# How many Stars in the universe? 300 sextillion



## MA-Caver (Dec 2, 2010)

And just how many is 300 Sextillion? try to wrap your mind around this... 


> By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer        Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer          &#8211;     Wed Dec 1, 9:32 pm ET
> WASHINGTON &#8211; The universe may glitter with far more stars than even Carl Sagan  imagined when he rhapsodized about billions upon billions. A new study  suggests there are a mind-blowing 300 sextillion of them, or three times  as many as scientists previously calculated. That is a 3 followed by 23  zeros. *Or 3 trillion times 100 billion.*
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101202/ap_on_sc/us_sci_starry_night


That is *a lot* of stars ... and some folks still insist that we're all alone out here.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 2, 2010)

This is the BBC's report on it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11888362

Amazingly mind-boggling number to try and comprehend!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 2, 2010)

_"Water, water, everywhere; and not a drop to drink."_

We are probably not alone in the universe.  We are, however, effectively alone.  The odds of life existing elsewhere are inversely proportional with the odds that other life will visit us, or vice-versa.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 2, 2010)

So is that more or less than a buttload or a bajillion? 

So the number of stars is 3^23.  Amazingly, still not quite a mole, which is 6.02^23.  For reference, a mole of table salt (NaCl) would weigh 58.44 grams, a small shaker's worth.  An interesting differential in sizes between atoms and stars that the entire universe has half a mole of stars, while a mole of salt would fit in your hand.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 2, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> So is that more or less than a buttload or a bajillion?
> 
> So the number of stars is 3^23.  Amazingly, still not quite a mole, which is 6.02^23.  For reference, a mole of table salt (NaCl) would weigh 58.44 grams, a small shaker's worth.  An interesting differential in sizes between atoms and stars that the entire universe has half a mole of stars, while a mole of salt would fit in your hand.


:erg: Huh? Wha?? English please for those not benefiting from quite such a higher education. :asian:


----------



## SensibleManiac (Dec 2, 2010)

Thanks for this post, it's things like these that make me stand in awe of the world (and universe) we live in, I find thinking about the world in this sense more profound than any religion could ever hope to be. 
I just don't see the point of creating fantasies about what we want the creator of everything to be, rather than pondering the vastness and beauty of everything that is, and being grateful and appreciating that.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 2, 2010)

SensibleManiac said:


> Thanks for this post, it's things like these that make me stand in awe of the world (and universe) we live in, I find thinking about the world in this sense more profound than any religion could ever hope to be.
> I just don't see the point of creating fantasies about what we want the creator of everything to be, rather than pondering the vastness and beauty of everything that is, and being grateful and appreciating that.


You're welcome... it's when I see photos (like the ones below) I still feel humbled. Though it appears that our personal beliefs will differ upon the origins and such and all that... the effect seems to be the same... awe and humility in the face of something grander and greater than ourselves.
I love science fiction but of all that I've read and seen movies about space... they still haven't quite captured the scope and grandeur and more importantly the stunning beauty of it all. 
Also to see the photos and to know it's only just a tiny fraction of what is out there... well there are no words.
:asian:


----------



## Nomad (Dec 3, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> :erg: Huh? Wha?? English please for those not benefiting from quite such a higher education. :asian:



Ok, let's try this...



> a mole of any pure substance has a mass in grams exactly equal to that substance's molecular or atomic mass; e.g., 1mol of calcium-40 is approximately equal to 40g



The number of *atoms* of calcium in 40 g is a constant called Avogadro's number, which is roughly 6.022 X 10^23

So Empty Hands pointed out that you can hold twice the number of stars in the universe's worth of table salt (NaCl) atoms in the palm of your hand (~58g).

Just a neat comparison to show that things are really really big or really really small, the numbers get somewhat incomprehensible to most of us.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 3, 2010)

A good stab at explaining that (what a Mole of something is), Nomad!  It took me ages to understand it back when I did 'O' level chemistry - I claim that it wasn't explained to me very well  .


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 3, 2010)

So sorta like that Universe in a marble concept at the end of Men In Black? 

That's... pretty fricken big or pretty effen small.

Still beautiful none-the-less.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 3, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> A good stab at explaining that (what a Mole of something is), Nomad!



Simple, it's 6.02x10^23 of these guys:





:lol:


----------



## Nomad (Dec 6, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> So sorta like that Universe in a marble concept at the end of Men In Black?
> 
> That's... pretty fricken big or pretty effen small.
> 
> Still beautiful none-the-less.



Exactly!


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 6, 2010)

Cuuute little mole, *EH* !


----------

