SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2204.04001

Galileo Galilei and a forgotten poem on the 1604 supernova

Abstract

In October 1604, when SN1604, the last naked-eye visible supernova in our Galaxy, exploded, Galileo Galilei was the professor of mathematics and astronomy at the University of Padua, teaching the mechanics of planets. He was therefore the figure of reference to whom all the doubts and questions that such an apparition brought with it were addressed. The University of Padua asked Galilei to outline the situation by exposing in three public conferences his point of view in order to answer the many questions that raged among the academic community and the common people. Three conferences that Galilei held almost immediately between November and December in the Aula Magna of the Bo, the central building of the University. A month after Galilei's lectures a treatise on the supernova appeared in Padua. The unknown Antonio Lorenzini, behind whose name it is easy to see the inspiration of Cesare Cremonini, an Aristotelian professor of natural philosophy in Padua, published a booklet entitled Discourse about the new star which debunked the conclusions of Galilei. One month after was published in Padua by the same editor the Dialogo de Cecco di Ronchitti da Bruzene in perpuosito de la stella nuova, a booklet in Paduan dialect replying to Lorenzini. The Dialogo appears in the national edition of Galilei's works and is attributed to Galileo himself with the help of the monk Girolamo Spinelli; it does not appear instead a poem in octaves, by an unknown author (presumably Galilei), published as an appendix to the first edition of 1605, and immediately replaced in the second edition. We publish it here, with a comment.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Alessandro De Angelis. 2022-04-08. Galileo Galilei and a forgotten poem on the 1604 supernova. https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.04001

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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