Our universe contains 10 times more galaxies than we thought

[Doveaman]

Our universe contains 10 times more galaxies than we thought

 

[durangodawood]

It was already a lot of galaxies.

 

[Doveaman]

It was already a lot of galaxies.

Yea, 10 times less.

 

[Doveaman]

I guess dark matter wasn't really dark after all.

 

[durangodawood]

I guess dark matter wasn't really dark after all.

Do you think this additional mass explains the accelerating expansion of the universe?

I dont.
I would think the opposite.
But what do I know?

 

[durangodawood]

Yea, 10 times less.

Can I also mention: since when is 100 Billion x 10 = 2 Trillion ????

 

[Michael]

I guess dark matter wasn't really dark after all.

The amusing part from my perspective is that they used "dust and distance" (just like I do) to explain the Olber's paradox issue, and they used that concept to guestimate the number galaxies they've probably missed.

The cool part is that the James Webb telescope will have the capacity to look further into spacetime, and it will likely see tiny 'smudges' of galaxies for as far as it's eyes can see too.

 

[morse86]

So they basically saw a dim light in the sky and used some "disconnected from reality" mathematics to tally up the galaxies.

I guess the masses will believe anything "$cientists" tell them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I guess dark matter wasn't really dark after all.

This finding won't account for the 'dark matter' phenomenon.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So they basically saw a dim light in the sky and used some "disconnected from reality" mathematics to tally up the galaxies.

No, that's not what they did. They measured the number of galaxies at different times in the universe's history.

The full (press release) story is available here.

 

[Michael]

No, that's not what they did. They measured the number of galaxies at different times in the universe's history.

The full (press release) story is available here.

Hmm, well, sort of. There is this element from your article/paper however:

Current astronomical technology allows us to study a fraction of these galaxies– just 10%. It means that over 90% of the galaxies in our universe have yet to be discovered, and will only be seen once bigger and better telescopes are developed.

There is still an aspect of subjective "guestimation" going on based upon the concept of the scattering of light which evidently limits what we can observe with present day technology. The James Webb telescope is slated to launch in a couple of years, so it's entirely possible that we'll get to see light from these additional galaxies in a few years.

I feel grateful to have grown up during this window of time in terms of astronomy. The Hubble telescope was first launched into space with a "flaw" in the design of the main lens, but thanks to NASA it was given some new spectacles and it has since produced images that have revolutionized astronomy. The Hubble telescope has changed everything we thought we knew about space. I suspect that the Webb telescope is likely to have that same impact on astronomy over the next couple of decades.

While we may still live in the dark ages of astronomy, I'm certain we will emerge into the light of empirical day as time and our technology improves by leaps and bounds. These are pretty exciting times in cosmology all things considered.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Our universe contains 10 times more galaxies than we thought

Therefore...?

 

[Oafman]

So they basically saw a dim light in the sky and used some "disconnected from reality" mathematics to tally up the galaxies.

Translation: "I don't understand"

 

[HitchSlap]

So they basically saw a dim light in the sky and used some "disconnected from reality" mathematics to tally up the galaxies.

I guess the masses will believe anything "$cientists" tell them.

If you hear a knock on the door at 3AM, I wouldn't answer it if I were you. Might be the science gestapo.

 

[HitchSlap]

Therefore...?

Goddidit?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I guess dark matter wasn't really dark after all.

The extra galaxies do not provide an alternate explanation for what dark matter was explaining.

Dark matter explains why galaxies rotate as fast as they do. The dark matter would have to be inside or very close to individual galaxies. Extra galaxies in the universe, even ten times the number, do not provide that sort of explanation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The extra galaxies do not provide an alternate explanation for what dark matter was explaining.

Dark matter explains why galaxies rotate as fast as they do. The dark matter would have to be inside or very close to individual galaxies. Extra galaxies in the universe, even ten times the number, do not provide that sort of explanation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

A very good clarification. Dark matter dominates interstellar space and dark energy dominates intergalactic space. The existence of more galaxies filling intergalactic space only means that dark energy is all the more powerful and it does nothing to explain what dark matter is.

 

[Doveaman]

The extra galaxies do not provide an alternate explanation for what dark matter was explaining.

Dark matter explains why galaxies rotate as fast as they do. The dark matter would have to be inside or very close to individual galaxies. Extra galaxies in the universe, even ten times the number, do not provide that sort of explanation.

The fact that cosmologists missed so much ordinary matter in the form of galaxies may also mean that they are now missing the ordinary matter within the galaxies.

The dark matter isn't necessarily dark/exotic, but ordinary.
Cosmologists just need to figure out how to look.

 

[Doveaman]

A very good clarification. Dark matter dominates interstellar space and dark energy dominates intergalactic space. The existence of more galaxies filling intergalactic space only means that dark energy is all the more powerful and it does nothing to explain what dark matter is.

It also means there is no need for dark matter because the ordinary matter is being missed or overlooked.

 

[Doveaman]

.