Fitting the Crab Supernova with a Gamma-Ray Burst
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSummary: The submitted manuscript analyses the evolution of the supernova of the year 1054 AD which we mainly know from reports of Chinese astronomers. The authors study this event based on further historical accounts even pre-dating the Chinese records and give a physical interpretation in terms of a gamma-ray burst that seemingly impacted life on Earth.
General assessment: I find the work presented here extremely fascinating not only from a physics point of view but also from a historical point of view. The authors cite almost thousand-year-old records that seem to corroborate their hypothesis that the supernova of 1054 initially caused a GRB triggering intense extensive air showers in the Earth's atmosphere so that radiation sickness could occur in biological life on Earth's surface. I find the presentation easy to follow and logically sound. I have no further comments and recommend the study for publication without modifcations.
Author Response
We thank the Referee for his enthousiastic support on our paper.
Kind Regards
Remo Ruffini and Costantino Sigismondi
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present an intriguing hypothesis by reconsidering the historical data on the Crab Supernova (SN 1054) as a Gamma-Ray Burst (GRB). While the hypothesis proposed in the article is innovative, it lacks direct validation through empirical observation data. Relying solely on historical records and theoretical model extrapolations may not fully support this hypothesis.
The paper depends on the interpretation of ancient historical records. The accuracy and completeness of these records might be questionable, especially considering discrepancies between different translations. Descriptions in ancient records can be vague or misleading, necessitating more cautious analysis.
The paper suggests a correlation between GRB 190114C and the Crab Nebula, but this connection is not necessarily established. The evidence provided may not be sufficient to definitively link the two events, and alternative explanations should be considered.
Extrapolating the light curve of GRB 190114C to the Crab Nebula 1000 years later involves significant uncertainties. The long-term evolution of astronomical phenomena involves complex physical processes that may not fully conform to simple power-law behaviors.
Some conclusions in the article are too broad and lack specific details and empirical support. More concrete data and case analyses are needed to substantiate these broad conclusions.
Author Response
We thank the Referee for his recommendations. The power law extrapolation is not an assuption: we have proved that the analytic extrapolation of the initial optical, radio and X ray data of the early parts of the spectrum of GRB 190114C duly extrapolated do indeed coincide with the current observed data of the Crab pulsar and Crab remnant. This is indeed an extraordinary result and is being published in a separate paper by our group including Rahim Moradi and Wang Yu. Again we thank you for your attention and send you our best regards. Remo Ruffini and Costantino SigismondiRound 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you to the authors for diligently addressing my initial comments. However, I still believe that the arguments presented are insufficient to conclusively demonstrate that SN 1054 could have been caused by the GRB. The extrapolation using a simple power law is not convincing due to the limited information it provides.
There should be a comparison between the location of GRB 190114C and SN 1054. The physical depiction of the GRB-SN connection remains unclear. Additionally, the explanation for why the GRB would only be observable 1000 years after the supernova explosion is not adequately clarified.
To strengthen the argument, the authors should:
Provide a detailed comparison of the locations of GRB 190114C and SN 1054.
Clarify the physical model linking the GRB and the supernova.
Explain the mechanism that would result in the GRB being observable 1000 years after the supernova explosion.
Author Response
Comment 1) Thank you to the authors for diligently addressing my initial comments. However, I still believe that the arguments presented are insufficient to conclusively demonstrate that SN 1054 could have been caused by the GRB. The extrapolation using a simple power law is not convincing due to the limited information it provides. _________________________ ANSWER 1) Dear Referee 1) the GRB-SN connection is outlined in the introduction, with references (5 and 6 where the presentation within the BDHN model is very detailed, along with the specific GRB used as reference object). Our paper is dealing with the historical data reconsidered within the BDHN model: there the SN triggers the GRB. For the sake of the clarity a GRB is made of seven episodes, the SN is the first, as we said already expressely in the introduction. ______________________________________________ Comment 2) There should be a comparison between the location of GRB 190114C and SN 1054. The physical depiction of the GRB-SN connection remains unclear. Additionally, the explanation for why the GRB would only be observable 1000 years after the supernova explosion is not adequately clarified. ANSWER 2) The GRB 190114C exploded at 1.1 Gpc from Earth, its luminosity scaled at the Crab distance of 2 Kpc, appeared nearly 30 magnitudes brighter (please see the attachment). We added this information in the text 3.1 & 3.2, as you, very opportunely, pointed us. _______________________________ Comment 3) To strengthen the argument, the authors should: Provide a detailed comparison of the locations of GRB 190114C and SN 1054. answer: MADE Clarify the physical model linking the GRB and the supernova. answer: MADE: the SN triggers GRB in a Binary system (BDHN), references 5 & 6. Explain the mechanism that would result in the GRB being observable 1000 years after the supernova explosion ANSWER 3) The pulsar and black hole's formations are processes involving enormous quantities of energy, still available thousand years after, under the form of rotational energy of both collapsed objects (new neutron star = pulsar and former neutron star accreted with the ejecta of the SN to a black hole). Added as concluding phrase (see attachment): the rotational energies of the black-hole and the of the pulsar are still enormous now-adays, thousand years after, to empower the Crab spectrum from GeV to radio. Thanks for your precious work Remo Ruffini and Costantino SigismondiAuthor Response File: 
Author Response.docx
