Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

Ate there more galaxies in the universe, than stars that can be seen from Earth with the naked eye, or with a telescope?

⁨63⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨the_flying_pig@lemmy.world⁩ to ⁨[deleted]⁩

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    There are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy. There are about 200 trillion galaxies in the parts of the universe that are observable from earth. Which is to say, galaxies outnumber the stars in our galaxy by about 20 to 1.

    If we limit it to stars we can see with the naked eye, then instead of 100 billion stars, you’re down to something like 5,000 to 10,000 stars depending where on earth you are observing from. In which case galaxies in the observable universe outnumber the stars we can see about 20 billion to 1.

    source
  • DomeGuy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    The whole universe? Absolutely. Even the smallwst infinity is larger than any countable sum.

    The visible universe, meaning those close enough that a photon could have passed from there to here since the “big bang” faded enough to allow such transmissal? I don’t know offhand.

    A simple web search suggest that our galaxy has less than 10^11^ stars – 400,000,000,000 or so. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way )

    Finding our other figure is a bit harder, since trusty Wikipedia doesn’t include a direct figure and the first few articles I could find was from the BBC and used number names instead of scientific notation, which is ambiguous at this scale. ( in the long scale we only have milliardaires, and Elon Musk’s brief paper fortune was a billion rather than trillion.)

    Thankfully a NASA articke linked to what appears to be the underlying research paper, and gives us a helpful number of 2x10^12^. (2,000,000,000,000)

    …nasa.gov/…/STScI-01EVSR313NHNAC17DF62MP9QV9.pdf

    So, if the paper is right then, yes, there are more galaxies in the observable universe than stars in the Milky Way. But, the paper was an indirect measurement that increased the galaxy count by a whole order of magnitude, so there may be only 2x10^11^ galaxies. Except, of course, that the estimate of stars in the miky way was an estimate and could be as little as 1/4 of the number I cited above…

    And if the paper is wrong and the truth of the estimate is in the middle, both of our numbers could be 2x10^11^, with approximately one star in our galaxy for every galaxy in the observable universe.

    source
    • ash@piefed.ca ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Just a small addition if you don’t mind—we don’t know whether the universe is finite or infinite. Intuitively, I prefer a finite universe because I can’t wrap my head around actual infinities.

      Locally flat or curved regions are possible in both cases.

      source
    • Dave@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      To add on to your “with telescope” numbers, the number you can see with the naked eye is surprisingly small. If you are out on a clear night, you can pretty much only see stars within the milky way, and even then you’re talking the ballpark of 5000. If you’re naming them and counting them on all sides of the earth (not just those visible from your one location) you can double that if you have great eyes.

      source
    • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      The whole universe? Absolutely. Even the smallwst infinity is larger than any countable sum.

      Sorry, I don’t understand. Surely the number of galaxies is not infinite?

      source
      • rockerface@lemmy.cafe ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        For us, it might as well be. Infinity, zero, any other value. We can’t measure what’s outside of the observable universe, by definition, so we can’t confirm any theories with an experiment.

        source
      • DomeGuy@lemmy.world ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Our models do not specify a shape for the universe, because we have not seen any evidence for a spatial (as opposed to temporal) limit to how big the universe is.

        In fact, we infer that since what we can see becomes homogenous on a surprisingly small scale, the whole infinite universe is similarly filled with galactic clusters, and thus there is an (unreachable) infinite number of galaxies.

        This quickly gets into the weeds of “can we even say trees fall in the forests of planets no humans will ever observe”, possibly followed by an argument over if infinites are equal or comparable.

        source
  • Aeao@lemmy.world ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Stop eating galaxies lol

    source
  • silly_goose@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Only a part of the universe is observable. All the stars that can be seen are in this region.

    So we cannot answer this question with certainty. But I would lean towards more galaxies than obervable stars because the universe could be very large or infinite in size.

    source
  • Davel23@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    The Hubble Deep Field imaged an area of the sky effectively the size of a tennis ball as seen from 100 meters away. It captured over 3000 objects almost all of which were galaxies. So yes, WAY more galaxies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field

    source
    • phoenixz@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      A tennis ball at 100 meters? That’d be a single pixel on many cameras at that range, thst doesnt sound right

      I remember reading it was about the size of your thumb nail at an arms length

      source
      • Davel23@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I'm going by what Wikipedia says.

        source
  • bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Probably. There are more trees on earth than stars in the Milky Way.

    source
    • IPeaceInYourFace@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I don’t believe that for second. There’s a lot of fucking stars in the milky way.

      And we’ve cut down a hell of a lot of trees.

      source
      • BurgerBaron@quokk.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I was curious, so:

        https://worldpopulationreview.com/metrics/how-many-trees-are-in-the-world

        3 trillion trees.

        vs

        100 - 400 billion stars.

        https://www.space.com/25959-how-many-stars-are-in-the-milky-way.html

        https://astro.arizona.edu/news/how-many-stars-are-milky-way-more-you-can-imagine

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        That’s why it’s such a fun fact.

        source
  • kaotic@lemmy.world ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Fun fact, there are more trees on earth than stars in our galaxy.

    source
    • Typotyper@sh.itjust.works ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Not for that if we keep going the way we are.

      source
      • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        the earth is more forested now than it was 100 years ago. but don’t let that fact get in the way of your doomer nonsense.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • gaiussabinus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Yes

    source
    • IPeaceInYourFace@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      He’s right you know. The answer is yes.

      source
  • HubertManne@piefed.social ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I went through because I was hoping someone would answer and especially explain it better than I. Basically we can only see object out to a certain distance partially due to the speed of light and also partiall due to resolution. The farther away the harder it is to get detail as the signal degrades do to interaction with things. In addition space expands and is not limited to the speed of light. Much of what we understand is from non light signals like the cosmic microwave background that does not give us images. The long and short is we can see out a distance from ourselves in all directions but the farthest we have seen as far as I can tell from searching is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoM-z14 from the james web. Which is under 300 million years.

    source
    • EliotLoudermilk@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      more info from the link you provided: “That image captured the galaxy during its formation about 280 million years after the Big Bang, during the Reionization Era of the early universe” … “Distance 13.53 billion light-years (light travel distance) 33.8 billion light-years (proper distance)”

      source
      • HubertManne@piefed.social ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        sorry that was bad on my part. I quickly searched and skimmed so did not properly portray it.

        source
  • cattywampas@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    With the naked eye or with a telescope are two very different questions.

    But the answer to either question is “more galaxies in the universe.” Estimate of galaxies in the observable universe is 2 trillion. The Milky Way contains at most 400 billion stars, most of which will not be visible with either the naked eye or a telescope.

    source
  • Kolanaki@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    No. Galaxies are made of lots of stars, so there are presumably more stars than galaxies.

    source
    • jerkface@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      That was not the question.

      source
  • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    I haven’t been to all of them, but from what I hear, yes.

    source
  • MantisToboggon@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Fun fact the closest neighbor galaxy is your mom’s fat ass.

    source
    • oeuf@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Image

      source
    • IPeaceInYourFace@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      That black hole in the centre will eat anything

      source