<p>An <a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&amp;db_key=PRE&amp;qform=AST&amp;arxiv_sel=astro-ph&amp;arxiv_sel=cond-mat&amp;arxiv_sel=cs&amp;arxiv_sel=gr-qc&amp;arxiv_sel=hep-ex&amp;arxiv_sel=hep-lat&amp;arxiv_sel=hep-ph&amp;arxiv_sel=hep-th&amp;arxiv_sel=math&amp;arxiv_sel=math-ph&amp;arxiv_sel=nlin&amp;arxiv_sel=nucl-ex&amp;arxiv_sel=nucl-th&amp;arxiv_sel=physics&amp;arxiv_sel=quant-ph&amp;arxiv_sel=q-bio&amp;sim_query=YES&amp;ned_query=YES&amp;adsobj_query=YES&amp;aut_logic=OR&amp;obj_logic=OR&amp;author=&amp;object=&amp;start_mon=&amp;start_year=&amp;end_mon=&amp;end_year=&amp;ttl_logic=AND&amp;title=bootes+void&amp;txt_logic=OR&amp;text=&amp;nr_to_return=200&amp;start_nr=1&amp;jou_pick=NO&amp;ref_stems=&amp;data_and=ALL&amp;group_and=ALL&amp;start_entry_day=&amp;start_entry_mon=&amp;start_entry_year=&amp;end_entry_day=&amp;end_entry_mon=&amp;end_entry_year=&amp;min_score=&amp;sort=SCORE&amp;data_type=SHORT&amp;aut_syn=YES&amp;ttl_syn=YES&amp;txt_syn=YES&amp;aut_wt=1.0&amp;obj_wt=1.0&amp;ttl_wt=0.3&amp;txt_wt=3.0&amp;aut_wgt=YES&amp;obj_wgt=YES&amp;ttl_wgt=YES&amp;txt_wgt=YES&amp;ttl_sco=YES&amp;txt_sco=YES&amp;version=1" rel="noreferrer">ADS search</a> on refereed astronomical papers including the words "Boötes Void" in the title returns only two papers in this millennium, in 2001 and 2002, and even these do not report any new data, but use data from the beginning of the 1990's. I can't find any newer references for the number density of galaxies in the Boötes Void in particular, but a typical value is roughly one-tenth of the average number density in the Universe.</p>

<h2>Theoretical approach</h2>

<p>I previously <a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/8903/how-many-galaxies-are-there-in-the-hercules-corona-borealis-great-wall">answered the similar question</a> of the number of galaxies in an <em>over</em>density. This answer is based on an anlytical fit to (observationally calibrated) simulations of galaxy halo formation, giving the so-called <em>halo mass function</em>, i.e. the number of galaxy halos per halo mass. The total number $N_\mathrm{gal}$ of galaxies in a volume $V$ can be expressed as
$$
N_\mathrm{gal} = n_\mathrm{gal} \times V \times \delta,
$$
where $n_\mathrm{gal}$ is the average number density of galaxies in the Universe, and $\delta$ is the relative density in the volume. As I wrote in the other answer, $n_\mathrm{gal}$ is a number that impels you to define a lower threshold of galaxy size. The reason is that the lower you go, the more there are, and there is no formal threshold for how larger a clump of stars you need before you call it a galaxy. But as in the other answer, for the sake of this discussion we may use Small Magellanic Cloud-sized galaxies as our lower minimum. In that case, with $\delta\sim0.1$ and $V\sim236,\!000\,\mathrm{Mpc}^3$, the total number becomes
$$
N_\mathrm{gal,Böotes} = 0.17\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3} \, \times \, 236,\!000\,\mathrm{Mpc}^3 \, \times \, 0.1 \, \simeq \, 4000\,\mathrm{galaxies}.
$$</p>

<strong>Units of galaxy number density</strong>

<p>The way I write this result also answers your question 3: Galaxy number densities are almost always written in $\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$. In theoretical/numerical work, you'll often see the factor $h^3$ in front of the unit. This is simply the Hubble constant divided by 100 (i.e. $h=0.7$ for $H_0 = 70\,\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$), allowing people to compare results more easily without knowing the exact value of $H_0$.</p>

<h2>Observational approach</h2>

<p>The observations of the Boötes Void are old, and seem to have been carried out on 1m-class telescopes. Hence, they won't be able to observe the smallest galaxies. In addition to telescope specifications, weather, etc., the exact detection limit (in terms of a limiting magnitude $m_\mathrm{lim}$) depends on how long they integrate (i.e. expose). Without reading the old papers in detail, I can't say what this is, but a typical value for such surveys would be, very approximately, $m_\mathrm{lim} \sim 20$ (if someone has a more realistic value than this, please edit). That is, objects fainter (i.e. <em>larger</em> values due to the backward astronomical system) than $m=20$ would be missed.</p>

<p>The distance to the Boötes Void implies a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_modulus" rel="noreferrer">distance modulus</a> of $\mu\sim37$, so the minimum absolute magnitude is
$$
M_\mathrm{lim} = m_\mathrm{lim} - \mu \simeq -17,
$$
which is somewhere between the Small and the Large Magellanic Cloud.</p>

<p>The figure below (from <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0411364" rel="noreferrer">Wyder et al. 2005</a>) shows the local-Universe <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity_function" rel="noreferrer">luminosity function</a> for UV-selected galaxies.
That is, it shows the number density of galaxies at a given magnitude. For instance, it shows (with the green dashed line) that the number density (here called $\Phi$) of galaxies with magnitudes around $M=-17$ is roughly $10^{-2.5}\sim0.003\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{mag}^{-1}$.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/tIoX5.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/tIoX5.png" alt="UVLF"></a></p>

<p>Integrating over magnitudes from the $M=-17$ doesn't change the 0.003 much, since the density of brighter galaxies quckly declines. I get 0.004, i.e. the number density of galaxies at least as bright as $M=-17$ is $0.004\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$, smaller than the theoretical result above by 1.5 orders of magnitude. Multiplying this by the volume $V$ and the relative density $\delta$ yields $N_\mathrm{gal,Böotes} \simeq 100$ galaxies, not far from the 60 you quote.</p>

<hr>

<p>To conclude, the number 60 seems in rough accordance with what is expected observationally, but theoretically, we'd expect there to be many more galaxies (although they're very small).</p>

<strong>Location of the galaxies</strong>

<p>They detected galaxies seem to be lying in a "tube" extending across the void. In general, galaxies and the underlying dark matter mass field tend not to be evenly distributed, but to form knots, sheets and filaments, separated by voids. My guess is that this "tube" is such a filament. Outside this filament, the void is voidier, but not completely void. There will still be galaxies, although few and small.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T13:03:28.260Z
Wait - tbc `0.17 Mpc-3` is indeed "typical galactic density of the universe" {at the "Small Magellanic Cloud" metric level}, is that right?  Thanks for this!
Fattie
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T13:08:15.607Z
Thanks again for this. Is brilliant. My immediate question: I'm bamboozled by the "60" figure.  If there's on the order of 4000 galaxies "in the Boötes Void", it seems to me nonsensical, on a number of levels, that "60" were found, and indeed, apparently those 60 happened to be "in the tube".  If we interpret "the tube" as indeed an overdensity amongst the 4000 - something is confused.  {Or, is the idea that the BV is utterly empty, except for, ***4000 in a tube***?}  {Indeed, is it actually correct that the 60 are "in the tube", or is this some misquote along the way?}
Fattie
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T14:36:24.290Z
@JoeBlow: The 0.17 Mpc$^{-3}$ was calculated under certain assumptions, e.g. the cosmological parameters. Observational constraints on the number are challinging, since all observations probe only a subset of galaxies corresponding to the selection criteria. But I'd say that the 0.17 is a good estimate.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T14:37:09.687Z
But since the void is so far away, you won't be able to see so small galaxies as the SMC, only the brighter ones. As far as I can see, the detected galaxies actually lie in a "tube". It is probably a filament extending across the void, hosting the largest galaxies which are then the only ones we can see.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T14:38:09.677Z
Note also that there is a redshift dependence for the number density, although this is mostly important for large galaxies that form late.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T15:01:20.707Z
Depending on which telescopes were used to find the 60 galaxies, they each have their own magnitude threshold. If you are only sensitive to galaxies of ~1e11 Mo (probably not too far off at this redshift), then the number density becomes (very roughly) 1.5 orders of magnitude smaller, and the total number is not 4000, but of the order 100. So we're getting there… :)
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T19:52:23.777Z
Thanks so much for this, thanks.  It's a confusing feature: the "BVD" ("Boötes Void Diameter") is said to be about 250 Mly.  Indeed, we are all-but touching it: we are about 2 BVD from one side of this void.  We ended up adjacent to this thing in the universe.  It covers *over 20 degrees* (!) of our sky each way.  Takes some thinking about!
Fattie
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T20:00:17.607Z
Quick sanity check ... 4000 galaxies.  We're saying that's about 1/10th average number density in the Universe.  So if average, would titularly be about 40,000.  Wiki asserts it is about .003 of the diameter of the visible universe.  Using that guideline, 350^2*pi*40,000 is 50 billion.  So there are "about 50 billion" galaxies in the visible universe.  Indeed, that is vaguelly correct, right?  (Popular science estimates, I believe, tend to be "150 or 200 billion".)
Fattie
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-07T05:47:10.060Z
@JoeBlow: +1 for sanity checks! But if the diameter is 0.003 the diameter of the Universe, then the volume is 0.003$^3$, and the total number in the Universe should be $40,\!000 / 0.003^3 \simeq 10^{12}$, which is larger by a factor of 10 than the popular estimates. Perhaps the popular estimates use a larger threshold for what a galaxy is.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-07T07:22:35.707Z
As far as I can see, all the places that quote "a few hundred billion galaxies" all point to an extrapolation to the full sky of observational number counts in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field's small patch of the sky. But since this is flux-limited, it will miss the smallest galaxies. [This article](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansiegel/2015/04/24/how-we-know-how-many-galaxies-are-in-the-universe-thanks-to-hubble/#2d2855b629bf) discusses exactly this — and says that taking into account the galaxies that Hubble _can't_ see, the number may be closer to $10^{12}$.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-07T10:26:34.407Z
Hmm… it seems SMC-like galaxies would almost have been detected in those surveys. I updated the answer based on our discussion.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-07T13:02:20.307Z
Totally awesome. Am just enjoying this epic answer with a bottle of chardonnay now.  Completely understand what you mean, just above about the count, fascinating....
Fattie
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-07T13:27:30.290Z
@JoeBlow: Mmm… Chardonnay and cosmology… nice mix :)
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-12T12:04:22.190Z
thanks a million, Pela and The Astronomy Site for the spectacular answer here.  IMO this site is perhaps the best in the network.  You get less "nutty" questions (which plague some of the other sites) and very few if none poor answers - everything on here is uniformly informative and readable, thank you so much.  This is a great answer, I'm still enjoying it (like a chardonnay)
Fattie
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-12T19:04:10.630Z
You're very welcome, @JoeBlow.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T12:39:17.750Z
2016-06-07T10:26:02.763Z
2017-04-13T12:59:06.910Z
pela
<p>As a general science (hence Wikipedia!) reader, the latest information I have is that <strong>60</strong> galaxies "have been found and counted" inside the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo%C3%B6tes_void" rel="noreferrer">Boötes void</a>, this of 1997.</p>

<p>(1) What is the latest count of galaxies "known" inside the Boötes void?</p>

<p>The Boötes void is a ball 250 million light-years across. (Say, .002 of the width of the visible universe?)  It seems - unbelievable - it has only <em>60</em> galaxies.</p>

<p>The "60" value (or some new number since 1997), maybe I am misunderstanding it, or it is misreported, or has a different meaning?  Galaxies are counted in the thousands or tens of thousands, it seems hard to believe in a cosmological space, the number "60" would come up.</p>

<p>So, what is (2) the thinking on how <strong>many galaxies there likely are</strong> in the Boötes Void? An order of magnitude.  Is it "about 100," or "about a trillion," or what?</p>

<p>What do you (3) normally quote galaxy density in?  Galaxies per Gpc<sup>3</sup>, or?</p>

<p>Indeed, I am trying to get a (4) <strong>comparative sense of galactic density in the Boötes void versus elsewhere</strong>. What is the galaxy density in the Boötes void, versus the universe in general, or if it's more meaningful versus perhaps superclusters, walls, or?</p>

<p>Is it "one tenth as dense"?  One zillionth?  One half?  Just how void is that sucker?</p>

<hr>

<p><strong>Further...</strong></p>

<p>BruceS below has usefully pointed out that, indeed, the "60" galaxies are anyway <em>only in a small tube which apparently cuts through</em> the Boötes Void.</p>

<p>Does this mean that, incredibly, the actual main body of the Boötes Void - putting aside that tube - <strong><em>is literally empty, no galaxies at all</em></strong>??</p>

<p>That seems totally incredible.  I feel we really need a galaxy-counting astronomer to clarify the nature of the Boötes Void.</p>

<galaxy><cosmology>
Boötes Void numbers, 2016
Fattie
# Boötes Void numbers, 2016

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-05-03)

As a general science (hence Wikipedia!) reader, the latest information I have is that **60** galaxies "have been found and counted" inside the [Boötes void](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo%C3%B6tes_void), this of 1997.

(1) What is the latest count of galaxies "known" inside the Boötes void?

The Boötes void is a ball 250 million light-years across. (Say, .002 of the width of the visible universe?) It seems - unbelievable - it has only *60* galaxies.

The "60" value (or some new number since 1997), maybe I am misunderstanding it, or it is misreported, or has a different meaning? Galaxies are counted in the thousands or tens of thousands, it seems hard to believe in a cosmological space, the number "60" would come up.

So, what is (2) the thinking on how **many galaxies there likely are** in the Boötes Void? An order of magnitude. Is it "about 100," or "about a trillion," or what?

What do you (3) normally quote galaxy density in? Galaxies per Gpc3, or?

Indeed, I am trying to get a (4) **comparative sense of galactic density in the Boötes void versus elsewhere**. What is the galaxy density in the Boötes void, versus the universe in general, or if it's more meaningful versus perhaps superclusters, walls, or?

Is it "one tenth as dense"? One zillionth? One half? Just how void is that sucker?

---

**Further...**

BruceS below has usefully pointed out that, indeed, the "60" galaxies are anyway *only in a small tube which apparently cuts through* the Boötes Void.

Does this mean that, incredibly, the actual main body of the Boötes Void - putting aside that tube - ***is literally empty, no galaxies at all***??

That seems totally incredible. I feel we really need a galaxy-counting astronomer to clarify the nature of the Boötes Void.

**Tags:** galaxy, cosmology


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-06-06. Score: 9 | Accepted answer

An [ADS search](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PRE&qform=AST&arxiv_sel=astro-ph&arxiv_sel=cond-mat&arxiv_sel=cs&arxiv_sel=gr-qc&arxiv_sel=hep-ex&arxiv_sel=hep-lat&arxiv_sel=hep-ph&arxiv_sel=hep-th&arxiv_sel=math&arxiv_sel=math-ph&arxiv_sel=nlin&arxiv_sel=nucl-ex&arxiv_sel=nucl-th&arxiv_sel=physics&arxiv_sel=quant-ph&arxiv_sel=q-bio&sim_query=YES&ned_query=YES&adsobj_query=YES&aut_logic=OR&obj_logic=OR&author=&object=&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=AND&title=bootes+void&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=200&start_nr=1&jou_pick=NO&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&end_entry_day=&end_entry_mon=&end_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE&data_type=SHORT&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&obj_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1) on refereed astronomical papers including the words "Boötes Void" in the title returns only two papers in this millennium, in 2001 and 2002, and even these do not report any new data, but use data from the beginning of the 1990's. I can't find any newer references for the number density of galaxies in the Boötes Void in particular, but a typical value is roughly one-tenth of the average number density in the Universe.

## Theoretical approach

I previously [answered the similar question](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/8903/how-many-galaxies-are-there-in-the-hercules-corona-borealis-great-wall) of the number of galaxies in an *over*density. This answer is based on an anlytical fit to (observationally calibrated) simulations of galaxy halo formation, giving the so-called *halo mass function*, i.e. the number of galaxy halos per halo mass. The total number $N\_\mathrm{gal}$ of galaxies in a volume $V$ can be expressed as
$$
N\_\mathrm{gal} = n\_\mathrm{gal} \times V \times \delta,
$$
where $n\_\mathrm{gal}$ is the average number density of galaxies in the Universe, and $\delta$ is the relative density in the volume. As I wrote in the other answer, $n\_\mathrm{gal}$ is a number that impels you to define a lower threshold of galaxy size. The reason is that the lower you go, the more there are, and there is no formal threshold for how larger a clump of stars you need before you call it a galaxy. But as in the other answer, for the sake of this discussion we may use Small Magellanic Cloud-sized galaxies as our lower minimum. In that case, with $\delta\sim0.1$ and $V\sim236,\!000\,\mathrm{Mpc}^3$, the total number becomes
$$
N\_\mathrm{gal,Böotes} = 0.17\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3} \, \times \, 236,\!000\,\mathrm{Mpc}^3 \, \times \, 0.1 \, \simeq \, 4000\,\mathrm{galaxies}.
$$

**Units of galaxy number density**

The way I write this result also answers your question 3: Galaxy number densities are almost always written in $\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$. In theoretical/numerical work, you'll often see the factor $h^3$ in front of the unit. This is simply the Hubble constant divided by 100 (i.e. $h=0.7$ for $H\_0 = 70\,\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$), allowing people to compare results more easily without knowing the exact value of $H\_0$.

## Observational approach

The observations of the Boötes Void are old, and seem to have been carried out on 1m-class telescopes. Hence, they won't be able to observe the smallest galaxies. In addition to telescope specifications, weather, etc., the exact detection limit (in terms of a limiting magnitude $m\_\mathrm{lim}$) depends on how long they integrate (i.e. expose). Without reading the old papers in detail, I can't say what this is, but a typical value for such surveys would be, very approximately, $m\_\mathrm{lim} \sim 20$ (if someone has a more realistic value than this, please edit). That is, objects fainter (i.e. *larger* values due to the backward astronomical system) than $m=20$ would be missed.

The distance to the Boötes Void implies a [distance modulus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_modulus) of $\mu\sim37$, so the minimum absolute magnitude is
$$
M\_\mathrm{lim} = m\_\mathrm{lim} - \mu \simeq -17,
$$
which is somewhere between the Small and the Large Magellanic Cloud.

The figure below (from [Wyder et al. 2005](http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0411364)) shows the local-Universe [luminosity function](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity_function) for UV-selected galaxies.
That is, it shows the number density of galaxies at a given magnitude. For instance, it shows (with the green dashed line) that the number density (here called $\Phi$) of galaxies with magnitudes around $M=-17$ is roughly $10^{-2.5}\sim0.003\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{mag}^{-1}$.

[![UVLF](https://i.sstatic.net/tIoX5.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/tIoX5.png)

Integrating over magnitudes from the $M=-17$ doesn't change the 0.003 much, since the density of brighter galaxies quckly declines. I get 0.004, i.e. the number density of galaxies at least as bright as $M=-17$ is $0.004\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$, smaller than the theoretical result above by 1.5 orders of magnitude. Multiplying this by the volume $V$ and the relative density $\delta$ yields $N\_\mathrm{gal,Böotes} \simeq 100$ galaxies, not far from the 60 you quote.

---

To conclude, the number 60 seems in rough accordance with what is expected observationally, but theoretically, we'd expect there to be many more galaxies (although they're very small).

