Milky Way To Collide With Its Largest Neighbour Andromeda? What New Study Said
Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed.
A new study suggests the Milky Way may not collide with Andromeda as previously thought. The chance of a head-on collision in 4.5 billion years is only 2%, with a 50% chance within 10 billion years.
Astronomers have long believed that the Milky Way galaxy may collide head-on with its largest neighbour, the Andromeda galaxy, in about 4.5 billion years. But a new study shows the cosmic clash, named Milkomeda, might not happen the way it was thought.
The new data, obtained using the Hubble and Gaia space telescopes, indicates the likelihood of the Milky Way and Andromeda colliding within the next 4 to 5 billion years is only 2 per cent, CNN reported.
It also says there is a roughly 50 per cent chance they will collide at some point in the next 10 billion years.
Earlier, scientists believed the collision may destroy both galaxies, merging them into an elongated one. The reason was that the two galaxies were moving toward each other at 2,24,000 miles per hour. They expected it to be similar to other galaxy collisions where a merger would create cosmic fireworks.
Carlos Frenk, a Professor at Durham University in England and study co-author, said, "Until now we thought this was the fate that awaited our Milky Way galaxy. We now know that there is a very good chance that we may avoid that scary destiny".
Dr Till Sawala, astronomer at the University of Helsinki in Finland and the lead author of the study, said the merger may create a strong starburst where many new stars would form. After that, many young stars will explode, and the supermassive black hole at the centre will become very active, sending out a lot of radiation, he said.
A few billion years after the merger, the two original galaxies will no longer look like they used to; instead, they will turn into one spiral-shaped galaxy called an elliptical galaxy, said Mr Sawala.
Our corner of the universe, called the Local Group, consists of 100 other smaller galaxies, including some large ones like the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) and the Triangulum Galaxy. M33 is an Andromeda satellite, whereas the LMC orbits the Milky Way.
Mr Frenk cautions that the Milky Way is more likely to collide with the LMC in the next 2 billion years, which might drastically alter our galaxy.
Mr Sawala said, "The extra mass of Andromeda's satellite galaxy M33 pulls the Milky Way a little bit more towards it."
According to Geraint Lewis, an astrophysics professor at the Institute for Astronomy at the University of Sydney, scientists are unsure whether the Milky Way and Andromeda will collide, but even if they do, the gravitational pull that each will exert on the other is likely to leave the two massive galaxies in an awful situation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
'Godfather Of AI' Reveals Bold Strategy To Save Humanity From AI Domination
Geoffrey Hinton, the British-Canadian computer scientist known as the "Godfather of AI", has expressed concerns that the technology he helped develop could potentially wipe out humanity. According to Mr Hinton, there's a 10-20% chance of this catastrophic outcome. Moreover, he's sceptical about the approach tech companies are taking to mitigate this risk, particularly in ensuring humans remain in control of AI systems. "That's not going to work. They're going to be much smarter than us. They're going to have all sorts of ways to get around that," Mr Hinton said at Ai4, an industry conference in Las Vegas, as per CNN. The scientist also warned that future AI systems could manipulate humans with ease, likening it to an adult bribing a child with candy. His warning comes after recent examples have shown AI systems deceiving, cheating, and stealing to achieve their goals, such as an AI model attempting to blackmail an engineer after discovering personal information in an email. Instead of trying to dominate AI, Mr Hinton suggested instilling "maternal instincts" in AI models, allowing them to genuinely care about people, even as they surpass human intelligence. "AI systems will very quickly develop two subgoals, if they're smart: One is to stay alive… (and) the other subgoal is to get more control. There is good reason to believe that any kind of agentic AI will try to stay alive," Mr Hinton said. He believes fostering a sense of compassion in AI is of paramount importance. At the conference, he pointed to the mother-child relationship as a model, where a mother's instincts and social pressure drive her to care for her baby, despite the baby's limited intelligence and control over her. While he expressed uncertainty about the technical specifics, he stressed that researchers must work on this challenge. "That's the only good outcome. If it's not going to parent me, it's going to replace me. These super-intelligent caring AI mothers, most of them won't want to get rid of the maternal instinct because they don't want us to die," he added. Geoffrey Hinton is renowned for his groundbreaking work on neural networks, which laid the foundation for the current AI revolution. In May 2023, he quit his job at Google so he could freely speak out about the risks of AI.
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Galaxies flying away from us: How Hubble's redshift led us to the Big Bang
On a crisp night in the late 1920s, Edwin Hubble stood in the dome of the 100-inch Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, high above the smog and streetlamps of Los Angeles. Through that giant eye, he measured the light from distant 'spiral nebulae' — what we now call galaxies — and found something remarkable. Their light was shifted toward the red end of the spectrum, a sign that they were racing away from us. It was as if the universe itself were stretching. When light from a moving source is stretched to longer wavelengths, we call it redshift — much like the way a passing train's whistle drops in pitch as it moves away. Hubble discovered that the farther a galaxy was, the greater its redshift — meaning the faster it was receding. This became the Hubble–Lemaître law, a simple but revolutionary equation showing that the universe is expanding. But here's the subtlety: the galaxies are not flying through space as bullets through the air. Instead, the space between them is stretching. A common analogy is raisin bread dough rising in the oven — as the dough expands, every raisin moves away from every other raisin, and the farther apart two raisins start, the faster they separate. Crucially, the bread isn't expanding into the kitchen; the dough itself is the 'space.' In the same way, the universe isn't expanding into some empty void — it's the distance scale itself that's growing. This is why galaxies farther away show greater redshift: they're not just distant in space, they're distant in time, and the intervening space has been stretching for billions of years. The implication was staggering: if the galaxies are all moving apart today, then in the distant past, they must have been much closer together. Follow this logic far enough back and you arrive at a moment when all the matter, energy, space, and time we know were compressed into a single, unimaginably dense point. The first to put this into words was Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest and physicist. In 1931, he proposed that the universe began from a 'primeval atom' — an idea that would later be nicknamed the Big Bang. At the time, the name was meant to be dismissive; British astronomer Fred Hoyle, along with his student and celebrated Indian astrophysicist Jayant Narlikar, champions of the rival Steady State theory, coined it in a radio broadcast to mock the idea of a cosmic explosion. Ironically, the label stuck and became the most famous phrase in cosmology. For decades, the debate raged: was the universe eternal and unchanging, or did it have a beginning? The tie was broken not in an ivory tower, but in a New Jersey field. In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, two engineers at Bell Labs, were testing a radio antenna for satellite communications when they picked up a persistent hiss of microwave noise. They cleaned the antenna, even shooed away nesting pigeons — but the signal stayed. Unbeknownst to them, just 50 km away, Princeton physicist Robert Dicke and his team were preparing to search for the faint afterglow of the Big Bang. When the groups connected, the truth emerged: Penzias and Wilson had stumbled upon the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the fossil light from the universe's infancy, released about 380,000 years after the Big Bang. The CMB confirmed that the universe had indeed begun in a hot, dense state and has been cooling and expanding ever since. In the first fraction of a second, an incredible burst of inflation stretched space faster than the speed of light. This expansion wasn't into anything — rather, the very fabric of space itself was stretching, carrying galaxies along with it. As space grows, so does the distance scale we use to measure it: a galaxy whose light left billions of years ago was much closer then than it is today. That's why the farther away we look, the greater the redshift we see — we are peering not just across space, but back in time, to when the universe was smaller. The CMB is the afterglow from a time about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and protons to form neutral atoms, letting light travel freely for the first time. That light has been on a 13.8-billion-year journey to us, its wavelength stretched by cosmic expansion from the fierce glare of the early universe into the faint microwave glow we detect today. Over the next minutes after the Big Bang, nuclear fusion forged the first elements: hydrogen, helium, and traces of lithium. Hundreds of millions of years later, the first stars and galaxies ignited, manufacturing heavier elements in their cores and seeding the cosmos with the building blocks of planets and life. Billions of years on, our Sun and Earth formed from recycled stardust, and here we are — creatures of carbon, contemplating the birth of time. The Big Bang theory is not just an origin story; it's a framework that explains everything from the cosmic web of galaxies to the faintest ripples in the CMB. It predicts the abundance of light elements, the distribution of galaxies, and the universe's large-scale geometry. Without it, we'd have no coherent picture of cosmic history. Today, the expansion first seen by Hubble is still ongoing — in fact, it's accelerating, driven by the mysterious dark energy. The latest measurements from telescopes like Hubble's successor, the James Webb Space Telescope, and surveys like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey continue to refine our understanding of the early universe, probing the first galaxies that emerged from cosmic darkness. The journey from a lone astronomer squinting at galaxies to a global scientific collaboration mapping the cosmos is a reminder that big ideas often start with small clues. As Carl Sagan once put it, 'We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.' The Big Bang is not just about how the universe began — it's about how we began, too. Shravan Hanasoge is an astrophysicist at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research.
