Talk:SN 1006

Highest relative magnitude stellar event in recorded history

Is the following statement: "highest relative magnitude stellar event in recorded history" true only from a Visual spectrum perpective? I think much brighter events occured since, like GRBs and magnetar Flashes along other spectrum lengths

Highest relative magnitude is ambiguous

"Highest relative magnitude" is ambiguous - do you mean "brightest in terms of peak apparent visual magnitude" or "maximum change from pre-supernova magnitude to peak magnitude" ? Varunbhalerao 06:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Calendar

It is not entirely clear if the dates given are Julian or Proleptic Gregorian dates. grr 00:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tunc Tezel SN 1006.jpg

Image:Tunc Tezel SN 1006.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification required

I am unsure of the meaning of the reference "According to Songshi in the section of 56 and 461" this does not make a lot of sense - at least to me. Also, I have not encountered a reference to a constellation named Di - it is not one of the recognised stellar constellations in western cosmography - if there is such a constellation in eastern tradition - could a cross reference be made?

Fidelia (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to Root (Chinese constellation) made.

Dang Fool (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Type I or Type II supernova

Hello,

the French article states that it was a Type II supernova due to the fact that it was visible for one year (La supernova est restée visible plus d'une année, ce qui en fait probablement une supernova de type II.). The English article mentions a Type I supernova. Poppy (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC

In 1006, the Egyptian astronomer Ali ibn Ridwan observed SN 1006, the brightest supernova in recorded history, and left a detailed description of the temporary star. He says that the object was two to three times as large as the disc of Venus and about one-quarter the brightness of the Moon, and that the star was low on the southern horizon. Monks at the Benedictine abbey at St. Gall later corroborated bin Ridwan's observations as to magnitude and location in the sky... why are u guys posting false info? User:69.209.142.230 8 March 2009

With great respect for the excellence of medieval Islamic astronomy, Ali ibn Ridwan's description of its size and brightness cannot be taken quantitatively. All stars (and even Venus, marginally) are points of light to the naked eye, and visual estimation of brightness can only be done with modest accuracy by comparison with other objects of known, bracketing, brightness. "One-quarter the brightness of the [full?] Moon" would be something like -13 mag, which is not credible. The type of the SN can only be assessed by modern observations of the remnant, and different analyses sometimes reach different conclusions; thus sources may differ. Wwheaton (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "intensity" and various magnitudes

I have modified the lead to change intensity to "visual magnitude", linking to "apparent magnitude". Intensity is a term that has precisely defined meanings in numerous scientific and technical contexts, but not in reference to the visual appearance of stars. "Apparent magnitude" describes brightness as seen at the observer's distance, without regard to the actual distance to the object. ("Absolute magnitude" is what the apparent magnitude would be at the standard distance of 10 pc.) A further issue relates to color; "V" in the older broadband UBV (Ultraviolet/Blue/Visual) system is probably the best choice here, as the observations were of course all visual. (Of course good theoretical modeling of the explosion may estimate the color in other bands, but that is another layer of complexity.) Wwheaton (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Companion star

A Type Ia SN should leave behind its more or less normal companion, which should have been expanding towards its red giant phase at the time of the outburst. Probably the outer layers of that star would have been stripped off by the explosion, leaving some kind of peculiar core, possibly similar to a white dwarf. Its composition might be abnormal if it was able to capture much of the products of the detonation, "nuclear ash". If this object has been identified or characterized, it would be interesting to report it here. Wwheaton (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hohokam Petroglyph

I don't think that Wikipedia should be stating without qualification that the Hohokam White Tanks petroglyph may represent this supernova. The petroglyph is an otherwise undated, crude drawing of a scorpion and a star, which only can be considered to represent SN 1006 if one assumes that native Americans interpreted Scorpio identically to European astrologers. I think the whole section regarding the petroglyph should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.114.104 (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Supernova Remnant SN 1006.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Supernova Remnant SN 1006.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 12, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-09-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

SN 1006 was a supernova that was widely seen on Earth beginning in the year 1006. It occurred 7,200 light years away. It was, in terms of apparent magnitude, the brightest stellar event in recorded history. The supernova's remnant, pictured here, was not identified until 1965.Photo: NASA

text appears to be cut and paste from other doc?

There are several references that do not make sense within the content of this article, e.g. "The supernova would have been very low in the sky there". Where? Or: "the "sometimes contracted, diffused, extinguished" remarks quoted above" - quoted where? JEH (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a real hash was made of this over the past several months. I've restored most of the material from about a year ago, with some additional references. (Someone with access to the article by Goldstein could do a better job of finessing the references.) I also removed the paragraph about the difficulties of the Swiss observation, added by Walshie79 on 30 April 2009 [1] -- while a reasonable conclusion, it's a classic example of WP:OR. -- Elphion (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Unidentifiable citation

The "Effects on Earth" section ends "See the above-referenced article for more detail." There are now several references in the preceding text, however. If I could identify the citation, I'd just fix it. I've contacted the original editor of the section, but can anyone clean this up?--Wetman (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

SN 1006AD : Review / Source Data

I have just read this article on SN 1006A, and find that it needs a severe edit to fix and improve the quality of this article. It is clear that most of the text is based on second or third hand sources, which has left the text as a tangled mess. The principal expert on historical supernova is F. Richard Stephenson, which is not featured here nor properly in the article History of supernova observation. Editors should read this article "SN 1006AD The Brightest Supernova" (2010) [2][3], which although an general article, contains most the actual historical observations, translations and Stevenson's formal analysis.

Importantly;

• The maximum magnitude stated by Stevenson is -8.5 not -7.5 (which is also an older source.)
• Also fixing the quotes about the original historical sources in the article really needs to be revamped because it does not reflect the sources.

Thanks.

Note: As an actual published author regarding this particular supernova, I feel it would be unfair and improper for me to edit this article in view of personal bias. I.e. WP:NPOV Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think NPOV is a concern here - in fact, I think you're the best person to achieve NPOV in making these fixes. To achieve NPOV, you need to represent different views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. If you've written about this supernova, then you've probably read the sources more than anyone else and so know better than anyone what the different views and their representation is. A2soup (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, interesting. Might take a look a bit later. Thanks for the heads up Arianewiki1! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Pascow: I have just updated the section "Remnant", adding the relevant reference by Green (2014), I also fixed the SNR diameter to 30x30 arcmin, which is wrongly changed to arcsec. Other sections need to be updated (still). Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Initially I considered the top image to be a solid object but I assume it's actually a nebula based upon its 65.2 light year (20 parsec) diameter. However to an utter amateur like me the object's outer features seem oddly very tightly bounded and circular for a nebula. So I stand confused, as are perhaps others who are also not well studied in this field.

Although 7.2 K light-years distant, the remnant's sheer size and apparent visual clarity also make me wonder why it wasn't found until 1965. Maybe I simply fail to sufficiently account for the difference in performance of modern observation tools, which make it appear remarkably clear, or perhaps it wasn't considered a sufficiently important study subject to justify key telescope time before 1965. Still, a 1965 discovery seems oddly late to me...

Arianewiki1 (or someone knowledgeable about this), would you considering adding some commentary to help readers better understand the nature of the remnant? Cheers! --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Even a star isn't a solid object, just (usually) a moderately dense one with a well-defined boundary. Supernova remnants also tend to have well-defined boundaries, but are so diffuse that the term "nebula" would be a better description than "solid". @Arianewiki1: (pinged only for best practice) isn't going to be able to help you, being on an indefinite ban that is statistically unlikely to end in the near future. I've linked supernova remnant in the image caption, but since we have an entire section devoted to the remnant, it could perhaps be more explicit about its physical properties. Lithopsian (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks Lithopsian! It's odd: Even after just a couple of days focused on other affairs, the moment I looked at the image again my first instinct was that it's a warm solid, as if the remnant's a small residual core of higher mass atoms in a solid state, rather than very large gas object. It's just a personal perception glitch, and perhaps not common to most readers. And your caption refinement provides a convenient means for readers to clarify its nature.

It's not terribly important of course, but my sense is that a more explicit physical property description as you suggest would be helpful. But in the meantime any reader with a more than trivial interest can swiftly discover the gaseous nature of the remnant irrespective of their initial perception.

I remain a bit mystified that the object wasn't found until 1965, but that's not important either. Cheers! --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Ibn Sina also reported the event

An Arabic report about supernova SN 1006 by Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

this is the article.Siahkaly (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on SN 1006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070306114344/http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/snrisks.txt to http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/snrisks.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615165254/http://www.jlab.org/~jiang/supernova/SN1006.ppt to http://www.jlab.org/~jiang/supernova/SN1006.ppt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Position

The infobox and template:sky both give the J2000 coords as 15h 2m 8s, -41° 57′, without reference.
Simbad [4] has similar but slightly different coords: 15h 02m 22.1s -42° 05′ 49″ (which is the location shown in Uranometria 2000.0).
What puzzles me is that either position is just across the border in Centaurus (about half a degree east of κ Cen).
So why does everyone (including Simbad) call it the "Lupus SN"?

Also, the article says it is east of Lupus and west of Centaurus.
Presumably the opposite is meant.

-- Elphion (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up: The position is necessarily somewhat imprecise: the nebula is huge (the diameter of 30′ is the width of the full moon) and straddles the boundary between Lupus and Centaurus, and no stellar remnant has been located to nail down a more precise location. Some sources (as above) give various locations in Centaurus, others give locations in Lupus (e.g., by NASA for the Chandra X-ray photo: 15h 04m 10.01s, −41° 53′ 44.88″) -- Elphion (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

why is 'near-Earth supernova' mentioned?

That article puts the extreme limit at 1000 light-years. This article states the star remnant in 7,200 light-years distant. What's the relevance? 50.111.30.135 (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Edited to make clear that while there is evidence of the radiation, the effects were not significant. -- Elphion (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The outer edge of the remnant as moved at about 43 million mph?

Is it true? 20 parecs =~ 65.23 light-years = approx. distance moved over about 1017 years. Which is 3.83463e+14 miles in 1017 years, an average speed of about 43 million mph. This might an interesting tidbit to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capricio (talk • contribs) 06:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)