Universe has 10 times more galaxies than previously thought

>>78787
>extrapolated their estimates
>scientific

>>78787
>observable universe has 2 tril galaxies
What good does this do
Why can't they assume that there is an infinite number of galaxies

>>78799
Because that would mean the universe is infinite in size, which contradicts the big bang theory. The big bang theory being the prevailing scientific cosmological model of the universe.

>>78787
Neat.

It's honestly quite incredible imagining how big the universe must be.

>>78801
>infinite

what if the part we can't see is shrinking?
that will put us on one side of the singularity in the centre: an infinitely dense spot, a giant cruncher of matter and energy; also, the boundaries are probably so empty that nothing can go there without being shredded apart into oblivion and darkness

aren't we able to detect any galaxies between us and the CMB? Why would we be making extimates about how many galaxies there are otherwise? this seems like a yes or no thing, how can we possibly be changing these estimates by an order of magnitude?

>>78796
you're an idiot

The Universe that matters is actually very small. It consists of you, your family, and friends. Out side of that none of anyone's concern.

>>78799
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

In short if there was infinite number of galaxies, then there would be an infinite number of starts and if you looked out at the night sky your eye would end up on a really bright star and thus the night sky would be completely bright, which it is not.

There are other proofs that show the universe can't be infinite (including a mass one: basically if there were infinite MASS, the force of attraction would cause the universe to collape)

>>78835
>>78799
>>78801
The article is talking specifically about the observable universe. That's everything within about 50 billion light years of Earth. Light from galaxies beyond this point can never reach us because every year the Hubble expansion adds more than a light year of space between us and them. The actual universe is definitely a lot bigger than that and possibly infinite unless Earth by some huge coincidence was placed just right for no galaxy to exist beyond the point we can see them.

>>78816
Use telescope to look at patch of sky
Count stars in that patch
Calculate what fraction of sky that patch was
Multiple # of stars in patch by # of patches in the sky
this hgives you number of stars in galaxy

Get better telescope, with more resolution, which can see farther
see more stars in same sized patch
thus more stars in universe

>>78835
>basically if there were infinite MASS, the force of attraction would cause the universe to collape

Gravity moves at the speed of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
This means even if the universe has infinite mass only a finite amount of it is capable of exerting a gravitational force on any given object. We're not effected by gravity from outside our observable universe for the same reason we can't see light outside our observable universe.

>>78843
>>78843
>Light from galaxies beyond this point can never reach us because every year the Hubble expansion adds more than a light year of space between us and them.
You're right in theory. But the actual hindrance of our observable universe is the Cosmic Microwave Background

>>78847
>Gravitational waves
>proven
JK i've done enough GR to believe

But i think it would still cause a collapse
i dunno im kinda drunk rn so i ca'nt really think straight

>>78850
We see the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation at the edge of the observable universe because it was created not long after the Big Bang. The further away a lite/radiation source is the longer ago it was emitted. The edge of the observable universe is both the furthest and oldest radiation we can detect so that's where stuff from the very early universe is seen. The reactions that caused the CMBR aren't even there anymore, they ended 14 billion years ago and we're just seeing it now. We wouldn't be able to see past the edge of the observable universe even if there was no CMBR.

I read the article form NASA, wasn't really convincing, maybe I'm understanding it wrong?

"however, there weren't enough galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field image to account for the density of matter distributed throughout the Universe. "

I thought the whole "not enough mass in the universe" was evidence of dark matter, not there's invisible galaxies we can't see....

"The researchers then extrapolated their estimates to encompass galaxies too small and faint for telescopes to pick up. "

yeah....ok I'll just wait and see what the james web telescope sees....

>>78880
>dark matter, not there's invisible galaxies we can't see....
"Dark" matter is literally stuff we can't see: hence "dark". It doesn't necessarily have to be science fiction stuff, we just can't see it.

>>78833
>friends

>>78885
Last I heard dark matter was matter that have no effect on fundamental forces aside from gravity

>>78787

Space is gay

>>78909
>2016
>not wanting the entire observable universe in your ass

>>78891
I'm interested in the idea that it's a large amount of very small, maybe planetary mass black holes.

>>78830
even extrapolation of valid data is conjecture

>>78921
Well of course. But this is how most of science is done since experiments are expensive and funding is hard to get.

>>78858
You're right. I misunderstood what you were trying to say about the Hubble expansion. It's been a couple years since i was in school (my astro class was trash anyways) so excuse me.

Since religion is fake it just means that there is another earth, 1 in a 100 trillion chance of one popping out or sonething

>>78796
We know all the galaxies in the local cluster to faint to be seen from a different cluster then assume that's the normal of a bell curve
I wish these articles would include the margin of error

>>78911
Black holes interact with the electroweak force

>>78787
This article is completely misleading... The source material is actually saying we found a way to extrapolate more data, not that we suddenly found there were more galaxies than we expected. We know Hubble and the other telescopes can't detect every galaxy, and we know, roughly, the mass of the universe from the CMB.

This is, as happens so damned often, science being taken out of context to seem more amazing than it actually is.

>>79240
Not necessarily; this could eliminate quite s lot of dark matter