The Universe is Large
 

BUT did anyone know that there were less then a Google electrons in it????

I heard this and was amazed, if anyone knows anything else on this topic I'd really like to know because I don't belive it and I can't find any sources to back it up!


Well theres a topic sooo DISCUSS!!:D

wait. . . a search engine is a mathmatical figure? or is a mathmatical figure a search engine? or is an electron a mathmatical figure? or is an electron a search engine?



I'm so confused




- Hold me

How is this provable in any means? maybe there's theory, but how can you prove this...we don't even kow if the universe has limits, and don't someone go tell me that there are, prove that one too....

it's all theory, someone with too much free time to sit and think....

Holds head, and starts to count stars...

Uh, almost, but not quite. A googol is a very large number, written out as a 1 followed by 100 zeros. An even larger number is a googolplex, which is a 1 followed by a googol zeros. A google is a search engine, the one which indexes the most web pages in the world.

As for the number of electrons in the universe, I never heard of this anywhere, so if someone could get a source on this, I'd enjoy reading it.

its also a search appliance :) and a cool word that everyone needs the use more. "That screen shot made me google in awe!"

Chubtoad, where did you find this out from? It sound very strange. But like one of my favorite sayings goes, "In theroy, everything works."

just like communism!!! god, that's been said way to many times on the team... :p

if the universe does in fact only have a googol electrons, i'd be surprised. i would think just earth itself had that number of electrons...

I unno
 

I heard it from a friend who is usually very very reliable on such info
I couldn't believe it when I heard it, I'll ask him for some proof or some references tommorow when I see him

I just don't get it, HOW WOULD THEY KNOW THAT!!! THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF WE DON"T KNOW THAT EXISTS?!??!

I work in theory.

Does sound intersting, how many total are within the elements on the periodic table? I know it's not many, but how many trillions of each type of atom are there out there??

Chemistry is dumb.

:)

Thats my one cent. Too cheap for 2 cents.

I second that, wholeheartedly.

heh, the best part is i'm in the one place that hates chem more than ever. where else could i be but a national lab, in the physics building? :p even mention chem, and hordes of angry physicist come and take you away... :D

AHh
 

We work in several schools and we're in the library of one and He looked in the Guiness Book of World Records and it says there are 10^87 electrons in the universe.

If anyone knows how they found this out, plesae pass on the info!



Craazzzzyyyy:confused:

Maybe they used a formula using the concentration of electrons in a certain area, then multiplied that answer by the number of the "certain area" units in the universe.

Yea, that's probably how they get their random numbers, but it really is a philosophical question. There may be an infinite number of electrons in the universe or just one moving infinitely fast. And don't forget that electrons just may be vibrating strings (the new thing in modern physics seeking to unify relativity and quantum mechanics... visit www.superstringtheory.com for more info).

I dunno about that number.... the universe is A LOT larger than I thought. Earlier this summer, I took this fun 3-week course in Astronomy and astro-physics (my TA was an astronomy graduate student... some of the theories that he went into... string theory, the universe-consists-of-22-dimensions thing, details of nuclear fusion, black matter, neutrinos... tons of fun, but far beyond my understanding). Needless to say, I learned that compared to the universe, our entire planet is a miliscule speck of insignificance. The point is, I have no idea how scientists can specify the number of electrons in the universe. For an introduction to our insignificance, take this picture from the first page of my textbook: begining in the upper-left, every picture is an approximately 10x magnification of the previous picture.

Pictures 7-10 show you just how completely insignificant we are compared to the milky way (and thats our entire solar system in picture 7, not just earth!!!). Then the last two show you that the entire milky way galaxy is just part of billions of superglusters of galaxies just like it.

Point is, universe's size is beyond comprehension... no idea how you can possibly create "a number of electrons" in it.

btw, sorry for the uber-high size of the pic... had to take splice two pics together to show all of the detail.

Actually, while on this topic, I found another picture to show you guys...this time a poster of the Hubble Deep Field.

Basically, the Hubble found this small area above the Big(?) Dipper - the box in the bottom-most photo. In that one box alone, it found so many stars invisible to the eye - thats the second photo. But, this wasn't enough for the good folks at Hubble. They found a relatively empty region of space in that photo and took the main (biggest) photo. Those are freakin' GALAXIES the hubble found. Assuming that region around the Big Dipper represents a typical distribution of galaxies in the sky, well, look how small the main photo is in comparison with the Big Dipper. Then think about how small a part of the sky the Big Dipper is. Then think about how not all of the sky is visible from your location on Earth. Then think about how small the main photo is in comparison with the Big Dipper again.

Yeah, theres quite a lot of galaxies out there. Theres even more matter out there that hasn't formed into a galaxy yet and just stays as enormous clouds of dust out there (search for the Starbirth in Serpens hubble picture). Point being, I still can't imagine that they've counted the number of electrons out there.

It's just an estimation
 

They just guessed at the number of electrons, although it was a very educated guess. I would asume it went something like this -

They first used some basic knowledge of the universe like "90% is helium" "3% is hydrogen"(i just made those numbers up as examples....). They then said "element X has X number of electrons" and applied that to the above. From that point they would estimate the volume of the universe, i would asume this owuld be done based of the original size of the singularity that was in the big bang(the size of this however can only be estimated), another way to estimate volume would be to measure the amount of energy the earth recieves from the stars and then to calculate their distance and find out the amount of energy each star is actualy giving off, this would onyl be a percentage though and would have to be applied to the rest of the estimated number of stars. From this point its just putting the estimated volume and the element percentages together and doing some serious number crunching. Keep in mind that this is only my asumption of how they did this, but I am fairly certain that they did something along these lines...hope i helped and didnt confuse u


Did you know that 4.5 pounds of sunlight hits the earth every 24 hours???

1 google = 10^100 = 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0.

A google is the largest rational number that has been officially named.

(As of 1994, when I learned this in 4th grade... don't ask me why I remember useless facts like that.)

**edit** oops i was outdated. apparently since 4th grade, a googleplex/googolplex has been made. rockin. gotta go talk to my teacher now

more usless facts on big numbers
 

getting even more off topic, here's some random tid bit that for some reason I remember ...

There was this mathemetician who thought that if a theoritical computer used all the energy in the world to power itself, then it would eventually run out of energy, and he calculated the maximum number it could count to. He then argued that theoretically there was no use for numbers larger than that. Seems kind of fishy to me, but someone might find it interesting :)

Stephen

PS. if I'm motivated I'll scrummage around my books and see if I can't get the whole story for you

we could always use more numbers to make file compression better.

was it here that people were exploring file compression using pi?

srawls...
 

here's the motivation - go find that for me please!!!
:D

i'll bake you some brownies or cookies, your choice, if you find it.

*sigh* i enjoy numbers too much for my own good.

The first experiments for splitting atoms probably involved a bunch a scientists with magnifying glasses and hammers.

hehe, speaking about splitting atoms with magnifying glasses and hammers, you guys ever see that movie Young Einstein? :D

no cookies nescesary, but thanks for the offer!

from The Kingdom of Infinite Number (I know, I know, I'm a geek :)):
"According to Brian Rotman of Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge, 10^96 is the largest possible number that could be reached by counting using a finite energy. The effort needed to count this high would exhaust all the energy in the universe, including the dark matter that cannot be detected. It is Rotman's notion that just as there is a non-Euclidean geometry in which no lines are parallel, such as the system in which a straight line is a great circle on a sphere, there is a non-Euclidean arithmetic in which counting does not extend to infinity."

And later on from the same book:
"According to Brian Rotman, 10^(10^98) is the largest "practical" number possible. If one designed a computer that was as large as the entire universe, a computer whose sole job is to store numbers from 1 to as high as one can go, this would be the largest storable number. Under his prescribed conditions, the universe-sized computer having stored from 1 to the number that is 1 less than 10^(10^98) would then require all the energy in the universe to store one more number."

*grumble* now you got me more interested in this too :)

Anyway, doing a few google searches, I found the bibliographic information on the paper where Brian Rotman first described this:

Brian Rotman (1997) The truth about counting. The Sciences November/December 1997 pp 34- 39


Stephen