- 30 Apr '07 02:29

Can anyone work the math for actual scales?*Originally posted by joe shmo***The way I see it If you compared youself to a hillside you would be a small ant compared to a buick, then comparing yourself to a picture of the earth that fits on your computer screen, you are almost already non- existent and we havent even left the planet** - 30 Apr '07 02:39

If you gave a human the general shape of a cylinder and worked out the surface area compared it to a a sphere the size of the Earth's suface area, then compared that to the suface area of or galaxy in its eliptical form then that seems as far as you could go, as we do not know the shape of our universe. I think your going to need a super-computer to even work out the first ratio!*Originally posted by joe shmo***Can anyone work the math for actual scales?** - 30 Apr '07 16:06

I think he is asking where an average human size fits in the order from quantum stuff to galaxy clusters? If so, we are supposedly pretty much in the middle, roughly halfway between the quantum foam and the clusters.*Originally posted by DeepThought***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Perspective_Vortex**

Edit: I wanted Total Perspective Vortex as my Location in the Forum settings, but unfortunately it has too many letters. - 10 May '07 12:21

really! thats kind of disapointing. I can fit that number on a few lines of tablet paper., I know that is a humungus amount, but the scale of it all is so far out of reach to fathom as a whole, that it doesn't any inspire any profound thought,...... and thats whats disapointing.*Originally posted by XZantoth***If it helps, there are somewhere around 10^86 atoms in the universe. Don't know how many are in a human. I got that number from one of my professors, i could be off a bit... 80 something.** - 10 May '07 12:30

There's got to be more than that. Are you sure your professor didn''t mean theres 10^86 atoms on earth? That would seem more likely but still sounds like its way too small. Looking at all the stuff in my room right now I'd estimate that theres at least 10^10 atoms here if not much more.*Originally posted by XZantoth***If it helps, there are somewhere around 10^86 atoms in the universe. Don't know how many are in a human. I got that number from one of my professors, i could be off a bit... 80 something.** - 11 May '07 05:18

Yes, many times that, a mole (6*10^23 atoms) of water only takes up about a gallon or so, but to get that the rest of that 86 is an incredible amount.*Originally posted by Nicky4815***Looking at all the stuff in my room right now I'd estimate that theres at least 10^10 atoms here if not much more.**

My professor told us the 86 number in a software algorithms class. If an algorithm takes more calculations than the number of atoms in the universe, there's not much chance it will ever finish. And this can happen very easily. I always thought that was interesting. - 12 May '07 01:10 / 1 edit

Ok using that How many gallons of water do you think there is on earth? If 1 gallon is 6*10^23 then 10 gallons is 6*10^24. To make 10^86 atoms there would have the be 10^63 gallons which may be possible taking into account that most of the planet is water and even if there isn't that much it's still not including the land, or the water on Neptune. When you think about it 10^86 isn't much, for all we know there could be 10^100 planets in the universe.*Originally posted by XZantoth***Yes, many times that, a mole (6*10^23 atoms) of water only takes up about a gallon or so, but to get that the rest of that 86 is an incredible amount.**

I think the number of atoms in the universe is probably around infinity^2. And before people complain (infinity can't be squared), infinity is a number, it is a 1 with a googleplex 0's after it - 12 May '07 07:36

That's only counting matter. What about all the empty space? That's what most of the universe is anyway, right? So we can approximate the amount of matter as 10^86*Originally posted by XZantoth***If it helps, there are somewhere around 10^86 atoms in the universe. Don't know how many are in a human. I got that number from one of my professors, i could be off a bit... 80 something.***atoms*, but that doesn't even give a*volume*(I'm assuming we're scaling the volume). After all, different elements have different atomic radii. So actually, that number doesn't help.