Washington (DC) - The manner in which the Milky Way galaxy is depicted on television, in works of art, and in print makes most individuals think astronomers knew pretty much what the galaxy looks like. However, we're now finding out it wasn't so. Recently, it has been discovered that the size of the galaxy has actually been highly underestimated, and that its overall shape is notably different.


It has always been assumed that the Milky Way is much smaller than the Andromeda Galaxy, which is our nearest neighboring galaxy. A team of Harvard astrophysicists have now concluded that it's actually 50% larger than it was believed in the past, and more than likely has four arms – not two. This startling revelation came following advanced measurements of how fast our galaxy rotates.

It’s currently impossible to determine exactly what the galaxy looks like, as we live well within it and gaining a proper perspective is all but impossible. The easiest way to measure it is to measure the quickness that the galaxy rotates, and then compare those readings to how much mass would have to exist in effort to generate that much velocity. Sounds simple, right?

The Harvard team discovered that the Milk Way is currently rotating at a speed of 600,000 miles per hour, which is 100,000 miles per hour faster than estimates from the past. This math equates to a 50% mass increase over what was initially reported.

A drawback to this finding is that there is a greater potential for collision with the Andromeda Galaxy, which has been known for some time to be “stuck with us” rather than moving further and further away as other galaxies are. It appears also that the increase in mass may cause a collision sooner rather than later.

New radio telescopes have allowed scientists to make measurements that are more precise than ever before possible. The scientists use something called “trigonometric parallax,” which is similar to what surveyors do on Earth when plotting out tracts of land.

Still, there is a real unanswered question as to exactly what the Milky Way looks like. Scientists have their ideas, their beliefs and possibly even their wishes figured in to current models.

But the truth is this: The very foundation of the massive star cluster we live in (the Milky Way galaxy) has now changed, or so it appears to us. This puts us at TG Daily at the ready to write a new article when, in a few years, scientists determine that we're all living on the back of a giant flea, living on the back of a giant dog, in the giant back yard of some giant home where the giant people living there have the same problems as all of us. In fact, we look forward to writing that article a lot!

blah blah blah

Jan 06, 2009 15:55     

They just want our galaxy to be the biggest just like everyone wanted to believe the earth was the center of the universe. There's no really a good way of measuring how big out galaxy is, it's all just tweaking a variable here and another there to get a calculation.
Action Jackson report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -8

So Now They "Know" That What They "Knew" Was Wrong?

Jan 06, 2009 16:20     

Soooo, let me get this straight. Scientists, sorcerers all, have "discovered" that they were off by 50% and double the arms regarding the galaxy we live in, and I'm supposed to believe in the accuracy of what they say about stuff that's millions of light years away? I'm just going to go ahead and laugh.
FoFangle report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -6

Bigger, but still a disk shape?

Jan 06, 2009 16:30     

This is the concept I never get my brain wrapped around. Why is the galaxy one big Frisbee and not a big fat snowball? Where is the unbound, celestial spirit of Carl Sagan when I really need him!
Freudslipped report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -2

hehe...I Agree

Jan 06, 2009 16:41     

I appreciate the humor in the last two sentences Samantha. In my lifetime I have seen so many things that scientists were sure to be true had to be undone when new explanations were found. I'm not sure what else I will see in the next 40 years or so, but I'm fully convinced that it will be just as startling and exciting as the past. btw I'm old enough to have once thought that a 40 MB hard drive was more space than I would ever need :>

digital age report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

retired nobody

Jan 06, 2009 17:39     

It is so refreshing after reading the last paragraph in your article to find that there are still some people like Samantha Hunt around. In my almost 70 years I have found that scientific articles are always written as if Moses brought them down from the mountain. She is now my favorite journalist.
Lee Gordon report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

CORRECTIONS

Jan 06, 2009 17:52     

The two Magellanic Clouds are irregular dwarf galaxies, which are members of our Local Group of galaxies. Andromeda is not the nearest galaxy.
ERIC report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +3

Giant Flea?

Jan 06, 2009 19:27     

This is ridiculous Samantha! I can't believe you would write about us living on the back of a giant flea! We all know we're on the back of a giant tick on the back of a giant rat!! Seriously though, when findings like this are made, it really brings home how little we know about our surroundings.
ChOOkiE report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

true:

Jan 06, 2009 21:03     

It sucks that there is no giant galactic mirror to help us reflect upon ourselves
Groover report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

Results of questioning the status quo

Jan 06, 2009 22:18     

This is great news because we know that scientists are constantly questioning previous stances (rather than accepting the status quo) in an attempt to uncover the truth.
DB report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Comment

Jan 06, 2009 22:22     

Were they finally able to get a picture of the Great Star Turtle? The Great A'Tuan--or maybe just the 4 elephants?
Ranger report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

Linear/Rotational

Jan 06, 2009 22:27     

600,000 miles per hour is not a rotational speed. ["An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't just contradiction." Well, can be. "No it can't." Look, if I argue with you I must take up a contrary position. "But it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'." Yes it is. "No it isn't." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL9oA1LFoMw -Rick]
bob report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

The idiocy of geniuses

Jan 06, 2009 22:49     

This is exactly why I find it so difficult to accept a scientist's word, especially for things that matter to me, i.e. the existence of God. Regardless of our scientific achievements, for all their knowledge and observation skills, it seems that the "conclusions" of scientists will last only until either (i) someone smarter shows up, or (ii) he/she is proven a moron.
Heff report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -4

The idiocy of geniuses

Jan 06, 2009 23:00     

This is just one more reason for me to doubt the word of any scientist, whether it's about something on the other side of the universe, or something really close to home, such as the existence of God. It seems the "conclusions" of any scientist is only as good to the point where (i) someone smarter comes along, or (ii) the scientist is proven a moron. Looking at how things are, it's a pretty safe bet both courses will come more and more often.

