NASA finds there are fewer galaxies than first thought, leaving the possibility we're alone in the universe
By: Chris Ciaccia (Fox News)
The importance of the number of galaxies extends beyond idle speculation about life to compete for research grants. The number of galaxies also influences estimates of the amount of mass in the universe.
How much of cosmological theory has been based upon bad guesses? Models can't overcome the problem of incorrect initial assumptions. Perhaps scientists know less about the universe than they think they do.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A mission from NASA has discovered there may be a lot fewer galaxies than initially believed, opening up the possibility humanity is alone in the universe.
The New Horizons mission, which yielded the first close-up photos of Pluto, provided enough data for scientists to make the determination that it's likely the number of galaxies is in the hundreds of billions, rather than 2 trillion, as initially believed.
"It's an important number to know — how many galaxies are there?" the study's lead author, Marc Postman, said in a statement. "We simply don't see the light from 2 trillion galaxies."
The findings, which were published and can be read here [ Seeder's note: link opens a PDF ], are in stark contrast to the 2 trillion figure that had long been used, thanks to data from the Hubble Space Telescope. Scientists used a mathematical model to determine that 90% of the galaxies in the universe were beyond Hubble's ability to see "visible light."
Traveling at roughly 33,000 miles per hour, the $720 million New Horizons spacecraft, which launched in January 2006, will eventually reach interstellar space, like the Voyager probes before it. The fact that it is currently near the edge of the Solar System allows it to see ambient sky 10 times darker than the Hubble's vantage point.
"These kinds of measurements are exceedingly difficult. A lot of people have tried to do this for a long time," the study's co-author, Tod Lauer, explained. "New Horizons provided us with a vantage point to measure the cosmic optical background better than anyone has been able to do it."
The New Horizons spacecraft is now 4.4 billion miles from Earth.
"Take all the galaxies Hubble can see, double that number, and that's what we see - but nothing more," Lauer added.
NASA's James Webb Telescope, which had its launch pushed back because of the coronavirus pandemic, could help scientists learn more about the faint glow in the background of space and learn if those are dwarf galaxies or something else.
The New Horizons spacecraft has made a number of discoveries in recent memory, including the object Arrokoth, previously known as Ultima Thule. In May 2019, New Horizons discovered water and organic molecules on Arrokoth, which is deep within the so-called Kuiper Belt, or Twilight Zone, well beyond the orbit of Neptune.
Tags
Who is online
110 visitors
Believe whatever you wish to believe. Science can support anything you choose with evidence based speculation. The only thing scientists know with certainty is that they don't know. Scientists need a lot more money to refine their understanding of not knowing.
To think that we are alone in the universe as well as the only sentient species could be considered the ultimate expression of vanity!
Those who believe in God know we are not alone in the universe as the only sentient beings. Denying God is the ultimate expression of human vanity.
It all depends upon point of view.
No, you believe we aren't.
Lack of belief in God (or gods) is the logical result of lack of evidence for God (or gods).
Belief is not necessarily fact or truth.
There is no evidence for God or extraterrestrial life. Both are possible.
New Horizon empirically experienced the universe from a different point of view than the Hubble telescope. That different point of view has influenced the logical results for both empirical experiences.
So, it depends upon point of view.
True. But Sandy made a very different point. Her point was ... oh, hell, let's just read her words:
Sandy notes that some people do not believe in gods because there is insufficient evidence to persuade them that a god exists.
She did not say it is impossible for a god to exist. Yet you respond as if she did.
Correct.
Facts or truths may substantiate beliefs. But the belief remains a belief. And the belief is not necessarily fact or truth.
We can believe speculations because facts and empirical evidence substantiate the speculation. But the speculation is not a fact or truth, either. Accepting a speculation requires belief that it is correct within the limitations of available evidence.
The seeded article provides an example of how different points of view provide different logical results. The facts and logical results are correct within the limitations of the respective empirical experiences. The empirical facts and evidence have been affected by point of view. It follows that the logical results (based on empirical facts and evidence) have also been affected by point of view. Consequently speculations have also been affected by point of view.
We believe whatever we want to believe. Speculations and logical results substantiated by empirical evidence and facts have been affected by point of view. Our beliefs are correct within the limitations of our point of view.
So you understand then why science does not declare truth. Thus in the future you will not argue against an unstated notion that science deems truth because you know that it does not do so. Right?
Both are possible. Neither is evidenced. That's why science makes no claim regarding the existence of extraterrestrial life. You seem to believe that it does.
Lack of belief in extraterrestrial life is the logical result of lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life. The lack of evidence for God and extraterrestrial life does not invalidate the possibility of either.
Lack of evidence does not invalidate belief.
There isn't empirical evidence for either God or extraterrestrial life. Demanding proof and evidence of either God or extraterrestrial life doe not invalidate a belief in God or extraterrestrial life.
Does that clarify my comment?
And I would be justified in calling out those claiming that science represents truth.
Which is the position science takes. Until there is evidence of extraterrestrial life, science does not claim that there is extraterrestrial life.
This is not difficult, if one is honest about what has and has not been stated.
The position of science is that life exists because life is present on Earth. The position of religion is that there is a God because Earth is present.
There isn't any equivocation in either predicate.
That is not true. You have created a strawman. Again.
Your statement was not incorrect. It was a correct statement in reply to Sandy's correct statement. Since you did not address what she wrote, your comment implied that you were rebutting her.
Example of a basic strawman tactic:
Amy: I am not convinced a god exists due to a lack of evidence
Bob: It is possible for a god to exist
Where does Amy even imply that lack of evidence for a god means it is not possible for a god to exist? Nowhere is that even implied.
This form of interaction is basically a strawman argument. If someone makes a true statement and you 'rebut' it with a non sequitur but otherwise true statement, you are engaging in a strawman argument. You are implying a claim by your interlocutor that was never made and are rebutting it.
Amazing, is it not?
Yes, Nerm, you would be justified in calling out those who equate the findings of science with truth.
Do you not realize that I (and others) have expressed to you on multiple occasions that science does not declare truth?
How do you know this exactly? Belief does not equal fact. Just because you believe in a god doesn't mean there actually is one.
Not accepting affirmative claims for a god sans evidence is a logical response. Reevaluating that positon once evidence does become available is also logical.
That is correct. But without evidence, there is no reason to assume they are a certainty.
And both have provided empirical evidence and expanded our understanding of the universe with a greater degree of accuracy.
It depends on the evidence presented.
You would be wise to remember that and keep belief separate from truth or fact.
Empirical evidence helps to increase the accuracy or certainty of "speculation," or discredits it outright.
See previous statement. Simply accepting speculation means nothing and does not establish truth. Evidence either supports or refutes it.
This is true. But as it's been repeatedly said before, belief does not equal fact.
Science makes no claims of certainty for either, yea or nay.
True belief does not go by evidence. It goes by wishful thinking or emotion.
That is correct.
The lack of proof (or evidence) does not validate the claims for god or ET.
No. Science does not proclaim life exists elsewhere. Life on Earth only lends to the hypothesis that ET life exists elsewhere. That's why NASA is searching for life. Given the sheer size of the universe and number of stars and planets, that task might take a very long time.
And there is no evidence to substantiate that position.
I have not created a strawman. The position of science really is that life exists because life is present on Earth. Science is extrapolating that evidence of life present on Earth to justify searching for extraterrestrial life.
The claim is that life exists on Earth so there is a possibility of life existing on other Earth-like planets. How is it possible to justify the search for extraterrestrial life without citing the existence of terrestrial life as evidence? No such evidence for the existence of life has been found anywhere except on Earth. The predicate for that argument is that life exists on Earth.
So my comment was in agreement with Sandy. What's the beef? Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?
Or is the problem that I pointed out demanding proof and evidence doesn't invalidate belief in God or extraterrestrial life?
Nerm, there is a limit on how many times I am going to spell something out for someone.
All right, I misread your intentions. I assumed you meant extraterrestrial life.
And? That is merely admitting the possibility. It is not stating that there IS extraterrestrial life.
I don't see a problem with this. Should we only search for evidence of that which is already known? Seems pretty boring and short-sighted.
Non sequitur.
What makes you think he did not?:
In context the life he is referring to is exolife. Otherwise he is stating the pointless tautology that life exists because life exists (if X then X).
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I suppose he has plausible deniability.
I passed that point a while back.
This has already been addressed. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.
Again, that claim has not been made. The key word there is "possibility."
Is that a serious question?
Earth IS the evidence that life is possible in the universe. Whether life actually exists elsewhere beyond Earth is the question. That's why we search for it.
Belief and faith is often misinterpreted as always involving religion which in many cases they do not.
True.
Whether religion is involved or not, mere belief does not make something true. But in this case, Nerm was expressing a religious notion.
And you find that surprising..why?
I happen to believe that life does exist elsewhere and it sure as hell would be more intelligent than we are.
Yet there is zero evidence of life elsewhere in the universe. Does science require belief or not?
No, science does not engage in declaring truth, much less declaring truth sans evidence. Science is not a belief system.
You know this Nerm. Why ask such an obviously stupid question?
But there is a concerted effort to declare scientific evidence represents unalterable, objective truth. And notable luminaries within the scientific community are not disabusing the public of that mistaken perception.
Objection to scientific 'truth' has been deemed denying science. And science deniers are ridiculed for not accepting the truth provided by science.
That misrepresents science.
If you pay attention to scientists discussing science, they are routinely explaining that science never declares truth and why that is the case.
No, Nerm, it is the obtuse refusal to even consider the claims of science that are denying science. An example of science denial is to deem evolution pseudoscience.
Why? Because the claims of science are truth?
Science describes reality using speculative conclusions drawn from evidence. Science is not the only activity that obtains evidence and speculates. Science is not the only human endeavor that describes reality.
Evolution provides an example of a conflict between science and religion. Accepting descriptions of reality provided by either science or religion depends upon a fundamental personal belief in initial assumptions.
Did humans evolve from the first monkeys? Or did monkeys evolve from the first humans? Science can only answer that question by arbitrary classification and moving the goalposts. Science creates its own dogma to fit initial assumptions based upon determinate criteria. The initial assumption of religion is that God created everything so the question is really moot.
Why are you asking stupid questions? You know that science does not declare truth.
As for your questions on evolution, for you to think that the relationships between species is arbitrary is to admit to being clueless about the subject matter.
Humans did not evolve from monkeys or vice-versa. Both evolved from Great Apes.
If science doesn't represent truth then why does it matter if there is refusal to consider claims of science?
The implication being made is that denying science is the same as denying truth. Why is it important whether or not someone refuses to accept the hypotheses (speculations) of science?
Because science demonstrably works. It advances our understanding of reality. Your question hints that unless knowledge is 100% certain that it is not valuable. I really do not know how to reason with someone who holds such a view.
Who is implying that?
That contention is highly debatable. Empirical experience also advances understanding of reality. Many creatures display a deep understanding of reality without conforming to the scientific method. A toddler learns through experience; what is learned is neither speculative or theoretical.
Statistics really is not mathematics or science. Statistics is a method of organizing empirical information that does not require hypotheses or conformity to the scientific method. Statistics may (or may not) identify causal relationships through correlation rather than through knowledge of reality.
Artificial intelligence is being developed using deep learning which amounts to empirical correlation by trial and error. Artificial intelligence is not being developed as a computational engine applying scientific laws or scientific knowledge. Artificial intelligence doesn't learn by conforming to the scientific method.
Empirical experience demonstrably works, too. The most promising techniques being used to develop artificial intelligence suggests that empirical experience may provide greater advances in understanding of reality than does science.
Woah where is this coming from? Of course learning takes place without the scientific method. Are you actually arguing the strawman that learning can ONLY take place with science?
Look Nerm if you are going to leap into an entirely different discussion and engage in strawman arguments you can do that by yourself.
( unbelievable )
I am not sure if you are just being argumentative or if you really do not understand what you are talking about. Science explains the why of reality. Sure a child can slip and fall on a wet floor a few times and learn from experience not to run of a wet floor. Science explains WHY the child slipped and fell. Of course you can learn via empirical evidence, but that will only advance your understanding so far, the scientific method is what advances our understanding past basic observations/learning.
That is absolute garbage. Determining the likelyhood of something is vastly different than explaining the how or why. Science is the next step beyond empirical observation. You can drop something off your roof 100 times and based upon empirical evidence determine that it will fall to the ground 100% of the time, but that is as far as the empirical evidence will get you. You need the scientific method to explain why that object will fall to the ground 100% of the time.
Yes.
I am stating that science is not the only means of advancing understanding of reality that demonstrably works. Science is only one means among several.
