Googol and Googolplex - Numberphile
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- We're talking pretty big numbers here... And an interesting idea about what it'd be like traveling in a Googolplex-sized Universe!
More links & stuff in full description below ↓↓↓
With Antonio (Tony) Padilla and Ria Symonds from the University of Nottingham.
About the brown paper: periodicvideos....
NUMBERPHILE
Website: www.numberphile...
Numberphile on Facebook: / numberphile
Numberphile tweets: / numberphile
Subscribe: bit.ly/Numberph...
Videos by Brady Haran
Patreon: / numberphile
Brady's videos subreddit: / bradyharan
Brady's latest videos across all channels: www.bradyharanb...
Sign up for (occasional) emails: eepurl.com/YdjL9
Numberphile T-Shirts: teespring.com/...
Other merchandise: store.dftba.co... - Наука та технологія
My job is repetitive and that's only 8 miles away.
+Tom Mulligan made my day :D
Tom Mulligan
well played sir...well played.
Best of 2017 material
Now go 16 miles in the same direction and see if you can find yourself
This goes perfectly with your profile picture
and then there's a googolplexian (10^10^10^100).
STOP MESSING WITH MY MIND
Can I name the next one? Googolplexianoid (10^10^10^10^100)
@Lendalas I feel like that's bigger than (Graham's number)^100
edit: i am wrong
+Noah G
I feel like not even close :-)
+David Fischer I mean come on, it's a googolplexian+1 (lol) digits long.
To clear things up for a few people, he's speaking of the observable universe not the actual size of the entire universe.
what about the gogolplexian
Huh? Is it like 10^10^10^100?
The amazing things is that our brain calculate those stuff that our universe dint create different
And if I saw my repetition and kill him I'd get faster, stronger etc. just like in Jet Li's movie The One... He killed all of his replications and came to the last one he couldn't kill him but what would happen if he killed him, would he be the god? or would he suck whole space to doom with him?
Whatever counts to a googol first wins a googol dollars.
What about a googolplex to the power of a googolplex?
Even better - googolplex factorial.
+DrearyPlane8 (googolplex to The power of googolplex)!
:)
A googolplex to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex, to the power of a googolplex.
Big enough?
Pee
no
+Pee (That number, to the power of itself, times Graham's number) to the power of itself
Anybody else get a small feeling of existential dread while watching?
"How many grains of sand can I fit in the universe?"
I know no faster way to give someone existential crisis.
👀
*copys this comment*
Just as much as you thought in your brain
if the universe is infinite, i could fit infinite grains of sand, right?
How is it possible that you can fit more grains of sand in the universe than particles?
Mom: *playing candy crush*
Me: what level are you on?
Mom:
Googolplex
@@Tengspeakfootball Googleplexianthenialarisian ( yes exist )
My dad have Level 1649 in Toy Blast
@@Gamerxxnoob Gigolquintiplex
@@AirshipToday 10^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^100
Googleplex: you cant write me out into the entire universe!
Grahams number: thats cute
Tree(3): Hold my beer
You can't even write the number of digits contained in Graham's number, or the number of digits contained in that number, and on and on more than a googol times.
NoriMori my mind has been blown
@@宵崎奏是我的 Rayo's number +1
@@nolanlitz1665 Tree(grahams number): Bow down to me
Who else is here cause of Vsauce?
+Austin Mendoza Me :P
+Austin Mendoza Me!
+Austin Mendoza I came for this comment
+Austin Mendoza me
+Austin Mendoza me
Who would've thought that 9-year-old Milton suggested the word "googol" and now his random word is now on every human beings head?
Ilustrado Some People misspell it as GOOGLE 🤪
Barry Inglett The creators of google actually went in to type to see if googol was taken, and typed in google by accident
Probable only a very small percentage of people have ever heard the word "googol."
Not every
indeed not every, not even just a half..
what is a bigger number than a googol? Googol + 1
OriFl googolplex
@@rhyse630 googolplex +1
@@juliano345 rayo's number
Googolplexian
10^10^10^100
10^Googolplex
{10,10[1/2]2}
In back to the future 3 Doc talks about how his new love Clara is one in a googolplex. Well, that turns out to be false.
logic.dll is corrupted.
Brain.exe has stopped working.
life.exe is corrupted and cannot funtion
SYSTEM ERROR. WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESTART YOUR COMPUTER GOOGLOL TIMES?
