2 trillion galaxies and growing

And yet, we are so animated...

Since the number of galaxies is now estimated to be ten times what was though previously, does that mean the estimated mass of the universe is also ten times greater than previously thought, or is it just more divided?

Does the 4% universe now become the 40% universe since we know of a tenfold increase in galaxies or does the increase in estimated galaxies come with more dark matter?

Curious minds want to know!

ack said:

The number of galaxies in the universe is now thought to be 10X the previous estimate

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/health/hubble-telescope-galaxies-trnd/index.html
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...0-times-more-galaxies-than-previously-thought

Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

Fascinating how small and insignificant we are.

Click to expand...

The famous astrophysicist Martin Rees said when asked in an interview if he does not feel we are an infinitely tiny speck of no significance:

"I don't because the earth, though small in the cosmos may still be a most important part of it. It may be the only place where there's life like us. And so what makes things fascinating is how complicated they are and not how big they are. And for all we know the earth, tiny though it is, could be the centre of the cosmos in terms of complexity."

And we might be part of a multi-dimensional universe with several layers...multiverse.

We are only as big as what our brain tends us to believe in. ...Within our own confinement.

Al M. said:

"I don't because the earth, though small in the cosmos may still be a most important part of it. And for all we know the earth, tiny though it is, could be the centre of the cosmos

Click to expand...

That's what everyone thought until Copernicus' theory and Galileo proof of it. Such hubris of mankind to believe we are the center of it all.

Barry said:

That's what everyone thought until Copernicus' theory and Galileo proof of it. Such hubris of mankind to believe we are the center of it all.

Click to expand...

Why do you deliberately quote out of context? Martin Rees did not say "centre of the cosmos", but "centre of the cosmos in terms of complexity". Two very different things. And yes, I would very much assume that this famous astrophysicist knows a thing or two about Copernicus' theory and Galileo.

GaryProtein said:

Since the number of galaxies is now estimated to be ten times what was though previously, does that mean the estimated mass of the universe is also ten times greater than previously thought, or is it just more divided?

Does the 4% universe now become the 40% universe since we know of a tenfold increase in galaxies or does the increase in estimated galaxies come with more dark matter?

Curious minds want to know!

Click to expand...

Hi Gary,

The mass of the universe is not the important number, it is the mass density of the universe (and also the energy density of the universe). So the discovery of the additional galaxies, if they are farther away, do not add to the mass density, since the occupy a volume of space previously undetected. However, if there were a discovery of massive galaxies that are somehow hidden in between galaxies that we already know - say in our neighborhood - then that would add to the mass density and thus contribute to understanding of dark matter. Hope that helps.

Larry (am I the only PhD in astronomy in the group?)

you are indeed our "star" on the topic, Larry

Take a look at the wiki article on Martin Rees. I think it will give you a perspective on his comment. Currently, the earth is the only place we know where life, specifically intelligent life exists in the universe. However, the vast majority of astronomers do not believe that it is or was the only place in the universe where life exists or existed. At this point, we only have a sample size of one. Whether we are able to discover intelligent life elsewhere is problematic. The dilemma we have is not whether life is relatively easy to start, we think it is given the right environment and ingredients (pretty common stuff), or whether intelligence is a natural development of evolution (we have several different mammals who are pretty intelligent), but whether a highly developed intelligent species which naturally develops the ability to destroy itself will do so in a time period shorter than the average light travel time between such civilizations. There are more subtle points to the discussion (see Carl Sagan's first book written in the 1966 with Josef Shklovsky "Intelligent Life in the Universe"). Rees' 2003 book asks that question also. Our Final Century: Will the Human Race Survive the Twenty-first Century?.

Your astronomer friend, Larry

astrotoy said:

Larry (am I the only PhD in astronomy in the group?)

Click to expand...

Mr. Larry; you should post more often in this fascinating section of our forums.
Your knowledge is a source/base of great open discussions into the vast space of the universe.
Space scientists try to understand and find the origin of the universe, consequently the why and who and what of the people living on Earth today and since the very beginning of our ancestors...the apes, the dinosaurs, the worms, the fishes, the living stars ... :b

You are our best candidate to lead.

* Do you have a telescope?

NorthStar said:

Mr. Larry; you should post more often in this fascinating section of our forums.
Your knowledge is a source/base of great open discussions into the vast space of the universe.
Space scientists try to understand and find the origin of the universe, consequently the why and who and what of the people living on Earth today and since the very beginning of our ancestors...the apes, the dinosaurs, the worms, the fishes, the living stars ... :b

You are our best candidate to lead.

* Do you have a telescope?

Click to expand...

