Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pgerassi who wrote (81293)	6/2/2002 5:50:52 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 275872

Re: number of atoms in the observable universe is over 3.610^79* I received this message from an SI lurker - who came within an order of magnitude of your estimate: Hi, I'm a lurker on the mod AMD SI Thread. Recently there has been a (slightly OT) discussion about the number of atoms in our universe. I don't know who brought this issue up but the assumption of somewhat around 10^43 is simply wrong. The correct number is somewhere near 10^78. You can calculate it with the use of the Avogadro-constant, it says that one gram of atomic hydrogen consists of 6,022·10^23 atoms. Our own sun has a weight of 2,0·10^30 kg and consists mainly of atomic hydrogen, so we can calculate the number of atoms for our sun, its 2,0·10^30 kg/0.0001kg* 6,022·10^23 = 1.210^57 Atoms. Our galaxy (its a very average galaxy) has a mass of 2.210^11 sun masses which yields to 2.610^68 Atoms. The whole universe has an estimate of 10 billion galaxies or 10^102.610^68=2.610^78 atoms. Michael PS - what about dark matter, guys? PPS - this reminds me of an exercise I used to enjoy showing people who were unconcerned with global warming. Instead of worrying about CO2 increasing, I calculated how long it would take to tie up the free O2 in the atmosphere if present consumption trends continue. It works out to about 400 years. PPPS - I guess this discussion should really be on the old thread (too OT). It did come up as a result of considering whether or not 128 or 256 bit processors would ever be needed, so it's not totally off topic.