+terence sterling maybe ask Google?
i love you
+A muffin all you did was ruin it
This always annoys me, the whole "if you travel far enough in such a big universe, you would eventually encounter exact copies of yourself". Because that implies that every configuration is equally likely to occur, which surely it isnt. For it to be certain, the universe would have to be infinite. And even then, certain configurations would occur more frequently than others. Just like, yes there are an infinite number of prime numbers, but they still dont occur as often as for example even numbers; encountering an even number is much more likely than encountering a prime number.
Yep, I had the same problem. He assumed equal probabilities of configurations within a volume. Therefore I believe that even in a googolplex sized universe, I'd still be the only me. The analogy he presents is still useful for understanding the size of the googolplex number, however.
crcaccounts in addition, it seems to also assume a universe with a identical model to ours in terms of physics and energy.
I think you are correct and the reason is the second law of thermodynamics - the more enthropy states must occure more often then the less ethropy states. Hence, humans are rather less enthropy state so we are very rare state of atoms.
crcaccounts You guys are being silly. Pretending that the universe is a googolplex meters across is arbitrary. If we instead pretend that the universe is a googolplex^googolplex meters long, you'd end up with an incomprehensibly large number of copies of yourself, even taking into account the uneven probability of various configurations. It's just a thought experiment meant to make understanding this stuff easier.
SidV101 Two things: you say that universe is infinite by size while discussing the combinations of matter which is also energy. Shortly I am in a sort some state of energy ( and a wave if we add quantum theory). Continuing universe is infinite in a way that in 3 dimensions you would never reach the edge of the universe but it can contain inside finite amount of energy (all the rest is just vacuum). So to state that there is infinite amount of my copies you would need to prove that infinite by size universe contains infinite amount of energy/matter in it. Like 2d world can be infinite but finite in 3D ( like surface of balloon) and s contain finite amount of some other attribute.
Second what was pointed out in vid they state that there is finite amount of combinations of matter and then they limit the size of universe by some very large number. Then simply divide assumed size of universe by number of combinations to result the expected amount of our replicas in the universe. We pointed out that for this result to be correct they also assumed that probability density function of matter combinations is uniform what may be wrong by- more natural in the world is the Gauss distribution and second thermodynamic law states that simply contradicts to uniform distribution of energy\matter. So in my opinion their calculation is wrong as they made a hidden assumption that that I thing is wrong.
If you can proove that more naitral for matter distribution in the universe is the uniform distibution than I must be wrong otherwise please buy a book of level 1 statistics and learn something useful.
If you decided to travel across the entire universe so that you could meet an exact copy of yourself, you would eventually meet them halfway through.
Hmm. Very interesting inference.
Or you wouldn't meet them at all, since they might be going the same direction and therefore remain the same distance away.
@@0mathgaming Absolutely yes. It did occur to me later but I forgot to edit the comment.
You won't actually meet them let's suppose,
1. 1. 1
So you traveling from left to right, soo your other repetitive form will also travel from left to right, your three form going in same way, so no chance you gonna meet them, what's I'd thats life wtf 💀
Explain why I would meet an exact copy of myself......
Too... Many... Numbers...
Need... Ibuprofen...
+Melissa Geckensmerf Brain.....malfunction. Initiating emergency shut-down.
+Öykü Özer its bigger than googol and googolplex its even so big that we only now the last 10 numbers ...2464195387
We actually now more than that, I read somewhere that we know the last 500 numbers
lol
Bob McMullan not as big as infinity,
OK, what about a Googolplex raised to the power of a Googolplex?
Uh... that's a big number...? What do you want to hear?
ayohaziq WAT
Any number that is defined by a finite number of digits is by definition smaller than infinite. And a googolplex to the googolplex'th power is big, but still finite. Even if you won't ever have enough ink in the universe, or particles in the universe, to write it down.
that's so small compared to Graham's number.
And so small compared to TREE(3). Which is small compared to SCG(13).
But the biggest of all is yo momma (j/k)
That is so cool..ok i am goin crazy now..its 2 in the morning and i have been watching these science stuffs for 5 hours straight
Thanks..😊😊
it's almost 4 am, phone battery is at 1%, I'm hungry, need to take a leak, and I think I might need some sleep especially since I'll need to get up at 9.
LJ Bartley way better than getting drunk in a bar, isn't it? ñ.ñ
lol, same boat over here
same...
I'm not great at math but I totally understood exactly what he was talking about. Awesome
Execute i'm great walp here, ∞ - 1 = (BEN(100))
My friend's ego is over 9000 googolplex
What is the unit of ego though?
this reference was forced a bit too much
So it’s 9x10^10^103 egos.
what part of this comment was the funny part?