I agree Bob and had this conversation 5 years ago when Larry and I lived close by and he visited one day. I was fascinated to get him talking about the cosmos

It is a subject of great fascination...the cosmos. I feel the more we discover about our faraway environment the better equipped we are close to our own.

NorthStar said:

It is a subject of great fascination...the cosmos. I feel the more we discover about our faraway environment the better equipped we are close to our own.

Click to expand...

Raise the number of galaxies by a power of 10 and you approximate the debt of the brokest nation in the universe.

astrotoy said:

am I the only PhD in astronomy in the group?

Click to expand...

Maybe you could start a "Stump the Astronomer" thread.

I sure have some questions or misconceptions...

astrotoy said:

Hi Gary,

The mass of the universe is not the important number, it is the mass density of the universe (and also the energy density of the universe). So the discovery of the additional galaxies, if they are farther away, do not add to the mass density, since the occupy a volume of space previously undetected. However, if there were a discovery of massive galaxies that are somehow hidden in between galaxies that we already know - say in our neighborhood - then that would add to the mass density and thus contribute to understanding of dark matter. Hope that helps.

Larry (am I the only PhD in astronomy in the group?)

Click to expand...

It's always good to have a PhD around when you need one!

Thank you for your answer.

I was watching some world news earlier, and they mentioned again about this new discovery: http://www.salon.com/2016/10/14/hub...t-10-times-bigger-than-we-previously-thought/

FRIDAY, OCT 14, 2016 02:18 PM PDT
Hubble Telescope shows the observable universe is about 10 times bigger than we previously thought.
This means Donald Trump's hands are 10 times smaller than we previously thought.
by GRACE GUARNIERI

And they were showing a full night sky @ a space auditorium on its full size huge curved half sphere ceiling with a multitude of bright stars that were actually other galaxies. They estimate two trillion galaxies with each one having its own system of planets and stars.

The Hubble telescope permitted to calculate the observable universe as ten times larger than previously estimated.
But, a new telescope, bigger and more powerful will replace the Hubble, in few years, and we might find that the universe is even more larger than now!
The full size of the universe is not over yet...only the limited telescopes that we can build offer us a glimpse of the limited infinite scale of the universe.

Think this way: Get all the mansions on Earth together and put them on top and side to side of each other to build a super mansion with trillions of rooms and inside each room there are trillions of doors and bathrooms and windows giving access to other super mansions and each other mansion outside each window is even larger than the main super mansion!
It would take trillion of light years to walk across only one room from one wall to the next!
This is just an example of the size we might be able to discover with the next super telescope.
And that next super telescope might cost an arm...like billions of dollars; enough money to save all the children from planet Earth.
...From wars, from starvation, diseases, abuses, molestation, etc.

Just a thought, and I wasn't the only one having it. Plus the quote I posted above is not mine; it's from Grace Guarnieri.

Thanks, Steve,

I'll drop in once in a while to see what's happening. For a perspective, I'm an old guy like Steve. I majored in astronomy at Harvard and graduated in 1967. TV science star (Discovery Channel and others) Michio Kaku (we knew him as Mike) (a year behind me) was my lab partner in one of the physics classes I took. Carl Sagan was an assistant professor, who didn't get tenure. He didn't teach the standard courses, so I never had him as a teacher. One of my roommates took his non-majors general ed class for upper division students - "The Planets - Their environments and inhabitants." and thought he was great. As far as I know, Carl had not yet moved into the popularization of science. The rumor we heard was that the older, more conservative faculty didn't like that his areas of interest were not traditional astronomy (he was doing planets!) and he drove a convertible, and was living with a woman (Linda who did become his second wife) who was not his wife. Cornell picked him up right away and he become a full professor quite quickly. One of his grad students, Dave Morrison, who has become quite well known as a planetary scientist at NASA, was my TA in our junior year astronomy majors course. His first wife, Nancy, was one of my classmates - one of about 10 astronomy majors out of 1500 students.

I went on to UC Berkeley (starting there in the "Summer of Love") where I got my PhD, studying the atmospheres of stars, particularly red supergiants, called "Mira" variables.

The '60's were very eventful in astronomy, with discoveries of pulsars, quasars, black holes, the cosmic background radiation (the first and still best observational evidence of the origin of the universe - the BIG BANG).

Astronomy is still a small field, when I entered the Berkeley graduate program, it was one of the larger programs in the country - about 35 grad students in total. At that time, physicists started encroaching into astronomy, which has continued to the present. There is no astronomy Nobel Prize, but quite a few astronomers have won the Physics prize. The 2011 and 2006 Nobel Prizes in Physics were both won by astronomers at UC Berkeley. The big prize at Berkeley is that if you win the Nobel prize, you get to have a named parking space on campus.

Larry