On the (Small) Number of Atoms in the Universe

#1

Post by lispython » Thu, Apr 28, 2016, 2:04 PM UTC

On the (Small) Number of Atoms in the Universe
norvig.com

Re: On the (Small) Number of Atoms in the Universe

#2

Post by ObeyTheGuts » Thu, Apr 28, 2016, 2:38 PM UTC

but atoms of universe are infinite...guy is so wrong

Re: On the (Small) Number of Atoms in the Universe

#3

Post by cynthiapucheanu » Thu, Apr 28, 2016, 2:39 PM UTC

The parallel you drew between such a day to day object and such an important matter is interesting. Do you know of another comparison like this?

Re: On the (Small) Number of Atoms in the Universe

#4

Post by gyakovlev » Thu, Apr 28, 2016, 2:42 PM UTC

And it's even smaller if compared to Graham's number. Every time I try to imagine that one it feels like I'm going to mental asylum.

Re: On the (Small) Number of Atoms in the Universe

#5

Post by j1vms » Thu, Apr 28, 2016, 2:42 PM UTC

Here's another great one - and ballpark calculations point to it being likely true:

"..the number of atoms in a grapefruit is about equal to the number of blueberries you would need to fill up the entire sphere of planet Earth." [https://capitolhillscience8.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/just-ho...]

Edit: well, except that the Earth is shaped more like an oblate spheroid [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth]

Re: On the (Small) Number of Atoms in the Universe

#6

Post by jhallenworld » Thu, Apr 28, 2016, 2:44 PM UTC

I think he's comparing apples with oranges: maybe 10^80 is not so big, but the number of configurations of the 10^80 atoms is huge.

Re: On the (Small) Number of Atoms in the Universe

#7

Post by jameshart » Thu, Apr 28, 2016, 2:51 PM UTC

jhallenworld wrote: post #6

I think he's comparing apples with oranges: maybe 10^80 is not so big, but the number of configurations of the 10^80 atoms is huge.

I think that was his point.

Re: On the (Small) Number of Atoms in the Universe

#8

Post by caipre » Thu, Apr 28, 2016, 2:55 PM UTC

jhallenworld wrote: post #6

I think he's comparing apples with oranges: maybe 10^80 is not so big, but the number of configurations of the 10^80 atoms is huge.

That is entirely the point of the article.

Re: On the (Small) Number of Atoms in the Universe

#9

Post by nsxwolf » Thu, Apr 28, 2016, 2:55 PM UTC

j1vms wrote: post #5

Here's another great one - and ballpark calculations point to it being likely true: "..the number of atoms in a grapefruit is about equal to the number of blueberries you would need to fill up the entire sphere of planet Earth." [ https://capitolhillscience8.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/just-ho... ] Edit: well, except that the Earth is shaped more like an oblate spheroid [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Eart…

That actually makes the Earth seem small to me. I wouldn't have blinked if someone had told me the blueberries would fill up a sphere the size of the Solar System. Just shows how hard it is to visualize these numbers.

Re: On the (Small) Number of Atoms in the Universe

#10

Post by overcast » Thu, Apr 28, 2016, 2:58 PM UTC

j1vms wrote: post #5

Here's another great one - and ballpark calculations point to it being likely true: "..the number of atoms in a grapefruit is about equal to the number of blueberries you would need to fill up the entire sphere of planet Earth." [ https://capitolhillscience8.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/just-ho... ] Edit: well, except that the Earth is shaped more like an oblate spheroid [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Eart…

Actually the Earth is nearly perfect, far more perfect than most any sphere with interact with in day to day life. The equatorial bulge is 20 miles or so, which is approximately .33% Technically an oblate spheroid, but barely.