BBC Focus Magazine

by **Colm** » Jul 24th, '10, 16:26

Was thinkning about this, a googol is a huge number - 10^100.

But is there a use for this number or is it just a mathematical thing? Considering the universe is only of the order of 10^17 seconds old, and (according to wikipedia),there are a minimum of 10^80 atoms in the universe, even if the actual amount is a million million times this, it's nowhere near a googol...

And if there is, will anyone ever use the number googolplex? (10^googol)

by **The Beige Avenger** » Jul 24th, '10, 19:56

photons... protons... neutrons... electrons... positrons... quarks... neutrinos... etc. etc.

the stuff that makes up the stuff that makes up the stuff.

by **Colm** » Jul 24th, '10, 20:05

I'm not sure how many photons there are at any one time, but remember adding numbers together doesn't really affect the exponential nature of the number of atoms. To bring the 10^80 up to a googol, each atom would have to contain about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (give or take a zero) things. So even adding in the electrons, neutrons, protons, even quarks (which I believe are thought to be the very smallest thing) you're still nowhere near it....

by **...** » Jul 24th, '10, 22:14

http://www.googolplexian.com/

by **The Beige Avenger** » Jul 25th, '10, 11:05

Colm wrote:I'm not sure how many photons there are at any one time, but remember adding numbers together doesn't really affect the exponential nature of the number of atoms. To bring the 10^80 up to a googol, each atom would have to contain about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (give or take a zero) things. So even adding in the electrons, neutrons, protons, even quarks (which I believe are thought to be the very smallest thing) you're still nowhere near it....

everything there, besides protons, need not be in an atom.

A neutron star for instance, contains no atoms.... only neutrons.

I don't know where this 10^80 number of atoms came from but seeing as how the astrophysicists et al. constantly need to revise their understanding of the universe, i'll wager that this number is waaaaaay off. Just IMO.

I'd also wager that a googolplex number of "interactions" have occurred... ok so they're not physical but it's an instance where this ridiculously large number could be used.

To think, once, we were happy with myriads.

by **M Paul Lloyd** » Jul 25th, '10, 15:40

Apparently the human brain is capable of more synaptic interactions than there are atoms in the known universe.

Square that and multiply by a googolplex?

Infinity still beckons. :mrgreen: