Meme of two women fighting while a man smokes from a pipe in the background.
The women fighting are labeled "mathematicians defining pi" and "engineers just using 3 because it's within tolerance"
The man smoking is labeled "astrophysicists" and the pipe is labeled "pi = 1"
Isn't this functionally true for objects on the infinite focal plane? I.e. a star? Betelgeuse might actually be huge in absolute terms, but from earth, and even in a large telescope, it's still a pinpoint whose circumference is not meaningfully distinct from its diameter.
It would be the size of the telescope's diffraction artifacts probably. Meaning the shape you see on the picture is not related to the size of the star but only to the physical limits of the optical instrument. This diffraction pattern is proportional to the color your looking at and inversely proportional to the size of the telescope primary mirror. The bigger the telescope primary mirror, the smaller the diffraction pattern and the more chance you have that this artifact will not completely hide the object you are looking at. I didn't do the math, but I guess to image the actual disk of Betelgeuse, the size of the telescope you need is probably still science fiction, even with interferometry.
I want you to know that you nerd sniped me with this comment and I started doing the math. To raise the apparent size of Betelgeuse to the apparent size of Jupiter (at its largest to the naked eye), you'd need a minimum 20 inch aperture telescope to pull the required 1000x magnification. Mind you:
20 inches is not a mass produced telescope size, but there ARE custom makers who produce reflectors at and well beyond this size. There are certainly terrestrial telescopes that can achieve what we need.
you're still not resolving any details at that size, it's just raising Betelgeuse to the same apparent size as Jupiter at its naked eye largest.
most places on earth are not conducive to magnifications over 300x. You can certainly do it, and sometimes the atmospheric conditions are ridiculously clear and you can pull off stupid levels of magnification, but there's a reason why observatories get built up on mountains a lot. 1000x is... Well, good luck. Especially since Orion and Betelgeuse never get too close to the zenith, meaning there's always a substantial amount of atmosphere to deal with.
Edit: let's go with raising it to the same apparent size as the full moon, which occupies about 30 arcminutes or 1800 arc seconds. Jupiter is 50 arc seconds at the largest, and Betelgeuse is 0.05 arc s. To figure out how much we need to magnify Betelgeuse by, we take the apparent size of the moon and divide it by the apparent size of Betelgeuse, yielding 36,000x. Assuming a spherical cow, telescope aperture is what limits the maximum useful magnification, and the equation to derive that is roughly 50x aperture. So, if we divide 36,000 by 50, we'll get our minimum required aperture of 720 inches, or fifty feet. IIRC, we have at least one terrestrial telescope that's at least that large, down in Chile, though I'm almost certain there are more and larger ones, too.
I was surprised so I did the computation just to resolve the disk of Betelgeuse at 550 nm, and I found a telescope of 2.8 m, that's definitely already doable. We already have 8 m in one piece and 10 m segmented, JWST is 6.5 m segmented. The ELT is planned to be 39 m for 2028. So this star is closer and bigger than I thought.
And these are the images we have from one of the top imaging instrument SPHERE on the VLT in 2019. It's precise enough to show the change of shape due to its variable star type.