Observable Universe contains ten times more galaxies than previously thought

October 13, 2016
Among other data, scientists used the galaxies visible in the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS) to recalculate the total number of galaxies in the observable Universe. The image was taken by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and covers a portion of the southern field of GOODS. This is a large galaxy census, a deep-sky study by several observatories to trace the formation and evolution of galaxies. Credit: NASA, ESA/Hubble

Astronomers using data from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescopes and other telescopes have performed an accurate census of the number of galaxies in the Universe. The group came to the surprising conclusion that there are at least 10 times as many galaxies in the observable Universe as previously thought. The results have clear implications for our understanding of galaxy formation, and also help solve an ancient astronomical paradox—why is the sky dark at night?

One of the most fundamental questions in astronomy is that of just how many galaxies the Universe contains. The Hubble Deep Field images, captured in the mid 1990s, gave the first real insight into this. Myriad faint galaxies were revealed, and it was estimated that the observable Universe contains about 100 billion galaxies. Now, an international team, led by Christopher Conselice from the University of Nottingham, UK, have shown that this figure is at least ten times too low.

Conselice and his team reached this conclusion using deep space images from Hubble, data from his team's previous work, and other published data. They painstakingly converted the images into 3-D, in order to make accurate measurements of the number of galaxies at different times in the Universe's history. In addition, they used new mathematical models which allowed them to infer the existence of galaxies which the current generation of telescopes cannot observe. This led to the surprising realisation that in order for the numbers to add up, some 90% of the galaxies in the observable Universe are actually too faint and too far away to be seen—yet.

"It boggles the mind that over 90% of the galaxies in the Universe have yet to be studied. Who knows what interesting properties we will find when we observe these galaxies with the next generation of telescopes," explains Christopher Conselice about the far-reaching implications of the new results.

In analysing the data the team looked more than 13 billion years into the past. This showed them that galaxies are not evenly distributed throughout the Universe's history. In fact, it appears that there were a factor of 10 more galaxies per unit volume when the Universe was only a few billion years old compared with today. Most of these galaxies were relatively small and faint, with masses similar to those of the satellite galaxies surrounding the Milky Way.

These results are powerful evidence that a significant evolution has taken place throughout the Universe's history, an evolution during which galaxies merged together, dramatically reducing their total number. "This gives us a verification of the so-called top-down formation of structure in the Universe," explains Conselice.

The decreasing number of galaxies as time progresses also contributes to the solution of Olbers' paradox—why the sky is dark at night. The team came to the conclusion that there is such an abundance of galaxies that, in principle, every point in the sky contains part of a galaxy. However, most of these galaxies are invisible to the human eye and even to modern telescopes, owing to a combination of factors: redshifting of light, the Universe's dynamic nature and the absorption of light by intergalactic dust and gas, all combine to ensure that the night sky remains mostly dark.

Explore further: The rise and fall of galaxy formation

More information: "The Evolution of Galaxy Number Density at z < 8 and Its Implications," 2016, Astrophysical Journal, arxiv.org/abs/1607.03909

Related Stories

The rise and fall of galaxy formation

August 30, 2016

An international team of astronomers, including Carnegie's Eric Persson, has charted the rise and fall of galaxies over 90 percent of cosmic history. Their work, which includes some of the most sensitive astronomical measurements ...

Image: Hubble gets in on a galactic gathering

May 30, 2016

Nearly as deep as the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, which contains approximately 10,000 galaxies, this incredible image from the Hubble Space Telescope reveals thousands of colorful galaxies in the constellation of Leo (The Lion). ...

VISTA pinpoints earliest giant galaxies

November 18, 2015

Just counting the number of galaxies in a patch of sky provides a way to test astronomers' theories of galaxy formation and evolution. However, such a simple task becomes increasingly hard as astronomers attempt to count ...

Hubble sees galaxy hiding in the night sky

May 2, 2016

This striking NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image captures the galaxy UGC 477, located just over 110 million light-years away in the constellation of Pisces (The Fish).

Recommended for you

Orbital mayhem around a red dwarf

December 18, 2017

In the collective imagination, planets of a solar system all circle in the equatorial plane of their star. The star also spins, and its spin axis is aligned with the spin axes of the planetary orbits, giving the impression ...

Mars and Earth may not have been early neighbors

December 18, 2017

A study published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters posits that Mars formed in what today is the Asteroid Belt, roughly one and a half times as far from the sun as its current position, before migrating to ...

68 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

BartV
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2016
Wow. More than 1 Trillion galaxies in the universe! Truly mind-boggling. Would very much like to see improved telescopes in my lifetime to see the >90% still hidden from our current view.

And when we find them, who knows, there might be yet another further 90% hidden that we still don't know about.

julianpenrod
1.7 / 5 (17) Oct 13, 2016
To explain the dynamics, as such, that they declare in the universe as a whole, "scientists" say only 4 percent of all matter in the universe is visible. If this is true about the number of galaxies, that can change to so called ordinary matter being 40 percent of the universe. A significant change that should be considered in talking about the nature of "dark matter' and "dark energy".
shavera
4.3 / 5 (18) Oct 13, 2016
This is a change in the *number* of galaxies, not the mass of them, or the mass of the ordinary matter fraction of the universe. Essentially it looks like the early universe was many smaller galaxies compared to today's, presumably as the galaxies merged over time.
hemitite
4.4 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2016
Shavera, There may be a small upward correction in the observable matter mass depending on what assumptions are now used to calculate the visible mass contribution of the early universe.
Modulus64
4.4 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2016
I bet there's more than that.
optical
Oct 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
3.1 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2016
@optical
Apparently with improvement of technology the scope of observable Universe is expanding every year...;-) So how it will affect the estimations, that the dark matter forms 27% of visible matter? Or just 2.7%?


Seeing to greater distances, and therefore seeing more "visible matter", does NOT reduce the estimate of the DM content. Dark matter is present in all places, at all epochs.
IMP-9
3 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2016
The article is full of rubbish, the headline is completely wrong. When you quote the number density of galaxies you quote it to some limit in mass or luminosity. It's perfectly obvious to everyone with more than 3 functioning brain cells that if you go to a fainter limit there will be more. I can say with absolute certainty that the number quoted here is an underestimate, but no one cares. The total number of galaxies is a meaningless and arbitrary number. What they actually quote in the paper is the number of massive galaxies, i.e. above M* the turnover of the Schechter function. They get that from extrapolating mass functions, not detecting new galaxies.

Before anyone says it, no this doesn't affect the amount of dark matter in the universe. The ratio is calculated from the Cosmic Microwave Background and the abundances of light elements, not from counting galaxies in the sky.

Cont...
IMP-9
3.1 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2016
10 times as many galaxies in the observable Universe as previously thought


Is an absolute lie. What they actually say in the paper is " almost a factor of ten higher than would be seen in an all sky survey at Hubble Ultra-Deep Field depth". Those statements are not equivalent. HUDF is not sensitive to M* galaxies at redshift 8. Nobody thought the universe contained only those galaxies that have currently been detected.

Whoever wrote this article that physorg has so carefully copied and pasted should consider another career. I just have no idea how anyone working in a press office could get it so wrong and not be stopped.
RNP
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2016
@optical
I have belatedly spotted another of your nonsense statements:

So how it will affect the estimations, that the dark matter forms 27% of visible matter?


Do you not think before you post?
julianpenrod
2 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2016
Despite what IMP-9 says about "Cosmic Microwave Background", the first invoking of "dark matter" came from calculating the mass of observed galaxies and deciding the mass has to be enough to halt expansion. And even if the mass of the new galaxies is small, that can still say that, say, a quarter of all the mass is visible matter. And, if galaxies can form around small amounts of matter, forming light galaxies, then "dark matter" is not necessarily needed to explain the motions of galaxies that they say require "dark matter".
optical
Oct 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
3 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2016
@optical

RNP: In steady state Universe model we should see the more galaxies, the better equipment we get - or not? Only in Big Bang cosmology the amount of galaxies observable would be limited - with dark epoch, reionization and similar constrains. Just sit down and watch, what will happen next... ;-)


Irrelevant waffle. Your implied prediction is therefore lacking in any credibility.
optical
Oct 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2016
@optical
..whereas "irrelevant waffle" sounds like very credible argument..


Sometimes the best argument against complete nonsense is simply to say that it is complete nonsense. Your interpretation of modern cosmology over recent posts has been so far disconnected from reality that I have lost the capacity (or perhaps the patience) to fathom the depths of your delusions.
optical
Oct 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2016
@optical
OK. Name an observation that supports the ridiculous claims that you have made in this, and other recent posts.
wduckss
1 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2016
The conclusion of the authors of the article is selfish and not correct. Between the Earth and the Moon (Sun or other body) does not: "... combination of factors: redshifting of light, the Universe's dynamic nature and the absorption of light by intergalactic dust and gas, all combine to Ensure that the night sky remains mostly dark ." but is dark again.
Collision radiation from the visible matter gives light. If there is no visible matter, there is no light.
http://www.svemir...Universe part "Light"
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2016
So how it will affect the estimations, that the dark matter forms 27% of visible matter? Or just 2.7%?
......size matters is what you say opt? More visible mass more gravity, right?

it appears that there were a factor of 10 more galaxies per unit volume when the Universe was only a few billion years old compared with today.
.....yeah, Early Universe compared with the present & the MW at 10-12 billion yrs.

The group came to the surprising conclusion that there are at least 10 times as many galaxies in the observable Universe as previously thought.
...size not mentioned

most of these galaxies are invisible to the human eye and even to modern telescopes, owing to a combination of factors: redshifting of light, the Universe's dynamic nature and the absorption of light by intergalactic dust and gas
....once again size not mentioned because the absorption of light by dust & gas so disperses photons making it impossible to prove size.

Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2016
....once again size not mentioned because the absorption of light by dust & gas so disperses photons making it impossible to prove size.


In addition to the dispersal caused by elastic & inelastic photon scattering, there is the absorption of photons by intergalactic atomic nuclei such that we can't determine what percentage of the original frequency emission has changed. The authors seem to be suggesting these numbers are indeterminate & have not suggested how much more VM this adds because they are not able to conclude whether the 90% are small or large galaxies or even what kind, Elliptical, Spriral, etc. If they're Elliptical Galaxies the VM increase will be huge because Spirals only make up 1/3 the mass of the Universe.
Stevepidge
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2016
@optical
..whereas "irrelevant waffle" sounds like very credible argument..


Sometimes the best argument against complete nonsense is simply to say that it is complete nonsense. Your interpretation of modern cosmology over recent posts has been so far disconnected from reality that I have lost the capacity (or perhaps the patience) to fathom the depths of your delusions.


The big bang is codswallop, and you committed the cardinal sin of swallowing.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2016
....once again size not mentioned because the absorption of light by dust & gas so disperses photons making it impossible to prove size.


In addition to the dispersal caused by elastic & inelastic photon scattering, there is the absorption of photons by intergalactic atomic nuclei such that we can't determine what percentage of the original frequency emission has changed. The authors seem to be suggesting these numbers are indeterminate & have not suggested how much more VM this adds because they are not able to conclude whether the 90% are small or large galaxies or even what kind, Elliptical, Spriral, etc. If they're Elliptical Galaxies the VM increase will be huge because Spirals only make up 1/3 the mass of the Universe.

Well, eliptical (in the early years, at least) would make sense... becoming spirals as gravity from other nearby elipticals, over time, took effect...
What do you propose makes up the other 2/3s?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2016
Well, eliptical (in the early years, at least) would make sense... becoming spirals as gravity from other nearby elipticals, over time, took effect
.......first time I've ever heard anyone propose Ellipticals can morph into Spirals. Where do you see that?

What do you propose makes up the other 2/3s?
In size, Ellipticals can be hundreds of times larger than the largest Spirals of the size of our Milky Way or Andromeda. Galaxy clusters are dominated by Ellipticals creating high concentrations of gravity enabling the clusters to remain gravitationally bound.

