SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the too-many-for-finger-and-toe-counting dept.
A new estimate has found that the observable universe contains around 2 trillion galaxies, about ten times more than previously thought:
A new study from a team of international astronomers, led by astrophysicists from the University of Nottingham with support from the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS), has produced some astounding results: The universe contains at least two trillion galaxies, 10 times more than the highest previous estimates. What's more, the new study suggests that 90 percent of all galaxies are hidden from us, and only the remaining 10 percent can be seen at all, even with our most powerful telescopes. The paper detailing the study was published today in the Astrophysical Journal.
"We are missing the vast majority of galaxies because they are very faint and far away," said Nottingham Astrophysics Professor Christopher Conselice in an RAS press release. "The number of galaxies in the universe is a fundamental question in astronomy, and it boggles the mind that over 90 percent of the galaxies in the cosmos have yet to be studied. Who knows what interesting properties we will find when we study these galaxies with the next generation of telescopes?"
[...] Professor Conselice, in partnerships with researchers at the University of Edinburgh and Leiden University in the Netherlands, used Wilkinson's work and data from telescopes around the world, particularly Hubble, to create 3D maps of different parts of the universe. Mathematical analysis of the models using the calculated density of the galaxies and the volume for each mapped region of space allowed the researchers to deduce how many galaxies we are missing in our observations, and in turn, how many there are in total spread across the universe.
Hubble has an absolute magnitude limit of 31 while the James Webb Space Telescope's limit is expected to be 34, so it may spot a lot of these faint galaxies.
Also at Space.com.
The Evolution of Galaxy Number Density at z
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 14 2016, @02:28PM
And yet they are still grossly underestimating the size of the universe and the number of galaxies it contains.
We keep estimating things based on what we can see and what we can guess. It's not a very scientific approach.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LVDOVICVS on Friday October 14 2016, @02:35PM
Like it or not, this is the scientific method - guess and measure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 14 2016, @02:55PM
Like it or not, this is the scientific method - guess and measure.
No, this is not the scientific method: what you are describing is the "trial and error" method.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday October 14 2016, @03:23PM
Nothing unscientific about trial and error, as long as your trials are carefully designed and you learn from your errors.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 14 2016, @05:03PM
Indeed, "formalized trial and error" is a rather good description of science. We try to describe the observed phenomena (that is, formulate theories about them), and then we look whether those theories work (make experiments about them), and if the experiments falsify the theory (that is, the theory's description of the experiment is erroneous), we look for a better theory and start over.
(Score: 3, Touché) by weeds on Friday October 14 2016, @02:39PM
Is there some better way to estimate the size of the universe? Think about it real hard? Draw pictures and imagine it? Write down big numbers till you run out of paper?
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 14 2016, @02:55PM
Hmmm ... let me think ... how about "We have no way of knowing or even providing a reasonable guess do to the currently immeasurable vastness of the universe"? Basing it on what we can see is ridiculous if light from the furthest reaches of the universe hasen't even gotten to us yet and probably won't within the lifespan of the Sun.
(Score: 4, Informative) by weeds on Friday October 14 2016, @02:59PM
How about - "This is the size of the universe that we can see and we estimate it has this many galaxies. When we can see more, we'll do a new estimate."
Since there could be an infinite number of galaxies we can't see, estimates that don't include "we can see" might as well include Unicorns and the Easter Bunny.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Friday October 14 2016, @09:58PM
True. There are at least two sources of better estimates:
The "Universe that we can see" changes with better optics,
AND
the fact that light from ever more distant galaxies arrives for the FIRST TIME on earth as time passes.
We can re-sample with each new set of optics.
We can count newly visible galaxies as their light arrives for the first time.
Rinse and repeat, Estimate future improvement in both areas.
Anyone expecting a definitive answer is a fool.
None of this is news to anyone even remotely involved in cosmology.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by tisI on Saturday October 15 2016, @03:58AM
How big the universe is?
Define Infinity.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
(Score: 2) by weeds on Monday October 17 2016, @11:20AM
You mean like, "a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number." Google does a pretty good job.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 14 2016, @03:29PM
Must be a Trump supporter. Wants us to shelve our curiosity and bring us back to the Dark Ages. He is the only one who can answer this!
And how do you know this is the case? You're saying we can't measure the size of the universe because you know the universe to be too big to measure. You know, quantum mechanics says you can't make nice, absolute measurements of atoms and stuff. Is it ridiculous to try and measure that stuff? You have to admit that it has worked out pretty well so far.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 14 2016, @03:48PM
Must be a Trump supporter.
Admitting that you don't know makes you a Trump supporter, and means you want to bring us back to the dark ages? Even if you disagree with his comment, that's just ridiculous. Keep your shitty politics out of this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 14 2016, @05:06PM
I don't know that you are a human being. Does that make it unreasonable to assume you are, based on what I know about the world?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Friday October 14 2016, @05:23PM
No, but pulling politics into every discussion is scientifically proven to cause impotence.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday October 14 2016, @07:25PM
"So many galaxies, and such tiny hands!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 14 2016, @07:41PM
Now that is an oblique reference that works better.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday October 14 2016, @05:33PM
Write a number in a book, claim your God told you the content of the Book is Truth.
Problem solved. Send my tithe to the usual address.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 14 2016, @07:57PM
Ummmm... my guess is, it's infinitely big. Do you think it's in a box and you'll run into the sides of the box if you go too far? Really?
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday October 14 2016, @05:20PM
Ok then, lets estimate things based on bones and turtle shells!
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1) by LVDOVICVS on Saturday October 15 2016, @02:57AM
That'll work fine until I prove that my method of using goat entrails is a far superior technique.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Saturday October 15 2016, @03:21AM
Ha!!! This sucker is still using entrails... talk about "shitty" results! ba dum tssss.
~Tilting at windmills~