This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WHL0137-LS 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 |
![]() | A news item involving WHL0137-LS was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 31 March 2022. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 1 April 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Earendel (star). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Created the talk-page for the " WHL0137-LS" article - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 17:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The star is NOT 12.9 billion light years away as claimed in the news. Its light took 12.9 million years to reach us, but since the universe has expanded since then, the star is further away now. This is a common misconception and mentioned towards the end of this article:
/info/en/?search=Expansion_of_the_universe#Metric_expansion_and_speed_of_light
I think it's explained better somewhere else on Wikipedia, but I couldn't find the article. Also sorry for my ignorance of how to properly format that link - I'm not a regular contributor, just a cosmologist who can't let this misconception stand without correction :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:110:3040:2819:261:DD18:EE86 ( talk) 16:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Added the following to the lede => "It was determined to be approximately 27 billion light-years from Earth (6.2±01 redshift, based on CosmoCalc; [1] comoving distance of 27 billion light-years; lookback time of 12.9 billion years). Light from the star was emitted 0.9 billion years after the Big Bang. [2] [3] [4]" - checking this edit/determination is welcome of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 19:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurvandill a correct link? MAMware ( talk) 07:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The article currently states that this is 'the most distant known star'. Would 'the most distant directly imaged star' be more correct? We know of galaxies that are further away, and we know they are composed of stars, but those stars have not been directly imaged because of their great distance. This discovery is not interesting because it confirms that stars exist(ed) very far away, but rather because it allows us to see one up close and determine features such as its mass and brightness to better understand the history of star formation in the early universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.126.235.77 ( talk) 15:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
It has not been established that Earandel is a single star (see the NASA press release here: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/record-broken-hubble-spots-farthest-star-ever-seen, “ At this point, astronomers are not able to determine if Earendel is a binary star, though most massive stars have at least one smaller companion star.”), and per the press release it is in fact likely that Earendel is not a single star given our current information. So this wording should be changed. 2603:8000:AC00:2700:4018:CBDA:138A:4FAF ( talk) 05:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The sources in the article seem to have established Earendel as the common name for this star. Perhaps the redirect should be usurped to become the title of this article. What do others think?-- John Cline ( talk) 10:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The current article title name seems Best => '" WHL0137-LS", also known as " Earendel"- and adopts the same format as (and/or, is consistent with) the previous furthest star observed, " MACS J1149 Lensed Star 1", also known as " Icarus" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 14:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Good participation with arguments for both sides, but no consensus at the moment. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 ( talk) 17:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
WHL0137-LS → Earendel (star) – Bold move was reverted, so off we go with the discussion then. A title in natural English, which also happen to be the WP:COMMONNAME (ex. usage NASA; discovery paper, which refers to it as "Earendal" [see the extended data figures at the end, freely available]; mainstream news like Reuters) (whether they are officially so designated by the IAU or not does not really matter, see WP:OFFICIALNAME) should be naturally preferred to an obscure technical designation. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Spekkios ( talk) 22:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
" WHL0137-LS" [1] (accepted technical name that may stand the test of time), also known as
" Earendel" (provisional nickname that may not stand the test of time)- and adopts the same format as (and/or, is consistent with) the previous farthest star observed, " MACS J1149 Lensed Star 1", also known as " Icarus" - at least, this is my reasoning at the moment - comments by other editors more than welcome of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 00:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
References
[[Earendel (star)|Earendel]]
is currently a "
WP:Redirect" - and should be more than sufficient to direct viewers to the main "
WHL0137-LS" article - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
Drbogdan (
talk)
03:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
[English] Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above."in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" - such as those I've listed, and the many more you can find. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
all are based on the same press-releasehas no bearing on the fact that most readers will know it by that name, even if that comment was an accurate summary. But given that this is a rather uncharitable report (are you going to say the Nature paper is based on the NASA release? Have you even read all the difference sources - they are all substantially different that they're clearly not just a copy of the same press release published in multiple places: take a look at [1] and then at [2] (which has plenty of unique content not reported in the NASA release) or the Reuters piece (which includes content quoted form the author which does not appear in either of the previous ones). In fact, "rather uncharitable" is a rather generous description of the claim that these are "all the same press release". Upon closer inspection, that claim is, in fact, outright false. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@
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)
If the star has died out, shouldn't we use the past to talk about it since it no longer exists? Maxime12346 ( talk) 23:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ Maxime12346, Lithopsian, Herr Hartmann, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, Grimes2, MrStoofer, and RandomCanadian: I had read this book about galaxies a long ago. The author of the book had foreseen such a situation. There are lots of examples of the exact tense that we need for this article. Here is a link to an excerpt from that said book. But unfortunately, the excerpt doesn't give any examples, you guys will have find online/refer to the original work. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WHL0137-LS 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 |
![]() | A news item involving WHL0137-LS was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 31 March 2022. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 1 April 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Earendel (star). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Created the talk-page for the " WHL0137-LS" article - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 17:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The star is NOT 12.9 billion light years away as claimed in the news. Its light took 12.9 million years to reach us, but since the universe has expanded since then, the star is further away now. This is a common misconception and mentioned towards the end of this article:
/info/en/?search=Expansion_of_the_universe#Metric_expansion_and_speed_of_light
I think it's explained better somewhere else on Wikipedia, but I couldn't find the article. Also sorry for my ignorance of how to properly format that link - I'm not a regular contributor, just a cosmologist who can't let this misconception stand without correction :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:110:3040:2819:261:DD18:EE86 ( talk) 16:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Added the following to the lede => "It was determined to be approximately 27 billion light-years from Earth (6.2±01 redshift, based on CosmoCalc; [1] comoving distance of 27 billion light-years; lookback time of 12.9 billion years). Light from the star was emitted 0.9 billion years after the Big Bang. [2] [3] [4]" - checking this edit/determination is welcome of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 19:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurvandill a correct link? MAMware ( talk) 07:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The article currently states that this is 'the most distant known star'. Would 'the most distant directly imaged star' be more correct? We know of galaxies that are further away, and we know they are composed of stars, but those stars have not been directly imaged because of their great distance. This discovery is not interesting because it confirms that stars exist(ed) very far away, but rather because it allows us to see one up close and determine features such as its mass and brightness to better understand the history of star formation in the early universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.126.235.77 ( talk) 15:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
It has not been established that Earandel is a single star (see the NASA press release here: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/record-broken-hubble-spots-farthest-star-ever-seen, “ At this point, astronomers are not able to determine if Earendel is a binary star, though most massive stars have at least one smaller companion star.”), and per the press release it is in fact likely that Earendel is not a single star given our current information. So this wording should be changed. 2603:8000:AC00:2700:4018:CBDA:138A:4FAF ( talk) 05:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The sources in the article seem to have established Earendel as the common name for this star. Perhaps the redirect should be usurped to become the title of this article. What do others think?-- John Cline ( talk) 10:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The current article title name seems Best => '" WHL0137-LS", also known as " Earendel"- and adopts the same format as (and/or, is consistent with) the previous furthest star observed, " MACS J1149 Lensed Star 1", also known as " Icarus" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 14:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Good participation with arguments for both sides, but no consensus at the moment. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 ( talk) 17:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
WHL0137-LS → Earendel (star) – Bold move was reverted, so off we go with the discussion then. A title in natural English, which also happen to be the WP:COMMONNAME (ex. usage NASA; discovery paper, which refers to it as "Earendal" [see the extended data figures at the end, freely available]; mainstream news like Reuters) (whether they are officially so designated by the IAU or not does not really matter, see WP:OFFICIALNAME) should be naturally preferred to an obscure technical designation. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Spekkios ( talk) 22:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
" WHL0137-LS" [1] (accepted technical name that may stand the test of time), also known as
" Earendel" (provisional nickname that may not stand the test of time)- and adopts the same format as (and/or, is consistent with) the previous farthest star observed, " MACS J1149 Lensed Star 1", also known as " Icarus" - at least, this is my reasoning at the moment - comments by other editors more than welcome of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 00:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
References
[[Earendel (star)|Earendel]]
is currently a "
WP:Redirect" - and should be more than sufficient to direct viewers to the main "
WHL0137-LS" article - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! -
Drbogdan (
talk)
03:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
[English] Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above."in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" - such as those I've listed, and the many more you can find. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
all are based on the same press-releasehas no bearing on the fact that most readers will know it by that name, even if that comment was an accurate summary. But given that this is a rather uncharitable report (are you going to say the Nature paper is based on the NASA release? Have you even read all the difference sources - they are all substantially different that they're clearly not just a copy of the same press release published in multiple places: take a look at [1] and then at [2] (which has plenty of unique content not reported in the NASA release) or the Reuters piece (which includes content quoted form the author which does not appear in either of the previous ones). In fact, "rather uncharitable" is a rather generous description of the claim that these are "all the same press release". Upon closer inspection, that claim is, in fact, outright false. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@
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)
If the star has died out, shouldn't we use the past to talk about it since it no longer exists? Maxime12346 ( talk) 23:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ Maxime12346, Lithopsian, Herr Hartmann, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, Grimes2, MrStoofer, and RandomCanadian: I had read this book about galaxies a long ago. The author of the book had foreseen such a situation. There are lots of examples of the exact tense that we need for this article. Here is a link to an excerpt from that said book. But unfortunately, the excerpt doesn't give any examples, you guys will have find online/refer to the original work. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)