@Rayan I am not a math.
does that mean if i travel far enough....
i can find an exact replica of myself in my minecraft world?
You could technically find a copy of the place where you spawned.
Stop it, get some help.
64-bit memory can't handle numbers the size of googol or googolplex, it only goes as far as 18,446,744,073,709,551,615
specifically that number, not joking
The better question is: Can you find your replica being tortured with "Mine Diamonds" during a second Spanish iquisition on a christian Minecraft server?
The reason that you will see the EXACT copy of YOU... Well, the Universe ran out of randomization for the next stuff to make
Universe: Hmm... I can't think something cool to make... Let's just copy stuff I already made... THEY WOULDN'T NOTICE! *Evil Laugh*
code cracked
Unsuccessful try to make something like that funny
Skarmory Fly Like many, many companies on earth does. They are out of ideas and copy alot from others but make their twist on it.. So you might find a copy of yourself but with 3 eyes.
This is one of my favorite videos on youtube
10 years later I still come back to this and it blows my little mind
same bro, this prove nietzsche being right all along
I hope someone sees this. If you say the universe isnt a googleplex across then it must have a distance, thus it must end, right? now if it does what is at its end, what does it look like? Are there other universes? and can , if possible , somone, human or not, travel to another universe. Please i really want to know
how is a particle larger than a grain of sand?
It's not. There are just not that many particles in the mostly empty universe (on the risk of getting whooshed here)
But this supposes that all quantum states are equally likely.
It supposes all possible quantum states regardless of likelihood. That 10^100^70 is all *possible* quantum states, including the most unlikely.
@@Bluelightzero Right. It's probability, not a fact really. However, you can definitely say that there would be exact copies of /something/ in a universe that is large enough. Using you example of a line of coins, with truly random probability you can't guarantee that you will ever see 2 Heads. Though unlikely, it's possible to never even get one Head. However, since there are only 2 states, you can guarantee getting either 2 Heads or 2 Tails within 3 tosses. In the same way, in a universe large enough, some of the states must repeat as soon as the sample size is more than the number of possible states. However, it might not be a person that repeats. The universe could just have repeated spaces that are just a Meter^3 sized vacuum.
@@Bluelightzero It's not an incorrect calculation, though, mainly because they didn't really calculate anything like that. It's an estimate. In fact, it is a very strong estimate. For the numbers they use, 10^10^70 is the number of possible states and 10^10^100 is the sample size.
I'm going to call these PS and SS for "Possible States" and "Sample Size." They didn't really emphasize this, but SS is unimaginably larger than PS. How much larger?
Let's look at orders of magnitude (OoM). The OoM for PS is 10^70 and OoM for SS is 10^100. The difference in the OoM's is simply 10^100 - 10^70. Is it 10^30? No.... not even close. Let's look at the OoM of those OoM's.
OoM(OoM(10^10^100)) = OoM(10^100) = 100
OoM(OoM(10^10^70)) = OoM(10^70) = 70
10^100 is 30 orders larger than 10^70, which means 10^70 is negligible in comparison.
This means that 10^100 - 10^70 = ~10^100. No joke. The actual value would be between 10^100 and 10^99, but it's wayyyyy closer to 10^100.
By extension, since 10^70 is essentially 0 in comparison to 10^100, 10^10^70 is roughly 1 in comparison to 10^10^100.
Just by this, you can tell it is extremely unlikely to not have duplicates in a universe that large.
@@joshandrews8913 yes but the point of him bringing that up was simply to enthasize how big a googleplex is. And due to us not knowing our quantum states exactly, we still have a rough estimate, and a google plex is so big that even if our estimate was too low, the chances of seeing duplicates is still high
@@benhayter-dalgliesh5794 We're talking about exact copies, too. We wouldn't be able to tell if two things are exactly the same as long as they are close enough. If we include states that are similar enough that we couldn't tell the difference, the probability would be even greater. I don't think you're disagreeing with me, though. Emphasizing the size of a googolplex is the point.
this is wrong.. this is simple accounting the probability, but it doesn't account for the time and materials needed for this to occur.
what about hypergoogolplex (10^10^10^100)? or ultrahypergoogolplex (10^10^10^10^100)?
Theyre officially called googolplexian and googolplexianth.
@@castro0762 Also user profiles, probably.
After watching the video about Graham's number, I'm no longer impressed by any number you throw at me. They all seem small in comparison lol.