Heff report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -4

what possible great effects could it bring..?...

Jan 07, 2009 00:43     

what possible great effects could it bring..?
604 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

RE: So Now They

Jan 07, 2009 01:46     

"Scientists, sorcerers all, have 'discovered' that they were off by 50% and double the arms regarding the galaxy we live in, and I'm supposed to believe in the accuracy of what they say about stuff that's millions of light years away? I'm just going to go ahead and laugh." That's incredibly ignorant. Anything is "sorcery" if you don't understand it. Science is anything but magic; it's hard work. ["Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Rick] Our understanding of the Universe is constantly being revised as we gain new data (in this case, because we've developed technologies that allow for more accurate readings), but that merely REFINES our previous understanding, it doesn't supplant it. Consider that in primitive times, we thought the entire Universe was a flat patch of land maybe a few thousand miles across. Scientists have been refining our understanding ever since. Eratosthenes greatly expanded the Universe by determining the size of the Earth, and the distance to the Moon and Sun (previously unimaginable distances). It was only in the 1900s that we figured out that other galaxies exist, and figured out a rough idea of the size of ours. Now, through better measurements, we have a more accurate understanding of it's size. Yet you laugh because scientists have the honestly and humility to refine their understanding in the face of new facts? What would you prefer, religion, where "facts" never change because they were pulled out of some cleric's ass? That's the true sorcery, in the modern meaning of the word (illusion, fakery).

EricT report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

No end! No begin!!!

Jan 07, 2009 04:09     

As per hindu riligion, we can not count the area of the galaxy..it has no end,
kiran report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -1

Tracks?

Jan 07, 2009 09:17     

You misused the word 'tracks'. [Fixed. Thank you for a kind prompting. -Rick]
Howard Miller report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

re: The idiocy of geniuses

Jan 08, 2009 06:25     

Oh man... where to start??? - the concept "God" is outside of science. [Two words: "God particle." -Rick] If nothing sensible can be told about something (because there is no evidence available), then science keeps itself far from it - scientists don't ask you to "believe them on their word". Everybody can look at the evidence they base their ideas on. - science IS never considered "definitive", and is actually the only approach we know of that consequently maintains this stance - knowledge depends on evidence, and since it is impossible to investigate/observe/measure "everything at once" (not in the least because technology progresses), there is no other way than knowledge being refined and expanded all the time Good for you that you don't trust in science. I hope you find something *better*, or find it fun to just throw your hands up in the air constantly. Let us know. :D

meandmyself report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +3

re: Rick

Jan 08, 2009 08:26     

[Two words: "God particle." -Rick] Smart@ss ;-)
meandmyself report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -1

Re: Rick 2

Jan 08, 2009 08:34     

Oh, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ The_God_Particle:_If_the_Universe_Is_the_Answer,_What_I s_the_Question? quote: "Lederman originally wished to label this particle as 'the godd@mn particle'" :D :D [One man's crazy wishes does not a doctrine make. In the end, the scientific community stuck with "God," and that's the story I'm sticking with. :P -Rick]
meandmyself report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

@FoFangle, Heff, et al.

Jan 10, 2009 13:25     

Your ignorance is showing. You have just stated - without recognizing this, apparently - the difference between science and religion. Religion claims to have already found the unalterable truth and therefore maintains a status quo. This caused the Dark Ages where The Church stifled progress for centuries. Science creates a model to explain how the universe acts. This model is constantly challenged until another, more suitable model is found. Then we challenge that one. Einstein did not negate Newton, his model still works and you ignore Newton at your peril (that equal and opposite reaction will get you every time). Just as Quantum Physics did not negate Einstein's models. That we have improved upon our knowledge of the Galaxy does not mean we were wrong before, but that we had an incomplete picture. Our new understanding is also incomplete, but we're working on it. Or we could claim that we already understand the entire Universe and get on with the Inquisition of all those who disagree. It would make being a scientist soooo much easier. We could then work on a better golf handicap. :)

Paul123 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

Re: Bigger, but still a disk shape?

Jan 11, 2009 20:01     

Yeah, still disk shaped. Similar to how our Sun attracts it's planets in a flat solar system, their center of the Milky Way attracts solar systems to it's equatorial center as well. This is due to gravity and centrifugal forces, and magnetic polarization. If we were more snowball shaped we would have regular collisions of other debris and would likely look more like a nebula than a galaxy. Spinning objects of a certain size produce an axis with a natural north and south pole that influences other objects which fall into a similar alignment. The path of our solar system around the galaxy wobbles above and below the equatorial alignment of our galaxy. But we stay relatively close to what can be described as disk shaped.

9Nails report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1