Exposing PseudoAstronomy

October 18, 2008

Why Few Supernova Remnants Do NOT Indicate a Young Universe


This entry is in specific response to the “Where Have All the Remnants Gone?” article from Creation Science Evangelism, though it is espoused in other creation literature.

There is a young-Earth creationism argument that goes as follows:  Stars that are much more massive than the Sun end their lives by exploding their outer layers into space in a process called a “supernova.”  These outer layers of stellar debris are heated and lit up by the energy from the supernova event.  The claim then goes that there is a certain expected rate of these (this particular article claims 1 every 25 years in our Milky Way galaxy).  Then, if you take the number of observed remnants (around 200) and multiply by the rate of occurrence, you get an age of our galaxy of around 5000 years.

Seems pretty bad for a 13.7-billion-year-old Universe, right?  Well sure it does when you’re fed half-truths.

The real story is a little more complicated, though I’m going to work a little backwards through this problem.  First, almost no astronomer says that a supernova should occur in our galaxy once every 25 years.  Rather, the canonical number is about 1 every 100 years (in fact, this was featured in an episode of Star Trek Voyager, “The Q and the Gray”).  Revisions over the past few years have pinned it down more at once every 50 years.

So now, if we do straight multiplication, we have about 50 * 200 = 10,000 years.  Isn’t that exactly what creationists say (more or less) the age of the Universe should be?  Yep, but there’s more.

We cannot observe supernova remnants across our entire galaxy – basically nebulae.  Supernova events we can see across the visible universe, but the actual gaseous remnants are much fainter because they are more diffuse.  Because of dust and gas in the way, we cannot see all the objects in our own Galaxy.  Probably the farthest we can see into the galaxy is maybe to a distance of 10,000 light-years.  The galaxy is about 100,000 light-years across.  Doing a simple calculation of the area of a disk 10,000 light-years vs. 100,000 light-years (but 50,000 light-years in radius) yields an area of our galaxy about 25 times larger that we can NOT survey for supernova remnants vs. what we can.

So now, we need to multiply our 10,000 years by 25, giving us 250,000 years for the age of the galaxy.

The next part is that supernova remnants don’t just form out of nothing, they form from the explosions of dying stars.  The stars that live and die the fastest still take about 10,000,000 years before they “go nova” and release a cloud of debris that will later become what we observe.  That’s pretty much the minimum time a star can “live” during the current epoch of the Universe.  Only after that will we see a supernova form.

So, add that to our estimate of the age by the number of stars and we have 10,250,000 years, or 10.25 million years for the age of the galaxy.  You should note at this point I’ve been saying “age of the galaxy.”  That’s because this would only be used to date our galaxy, not the Universe as a whole.  So you need to add in the time for galaxy formation … which is still a number that’s hotly debated, but no respected astronomer will say happens instantaneously.

BUT, there’s another complication to this situation which shows why this apparent “method” for dating our galaxy isn’t valid:  Supernova remnants fade! They only are visible for a few tens of thousands of years.  What does this mean for our estimate of 1,000,000 years for the age of our galaxy?  Well, by the time the “oldest” supernova is fading, we starting to observe supernova 200!  We should only expect to see in the neighborhood of a few hundred supernova remnants in our vicinity, regardless of how old our galaxy actually is.

7 Comments »

  1. Hello Stuart,

    Excellent your blog, I’m using as a source of some articles to refute the creationists in Portuguese 😉

    I just do not understand how you got the value 100.

    Look at:

    Total Area = π x radius ².:.

    Observable Area = 3.1416 x (10,000) ² = 3.1416 x 100.000.000 = 314,159,265.36

    Total Area of the Galaxy = 3.1416 x (50,000) = 3.1416 x ² = 2,500,000,000 = 7,853,981,633.98

    Soon 7,853,981,633.98 / 314,159,265.36 = 25

    Do you agree?

    .:. Fortunately it does not change anything from the conclusion 😉 because 50×200 x 25 = 250,000 years.

    Comment by Icarus — January 2, 2012 @ 5:58 am | Reply

    • Looks like I forgot to divide diameter by 2 before doing area. Fixed.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 2, 2012 @ 3:22 pm | Reply

  2. Stuart,

    Thanks for your response.

    Another question:

    You use the number 200 SNR as if this number were in a radius of 10,000 light-years.

    Where did you get this information?

    Unfortunately I could not find full list of SNR with distance. Have here but without distances.

    Entertaining in the Chandra SNR Catalog has a partial catalog. From a total of 96 SNR that has distance values, only 38 are less than 10,000 light years. 30 are between 10,000 to 20,000 and 28 are above 20.0000 light years.

    Comment by Icarus — January 2, 2012 @ 5:31 pm | Reply

    • Entertaining -> however😉

      Comment by Icarus — January 2, 2012 @ 5:33 pm | Reply

    • Unfortunately, I wrote this post back when I wasn’t keeping quite as “diligent” track of references. I’m not sure where I got this number, and I cannot find it now. We can definitely see them farther than 10 kly away because we can see the remnant from SN1987A, 167±4 kly away (source). But I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a complete sampling out to that distance, especially considering that the Magellanic Clouds aren’t really “in” our galaxy.

      That’s a long way of expounding on “I don’t know.” If you can get a better estimate from somewhere, I’ll update this post.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 2, 2012 @ 5:48 pm | Reply

  3. Well, there are some flaws or not supported claims in your argumentation:
    1. logically we can see the whole galaxy since we can see further/other galaxies, so the distance from the earth of supernovas in our galaxy shouldn’t be an impediment to detect them;
    2. you suppose long running processes for formation of different cosmic objects, but you do not have evidence that these processes are/where slow or instant.
    Isn’t this half true, too?

    Comment by emanuel — October 28, 2016 @ 5:11 pm | Reply

    • 1. No, we can see relatively little of our galaxy because we’re embedded within it.
      2. Everything from particle to nuclear physics and chemistry evidence from completely independent studies of other things says these processes take as long as they do. There’s no evidence they don’t.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — October 29, 2016 @ 9:01 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: