C | 220,000 | −8.6 | 1500 | 5.13 |
I'd like to make individual articles for some of these stars, but I end on this list. How can I avoid that?. -- U-95 ( talk) 15:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The apparent magnitude of a star is how bright it appears from Earth. The absolute magnitude is how bright the star actually is. Many bright star look quite dim from Earth since they are much further away — Preceding unsigned comment added by $spunkynova1 ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The first star in 'naked eye' section is P Cygni, with absolute magnitude of -9,7, distance of 5900 light years and apparent magnitude of 4,8. A few lines above, there are the Cygnus OB2 stars, with absolute magnitude of -10,4, distance of 5000 light years and apparent magnitude of 12,7.
So, I wonder, how can Cygnus OB2 be 1.8 times more luminous than P Cygni and have apparent magnitude of only 12.7, even when it is closer to us?
85.217.34.203 (
talk)
00:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The list says WR 25 was more than 100000 lightyears away, with apparent magnitude of about 18. However, the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WR_25 says it's only 7500 lys away, at mag 8,8. The contradiction (and thus, error in the list) is obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.68.165 ( talk) 23:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
As of today, the "Effective temperature" column only goes down to Var A-1. Should I expand it all the way down to S Doradus (or even to the comparison chart)? If anybody wants it, here's a list I made.
Sources are from the articles for individual stars; if they don't have an article, the source is listed below.
Loooke ( talk) 02:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, here are the temperature values for the comparison stars. Again, these all come from the individual star's articles:
Name | Teff (K) | error |
---|---|---|
P Cyg | 18700 | |
RW Cep | 4015 | |
ζ Pup | 40000–44000 | |
ρ Cas | 5777–7200 | |
Alnilam | 27000 | |
VV Cep A | 3826 | |
μ Cep | 3750 | |
VY CMa | ~3490 | |
Plaskett's star A | 33500 | 2000 |
θ1 Ori C | 39000 | 1000 |
Deneb | 8525 | 75 |
Betelgeuse | 3590 | |
Rigel | 12100 | 500 |
Antares | 3400 | 200 |
Canopus | 6998 | |
Bellatrix | 22000 | |
Polaris | 6015 | |
Aldebaran | 3910 | |
Arcturus | 4286 | 30 |
Capella Aa | 4970 | 50 |
Vega | 9602 | 180 |
Sirius A | 9940 | |
α Cen A | 5790 | |
Sun | 5772 |
Loooke ( talk) 20:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Is VY Cma a naked eye star? I suggest changing the comparison section to simply 'the following stars are kept for comparison'. PNSMurthy ( talk) 05:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC) "notable" is always a useful adjective, although it could be considered that any star in WP is notable. "well-known" may be the most accurate description of the stars that are there at the moment. Lithopsian ( talk) 14:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
There's a star in the new; PHL 293b, which is allegedly 2.5 million Lbol, but I couldn't find any ref, except the news. Can it be added, with the ( citation needed) tag? PNSMurthy ( talk) 05:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
This star is proposed in the original reference to possibly be a compact star cluster. Or some luminous star (probable LBV outburst) with a very high magnification. Regardless I was not able to find the value of −14 flat being stated in the list, but the reference said that its MV could be −17.4 in the case of μ = 600 or −14.3 if μ = 7000. This would be an absolute dazzling monster (44.87 to 779.83 million L☉) which makes me think of it more as an LBV or low supernova. Thoughts about this candidate and what should we input on the list? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 14:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
This paper has some luminous stars, but some stars have no coordinates, spectral types or identifiers. Do we add them or not? Diamantinasaurus ( talk) 11:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Why does list of brightest stars include some of the planets of the solar system at measurement? 94.31.91.138 ( talk) 14:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Someone should change the color formatting of the list. The deep navy color makes the black fonts barely visible and is an eyesore. We have MOS:COLOR for this, don't we? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 02:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
It seems to me that this table really must require a reference of some sort for bolometric luminosity, before a star is accepted for display. I'm not going to wage war on the data we have (yet), but a reasonable step in that direction would be to try to get the most luminous candidates documented within a short time, say a week or a month, or else deleted. Thanks -- Wwheaton ( talk) 20:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I see that we have had a couple of pairs of edit reverts recently over the status of Eta Carinae. Neither its (currently listed) low luminosity (5,500,000 solar L; M = -12.1) nor its reverted higher L (55,000,000×solar) have any supporting references at all. I hope every one of the brighter entries in that table will soon be supported by a reliable source, in order for anyone to be able to take the table as a whole very seriously. It is clear that the 1843 magnitude could only be (roughly) in the V band, so we really do not know the bolometric absolute magnitude at that time very accurately. Also, it is now believed to be a binary, which confuses things a little, though probably does not the 1843 luminosity very much. Anyhow, please supply some supporting reference when adding material to this table, otherwise it just becomes silly. I also exhort editors to discuss complex situations here on the talk page rather than just reverting without explanation in the edit summary or here. Thanks, Wwheaton ( talk) 03:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
