The Greatest Comets in History: Broom Stars and Celestial Scimitars PDF
Preview The Greatest Comets in History: Broom Stars and Celestial Scimitars
Astronomer’s Universe Forothertitlespublishedinthisseries,goto http://www.springer.com/series/6960 Comet2006P1(McNaught),asphotographedbyitsdiscoverer,RobMcNaught,January20, 2007.#2007RobertH.McNaught. David Seargent The Greatest Comets in History Broom Stars and Celestial Scimitars 1 3 DavidSeargent Australia [email protected] ISSN:1614-659x ISBN:978-0-387-09512-7 e-ISBN:978-0-387-09513-4 DOI10.1007/978-0-387-09513-4 LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2008935112 #SpringerScience BusinessMedia,LLC2009 þ Allrightsreserved.Thisworkmaynotbetranslatedorcopiedinwholeorinpartwithoutthewritten permissionofthepublisher(SpringerScience+BusinessMedia,LLC,233SpringStreet,NewYork, NY10013,USA),exceptforbriefexcerptsinconnectionwithreviewsorscholarlyanalysis.Usein connectionwithanyformofinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computer software,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdevelopedisforbidden. Theuseinthispublicationoftradenames,trademarks,servicemarks,andsimilarterms,evenifthey arenotidentifiedassuch,isnottobetakenasanexpressionofopinionastowhetherornottheyare subjecttoproprietaryrights. Printedonacid-freepaper springer.com For my wife Meg, and David Austen Preface Naked-eye comets are far from uncommon. As a rough average, one appears every18monthsorthereabouts,anditisnotveryunusualtoseemorethantwo inasingleyear.Therecordsofarseemstohavebeen2004,withatotaloffive cometsvisiblewithoutopticalaid.But2006,1970,and1911werenotfarbehind withatotaloffourapiece. Yet,themajorityofthesepassunnoticedbythegeneralpublic.Mostsimply look like fuzzy stars with tails that are either faint or below the naked-eye threshold. The ‘classical’ comet – abright star-likeobjectwith a long flowing tail–isasightthatgracesourskiesaboutonceperdecade,onaverage.These ‘greatcomets’aresurelyamongthemostbeautifulobjectsthatwecanseeinthe heavens,anditisnowonderthattheycreatedsuchfearinearliertimes. Justwhatmakesacomet‘‘great’’isnoteasytodefine.Itisneitherjustabout brightnessnoronlyamatterofsize.Somecometscansportprodigiouslylong tailsandyetnotberegardedasgreat.Otherscanbecomeverybright,buthardly anyone other than a handful of enthusiastic astronomers will ever see them. MuchdependsontheirseparationfromtheSun,theintensityofthetail,andso forth. Probablythebestdefinitionofagreatcometissimplyonethatwoulddraw the attention of non-astronomers if viewed from somewhere well away from citylightsandindustrialhaze.Typically,theyareatleastasbrightasareason- ablybrightstarandsporteasilyvisibletails,atleast5–10degreeslong.Mostof thetraditionallygreatcometsofhistorywereasbrightasorbrighterthanastar offirst-orsecond-magnitudewithtailsthatcouldbetracedto10–20degreesor moreinadarksky. Butthesecometsarenotthesubjectofthisbook!Whatwearesearchingfor are not simply ‘‘great’’ comets but the greatest of the great, the cream of the cometworld.Wearelookingfornothinglessthancometaryroyalty! Pickingoutthebestofthebestisnotaseasyasitmaysound.Ancientpeoples were frequently awed by the sight of a comet in their skies, and this reaction tended to color the way they recorded it. In fact, comets were objects of such fearanddreadthatanythingseenintheskylookingvaguelylikeastarwitha tailwasenoughtotriggerrumorsofacomet!Thiscanmakeitverydifficultfor vii viii Preface amodernreaderofthesecenturies-oldrecordstosortoutwhatwasarealcomet andwhatwassomethingelse. Aprimeexampleofthisisthefamous(infamous?)descriptionofa‘‘comet’’ in1528bytheFrenchsurgeonAmbroisePare.InPare’sownwords Sohorriblewasit,soterrible,sogreatafrightdiditengenderinthepopulace,thatsome diedoffear,othersfellsick....Thiscometwasthecolorofblood;atthesummitofitwas seentheshapeofabentarmholdingagreatswordasifabouttostrike.Attheendofthe bladetherewerethreestars.Onbothsidesoftheraysofthiscometwereseenagreat number of axes, knives, bloody swords, among which were a great number of hideous humanfaces,withbeardsandbristlinghair. Verypicturesqueandgraphicindeed!Thetroubleisthattherearenoother records ofabright comet in1528. Whatever Pare saw inthesky,it wasnot a comet. Most likely, he witnessed a spectacular display of the aurora borealis. The faces, swords, and axes are probably not hard to imagine in the moving lightsandcurtainsofagreataurora.(Bytheway,lestwebetemptedtoscoffat the naivety of our ‘‘superstitious’’ ancestors seeing these sorts of images in an aurora,wemightrecallthenumberoftimesVenusisreportedtodayasanalien spaceshipcompletewithlandinggearandwindows!). But it is not always the original observer who causes confusion about the objectrecorded.Acaseinpointistheoccasionalreferenceinmodernworkstoa ‘‘comet’’ recorded by St. Augustine, probably for the year 396, that is said to havegivenoff‘‘asmellofsulfur.’’Atleastonebookofelementaryastronomy saw evidence here of the old belief in comets having an effect on the air and dismissedthereportedodoraccordingly. However,whatSt.Augustineactuallywrotewas‘‘afierycloudwasseeninthe east, smallatfirst, then graduallyas it came over the city itgrew until thefire hung over the city in a terrible manner; a horrendous flame seemed to hang down,andtherewasasmellofsulfur.’’Whateverthiswas,itwasnotacomet. Augustinedidnotevenclaimthatitwasacomet.Itmayhavebeenameteorite fall, but an even better guess might be a lightning filled tornado funnel. The luminouseffectsassociatedwiththesecanbeveryspectacular,andtheyareoften accompaniedby‘‘asmellofsulfur’’! Incidentally,Chinesechroniclesdorecordanastronomicalobjectthatyear, althoughthedescriptionmatchesanovaorsupernovaratherthanacomet.In any case, the Chinese object is almost certainly unrelated to the phenomenon notedbyAugustine. Weshouldalsobeawarethat,aswellasdubiouscaseslikethese,somecomet recordsarecompletelyfictitious.Achroniclerwillsometimesinventaporten- touscomettomarkthebirthand/ordeathofsomegreatpoliticalpersonality. Forexample,anallegedcometappearingatthedeathofCharlemagneinA.D. 814seemstohavebeenpureembellishment. Forthemostpart,cometsthatwereonlymentionedononeortwonightsor whichappearedinasinglerecordwereeliminatedstraightawayascontenders for the greatest comets on record, even if their description implied something Preface ix unusually spectacular. Although a minor comet might be seen on a single occasiononly(andtherearebonafideinstancesofthis),anythingtrulyspecta- cularislikelytohavebeenwidelyobservedoveraconsiderableperiodoftime andtohavebeenimmortalizedinabundantrecords. However, even after minor and dubious objects had been pruned from the list, a daunting number of entries remained. Many of these had clearly been spectacularobjectsthatleftgreatimpressionsonthosewhosawthem.Buthow manycouldtrulybelistedamongthegreatestofthegreatcomets? Forthenextstepintheselection,Ireferredtoa‘‘scaleofimportance’’devised by D. Justin Schove in his 1984 book Chronology of Eclipses and Comets AD 1 1000.Althoughthisworkcoveredonlypartoftheperiodofinterest,itcould ! beextendedtoearlierandlatercometswithouttoomuchdifficulty. Schove’sscaleisasfollows: 1. Minorcomet,notedonlybyexperiencedsky-watchers. 2. Notnotedbythegeneralpublic. 3. Notedbyatleastonecontemporarychronicler. 4. Notedbysomechroniclers. 5. Notedbymostchroniclers. 6. Notedasremarkableinmostchronicles. 7. Notedasremarkableeveninshortannals. 8. Createdconsternation.Longremembered. 