Slashdot Mirror


The Universe Has 20 Times More Galaxies Than We Thought (gizmodo.com)

A new study by a team of international astronomers has produced some astounding results: they concluded that the universe contains at least two trillion galaxies -- as much as 20 times more than previously thought. The study adds that 90 percent of all galaxies are hidden from us. This hidden portion can't be seen even with our most powerful telescopes. Gizmodo adds: Consequently, this means we also have to update the number of stars in the observable universe, which now numbers around 700 sextillion (that's a 7 with 23 zeros behind it, or 700 thousand billion billion). And that's just within the observable universe. Because the cosmos emerged some 13.8 billion years ago, we're only able to observe objects up to a certain distance from Earth. Anything outside this "Hubble Bubble" is invisible to us because the light from these distant objects simply haven't had enough time to reach us. It's difficult -- if not impossible -- to know how many galaxies reside outside this cosmological blind spot.

36 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Universe Has 20 Times More Galaxies Than We Thought

    20 times more than YOU thought, perhaps, but not me. I hadn't thought.

  2. Does this change then the need for dark matter? by QUASAR_FREAK · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does this change then the need for dark matter? or it doesn't matter? xD

    1. Re:Does this change then the need for dark matter? by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 2

      No, and the summary gets it wrong, too. In the early universe the galaxies were smaller, so there were more of them. The number of stars and the mass of dark matter hasn't changed.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    2. Re:Does this change then the need for dark matter? by suutar · · Score: 4, Informative

      as far as I can tell it doesn't matter - dark matter is invoked to explain why individual galaxies don't fall apart, because the mass we can see doesn't seem to be enough to keep it together at the rate they spin; having more galaxies doesn't change that.

      (I find it amusing that dark matter is handwaving why big things don't fly apart and dark energy is handwaving why bigger things do :) But I'm weird :)

    3. Re:Does this change then the need for dark matter? by painandgreed · · Score: 4, Informative

      (I find it amusing that dark matter is handwaving why big things don't fly apart and dark energy is handwaving why bigger things do :) But I'm weird :)

      Galactic rotation curves was just the first bit of observational evidence that we saw over 80 years ago. Since then, every other explaination has been shown not to be the case. Since then, there have been many other observed evidence such as gravitational lensing, fluctuations in the CBR, etc. which is all under Observational Evidence under the Dark Matter Wikipedia page. All have been pointing more and more towards matter than only interacts via gravity, while all other competing theories fail to explain other observations. Furthermore, it tends to be called dark matter, and dark energy, energy, because they end up with unknowns that have specific units, and when those units are those of mass or energy, they get called mass and energy.

  3. Drake Equation.... by tekrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, how does this affect the Drake Equation? Even if we assume a very, very low percentage of extraterrestrial life and even a lower percentage of *intelligent* extraterrestrial life, we're still looking at "billions and billions" (sorry Carl) of potential intelligent species out there, we just can't seem to contact them though due to the vast distances involved.

    Too bad really. Until we can come up with some way of cheating physics, we are stuck in this solar system for the foreseeable future.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Drake Equation.... by Quirkz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Short answer is, it multiplies the number by 20. Drake equation is just a string of multipliers. One of them reflects the total number of worlds. 20x more galaxies is 20x more worlds. (Assuming the extra 19 galaxies are of equivalent size.)

    2. Re:Drake Equation.... by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Informative

      It doesn't. The Drake equation only applies to the Milky Way. If you want to expand the Drake equation to the entirety of the universe, you take whatever number you get from the Drake equation, and multiply by the number of galaxies in the universe, which keeps being revised upwards with more detection. So at minimum, you are looking at whatever your Drake equation is times a hundred billion.

    3. Re:Drake Equation.... by mcswell · · Score: 2

      "Assuming the extra 19 galaxies are of equivalent size." They're not, at least not equivalent to the one. Apparently the astronomers think the large nearby galaxies we see near us are the result of mergers of much smaller ones over time. In other words, the old galaxies--those 19--are much smaller (perhaps 1/20th, IIUC).

  4. Wait by wwalker · · Score: 2

    Does this imply that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light? Wouldn't that be a contradiction of the speed of light being the fastest speed you can travel at? Can someone who read the article shed some light on this? :)

    1. Re:Wait by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 4, Informative

      The speed of light limits how fast you can travel through space. The expansion of the universe is due to space itself expanding, and there is no limit (as far as we know) to how fast this can happen.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    2. Re:Wait by thorndt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well....let's change that to something that is physically possible.

      If you were travelling 99.99% the speed of light in one direction, and something else, say 1 light year away, was travelling in the opposite direction at 99.99% the speed of light. From YOUR perspective in the first ship, the light from the other ship would take....wait for it.....1 year.

      Spacetime stretches and squishes based on your speed. That's WHY time dilation occurs.

      --
      - The race is not [always] to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. -
  5. Re:So how does this affect the Drake Equation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's very probable. But since we also know that the Periodic Table of Elements is universal, as well as the fundamental forces, we also know things like warp drive are just not feasible...

    So they are over there, and we are here. End of story.

  6. Rush by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Even if we could travel at the speed of light, we probably couldn't even catch/contact many of those near the edge of detection, yet still visible.

    Due to accelerating expansion, they would be moving too fast to catch by the time we got close.

    Thus, they are effectively shut off from us such that we perhaps should consider them just shadows of the past, fossils, rather than tangible things. If they launch ET or messages from ET, they better do it soon, or should have already done it, if they want us to see.

    Note they are NOT traveling faster than the speed of light from our perspective. From our perspective they are slowing to a crawl, nearly frozen. Thus, no violation of the speed of light is happening (relatively speaking). That's why their "light" is shifted to the infrared spectrum: their "waves" are slowed down for us, wiggling real slow. From "Gods'" perspective perhaps we can say some are or will be rushing away from us faster than light, but us muggles don't get to see it.

  7. Read The Fine Paper by Netdoctor · · Score: 5, Informative

    So I had to click around awhile, but here's the actual paper:

    http://www.spacetelescope.org/...

    For some of us, it makes a huge difference if we're reading the actual paper, or trying to understand the watered-down version on a click-bait site.

  8. Re:So how does this affect the Drake Equation? by gQuigs · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Drake Equation just deals with our galaxy, so it doesn't have any effect.

    I believe it was limited as such because it would be "more feasible" to have a meaningful conversation with a species in this galaxy thanks to the distances involved.

  9. Re:Dark Matter Ratio by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 3, Informative

    The presence of dark matter is inferred from the behavior of individual galaxies. The gravitational binding energy of galaxies should be much higher than what we can attribute to baryonic matter alone. So even though there are more galaxies than we thought, they still require dark matter to account for this discrepancy.

    Basically, if we assume that 20x the number of galaxies means 20x the amount of baryonic matter (which not necessarily true, but whatever), then there must be 20x the amount of dark matter as well. So the ratio of baryonic matter to dark matter would remain the same.

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  10. Re:So how does this affect the Drake Equation? by Quirkz · · Score: 2

    It's an anonymous coward post. It's not modded down, it just starts at 0 by default. I'd say that won't change until there's AI good enough to automatically tell intelligent posts from poor ones. Since humans don't even have that skill down yet, I'd say it could be a while.

  11. Re:Mind Blown... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Informative

    That has blown my mind.

    What about dark matter ? Does anyone know how that figures into this ?

    It doesn't.

    Dark matter is used to explain the rotation rates of galaxies (there isn't enough visible matter to account for those rates.)

    This study says we have more galaxies than we thought, not more stars within them than we thought.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  12. Drake Equation == 1 by TiggertheMad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... we also know things like warp drive are just not feasible...

    Yet. Three hundred years ago, most of the mundane tech we use on a daily basis would have been considered to be impossible. FTL travel might be impossible via acceleration, but there are many ways to skin a cat. I think that if we don't accidental wipe ourselves out, we will eventually work out some way to travel between stars.

    And there is alien life out there. The trick is just finding it.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Drake Equation == 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Easy: you bring the place you are and the place want to go closer to each other.

      Yes, that's serious.

    2. Re:Drake Equation == 1 by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FTL travel might be impossible via acceleration

      How do you get from a velocity of "a bit" to a velocity of "a fucking fucking bastard fucking lot" without accelerating?

      Understand I do not believe the following to be true, but they are answers that fit...

      1} We discover that the universe is a simulation and learn how to edit parts of it, like X/Y/Z coordinates.
      2} We discover unforeseen properties of the universe below our current observable/theorized smallest qualities that allow bypassing conventional transit.
      3} We discover access to what is best described as "parallel universes" and can step from one to another, selecting specific parameters as differences between them, such as "my location".

      Again, I don't buy any of those as likely. And #2 is nebulous at best. But the point the OP was making is that our understanding of the universe is not yet complete and given a long period of time, the discoveries yet to be made may be very, very startling to someone of our time period. Things we currently think impossible may be possible, just because our understanding of possible is incomplete. This mindset isn't science-fiction... it's just being humble. Speculating precisely what discoveries will be made and how they will work... that's fiction. But believing that we don't have an exhaustive understanding of physics is just sensible.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    3. Re:Drake Equation == 1 by Zak3056 · · Score: 2

      there are many ways to skin a cat.

      While that may be true in the literal sense (one could use a knife, or a vegetable peeler, or a melon baller, etc) in the general sense, I'm reasonably certain there is only one (removal of the epidermis from the underlying muscle, bone, etc).

      <insert "The More You Know" star here>

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    4. Re:Drake Equation == 1 by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      FTL travel might be impossible via acceleration

      How do you get from a velocity of "a bit" to a velocity of "a fucking fucking bastard fucking lot" without accelerating?

      Well, as velocity is the change of location according to time, not speed which is affected by acceleration, what people are usually saying is that they get from point A to point B in a time faster than light can through a vacuum through Minkowski space (flat space). If you are talking about raw speed, it could be that particles could be created going faster than the speed of light, therefore never need to accelerate. Those would be tachyons and the only real serious talk about them was in a Michael Kaku book saying that somebody figured out they were possible, but only in a universe that was at a false vacuum and this probably happened at the beginning of the universe but such things would cause instability and for the universe to fall to a more stable vacuum state. Beyond that, there is the idea of warping space such as the Alcubierre drive as while the speed of an object through local space cannot get to or go beyond light speed, a section of space can move fast enough for the effect with something inside of it or by shrinking space ahead stepping across and then letting it re-expand. However, space is really, really hard to get to bend even though we know it does, taking planet or sun sized chunks of matter just to do it a little. The other ways such as hyperspace or worm holes are assuming that there is a separate path to where you want to go that is shorter than normal space. In hyperspace it would be other dimensions (such as those string theorists keep talking about) that are still connected to our normal space or drastic bits of Riemannian space (curved space). We can see a similar example of this in gravitational lensing where two paths both follow light like paths to a single point, but one can be shorter than the other. It is also possible that if there are other dimensions, such as possibly where our space and universe was born from, that the laws of physics would be different and there might not even be a lightspeed limit.

    5. Re:Drake Equation == 1 by dddux · · Score: 2

      Our understanding of the Universe? We've just scratched the surface. We're still simple barbarians without any clue about anything.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
  13. Does this effect the concept of Dark Energy by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 2

    If there is much more mass beyond the observable universe won't that help explain why the observable universe is expanding faster than it should (based on the mass of the observable universe)?

  14. Re:So how does this affect the Drake Equation? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not gibberish. It was devised as a tool for promoting discussion. It's not and never was meant to used in earnest.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  15. Re:So how does this affect the Drake Equation? by beelsebob · · Score: 2

    I mean, it's literally only 120 years since people were saying things like "heavier than air flight is impossible, we know the physics, we know the materials, it's just not feasible"

  16. Re:So how does this affect the Drake Equation? by sexconker · · Score: 2

    I mean, it's literally only 120 years since people were saying things like "heavier than air flight is impossible, we know the physics, we know the materials, it's just not feasible"

    Who the fuck ever said that? Are birds lighter than air?
    You said "literally" so I expect a quote backing your bullshit up.

