Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Milky Way May Be 50 Percent Bigger Than Previously Thought

Posted by Soulskill on from the performance-enhancing-telescopes dept.

astroengine writes: A ring-like filament of stars wrapping around the Milky Way may actually belong to the galaxy itself, rippling above and below the relatively flat galactic plane. If so, that would expand the size of the known galaxy by 50 percent and raise intriguing questions about what caused the waves of stars. Scientists used data collected by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey to reanalyze the brightness and distance of stars at the edge of the galaxy. They found that the fringe of the disk is puckered into ridges and grooves of stars, like corrugated cardboard. "It looks to me like maybe these patterns are following the spiral structure of the Milky Way, so they may be related," said astronomer Heidi Newberg. In other Milky Way new, a Cambridge team has found nine new dwarf satellites orbiting our galaxy. Some of them are definitely dwarf galaxies, and the others may be the same, or globular clusters.

59 comments

  1. This happens from time to time. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    As you can see from the middle of this picture of the milkyway:

    http://www.collectingcandy.com...

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    1. Re:This happens from time to time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to say the same thing.

      You are quick.

    2. Re:This happens from time to time. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      We all put on a little weight in middle age

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:This happens from time to time. by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      He just happens to collect pics of "bigger bars"

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:This happens from time to time. by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 2

      Conceptually, I understand that everything is on the internet. It's nice to actually see it from time to time. Especially when it's not porn.

    5. Re:This happens from time to time. by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Conceptually, I understand that everything is on the internet. It's nice to actually see it from time to time. Especially when it's not porn.

      yeah, I wonder how parent post found the link. Probably browsing for something..

  2. I only know that we know nothing by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow, so this is how little we really know about our cosmic surroundings...
    There is this big mystery about why stars further away from the galactic center orbit at the same speed as the inner stars, defying the laws of gravitation, scientists invent dark matter and other interesting theories, then it turns out we misjudge the size of our own galaxy by 50 percent?

    How can we even think about stuff like that if we don't even really know how large our galaxy is?

    1. Re:I only know that we know nothing by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      You have a tough time being coherent, don't you?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:I only know that we know nothing by ITRambo · · Score: 2

      ELI5: This is like adding the length of your hair to your height. It's always been there, but you just decided that it's important enough to add it to your reported height. Are you taller? Nothing really changed. The Milky Way is the same size it was before. We just decided that some extra stuff that's always been there should be include due to it's observed behavior. We do not know nothing. We are always learning.

    3. Re:I only know that we know nothing by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Pretty much all pop-physics is guessing and jackoffery, suited only for Morgan freeman to present it on "Through the Wormhole", accompanied by a terrible metaphor / physical demonstration presented by a celebrity "scientist" who has devoted their entire life to this "research".

    4. Re:I only know that we know nothing by bughunter · · Score: 2

      We just decided that some extra stuff that's always been there should be include due to it's observed behavior.

      The important part, which you seem to have missed with your hair analogy, is that recent analysis of its behavior characterizes it as part of the Milky Way, rather than just a tidally-ripped passing galaxy.

      It's definitely not "hey look I can make myself 50% taller by styling my hair in a Marge Simpson bouffant."

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    5. Re:I only know that we know nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We already knew we were missing large amounts of normal matter. Several estimates of how much dark matter there also give estimates of how much normal matter there is too, and it is significantly larger than what we can account for, so there is still a lot more normal matter to be found. That isn't particularly relevant here since these stars were already known about and known to be around the galaxy, but the question was whether they were a part of the galaxy's structure or a transient phenomena.

    6. Re:I only know that we know nothing by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      So the extra hair turned out to be a comb over, not a toupee.

      --
      I come here for the love
    7. Re:I only know that we know nothing by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Are you high?

      We can't observe our galaxy from outside our galaxy. Not yet, at least.

      We are far more knowledgeable about other galaxies than we are about our own. This is still true even if dark matter turns out to be bad assumptions.

      Most of the Milky Way is hidden from direct observation, unless you want to man a telescope for half of the 200 million years needed to rotate around the bigass whatever the hell it is at the center of it all.