9. Createdterror.Rememberedforgenerations. AfterreadingthroughSchove’slistofcometsandcomparingthemwiththe descriptionsgiveninKronk’sCometography,Idecidedasaroughruleofthumb that a scale reading of 7 or higher would qualify a comet as one of history’s greatest. My aim, therefore, was to use Kronk’s descriptions of Scove’s 7+ comets as the standard by which to measure comets of earlier and later centuries. In essence, this remained the method followed, although I did not always stickrigidlytoSchove’sevaluationsandfoundmyselfdisagreeingwithacouple ofthevaluesheassigned. Inthosecaseswhereanorbitforthecomethadbeencomputed,andeventhe absolutebrightnessknownatleastapproximately,itwasalsoahelpfulcheckto comparethecomet’sperformancewitharecentobjectofsimilartruebrightness andobservedundercomparablecircumstances.Thiscountedassomethingofa reality check, especially when we are dealing with records of ‘‘frightening, prodigious signs in the sky’’ and so forth. Expressions like this occur mostly in early European chronicles, and they tend to conjure up images of some utterly fantastic object unlike anything seen in recent times. Yet, where an orbit allows us to form some idea of the comet’s true appearance in the sky, wemoreoftenthannotfindittohavebeensomethingthatwouldhavefittedin verywellwiththebrightercometsofthepastfewdecades.WhereEuropeanand Chineserecordsofthesameobjectexist,thelattertendtobemoresoberintheir descriptionsandcanactasanothergoodrealitycheck. x Preface Theendproductofthispruningandsiftingformsthesubjectofthisbook. What emerges is a list of over 30 individual comets, which (as far as I could ascertain from their often varied descriptions) met the criterion for being history’sgreatest.Inadditiontothesecomets,Ihavealsoincluded,separately, the historical appearances of Halley’s Comet and the members of the Kreutz groupofsungrazers.Amongtheselatterarefoundthebrightestandsomeofthe most spectacular of all comets as well as, paradoxically, most of the smallest andfaintesteverrecorded. Essentially, the comets included here were ones of exceptional brightness and/orthosehavinglongandintensetails.Yet,brightnessaloneortaillength alonedidnotautomaticallymeaninclusioninthelist.Acometmighthavebeen recorded as having a tail (say) 70 degrees long, but if there were reasons for thinkingthatthistailwassofaintastobemissedbymostcasualobservers,it wouldhavebeenleftoffthislist.Likewise,evencometsbrightenoughtobeseen inbroaddaylightwereomittediftheydidnotalsobecomespectacularnoctur- nal objects (a list of daylight comets and possible daylight comets has been addedasafinalchaptertocompensateforwhatsomemayfeeltobeanunfair omission). Therewillprobablybeobjectionstosomeofmyspecificomissions. For instance, I did not include the comet of 147 B.C. The very impressive- soundingaccountsometimesgivenofthiscometis,inreality,mostprobablya combinationofthreeseparateobjects.TheChinesecometofAugust(forwhich anorbithasbeencomputed)isnotconsistentwiththeChinesecometofMay,or withthatofOctoberandNovember,thelattersuspectedbyH.H.Kritzingeras beingthepreviousappearanceofC/1858L1Donati.Noneoftheseobjectscan clearly be identified with the one recorded by Seneca sometime between the years151and147B.C.ThiswassaidtohavebeenaslargeastheSunand‘‘so bright that it dispelled the night’’ – a description reading more like that of a greatmeteorthanagreatcomet. I have also omitted the comet observed by Peter Apian in 1532, despite its inclusioninmostcatalogsofgreatandremarkablecometsandApian’shistori- cally important observationsshowingthe tailas pointingaway from the Sun. ThisseemstohavebeenthefirstEuropeanrecognitionofthisfact,althoughthe Chinesehadalreadynoticeditasearlyastheninthcentury. The comet was unquestionably bright, but the tail seems to have been no longerthanaround10degrees,moreinthenatureofa‘typical’greatcometthan one of the greatest of the greats.Moreover, judging by Apian’sdrawings and the general descriptions of this object, its tail appears to have been predomi- nantly a plasma type. These are not as intense as the strong dust tails of very largeandactivecomets.IfApian’sCometwasratherlowondust,itisunlikely to have rated as one of history’s finest, despite its obvious brightness and historicalimportance. Of course, it is quite possible that I have missed some comets that should havebeenincluded,andImayhaveincludedoneortwothatshouldnotbehere. Moreover, there must surely have been splendid comets in ancient times that
The list of books you might like
