logo
Is THIS how the world will end? Scientists reveal the startling odds that the Milky Way will collide with the Andromeda galaxy – swallowing Earth in the process

Is THIS how the world will end? Scientists reveal the startling odds that the Milky Way will collide with the Andromeda galaxy – swallowing Earth in the process

Daily Mail​02-06-2025
From the death of the sun to a sudden asteroid impact, there are a number of terrifying ways the world could end.
Now, scientists have revealed just how likely one of those doomsday scenarios really is.
Researchers from Durham University have calculated the odds of the Milky Way colliding with the Andromeda galaxy, swallowing the Earth in the process.
Across 100,000 simulations, the researchers found that there is a 50/50 chance of our galaxy colliding with Andromeda within the next 10 billion years.
This collision - estimated to occur at a staggering speed of 220,000mph - would be 'devastating' for both galaxies, the experts warn.
Before you start to panic, the good news is that this probability is actually significantly lower than previous studies had suggested.
Co-author Professor Alis Deason, a computational cosmologist at Durham University, said: 'It used to appear destined to merge with Andromeda forming a colossal "Milkomeda".
'Now, there is a chance that we could avoid this fate entirely.'
The researchers say that the likely scenarios are that the galaxies pass by at over one million light-years apart (left) or they drift within 500,000 light-years (right) for a close pass
At 2.5 million light-years from Earth, the Andromeda Galaxy is the Milky Way's nearest major galaxy.
The large spiral galaxy measures 152,000 light-years from end to end and is believed to be roughly the same mass as the Milky Way.
But as the Milky Way and Andromeda drift through space, the gravitational pull of other nearby galaxies is pushing them dangerously close together.
As they pass in space, the galaxies' mutual gravitational attraction causes them to spiral ever closer together and, eventually, to merge.
Although galactic collisions are rare, light from very distant galaxies, which has been travelling since the early days of the Universe, gives us a hint of what this might look like.
Co-author Professor Carlos Frenk of Durham University, a cosmologist at Durham University, says: 'The Universe is a dynamic place, constantly evolving.
'We see external galaxies often colliding and merging with other galaxies, sometimes producing the equivalent of cosmic fireworks when gas, driven to the centre of the merger remnant, feeds a central black hole emitting an enormous amount of radiation, before irrevocably falling into the hole.'
Previous studies had suggested that the Milky Way and Andromeda would almost certainly suffer this fate in around five billion years' time.
If Andromeda (pictured from Earth) and the Milky Way merge after eight billion years, the Sun will likely have extinguished before this time
MAGELLANIC CLOUDS: SATELLITE GALAXIES FOR THE MILKY WAY
The Magellanic Clouds can be seen in the night sky with the naked eye and have been observed by ancient cultures for thousands of years.
The Large Magellanic Cloud is a relatively small 160,000 light years away from us, while the Small Magellanic Cloud is around 200,000 light years away.
They orbit the Milky Way once every 1,500 million years and each other once every 900 million years.
They were the closest known galaxies to the Milky Way until recently, when the Sagittarius and Canis Major dwarf galaxies were discovered and found to be even closer.
However, the researchers' new simulations now suggest that this might not be the way the world ends.
Professor Frenk says: '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.'
In just two per cent of the 100,000 simulations, the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies collided within five billion years.
In around half of the simulations, the galaxies passed close enough to one another that they slowed, and began to spiral around into an eventual merger.
However, these collisions took place within eight to 10 billion years' time, rather than five billion.
This suggests that the collision between the two galaxies is not likely to mean the end of the world.
Lead author Dr Till Sawala, of the University of Helsinki, told MailOnline: 'Our results suggest that a collision, even if it happens, might take place after the Earth and the sun no longer exist.
'Even if it happens before that, it's very unlikely that something would happen to Earth in this case - even when two galaxies collide, collisions between stars are very unlikely.
Even if the Milky Way and Andromeda do merge before the sun dies, Earth will likely be unaffected since collisions between stars are so rare. Picture: a graph showing the simulated distances between the two galaxies
The researchers say their simulations yield a lower probability because they took more of the Milky Way's neighbouring galaxies into account, in particular the pull from a galaxy called the Large Magellanic Cloud.
Although this 'satellite galaxy' is relatively small, its pull is in the right direction to significantly impact the Milky Way's trajectory through space.
Including this factor in the simulations, makes it much less likely that the Milky Way will get close to Andromeda.
The bad news is that it is 'nearly certain' that the Milky Way will merge with the Large Magellanic Cloud in around two billion years.
'However, unlike the possible merger between the Milky Way and Andromeda, the merger with the Large Magellanic Cloud will be a so-called "minor merger" that will leave the Milky Way intact,' adds Dr Till.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Doctors strikes will be banned under the Tories like police and prison officers, vows Kemi Badenoch
Doctors strikes will be banned under the Tories like police and prison officers, vows Kemi Badenoch

Daily Mail​

time3 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Doctors strikes will be banned under the Tories like police and prison officers, vows Kemi Badenoch

Doctors strikes will be banned under a Conservative government in the same way as police and prison officers, Kemi Badenoch has vowed. The Tory party leader today announced she would amend the law to bar the protests as she insisted the British Medical Association (BMA) is 'out of control'. It comes following 11 strikes in the past 18 months which Ms Badenoch said had resulted in patients dying. Her comments were made on GB News amid the ongoing five-day series of strikes by resident doctors in support of a pay claim. Urging Sir Keir Starmer to take similar action, Ms Badenoch said: 'The BMA has become militant, these strikes are going too far, and it is time for action. 'Doctors do incredibly important work. Medicine is a vocation – not just a job. That is why in government we offered a fair deal that supported doctors, but protected taxpayers too. 'These strikes will have a significant economic effect, but they will also mean cancelled operations, worry for families of the sick, and suffering for those who are unwell. We know that previous strike action by doctors even led to some patients losing their lives. 'That is why Conservatives are stepping in, and setting out common sense proposals to protect patients, and the public finances. And we are making an offer in the national interest – we will work with the Government to face down the BMA to help protect patients and the NHS.' Doctors hold lives in their hands. No one should lose critical healthcare because of strikes but that's what's happening now. That's why a Conservative government led by me would ban doctors' strikes, just like we do the army and police. — Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) July 27, 2025 Police, the military and prison officers are banned from taking strike action under the 1992 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. The Conservatives would amend this to include doctors. Action short of a strike such as working to rule and banning overtime would still be permitted - with doctors remaining able to unionise through the BMA, like the police, which has the police federation to represent members' interests. Minimum service levels have also been proposed by the Conservatives, which would aim to ensure a basic service provision in not just healthcare but other essential sectors like education and transport. The party has argued proposed changes would bring the UK in line with other nations such as Australia and Canada who have tighter restrictions on doctors strikes, as well as European nations like Greece, Italy and Portugal that have minimum service levels laws in place across their health services. Under Australia's Fair Work Act 2009, the Fair Work Commission is required to suspend or terminate strike action that endangers the safety, health or welfare of the population. Attempts to block doctors' strike action are likely to be challenged in the courts, specifically under Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Police officers have been banned from taking strike action since 1919 when the Police Act made it a criminal offence and all armed forces members are bound by the King's Regulations which make unionisation illegal. The Conservatives' proposed primary legislation would restrict the ability of for doctors at all levels to engage in strike action as regulated by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. This would be done through exempting doctors from the part of the act that gives the right to strike. The Conservatives said they will also look at introducing back-to-work orders in a similar vein to other European countries. Stuart Andrew MP, Shadow Health Secretary, said: 'The Conservative Party has always respected the important work that healthcare professionals do, but enough is enough. 'The BMA has taken our NHS hostage and used this Labour Government's weakness to demand more and more – with taxpayers and patients left to suffer the consequences. 'As our health service faces yet another round of damaging strike action, the Conservatives are calling time. If Labour were serious about cutting waiting lists and delivering the health system our country deserves, rather than just kowtowing to the unions, they would back our plans.'

Museums 'could close' over UK watchdog guidance on single sex spaces
Museums 'could close' over UK watchdog guidance on single sex spaces

Daily Record

time33 minutes ago

  • Daily Record

Museums 'could close' over UK watchdog guidance on single sex spaces

Museums Galleries Scotland made the claim in light of guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission A publicly-funded body has claimed museums could shut over guidance about trans people and women's toilets. ‌ Museums Galleries Scotland said the 'time and resources' needed to implement new guidance by a watchdog could force closures. ‌ In a landmark decision in April, the Supreme Court ruled that "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex. ‌ The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) recently closed a consultation on proposed changes to statutory guidance in the wake of the ruling. An interim EHRC update said trans women should not be permitted to use women's facilities and trans men should not be allowed to use men's facilities. A response from MGS said the Commission's proposals may "risk leaving trans people with no facilities at all" if changes could not be made. ‌ It urged the UK-wide watchdog to understand the "impacts and needs of trans individuals and organisations committed to trans inclusion". A consultation response from MSG said: "We have concerns that the content and process of the EHRC Code of Practice does not uphold the spirit of inclusion. "There is no guidance on how to include trans people, there is only information on how to exclude them. This has not made sufficient effort to offer advice to organisations who wish to remain or become trans inclusive." ‌ The response added: "When there is a need to 'prove' your sex, what proof will be acceptable given gender recognition certificates are not, nor are altered birth certificates. It is likely this role would fall on front-of-house staff, which we believe puts undue pressure on them." It added: "To avoid discrimination, it would require every person using toilets to be checked, adding substantial workload and staff costs. "The guidance implies that to allow trans people to use toilets that fit their identity would put organisations at risk of legal consequences. Yet, to not check everyone could lead to individuals in museums taking decisions to exclude trans people based on subjective tests, related largely to appearance." ‌ It also warned that some museums may be forced to close "while they invest time and resources to ensure adequate facilities". The response said MSG was aware of the public "policing toilets at heritage sites by making assumptions based on stereotypes". They said this created an "environment of suspicion and policing of everyone's gender presentation'. The response concluded: "We strongly encourage the EHRC to review their processes around this guidance and take the necessary time to understand the impacts and needs of trans individuals and organisations committed to trans inclusion." However, a spokesperson for analysts MurrayBlackburnMackenzie said: 'It is deeply concerning that a major national institution signed off and submitted such an ill-informed response to the EHRC consultation. The response fails to consider the needs of women and instead repeats trans activist talking points.'

Readers reply: Are there too many pets?
Readers reply: Are there too many pets?

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Readers reply: Are there too many pets?

Are there too many pets? Pet ownership goes up and up, particularly dogs and cats. But how many is too many? Gene Leonard, London Send new questions to nq@ This needs to be qualified: 'There are too many pets … for people who dislike dogs so much they can't enjoy green spaces, cafes and other public areas.' rewilder As I get older, I find myself questioning pet ownership. A pet exists for the sole purpose of pleasing its owner, giving it comfort, pleasure and companionship but also putting it at risk of abuse, pain, displeasure and abandonment. They are bred (often conforming to a human-designed ideal) or captured in order to perform human-pleasing duties. So, yes, there are too many pets for their human masters. 02Dscythe This is probably true unless you live with a cat, in which case the roles are reversed. kiramango I think there are too many abandoned pets, too many pets in rescue, too many designer pets with health problems because of their breed standards and too many dogs tied up outside leading lonely, deprived lives. We have one rescued dog, who is adored. He is walked on a lead three times daily, enjoys off-lead time playing in the fully fenced back yard, is fed the best possible food and is treated like a member of the family in all ways. I love cats, but I also love birds; I wish people would keep their cats indoors to protect the birds. The worst problem in our world is too many irresponsible humans, not too many animals. MythKenner From an ecological point of view there are too many of everything associated with humans, so yes, there are definitely too many pets. I doubt there's an easy way to solve that, though. unclestinky There are certainly far too many people involved in the selling of mindless rubbish surrounding the keeping of animals at home. Cat and dog fashion, cosmetics, toys: too many containers of senseless junk being shipped around the world. There are way too many nonsense pet food brands as well: 'Delicious morsels lovingly selected and served with rosemary and green beans.' What? It's a pooch, or a moggy; it can't read, it doesn't understand infantile advertising slop and it's not Jay Rayner. Pets are for companionship, a haven from loneliness for many, also to assist in teaching children about caring, responsibility, kindness, life, death and how not to develop into cruel, selfish brutes who think only of themselves and the next fix of cheap entertainment. bricklayersoption How many is too many? Well, I did a house-sit with 17 cats and I can tell you, categorically: that's too many. (Now, I ask people to define 'a few cats'.) Leoned There are far too many dogs now. Every public space, outdoor and indoor, is overrun with them. It's time to reintroduce the dog licence at a realistic (high) level and set some rules and expectations around dog ownership, as there are currently none. So, one dog a household. On leads in all public spaces except enclosed dog fields, which would be funded by the licence fee. Breeding banned. Tougher rules on dangerous dogs. Some basic hygiene requirements on cafe and pub owners who allow dogs. Ownership banned if you fail to pick up dog mess – no excuses. This'll do for starters. Dennis1970 'Every public space, outdoor and indoor, is overrun with them'? They really aren't. And cafes and pubs already have to meet hygiene standards. And there are rules and expectations around dog ownership. You can argue they need strengthening, but saying there are none is just untrue. Oldhairynose Too many inconsiderate dog owners use those extending leads in public spaces and expect others to get out of the way or else trip over them, or let their dogs foul the public spaces they insist on using for their dog's toilet needs. Add to that letting poorly trained dogs off their leads and then saying: 'He won't hurt you, he just wants to play!' Sundaygal NYC has too many. The streets reek of dog urine and too many owners don't clean up faeces – especially in Brooklyn – so walking is a dangerous hopscotch around smears of festering mess. It can't be very friendly for the dogs, either, which are kept locked up most of the day, against their nature. 80xd35 Dogs are an environmental disaster, from the contamination of waterways from improperly disposed waste – and how long will it take for those plastic poo bags to degrade even if they're used properly? – to the harmful effects on wildlife. Dylan Dog ownership is shown to improve people's physical health, pet ownership improves mental health and many people socially benefit from pets. The frustration is those few who mistreat their pets, have too many pets, don't pick up after their pets, let their cats out to kill birds – and those who spend all their time moaning about other people's pets. But the majority, who own pets with kindness and with social benefit, shouldn't have to be judged by the minority. specklefreckle We need dogs. They take us out, even in the rain. They help us to relax. They are true friends. It would be a sad world without them. Anne Meile I'd welcome a ban on the 'exotic pet' trade. Murdomania

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store