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Will an astronomical anomaly challenge the idea of scientific revolutions?
Before the revolution triggered by Nicolaus Copernicus, a 16th-century cleric, the Earth was the unmoving centre of the cosmos. Afterwards, it was one of a family of planets swinging through space. Before the work of Antoine Lavoisier, an 18th-century nobleman, chemists had no notion of 'oxygen', 'carbon' and the like; afterwards they could not understand the contents of their alembics without them. Such examples are at the heart of the idea, put forward in the 1960s by Thomas Kuhn, of the paradigm shift. Such shifts, he argued, did not just involve a new theory explaining the world better than an old one; they required a change in the sort of entities the world was thought to be made up of. In a way that seems almost self-exemplifying, the idea provided a new way of looking at science itself: not as one thing, but two. In the 'normal' phase scientists applied their physical and conceptual tools to problems the scope of which was pretty well understood; in revolutionary phases, paradigms shifted. Normal didn't mean dull or unimportant. When, in the 1980s, American astronomers made the case for the Hubble Space Telescope, then the costliest scientific instrument in history, none of its goals mattered more than what seemed a perfect example of normal science: nailing down the value of the constant (also named after Edwin Hubble, an astronomer) which says how fast the universe is expanding. The Hubble did this very well. The difficulty, as our Science section reports, is that since its launch it has become possible to estimate the Hubble constant on the basis of background radiation from all over the sky, rather than distances to individual objects. And these new estimates are significantly lower. The seemingly unbridgeable divide between the approaches has become known as the Hubble tension. To those who know their Kuhn this looks like the sort of anomaly that might precede some new paradigm shift. The possibility is tantalising. The conceptual usefulness of paradigm shifts has been much debated, as indeed has their existence. The concept is horribly overused. (A new paradigm for vegan cosmetics!) Yet the notion of a fresh worldview remains dramatic and beguiling, and the romance only increases when it applies on a cosmic, but reassuringly inconsequential scale. (A paradigm shift in financial markets might be far more practically important.) The problem is that, as Kuhn noted, you can judge these things only in retrospect. The sort of anomaly that is recast and solved by a paradigm shift is not in principle distinguishable from a 'normal' problem which has not yet been solved. The paradigms in which normal science is done are, like the fabric of the universe, somewhat stretchy; new ideas, sometimes quite big ones, can be incorporated without wholesale change. And some suspect that science's capacity to adapt itself in this way has increased since the days of Kuhn's examples. It is far more institutionalised and regimented today, and that may provide a stability, even a rigidity, to its worldviews. This need not be a bad thing. Paradigm shifts are not necessary for technological improvement. But it is hard not to think that, if their age has gone, then so has some of science's thrill—and hard not to want the Hubble tension to demonstrate that paradigms can still be pulled apart. Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.
