This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
UY Scuti article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I've created this article. I am just a 13 year old boy, and I just get my information from SIMBAD. Please help me add some information about UY Scuti's distance, luminosity, and parallax, if you have any information about it. Thank you! Johndric Valdez ( talk) 12:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC) :)
I've just turned to the list of largest known stars, and found out that UY Scuti has errors in its size determination. I fear that maybe my information might had just don't make it contrary to current ideas. You can edit my article if new results were found to its size. Johndric Valdez ( talk) 12:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
At an astonishing size of 2.38 billion kilometres, or 1,708 solar radii, UY Scuti has now taken the place NML Cygni held for more than a year. Some websites are now reporting UY Sct as largest known star, and it was true at all, based on observations.
But according to a smart, good friend under the name Lithopsian, about a dozen stars were fighting for the throne. And it was true, candidates were VV Cep A, PZ Cas, RW Cep, KY Cyg, Wd 1-26 and WOH G64. And Lithopsian has provided a journal on the List of largest known stars that states UY Scuti has erroric scheme of estimate. Based on this data, if we relied on this, more candidates will follow. The reason that I've put only "one of the largest known stars" is because of what Lithopsian said that nothing has really changed, lots of stars are still competing for the throne. So don't start up shouting UY Sct as largest, there are erroric possibilities in size estimates, with uncertain predictions. If you don't understand then just ask Lithopsian, because he's the expert.
To Lithopsian, please add a reliable journal concerning this. I need your help. == Johndric Valdez ( talk) 06:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)==
UY Scuti is truly the king of stars, with candidates including PZ Cassiopeiae, VV Cephei A, VY Canis Majoris, KY Cygni, Westerlund 1-26, WOH G64, and NML Cygni. Nobody know who really is the largest star though, but it is best to say UY Scuti is the one. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ( Visit/ Talk/ Contribs) 05:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The mass is given as 32 times solar mass. That seems impossibly low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.226.172.196 ( talk) 21:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There is also a different mass written in the table detail : Mass 7–10[4] M☉ please unify the information, according to the arXiv paper linked it should be 25/30-40 M⊙ Cheers PapAngelos ( talk) 14:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
UY Sct's spectral luminosity class and absolute magnitude fit it to become a hypergiant. Is this star a hypergiant or just a down-ranking supergiant? == Johndric Valdez ( talk) 12:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)==
I am going to bring back what I've said above. Lithopsian was right. Almost all pages concerning the largest stars in the Internet only base their claims on here in Wikipedia. One edit here and hundreds (thousands?) will claim it. Too bad they only claim what they see here (like the table in the list of largest known stars page) and do not study those refs.
In just a matter of few months, I was surprised how many reports in the Internet claim UY Scuti defeated NML Cygni in the first place when the fact is UY Scuti is the more likely to be defeated. Simply this claim arouses because people only look at star rankings, not the references. So now, I would like to request, what about changing UY Scuti's size from 1,708 ± 192 solar radii to 1,515-1,900 solar radii (like on AH Sco. Lithopsian changed it from 1,411 ± 124 solar radii to 1,287-1,535 solar radii) simply because people claim what is unlikely to be the largest known star.