In demoting Zeta Puppis (cited in link), I noticed that this article is using visible and bolometric magnitudes randomly. Deneb down under 50,000 solar? Please ONLY use bolometric magnitude estimates! Wayne Hardman ( talk) 23:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think all stars with positive bolometric luminosity magnitude values should be removed, and the list should be limited to a maximum of 100 stars unless a good cut-off point exists to slightly extend or slightly contract the number listed. 100 is an arbitrary limit, but a commonly used one, so should be acceptable. As for allowing only negative values... if it's positive, it isn't very luminous, now is it? 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 08:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The information about very first star listed on this table looks dubious to me, based upon:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I'm not sure I completely trust the data in the linked space.com article. It says that LBV 1806-20 "shines up to 40 million times brighter than the Sun", but 40 million is 107.6; the paper lists luminosities of 106 or 106.3. This entry's luminosity appears in excess by an order of magnitude at least.— RJH ( talk) 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a criteria for list membership. In order for a star to be included, it must satisfy at least one of the following minima:
What do you think? (Granted the first two are semi-redundant, but it may be that only one or the other is available.) This will, of course, significantly truncate the current content.— RJH ( talk) 22:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
After reading this discussion, I decided to take the bull by the horns and impose a cutoff of a bolometric luminosity of at least 105 solar luminosities (which, using Mbol(Sun)=4.75, is equivalent to an absolute bolometric magnitude of −7.75 or lower.) Removed entries are still accessible in the history. The idea of a mass cutoff is not a good one as the list is of most luminous and not most massive stars. Of course, I agree with Will Wheaton's point that we must have references certifying the luminosity of any list member. I left a few familiar stars in with Lbol below the threshold for comparison. Spacepotato ( talk) 03:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The first star in this list is given an Mbol of −12.2. The only source I could find for this value was the Tim Thompson web site:
(I suggest perhaps trying to check with stellar expert and author James Kaler's on his site & via the following books & articles : Kaler, James B., ‘Extreme Stars’, Cambridge University Press, 2001. Kaler, James B., ’The Hundred Greatest Stars’, Copernicus books, 2002. Kaler, James, "Hypergiants", Astronomy March 1994, Kalmbach publishing co. Kaler, James B., Astronomy, May 1991, "The Brightest Stars in the Galaxy.", Kalmbach publishing Co. - ed = StevoR. PS. I agree 40 million x L solar sounds massively excessive for LBV 1806-20. Around 4-6 mil. would seem a more reasonable guesstimate to me. Maybe an "extra zero" error & really 4 million?)
His web site lists him as a physicist at the JPL. However, all the journal sources I checked based their values on:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)who gave an approximate value for Mbol of −11 after correction for reddening. It might help if we had a corroborative journal article confirming the −12.2 value, but I haven't been able to turn one up. I checked all of the references Tim Thompson listed, but they showed only −11 (where the data existed). Any ideas? This star doesn't even have a properly defined spectral class.— RJH ( talk) 19:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The brightest star in the table is listed as 6,000,000 solar units, but the first sentence following the table reads: "Note that even the most luminous star (40 million times the luminosity of the Sun) is much less luminous than extragalactic objects like quasars" I'm wondering if the values in the table have been updated, but not that piece of text. I don't know enough on the subject to know which is correct, just that someone should probably reconcile the two values. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.67.163 ( talk) 00:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
What is the bolometric luminosity of Zeta Puppis ? 360 000 solar units as cited in this article or 790 000 solor units as cited in the article Zeta Puppis? Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 21:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This object was recently added, but I think it may not be quite well enough established to merit inclusion here yet. I have two problems, the main one being that as far as I could see from the space.com article, it is based on a conference talk, with as yet no refereed paper in the literature. My second objection is just that it is in another (albeit nearby) galaxy, and allowing distant candidates without limit obviously opens the door to "stars" that appear to be single observationally, but which turn out to be multiple later. This actually happened previously, in the 1970s I think, for the whole R136 cluster, which was first claimed to be a single super-luminous star. Then it was resolved into a cluster (by HST, I presume) with several tight clumps. So it is a sore subject.
