million, billion, trillion... then what?

[quantum_wave]

...
Why? I have never encountered a model of the natural universe which contains an infinite number of atoms. Have you?


Then it's not really a limit, is it? Don't try to get away with that statement on my board (Linguistics).

Sorry, I would never ...

As I said, mathematics deals with abstractions--concepts. Those abstractions or concepts map very well to the natural universe, which is why mathematics is so useful. One cow plus one cow always equals two cows. But not all of those abstractions map so closely to physical objects. Infinity is one that does not. That doesn't make it any less useful, especially to scientists.

Agreed. Infinity, the concept, is useful. And the natural universe could have always existed and could be infinite. If that were the case then it could contain an infinite number of atoms, IMHO.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

And the natural universe could have always existed and could be infinite. If that were the case then it could contain an infinite number of atoms, IMHO.

Regardless of how long the universe has existed, our observations consistently indicate that the dimensions of the portion of it that contains matter are finite.

As I have noted before, if you graph time on a log scale, that puts the Big Bang at minus infinity. There's no good reason that time can't have an Absolute Zero, like temperature.

 

[quantum_wave]

Regardless of how long the universe has existed, our observations consistently indicate that the dimensions of the portion of it that contains matter are finite.

I would agree if you had said that the portion of it that we can observe contains a finite amount of matter.

As I have noted before, if you graph time on a log scale, that puts the Big Bang at minus infinity. There's no good reason that time can't have an Absolute Zero, like temperature.

If I interpret that it sounds like you are saying that according to Big Bang Theory there was a beginning of time, and then I would agree.

I'm one of those lost souls who considers the possibilities and there are alternatives to BBT that could explain what we observe with fewer unintuitive hurdles. One alternative as I mentioned is that the universe has always existed, the Big Bang was not a single event but a characteristic of the landscape of the greater universe where big bangs could be common evernts, and that greater universe could contain an infinite amount of matter and energy. Thus there could be an infinite number of atoms in the greater universe.

But I'm not a professional so I am free to think what I want .

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I would agree if you had said that the portion of it that we can observe contains a finite amount of matter.

As I understand it, the limits of our ability to observe extend well beyond the outer boundary of the collection of matter that we refer to as "the universe," and there's literally nothing there. Of course there is energy there, since light from all of the sources in "the universe" is traveling in all directions and some of it is headed outward.

If I interpret that it sounds like you are saying that according to Big Bang Theory there was a beginning of time, and then I would agree.

That is what I'm hypothesizing.

I'm one of those lost souls who considers the possibilities and there are alternatives to BBT that could explain what we observe with fewer unintuitive hurdles.

The universe is indifferent to the limitations of our intuition. If it could speak it would be saying something like, "Get over it."

One alternative as I mentioned is that the universe has always existed, the Big Bang was not a single event but a characteristic of the landscape of the greater universe where big bangs could be common evernts, and that greater universe could contain an infinite amount of matter and energy. Thus there could be an infinite number of atoms in the greater universe.

I have said much the same thing. The biggest problem with the Big Bang model is that it hypothesizes an enormous local reversal of entropy: The sudden existence of organization where there was none.

However, the probability of reversal of entropy is NOT zero. Such an event is, merely, the result of a set of coincidences whose probability is so small as to be safely ignored in scientific work.

If spacetime is infinite, then any possible coincidence can occur. In fact it could occur more than once. Another Big Bang could have occurred a googol light-years from here, or a googol years in the past or future, in which case we'll probably never be able to observe the results.

I'm not a good enough mathematician to assess the probability of this set of coincidences occuring an infinite number of times. If that could actually happen, then the total mass of matter in the REAL universe (as opposed to the tiny portion we know about which includes a lot of empty space between our "little universe" and the next "little universe") might indeed be infinite.

But I'm not a professional so I am free to think what I want.

We're all here to learn. You don't have to be a "professional" career scientist. All you have to do is respect the scientific method. If your hypothesis is based on logic, is consistent with empirical observations of the natural universe, and does not contradict more than one canonical scientific theory, then we're obliged to treat it with respect until someone falsifies it.

 

[quantum_wave]

As I understand it, the limits of our ability to observe extend well beyond the outer boundary of the collection of matter that we refer to as "the universe," and there's literally nothing there. Of course there is energy there, since light from all of the sources in "the universe" is traveling in all directions and some of it is headed outward.

That is what I'm hypothesizing.

Check your understanding then. Hubble deep field pics show much younger galaxies in all directions which makes sense because the light that reaches us from them started about 13.7 billion years ago when the expanding arena lit up with young galaxies.