What if i threw a pair of deez toward you?
Magnacardia lol, yeah that would defintely impress me.
+Magnacardia Deez what?
livefromhollywood194 DEEZ NUTS!
Magnacardia lol hehehe
I covered all my mirrors after watching this
Pá
XD
● ●
₩
Somebody messed up. If 10^80 = number of particles in universe then 10^90 couldn't possibly be the number of sand grains to fill it. There is no way in hell that's accurate, like, at all, not even remotely close.
Its because most of the universe is actually empty space so if u fill the universe with grains of sand (that obviously contain particles) then it would be larger and have more mass and a higher density
that girl's adorable, js >_>
Can someone just tell me how many zeroes are in frickin googolplex?
Googol
There's a googol zeros in a googolplex.
2:26 "which is like a little *cube* with the *radius* of a Planck length"
Seems legit
Yeah there was a lot wrong with that sentence
😂😂😂
Cubes do have radius. It doesn't mean the same as a sphere tho.
The radius of a cube is a line from the center of the cube to a surface perpendicularly.
Also known as 1/2 the side of the cube.
@@mrpedrobraga I think they're pointing out that it has to be the diameter of the cube, not the radius, as Planck's Length is the smallest possible measurement. My guess is it was just a little verbal slip-up, happens all the time.
@@Mautinuee Yes it makes more sense indeed :3
We might be living in a googolplex sized universe which makes our universe look like a galaxy
So a mouse would have many more perfect clones than a blue whale...!
Could you please explain why you would see repetitions? I mean, if you travel that far away why there wouldn't be just repetitions of vacuum or stuff like that? How many chances there is to see the exact same repetition of our solar system and galaxy and whatever?
Considering the suffix -illion, the googol can also be called 10 duotrigintillion! (The prefix's number is 32; the prefix is duotriginti-) The -illion function is Y = 10^(3X + 3), where X = the prefix's number & Y = the actual number. Doing the algebra, 10^(3 * 32 + 3) = 10^(96 + 3) = 10^99 (or 1 duotrigintillion); multiply that by 10 & you get 10^100, which is commonly called the googol!
If i would have 1 googolplex € or $ .....i would buy an ice cream
me too
Johann Diaz We know our observable universe is to small to have guarantied copies of ourselves, but what if the universe was much bigger than we thought? In that case, ima go invent wormholes, gather all of my copies, take over the universe, and put infinite likes on this video.
If ANYONE had that much money, we would all have suffocated in it long ago
+Sideways Sword Fish Like It is now.
***** your comment has a major contradiction. Worth is what humans believe is worth. What you meant to say, or should have said is that money has no inherent value. But nothing does, even food is valueless if their are no humans. The only difference between money and food is that we chose to assign value to money, while we needed to assign value to food. But that doesn't mean money is worthless. Money is most certainly not worthless. So long as we continue to assign it value.
Wait so if the universe was in fact infinite, there would be an exact copy of the Sol system somewhere down the line, with the same exact people living on earth? Holy sht
Friedrich Nietzsche thought something similar. Because time is endless but the things that are possible to happen are not everything is forced to happen again and again and again. Meaning you're not only having doublegangers but will live again and again and again.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return#Friedrich_Nietzsche
+CuffRox Not infinite, but just an extremely large amount of distance.
well if the universe is infinite, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is infinite matter in it.
the universe *is* in fact infinite
+Guy Ender
No, it *may* be infinite. We can't see outside the observable universe because the light on the outside hasn't had time to reach us and the universe is still expanding.
Does he mean the entire universe or the observable universe?
“So theres not another me in this universe?”
“Probably not, you would need a universe with a length of a googolplex”
Phineas: Ferb, I know what we’re gonna do today
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Havent seen that show referenced in a while
i think that's a really cool idea, but i dont really like how he keeps saying "if you go far enough". the point is that there could be an exact replica of me on earth right now, its mathematically POSSIBLE however unlikely. he is pointing out that if the universe were that big, my double would pretty much be a mathematical certainty. it's a really cool idea, but its not like there is a specific distance you would have to travel to find your double. i guess technically traveling would increase the number of arrangements matching your approximate mass thus increasing the chances of you FINDING your double.... but traveling in one direction i don't think would guarantee you would find that particular arrangement in such a vast universe
how the fuck could they know how big the universe is right now? how do we know it's not a googolplex meters across allready?
except that particle aren't arranged by chance, I suspect you would run into many more empty cubic meters or meters filled with other elements before you ran into a copy of anything more complex just by chance
Trying to explain a universe in terms of numbers is absurd.
