[vsnet-chat 620] Re: SN Confirmation Questions

[Taichi Kato <tkato@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp>]

   Some points to add to the discussion.

   To my thought, what are request to the discoverer (would-be's included)
may be summarized to two things: 1) to provide necessary and as accurate
and quickly as possible information for the follow-up observers (observations
not necessariliy confined to early spectroscopic confirmation what Dr. Marsden
has repeatedly stressed on; there are much to be done even other than
spectroscopy), 2) to assure the discover's credit.  I have also reached
quite a similar conclusion by Jim A. Benet.  I shall now think of a practical
way to achieve the both.  Unless the CBAT ignores reports other than sent
exclusively to the CBAT, it would be a good choice to send the report
simultaneously to the CBAT and to some special-interest group like the ISN.
Assuring multiple routes to potentially interested astronomers would surely
lessen the loss both in science and time.  The potential demerits of false
alarms may be avoided by expressing what confirmatory procedures the
observer has taken, and the degree of confidence.  This is quite routinely
done in the field of discovery alarms of special variable stars (cataclysmic
variables), and has been working well; I have been working with such a list
for more than three years, and have dealt with many outbursts.  But have not
heard any complaints arising from occasional false alarms.  Experienced
observers know very well how to handle such kind of information, and know
the inefficience without such alert networks.  If this is not the case in
supernovae, it is the supernovae astronomers that should be the first to be
trained for their professionalism.  In the point of providing necessary and
adequate information, I have been rather disappointed to hear from Mirko
Villi that the ISN has decided not to display images of suspected objects.
There are a lot the images only can tell; images can elliminate a lot
of confusion and errors arising from letter-and-digit communication.
I would like the ISN people to reconsider on this point.

   The second point, the credit, may be the single and the most important
difference between these similar transient astronomical phenomena: the
discoverers of cataclysmic outbursts are not usually given credit for
their discovery.  This point is, therefore, the best point the discoverers
and the CBAT can make some sort of compromise to achieve scientific goals
by the both sides.  The presence of such discovery credit might be partly
fortunate and partly unfortunate for those concerned with supernovae --
there is usually no such limitation in variable stars (what the CBAT calls
"usual variables"): any observer can freely send their discovery report
to any list or put images open to the public, and no one is blamed for this.
I also recall the incidence in my country -- the case of that famous
Sakurai's object.  Our domestic discovers of comets, novae and supernovae
are usually awarded by the Astronomical Society of Japan for their discovery
of a new object, no, for their contribution to astronomy.  Unfortunately
to this discoverer, our "new object" rule only concerned with comets, novae
and supernovae.  I have heard there was a discussion (how fruitless..)
whether the rule can apply to Sakurai's object -- since this object was not
given any nova designation by the CBAT.  After all, the committee has
reached a conclusion that Mr. Sakurai be awarded mainly for his discovery
of that Nova Sgr 1996, and the famous Sakurai's object be taken as the
second option.  Nobody can tell what would have been if Mr. Sakurai
had not discovered the nova in the same year.  This is the nature and the
outcome of the "science" and credit what formalists obstinately advocate.

Best regards,
Taichi Kato

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp