 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK, so let's have some random facts! According to Wolfram|Alpha, we have
Age of the universe = 4.32 x 10^17 seconds
Size of the (observable) universe = 8.8 x 10^26 meters
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 can't actually find anything as big as 10^100.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Since the universe is 75% H, 23% He and only 1% O
You forget the hypothesized dark matter.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Since the universe is 75% H, 23% He and only 1% O
>
> You forget the hypothesized dark matter.
Ah yes. If we could just figure out what the hell this stuff is made of,
I could factor it into the calculations...
(Personally, I'm still curious to know how they know the universe
contains 10^80 atoms and not, say, 10^81 or 10^181...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4a254c6e@news.povray.org...
> I can't actually find anything as big as 10^100.
If that's your goal, easy: Volume of universe ~ 10^185 lp^3 where lp is
Planck length.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:46:11 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (Personally, I'm still curious to know how they know the universe
> contains 10^80 atoms and not, say, 10^81 or 10^181...)
Averages based on known densities and an estimated volume of the
universe, probably.
Either that or they just made up an answer and figured the pool of people
who could refute their answer is very small.
You know that 78.67% of all statistics are made up, right?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> You know that 78.67% of all statistics are made up, right?
I heard it was 82.1%...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> You know that 78.67% of all statistics are made up, right?
One in five dentists agree.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