The understanding that you convey about being able to see beyond the youngest galaxies is news to me, especially in BBT. The entire universe is all there is and the space that the BBT universe occupies is all the space there is according to theory. Seeing beyond it isn't an option in BBT, there is no beyond. The radiation is captive of the curvature of spacetime and is contained within the expanding universe as I understand it.

According to BBT the cosmic background radiation is causally connetcted to the big bang and is observed at a near constant 2.7 degrees Kelvin in all dirctions as a remnant of the 100 billion or so degree initial event. But still, the entire CMBR is enclosed in the space that is also causally connected to the Big Bang. In BBT, there is no space, time or energy that did not come into existence at the instant that expansion began. Space inflated in the first 10^30 seconds according the Alan Guth's Inflationary Theory, but still the entire vastness of space began as a very tiny if not infinitely small spacetime that contained every bit of energy that now exists.

There is room for alternatives and discussing them is not against science, just against BBT.

The universe is indifferent to the limitations of our intuition.

Any yet you are saying that BBT is your basis for approaching the discussion from the perspective of there being a beginning of time. If you feel that I am employing intuition and you are applying science as followed by the scientific method then are you aware that Big Bang Theory does not include the Big Bang event itself, it starts with the instant after expansion began.

My intuition as you call it is a disdain for something coming from nothing. Isn't it just as intuitive to say that the entire known universe came from nothing as it is to say that the universe has always existed.

And what I said was that, "I consider the possibilities and there are alternatives to BBT that could explain what we observe with fewer unintuitive hurdles." I'm hopeful that you are not saying that better explanations must be rejected because the universe is indifferent to the limitations of our intuition? After all isn’t it your intuition that there are no possibilities or alternatives that better explain what we observe.

If it could speak it would be saying something like, "Get over it."

I doubt it. If it could speak it would say consider the possibilities and demand reason not intuition on either of our parts.

I have said much the same thing. The biggest problem with the Big Bang model is that it hypothesizes an enormous local reversal of entropy: The sudden existence of organization where there was none.

However, the probability of reversal of entropy is NOT zero. Such an event is, merely, the result of a set of coincidences whose probability is so small as to be safely ignored in scientific work.

I completely agree and though I have heard it mentioned as a possibility of quantum theory and uncertainty, I know of no cosmology based on it.

If spacetime is infinite, then any possible coincidence can occur. In fact it could occur more than once. Another Big Bang could have occurred a googol light-years from here, or a googol years in the past or future, in which case we'll probably never be able to observe the results.

I'm with you on that with stipulations. If that were the case then spacetime would not apply without changes to GR and to the consensus cosmology of BBT.

But to discuss a greater universe where other Big Bangs could have occurred at great distances from us and if expansion continues and accelerates, then the various other possible Big Bang expanding universes would inevitably intersect and overlap at a point in time in the future.

I'm not a good enough mathematician to assess the probability of this set of coincidences occurring an infinite number of times. If that could actually happen, then the total mass of matter in the REAL universe (as opposed to the tiny portion we know about which includes a lot of empty space between our "little universe" and the next "little universe") might indeed be infinite.

I am happy to get that much acknowledgement of such a possibility out of anyone.

We're all here to learn. You don't have to be a "professional" career scientist. All you have to do is respect the scientific method. If your hypothesis is based on logic, is consistent with empirical observations of the natural universe, and does not contradict more than one canonical scientific theory, then we're obliged to treat it with respect until someone falsifies it.

Agreed. And I contend that the alternative that I consider includes a cause for the Big Bang and pre-existing space and energy. Call it intuitive but I call it a logical alternative to the intuition that everything we observe came from nothing without a cause.

We have ventured off topic by talking about a possible universe where the number of atoms is infinite. My point was that if there are an infinite number of atoms then there is no number to represent them, only the symbol eight on its side as you mentioned earlier.

 

[Silvercast]

A googol is the large number 10^100, that is, the digit 1 followed by one hundred zeros.

I do beleive there is a number larger then googol. But googol CAN infact be written out, case and point.

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

However, googol ALSO (for you super techy nerdy guys who go to school for this) is know by ten duotrigintillion. So assumedly, there is no limit to how big a number can get, because as long as we have those nifty latin prefixes, we can keep going, Oh, btw.

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 One hundred duotrigintillion

 

[Pinwheel]

I do beleive there is a number larger then googol. But googol CAN infact be written out, case and point.

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Is that the size of the next bailout?

 

[Silvercast]

Is that the size of the next bailout?