A universe never ends, there is no wall or border that says -
"congrats you have reached the end of the universe"
Numbers cant even begin to explain the size of a universe that is 'infinite" in terms of size.
When speaking of the size of a universe... googolplex would not even be a fraction of the number of solar systems and planets inside a universe.
If the universe was infinite as you say there would be an infinite amount of stars in the sky which would mean night would be just as bright as day but it is not therefor the universe is not infinite.
Victor Moreno that assumes all the light actually reaches us.
Considering we can't even confirm if the universe is infinite, or if it closes in on itself like a sphere. Wasn't too long ago when people thought the Earth was flat.
Its because those figures are made from the OBSERVABLE universe. That is the universe that we can actually calculate.
and the universe could be finite, but without an observable edge to it. like, if you fly out of the universe, you would just come back at the other end
well the entire concept of this video is really based on the multiverse theory
What is even more fascinating to think about is within that 10^10^70 different possibilities of matter arrangements within a cubic metre, how many would there be of something that's almost you but just a couple atoms different, or even thousands different...which for all practical and noticeable purposes would be an identical copy of you. If you think about how small 1,000 atoms are, the difference between you and a version of you with 1,000 atoms that are different would essentially be an exact copy.
HOWEVER, to play a little bit of Numberphiles own probability game here, just because after 10^10^70 possibilities the process must repeat, does not mean the 10^10^70 + 1st version is going to be you again...or for that matter that you will necessarily get two of you in (10^10^70) x 2 metres of space, or a million of you in (10^10^70) x 1,000,000 cubic metres of space. It's just the PROBABILITY. It's like flipping a coin...you probably won't flip all heads or all tails in 100 flips but it's not impossible. In a universe of that size the probability is that there is a million of you, but there could be just one, or 12, or 50 billion. For whatever reason your pattern could repeat alot, or not at all, and only other patterns have repeated. 🤯
Just wondering .. how can you say that the universe is 10^26m?
I dislike how "universe" and "observable universe" are used interchangably which they really aren't
2:30 ten to the MMAAAAIINNUSS 35 meters
nice Mandelbrot menge.
10⁻³⁵
your channel looks like the manbrot deep zoom
the plancks lenth is 10^-35 meters
assume there's a number that is 1, every planck time it doubles, how much time is required for it to become a googolplex?
So we're looking for 2^x = 10^googol, and by taking the log2 of both, we get x = googol * log2 (10), or approximately 3.32 googol (that's 3.32 * 10^100)
3.32 * 10^100 planck times * 5.85 * 10^-50 years per planck time = 19.4 * 10^50 years (more properly rewritten as 1.94 * 10^51)
That's 194 trillion trillion trillion trillion years, or 14,160 trillion trillion times the current age of the universe.
@@Simpson17866 bet
Nice mathematics. You have your ducks in a row on that one.
@@Simpson17866 I knew that.
@@Simpson17866
So even almost less than Time itself is 194 Trillion years
how many grains can fit in this room. it's not that big. It's 50 billion.
Gold.
+Rohan Mishra It's not that big relatively speaking. Most people would over-estimate, I know I would. I would probably guess somewhere in the septillions.
+Rohan Mishra LOOL!
But that's long-scale billion. What most of the world knows as trillion. I understand your point though :P
ok :P
Wow. Thinking about this video makes me feel so small.
Me: **Discoveres what a googol is**
Also me: Wow, that's extremely big!!
Me: **Discoveres what a googolplex is**
Also me: oh
Theres even a googleduoplex which is a 10 elevated to a googleplex
@@MiguelSucksAtUrbanism that's also called googolplexian
Then 10^(googolplexian) is called googolplexianth,
After that I don't know, you can go on and on.
Well there's Graham's number, and then TREE(3). Then there's TREE(G64). That video was quite interesting
@@arrash4388 Yeah, i can still somewhat comprehend a googol but those numbers no chance, its something else entirely :D
so there IS life in the universe!
Johannes Mokry if it was that big.
Well as far as I know there's life on earth so yeah there IS life in the universe.
To create the exact copy of me..wouldn't you have to create the exact copy of my parents....and the exact copy of my grandparents and so on? The billions of atoms would have to be so precise that one atom couldn't be out of place or else it wouldn't be me? What about the randomness of sperm cells? Do we take all of this into consideration or am i really stupid???
