Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?

detected large remnants
0
10 Posted

Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?

0
10

is quoted by Davies in such a way to make the reader think his estimate of the number of Galactic SNRs is correct. But in the original paper, this was a rhetorical question, in the context of discussing the 1973 estimate by Mathewson & Clarke that there should be 340 visible remnants in the Larger Magellanic Cloud. Clark & Caswell immediately follow this by giving several reasons why the 1973 estimate is unreliable (the Mathewson & Clarke estimate has been discussed earlier, in Section 10.3). The relevant paragraph from the original paper is: Thus two anomalies require explanation. Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected? Is it reasonable that E0/n should differ so greatly from our estimate for the Galaxy? Both anomalies are removed if we assumed that the N(D)-D relation has been incorrectly estimated owing to the small number of remnants (4) used. As already mentioned in Section 10.3, Clark & Caswell’s suspicion was subsequently proved to be correct. But Davie

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.

Experts123