The Universe Train

  • Thread starter Zardoz
  • 29 comments
  • 5,364 views
Zardoz

Zardoz

2,208
From the 2006 "Astronomy" wall calendar, published by Firefly Books:


"The Universe Train

The universe is so vast that it's difficult to establish a scale of reference, but this freight train analogy might help put it into perspective:

Imagine each star in the known universe is represented by a grain of sand. A thimble would hold all the stars visible on a clear, dark summer night. A dump truck would contain the Milky Way, the galaxy in which the Sun resides.

To demonstrate all the stars in the known universe, we need a freight train with hopper cars filled with sand. The train begins to pass us at a level crossing. We count the cars as they roar by at one per second. The minutes pass, then hours, then days. We would have to keep count 24 hours a day for three years before the universe train would complete its pass.

The universe train would use all the sand on all the beaches on Earth and would be long enough to stretch around the planet 25 times."




Gives me a headache just to try to think about it.

Imagine how many forms of life there must be out there, "intelligent" and otherwise. Consider the variety of life just here on Earth, then apply the above numbers, and it seems that any bizarre thing we could dream up may actually exist somewhere.
 
I think if you simply remove the second "can't" it makes sense. He's asking if a thimble can really hold all the stars we can visibly see or if it's too small...
 
According to people who care about these things, a grain of sand can be anywhere from 0.1mm to 1mm across each edge, so you're looking at a grain of sand being 0.125mm3 or, to put it another way, you can fit 8,000 grains of sand in a millilitre.

According to the BBC:

From the darkest parts of Earth, the naked human eye can see about 5,000 stars;
Click to expand...

Which means a thimble is FAR too oversized for the job.
 
I feel it's impossible to count all the stars in the universe right....now. Or.........now. The existence of stars will be infinite throughout the "life-span" of the universe. When some die, some other are birthed. The analogy is alright, except for the fact that the process of counting stars would never end. Are you counting existing stars and diregarding dead ones? Or are you just counting all of them that have ever existed? If you're counting current stars only, you'd have to subtract the ones that die as they die, then add the new ones as they pop into fusion. You might be stuck with the same number, but you would be counting different stars. That would be an infinite process. It would also be infinite if you were counting all stars which ever existed for the same reason--new stars flare into life every second, every hundredth, every billionth of a second.
If you were doing the first method of counting, this freight train would just keep backing up and pulling forward, always subtracting and adding, always fidgeting just a little bit, but the amount would be basically the same. If you were going by the second method, the train would never end, so long as gravity exists. Gravity tears things apart and brings them together. Once enough fragments unite, a star pops up and says "Hi!"
 
keef
I feel it's impossible to count all the stars in the universe right....now.
Click to expand...

Though astronomers says that there's currently 70 septillion in the known universe.
 
septillion
Click to expand...

You wouldn't happen to know how many zeros come with that, do ya? Wait, I'll look it up.

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
septillion:
  1. The cardinal number equal to 10^24.
  2. Chiefly British. The cardinal number equal to 10^42.
Click to expand...

According to the first definition, that's 25 zeros! (for 1 septillion) Zoinks!
I have no idea what the Chiefly British thing means, but you're British, Famine, so you might know, along with your ither British chaps.
 
In British, we have a billion and a "real billion, not that tiny American one".

1 billion (US) is 1,000,000,000 (1 x 109) - a thousand million.
1 billion (UK) is 1,000,000,000,000 (1 x 1012) - a million million.

Technically the US one makes more sense - we change unit names every third order of magnitude (one, ten, hundred, thousand, ten thousand, hundred thousand, million, ten million, hundred million, billion) but we seem to have a blind spot which says that a billion is a million million, a trillion is a million billion, and so on increasing in millions (changing unit names every sixth order of magnitude), which has something of a knock-on effect on bigger numbers. Quite why we don't see how unwieldy it would be to refer to interim numbers I don't know... e.g.

808,808,808,808 (US) is eight hundred and eight billion, eight hundred and eight million, eight hundred and eight thousand, eight hundred and eight.
808,808,808,808 (UK) is eight hundred and eight thousand eight hundred and eight million, eight hundred and eight thousand, eight hundred and eight. The whu?

So... I understand "septillion" to be a thousand sextillion. A sextillion is a thousand centillion. A centillion is a thousand quadrillion. A quadrillion is a thousand trillion. A trillion is a thousand billion. A billion is a thousand million. So 70 septillion is...

70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (70 x 1024)

In British parlance a septillion would be a million sextillion, which is a million... oh screw it.

70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (70 x 1042).


And now I have a headache. Great.
 
Wow.



So I'm going to add this to my favorites so I can get it when anyone asks me a question about that. But, hey, I have respect for British people--they understand the imperial and metric system. That's insane! At least the Top Gear guys do; hey say stuff like "The car is so many metres (see I can spell it like you) long, and goes so many miles per hour." Wait, he has to messing with me. That's like saying "Ich bin mucho hombre." It makes no sense at first.
 
Zardoz
Friday night post...

Come on, sober up and edit that!
Click to expand...

Hah. Clear eyed I was, but I kept re-writing the sense of the whole thing and forgetting to change the starting of it.

Question has been answered. Thank you big F.
 
Famine
Though astronomers says that there's currently 70 septillion in the known universe.
Click to expand...

Very cool, but is that in UK or US septillions? The difference, as you pointed out, is a BUNCH of stars.
 
I am smelling/sensing a very distinct odor/fragrance to this thread (whichever you want to use) It's called 'le intelligent designer' :)

You have to admit...that huge number of zeros REAKS of it.

At the least, maybe even has a hint of it.
 
I don't smell anything. We're just wondering how to count 'em all.

And I'm pretty sure scientist use the "normal" way of counting, as the Brits' whacked out system must have been contrived whilst in a drunken stupor. I hate it when someone on TV says "one thousand million", thinking that it makes more sense to kids. Just say a billion, y0, I know what that is! At least you can't argue that it's easier to say. Those guys seem to be confusing the weirdo British system and the American system, mixing them together, and sounding like an idiot.
 
The reason why I made that comment is with such a huge number...you can't help but wonder the thought...just maybe.
 
keef
...And I'm pretty sure scientists use the "normal" way of counting, as the Brits' whacked-out system must have been contrived whilst in a drunken stupor...
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly true. I was just pondering the possible magnitude of life-form varieties in the universe if only one ten-thousandth of one percent of the stars had planets with some form of life on them, even if the life was very simple and rudimentary.

I believe that tiny little percentage would only knock six zeroes off the total, right? So in that case there might be 70,000,000,000,000,000,000 (70 centillion) stars with life-bearing planets, correct?

So it really could be that any form of life that we could conjure up in our twisted minds may, in fact, exist somewhere.
 
Delirious XVII
The reason why I made that comment is with such a huge number...you can't help but wonder the thought...just maybe.
Click to expand...

Space is all about huge numbers.

If the universe is 18.5 billion years old (which it probably is), and assuming it is uniform (which it isn't), then it's a sphere (which it isn't) with a diameter of 18.5 billion light years (light is not subject to inertia, which prevents it being a sphere with a radius of 18.5 billion light years).

So...
Diameter of known universe = 18,500,000,000 light years.
Volume of known universe = 3,315,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic light years.
Or...
Diameter of known universe = 175,750,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometres
Volume of known universe = 284,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic kilometres
(1 light year = 9,500,000,000,000km; 1 cubic light year = 857,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic kilometres)

That's some pretty big numbers right there...

Assuming that the universe is uniform (which it still isn't) that means there's one star every 3,315,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000/70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 light years, or a star every 47,000 light years.

We're about 4 light years from our closest stellar neighbour - a lot less than 47,000... In fact the Milky Way is about 100,000 light years across and 3,000 light years thick (23,500,000,000,000 cubic light years) and contains about 300 billion (300,000,000,000) stars - a density of a star every 78 light years, but still less than 0.00000000000004% of all the stars in the known universe live in this little region.


All this aside (!) I'm not sure why you assert that big numbers imply a creator.
 
Goes off to buy Famine a new keyboard as his 0 button has just imploded.
 
Famine
All this aside (!) I'm not sure why you assert that big numbers imply a creator.
Click to expand...
All that these big numbers imply is a calculator ;)

Interesting calculations, however 👍 - thinking about these numbers suggests a reason why we are not being bombarded by a myriad of signals from intelligent life from other planets... in terms of a cosmic scale, you could think of 'intelligent' broadcasts (i.e. radio/TV signals) eminating from a planet as a pulse... a pulse that is as long as that planet has been transmitting - (in our case, only about 100 years or so)... so our little outpost in the universe has only been 'SETI-visible' for this length of time... our transmissions will only stop when the human race is dead and gone (assuming that we are not replaced by similarly intelligent life), say in 10,000 years time... so the human race will only be preserved in cosmological history as this 10,000 year long 'pulse' of intelligent information (unless we devise other ways of course...)

Since the universe is possibly full of similar planets chirping away and sending out 'intelligent' pulses left, right and center, there must be a reason why we aren't seeing any of them (or atleast, no explicit examples, like a TV program or a radio broadcast)... since any one 'pulse' would have to coincide with a species/planets capability to detect it, what do you think the chances of that happening are?
 
Delirious XVII
I am smelling/sensing a very distinct odor/fragrance to this thread (whichever you want to use) It's called 'le intelligent designer' :)

You have to admit...that huge number of zeros REAKS of it.

At the least, maybe even has a hint of it.
Click to expand...

6000 REEKS ? :)
As to 70 x 1024 Vs 70 x 1042 for a Septillion, i made a firm mental note some time ago to stick to the American system concerning personal nouns for large numbers, thinking one step every sixth power is financially orientated whereas the British convention would probably tag squarer for distance as it steps through an exponent power, 1,000,000,000 is still a chunk quantity for items (a monetarily thinkable value) but the equivalent 1,000,000,000,000 is starting to get there @speed.

