Search results for tag #universe
So enormous, hiding in plain sight. 🤯
Vela Supercluster being the largest known structure in the observable universe within the region "Zone of Avoidance" which is 300 million light-years across - about 3,000 times wider than the Milky Way - and contains an enormous amount of matter equivalent to about 30 quadrillion suns according to this article
The Vela Supercluster now ranks as more massive than Laniākea, the supercluster that contains Earth and the rest of our galaxy, and is "a close second" to the Shapley Supercluster, which is widely considered the largest supercluster of galaxies, Kraan-Korteweg said. (Other structures, such as the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall and the recently discovered "Quipu," are even larger, but they are considered a step above a supercluster - essentially, clusters of superclusters.)
We are truly grains of sand under a microscope in the Cosmos web.
#Supercluster #Astronomy #Space #Galaxies #MassiveObject #Universe #TheUniverseDoesNotCareAboutUs
Over 70% complete, our ELT is glowing in the #sunset light of the Atacama Desert in #Chile, surrounded by massive cranes hard at work to get this telescope up and running.
With the first light planned for the end of the decade, the ELT and its groundbreaking 39-metre main mirror will take on some of the biggest challenges in #astronomy and, ultimately, help us understand our place in the #Universe.
Read more: https://www.eso.org/public/images/potw2617a/
📷 ESO/G. Vecchia
#astrodon #astrophysics #space #science
Alt...
An aerial image showing, at its centre, a large metallic dome illuminated by the sunset, on top of a mountain that takes up the entire bottom half of the frame. On the background there's a desert mostly obscured with shadows.
Alt...
An aerial image showing a huge dome from above, partially split into two halves. Along the edges of each half there’s a complex network of metallic beams and catwalks. The opening reveals part of the metallic frame of a huge telescope inside the dome.
Alt...
Top-down view of a telescope structure under construction, showing a large circular metal framework with radial support beams and a central tower, surrounded by parts of the observatory building.
Alt...
Aerial view of a telescope dome surrounded by cranes and construction equipment, in a desert landscape.
„Milky Way“ (19.09.2025)
Photo ©️ Dietmar Bachmann
📍Oberstockenalp, Switzerland
#milkyway #galaxy #universe #NightSky #night #nightphotography #photography #nightphoto #photo #stars #starfield #alps #mountains #switzerland #travel #hasselblad #milchstrasse #galaxie #universum #nachthimmel #nacht #nachtfotografie #fotografie #nachtfoto #foto #Sterne #sternfeld #Alpen #berge #schweiz #reisen #astronomy #astrophotography #astronomie #astrofotografie
Alt...
A stunning night sky filled with stars and the Milky Way, positioned above dark mountain silhouettes. A small structure is illuminated in the foreground, enhancing the tranquil atmosphere.
Astrophysicist Sandra Faber has used a very similar approach to argue that the likelihood of extraterrestrial life--not just intelligent life but any life--is extremely small. In other words, she reaches the exact opposite conclusion from what the Drake equation would have us believe. Her approach is a "20 questions" style argument not unlike that used in the Drake equation. She lists approximately 20 characteristics Earth has that are widely thought necessary to make life possible. She then guesstimates that for any given characteristic, an exoplanet has a 1 in 10 chance of having it. Assuming the characteristics are independent, that's a 1 in 10^20 chance another planet has all 20 characteristics.
Depending on who's counting and how, 10^20 is about how many planets there are in the universe, give or take a few orders of magnitude. So this leads us to conclude there's a decent chance that Earth is the only planet in the universe with life (let alone intelligent life!). On the outside it's among a tiny fraction (10,000 maybe?) that have the right conditions to harbor life. Considering that having the conditions to harbor life does not imply there is life, and that having life does not imply there is intelligent life, even that high-end guesstimate goes down to an amazingly small number--possibly 1!
In my view both ways of counting are wrong in the same way. They come at the question from different directions, which accounts for the different conclusions. But there's no way of assessing which argument is to be preferred, and given that their conclusions could not be more different, the only rational conclusion I can see is to reject both for now (though I'll confess I'm more sympathetic to Faber's view--I think life is astonishingly rare and therefore precious).
I believe that this way of thinking, that astronomical universe-wide forces or monumental events like the emergence of life can be boiled down to a single number, a probability, is fallacious. We should stop doing that; it muddies our thinking without offering a tangible benefit. Life is not a Fermi problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem). The assertion or insistence that it is is a metaphysical commitment, not a scientific question.