      Does "size" mean mass or space? Because that's really what you need to be concerned about. But you didn't really address that. So go sit in a corner with your doob and think about it. You and the 4 idiots, I assume, who moderated you positively despite being higher than shit.

    8. Re: I only know that we know nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah that's not what the headline says. At all. These stars were not part of our galaxy. Now they are. The hair on your head has always been a part of you.

    9. Re:I only know that we know nothing by bughunter · · Score: 1

      LOL! Congratulations on coming up with a hair analogy where I failed!

      So the Milky Way is more like Donald Trump than Ru Paul.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    10. Re:I only know that we know nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, slightly better than your post, then.

    11. Re:I only know that we know nothing by JohnStock · · Score: 1

      It's less about knowing, it's just that we've changed that labelling to consider those stars part of our galaxy. Just like we didn't suddenly discover Pluto just because it was relabelled as a minor-planet

    12. Re:I only know that we know nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By same speed is that angular rate around the center (period), or rate of change of position along the orbital circumferences? As for gravity, do we have an estimate of how many solar masses are in the black hole, and are we headed there?

      Aren't we on the inside of an arm about two thirds of the way out?

      How strong, and which direction compared to the play of our solar system does the interstellar magnetic field run (specify polarity with direction). (since the angle rotates with our annual orbit, make it for summer solstice in Greenwich) Are there transients in the field? Is our system tilt relative to the field tumbling or rotating, if so at what frequency?

      I ask because those so-called open flux lines from coronal holes really do have to couple to something.
      If we paid attention to the interstellar field and the hole polarity, then we could get a better idea of which way the hole flux would tend to be headed. It would still be affected by the surrounding solar magnetic landscape of course.

      Based on the heavier elements present, the parent nebula of our system was from a recycled star that exploded (or more than one). Compared to the age of the universe, how old is our galaxy and could we be more than second generation? Stellar size matters. The stars small enough to be "original" don't have the heavier elements in their systems, including some that our version of life requires. The really large stars have a much shorter lifetime making life less likely. Do we have models estimating the differences in stellar and planetary magnetic fields likely for those systems with much less iron? It's been believe that some steps life creating chemistry needed lightning bolts for the reactions to occur. Ground currents through oceans would have an influence too. It seems that both lightning and ground currents are driven by space weather. So beyond too intense of space weather killing life, perhaps there was also a lower bound for it to have evolved?

      We should spend more time studying the composition of the solar wind (CME, interstream, and coronal hole flavors) to estimate elemental nebula composition. The amounts of elements, the the ratios of isotopes compared with current atmospheric composition can help with estimating loss of atmosphere (because loss rates vary among elements and isotopes). The oxygen 15 and 18 isotopes for Earth are out of whack wiith the sun. Do we know why yet?

      Our studies are incomplete. The Utah crash of the Gemini solar wind sample collection mission craft left us getting results for just 5 of 18 elements/isotopes (not sure). It was hard to get even that due to destruction/contamination in the crash. Given the Earth numbers not matching the expected, and the drastic atmospheric changes on Mars, we really should do the rest of the science that was intended for Gemini.

      The apparent water volume and flows on Mars don't fit with what the predicted past solar radiation and atmospheric warming would have given for temperature. There's much more science to do to answer these questions. Understanding it all better is important to knowing what was, is, and will happen with Earth.

  3. People need to be fired over this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    50% error? That's horrible!! I better see some high profile firings VERY SOON.

  4. Meh... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    On the plus side, plenty of extra room for expansion. On the minus side, the commute still utterly sucks for 99.999% of it.

    1. Re:Meh... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Galactic sprawl at its finest.

  5. wait a sec - *dwarf* galaxies? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    Those are satellite galaxies as I learned in childhood, no demoting them to "dwarf galaxies" on my watch you spring chicken tenderfoots!

  6. So how exactly can you meaure the universe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this milky way universe is "the universe" doesn't measuring it change it? And why did they decide to name the universe anyway? There is just one. Or is there?