Look, NML Cygni's estimate is very precise, 1,650 solar radii, no more nor less. We can't figure it out on UY Scuti; we are not sure about the size, yet the Internet claims because it was in the highest, not understanding the refs. If we did the 1,516-1,900 figure, we will push him to 4th place, below VX Sgr, and will rethrone NML Cygni. We must do that because I don't want people to claim the largest star as a star with errors, rather a star with a sureball estimate. Johndric Valdez ( talk) 14:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
What does UY mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 ( talk) 20:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, if the variable star is the 355th discovered in the constellation, it should be named with V and the number. Example: V766 Centauri, V567 Cygni, etc. Johndric Valdez ( talk) 13:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The article says that stars like these occur on average once per 1500 cubic light-years. This is obviously meant to mean something like one star per a volume equal to a cube 1500 light-years on a side (or perhaps a sphere of radius 1500 light-years), but it could also be misinterpreted as one star per 1500 ly^3, which would space them on average 11-12 light-years apart. 2620:72:0:52F:D50E:F71C:90F6:37E7 ( talk) 17:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Scuti is surrounded by a thick ionized nebula extending out to 25 stellar radii (400 AU) and with four times the mass of the sun. The disc may be gases ejected by UY Scuti as it passed through the yellow evolutionary void a few thousand years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:2383:DAC:7473:D876:F7E1:7DE ( talk) 09:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
UY Scuti's diameter (maximum):
2.644 billion km x 25 = billion km
(1 AU) AU (rounded)
Thus, 25 UY Scutian radii would be 442 AU. The diameter of the ionized nebula would be ~884 AU. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ( Visit/ Talk/ Contribs) 04:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
This image looks trollish. Could it be real? Hubblesite.org has no mention of observations of UY Scuti. -- 79.166.76.26 ( talk) 07:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, this image is not a Hubble image as far as I can tell from google image search and searching on the Hubble site, could someone more advanced in editing than me examine and take it down if it's not an actual Hubble image of the star. 73.254.181.101 ( talk) 02:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Can the article please identify the galaxy in which the star resides? Thanks! -- Lbeaumont ( talk) 02:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm passionate about improving this article to GA. I'd like Oshwah and Eat me, I'm an azuki to join me.. Would you? Thanks and regards— UY Scuti Talk 11:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
UY Scuti. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Has the age of this star been determined? If so, what is it? If not, what factors prevent a proper determining of its age, and are there any potential scientific approaches being developed to determine its age?
Inclusion of answers to these questions would constitute an improvement to this article.
allixpeeke ( talk) 12:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This article says UY Scuti is not classified as a hypergiant. The actual hypergiant article says it is. Which is it? 136.159.160.4 ( talk) 18:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The Gaia DR2 catalogue gives for UY Scuti a parallax of 0.6433 ± 0.1059 mas, which translates to a distance of 1550 ± 260 pc, much less than the 2900 ± 317 pc assumed for the radius of 1,708 ± 192 R☉. The new distance, if correct, means the radius of the star is just 916 R☉. Should this be included in the article? Jolielegal ( talk) 23:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
180.191.150.91 ( talk) 01:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
When i checked the reference, the mass seems to be more like 20-40 and not 7-10. Maybe someone could have a look and fix if i read it correctly.-- McBayne ( talk) 21:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, my last citation about it. With the effective temperature and the luminosity calculated from the Rosseland radius, the bolometric flux, and the distance, we locate our targets in the HR diagram. The positions of the stars in the HR diagram fall close to the red limit of the tracks corresponding to stars of mass around 25/30–40 M⊙ (AH Sco and UY Sct) and 20/20–40 M⊙ (KW Sgr) with/without rotation. That sentence makes me think they ended up with these high masses but maybe you are right and this is really the initial mass.-- McBayne ( talk) 19:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
We should change the paragraph about a hypothetical object moving at the speed of light taking 7 hours to taking an observed 7 hours. The disambiguation is importance because a luminal observer would claim that no time at all passed during the orbit. Northtreker ( talk) 14:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Minor change to the second sentence of the article, language, probably a typo. change the following: "It also the largest known star by radius and is also a variable star" to: It is the largest known star by radius and is also a variable star, Kite4life ( talk) 04:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
How many times is it bigger than UY Scuti? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3A20:25B0:8DC1:D0B1:82A3:889B ( talk) 16:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Which star with what radius is the most likely star to be the largest? And what are the most accurate radii for uncertain stars like VV Cephei, Mu Cephei, Eta Carinae and IRC +10420 and stars of the basic sequence Sirius - Pollux - Arcturus - Aldebaran - Rigel - Deneb - Pistol Star - Antares - Betelgeuse? And is Antares bigger than Betelgeuse or not? And is Aldebaran bigger than Rigel or not? What’s the true diameter of UY Scuti since both estimates of its distance seem to be inaccurate? Nussun05 ( talk) 17:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
UY Scuti has for awhile been considered one of the largest known stars with a diameter of around 1700 times that of the sun. Yet suddenly I see that number changed to 755 times that of the sun based on one source. How reliable is that source? That seems like quite a big difference to attribute to an error in earlier models. I just don’t know if I trust the 755 solar radii number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay72091(2) ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Jay72091(2) ( talk) 02:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
There are some controversial about UY Scuti's mass. Because UY Scuti looses mass, tons of them every year or so. 7:35,25th September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel kun 22 ( talk • contribs)
Well, I saw UY Scuti's details got reverted back to its old 2013 details based on the old 2.9 kpc again since its 1.55 kpc Gaia DR2 distance appears to be as possibly not accurate. But I think we should keep the Messineo properties and the Gaia DR2 distance since the 2.9 kpc distance is now considered highly old (made in 1970) and obsolete (and now should unlikely to be used). You can't just go back in history, especially if the estimated distance is 30 years older than the new one since observations and methods since prior to 1990-2000 are much less reliable than current ones. And also UY Scuti is also considered as an intermediate-size luminous supergiant (Ia-Iab), thus its actual luminosity would be likely smaller than the 340,000 L☉ from Torres 2013. However, I can't find distances for UY Scuti other than the 1970 and Gaia DR2 distance though authors may gives the star an actual distance (maybe larger than the Gaia DR2 but likely smaller than the 1970 distance) in the future. 2A01:E0A:47A:F100:5DDF:BD27:7374:95E6 ( talk) 00:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I have been in discussion with an individual who argues:
"The time past since publication is not a scientific criterion to evaluate papers (in fact, it is a kind of "argumentum ad novitatem"). Of course, new publications rely on new measurements done with more precise instrumentation, but "better precision" means not "better results". The best example of this is the problem with the distances for large stars provided by Gaia.
About the two papers you mentioned: - Cruzalébes et al. 2019: They do not give a angular (or physical) diameter for UY Sct. They only provide the distance for UY Sct and iot is not original, but taken from Bailer-Jones et al. (2018). As the distances from that work are calculated from Gaia, they have the same problem mentioned above. Thus, any radius calculated from that distance for Uy Sct can not be really trusted. - Van Loon et al. 2005: The data for red supergiants used in this paper is probably enough for their scientific objetive (to study the mass-loss in a statistical way). However, such values are not very reliable for specific objects, and in the specific case of UY, the data is especially problematic. Firstly, the luminosity of UY Sct was not calculated by them, but taken from Jura & Kleinmann (1990). In that paper, this is said about this star: "We include two stars in Table 1 whose distances are not well established but which have sufficiently long periods that they may be massive stars: KW Sgr (F = 670 days) and UY Set (F = 740 days). Neither of these stars is a Mira, and spectroscopically they are classified as supergiants. We assume nominal distances to these stars of 2 kpc, but this is uncertain." If this is not bad enough, the other ingredient for the calculation of the radius, the temperature, is also problematic. From Van Loon et al. 2005: "The stellar effective temperatures corresponding to the M-type spectral subclasses are taken from Fluks et al. (1994). These are strictly speaking valid for luminosity class III giants of solar abundances, and differences may be expected for metal-poor stars and for luminous supergiants. (...) The thus adopted values are probably only accurate to ∼300 K (cf. Houdashelt et al. 2000)." Therefore, their temperature is not a precise measurement, but an estimation using a scale created for red giants. In conclusion, the two ingredients used to calculate the radius of UY Sct are not reliable at all. This does not mean that the distance from which the previous size was calculated (taken from Lee 1970) is absolutely correct. But there is not necessity of believing this paper. Is at simple as this: UY Sct is a M4 Ia star. Its radius can not be smaller or about the size of "typical" red supergiants, as Betelgeuse which is a M2 Iab. It has to be larger... roughly similar to the radius calculated for other M4 Ia stars as VY CMa (1400 Rsun) or BI Cyg (1200 Rsun), which is almost twice the radius derived from Gaia."
Any assessments on this comment? I would appreciate opinions. Faren29 ( talk) 17:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Alshfik ( talk) 14:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Should the star be in the list at all? On one side we have a radius based on an old, obsolete and borderline guesstimate distance from 1970, and on the other side we have two radii based on Gaia data, which has a level of astrometric noise far above acceptable. Do we pick obsolete data or unreliable data? I say neither. Faren29 ( talk) 02:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Hola, estaba buscando acerca de la magnitud absoluta de la estrella UY scuti, y vi que en este articulo era -6.2 entonces la posicione en el diagrama de H-R pero no cuadraba con su luminosidad ya que es de 340.000 L☉. Calcule la magnitud absoluta y era de -7.983,8
Si mis cálculos están mal háganmelo saber, pero de lo contrario sugiero que corrijan el articulo :) APHE1 ( talk) 20:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
must be: "estimated radius of 1,708 solar radii" ==> "estimated radius of 1,708 solar radius" ok? 78.190.254.238 ( talk) 12:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Now, recently, I've been viewing Tabernero et al ( [1]],the study which says that VX Sagittarii is an AGB star) and on page 2, it states that both S Persei and UY Scuti are Red hypergiants. The specific text is:
On top of that, up on the page another paper ( [2]]) describes UY Scuti as an extreme red supergiant (E-RSG) and it was compared to S Persei. What are your thoughts? Let me know down below, so we can add it or not add it. Bye !-- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 10:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
In the description it says
If placed at the center of the Solar System, its photosphere would at least engulf the orbit of Jupiter.
Could be improved by saying something like,
If placed at the center of the Solar System, its photosphere would at least engulf the orbit of Jupiter, while the nebula of gas ejected from the star would extend far beyond the orbit of Pluto.
Sources located here. Ispottedsomething ( talk) 14:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I’ve been told that the radius of UY Scuti was not based off of measurements by the GAIA EDR3 spacecraft.
Therefore I edited the page stating the star’s radius has been given various estimates, including an old estimate of 1708 +/- 192 Rsol, and a more recent estimate of 755 Rsol from GAIA DR2.
We know neither of these estimates are reliable, and I found no source stating its estimate was 825 Rsol. Eric Nelson27 ( talk) 13:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
"... 755 solar radii (525,000,000 kilometres; 3.51 astronomical units), thus a volume over 2 billion times that of the Sun ..."
If the star's radius is 755 times the radius of the sun, then its volume is 'only' 430 million (755^3) times bigger, not 2 billion. 2600:1002:B17F:E76:791B:4042:8C13:6D70 ( talk) 10:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
The sentence ought to read "It is considered possibly one of the largest known stars."
Or even better (if you want to be super grammatically correct): "It is considered to be possibly one of the largest known stars."
105.161.198.160 ( talk) 09:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)BurnLootMurd...
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
UY Scuti article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I've created this article. I am just a 13 year old boy, and I just get my information from SIMBAD. Please help me add some information about UY Scuti's distance, luminosity, and parallax, if you have any information about it. Thank you! Johndric Valdez ( talk) 12:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC) :)
I've just turned to the list of largest known stars, and found out that UY Scuti has errors in its size determination. I fear that maybe my information might had just don't make it contrary to current ideas. You can edit my article if new results were found to its size. Johndric Valdez ( talk) 12:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
At an astonishing size of 2.38 billion kilometres, or 1,708 solar radii, UY Scuti has now taken the place NML Cygni held for more than a year. Some websites are now reporting UY Sct as largest known star, and it was true at all, based on observations.
But according to a smart, good friend under the name Lithopsian, about a dozen stars were fighting for the throne. And it was true, candidates were VV Cep A, PZ Cas, RW Cep, KY Cyg, Wd 1-26 and WOH G64. And Lithopsian has provided a journal on the List of largest known stars that states UY Scuti has erroric scheme of estimate. Based on this data, if we relied on this, more candidates will follow. The reason that I've put only "one of the largest known stars" is because of what Lithopsian said that nothing has really changed, lots of stars are still competing for the throne. So don't start up shouting UY Sct as largest, there are erroric possibilities in size estimates, with uncertain predictions. If you don't understand then just ask Lithopsian, because he's the expert.
To Lithopsian, please add a reliable journal concerning this. I need your help. == Johndric Valdez ( talk) 06:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)==
UY Scuti is truly the king of stars, with candidates including PZ Cassiopeiae, VV Cephei A, VY Canis Majoris, KY Cygni, Westerlund 1-26, WOH G64, and NML Cygni. Nobody know who really is the largest star though, but it is best to say UY Scuti is the one. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ( Visit/ Talk/ Contribs) 05:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The mass is given as 32 times solar mass. That seems impossibly low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.226.172.196 ( talk) 21:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There is also a different mass written in the table detail : Mass 7–10[4] M☉ please unify the information, according to the arXiv paper linked it should be 25/30-40 M⊙ Cheers PapAngelos ( talk) 14:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
UY Sct's spectral luminosity class and absolute magnitude fit it to become a hypergiant. Is this star a hypergiant or just a down-ranking supergiant? == Johndric Valdez ( talk) 12:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)==
I am going to bring back what I've said above. Lithopsian was right. Almost all pages concerning the largest stars in the Internet only base their claims on here in Wikipedia. One edit here and hundreds (thousands?) will claim it. Too bad they only claim what they see here (like the table in the list of largest known stars page) and do not study those refs.
