 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You know when somebody says that something is "astronomically big"?
...well, it turns out astronomers use some pretty freakin' big numbers!! o_O
Anyway, I have collected the following series of numbers from Wolfram Alpha:
6.5 10^9 Number of people currently alive.
1.1 10^11 Number of people who have ever lived.
3 10^11 Number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy.
2 10^13 Number of red blood cells in an adult human.
10^21 Number of grains of sand on Earth (currently).
6.0 10^23 Number of atoms in 12 g of Carbon-12.
5.2 10^49 Number of possible chess positions.
8.1 10^53 Number of elements in The Monster Group.
10^80 Number of atoms in the observable universe.
I note there's quite a few gaps in there, so I turned to Wikipedia to
try to fill them. Check these out:
4.33 10^19 Number of valid combinations for a Rubik's Cube.
8 10^10 Number of galaxies in the universe.
5 10^22 Number of stars in the universe.
4 10^11 Number of stars in a "typical" galaxy.
10^57 Number of H atoms in a "typical" star.
4 10^68 Number of H atoms in a "typical" galaxy.
2 10^30 Kg Mass of a "typical" star.
4 10^41 Kg Mass of a "typical" galaxy.
3 10^52 Kg Mass of the observable universe (exluding Dark Matter).
So, there's a few numbers there.
With suitable queries, you can also get Wolfram Alpha to spit out the
following numbers:
8.8 10^26 m Diammeter of the observable universe.
4.32 10^17 s Age of the universe.
3 10^22 m^3 Volume of the observable universe.
These are harder to get though.
So far, I have yet to find anything outside mathematics that even
remotely approaches a googol.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 3 10^22 m^3 Volume of the observable universe.
Erm, no.
3 * 10^80 m^3
(Jesus, I wonder what else I got wrong?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think I can add another number to my list: How many pharmacutical
analysts does it take to do a 9 year old girl's school homework? :-P
(Seriously, these two ladies are confusing the stud out of themselves
with these long division problems...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> So far, I have yet to find anything outside mathematics that even
> remotely approaches a googol.
256^307200 Number of unique 8-bit 640x480 images.
Assuming flat greyscale, 0=black, 255=white, how many are recognisable
as 'something'? How many of those are similar apart from 'noise',
rotation, and other minor distortion? How many of those are legible
text? ...that are of a monkey at a typewriter that visibly contains a
phrase from Shakespeare? etc
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:4a30e22e@news.povray.org...
> 5 10^22 Number of stars in the universe.
5 10^30 Number of bacteria on the planet Earth
Assuming bacteria is not unique to this planet how many bacteria inhabit the
known universe?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-6-2009 12:53, Invisible wrote:
> You know when somebody says that something is "astronomically big"?
>
> ...well, it turns out astronomers use some pretty freakin' big numbers!!
> o_O
>
>
>
> Anyway, I have collected the following series of numbers from Wolfram
> Alpha:
>
> 1.1 10^11 Number of people who have ever lived.
I don't believe that number. I think if you add all people since the
last ice age you get someting like 10-20 e9. This number also seems to
assume that there have been on average .5-1 million people on this earth
for the past 2 million years or so (half that if you think mankind is 4
million years old). I'd like to see evidence for that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> 6.0 10^23 Number of atoms in 12 g of Carbon-12.
You realize why this number is important, right? :-)
> 8.1 10^53 Number of elements in The Monster Group.
I haven't any idea what this is. :-)
<google> Oh, see, this is the sort of thing I'd have to spend a day chasing
references around to even figure out what this means.
> 4 10^68 Number of H atoms in a "typical" galaxy.
> 4 10^41 Kg Mass of a "typical" galaxy.
68-23=45 45-3=42. One power of ten missing.
> 3 10^52 Kg Mass of the observable universe (exluding Dark Matter).
I wonder if they're just talking about rest mass or what.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 6.0 10^23 Number of atoms in 12 g of Carbon-12.
>
> You realize why this number is important, right? :-)
What, Avagadro's number? (Or however the hell you spell it...)
>> 8.1 10^53 Number of elements in The Monster Group.
>
> I haven't any idea what this is. :-)
>
> <google> Oh, see, this is the sort of thing I'd have to spend a day
> chasing references around to even figure out what this means.
Apparently, there's a class of groups which can be completely classified
into something like 6 different kinds, except for a small handful of
unique groups that don't fit this classification. The "monster group" is
the largest such - and it's frickin' HUGE!
Wait - you know what a group is, right?
>> 4 10^68 Number of H atoms in a "typical" galaxy.
>
>> 4 10^41 Kg Mass of a "typical" galaxy.
>
> 68-23=45 45-3=42. One power of ten missing.
I fail.
>> 3 10^52 Kg Mass of the observable universe (exluding Dark Matter).
>
> I wonder if they're just talking about rest mass or what.
I'm fairly sure it's rest mass, yes. Basically, number of atoms times
mass of an atom.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> 6.0 10^23 Number of atoms in 12 g of Carbon-12.
>>
>> You realize why this number is important, right? :-)
>
> What, Avagadro's number? (Or however the hell you spell it...)
Yes. You know why anyone cares about Avagadro's number? I.e., what the basic
thing it's measuring is?
> Wait - you know what a group is, right?
Vaguely. I'd have to look up the definition again to be sure I'm not
confusing it with a ring or field or something. My higher-level alegbra is
way old. :-)
>>> 4 10^68 Number of H atoms in a "typical" galaxy.
>>
>>> 4 10^41 Kg Mass of a "typical" galaxy.
>>
>> 68-23=45 45-3=42. One power of ten missing.
>
> I fail.
No, it just means that either measurements are very sloppy, that "typical"
means something different in those sentences, or there's 10x times as much
mass in a galaxy as their is mass in the H atoms of the galaxy. Which isn't
completely impossible - see "giant black holes", "dark matter",
"relativity", etc.
> I'm fairly sure it's rest mass, yes. Basically, number of atoms times
> mass of an atom.
Yeah. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> 6.0 10^23 Number of atoms in 12 g of Carbon-12.
>>>
>>> You realize why this number is important, right? :-)
>>
>> What, Avagadro's number? (Or however the hell you spell it...)
>
> Yes. You know why anyone cares about Avagadro's number? I.e., what the
> basic thing it's measuring is?
Number of atoms? (Or sometimes ions, or subatomic particles of some
kind. Make sure you specify; it kinda makes a difference.)
>> Wait - you know what a group is, right?
>
> Vaguely. I'd have to look up the definition again to be sure I'm not
> confusing it with a ring or field or something. My higher-level alegbra
> is way old. :-)
There's a whole zoo of algebraic systems (I think that's the term) -
monoids, semigroups, groupoids, groups, rings, fields, etc. They're all
essentially the same "thing", just with differing numbers of properties
guaranteed.
Personally, I only bother with fields and groups. A group is closed,
associative, and possesses a unique identity element and an inverse
element for every member. An Abelien group or commutative group is...
self-explanatory, actually?
>>> 68-23=45 45-3=42. One power of ten missing.
>>
>> I fail.
>
> No, it just means that either measurements are very sloppy, that
> "typical" means something different in those sentences, or there's 10x
> times as much mass in a galaxy as their is mass in the H atoms of the
> galaxy. Which isn't completely impossible - see "giant black holes",
> "dark matter", "relativity", etc.
More likely I copied the number out wrong...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