    1. Re: So how exactly can you meaure the universe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming this is not a troll... It was thought that the Milky Way galaxy was the whole universe until 1924 when Hubble discovered that stars in the Andromeda "nebula" were at least 1,000,000 light years away, ie, far outside the Milky Way. Thus Andromeda (and in fact most of the "points of light" you see in a telescope) are galaxies far outside the Milky Way. The universe suddenly became much larger. If the Milky Way were the size of the US, our solar system would be about the size of a penny. (The Milky Way is about 100,000 light years across, so at the "Milky Way = US" scale the speed of light would be roughly one meter per week!). Ie, our solar system is tiny compared to the Milky Way. Now, if the universe were the size of the US, the Milky Way would be like a Mini Cooper. Ie, the Milky Way is tiny compared to the universe.

    2. Re: So how exactly can you meaure the universe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly me for trusting random info from the Internet. By my calculations, if the Milky Way (100,000 light-years) was the size of the US (4,300 km), our solar system (by orbit of Neptune, 8 light-hours) would be about 5cm, like a circle with your thumb and finger. Of course, this article says that the Milky Way is larger than thought...

  7. MIlky Way 50% bigger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time I checked, my Milky Way bar was at lest 50% smaller than it used to be! ;)

    1. Re:MIlky Way 50% bigger. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Especially at Halloween.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  8. In which way is it "bigger?" by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

    Do they mean that its volume is 50% more than we'd thought, or its mass? Judging from TFS, I'd guess the former, but as written, it's ambiguous.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:In which way is it "bigger?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFS causes nothing but problems. Stick to Subversion man.

    2. Re:In which way is it "bigger?" by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      Honestly, Percentages are a shit way to compare two things together (in this case, present tense Milky Way vs past tense Milky Way). Some of it may be because a chronic lack of sleep gives me some sort of mental handicap regarding the english language, and some of it is because I CANT TELL WHICH THING IS BEING REFERENCED.
      Walk with me:

      If we are using the past tense Milky Way as our frame of reference, and give it, for this example, and arbitrary size of say, 8 units. and say that the present tense Milky Way is 50% bigger, then we mean that the present tense milky way has a size of 12 units. 8 + (1/2*8)= 12

      ON THE OTHER HAND:

      If for some reason, we use the present tense Milky Way as our frame of reference, then the present tense Milky Way may have a size of 16 units, where the past tense milky way was 50% smaller, being 8 units.

      Yes, I know that I'm mentally handicapped when it comes to english right now, and some English Major is liable to come break this down for me, but mostly my point is, Could you not be bothered to type "Half again as large." or "Twice as large" whichever is correct, seeing as either is entirely un-ambiguous?

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    3. Re:In which way is it "bigger?" by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Only size matters.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    4. Re:In which way is it "bigger?" by wasteoid · · Score: 1

      50% more nougat

    5. Re:In which way is it "bigger?" by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Volume. Well, maybe area, TFA isn't terribly clear (or possibly even radius, now I read it again. Size could refer any of the three. Pretty sure they mean radius, though, now I look at it closer). Not mass, though, that'd be a hell of a lot of extra mass. Basically, the problem is there is a ring of stars around the outer edge of the Milky Way. Astronomers aren't entirely sure where it comes from: if it originated from the Milky Way, and therefore is part of our galaxy properly speaking, or if it's the remnants of a dwarf galaxy that was scattered when it ran into us, or came from some other source. That would tell us a bit more about galaxy formation (or raise more questions about formation, which is almost the same thing).

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    6. Re:In which way is it "bigger?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientist: I'm really sorry.
      Milky Way: I was in the pool!"

    7. Re:In which way is it "bigger?" by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      From the article:
      "Incorporating the ring into the map of the Milky Way expands the galaxyâ(TM)s span from 100,000 light-years to 150,000 light-years, said astronomer Yan Xu, with the National Astronomical Observatories of China and a former visiting scientist at Rensselaer."

      It would appear by "size" they are refering to diameter. When you increase the radius of a circle by 50% I believe you more than double the surface area. In this case, depending on the density of matter in the extra volume of space that has been added to our understanding of the milkyway it is possible that the mass of the galaxy has been significantly impacted.

  9. Re:A record ? # of trackers at 16 ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hey don't you love these articles that have trackers all over the place?

