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

Tabby Tom

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 His physics may be outdated, but it's unlikely that there is a googolplex of objects of any class in the universe. Oct 23 02, 1:34 PM

Gnomon

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. Oct 23 02, 7:26 PM

What-A-Mess

"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." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number Jan 27 07, 1:57 AM

happyandyv

Actually the initial 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. Look it up - stretch that skull-bone. May 26 10, 8:04 PM

happyandyv

I'm sorry I mean't the one from Gnomon. May 26 10, 8:05 PM