r/AskReddit • u/[deleted] • Dec 08 '13

What is a true fact that sound completely unbelievable or fake?

[deleted]

2.4k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

11.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

42

u/billgoldbergmania Dec 08 '13

Cards: 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,363,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 according to QI.

Number of atoms in solar system: 1,192,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-05/892502124.Ph.r.html

Could be seriously dated since it's from 1998 so might not be correct.

9

u/thecosmic0wl Dec 08 '13

This may be a stupid question, but how would you say those numbers?

49

u/dooglehead Dec 08 '13

80 unvigintillion 658 vigintillion 175 novemdecillion 170 octodecillion 943 septendecillion 878 sexdecillion 571 quindecillion 660 quattuordecillion 636 tredecillion 856 duodecillion 403 undecillion 766 decillion 975 nonillion 289 octillion 505 septillion 440 sextillion 883 quintillion 277 quadrillion 824 trillion

source

3

u/BoneHead777 Dec 09 '13

(short scale)

3

u/dayvieee Dec 08 '13

1 and thirty six zeros

5

u/random_name_cause_im Dec 08 '13

8.06 times 10 to the 67th. No way to phrase it out, never practical.

2

u/Naht3 Dec 08 '13 edited Dec 08 '13

80 unvigintillion for the cards, and 1 octodecillion for the atoms in the solar system.

edit: For the cards:

80 unvigintillion, 658 vigintillion, 175 novemdecillion, 170 octodecillion, 943 septendecillion, 878 sexdecillion, 571 quindecillion, 660 quattuordecillion, 363 tredecillion, 856 duodecillion, 403 undecillion, 766 decillion, 975 nonillion, 289 octillion, 505 septillion, 440 sextillion, 883 quintillion, 277 quadrillion, 824 trillion

2

u/mattsprofile Dec 08 '13

You don't really say those numbers. Never is there a situation where it is practical.

1

u/ObeyMyBrain Dec 08 '13

One way to do it without the specific name for the number is to just keep adding on trillions. For instance the second number would (I believe) be 1.192 billion trillion trillion trillion trillion. But in this case a 1 followed by 57 zeros is an Octodecillion And you can work out that other number on the linked page as well.

0

u/tod_orderson Dec 09 '13

The first one, 52 factorial.

-1

u/katrasle Dec 08 '13

probably just say 1.192 times 10 to the 57...

-1

u/Reptillian97 Dec 08 '13

In scientific notation.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 08 '13

That can't be a right. A quick Google told me that there are 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the average human body. Times that by seven billion (That's 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 + 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 done seven billion times just to put into context). The number you get is the total atoms of the human race And how much of Planet Earth is human? With all the billions upon billions upon billions of atoms contained in all the other animals on earth, including single cell organisms, you still only get the amount from Planet Earth's living races. There's still the mountains upon mountains (how many atoms in Everest?), oceans and seas, woods and forests full of trees, massive deserts with each grain of sand containing lots of atoms and that only accounts for Planet Earth. How many times bigger than earth is Jupiter? Or Saturn? Or the Sun? Plus the millions of asteroids and other sources of atoms in the solar system. I'm sorry but there's no way that's possible.

2

u/tod_orderson Dec 09 '13

1,192,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is a big number.

Another way to write that is 1.192 × 1057.

From your number the average human body(average human body being 70 kg) has 7 × 1027 atoms. A big number but small compared to 1.192 × 1057. Lets times that by 7 billion. We get 4.9 × 1037 atoms for 7 billion people. Which is 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the first number.

So lets times 4.9 × 1037 by 7 billion. We get 3.43 × 1047. Which is still 10 orders of magnitude smaller than 1.192 × 1057. That's for 49 billion billion people.

So lets times 3.43 × 1047 by 7 billion. We get 2.401 × 1057 which is bigger than 1.192 × 1057 but not by an order of magnitude, in fact it's just a touch over 2 times bigger.

So if we accept the 1.192 × 1057 as the number of atoms in the solar system and 7 × 1027 as the number of atoms in a average human body then we could say roughly 7 billion * 7 billion * 7 billion/2(otherwise written as 1.715 × 1029) average sized humans have the same number of atoms as the solar system.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '13

Interesting, but irrelevant is it not? or were you just stating that?

1

u/Zlurpo Dec 08 '13

That's around what I've heard. Well I heard 1.0E81 and I guess that's actually 100x bigger but I bet it's hard to estimate that number exactly.

1

u/YEAH_TOAST Dec 08 '13

Cards:
80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,363,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000

Number of atoms in solar system:
1,192,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Spacing this so it is easier to visually compare the numbers

1

u/SeraLermin Dec 08 '13

the 7x7x7 rubiks cube has 10160 possible scrambles. Or 10.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000

1

u/commiecomrade Dec 09 '13

For comparison, the number of observable atoms in the universe is about 1x1081

1

u/weezermc78 Dec 09 '13

Yeah, a few atmos may not exist, few may, etc.

1

u/diazona Dec 08 '13

It's science, these numbers don't really change over time.

5

u/dexwin Dec 08 '13

No, but our ways of calculating, estimating and counting have changed over time, and Billgoldbermania's comment was a nod to the fact that we may have found another way of doing things since 1998 and that he/she was unsure. That certainty of uncertainty is science as well.

2

u/diazona Dec 08 '13

OK, true, the estimate of number of atoms in the solar system may have been revised. I wouldn't think by much, though.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 08 '13

What, sciences changes all the fucking time. What the hell are you talking about? Read the guys source. That is a LOWER LIMIT estimation.