论文标题
Novae，Supernovae还是其他？ - 霍夫曼和沃格特的Nova亮点肯定是彗星（AD 668和891）
Novae, supernovae, or something else? -- (Super-)nova highlights from Hoffmann & Vogt are quite certainly comets (AD 668 and 891)
论文作者
论文摘要
可以通过利用历史观察结果来研究银河新星和超新星，从而产生爆炸时间，在天空上等等。霍夫曼（Hoffmann＆Vogt）的最新出版物根据其历史上报道的中国文本语料库的历史瞬间列表，介绍了CVS，超新星残留物，行星星云等。由于他们的候选人选择忽略了最先进的东西（例如，斯蒂芬森\＆Green），并且包括“扫帚星”和“模糊星”，即可能的彗星，因此我们更详细地研究了他们的目录。我们在这里讨论了他们的两个亮点，即公元667年和668年的两个“扫帚之星”唱片的建议，作为一个历史超新星，以及AD 891的“来宾之星”作为经常性的Nova U SCO。拟议的位置搜索领域没有合理的原因，这是由于翻译和约会问题，来源的遗漏以及对中国历史天文学和毫无根据的文字解释的误解。所有资源共同提供了有力的证据，可以在AD 668和891中看到彗星的目击事件 - 例如，没有关于平稳性的争论。 AD 667记录是668的误会双打。我们的批评更属于他们对“ 24个最有前途的事件”的整个目录：他们对同行的猜测缺乏坚实的基础，不应在后续行动中使用。
Galactic novae and supernovae can be studied by utilizing historical observations, yielding explosion time, location on sky~etc. Recent publications by Hoffmann & Vogt present CVs, supernova remnants, planetary nebulae etc. as potential counterparts based on their list of historically reported transients from the Classical Chinese text corpus. Since their candidate selection neglects the state-of-the-art (e.g. Stephenson \& Green), and since it includes `broom stars' and `fuzzy stars', i.e. probable comets, we investigate their catalogue in more detail. We discuss here their two highlights, the suggestion of two `broom star' records dated AD 667 and 668 as one historical supernova and of the `guest star' of AD 891 as recurrent nova U Sco. The proposed positional search areas are not justified due to translation and dating problems, source omission, as well as misunderstandings of historical Chinese astronomy and unfounded textual interpretations. All sources together provide strong evidence for comet sightings in both AD 668 and 891 -- e.g., there are no arguments for stationarity. The AD 667 record is a misdated doublet of 668. Our critique pertains more generally to their whole catalogue of `24 most promising events': their speculations on counterparts lack a solid foundation and should not be used in follow-ups.