So much mass in the Universe is bound up in the Giant Elliptical Galaxies that for all practical intents & purposes it could be estimated by observation that Ellipticals of all sizes make up most of the remaining 2/3 of the mass of the universe.
Stevepidge
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2016
The problem with modern cosmology and human nature in general is that subconscious assumptions and egos are far more powerful than any possible contrary evidence to the status quo. Science truly only progresses as Max Planck declared, "one funeral at a time."
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2016
Well, eliptical (in the early years, at least) would make sense... becoming spirals as gravity from other nearby elipticals, over time, took effect
.......first time I've ever heard anyone propose Ellipticals can morph into Spirals. Where do you see that?

Just a little mind exercise... Everything is in motion. Imagine a larger EG moving by a smaller one. Not close enough to pull it in, but still effect it from a distance. A little tug and next thing ya know, slight spin started. A couple more similar pass-bys and wham - faster spin. Then just sit back and see what centrifugal force can do with a drop of starstuff and a few billion years. Or maybe spirals are just the result of gravitational interaction between elipticals.. There's a number of possibilities...
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2016
Or maybe spirals are just the result of gravitational interaction between elipticals.. There's a number of possibilities...
..........asstrophysics on parade here.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2016
Or maybe spirals are just the result of gravitational interaction between elipticals.. There's a number of possibilities...
..........asstrophysics on parade here.


Why are you so fixated on ass?
Solon
1 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2016
Due to a misunderstanding of how their instruments actually work, and misinterpretation of the data, all those supposed galaxies are actually solar systems, with just one Sun at the centre of Each. Bahram Katirai was correct with his interpretation. Read "Revolution in Astronomy"
optical
Oct 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EnsignFlandry
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2016
The problem with modern cosmology and human nature in general is that subconscious assumptions and egos are far more powerful than any possible contrary evidence to the status quo. Science truly only progresses as Max Planck declared, "one funeral at a time."


You idiot. Half the Noble prizes have been awarded for discoveries that overthrown some accepted dogma.
EnsignFlandry
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2016
Due to a misunderstanding of how their instruments actually work, and misinterpretation of the data, all those supposed galaxies are actually solar systems, with just one Sun at the centre of Each. Bahram Katirai was correct with his interpretation. Read "Revolution in Astronomy"


Right. And you, of course, correctly understand how the instruments actually work, and how to correctly interpret the data. And we should believe this because...
SLOOHCox
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2016
Benni 1 / 5 (1) 3 hours ago

Or maybe spirals are just the result of gravitational interaction between elipticals.. There's a number of possibilities...

..........asstrophysics on parade here.


Says the strutting mental case. WTF are you here? It's an article about astrophysics. How about following Penrod to his blood sacrifice worship this Sunday and tutting that there's "religion on display there"?

The comments on here are good for one thing. When all seems hopeless it's a consolation to see how many bleeding idiots will be caught up in the chaos. Richly deserved.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2016
The problem with modern cosmology and human nature in general is that subconscious assumptions and egos are far more powerful than any possible contrary evidence to the status quo. Science truly only progresses as Max Planck declared, "one funeral at a time."


You idiot. Half the Noble prizes have been awarded for discoveries that overthrown some accepted dogma.


nobel prize? lololol Even Tesla didn't want that thing.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2016

Or maybe spirals are just the result of gravitational interaction between elipticals.. There's a number of possibilities...


..........asstrophysics on parade here.


Says the strutting mental case. WTF are you here? It's an article about astrophysics. How about following Penrod to his blood sacrifice worship this Sunday and tutting that there's "religion on display there"?

The comments on here are good for one thing. When all seems hopeless it's a consolation to see how many bleeding idiots will be caught up in the chaos. Richly deserved.
........even more asstrophysics on parade, you guys just can't stop yourselves.

Dark_Solar
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2016
Ok...soooo....does this have any effect on the predicted percentage of the Universe which is composed of dark matter/energy? Or more to the point, how will this new information impact dark matter/energy calculations?

* there's no emoticon for butt-puzzled*
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2016
Ok...soooo....does this have any effect on the predicted percentage of the Universe which is composed of dark matter/energy? Or more to the point, how will this new information impact dark matter/energy calculations?