More then likely.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I do believe there is a number larger than googol. But googol CAN in fact be written out, case in point.

It's called a googolplex, ten to the googolth power or 10^(10^100). A one with a googol zeroes, I promise that you can't write it out.

I don't believe the Latin names for powers of a thousand have been defined beyond 10^(3*99) so you wouldn't even be able to write it as a word. (In Europe, powers of a million so they can reach 10^(6*99), which is still woefully inadequate.)

Edit: Oh sorry. Centillion has been coined: 10^(3*100). That means we have uncentillion, 10^(3*101), etc. (And the corresponding series in the European system.) That will get us, with increasing polysyllabic awkwardness, up to 10^(3*999), whose name I will not even try to spell out here. The word milillion 10^(3*1000) is perfectly logical AND conforms to the Latin model, so it is used by some people. (Surely not the nearsighted or the sloppy typists.) However, it has not been officially adopted by the science community. I suppose that would get us to 10^(3*999,999), another name I will not attempt to write out. If anyone decides to coin millionillion 10^(3*1,000,000), please let me know right away.

That would, logically, give us googolplexillion 10^(3*(10^100)). Then we could have googolplexillionillion 10*(3*(10^(3*(10^100))). This could go on forever.

Hmmm. In the age of Google (not to be confused with "googol" although they are related), I wonder how long it will be before people start hitting this post and spreading those words throughout cyberspace. Too bad everything on SciForums is public record so we can't copyright this stuff.

 

[Giambattista]

million, billion, trillion... then, stop to eat!

 

[FreddieWeeks]

I think they're Latin, but thanks!

Ah...
it's Greek actually, I'm not literate in either language but I do know from my Greek holidays that Micro is small in Greek, while Mega is large.

Otherwise after my visit to the home bakery I'd be wandering back to my apartment with a BIG loaf of bread for my breakfast,

cheers, Freddie

 

[FreddieWeeks]

How to Count to 1 Billion

This is a good way to easily explain to your brain the difference in size between 1 Million, 1 Billion and 1 Trillion

1 Million seconds equals 12.5 days

1 Billion seconds equals 32 years

1 Trillion seconds equals 32,000 years

it's good isn't it?

cheers, Freddie

 

[Pete]

Hi Freddie, and welcome to SciForums!

I don't know what it is about this thread, but it's been resurrected no less than thirteen times since it first began nearly eleven years ago. Few other threads even come close.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

it's Greek actually, I'm not literate in either language but I do know from my Greek holidays that Micro is small in Greek, while Mega is large.

• Kilo- via French from Greek chilioi, thousand.
• Mega- from Greek megas, large or powerful.
• Giga- from Greek gigas, giant.
• Tera- from Greek teras, monster.
• Peta-, origin unknown.
• Exa- probably from Greek exo, outside.
• Zepto-, surely an alteration of zetta-, see below.
• Yocto-, surely an alteration of yotta-, see below.

Going the other way:

• Milli- from Latin mille, thousand.
• Micro- from Greek mikros, small.
• Nano- from Greek nanos, dwarf.
• Pico- from Spanish pico, bit.
• Femto- from Danish/Norwegian femten, fifteen (as in ten to the minus fifteenth).
• Atto- from Danish/Norwegian aten, eighteen.
• Zetta-, possibly from the Greek letter zeta, but reason unknown.
• Yotta- possibly from the Greek letter iota, but reason unknown.

 

[Enmos]

What we call the "American" system (billion = million x 1000) is now in use in North America, Holland, and France.

But the rest of the European languages (save French and Dutch) used milliarde or its gramatically compatible equivalent.

This is not true. Here in the Netherlands we do use "milliard", "billiard", etc.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_grote_getallen


It's:

10^3 thousand (duizend)
10^6 million (miljoen)
10^9 milliard (miljard)
10^12 billion (biljoen)
10^15 billiard (biljard)
10^18 trillion (triljoen)
10^21 trilliard (triljard)
etc.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

This is not true. Here in the Netherlands we do use "milliard", "billiard", etc.

Thanks for the clarification. I got that info from the English Wikipedia page many years ago.

 

[Enmos]

Thanks for the clarification. I got that info from the English Wikipedia page many years ago.

No problem

 

[Leland]

im a duodecillion

 

[skylane]

''irregardless''... I love that group of letters

Hmm actually I mistated it, I just checked and it is ((10)^10)^100 not (10^100)^(10^100). But irregardless it is supposed to be larger than the number of atoms in the universe and thus it is unwritable in long form base ten.

 

[Pete]

Fourteen!