Schama Noel Yea, you are right. The repetition thing assumes that particles are randomly distributed, but they aren't.
Not really a 'you' would only be considered a you by your atom arrangements. There isn't any reason not to believe a possible atom generator exists in that universe which can bring forth any arrangements of atoms of a human.
Schama Noel I'd like to think about it like a combination lock for a safe. Your volume is the amount of numbers required like a four number pin code. and the quantum states is the diferent numbers (0 to 9) so after so many instances, of diferent combinations that you come across on the strech of 10^10^70 meters you will have found a exact coppy. just like if you try hard enough you can break a four digit pin code.
Exampel: pincode ???? will be one of 10000 diferent combinations. 4 digits (the volume) 10 numbers in the decimal number system. (the number of diferent quantum states) 10^4=10000
Then just swich the number of digits with your volume in what ever unit they use for the formula. And the same goes for the 0-9 swich it for the number of diferert possible quantum states.
Schama Noel look 150+250+300+50=750
and 70 +40+17+60+30+83+62+66+1,699+72+1+40+59+74+75,301=750 the same thing could happend in many ways
Schama Noel You'd basically see a clone, but not one that behaves like you.
how can he estimate the number of particles in the universe? the universe is infinite
That's what I was thinking
I think he meant observable universe.
How do you know it's infinite? You don't ^_^ nodoby does
Matt A scientists say that it's infinite
Scientists may predict it's infinite, but it doesn't imply it's actually infinite.
There is no autority in science, and you can never prove a theory, only disprove it.
Anyway, it may well be infinite, or finite but without edges, like a 4D sphere..
Point is: we don't have evidence (yet) of the actual geometry of the universe, hence every statement about it is just a guess.
10 in the one-hundredth power?
How about
10 in the googolplexth power?
Numbers are infinite!
That’s was already a number before you were born. It’s called a googleplexian.
how about ten to a googolplex to a googolplex
Let's make it 10^∞
@@marn200 infinity is not a number so that expression makes no sense
@@DepFromDiscord then 10 to the googolplexian is the googolplexianth
Am I the only one wondering why he doesn't just buy a whiteboard instead of clipping brown paper to something? is there a shortage of dry erase markers in England?
The noise of a sharpie grinding on paper gives me goosebumps so bad
well i think a yahooplex would be something like (10^10^10^99) :/ !!
firefoxplex is 10^10^2^256
Explorerplex is 7. Maybe 8.
@@unflexian netscapeplex is -1
Windowsplex is only 10
Bingplex is 69^420
When he said that the actual size of the universe is (10^26)^3m...... i hope he was talking about the observable universe only.....
Yes.
10^26^3 is 10^17,576 which isn't too shavy of a full universe...
+יותם ענבר זה לא בשלישית, זה מטר מעוקב,יחידת נפח כאילו
אה סבבה
+Parau1990 the observable universe is something like 92 billion light years across because space has been expanding for 13.8 billion years too
please deposit that amout of money into my bank as soon as possible. thank you.
The bank would explode.
Koowluh you could say 0s your whole life but u would still die instantly when u got da money
whatching stuff like this late at night hurts my brain
I think I can think of an even bigger number.
It's 10^100^100^100^100^100. I call it bullshimeter. Where is my nobel prize now?
imagine googleplex to the power of graham's number :D
Elementary, lol
Still probably smaller than tree(3)
Googolplex is literally NOTHING compared to Graham's number (the size of that truly is beyond any kind of real comprehension)
Or, how about TREE(googleplex^Graham's Number)
Imagine 3(Tree) to the power of 3(Tree) 3(Tree) amount of Arrows between, to the power of 3(Tree) 3(Tree)Times. Etc etc
If you have a copy of you exactlty the same as you, and you flew in a spacecraft 10 to the 10 to the 100 meters, I am would think the copy of you would be flying a spacecraft to, and you wouldn't be able to catch up.
Grahams number makes a googolplex look tiny. Very funny to see this video after the grahams number videos.
+Charmonium Pentaquark Right? I'm reading all these comments that are like "wow a hundred zeros." Heh. Eheheheh. Plebs.
+Charmonium Pentaquark Graham's number is basically infinity so that doesnt count >.>
+Dheeman Ghoshal no it is not . g64 is finite.
lol g64
How about rayo's number? It's way bigger
It's frustrating and exciting to think that when we answer one question about the universe another question presents itself. You can ask why Infinity times
just watching these makes me feel like a genius!
