It looks like we might have overestimated how many neighbors we have. New predictions show that the universe might be an emptier place than we imagined. Since the Hubble launched, we’ve been seeing stunning image of the crowded universe. Most of the images come accompanied by assurances that what we see in the images is just the start. Astronomers have been excitedly guessing at the amount of faint, distant galaxies that they can’t see. Lurkers surely outnumbered visible galaxies. New simulations done on Blue Waters, a supercomputer at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications indicate that that isn’t the case. Researchers at Michigan State University simulated the formation of the early universe. The number of bright, luminous galaxies that the simulations predicted just about synced up with the data we can see from the Hubble. But the simulations indicated that number of faint galaxies, which the Hubble can’t see, wasn’t anywhere near what previous predictions had estimated. Conservative estimates reduce the number of faint galaxies ten times, but it’s just possible that the universe has only one hundredth the faint lurker galaxies we previously thought it did.
Sorry I did not know that an News article is " Plagiarism " I thought it was interesting and wanted to share with the folks in this forum.
All you have to do is give credit to site you got the info from, or describe the article in your own words.
Hi Timojin. There are a few of us around who are interested in cosmology, and the implications of the article can be considered as support for various scenarios. Do you draw any conclusions from the article that you want to share, or can you describe a scenario that would make sense given the findings?
I am a amateur follower of science , astronomy usually deals with big numbers due to estimation . O am afraid of the big numbers and this article reinforces my thought to sometime skeptical.
You have yet to supply a link. And anyway, I would say it only applies to our observable Universe, which is just a small sample size of the whole Universe.
Here's the link...... http://phys.org/news/2015-07-alonebut-universe-crowded.html We're not alone—but the universe may be less crowded than we think
re : Posts #2, #4, #7 and #8 In my browser, a "Link" was embedded in the 2nd sentence of the 3rd paragraph : "Researchers at Michigan State University simulated the formation of the early universe. "... ...which linked to : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150701152331.htm I thought it odd that "Plagiarism" was even mentioned...
Obviously not all members run their cursor over every line.....I certainly do not. Besides the imbedded link, the main link should certainly have been given. thus....... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150701152331.htm
The imbedded link was just part of the paragraphs that were copied. Plagiarism is defined as "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own". When there is an entry in a forum it is assumed that the person making the entry is entering there own thoughts unless otherwise noted. So when it is seen that there entry is actually lifted verbatim from an article without citing the source, that is plagiarism. So you should not be surprised.
@ origin : ...not "surprised", I said "I thought it odd..."... At any rate, origin, I did not realize, PREVIOUSLY, that the OP was a 'verbatim' copy/paste...of : http://rgscomputing.com/2015/07/02/...the-number-of-galaxies-we-thought-there-were/ or : http://io9.com/there-may-be-nowhere-near-the-number-of-galaxies-we-tho-1715476292 I understand NOW why you mentioned "Plagiarism"...and no longer find it odd that you broached the subject. I apologize if you took offense...none was intended.
Always ask yourself how you would like to be told something so that you'll be better at saying things to others.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
