Historical supernova

The historical term of supernova refers to a Supernova whose documents report the observation by Astronome S at one time former to the advent of the Télescope or of any other modern means of observation. By extension, the term indicates a supernova whose explosion could have been observed by one last time old astronomers but belonging to historical times (typically there is less 2 500 years).

Scientific interest

The knowledge of the historical supernovas is important because no galactic supernova was observed since the invention of the telescope. In addition the knowledge of the exact age of a Remanent of supernova or of a Pulsar is of a crucial interest for the comprehension of those. Testimonys concerning of possible supernovas are unfortunately very few and little precis, with the result that only five of them are known with certainty, to which are added some more or less probable candidates and of possible supernovas not observed but dating from historical times (see lists below).

Identifiation of a historical supernova

Several astronomical phenomena were reported in various historical writings, for the majority coming from Far East. In addition to the mentions of eclipses S, movement planetary and conjunction S various “invited stars” is mentioned, being able to correspond to supernovas. These invited stars can correspond in theory to three types of quite distinct phenomena:

supernova
Nova
Comet

The principal criteria selected to distinguish a supernova among invited stars are:

Absence of displacement on the vault of heaven: to exclude the assumption from a comet.
Proximity of the galactic plane: almost the whole of remanent of supernova have a very weak galactic Latitude, which is corroborated by the theory of the stellar evolution which predicts that the supernovas occur in the zone of star formation, which is located in the spiral arms of the Galaxie S.
Durée: the curve of luminosity of a supernova decrease much more slowly of that of a nova. A long astronomical phenomenon is likely more to correspond to a supernova, the more so as in such a case it is much easier to make sure of the immobility of the phenomenon on the celestial Sphère.
Detection of one remanent with the estimated position of the invited star, whose age can be estimated and corresponds to that of invited star.

The criterion of luminosity is not retained since the luminosity is function of the distance from the phenomenon.

List historical supernovas

Unquestionable supernovas

SN 1006, in the Constellation of the Wolf. Probably most luminous of the historical supernovas some
SN 1054, having given to birth to the Nebulous Crab (contellation of the Bull). It is the historical supernova the most famous, and first identified like such.
SN 1181, the least known (and the least luminous) of the proven historical supernovas (constellation of Cassiopée)
SN 1572, said of Tycho, in the honor of Tycho Brahé, which was one of the most assiduous observers (constellation of Cassiopée). She played a crucial role in the Histoire of sciences because she was used by Tycho Brahé to refute the Dogme aristotelician of the immutability of the skies.
SN 1604, known as of Kepler, in the honor of Johannes Kepler, which was one of the most assiduous observers (constellation of Ophiuchus). It is the last supernova historical being produced in our Galaxy and having been actually observed.

Probable or possible supernovas

Two invited stars was seen in 837. They are stationary stars, but the weak duration of visibility of the one and high the galactic Latitude of the other return the assumption of a supernova much less probable than that of a Nova. The fact that two invited stars were observed the same year could be on the other hand explained easily by the passage of the Halley's Comet in March of the same year, which would have then stimulated the search for other unusual stars at that time. None of these stars is regarded today (2005) as a potential supernova.
SN 393: the star invited of 393 remained visible eight month and appeared in the vicinity of the Astérisme which composes the tail of the Constellation of the Scorpion, in the galactic plane, which strongly pleads for the assumption of a supernova. Remanent X-ray J1713.7-3946 has an estimated age and a position compatible with invited star of 393. This one is thus regarded as the progenitor of this remanent.
SN 386: the star invited of 386 was visible between 60 and 115 days (only the months of appearance and disappearance are known), which corresponds to one period of low visibility for a supernova, more characteristic of a nova. The position of the supernova is badly known because it is not known if the Astérisme mentioned in the text corresponds to the band of Right ascension of invited star or to the area of the sky in which she was seen. On the second assumption, the area is sufficiently restricted and close to the galactic plane to be able to hope to identify the remanent one. Several candidates were proposed, of which one of them, G11.2-0.3 has an age compatible with the time of the supernova. Certain characteristics of central pulsar (PSR J1811-1926) detected in the remanent one consolidate this assumption. The star invited of this fact is regarded as a probable supernova, though less established than SN 393.
the star invited of 369 remained visible during more than six months, but its position is very dubious. It could be a question of a slow nova or a supernova if it took place sufficiently close to the galactic plane. She is regarded as a possible supernova because of the great inaccuracy relating to her position.
SN 185 is the oldest potential historical supernova for which a detailed testimony (and only one) exist. An apparent size seems mentioned, but not of displacement, which rather does not plead in a convincing way in favor of a supernova than of a comet, but the duration of observation supports the stellar assumption: it was visible for eight month or then a year and eight month according to the interpretation which one makes of the text, which returns the assumption of a probable supernova. Remanent GRS 315.40 -02.30 is that whose position and age are most compatible with a supernova going back to this time. SN 185 of this fact is regarded as a probable supernova.
the star invited of 70 is very badly described in the documents arrived until the modern time, but its galactic high latitudes plead for a nova and not a supernova.

Others

the remanent one of supernova Cassiopée has date most probably second half of the 17th century, but the supernova was not observed, undoubtedly because it was too not very luminous. This supernova is sometimes regarded as a historical supernova although testimonys relating to it are most probably non-existent (what however makes it possible to put a limit lower than its Magnitude connect).
In 1998, remanent very young person and very near to the Earth (approximately 700 years and 200 Parsec S), Calved Junior, was discovered. There does not exist any historical testimony mentioning the supernova which occurred then, possibly explainable thing by the very low variation of the phenomenon, but nevertheless very surprising within sight of the Magnitude connect probable phenomenon.
Several pulsar whose characteristic age (which in certain cases gives a rather precise estimate of the real age) is relatively weak are known. It is about PSR B1509-58, PSR J1907+0919 and PSR J1846-0258. Their explosion was probably potentially visible since the Earth there is less than 2000 years.
Of the drillings carried out in the Antarctic one revealed peaks in the abundance of some Nitrate S to several time, roughly correlated at the years 1181, 1572, 1604 according to certain authors. These peaks are not seen in all drillings of the icecaps (in particular to the Greenland), and their correlation with the date of the known historical supernovas is extremely discussed. A drilling indicates a nitrate peak for ices formed to the neighborhoods of 1320. It was thus proposed that the explosion of a supernova not observed, possibly that having given rise to Vela Junior, reached the Ground at that time there. At the time any remanent of supernova old from 600 to 700 years had not been discovered, but since remanent, Vela Junior, whose age (still badly known) is compatible with this date was discovered. There still, the absence of detection would give an indication on the minimal magnitude of the supernova.
There exist on the other hand geological data indicating in a convincing way the relatively close explosion of two supernovas going back to approximately 35 000 and 60 000 years.
One can possibly add to this list the first supernova observed of the telescopic era, SN 1885A, in the Galaxie of Andromède, which was visible with the naked eye, as well as the first supernova near studied with modern means, SN 1987A, in the Grand Cloud of Magellan.

Archéoastronomie

Reference

Random links: