The largest number with meaning?

  • Thread starter kenewbie
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of finding the largest number with practical applications, with suggestions such as using the number of fundamental particles in the universe, the volume of the universe divided by the volume of a fundamental particle, and the age of the universe divided by the smallest significant time-unit. Different opinions are shared, including the idea of using the next prime number after a given number as a practical use. The conversation also mentions Graham's number as the largest number used in a mathematical proof and suggests using the Planck constant and the number of dimensions to approach the highest orders of magnitude with physical meaning. However, the conversation ultimately concludes that the question has no substance and is done.
  • #1
kenewbie
239
0
This is silly, but I sort of wondered.. What is the largest number that has been made, which is somehow related to the world and not just made to be as large as possible?

I was thinking:

Let A be the number of fundamental particles that exist in the universe.
Let B be the volume of the universe divided by the volume of the fundamental particle.
Let C be the the age of the universe divided by the smallest significant time-unit.

A^B^C should be all possible arrangements of all the matter in the universe, at all times?

I can't think of any larger number than that which has some "meaning" to it.

k
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Numbers don't mean anything until you assign meaning to them.
 
  • #3
As random statements go, that was among the top 17.

k
 
  • #4
Philosophically speaking, Defennder is correct.
Numbers are abstract concepts.
In fact, to me, your idea seems more "random" than his response.
Besides, A^B^C is still smaller than A^B^C+1.
 
  • #5
Ok, maybe I didn't explain myself very clearly.

My number can be used to describe the position of all matter at all times.

What good does adding another 1 to the number do? What use is that 1?

What I am looking for is the largest number that you can think of a use for.

I'm not disputing that you can make a larger number, I am only interested in larger numbers that have a practical use.

k
 
  • #6
kenewbie said:
Ok, maybe I didn't explain myself very clearly.

My number can be used to describe the position of all matter at all times.

k

How did you arrive at that conclusion?
 
  • #7
Consider a smaller item than the universe:

Say we have a cube with sides of 100 centimeters.
Inside that cube, we have 100 smaller solid cubes ("particles") with sides of 1 centimeters.

How many unique ways is there to combine the smaller cubes inside the larger one?

That should be 100^100, no?

Now say that the cube exists for 10 seconds, and we can only operate with units of time as small as 1 second (for the sake of making it simple).

Then there would be 100^100^10 different ways to combine our matter throughout time?

Maybe my math is off, but you get the idea I hope. If you combine all of time with the volume of the universe and the size of the fundamental particle, you get the number of permutations possible for that universe. I want to know if anyone can think of a larger number with practical applications :)

k
 
  • #8
Come to think of it, one could argue that making better cryptography is a use for any number. As there are infinite primes, there must be a prime which is larger than my "universe" number.

So you can always find a practical number lager than N by saying the next prime after N.

k
 
  • #9
If there were an integer that had no practical use, then such an integer would answer your question and so would have a practical use. Therefore all integers have a practical use.
 
  • #10
jimmysnyder said:
If there were an integer that had no practical use, then such an integer would answer your question and so would have a practical use. Therefore all integers have a practical use.

Haha, that was even better. Brilliant.

k
 
  • #11
You also run in the problem that in reality, none of your three quantities actually exist.

The number of fundamental particles fluctuates wildly, fundamental particles, as far as we can tell, have no volume, and the 'smallest significant time-unit' is absolutely meaningless.
 
  • #12
There is a standard answer to this question called Graham's number, which is the largest number ever to be used seriously in a mathematical proof. It is so large that we cannot even come close to writing it down in standard notation.

Learn about arrow notation to appreciate its size:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GrahamsNumber.html
 
  • #13
the largest number is definitely infinity
 
  • #14
If you mean the largest number with _physical_ meaning, we can take a cue from the Planck constant, which is on the order of 10^-35. But we have at least four dimensions to deal with, so that becomes 10^-140. There could also be more though. There's also no guarantee that the Planck length is the smallest length, so it could be smaller still.

But once you find that, raise it to the power of the number of dimensions there are, and divide 1 by it, you start to approach the highest orders of magnitude that could possibly have any physical meaning. We're probably in the 10^several hundred, maybe thousands. But probably not more than that.
 
  • #15
This thread has no substance, and has deteriorated from a pretty pointless OP, thus is done.

motomax99: to start a new thread go into the appropriate forum and select "new topic" from the top left corner.
 

1. What is the largest number with meaning?

The largest number with meaning is called a googolplex, which is equal to 10 to the power of a googol, or 10^10^100.

2. How many zeros are in a googolplex?

There are a total of 100 zeros in a googolplex.

3. How long would it take to count to a googolplex?

If you were to count one number per second, it would take approximately 10^10^92 years to count to a googolplex.

4. Is a googolplex the largest number in existence?

No, there are numbers that are much larger than a googolplex, such as a googolplexian (10^10^10^100) and a googolduplex (10^10^10^10^100). However, these numbers are considered to be too large to have any practical meaning.

5. Who came up with the concept of a googolplex?

The concept of a googolplex was introduced by mathematician Edward Kasner in 1920. He asked his young nephew to come up with a name for a very large number, and his nephew came up with the name "googol" (10^100). Kasner then extended this concept to create the googolplex.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • Cosmology
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
22
Views
410
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
940
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
4
Views
664
Replies
20
Views
854
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
830
Replies
9
Views
601
Back
Top