    The Discovery.com link got me 16 trackers when I enabled JS. Kind of a record.. But not a positive one.

    How about blocking any posts referencing abusive sites like this one. Freedom of Speech does NOT include freedom to spy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    How about we call bad sites bad sites. Btw Slash-dot tried to give me "just" 5 trackers.

  10. 50% bigger? by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    well, will not know until we go.

    1. Re:50% bigger? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Currently going. You may have to wait a bit more to get the answer, though. Not sure slashdot's gonna still be around at that time.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  11. Dark Matter? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

    So if they haven't even accounted for a significant fraction of our own galaxy, what does that mean about dark matter?

    If they can't account for or properly locate the visible mass in the universe, dark matter could be largely a cosmic fudge factor that accounts for ordinary mass that hasn't been observed or located precisely.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Dark Matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That 50% increase in size probably doesn't translate into much increase in mass. They just found a few outliers outside of the previous bounding box.

    2. Re:Dark Matter? by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      So if they haven't even accounted for a significant fraction of our own galaxy, what does that mean about dark matter?

      As far as I can tell from a bit of quick research, absolutely zilch. Since dark matter is mainly hypothesized to explain the observed motion of galaxies, and most of the evidence for it comes from observing other galaxies and, especially, galactic clusters, the size of the Milky Way has no bearing.

      Also, as someone else pointed out, this is about volume in any case; the actual mass of the Milky Way is probably not a lot different from previous estimates—but all estimates of the size and or mass of the Milky Way are necessarily rough in any case, since it's too close to see very well.

    3. Re:Dark Matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA is about volume, not mass.

  12. Cant be - science is settled by bricko · · Score: 0

    How can this keep happening, Thought all science is now settled. Move on.

  13. Re:A record ? # of trackers at 16 ??? by justthinkit · · Score: 1

    Run Ghostery to block the trackers despite enabled Javascript...

    --
    I come here for the love
  14. Re:Nonsense!!1 by roc97007 · · Score: 0

    Well, Scientists tell us something, and they're right because they're scientists. And then later they tell us that's incorrect, this over here is right, and we believe that also, because, you know, scientists. And the people who do not believe are heretics, even if they instead believed what later the scientists said is right.

    Wait, why does that sound familiar? It's a number... nineteen... something. I forget.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  15. Physicists: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't know shit, and are making it up based on false math models!

  16. Re:A record ? # of trackers at 16 ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep We do that now. Ghostery reported the trackers. & NoScript showed the JS connections attempted. Which was also a rather long list.

    Sometime I'd like to find out exactly how much money these grabby sites actually make by tracking us and then also by serving ads.

    I've heard that including Open-Candy in an installer can get a site 10k a year. If anyone knows or has a good reference link for the actual money that one site can make?

  17. Bad news by mistr · · Score: 2

    For the devs at Elite: Dangerous, the April update will have them working around the clock

  18. HaHa by alphazip · · Score: 1

    Take that Andromeda! It's we who are going to eat you.

  19. So what does this mean? by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    Milky Way is larger than Andromeda? Andromeda has always been thought to be larger, but I recall an article a couple years back saying they thought the Milky Way was larger than previous thought but not 50%...

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  20. Blame the Observant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no evidence of disease before the microscope. Clearly nature is created by our observation of it.

  21. Re:A record ? # of trackers at 16 ??? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Ghostery sells data to advertisers and was bought by an ad network some time ago.

    Use Disconnect instead.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  22. We definately know now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we didn't know the SIZE of our own galaxy a week ago, but anyone who doubts that we know the AGE of the earth to 2 decimal places with absolute certainty is an ignorant flat-earth believer?

    What is easier to compute, the size of something or its age?

  23. Too many burgers & fries by coinreturn · · Score: 1

    If you'd quit stuffing yourself on all those burgers and fries, you could lose some weight, dammit!

  24. Re:A record ? # of trackers at 16 ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And? Ghostery has always been upfront with how they conduct business. They allow end users to block what they want and help businesses to reach people with ethical marketing techniques that the users can still choose to block. I don't have a problem with what they are doing, after all they need to make money otherwise Ghostery will cease to exist.