Is there a number larger than a googolplex, and what in the universe would have a quantity of at least a googolplex?

There is probably no number higher than a googolplex to which a convenient *name* has been given.

The series of numbers is infinite. As I understand it, a googol is the 100th power of 10, and a googolplex is 10 raised to the power of a googol. To write a googolplex down, you would, I think, write a 1 followed by 10,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion zeros. Replace the last zero with a 1 and you have a higher number than a googolplex.

The physicist Arthur Eddington, who flourished in the inter-war years, estimated the number of particles in the universe as (2.4 x 10 to the 79th), or fewer than a googol. His physics may be outdated, but it's unlikely that there is a googolplex of objects of any class in the universe.

There is nothing in the universe that has a quantity as big as a googolplex. There isn't even anything with a quantity as big as a googol. But mathematics has given a name to a few numbers that are bigger. The biggest number that was seriously proposed by a mathematician is called Reynold's number. Its definition is too complicated to write here, but it is considerably bigger than a googleplex.

"Reynolds number
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fluid mechanics, the Reynolds number is the ratio of inertial forces (vsρ) to viscous forces (μ/L) and consequently it quantifies the relative importance of these two types of forces for given flow conditions. Thus, it is used to identify different flow regimes, such as laminar or turbulent flow. It is one of the most important dimensionless numbers in fluid dynamics and is used, usually along with other dimensionless numbers, to provide a criterion for determining dynamic similitude. When two geometrically similar flow patterns, in perhaps different fluids with possibly different flowrates, have the same values for the relevant dimensionless numbers, they are said to be dynamically similar.

It is named after Osborne Reynolds (1842–1912), who proposed it in 1883."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number

Actually the second response to this answer is 50% incorrect.

What he said about a googol is scientifically true. There is not a googol of atoms in the entire observable universe. A googolplex could not be written out fully, even if you could write a zero on every atom in the universe..

However, As what-a-mess pointed out above, Reynolds number applies most often to fluid dynamics.

Graham's Number though, is as relative in size to a googolplex - as a googolplex is to the number 10. Discovered by mathematician and circus performer, John Graham.

We cannot complete the math to complete Graham's number. We cannot comprehend its size, however it is still a finite number. Figuring out the last digit, the number in the "ones column" requires a full page of highly complicated math based around multi-dimensional cubes - this number is 7.

The thing to think about - is do numbers ever stop? Regardless of our need for them. If there was a biggest number, couldn't you always add 1 to it? What does this say about the universe - is it finite or infinite?

Graham's Number is not any closer to infinity, than 1.

First, if the universe is infinite and unlimited in 3 dimensions, there could well be an amount of subatomic particles that number as large as a googolplex. Second, it is believed that in each Planck sized volume of space, a virtual pair comes into existence and almost immediately self-annihilates (this accounts for the ability of energy to be transmitted through space, what is considered a vacuum). As each moment goes by and so the number of particle/antiparticle pairs in existence or have been existence and grows probably in an arithmetic rate, needs a number such as a googolplex to be a measure of its size.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_distribution_function

Just for fun even though this post is pretty old kinda I think I might know it's called psi

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/64623.html