In just a matter of few months, I was surprised how many reports in the Internet claim UY Scuti defeated NML Cygni in the first place when the fact is UY Scuti is the more likely to be defeated. Simply this claim arouses because people only look at star rankings, not the references. So now, I would like to request, what about changing UY Scuti's size from 1,708 ± 192 solar radii to 1,515-1,900 solar radii (like on AH Sco. Lithopsian changed it from 1,411 ± 124 solar radii to 1,287-1,535 solar radii) simply because people claim what is unlikely to be the largest known star.
Look, NML Cygni's estimate is very precise, 1,650 solar radii, no more nor less. We can't figure it out on UY Scuti; we are not sure about the size, yet the Internet claims because it was in the highest, not understanding the refs. If we did the 1,516-1,900 figure, we will push him to 4th place, below VX Sgr, and will rethrone NML Cygni. We must do that because I don't want people to claim the largest star as a star with errors, rather a star with a sureball estimate. Johndric Valdez ( talk) 14:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
What does UY mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 ( talk) 20:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, if the variable star is the 355th discovered in the constellation, it should be named with V and the number. Example: V766 Centauri, V567 Cygni, etc. Johndric Valdez ( talk) 13:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The article says that stars like these occur on average once per 1500 cubic light-years. This is obviously meant to mean something like one star per a volume equal to a cube 1500 light-years on a side (or perhaps a sphere of radius 1500 light-years), but it could also be misinterpreted as one star per 1500 ly^3, which would space them on average 11-12 light-years apart. 2620:72:0:52F:D50E:F71C:90F6:37E7 ( talk) 17:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Scuti is surrounded by a thick ionized nebula extending out to 25 stellar radii (400 AU) and with four times the mass of the sun. The disc may be gases ejected by UY Scuti as it passed through the yellow evolutionary void a few thousand years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:2383:DAC:7473:D876:F7E1:7DE ( talk) 09:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
UY Scuti's diameter (maximum):
2.644 billion km x 25 = billion km
(1 AU) AU (rounded)
Thus, 25 UY Scutian radii would be 442 AU. The diameter of the ionized nebula would be ~884 AU. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL ( Visit/ Talk/ Contribs) 04:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
This image looks trollish. Could it be real? Hubblesite.org has no mention of observations of UY Scuti. -- 79.166.76.26 ( talk) 07:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, this image is not a Hubble image as far as I can tell from google image search and searching on the Hubble site, could someone more advanced in editing than me examine and take it down if it's not an actual Hubble image of the star. 73.254.181.101 ( talk) 02:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Can the article please identify the galaxy in which the star resides? Thanks! -- Lbeaumont ( talk) 02:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm passionate about improving this article to GA. I'd like Oshwah and Eat me, I'm an azuki to join me.. Would you? Thanks and regards— UY Scuti Talk 11:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
UY Scuti. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Has the age of this star been determined? If so, what is it? If not, what factors prevent a proper determining of its age, and are there any potential scientific approaches being developed to determine its age?
Inclusion of answers to these questions would constitute an improvement to this article.