So basically we'd find another copy of us with the same atomic volume. Does this also mean they'd have the same DNA patterns as us?
Identical down to atomic level is far more precise than identical in terms of DNA (as it is in terms of clones or identical twins, etc.). DNA is made up of atoms after all.
Ya
*Any possible quantum states
Does that mean quantum fluctuations producing random objects in space? Or does that mean that there are enough habitable planets in a line to exhaust every configuration of organic compounds?
It would be exactly the same, down to the atom and even further :)
I think people here are confusing "infinite" with "all-encompassing".
Between 1 and 2 there's an infinite amount of numbers (0.0001 etc etc), but none of those numbers is 3.
Superstar Banana Mix I find it amazing that there are an infinite numbers, but also an infinite numbers between 0 and 1
[•-•]
This reminds me of something mentioned in Star Trek called Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planetary Development. It's basically a version of convergent evolution that applies to entire planetary ecosystems in comparison with other planetary ecosystems, and to some extent to societal development as well. It also brings to mind the idea that duplicates of planets and people would arise in an infinite universe, basically for the reason given in this video: that there are only so many ways you can arrange particles before you have to start using the same configurations again.
Hello ech. I am echmega. You just can’t see it yet.
"Psst...Patrick, you know what's bigger than a googol?"
"What?"
"...*A googolplex!*"
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 zeros
Googolplex Is Larger Than You said
Googolplex Is 328128X More Massive Than Obsevarble Universe.
25!
HA! Spongebob reference
Ptfffffff hahahahaha
so that means there is at least one other me out there... we are all doomed
this is only proof of why you are unique and special, and is another reason why you should never end your own HEALTHY life.
the fact that there could be clones of me is proof that I am unique?
I think this is proof of the opposite
MarcoManiac do you think they all do the same things as you? No they do not, just because they look like you does not mean it is you. Your closest friends and family would tell the difference between them and that is what makes you unique, it is your soul not your flesh that makes you... you.
jlrockafella I'm was kidding, even though if you look far enough, there would at some point be another universe that is exactly as ours, not just in shape, but also in history.
Jlrocka what scientific evidence do you for this soul theory?
UA-cam's automatic subtitles : "and this is a google+" :(
0:09 now you see, THATS social distancing.
This conclusion seems wrong. Just because there are 10^10^70 different states available doesn't mean that every meter is some random combination of atoms. There are huge pieces of space where the state is almost identical for long stretches.
+
That's what I was thinking too :) but I believe he presented it that way so that we can imagine how impressive the number is, but most of the universe is empty space ^^ (sorry if english mistakes)
I think the assumption is that you'd have an observable universe with particles in it to match the scaled up size. Otherwise you'd reach the end of our universe, the extent of the expansion of space from the original singularity and simply have emptiness.
Which makes it even more likely. We know that the universe isn't some random number generator, and typically things happen for reasons, albeit chaotic reasons. This means that, because the universe is rule-bound, it would be far more likely than the chance mentioned in this video that you'd find a copy of yourself somewhere in a universe that large.
Think of it as a dice with 10^10^70 sides. If you rolled it 10^10^100 times, you would expect to see at least one roll of the same number. Of course, it's not even possible for you to not get the same number twice. You would get 10^10^30 (I think) duplicates. FOllow me?
How the F*%$ do you know how big the universe is?
Carl Sagan taught me this in 1980.
6:07 is what made me understand the entire thing.
Amazing!
Same here!
So...somewhere.. may could exist a place like star wars! with lightsabers, portmans and shit!!!
The thing about running into copies of yourself is BS, because it assumes that every formation of particles is equally likely, which is patently false. Furthermore the arrangement of particles *outside* of the cubic meter your doppleganger occupies quickly determines whether said doppleganger will be able to survive, which it almost certainly won't.
How would there be more grains of sand than particles in the universe? Are particles different sizes, are some visible? Or is dark matter not made of particles, since the universe is made mostly of dark matter right? IDFK!!!
i could watch this all day, beautiful video, as always
If you fill the universe with particles, you get 10 to 80th power. If you fill it with grains of sand, you get 10 to the 90th power. How is a grain of sand smaller than a particle?
yea i was thinking the same thing. He probably meant it the other way around
In the universe there is a lot of empty space with no particles what so ever. If you were to fill the universe with sand, it would be assumed that there would be no empty space not occupied by sand.
I think that just went over your head.
MrHillsidestrangler InSpadez You are wrong, watch the video again. 10 to 80th power is the number of particles in the universe. Since most of the universe is empty it makes sense, that if you fill it with grains of sand, the number of grains of sand is larger.