  17. Re: So how does this affect the Drake Equation? by gtall · · Score: 2

    The Drake equation is still bullshit, this doesn't change it.

  18. Re:So how does this affect the Drake Equation? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's very probable. But since we also know that the Periodic Table of Elements is universal, as well as the fundamental forces, we also know things like warp drive are just not feasible...

    So they are over there, and we are here. End of story.

    Not end of story. In fact, we have no idea how the story ends, or even how long it is. The human notion of accepted physics has been constantly evolving and is still changing every year. For example, two hundred years ago we had virtually no understanding of electromagnetism, or that our theories of electricity and magnetism would be unified. I find it incredibly arrogant and shortsighted to believe that FTL travel via warp drive must be impossible simply because our current understanding of the universe (which we know to be incomplete) can't make it work.

    We believe antimatter exists yet we are terrible at working with it. Hell, we still don't know anything about dark energy or dark matter, though we think they probably exist. We spend billions of dollars searching for predicted subatomic particles and find things we hadn't even imagined, and we are just beginning to get into quantum spookiness. It was not so many generations ago that terrestrial human flight sounded preposterous, so I'm a long way from accepting the conjecture that warp drive is not possible. It could be that we are multiple currently-unimaginable breakthroughs away from starting to understand how.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  19. Re:So how does this affect the Drake Equation? by suutar · · Score: 3, Informative

    well, it's 121 years, but according to this article on Lord Kelvin, he said something like that (not exact - but exactness was not specified). I'm inclined to give him the year.

  20. Re:So how does this affect the Drake Equation? by painandgreed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I mean, it's literally only 120 years since people were saying things like "heavier than air flight is impossible, we know the physics, we know the materials, it's just not feasible"

    Who the fuck ever said that? Are birds lighter than air? You said "literally" so I expect a quote backing your bullshit up.

    Lord Kelvin said some things along those lines within ten years of the Wright Brothers. He also said lots of other silly things on other topics like calling x-rays a "hoax". This page cites sources and has links to scans and such.

    "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of ... I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society." [Source]

    "The air-ship, on the plan of those built by Santos-Dumont, is a delusion and a snare. A gas balloon, paddled around by oars, is an old idea, and can never be of any practical use. Some day, no doubt, some one will invent a flying machine that one will be able to navigate without having to have a balloon attachment. But the day is a long way off when we shall see human beings soaring around like birds." [TLWT, vol. 2, p. 1168]

    "They never will be able to use dirigible balloons as a means of conveying passengers from place to place. There never was and never can be any commercial value to any such affair. It is all a delusion and a snare. Santos-Dumont is a very bright young man, but an air ship as planned by him is not practicable." [Said to reporters after having arrived in New York on April 19, 1902. Quoted in the New York Times, p.2, the next day.]

  21. Re:So how does this affect the Drake Equation? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

    According to your quote, Lord Kevin specifically said that he believed airplanes would no doubt eventually be invented: "Some day, no doubt, some one will invent a flying machine that one will be able to navigate without having to have a balloon attachment. But the day is a long way off when we shall see human beings soaring around like birds."

    That's the opposite position from what was asserted. The context here was a claim that scientists who believe warp drive is physically impossible and cannot be invented even with unlimited resources and a billion years are equivalent to historical scientists like Lord Kelvin denying the possibility of airplanes. But you've just shown us that Lord Kelvin was completely confident that airplanes could and would eventually be built, and simply greatly miscalculated the timing.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  22. Re:So how does this affect the Drake Equation? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

    We now know that the building blocks of evolution and the conditions it required are not at all unique to Earth. That gives us good reason to suspect there's other life even in our own solar system, probably several places in it. Technological civilizations are much harder to predict the frequency of, but we be pretty sure there's life.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  23. The reletivity of wrong by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

    Isaac Asimov has a great response to that old canard.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.