allixpeeke ( talk) 12:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This article says UY Scuti is not classified as a hypergiant. The actual hypergiant article says it is. Which is it? 136.159.160.4 ( talk) 18:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The Gaia DR2 catalogue gives for UY Scuti a parallax of 0.6433 ± 0.1059 mas, which translates to a distance of 1550 ± 260 pc, much less than the 2900 ± 317 pc assumed for the radius of 1,708 ± 192 R☉. The new distance, if correct, means the radius of the star is just 916 R☉. Should this be included in the article? Jolielegal ( talk) 23:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
180.191.150.91 ( talk) 01:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
When i checked the reference, the mass seems to be more like 20-40 and not 7-10. Maybe someone could have a look and fix if i read it correctly.-- McBayne ( talk) 21:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, my last citation about it. With the effective temperature and the luminosity calculated from the Rosseland radius, the bolometric flux, and the distance, we locate our targets in the HR diagram. The positions of the stars in the HR diagram fall close to the red limit of the tracks corresponding to stars of mass around 25/30–40 M⊙ (AH Sco and UY Sct) and 20/20–40 M⊙ (KW Sgr) with/without rotation. That sentence makes me think they ended up with these high masses but maybe you are right and this is really the initial mass.-- McBayne ( talk) 19:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
We should change the paragraph about a hypothetical object moving at the speed of light taking 7 hours to taking an observed 7 hours. The disambiguation is importance because a luminal observer would claim that no time at all passed during the orbit. Northtreker ( talk) 14:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Minor change to the second sentence of the article, language, probably a typo. change the following: "It also the largest known star by radius and is also a variable star" to: It is the largest known star by radius and is also a variable star, Kite4life ( talk) 04:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
How many times is it bigger than UY Scuti? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3A20:25B0:8DC1:D0B1:82A3:889B ( talk) 16:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Which star with what radius is the most likely star to be the largest? And what are the most accurate radii for uncertain stars like VV Cephei, Mu Cephei, Eta Carinae and IRC +10420 and stars of the basic sequence Sirius - Pollux - Arcturus - Aldebaran - Rigel - Deneb - Pistol Star - Antares - Betelgeuse? And is Antares bigger than Betelgeuse or not? And is Aldebaran bigger than Rigel or not? What’s the true diameter of UY Scuti since both estimates of its distance seem to be inaccurate? Nussun05 ( talk) 17:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
UY Scuti has for awhile been considered one of the largest known stars with a diameter of around 1700 times that of the sun. Yet suddenly I see that number changed to 755 times that of the sun based on one source. How reliable is that source? That seems like quite a big difference to attribute to an error in earlier models. I just don’t know if I trust the 755 solar radii number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay72091(2) ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Jay72091(2) ( talk) 02:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
There are some controversial about UY Scuti's mass. Because UY Scuti looses mass, tons of them every year or so. 7:35,25th September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel kun 22 ( talk • contribs)
Well, I saw UY Scuti's details got reverted back to its old 2013 details based on the old 2.9 kpc again since its 1.55 kpc Gaia DR2 distance appears to be as possibly not accurate. But I think we should keep the Messineo properties and the Gaia DR2 distance since the 2.9 kpc distance is now considered highly old (made in 1970) and obsolete (and now should unlikely to be used). You can't just go back in history, especially if the estimated distance is 30 years older than the new one since observations and methods since prior to 1990-2000 are much less reliable than current ones. And also UY Scuti is also considered as an intermediate-size luminous supergiant (Ia-Iab), thus its actual luminosity would be likely smaller than the 340,000 L☉ from Torres 2013. However, I can't find distances for UY Scuti other than the 1970 and Gaia DR2 distance though authors may gives the star an actual distance (maybe larger than the Gaia DR2 but likely smaller than the 1970 distance) in the future. 2A01:E0A:47A:F100:5DDF:BD27:7374:95E6 ( talk) 00:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I have been in discussion with an individual who argues:
"The time past since publication is not a scientific criterion to evaluate papers (in fact, it is a kind of "argumentum ad novitatem"). Of course, new publications rely on new measurements done with more precise instrumentation, but "better precision" means not "better results". The best example of this is the problem with the distances for large stars provided by Gaia.
About the two papers you mentioned: - Cruzalébes et al. 2019: They do not give a angular (or physical) diameter for UY Sct. They only provide the distance for UY Sct and iot is not original, but taken from Bailer-Jones et al. (2018). As the distances from that work are calculated from Gaia, they have the same problem mentioned above. Thus, any radius calculated from that distance for Uy Sct can not be really trusted. - Van Loon et al. 2005: The data for red supergiants used in this paper is probably enough for their scientific objetive (to study the mass-loss in a statistical way). However, such values are not very reliable for specific objects, and in the specific case of UY, the data is especially problematic. Firstly, the luminosity of UY Sct was not calculated by them, but taken from Jura & Kleinmann (1990). In that paper, this is said about this star: "We include two stars in Table 1 whose distances are not well established but which have sufficiently long periods that they may be massive stars: KW Sgr (F = 670 days) and UY Set (F = 740 days). Neither of these stars is a Mira, and spectroscopically they are classified as supergiants. We assume nominal distances to these stars of 2 kpc, but this is uncertain." If this is not bad enough, the other ingredient for the calculation of the radius, the temperature, is also problematic. From Van Loon et al. 2005: "The stellar effective temperatures corresponding to the M-type spectral subclasses are taken from Fluks et al. (1994). These are strictly speaking valid for luminosity class III giants of solar abundances, and differences may be expected for metal-poor stars and for luminous supergiants. (...) The thus adopted values are probably only accurate to ∼300 K (cf. Houdashelt et al. 2000)." Therefore, their temperature is not a precise measurement, but an estimation using a scale created for red giants. In conclusion, the two ingredients used to calculate the radius of UY Sct are not reliable at all. This does not mean that the distance from which the previous size was calculated (taken from Lee 1970) is absolutely correct. But there is not necessity of believing this paper. Is at simple as this: UY Sct is a M4 Ia star. Its radius can not be smaller or about the size of "typical" red supergiants, as Betelgeuse which is a M2 Iab. It has to be larger... roughly similar to the radius calculated for other M4 Ia stars as VY CMa (1400 Rsun) or BI Cyg (1200 Rsun), which is almost twice the radius derived from Gaia."
Any assessments on this comment? I would appreciate opinions. Faren29 ( talk) 17:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Alshfik ( talk) 14:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Should the star be in the list at all? On one side we have a radius based on an old, obsolete and borderline guesstimate distance from 1970, and on the other side we have two radii based on Gaia data, which has a level of astrometric noise far above acceptable. Do we pick obsolete data or unreliable data? I say neither. Faren29 ( talk) 02:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Hola, estaba buscando acerca de la magnitud absoluta de la estrella UY scuti, y vi que en este articulo era -6.2 entonces la posicione en el diagrama de H-R pero no cuadraba con su luminosidad ya que es de 340.000 L☉. Calcule la magnitud absoluta y era de -7.983,8
Si mis cálculos están mal háganmelo saber, pero de lo contrario sugiero que corrijan el articulo :) APHE1 ( talk) 20:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
must be: "estimated radius of 1,708 solar radii" ==> "estimated radius of 1,708 solar radius" ok? 78.190.254.238 ( talk) 12:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Now, recently, I've been viewing Tabernero et al ( [1]],the study which says that VX Sagittarii is an AGB star) and on page 2, it states that both S Persei and UY Scuti are Red hypergiants. The specific text is:
On top of that, up on the page another paper ( [2]]) describes UY Scuti as an extreme red supergiant (E-RSG) and it was compared to S Persei. What are your thoughts? Let me know down below, so we can add it or not add it. Bye !-- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 10:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
In the description it says
If placed at the center of the Solar System, its photosphere would at least engulf the orbit of Jupiter.
Could be improved by saying something like,
If placed at the center of the Solar System, its photosphere would at least engulf the orbit of Jupiter, while the nebula of gas ejected from the star would extend far beyond the orbit of Pluto.
Sources located here. Ispottedsomething ( talk) 14:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I’ve been told that the radius of UY Scuti was not based off of measurements by the GAIA EDR3 spacecraft.
Therefore I edited the page stating the star’s radius has been given various estimates, including an old estimate of 1708 +/- 192 Rsol, and a more recent estimate of 755 Rsol from GAIA DR2.
We know neither of these estimates are reliable, and I found no source stating its estimate was 825 Rsol. Eric Nelson27 ( talk) 13:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
"... 755 solar radii (525,000,000 kilometres; 3.51 astronomical units), thus a volume over 2 billion times that of the Sun ..."
If the star's radius is 755 times the radius of the sun, then its volume is 'only' 430 million (755^3) times bigger, not 2 billion. 2600:1002:B17F:E76:791B:4042:8C13:6D70 ( talk) 10:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
The sentence ought to read "It is considered possibly one of the largest known stars."
Or even better (if you want to be super grammatically correct): "It is considered to be possibly one of the largest known stars."
105.161.198.160 ( talk) 09:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)BurnLootMurd...