PeterDonis said:
Temperature is energy per particle (which you said was ##10^{10}## Joules) divided by Boltzmann's constant.
Since
@General Scientist hasn't been seen in a few months, and a mentor just mentioned this thread a few days ago, and I'm always up for a maths challenge, I decided to solve this problem.
T, in Kelvin, equals 7.2 * 10
33
Assuming I got that right, I decided to plug that into my "Planck's Law" spreadsheet graph, which I just put together about a week ago.
I'm 99.9% certain that my "Planck's law spreadsheet graph" maths was correct last week, as all of the numbers at 5000 K matched what wikipaedia's graph displayed.
So...
Anyways... 7E+163 looked like kind of a big number, and I took some liberties and made (steradians * m^3) = 1, divided by the output of our sun, 4E26 watts, and came up with: 18,488,599,037,487,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns
Is it safe to say, that this is where mfb came up with the comment:
mfb said:
Theoretically, yes. Practically, no.
hmmm...
How Many Stars Are In The Universe?
Kornreich used a very rough estimate of 10 trillion galaxies in the universe. Multiplying that by the Milky Way's estimated 100 billion stars results in a large number indeed: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, or a "1" with 24 zeros after it. Kornreich emphasized that number is likely a gross underestimation, as more detailed looks at the universe will show even more galaxies.
But then, I noticed, that the y-axis was somewhat based on the x-axis, and decided I was off by somewhere around 36 decimal places.
But, I didn't care, as that was still too many stars, to do the maths.