What we presently observe is that Elliptical Galaxies compose 2/3 of the total mass of the observable universe, Spirals make up most of the remaining population of the 1/3 mass. There's no reason to believe the unobservable universe should be any different, but the James Webb Telescope will confirm it one way or the other.

If JWT indicates that Elliptical Galaxy mass holds at 2/3 of the total, it will be almost be a death blow for Dark Matter hypotheses because all the so-called missing gravity inferences will have been accounted for.

Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2016
What we presently observe is that Elliptical Galaxies compose 2/3 of the total mass of the observable universe, Spirals make up most of the remaining population of the 1/3 mass.

Source?
It's already known what the total mass is, regardless of make-up. What needs to be done is observing additional mass to account for observed gravitational action.
The numbers of something don't necessarily equal the mass of those "somethings"...
Unless you're saying that mass changes with rotational momentum...

Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2016
What we presently observe is that Elliptical Galaxies compose 2/3 of the total mass of the observable universe, Spirals make up most of the remaining population of the 1/3 mass.

Source?
It's already known what the total mass is, regardless of make-up. What needs to be done is observing additional mass to account for observed gravitational action.
The numbers of something don't necessarily equal the mass of those "somethings"...


W, I'm not a babysitter. Why don't you simply look it up for yourself? Type it into a Search Engine so you can be satisfied I'm not sending you to my website.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2016
W, I'm not a babysitter. Why don't you simply look it up for yourself? Type it into a Search Engine so you can be satisfied I'm not sending you to my website.

I did. And it does not (in regards to mass and rotation). However, you seem to be inferring it...
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2016
What we presently observe is that Elliptical Galaxies compose 2/3 of the total mass of the observable universe, Spirals make up most of the remaining population of the 1/3 mass.

Source?


W, I'm not a babysitter. Why don't you simply look it up for yourself? Type it into a Search Engine so you can be satisfied I'm not sending you to my website.

This is what wikipedia says;
"Together with irregular galaxies, spiral galaxies make up approximately 60% of galaxies in the local Universe.[6] They are mostly found in low-density regions and are rare in the centers of galaxy clusters.[7]"
The only "2/3rds" reference I found was number of BARRED spiral galaxies to just spiral...

Now, are you inferring a mass change due to rotation?
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2016
This is what wikipedia says;
"Together with irregular galaxies, spiral galaxies make up approximately 60% of galaxies in the local Universe.[6] They are mostly found in low-density regions and are rare in the centers of galaxy clusters.[7]"
The only "2/3rds" reference I found was number of BARRED spiral galaxies to just spiral...


....at least you did something on your own without needing a babysitter but what you quoted does not address MASS, it only addresses sheer numbers of POPULATION. Do you comprehend the difference?

Yeah, out of sheer numbers the preponderance of Spirals outnumber Ellipticals, but when you combine the total MASS of Ellipticals compared to the total combined MASS of Spirals the ratio is 2:1 in favor of Ellipticals, that's where the 2/3 TOTAL MASS for Ellipticals comes from as compared to the 1/3 TOTAL MASS for Spirals.

Dig some more W, you still don't comprehend the terminology.

Merrit
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2016
Number of galaxies observed does not matter for DM content. DM percent was calculated by looking at single galaxies and determining how much additional mass was required to make the model work. Observing more galaxies adds more of both with same ratio as before.
optical
Oct 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2016
Hi Merrit. :)
Number of galaxies observed does not matter for DM content. DM percent was calculated by looking at single galaxies and determining how much additional mass was required to make the model work. Observing more galaxies adds more of both with same ratio as before.
That is what a simplistic analysis would have us believe. But consider what has happened in mainstream astronomy discovery regarding 'individual' galaxies: their actual mass/extents has been observed to be much much larger/more massive than previously estimated because we are finding ordinary previously undetectable 'dark' matter everywhere inside, around and between galaxies. And there is still much ordinary plasmic/neutral dust/gases/processes out there yet to be detected with ever newer scopes/instruments coming on-stream now/soon. Recalculate the mass/distribution at all scales/density up to to superclusters, and it invalidates 'now old' BB/'exotic' DM 'assumptions/explanations'. :)
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2016
Number of galaxies observed does not matter for DM content. DM percent was calculated by looking at single galaxies and determining how much additional mass was required to make the model work. Observing more galaxies adds more of both with same ratio as before.


