POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Big numbers Server Time
5 Sep 2024 23:15:25 EDT (-0400)
  Big numbers (Message 9 to 18 of 18)  
<<< Previous 8 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Big numbers
Date: 3 Jun 2009 00:04:21
Message: <4a25f645$1@news.povray.org>
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:34:43 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> You know that 78.67% of all statistics are made up, right?
> 
> One in five dentists agree.

62.3% of the time, in any event. :-)

Jim


Post a reply to this message

From: scott
Subject: Re: Big numbers
Date: 3 Jun 2009 05:19:29
Message: <4a264021$1@news.povray.org>
>   Content of the universe = 10^80 atoms
>
> (I can't seem to find an estimate for the number of subatomic particles in 
> the universe. Since the universe is 75% H, 23% He and only 1% O, I guess 
> there isn't going to be a huge difference - unless you count non-matter 
> particles like photons, etc.)

I wonder how many photons typically exist?  I mean is it 10^10, 10^50, 
10^100 or what?  You could probably do some estimate with output power from 
stars etc.


Post a reply to this message

From: somebody
Subject: Re: Big numbers
Date: 3 Jun 2009 06:14:34
Message: <4a264d0a$1@news.povray.org>
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
news:4a264021$1@news.povray.org...
> >   Content of the universe = 10^80 atoms

> > (I can't seem to find an estimate for the number of subatomic particles
in
> > the universe. Since the universe is 75% H, 23% He and only 1% O, I guess
> > there isn't going to be a huge difference - unless you count non-matter
> > particles like photons, etc.)

> I wonder how many photons typically exist?  I mean is it 10^10, 10^50,
> 10^100 or what?  You could probably do some estimate with output power
from
> stars etc.

Googling photon to proton (or baryon, in general) ratio yields about 10^9.


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Big numbers
Date: 3 Jun 2009 11:28:44
Message: <4a2696ac$1@news.povray.org>
scott wrote:
> I wonder how many photons typically exist? 

Mu.

That is the answer that unasks the question.

The question doesn't make sense to ask. If you didn't look at the photon, it 
might or might not have existed. Then there are virtual photons, which come 
and go, which by definition you cannot look at.

There's probably some statistical thing that'll tell you some expected 
numbers, but it's not really the same question.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!


Post a reply to this message

From: Invisible
Subject: Re: Big numbers
Date: 3 Jun 2009 11:30:52
Message: <4a26972c@news.povray.org>
Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> I wonder how many photons typically exist? 
> 
> Mu.
> 
> That is the answer that unasks the question.
> 
> The question doesn't make sense to ask. If you didn't look at the 
> photon, it might or might not have existed. Then there are virtual 
> photons, which come and go, which by definition you cannot look at.
> 
> There's probably some statistical thing that'll tell you some expected 
> numbers, but it's not really the same question.

How about gravitons then? :-D


Post a reply to this message

From: nemesis
Subject: Re: Big numbers
Date: 3 Jun 2009 14:46:59
Message: <4a26c523@news.povray.org>
Jim Henderson escreveu:
> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:56:53 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> You know that 78.67% of all statistics are made up, right?
>> I heard it was 82.1%...
> 
> No, new research has shown that (statistically speaking) fewer statistics 
> are made up than was previously thought. :-)

what a relief! :)

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9


Post a reply to this message

From: scott
Subject: Re: Big numbers
Date: 4 Jun 2009 03:15:55
Message: <4a2774ab$1@news.povray.org>
> The question doesn't make sense to ask. If you didn't look at the photon, 
> it might or might not have existed.

You can estimate the number of photons coming off a star though, can't you? 
Just multiply that figure by the estimated number of stars in the entire 
universe and that's a start for the lower bound.

> There's probably some statistical thing that'll tell you some expected 
> numbers, but it's not really the same question.

Well that's why I said "typically" rather than asking for an exact number 
:-)


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Big numbers
Date: 4 Jun 2009 12:34:54
Message: <4a27f7ae$1@news.povray.org>
scott wrote:
>> The question doesn't make sense to ask. If you didn't look at the 
>> photon, it might or might not have existed.
> 
> You can estimate the number of photons coming off a star though, can't 
> you? Just multiply that figure by the estimated number of stars in the 
> entire universe and that's a start for the lower bound.

That would be a lower bound on the non-virtual photons, yes.  Of course, 
there are heptazeptazillions of photons deep inside each star being created 
and destroyed. It takes about a million years for a photon created in the 
sun to actually get to the surface. Count those?

>> There's probably some statistical thing that'll tell you some expected 
>> numbers, but it's not really the same question.
> 
> Well that's why I said "typically" rather than asking for an exact 
> number :-)

I'm not sure that "typically" means what I'm talking about. I'm talking 
about photons that by definition don't exist long enough to be measured. Do 
you want to count them? There are, by the math, potentially infinite numbers 
of them, which is what makes doing the actual math of QED difficult.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!


Post a reply to this message

From: scott
Subject: Re: Big numbers
Date: 5 Jun 2009 02:31:15
Message: <4a28bbb3$1@news.povray.org>
> That would be a lower bound on the non-virtual photons, yes.  Of course, 
> there are heptazeptazillions of photons deep inside each star being 
> created and destroyed. It takes about a million years for a photon created 
> in the sun to actually get to the surface. Count those?

Well if we know the rate of photons coming off the star, and each one has 
lived for a million years previously, then you could make some estimate.


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Big numbers
Date: 5 Jun 2009 12:00:47
Message: <4a29412f$1@news.povray.org>
scott wrote:
>> That would be a lower bound on the non-virtual photons, yes.  Of 
>> course, there are heptazeptazillions of photons deep inside each star 
>> being created and destroyed. It takes about a million years for a 
>> photon created in the sun to actually get to the surface. Count those?
> 
> Well if we know the rate of photons coming off the star, and each one 
> has lived for a million years previously, then you could make some 
> estimate.

Only if you knew how much light was going to be coming out in a million 
years, and only if you knew the ratio of photons generated to photons 
escaping. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 8 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.