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, @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.