The VLT folks have been doing a fantastic job with adaptive optics and interferometry lately, and I think it is quite likely that this report is valid and will be confirmed soon. Anyway, I would like to wait at least until we have a reference to a peer-reviewed publication to look at. (Less good would be a "press release" web source from ESO or the VLT, which should give some more details that might be convincing, like spectroscopic evidence that it is not a tight binary.) Even better would be independent confirming observations or third-party commentary, which I would expect soon.
This list article is inevitably plagued with poorly characterized and referenced candidates. If we do not exercise tight and conservative control over it, it will very soon become simply meaningless. There are other objects listed needing better (or any...) sourcing, and we need to fix or remove those too, but I believe that is a poor reason to fail to deal with this one, especially as it would be the celebrity, at the top of the list.
I would also like to propose a maximum distance rule for this article, to prevent our listing extragalactic false candidates again and again. Because observations are rapidly improving (with no end in sight) and because even very rare and distant examples are of great fundamental interest, I think any distance limit would need to be revised upwards now and then as the instruments improve; the day will come when we will have optical interferometric arrays in space that will change all the rules we now live by. For now I think the LMC & SMC (& nearer dwarf satellites of the Milky Way) are probably OK, and soon the entire Local Group likely will be too. Wwheaton ( talk) 19:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
There is now an ESO press release giving a reference to a paper by Crowther et al in Monthly Notices of the RAS; preprint available here. I do not have time to read it at the moment, but assuming it looks convincing, I have no objection to restoring R136a1 to the head of the table. If anyone else does this, please also add the reference, and remove the duplicate entry for it half a dozen lines down in the table. Thanks. Wwheaton ( talk) 23:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Since this page is titled "Most Luminous Stars", and since the stars are arranged in order of bolometric luminosity, I would think that "Bolometric Luminosity" should be the first column (not the last). I would think "Apparent Magnitude" should be the last column, since that figure is really incidental to a star's absolute magnitude. I would be glad to make this edit, but I wanted to see if there's agreement among those of you who are more invested in this page. Niobrara ( talk) 20:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently the distance given is 20,000 l.y. However, Simbad seems to estimate a distance of 1125 parsecs, which is considerably less. Niobrara ( talk) 21:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I intend to move the cutoff point for the table to 1,000,000 times solar luminosity. The list is moderately complete above that level, woefully patchy below it. Any star below that level which isn't a household name will be deleted and the rest highlighted in pink. Niobara will then delete half the ones I thought were household names ;) Speak now or forever hold your peace. Lithopsian ( talk) 11:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
A block at the bottom of the table is headed with the statement "The following well-known stars are listed for the purpose of comparison", yet all the stars listed between "Pismis 24-17" and "θ1 Ori C" seem relatively (or utterly) obscure, while all the stars listed after Betelgeuse are indeed well known.
I cut the first range (preserved and displayed below) and I invite anyone so inclined to restore individual deleted entries that can honestly be called "well-known". Please don't just revert the whole edit! Harold f ( talk) 21:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Pismis 24-17 | 891,000 | −10.1 | 5,600 | 11.84 |
Cygnus OB2-#8C | 870,000 | −10.1 | 5000 | 13.25 |
Cygnus OB2-#11 | 790,000 | −10.0 | 5000 | |
Pismis 24-1SW | 646,000 | −9.8 | 5,600 | 10.43 (Pismis 24-1 total for three components) |
HD 33579 (in LMC) | 650,000 | −9.7 | 160,000 | 9.13 |
P Cygni | 610,000 | −9.7 | 5,900 | 4.8 |
ρ Cas | 550,000 | −9.6 | 12,000 | 4.1 to 6.2 |
VY CMa | 450,000 [1] | −9.4 | 4900 | 6.5 to 9.6 |
ε Ori | 380,000 | −9.2 | 1300 | 1.70 |
KW Sgr | 370,000 | −9.17 | 10,000 | 8.9 |
ζ Pup | 360,000 | −9.0 | 1090 | 2.21 |
V354 Cep | 360,000 | −9.15 | 9000 | 10.82 to 11.35 |
RW Cep | 350,000 | −9.11 | 11,500 | 6.52 |
μ Cep (the Garnet Star) | 340,000 | −9.08 | 1900 | 4.04 |
VV Cep A | 315,000 | −9.0 | 2400 | 4.91 |
WOH G64 (in LMC) | 280,000 | 163,000 | ||
KY Cyg | 270,000 | −8.84 | 5000 | |
Plaskett's Star A | 224,000 | −8.6 | 6600 | 6.06 (A + B) |
θ1 Ori C | 220,000 | −8.6 | 1500 | 5.13 |
I'd like to make individual articles for some of these stars, but I end on this list. How can I avoid that?. -- U-95 ( talk) 15:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The apparent magnitude of a star is how bright it appears from Earth. The absolute magnitude is how bright the star actually is. Many bright star look quite dim from Earth since they are much further away — Preceding unsigned comment added by $spunkynova1 ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The first star in 'naked eye' section is P Cygni, with absolute magnitude of -9,7, distance of 5900 light years and apparent magnitude of 4,8. A few lines above, there are the Cygnus OB2 stars, with absolute magnitude of -10,4, distance of 5000 light years and apparent magnitude of 12,7.
So, I wonder, how can Cygnus OB2 be 1.8 times more luminous than P Cygni and have apparent magnitude of only 12.7, even when it is closer to us?
85.217.34.203 (
talk)
00:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The list says WR 25 was more than 100000 lightyears away, with apparent magnitude of about 18. However, the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WR_25 says it's only 7500 lys away, at mag 8,8. The contradiction (and thus, error in the list) is obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.68.165 ( talk) 23:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
As of today, the "Effective temperature" column only goes down to Var A-1. Should I expand it all the way down to S Doradus (or even to the comparison chart)? If anybody wants it, here's a list I made.
Sources are from the articles for individual stars; if they don't have an article, the source is listed below.
Loooke ( talk) 02:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, here are the temperature values for the comparison stars. Again, these all come from the individual star's articles:
Name | Teff (K) | error |
---|---|---|
P Cyg | 18700 | |
RW Cep | 4015 | |
ζ Pup | 40000–44000 | |
ρ Cas | 5777–7200 | |
Alnilam | 27000 | |
VV Cep A | 3826 | |
μ Cep | 3750 | |
VY CMa | ~3490 | |
Plaskett's star A | 33500 | 2000 |
θ1 Ori C | 39000 | 1000 |
Deneb | 8525 | 75 |
Betelgeuse | 3590 | |
Rigel | 12100 | 500 |
Antares | 3400 | 200 |
Canopus | 6998 | |
Bellatrix | 22000 | |
Polaris | 6015 | |
Aldebaran | 3910 | |
Arcturus | 4286 | 30 |
Capella Aa | 4970 | 50 |
Vega | 9602 | 180 |
Sirius A | 9940 | |
α Cen A | 5790 | |
Sun | 5772 |
Loooke ( talk) 20:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Is VY Cma a naked eye star? I suggest changing the comparison section to simply 'the following stars are kept for comparison'. PNSMurthy ( talk) 05:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC) "notable" is always a useful adjective, although it could be considered that any star in WP is notable. "well-known" may be the most accurate description of the stars that are there at the moment. Lithopsian ( talk) 14:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
There's a star in the new; PHL 293b, which is allegedly 2.5 million Lbol, but I couldn't find any ref, except the news. Can it be added, with the ( citation needed) tag? PNSMurthy ( talk) 05:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
This star is proposed in the original reference to possibly be a compact star cluster. Or some luminous star (probable LBV outburst) with a very high magnification. Regardless I was not able to find the value of −14 flat being stated in the list, but the reference said that its MV could be −17.4 in the case of μ = 600 or −14.3 if μ = 7000. This would be an absolute dazzling monster (44.87 to 779.83 million L☉) which makes me think of it more as an LBV or low supernova. Thoughts about this candidate and what should we input on the list? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 14:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
This paper has some luminous stars, but some stars have no coordinates, spectral types or identifiers. Do we add them or not? Diamantinasaurus ( talk) 11:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Why does list of brightest stars include some of the planets of the solar system at measurement? 94.31.91.138 ( talk) 14:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Someone should change the color formatting of the list. The deep navy color makes the black fonts barely visible and is an eyesore. We have MOS:COLOR for this, don't we? SkyFlubbler ( talk) 02:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)