Peter Enis no... if grains of sand are larger than particles... then it would take fewer grains of sand to fill the universe. Hence, 10 to the 90th power is a larger number meaning, that the "object" is smaller, therefore taking up less space meaning you need more grains of sand. Which doesn't make sense because we know from observation with the naked eye that a particle cannot even be seen with the naked eye, which would logically mean that a particle is MUCH smaller than a grain of sand, meaning that 10 to the 90th power was incorrect in his statement referring to grains of sand. Just like MrHillsidestrangler said it best... please refer to his comment. Also, I don't think the presenter of this video was speaking in terms of space, already filled up or used by another "object". Even if he was... my argument still holds true to the fact that even if we are only talking about the AVAILABLE space thats left...
This seems to imply that every possible arrangement of particles only occurs once in the Universe, not taking into account the relative probability of different states. :| Obviously, most f it is void or simple gases (Dark M&E aside), while more complex structures like living beings are less frequent. It could conceivably be a googolplex of nothingness.
Counting to a trillion (1,000,000,000,000) can take less than 3 mins!
If everyone on earth could count to 135 at the same time. (world population: 7.3 billion, it's like counting to 7.3 billion per sec) Imagine all living things on earth (including: humans, animals, and other species) all together about trillions (just guessing not sure thou) if all trillion of us counted to 1 million at the same time we can reach 10^18 in less than a 2 weeks. But googol is just so freaking massive 10^18 is only 0.000000000000000000000..1% of a Googol (10^100)
Every single living organism on earth is so much more than that, there are 4 quadrillion ants alone on earth
Can't argue but doesn't seems logical, ants are small but not that many
There's about 340 197 768 302 639 934 ants on the planet.
Alex SH its only 0.18%
Scientifically it's a billion.
1,000 = thousand
1,000,000 = million
1,000,000,000 = milliard
1,000,000,000,000 = billion
1,000,000,000,000,000 = billiard
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 = trillion
That's long scale and look Tony Padilla from Nottingham University uses it even though he's British, where short scale is predominant. It's important to know both scales if you travel even around the Europe. But in science they use long scale. Same as SI. Which sometimes causes problems in international conventions when USUALLY mathematicians, and physicist with so so knowledge of English will read something in short scale and have to apologize and say it in a long scale, same for scientist from British and American societies, sometimes they slip up (Americans tend to do it more often, it's more imbedded in their Uni life.
*Googol:* I'm a big number.
*Googolplex:* nah u not, I'm bigger
*Grahams number:* hey u! Yes you reading this comment, shld I embarrass these two?
And couldent there be more particels that we do not know about, making it more combinations avalible?
A particle is much smaller than a grain of sand. What he means is that there are less particles than you could fit grains of sand into the entire universe because much of the universe is empty space. There are no particles there but you could put sand there
kids in africa could have eaten those zeros
You know what else they couldve eaten?
Hitler's blown off nut
Hey numberphile, you could write a googolplex in the observeble universe. If you wrote on every plank length (the smallest distance), you could get to about 10^10^183 to 10^10^184.
actually the number of planck volumes you could fit into the universe is about 10^185, which is less than Googolplex by a long shot.
Can anyone explain me if this probability of arranging particles does REALLY mean that you would expect to find other exact copies of yourself? I mean, it maybe true that there are 10ˆ10ˆ70 ways of arranging particles in 1 mˆ3, but when traveling through universe you dont expect to find other forms of life, you are just likely to find other "common universe things" such as stars and meteorites, the particles arent dispersed in a random way. For a human to exist he depends on much other bigger factors: a planet with water, close to the sun, with an atmosphere, etc. etc. etc..., so you are not likely to find other humans even in a googolplex-long universe
By exact copies I think he means physical copies, however the events that occurred/choices/ or 'things' that happened may be different, after all the chance that every single person ever, and every single thing on earth did the same exact thing like did in our earth is very low. The question arises, is there free will? Or in the circumstance where the same atom arrangement as us, will act the same way we always did?
no, you have not understood me, i mean physical copies, but even those wouldnt happen in this universe, the propability of happening a human does not depend only upon arranging the atoms in his volum, it depend at least of aarranging a planet with water, etc... for example, if the universe was a see, even a big see, what would be the probablity of you fiding a flame? even in a googolplex long see it wouldnt have any fire
7 minutes of my life is wasted. WHO CARES?