You are dead-on wrong that "numbers of galaxies" do not count because it is all about TOTAL COUNTERVAILING GRAVITY that Zwicky imagined was needed to keep the radial arms of SPIRAL GALAXIES from imploding into the central hub of Spiral Galaxies.

Clearly you don't understand the hypothesis of your reference MODEL Such "models" are are so far fetched as to be totally laughable, especially so since there has never been TESTABLE science for such features.

So next you will want bring up "inferred gravity" won't you? Well, Zwicky never implied there were "inferred gravity" features preventing Elliptical galaxies from imploding on themselves & these giants make up 2/3 of the MASS of the universe.
dedereu
not rated yet Oct 15, 2016
"And when we find them, who knows, there might be yet another further 90% hidden that we still don't know about" indicates that the universe is multiplying itself into multiverse at each quantum measurement every picosecond !
Phys1
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2016
Or maybe spirals are just the result of gravitational interaction between elipticals.. There's a number of possibilities...
..........asstrophysics on parade here.


Benni, are you indeed the same psycho as lunaticle?
You two sound just the same, which is unusual for two distinct nut cases.
Protoplasmix
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2016
Recalculate the mass/distribution at all scales/density up to to superclusters, and it invalidates 'now old' BB/'exotic' DM 'assumptions/explanations'.
The calculations for the density parameters come from using the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter model and two completely different (independent) measurements [cosmic nucleosynthesis and analysis of CMB fluctuations]. And according to those calculations, the density of baryonic (normal) matter is about 4.9% of the total energy density (which also includes 25.9% dark matter and 69.1% dark energy [Planck, 2015]).

NOW, when we take a census of all the luminous matter we can see (stars, dust), the result is a whopping 0.005 (in critical density units), which means that we canNOT AS YET SEE ~ 90% of the baryonic matter that the L-CDM model says should be there.

See slides 4, 7 - 9 here: http://www.astro....ents.pdf
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix. :)

All previous DM modeling/assumptions etc now moot given newly discovered massive amounts of Ordinary matter/distributions in a variety of excited/relaxing states/processes all over; which models using naive/simplistic methodologies/techniques failed to 'capture' in analysis/conclusions.

And I point out that infinite/eternal universal processes involving unceasing recycling/redistribution of matter (deconstruction into a range of plasma, including LHC-type Quark-Gluon plasma, via Polar Jet systems; and eventual reconstitution of said polar jets ejecta back into 'pristine-seeming' Hydrogen/Helium in deep space), makes all BB-hypothesis "nucleosynthesis/abundances" hypotheses/assumptions unnecessary/misleading.

CMB in infinite/eternal recycling-matter Universe is not what previous BB etc modeling/assumptions says it is; and as for CMB 'fluctuations', the Planck/Bicep experiences should have dispelled any naive trust in simplistic analysis/expectations. :)
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2016
the density of baryonic (normal) matter is about 4.9% of the total energy density (which also includes 25.9% dark matter and 69.1% dark energy [Planck, 2015])


These numbers can't be proven to be real because DM is not TESTABLE or OBSERVABLE & DE is not TESTABLE or OBSERVABLE. Only baryonic matter has been shown to be TESTABLE & OBSERVABLE.

Two out of three features which you claim constitutes the Universe have never been measured for the percent content you coughed up. So to get around that small problem you punt to an INFERRED presence to fill in the voids of mysticism asstrophysicists create so they can get another paycheck next month.