Other creatures display an understanding of reality. Toddlers acquire and display an understanding of reality. How do they accomplish that?
Yet we are waiting to receive a vaccine for coronavirus that was deemed safe and effective by empirical experience.
Developing the vaccines required an understanding of the causal relationships of how reality works. Scientific research was required to develop the vaccines. But empirical experience was required to apply the vaccines.
Before the vaccines could be deployed it was necessary to administer the vaccines and find out if they performed as desired. The clinical trials contributed little if anything toward describing reality; that was not the purpose of the clinical trials. The clinical trials consisted of statistically regimented trial and error. The approval of the vaccines depended upon statistical correlation rather than an understanding of causal relationships.
Of course science is not the only means of advancing understanding of reality.
If you have not noticed, nobody has claimed otherwise. What is the value of arguing against that which has not been asserted? (We call that a strawman.)
Don't other people get to make their own assertions too?
Sure. And when one replies to a comment with a strawman argument we get to call that out.
Item 2 is a strawman. It implies that statement 1 deemed science to be the only way to understand reality when that was not stated or even implied.
Since science is not the only means to advance understanding of reality then it follows that refusing to consider claims made by science is not obtuse. (see @2.1.3 which appears to claim otherwise)
We've established that science is not the only means of understanding reality. We've established (earlier) that science does not represent truth. We've established that science hypothesizes (speculates) and tests those hypotheses but doesn't claim to know. We've established that science doesn't provide certain knowledge; scientific knowledge changes based upon evidence (empirical experience).
So, what does 'denying science' really amount to?
Denying science in my mind means that you are intentionally denying what all the objective evidence shows. Again, the flat earth nonsense is the perfect example of denying science in my mind. Quite literally every single shred of evidence shows the Earth to be a sphere. We have pictures of it, every other observable celestial body is spherical once the gravitational force is sufficient, modern communications and travel rely on the Earth being a sphere, the Theory of Gravity itself would not work if the earth were not a sphere, you can walk/run/fly/sail in a straight line and you will NEVER find an edge, even the ancients realized it was a sphere when they noticed you would see a ships mast before the rest of the ship (among other observations), the lengths of the days and nights aroudn the poles would make no sense if the Earth wasn't a sphere. The list goes on and on. So to say the Earth Might be or is flat is a complete denial of all objective and observable evidence, and a denial of the scientific conclusions that evidence points to.
Deeming a finding of science to be wrong without showing why its underlying evidence and reasoning is wrong.
I gave you an example of denying evolution. Denying evolution because it clashes with creationism is denying science. The denial is not based on showing why the theory is wrong but rather because it contradicts a mere desire.
In the middle ages, people denied the heliocentric model because it clashed with their geocentric beliefs. Not because they showed it wrong but because they did not like it.
"Yet there is zero evidence of life elsewhere in the universe."
That just proves how little we actually know about the universe.
Is the evidence objective?
New Horizon empirically experienced the universe from a different point of view than did the Hubble telescope. The evidence from both are objective within the limitations of their respective empirical experience. The point of view establishes initial assumptions that affect all the hypotheses (speculations) that follow.
The flat earth 'nonsense' is based upon empirical experience from a particular point of view. And the evidence is objective within the limitations of that empirical experience. The flat earth explanations are correct within the limits of a particular point of view. But the flat earth explanations are incorrect from a different point of view.
Doesn't that suggest that objectivity is influenced by point of view?
Scare quotes, seriously?
You presume (and I cannot imagine why since this has been discussed with you repeatedly for years now) that science has deemed that exolife exists. It has not! Since there is no evidence of exolife, science has not made that claim. Rather, because the playing field is so vast and the universe is (best we can tell) based on the same fundamental physics we have on Earth, it is a hypothesis of science that exolife exists. That is, exolife might exist and science is investigating that hypothesis.
Do you understand the difference between a hypothesis and a belief?
Denying divine creation because it clashes with evolution is denying God. (Which should state the obvious.)
But the denial of God is based upon a belief in a different explanation from a different point of view. Just as denying evolution is based upon a belief in a different explanation from a different point of view.
Both require belief that the respective points of view is correct. And both beliefs are correct within the limitations of their respective points of view.
Denying science or denying God? That depends upon point of view.
Creationism has no supporting evidence. It is based on mere words (and contradictory words at that). Evolution has substantial supporting evidence from multiple disciplines (the most recent being genetics). The two competing views thus are:
The logical mind would favor evolution as being more likely correct.
Do you deny evolution Nerm?
So? For creationism to have any validity, one must first present evidence of god (as the concept of creationism hinges on that particular detail). Evolution has plenty of supporting evidence with nothing to discredit it. There is none for god or creationism. So logically, evolution is the more likely probability. Do you disagree?
Nerm is a notorious anti-science [deleted] Don't even get him started on AGW.
Nerm, what about global warming?
Just as there is zero evidence that there isn't life elsewhere in the Universe.
The fact is-- we don't know. (But I suppose its interesting to speculate--even if we don't have adequate facts or making an informed guess).
Perhaps we shouldn't waste time discussing this, and discuss something equally futile-- deciding whether or not a god exists?
Very likely. We have seen such a tiny, tiny portion (and much we will never see) so ignorance is going to reign supreme. Scientists work hard to be as accurate as possible with the limited information at their disposal. But, happily, new information keeps arriving and models are continually updated.
The mass of the universe affects theories concerning dark matter and dark energy. If the estimate of the number of galaxies in the universe has been too high then that indicates the Big Bang released much less energy than has been estimated.
An observation like that of New Horizon upends the theories of cosmology. The highlighted report provides an example of how initial assumptions can propagate throughout a body of knowledge. What we accept as truth really does depend upon initial assumptions.
That is why science never declares truth. Science is in a perpetual feedback loop with reality. It is always a process of refinement ... always an attempt to approximate truth but never deeming a current theory to be truth.
It kinda does, sometimes. Or scientists and politicians do, at any rate. For example, I love watching all sorts of science shows on TV, particularly anything related to space or animals. They trot out scientists all the time who declare, without equivocation that [X]is or happens (or happens because).
With some of these things, they never really get around to acknowledging that there is no way to know for sure if their claims can even be established definitively.
With other matters, in a couple of years, they'll find out they were wrong. Then we'll get a new show talking about what they used to think and celebrating the new work that proved them wrong. But they'll go on to present the new findings as conclusive truth. "Pay no attention to the mistakes behind the curtain."
Not every presentation is like this. There are some great productions out there (especially from PBS) that consistently say something like "this is what the data leads us to think is probably the right thing, but more work needs to be done."
So much of the bad presentations are done for ratings; and equivocation dilutes the drama that produces ratings, so I don't see it changing any time soon. And this is where most people are exposed to new scientific findings, not scientific journals.
But what scientists claim about the creation of heavy elements in stars doesn't impact my daily life. Where this becomes a serious problem is in matters of law and public policy. We put people in jail based on claims of weak science (bite marks, for example). We controls lives and livelihoods by declaring that policies are based on "the science," which often isn't true, but is used a weapon to bully opposition voices into silence.
Just today, our governor made it harder to reopen schools for grades K-6. He'll tell you it's based on the science, but there is no new finding that requires the arbitrary manipulation of what was already an arbitrary standard. We're also talking about the portion of the population least likely to get seriously ill from Covid or to transmit it to others.
Meanwhile, it's almost impossible for elderly people to get a vaccine, and they're the ones most in need of it. But everything he does, he declares to be based in scientific truth.
Doing so would undermine the scientific method. Declaring truth means declaring that no evidence in the future can possibly arrive that would change the proposition. That is not science. Such is possible with mathematics when operating on formal systems, but not for science and reality.
Yes, human beings do all sorts of things. The fact that a scientist (a human being) would declare certainty has nothing to do with the discipline we call science.
The rest of your post discussed human behavior, not science.
Bottom line, a scientist who declares 100% certainty (truth) is doing so on 'his/her own time' and is not speaking for science itself.
It certainly undermines the faith that people might have in it.
Well, of course. It was clear to me that such was necessarily the topic. The scientific method is just that. A method. A method can’t declare anything. But science isn’t only a method. It can be a professional field, an industry, or a community of practitioners. Scientists speak of being part of, or inside science all the time.
If speaking of the behavior of scientists or equivalent I would qualify and use a term like scientific community rather than simply call this 'science'. Blending human beings with the discipline necessarily brings in all human flaws and misrepresents science.
The theory of Relativity, using just the one obvious example, is not subject to the flaws of human beings. It is, in and of itself, a formal explanation for specific behaviors in reality. It has been the foundation of an uncountable number of accomplishments.
The theory of Relativity does not have bias, cannot be bribed, does not have mental lapses, does not have an ego, does not have bad days, does not impose its will on others, ....
Alters, not upends. Upends suggests that basically everything we thought we knew was wrong, which is not the case here. It just means we need to scale down certain aspects of cosmology.
I would swap out truth with reality and it only depends on initial assumptions depending on how open you are to new data. If you start out by accepting that new evidence may alter you initial assumptions then your initial assumptions really don't matter all that much. If you cling to them however then your version of reality is going to start running counter to the evidence and data, at which point you start finding yourself at odds with science and the scientific method.
Because for some things the evidence of X+Y=Z is so strong that entertaining an alternative is not even worth entertaining. Sure it could happen, but the chances are slim and pursuing them is more or less a waste of time. Flat Earth "Theory" is a perfect example. At some point we just have to start arguing about certain things otherwise we can never move on.
Of course they do, built into the very foundation of the scientific method is the acknowledgement that there is no way to be 100% certain of anything. Hence why even theories leave open the possibility of being altered or thrown out.
I hope they do! Every time we realize we were wrong about something we get that much closer to being right. In science being wrong is a good thing, it eliminates one more possibility. And of course they will celebrate the new work proving our old hypothesis wrong, because again it gets us that much closer to being right.
Again, at some point we have to stop arguing about certain things. In some cases the evidence is overwhelming that coming at it from a fence post position is just a waste of time. Now if a show presents a hypothesis like the multiverse, or what happens at the center of a blackhole, or time travel or something as fact, then yes they are doing their viewership a disservice.
And it is other scientists calling that out. The method works.
That is public policy, not science. The science is changing as we learn more and more about this virus, it has barely been on the scene for a year. Scientists can't control the actions of politicians.
That ToR is out there! It can't be bargained with! It can't be reasoned with! It doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear! And it absolutely will not stop! EVER! Until it is proven! (sorry, I couldn't resist, Lol).
Estimate?
Of what significance is an "estimate"/
Its meaningless ka-ka!
Indeed, and openly stated by scientists the world over. In fact I have NEVER heard anyone in the scientific community claim otherwise.
Gotta love those self-correcting systems
This is a fairly good demonstration of why I dont get excited about any cosmological "news". There are only "hundreds of billions" of galaxies, therefore we may be alone in the universe. I am willing to consider the possibility that we are alone in the universe , but not because there are only hundreds of billions of galaxies instead of trillions.
And how could such a monumental "mistake" have been made? If this mistake was made, what other mistakes has "science" made?
Well, it's not really a mistake. The estimates are made from limited observations. What the report highlights (but overshadows with sensationalism) are the problematic limits of using inductive logic in science.
Exactly. Science is always limited by information so scientific hypotheses are always trying to converge on a more accurate understanding.
As you've pointed out, the mistake is accepting that scientific hypotheses (speculations) based upon limited evidence represents truth.
New information, such as that provided by New Horizon, doesn't make past science untrue because that science never represented truth in the first place.
As stated by the others it isn't really a mistake. It is doing the best you can with the available data/evidence. The fact that new evidence causes scientists to rethink their hypothesis all the time is actually the greatest strength of the scientific method. Being wrong and revising your hypothesis is integral to the success of the method. Every we find out we are wrong we get that much closer to being right.
Scientists constantly make mistakes-- that's why its so use useful!
(One major difference between highly creative people and ordinary folks? Highly creative people make many, many more mistakes than "ordinary" people!).
It’s a little presumptuous to make any estimation of what is beyond the observable portion of the universe. It’s space, and as far as anyone can tell it has no end to it. It just keeps going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going. And going.
We don't know if it's finite or infinite. All we know for (almost) certain is that for 13.8 billion light years in any one direction the universe doesn't repeat. Expansion has carried light from areas 47.5 billion light years away to where we can observe it. Based on that we can estimate the universe is AT LEAST 93 billion light years across, could also be many trillions of light years - we just don't know. BUT -
If the universe is infinite the further you travel from Earth in any one direction you will eventually find duplicates of blocks of matter. The further you go the more duplicates you find until, if you go far enough you'll find a duplicate of the entire universe including a duplicate of you. If the universe is truly infinite you will find an infinite number of yous. - and that's a multiverse theory.
All well and good, but it’s hard to overlook the reality that the ‘end’ of anything is just the beginning of something else. The end of a sky diver’s journey is the beginning of the earth’s crust. The end of the crust is the beginning of the mantle. The end of the mantle is the beginning of the core. Pass through the core and you’re back to the mantle again, then the crust again. Beyond several layers of atmosphere you enter space. One could posit that trillions of miles beyond that, space ends at a wall. But a wall is only a wall if it has some sort of composition, thus a new beginning. Either it never ends, or it infinitely bends and warps in on itself - rinse and repeat. It makes my head hurt thinking about it.
It’s similar to the reality that we are all made of space dust. At one time trillions of the molecules that make you ‘you’, also made vegetation grow into a meal for a brontosaurus.
Maybe. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation) states energy cannot be created or destroyed it can only be converted.
Perhaps it's an infinite series of bubbles or maybe a Möbius strip. Getting to deep can induce headaches and psychosis. LOL.
No, at this time, it's only 13.8 BLY.
What is only 13.8 billion light years? The universe is ~13.8 billion years old. Are you claiming that its diameter is only ~13.8 billion light years in size?
Evilgenius' post is correct.
Like a cosmic Energizer Bunny.
Well, it might.
Or not.
The fact is-- we don't know--its all speculation.
Fortunately, I haven't been making any life-changing decisions based on how many galaxies there are in the universe.
But you never know . . .
Damn. lucky you, that was how i determined what to have for breakfast.... now I am just sitting here stuck in indecision...
The 2 trillion number came from a 'best guess' based on what the Hubble Space Telescope could see. Now we have a 'best guess' based on what the New Horizon mission can see. We're still a long way from any sort of definitive numbers as even this new data comes from data collected within our own solar system. It could be hundreds of billions or hundreds of trillions since we don't actually know where the edges of the universe are or if there are any. The fact is we might someday get to the edges of our known universe and peer into the darkness to discover other big bangs. Our universe could be much like a galaxy in a super cluster of other universes. Perhaps the possible tear in dark matter and the explosion of matter and energy which is what we define as the 'big bang' is more common than we realize and there are countless universes containing countless galaxies. At the moment we are but a frog at the bottom of a well, limited to only what we can see and quantify, but that doesn't mean there is far more out there that is currently outside our ability to sense or measure.
The Fox News headline is rather misleading as it states "NASA finds there are fewer galaxies than first thought" when in the body of the article it states "NASA has discovered there may be a lot fewer galaxies than initially believed". There is a world of difference between "there are" and "there may be" but I would expect nothing less from a Fox News article with their religious conservative anti-science slant to everything as they try and sow doubt in their vacuous readers minds, the majority of whom likely believe the universe was created in 6 literal days by their own personal magical wizard in the sky and don't want to believe there might be other worlds with intelligent life. Admitting there might be other worlds with other life forms pokes holes in their desired belief that their personal God created the universe for them and they're effectively the center of it.
If mankind never finds out , for whatever reason, whether there is other intelligent life in the universe, isnt that the same as there not being any?
No
Not knowing is not the same as knowing something is true or false.
Schrödinger's cat.
I disagree, if mankind never learns if there are other intelligent beings in the universe than the whole subject was nothing more than speculation. It will have been no more proven than "God".
If we never find out that simply means we will never know. We will not even know if our speculation was correct.
But our lack of knowledge is absolutely not the same as no exolife exists. Exolife could very well exist even if we are never aware of it.
Maybe the question you intended to pose was something like this:
If we never find out if exolife exists will that make any difference in our behavior?
The answer then is: probably not.
A very different question from:
I stand by my comment. The readers can decide whether or not I made sense.
If a tree falls in the forest...
2 trillion is wrong! In fact, its exactly 1.9793238625 trillion-- definitely not 2 trillion!
Great. This will drive up prices in the galaxy real estate market. Probably see another bubble develop. Just great.
My thoughts exactly. I better get on the mortgage paperwork for my villa on Titan ASAP.
And if you want a planet with moons, get ready to drop big $$$.
Moon front property