Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1408.2929

The Chinese comet observation in AD 773 January

Jesse Chapman·Mark Csikszentmihalyi·Ralph Neuhaeuser
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The strong 14C increase in the year AD 774/5 detected in one German and two Japanese trees was recently suggested to have been caused by an impact of a comet onto Earth and a deposition of large amounts of 14C into the atmosphere (Liu et al. 2014). The authors supported their claim using a report of a historic Chinese observation of a comet ostensibly colliding with Earth's atmosphere in AD 773 January. We show here that the Chinese text presented by those authors is not an original historic text, but that it is comprised of several different sources. Moreover, the translation presented in Liu et al. is misleading and inaccurate. We give the exact Chinese wordings and our English translations. According to the original sources, the Chinese observed a comet in mid January 773, but they report neither a collision nor a large coma, just a long tail. Also, there is no report in any of the source texts about "dust rain in the daytime" as claimed by Liu et al. (2014), but simply a normal dust storm. Ho (1962) reports sightings of this comet in China on AD 773 Jan 15 and/or 17 and in Japan on AD 773 Jan 20 (Ho 1962). At the relevant historic time, the Chinese held that comets were produced within the Earth's atmosphere, so that it would have been impossible for them to report a "collision" of a comet with Earth's atmosphere. The translation and conclusions made by Liu et al. (2014) are not supported by the historical record. Therefore, postulating a sudden increase in 14C in corals off the Chinese coast precisely in mid January 773 (Liu et al. 2014) is not justified given just the 230Th dating for AD 783 \pm 14.

Explore related subjects

physics.hist-phastro-ph.EP

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jesse Chapman, Mark Csikszentmihalyi, Ralph Neuhaeuser. 2014-08-13. The Chinese comet observation in AD 773 January. https://doi.org/10.1002/asna.201412069

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Scientific Promise

Scientists constantly face decisions about what lines of research to pursue. This Element introduces the philosophical debate about scientific pursuitworthiness. It explains how it can be rational to pursue a theory even if the theory is less well supported than its rivals, and it discusses existing philosophical frameworks for guiding pursuit decisions. The Element also develops a new perspective. Existing accounts focus predominantly on theories, while experiments are largely neglected. This is an important shortcoming. Theoretical promise depends on experimental promise, and experimental promise raises questions of its own. Drawing on the epistemology of experimentation, the Element advances an account of experimental pursuitworthiness. It is argued that such pursuitworthiness depends on experimental virtues like a clear signal and simplicity of design. Moreover, the kinds of uncertainty that constrain the assessment of scientific pursuits are examined. Finally, the Element highlights open questions in the philosophy of scientific pursuitworthiness.

physics.hist-ph↗
arXiv2026

Is Black Hole Evaporation Prediction Friendly?

Manchak and Weatherall (2018) formulate the black hole information paradox as a failure of predictability in black hole evaporation spacetimes, diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I offer a strategy for resolving this paradox. I argue that failures of predictability in black hole evaporation are not well diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I then consider two weakenings of global hyperbolicity: prediction and retrodiction friendliness, the failure of which could ground a new paradox. However, deidealized black hole evaporation models can be prediction and retrodiction friendly. Therefore, the information paradox cannot be based upon failures of global hyperbolicity, nor either retrodiction or prediction unfriendliness.

physics.hist-ph↗
arXiv2026

The Crab Nebula progenitor: recovering the 1054 AD supernova event as galactic Gamma-ray burst

In 1054 AD a daytime star appeared in the constellation of Taurus, for three weeks, and it was reported in various sources from Europe to China/Japan: it was one of the few documented galactic supernovae of the last two millenia. This paradigm has been established about sixty years ago, as the comprehension of the physics of supernovae progressed with enough observational data. The Gamma-ray bursts were discovered in the same period, but only in the past few years have their observations become daily and their distances have been fully understood as cosmological. After the explosion, the exponential decay of the luminosity in gamma-rays and X-rays has been followed with telescopes onboard dedicated satellites. Also the exponential decay of the afterglow's optical and radio frequencies have been observed with the largest optical and radio telescopes. Within the binary-driven hypernova framework, successful in explaining all the observed phases of the Gamma-ray bursts, the universal exponential decay can be extended to 1000 years after the burst, to account for the present values of Gamma and X-rays as well as optical and radio frequencies of the Crab Nebula. Both the daytime visibility of the burst, and the simultaneous radiation plagues appeared in Constantinople and Cairo is a strong evidence of the presence of Gamma-rays in the lower atmosphere, coming from the same source originating the Crab nebula. The association to the daytime visibility of that star and the following plague meets exactly the etymology of the word dis-aster, bad star.

physics.hist-ph↗