Big Ol' Sun

[King Phenomenon]

I think that there's a googolplex sun's out there in the unobservable universe that are a googolplex times the size of IC 1101's diameter and a googolplex light years away from eachother. Who's with me?

 

[ChristineM]

The speed of light dictates that the farthest object that can be seen from earth is around 13.8 billion light years away. In that volume are an estimated one billion, trillion stars.

Assuming the current cosmological model is correct the physical universe is around 93 billion light years in diameter.

So assume a similar density of stars for both observable and unobservable universe you have a lot of stars

It is quite common for stars to form 100 or 150 times the mass of our own sun.

Theory suggests that stars bigger than 150 solar masses cannot form?

The more massive stars tend to burn their fuel faster though and are therefore relitively short lived and and consequently hard to find

BTW 1c 1101 is a galaxy, not a sun

 

[Polymath257]

A googolplex is a BIG number. For that matter, a googol is a big number.

The number of *fundamental particles* (quarks, gluons, electrons, photons, etc) in the observable universe is only about 10^80. That isn't even the *exponent* in a googolplex.

If you imagine asking the probability that *every* fundamental particle just happens to be in the cubic nanometer of the observable universe it is in right now, the probability that it was in that configuration by chance is *far* more than one in a googolplex.

People like to throw around large numbers without really grasping how large they are.

 

[Polymath257]

Assuming the current cosmological model is correct the physical universe is around 93 billion light years in diameter.

That's not perfectly true. if the current model is correct, the farthest galaxies we see right now are *currently* about 47 billion light years away. We see them as they were around 11-13 billion years ago and it has taken light this long to get to us and those galaxies have been separating from us for those billions of years.

So, the *current* diameter of the *observable* universe is about 93 billion light years. But if our current model is correct, that is a very small part of the whole.

Roughly, you can divide the current diameter by the curvature (if positive) to get the *actual* 'diameter'. Since the curvature is very small (small enough that we can't distinguish it from 0), that means a very large diameter for the universe.

 

[ChristineM]

A googlelex is a BIG number. For that matter, a google is a big number.

The number of *fundamental particles* (quarks, gluons, electrons, photons, etc) in the observable universe is only about 10^80. That isn't even the *exponent* in a googleplex.

If you imagine asking the probability that *every* fundamental particle just happens to be in the cubic nanometer of the observable universe it is in right now, the probability that it was in that configuration by chance is *far* more than one in a googleplex.

People like to throw around large numbers without really grasping how large they are.

I always thought googolplex was just a term for a pretty damned big number, so big that you can't be bothered writing it down. Having read your post and done a google it seems more defined than that

Googolplex - Wikipedia.

 

[ChristineM]

That's not perfectly true. if the current model is correct, the farthest galaxies we see right now are *currently* about 47 billion light years away. We see them as they were around 11-13 billion years ago and it has taken light this long to get to us and those galaxies have been separating from us for those billions of years.

So, the *current* diameter of the *observable* universe is about 93 billion light years. But if our current model is correct, that is a very small part of the whole.

Roughly, you can divide the current diameter by the curvature (if positive) to get the *actual* 'diameter'. Since the curvature is very small (small enough that we can't distinguish it from 0), that means a very large diameter for the universe.

Ta.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

The speed of light dictates that the farthest object that can be seen from earth is around 13.8 billion light years away. In that volume are an estimated one billion, trillion stars.

Assuming the current cosmological model is correct the physical universe is around 93 billion light years in diameter.

So assume a similar density of stars for both observable and unobservable universe you have a lot of stars

It is quite common for stars to form 100 or 150 times the mass of our own sun.

Theory suggests that stars bigger than 150 solar masses cannot form?

The more massive stars tend to burn their fuel faster though and are therefore relitively short lived and and consequently hard to find

BTW 1c 1101 is a galaxy, not a sun

That's not perfectly true. if the current model is correct, the farthest galaxies we see right now are *currently* about 47 billion light years away. We see them as they were around 11-13 billion years ago and it has taken light this long to get to us and those galaxies have been separating from us for those billions of years.

So, the *current* diameter of the *observable* universe is about 93 billion light years. But if our current model is correct, that is a very small part of the whole.

Roughly, you can divide the current diameter by the curvature (if positive) to get the *actual* 'diameter'. Since the curvature is very small (small enough that we can't distinguish it from 0), that means a very large diameter for the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

I always thought googolplex was just a term for a pretty damned big number, so big that you can't be bothered writing it down. Having read your post and done a google it seems more defined than that

Googolplex - Wikipedia.

Yes, a googol is 10^100 and a googolplex is 10^googol, or 10^10^100. These are massive numbers compared to anything physical.

If you want to ponder a *truly* BIG number, look up Graham's number, Graham's number - Wikipedia

Or, if you want numbers that put even Graham's number to shame, there is an amusing site: Googology Wiki

I'd recommend starting at the 'New to Big Numbers' section.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Well worth the 7 minutes to watch. I give it two thumbs up. “I would give it a third, if I had but another thumb.”

 

[Heyo]

A googolplex is a BIG number. For that matter, a googol is a big number.

The number of *fundamental particles* (quarks, gluons, electrons, photons, etc) in the observable universe is only about 10^80. That isn't even the *exponent* in a googolplex.

If you imagine asking the probability that *every* fundamental particle just happens to be in the cubic nanometer of the observable universe it is in right now, the probability that it was in that configuration by chance is *far* more than one in a googolplex.

People like to throw around large numbers without really grasping how large they are.

Since you already corrected @ChristineM on her numbers, let me correct you on yours.
"At this level, it is estimated that the there are between 10^78 to 10^82 atoms in the known, observable universe. In layman’s terms, that works out to between ten quadrillion vigintillion and one-hundred thousand quadrillion vigintillion atoms." - How Many Atoms Are There in the Universe? - Universe Today
Atoms, not fundamental particles.

 

[ChristineM]

Well worth the 7 minutes to watch. I give it two thumbs up. “I would give it a third, if I had but another thumb.”

I would have given you an (i) for that, nice video. But i thought the three thumbs up to be more deserving

 

[Polymath257]

Since you already corrected @ChristineM on her numbers, let me correct you on yours.
"At this level, it is estimated that the there are between 10^78 to 10^82 atoms in the known, observable universe. In layman’s terms, that works out to between ten quadrillion vigintillion and one-hundred thousand quadrillion vigintillion atoms." - How Many Atoms Are There in the Universe? - Universe Today
Atoms, not fundamental particles.

The usual figure for atoms is about 10^79. The vast majority of those atoms are hydrogen, with 3 quarks (in the proton) and 1 electron. Next up is helium, which has 12 quarks (2 protons and 2 neutrons) and 2 electrons.

On average, this means that a typical atom has fewer than 10 fundamental particles in it (although some, like uranium can have almost a thousand).

So, the estimate of 10^80 fundamental particles is about correct. If pressed, I could give you 10^82.

 

[King Phenomenon]

The speed of light dictates that the farthest object that can be seen from earth is around 13.8 billion light years away. In that volume are an estimated one billion, trillion stars.

Assuming the current cosmological model is correct the physical universe is around 93 billion light years in diameter.

So assume a similar density of stars for both observable and unobservable universe you have a lot of stars

It is quite common for stars to form 100 or 150 times the mass of our own sun.

Theory suggests that stars bigger than 150 solar masses cannot form?

The more massive stars tend to burn their fuel faster though and are therefore relitively short lived and and consequently hard to find

BTW 1c 1101 is a galaxy, not a sun

Yeah I picked IC 1101 because it was big

 

[King Phenomenon]

That's not perfectly true. if the current model is correct, the farthest galaxies we see right now are *currently* about 47 billion light years away. We see them as they were around 11-13 billion years ago and it has taken light this long to get to us and those galaxies have been separating from us for those billions of years.

So, the *current* diameter of the *observable* universe is about 93 billion light years. But if our current model is correct, that is a very small part of the whole.

Roughly, you can divide the current diameter by the curvature (if positive) to get the *actual* 'diameter'. Since the curvature is very small (small enough that we can't distinguish it from 0), that means a very large diameter for the universe.

So what you're saying is that the diameter of the universe could be a googolplex light years in diameter?

 

[King Phenomenon]

Yes, a googol is 10^100 and a googolplex is 10^googol, or 10^10^100. These are massive numbers compared to anything physical.

If you want to ponder a *truly* BIG number, look up Graham's number, Graham's number - Wikipedia

Or, if you want numbers that put even Graham's number to shame, there is an amusing site: Googology Wiki

I'd recommend starting at the 'New to Big Numbers' section.

Ill take a SSCG (3) thanx

 

[King Phenomenon]

A googolplex is a BIG number. For that matter, a googol is a big number.

The number of *fundamental particles* (quarks, gluons, electrons, photons, etc) in the observable universe is only about 10^80. That isn't even the *exponent* in a googolplex.

If you imagine asking the probability that *every* fundamental particle just happens to be in the cubic nanometer of the observable universe it is in right now, the probability that it was in that configuration by chance is *far* more than one in a googolplex.

People like to throw around large numbers without really grasping how large they are.

I read your third paragraph a million times and I still don't understand it. I think I might understand it but could you explain it a little bit better please

 

[Heyo]

The usual figure for atoms is about 10^79. The vast majority of those atoms are hydrogen, with 3 quarks (in the proton) and 1 electron. Next up is helium, which has 12 quarks (2 protons and 2 neutrons) and 2 electrons.

On average, this means that a typical atom has fewer than 10 fundamental particles in it (although some, like uranium can have almost a thousand).

So, the estimate of 10^80 fundamental particles is about correct. If pressed, I could give you 10^82.

"In terms of number of particles, some estimates imply that nearly all the matter, excluding dark matter, occurs in neutrinos, which constitute the majority of the roughly 10^86 elementary particles of matter that exist in the visible universe.[13] Other estimates imply that roughly 10^97 elementary particles exist in the visible universe (not including dark matter), mostly photons and other massless force carriers.[13]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

 

[King Phenomenon]

A googolplex is a BIG number. For that matter, a googol is a big number.

The number of *fundamental particles* (quarks, gluons, electrons, photons, etc) in the observable universe is only about 10^80. That isn't even the *exponent* in a googolplex.

If you imagine asking the probability that *every* fundamental particle just happens to be in the cubic nanometer of the observable universe it is in right now, the probability that it was in that configuration by chance is *far* more than one in a googolplex.

People like to throw around large numbers without really grasping how large they are.

Oh I get paragraph 3 now. Well it's still possible that every fundamental particle was in that configuration by chance in a universe with a diameter of a googolplex light years is it not?

 

[ChristineM]

Yeah I picked IC 1101 because it was big

Galaxies usually are