When the level of confidence for a statistical probability relies on an assumption for the existence of 2 out of 3 things that must be present for the corollary to be TRUE, there is almost zero chance the predicted proposition can be true. I sure wouldn't trust my luck on that kind of a deal if I were a betting man in a casino.
Protoplasmix
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2016
All previous DM modeling/assumptions etc now moot given newly discovered massive amounts of Ordinary matter/distributions in a variety of excited/relaxing states/processes all over;
@RealityCheck – that powerpoint presentation I provided a link to was created in 2013. Are you suggesting that in the last 3 years we've discovered DOUBLE the amount of stars and dust – that we've discovered an entire universe's worth of new galaxies? Hardly. And even if we had, that would mean we can now see only ~ 20% of the normal baryonic matter that's out there. Your qualitative (rather than quantitative) statement of "massive amounts" doesn't cut the mustard. It's not even remotely close. And it's obvious to anyone who knows even a little about cosmology that you know even less.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2016
Are you suggesting that in the last 3 years we've discovered DOUBLE the amount of stars and dust – that we've discovered an entire universe's worth of new galaxies?


No, RC can't suggest any such thing because use of 21st Century technology that was used to perform this study & write this article is beyond his access to such equipment:

Astronomers using data from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescopes and other telescopes have performed an accurate census of the number of galaxies in the Universe
...... it's obvious to anyone who knows even a little about cosmology that you know even less.

The math is not hard Proto, we saw only 10% of the universe before. Cosmologists NOW (3 years later) DECLARE this as statement of fact in spite of your "Hardly" quip about DOUBLE from 2013-16. if you divide 90% by 10% that is NINE times more stars & dust compared to what you thought existed in 2013, that's not paltry by any standard of measurement.

Protoplasmix
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2016
The math is not hard
Which math? The Benni-math of "90% divided by 10%"? Of course it's not hard. But that's not the underlying math for the physics of the L-CDM model. The baryon density comes from analysis of CMB fluctuations and (independently) from comparing nucleosynthesis with observations and measurements of deuterium in the Lyman-alpha forest [slide 3, link above]. The number of galaxies that we can or can't see is not part of the L-CDM calculation for baryon density. The math you should be using is on slide 7 (link above) and the number of galaxies is related to the < M/L > term. Quoting from slide 7, "All of the visible matter amounts to only half a percent of the total mass/energy content of the universe!"
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2016
we saw only 10% of the universe before. Cosmologists NOW (3 years later) DECLARE this as statement of fact
@banjiTROLL
1- where, exactly, did the cosmologists make this statement? please quote that part as well as the reference link where this statement is declared as a fact
thanks

2- your ASSumptions about 9 times more stars and dust comes from your "declared statement" which you can't actually validate

3- the scientific method requires second party validation for any "truths" to be declared as facts... of course, any STEM grad would know that one. that is why singular studies are interesting but not considered anything more unless validated

Dig some more B, you still don't comprehend the terminology
(or the method, system, science... or even the basics, like references for claims etc - see also: http://www.auburn...ion.html )
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2016
[
These numbers can't be proven to be real because

What would you know about it, ignoramicle ?
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2016

The math is not hard Proto, we saw only 10% of the universe before.

Too hard for you, Benni. Nor sup[rises there.
It has been explained that 10 times more galaxies does not imply ten times more mass.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2016
"All of the visible matter amounts to only half a percent of the total mass/energy content of the universe!"
........a totally contrived piece of pseudoscience fiction. You DM Enthusiasts are almost flat on your backs trying to hang onto to zany outmoded 20th Century speculations about your precious charlatans & their waning theories about how the Universe functions.

In 1916 you have Schwarzschild trying to make a gullible bunch of Trekkies believe that Infinite Gravity Wells can exist on the surface of a finite stellar mass, as blatant a Perpetual Motion contrivance as could ever be concocted. Then in the 30's zany Zwicky comes along trying to make you believe that when you look in a mirror that 80-95% of what you see is "missing".

Be really thankful real Engineers & Scientists don't live in your dream world of make believe, if we did your lifestyle would never be possible & you would be demanding we make mirrors by which you could see your missing 80-95%.

thingumbobesquire
not rated yet Oct 16, 2016
The Ironic Universe http://thingumbob...universe
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2016
@julian: "If this is true about the number of galaxies, that can change to so called ordinary matter being 40 percent of the universe."

The newfound galaxies doesn't change the proportions between baryonic matter (BM) and dark matter (DM), since they (galaxies) have the same proportion of BM vs DM.