**Location of the galaxies**

They detected galaxies seem to be lying in a "tube" extending across the void. In general, galaxies and the underlying dark matter mass field tend not to be evenly distributed, but to form knots, sheets and filaments, separated by voids. My guess is that this "tube" is such a filament. Outside this filament, the void is voidier, but not completely void. There will still be galaxies, although few and small.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Wait - tbc `0.17 Mpc-3` is indeed "typical galactic density of the universe" {at the "Small Magellanic Cloud" metric level}, is that right?  Thanks for this!  
> **username_0**: Thanks again for this. Is brilliant. My immediate question: I'm bamboozled by the "60" figure.  If there's on the order of 4000 galaxies "in the Boötes Void", it seems to me nonsensical, on a number of levels, that "60" were found, and indeed, apparently those 60 happened to be "in the tube".  If we interpret "the tube" as indeed an overdensity amongst the 4000 - something is confused.  {Or, is the idea that the BV is utterly empty, except for, ***4000 in a tube***?}  {Indeed, is it actually correct that the 60 are "in the tube", or is this some misquote along the way?}  
> **username_1**: @JoeBlow: The 0.17 Mpc$^{-3}$ was calculated under certain assumptions, e.g. the cosmological parameters. Observational constraints on the number are challinging, since all observations probe only a subset of galaxies corresponding to the selection criteria. But I'd say that the 0.17 is a good estimate.  
> **username_1**: But since the void is so far away, you won't be able to see so small galaxies as the SMC, only the brighter ones. As far as I can see, the detected galaxies actually lie in a "tube". It is probably a filament extending across the void, hosting the largest galaxies which are then the only ones we can see.  
> **username_1**: Note also that there is a redshift dependence for the number density, although this is mostly important for large galaxies that form late.  
> **username_1**: Depending on which telescopes were used to find the 60 galaxies, they each have their own magnitude threshold. If you are only sensitive to galaxies of ~1e11 Mo (probably not too far off at this redshift), then the number density becomes (very roughly) 1.5 orders of magnitude smaller, and the total number is not 4000, but of the order 100. So we're getting there… :)  
> **username_0**: Thanks so much for this, thanks.  It's a confusing feature: the "BVD" ("Boötes Void Diameter") is said to be about 250 Mly.  Indeed, we are all-but touching it: we are about 2 BVD from one side of this void.  We ended up adjacent to this thing in the universe.  It covers *over 20 degrees* (!) of our sky each way.  Takes some thinking about!  
> **username_0**: Quick sanity check ... 4000 galaxies.  We're saying that's about 1/10th average number density in the Universe.  So if average, would titularly be about 40,000.  Wiki asserts it is about .003 of the diameter of the visible universe.  Using that guideline, 350^2*pi*40,000 is 50 billion.  So there are "about 50 billion" galaxies in the visible universe.  Indeed, that is vaguelly correct, right?  (Popular science estimates, I believe, tend to be "150 or 200 billion".)  
> **username_1**: @JoeBlow: +1 for sanity checks! But if the diameter is 0.003 the diameter of the Universe, then the volume is 0.003$^3$, and the total number in the Universe should be $40,\!000 / 0.003^3 \simeq 10^{12}$, which is larger by a factor of 10 than the popular estimates. Perhaps the popular estimates use a larger threshold for what a galaxy is.  
> **username_1**: As far as I can see, all the places that quote "a few hundred billion galaxies" all point to an extrapolation to the full sky of observational number counts in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field's small patch of the sky. But since this is flux-limited, it will miss the smallest galaxies. [This article](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansiegel/2015/04/24/how-we-know-how-many-galaxies-are-in-the-universe-thanks-to-hubble/#2d2855b629bf) discusses exactly this — and says that taking into account the galaxies that Hubble _can't_ see, the number may be closer to $10^{12}$.  
> **username_1**: Hmm… it seems SMC-like galaxies would almost have been detected in those surveys. I updated the answer based on our discussion.  
> **username_0**: Totally awesome. Am just enjoying this epic answer with a bottle of chardonnay now.  Completely understand what you mean, just above about the count, fascinating....  
> **username_1**: @JoeBlow: Mmm… Chardonnay and cosmology… nice mix :)  
> **username_0**: thanks a million, username_1 and The Astronomy Site for the spectacular answer here.  IMO this site is perhaps the best in the network.  You get less "nutty" questions (which plague some of the other sites) and very few if none poor answers - everything on here is uniformly informative and readable, thank you so much.  This is a great answer, I'm still enjoying it (like a chardonnay)  
> **username_1**: You're very welcome, @JoeBlow.  

---