 
Touring Mars
....
Since the universe is possibly full of similar planets chirping away and sending out 'intelligent' pulses left, right and center, there must be a reason why we aren't seeing any of them (or atleast, no explicit examples, like a TV program or a radio broadcast)... since any one 'pulse' would have to coincide with a species/planets capability to detect it, what do you think the chances of that happening are?
Click to expand...

Slim to none, But I hope I get to see proof -- before the end of my miniscule little existence -- of whatever that intellengence may be.
 
Some scientists say that we should be looking for really complex, hidden, encoded messages from other intelligent life bearing planets. You'd think that a life from more intelligent than us would realize that there may be intelligent life out there not as advanced as they, and therefore they should send out signals that encompass the wntire span of their technology. They should send out simple radio waves, then TV signals, maybe some free satellite HD (hehe), some laser pulses, some gamma rays--you know, a variey so all sorts of "people" could pick up on at least one of them. Another reason more intelligen tlife should do this, at least this, is because I just thought of it, which means it isn't beyond us. Of course, light is extremely slow, even though it is (supposedly) the fastest thing ou there, so their signal might not reach us until long after our reign over the Earth has ended, and vice versa.
But then again, maybe these complex signals are all they've ever known. Maybe they never went through the stages we have, and they probably haven't. But the laws of physics only let certain things happen, and we can pretty much satisfy every law we know of with some peice of our technology, so maybe they did go through the same stages as us. It makes sense. You see what I'm saying? The only way to make a Halogen lightbulb is with the five Halogen gases, the only way to make Xenon bulbs is with Xenon, the only way the make flourescent bulbs is with Flourine, the only way to make Neon light bulbs is with the six Noble Gases (not all "neon" lights are filled with Neon, but with different combos of these six gases to produce different colors. The only pure Neon bulbs are a true red color, I believe, because that's the colr Neon produces when it is super-heated.)
What was I getting at.......oh yeah, if they have light bulbs, they've done the same things we have, because there are only so many ways to make light.
 
Touring Mars
...Since the universe is possibly full of similar planets chirping away and sending out 'intelligent' pulses left, right and center, there must be a reason why we aren't seeing any of them (or atleast, no explicit examples, like a TV program or a radio broadcast)... since any one 'pulse' would have to coincide with a species/planets capability to detect it, what do you think the chances of that happening are?
Click to expand...

I may have mentioned this before, but the late, great Carl Sagan said the chances are zero. He felt that no intelligent life form ever finds any other intelligent life form, ever, because of the vast distances that separate them.

He was positive that there is plenty of intelligent life in our galaxy, but he seemed to be equally positive that we can forget about ever contacting anybody else.
 
Well, that wasn't very nice. Just give it some time, we might get something out of it. And the only possible way the chance could be 0 is if no signals of any form were ever sent from this planet. On that note I relegate Carl Sagan (never heard of him) to idiot status.
 
keef
...On that note I relegate Carl Sagan (never heard of him) to idiot status.
Click to expand...

That would be a major mistake:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

http://www.carlsagan.com/ (Click on "Cosmos Store")

http://www.planetary.org/about/founders/carl_sagan.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/s...results-process=bin&field-keywords=Carl+Sagan

http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/sagan.html

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_CSagan.htm

http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/20/sagan/

http://www.answers.com/topic/carl-sagan

http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/sagan.html


His feeling that contact with other intelligences was unlikely was a bit of a paradox considering his role in the SETI program. He felt that even though it was doubtful that we would find anything, we were obligated to at least look.
 
Thanks for the reply and the links, Zardoz - I fully agree that if anyone has a considered opinion about such things, it would have to have been Carl Sagan... :bowdown:

...infact, reading his book 'The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle In The Dark" is what opened my eyes fully to the struggle of rationalism v supernaturalism... (that and various articles by James Randi)

(As an aside, I actually bought this book after my sister announced that her favourite TV program was 'Crossing Over' with John Edward - a programme where a live studio audience are invited to speak to their non-live relatives... both Sagan and Randi have thoroughly debunked Edward, yet his books and his broadcasts continue to grow in popularity :banghead: )
 
I bet keef feels kinda silly now... :lol: :P

I agree with Sagan, that it is very unlikely that we will ever make contact with anyone. I also think it is very unlikely that we will ever find a way to even travel beyond our solar system.

Still, it's worth a shot to keep listening... :)

I still remember watching Contact (the movie based on Carl Sagan's book of the same name)...that was a neat movie. 👍
 
Well, it sounds like that Carl Sagan guy is prety smart. I retract my previous statement. I guess I wasn't informed enough since I'd never heard of him, so it sounded to me like he wanted to just give up the search. I understand his view, but I think we'll get a hold of someone someday. Just maybe.

And Famine, that was a kick-ass episode, wasn't it?
 

Latest Posts

Back