[vsnet-campaign-nova 949] Re: V2540 Oph - detection of period/s

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

Re: V2540 Oph - detection of period/s

Dear Alon,

> However, one should remember that theoreticians are not always right.

   I don't say all theoreticians are right.  Some theories are in the
correct direction and others are not.  But there can be an indication
whether a theory is in the corrent direction.

> A nice paper by someone (no names) in
> 1983 explained very nicely why novae can't be magnetic.

   Could you explain the point you thought that the paper is "nice"?
(As everyone knows, not all papers are nice...)

> This was inconsistent with the common belief of theoreticians
> that it takes only a few decades for the disc to reform.

   This is not a common belief.  There still exists an argument among
theoreticians.

> I found out that his models allow the
> presence of a helium AM CVn-like nova. You surely remember how several
> theoreticians strongly attacked this idea I presented in the Kyoto
> conference a few years ago.

   No one has ever denied the possibility of a nova from an AM CVn-type
object.  You may have mistaken the argument against your talk; that was
against your unification scheme between classical novae and X-ray novae
(I remember someone asked what are X-ray novae you were referring to).

> 4 years after outburst it is very bright in the X-rays despite of
> its large distance, which is consistent with this suggestion.

   Could you more explain the nature of the X-ray emission?  Couldn't it
be a supersoft X-ray source as in GQ Mus and V1974 Cyg?  Is it pulsed?

> My model was
> attacked and still survives. It is thus a good model unless proven else.

   It is more likely that the lack of detailed physical mechanism in your
model is not appealing to theoreticians to disprove your model.  In this
case, the model is neglected rather than it survived.  On the other hand,
Shaviv's model is rich in physics, and will be discussed (even may be
refuted) in a reasonable way.  Such a model is a good model.

> Even if I don't have a consistent model yet it does not mean that I'm
> wrong about this idea. Sorry I won't reconsider my idea unless the
> observations show that I'm completely wrong.

   Will you reconsider your model if theories show that you are wrong?

Regards,
Taichi Kato

VSNET Home Page

Return to Daisaku Nogami

---

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