Year of the Comet
Comet C/2011 L4 (PANSTARRS)

PANSTARRS information

Comet C/2012 S1 (ISON)

ISON information

Astronomy News
E-mail Article to a FriendPrint ArticleBookmark and Share

Discovery triples the number of stars in the universe

Scientists find that stellar population counts depend on the type of galaxy being examined.
By Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts Published: December 2, 2010
Elliptical galaxy
The biggest galaxies in the universe are elliptical galaxies like the one in this artist's conception. The largest of these hold over one trillion stars according to astronomical census takers, compared to 400 billion in our Milky Way. However, new research shows that elliptical galaxies actually hold five to ten times as many stars as previously believed.
Photo by David A. Aguilar (CfA)
The biggest galaxies in the universe are elliptical galaxies. The largest of these hold more than one trillion stars according to astronomical census takers, compared to 400 billion in our Milky Way. However, new research shows that elliptical galaxies actually hold 5 to 10 times as many stars as previously believed. This means that the total number of stars in the universe is likely 3 times bigger than realized.

The hidden stars are known as red dwarfs for their color and small size. Because red dwarfs are small and dim compared to stars like the Sun, astronomers hadn't been able to detect them in galaxies beyond the Milky Way before now. As such, they didn't know how many stars in the universe were red dwarfs.

Scientists used powerful instruments at the Keck Observatory in Hawaii to detect the faint signature of red dwarfs in the cores of eight elliptical galaxies, which are located between about 50 million and 300 million light-years away. They discovered that the red dwarfs that are only between 10 and 30 percent as massive as the Sun were more bountiful than expected.

"As it turns out, the universe thinks small, at least when it comes to star size," said Charlie Conroy from Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Our stellar inventory has changed dramatically."

"No one knew how many of these stars there were," said Pieter van Dokkum from Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. "Different theoretical models predicted a wide range of possibilities, so this answers a long-standing question about just how abundant these stars are."

Their results imply that stellar population counts depend on what type of galaxy astronomers examine, just as a census of the city of New York and the town of Derby, Kansas, will find different population numbers.

"We usually assume other galaxies look like our own. But this suggests other conditions are possible in other galaxies," Conroy stated. "This discovery could have a major impact on our understanding of galaxy formation and evolution."

In particular, galaxies might contain less dark matter — a mysterious substance only detectable due to its gravitational effects — than previous measurements of their masses indicated. Instead, the abundant red dwarfs might contribute more mass than previously calculated.

Find us on FacebookFind us on Twitter
User Comments
Be the first to leave your comment below!

Only registered members of Astronomy.com are allowed to comment on this article. Registration is FREE and only takes a couple minutes.

Register Today!
 
RUSSELL DEAN from ARIZONA said:
I found the article both informative and clear. The numbers add up. 400 billion for the Milky Way and previously 1 trillion for the elliptical. New research suggests 3 to 5 times the previous 1 trillion. No pontificating that I see
RAMNAZ RAISIFARD from NEW YORK said:
wonderful!
we cant imagine how big this universe is...
PHIL GASKILL from NEW YORK said:
Edward, I don't think your sarcastic approach is appropriate, here or anywhere. Science does not "pontificate"; to the contrary, scientists will tell you that the "current" state of our knowledge (at any point in the past, present, or future) is woefully inadequate and incomplete. We know a lot more today than we did a few years in the past; in another few years, we'll know a lot more than we do today; and the progression will probably continue as long as humans exist (i.e., our knowledge will continue to increase but will never be perfect). BUT we have to make use of what we do know now, as long as it's understood that something like the number of stars in the universe is just an estimate that will change as more new discoveries are made. I don't think one can pontificate, after all, in an article about a new discovery that has just changed a previous estimate by 300 percent.
1 star
PHIL GASKILL from NEW YORK said:
Please read the first paragraph of the article. Then please explain how to interpret the third sentence in view of the second sentence. Elliptical galaxies contain more than a trillion stars, the second sentence of the paragraph says. But the third sentence continues this thought with "However, new research shows that elliptical galaxies actually hold 5 to 10 times as many stars as previously believed." The "however" tells me that this sentence is to be held in contradiction of the previous sentence. However, the previous sentence tells us how many stars elliptical galaxies CONTAIN (i.e., using current calculations/observations). One or the other of these sentences makes no sense, and so the entire paragraph makes no sense, I'm afraid. IOW, do astronomers now think elliptical galaxies contain roughly a trillion stars, or roughly 5-10 trillion stars???
4 stars
EDWARD HAHNENBERG from MICHIGAN said:
Well, it all goes to show that when science pontificates on this or that subject…as it has so many times in the past…new information almost always shows that what scientists thought they knew, they really did not.
SEARCH SITE
Subscriber Only Access
Subscriber Only Content
Look for this icon. This denotes premium subscriber content. Learn more »
Become a Member of Astronomy.com
Register today for access to more valuable resource information.
Interact in our forums, comment on articles, receive our newsletter and much more!
Not a member?
Subscriber and Member Login
Password
Remember me