Unless you propose a new extraordinary class of galaxies, in which case you have to have extraordinary evidence. The near space galaxies are nothing like it, but there are also independent observations of dark matter that encompass the observable universe (observed in the cosmological background spectra, say).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2016
Hi Proto, torbjorn. :)

Old BB, CMB, exotic-DM 'myths' built into assumptions/estimates/interpretations methods/procedures/expectations used to claim things which Planck/Bicep3 observational difficulties demonstrated could be invalid/misleading.

What we 'see' of CMB, visible/UV/gamma/X-ray/IR 'images' etc, is affected by intervening/local material/processes in space; a 'mixmaster' to 'signals' from great distances.

Detector 'images' of far distant 'sources' are built up photon-by-photon over long exposures. But, as I already pointed out some time ago, the photons from intervening and off-line-of-sight 'sources' may swamp those from 'targeted' region/object.

As for dust/gas/plasma etc 'clouds', 'streams' etc, we mainly 'see' the 'near' surface/layers emissions/reflections, not the whole through-body-to-rear-surface emissions/reflections.

Those 'legacies' re 'estimates/assumptions' were/are naive/wrong.

Also non-Keplerian regimes of orbits/motions.

Rethink it all. :)
Phys1
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2016
In 1916 you have Schwarzschild trying to make a gullible bunch of Trekkies believe that Infinite Gravity Wells can exist

Unlike you, he knew his math.
He found the exact solution of the equations of your idol for the central symmetric case.
And your idol saw that it was good.
Schwarzschild did not believe that gravity could reach infinity.
He certainly was not "trying to make a gullible bunch of Trekkies believe that Infinite Gravity Wells can exist".
As always, you have no clue what and who you are talking about.
Socrates said: know thyself.
Had you known that you are merely a roach compared to Schwarzschild, you would not have made these stupid statements.
Phys1
3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2016
@Benni
Be really thankful real Engineers

A real engineer knows that this field of physics is outside his competence.
& [real] Scientists

True Scotsman fallacy.
del2
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2016
Socrates said: know thyself.

Not Socrates; it was inscribed above the entrance to the oracle at Delphi. Still good advice though.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2016
A real engineer knows that this field of physics is outside his competence.
....the Asstrophysics of DM & BH has no competent scientific basis, so you're partially correct but for having missed it by the use of the word "outside", it is "beneath" my competence.

Zany 20th century pseudosciences of BHs & DM is finally falling apart faster than asstrophysicists can cope with it, and it is just so entertaining watching foul mouthed acolytes like you trying to cling onto the tatters of their narratives, just like the ludicrous statement below that tbgl made with this statement:

there are also independent observations of dark matter that encompass the observable universe
...."observations" can be turned into pictures, but when challenged to put up the pics for the "observations", that's when all the regurgitation about "inferred gravity" is coughed up as an excuse for not presenting the pics of the so-called "observations".

Welcome to the 21st century of real science
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Oct 16, 2016

In 1916 you have Schwarzschild trying to make a gullible bunch of Trekkies believe that Infinite Gravity Wells can exist on the surface of a finite stellar mass, as blatant a Perpetual Motion contrivance as could ever be concocted. Then in the 30's zany Zwicky comes along trying to make you believe that when you look in a mirror that 80-95% of what you see is "missing".

Be really thankful real Engineers & Scientists don't live in your dream world of make believe, if we did your lifestyle would never be possible & you would be demanding we make mirrors by which you could see your missing 80-95%.

Just a matter of resolution - when you consider the relative space between every atom in your body...
Shouldn't a "Nuclear Engineer" be aware of that?
Phys1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2016
Socrates said: know thyself.

Not Socrates; it was inscribed above the entrance to the oracle at Delphi. Still good advice though.

I know it was inscribed there. But you are right, Socrates is only one of the possible sources.
https://en.wikipe...ribution
Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2016
A real engineer knows that this field of physics is outside his competence.
....the Asstrophysics of DM & BH has no competent scientific basis,

See? You don't distinguish between engineers and scientists. Of course, you are neither.
it is "beneath" my competence. [/q[]
You have no competence, so that is not possible.
80% of your brains are missing, or more, so you are forgiven.
It is already a mystery that you can type.
real science

True Scotsman fallacy.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.