You did some funny math there…
10⁵² + 10⁵² = 20⁵²
in order to get the number of atoms in the universe you would have to multiply the atoms in a star 10⁵² by the est. number of stars in the universe (10^23) - and that is 10^75 (in this case)
3 Likes
Also, it’s useful to remember that 10^52 is a somewhat arbitrary number. Our sun (sol) has approx. 10^57 atoms, but there are many starts that are much larger, and many stars that are smaller.
An “average” star has 1.2 x 10^23 atoms
1 Like
So it doesn’t seem like you’re dense, but that you haven’t done scientific notation. Huge difference.
Two groups of 10^52 is 2*10^52
If you go from 10^52 to 10^53, then you have 10 times as much.
10 = 10^1 (one zero in 10)
100 = 10^2 ( two zeros in 100)
100000 = 10^5 ( five zeros in one hundred thousand)
10+10 = 20 = 2x10 = 2x10^1
100+100 = 200 = 2x100 = 2x10^2
10^52 + 10^52 = 2x10^52
2 Likes
By this rule 32 + 32 = 34, but the left side is 9 + 9 = 18, and the right side is 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 = 81.
You’re doing some funny math there as well; by your rule 32 + 32 = 62, but 9 + 9 = 18, and 6 * 6 = 36… 
I object to calling this scientific notation, it’s just arithmetic. My understanding is that scientific notation refers to writing numbers as 2e37 or 4.8e-12, etc. (which is just shorthand for 2 * 1037 and 4.8 * 10-12)
5 Likes
I guess you can object, but that’s what we did in literally every physics class and when I was working at an international dark matter detector.
I’ve never seen a number written as 2e12 for example outside of an engineer writing it.
What you’re referring to is “e notation” not scientific notation, which appears to be used only to save space on displays.
3 Likes
Thank you guys, I was making a very silly error. A way for me to comprehend was to say 100 apples + 100 apples is not 10000 apples 
6 Likes
Ok, I agree that I was wrong about what scientific notation was, but not by a large margin, since 1052 still doesn’t seem to be scientific notation; instead 1 × 1052 would be the scientific notation.
And I still think that @A74M’s confusion was not scientific notation, but the basic arithmetic that’s behind it 
3 Likes
While technically true about the 1x part, no ones gonna write that out in real life lol.
Anyway, when you teach scientific notation, you delve into the arithmetic behind it so that it makes sense. I know this because I teach grades 7-12 math and science and the curriculums for both have a 50 minute class devoted to it the first time you introduce it in each stream, and a refresher every year afterwards.
We shouldn’t assume the education level of A74M, they might be in high school, they might have not done it in high school, they might have forgotten it after graduation, who knows.
Plus everyone could use a refresher on math! All the time! Instead of tsumego, do math problems!!!
6 Likes
I know what you mean, but as a counterargument, I usually have to explain to the freshman university students I tutor that the magic behind their computations with scientific notation is completely the same as what they learnt in the first two years of secondary education. I suspect that people generally get taught these concepts separately, and thus tend to think of them separately, while the real understanding only comes after witnessing that they are the same thing.
(and it’s not only that, similar stuff happens where the students never learnt the connection between measuring angles, periodic waves, and graphing circles even though they know how to use the sine wave for each of those things; or students who get their mind blown when they learn that the physics formulas relating distance, velocity and acceleration are just the result of differentiating and integrating; and a few more of these things)
3 Likes
Yup, I know exactly what you mean. I find that a lot of people, both kids and adults, that hate math were forced into learning it by rote, bland instruction, no real application examples, etc.
I was one of those kids, but I ended up really enjoying math once I saw that it was actually useful, and hence why I went into physics.
Unfortunately, a lot of the “bad” teachers/instruction don’t actually come from bad teachers, but teachers that are either burnt out or forced to teah subjects they aren’t good at and thus their own insecurities ar passed onto the students. The teacher’s mood is mirrored by the kids, and over time theyincorporate those feelings into themselves. They associate “frustration” with math, and have instant physical reactions and mental shutdowns when presented with math later in life. It’s not really anyones fault it happens and it’s really unfortunate.
When I did my student teaching practicum, I was informed by the mentor teacher of two things within the first 5 minutes of meeting her: 1) it took her 3 years to be “comfortable” teaching, and that most teachers only last 2 years. I have a lot of stories but, that’s for another thread or conversation I guess.
What I do want to share though, is that during my student teacher phase, the grade 7 students coming in to my class didn’t know their times tables, and were allowed to do math “in any way they want” which most of them just resorted to tcounting ticks or drawing various things. It was interesting for about 30 seconds until I realized that they would never pass a single quiz or midterm as they had to spend a good 10-15 minutes setting up before they could do math. So my mentor teacher and I shifted the focus of the instructions to making them do math in their head and not on paper, which meant changing all the numbers tin every lesson and assignment o make them suepr easy and then slowly ramp them up. it works for some, failed for others. There was pushback from parents about how their kid should be able to do anything they wanted as long as they got the right answer, pushback from the school about them having to deal with parents, etc. However, we also got defended by parents for finally making their kids take some responsibility and learning to “work hard”. It was weird, but one of the more memorable moments of my life.
From my own experiences, I know there are teachers who kinda don’t really care as long as you pass, and either hope you learn to do it later somehow or just truly don’;t care. It’s tough…
Also, if you really want me to rant, ask me about teacher-student interactions when a student shuts down for “not knowing how to do the homework” and the teacher getting mad at the student and escalating the situation. But uh, ask me on discord or in PMs…
4 Likes
Don’t forget the mandatory curriculum and bad textbooks 
Oh, yes, totally! The first thing I do when my students take their calculator out of their bag, is confiscate it until they realise that my exercises are doable with only mental arithmetic.
3 Likes
It’s not as bad in Canada, the rule of law is “it doesn’t matter how you teach as long as they pass the exams”. Plus the pay is a lot higher and the positions isn’t looked down on.
4 Likes
Wow, I didn’t bother reading this massive wall of text, but I’m still just so happy to see such a pedantic discussion about scientific notation between @Kaworu_Nagisa and @Vsotvep
Well done
5 Likes
Er, uh…
EDITED TO PRESERVE YEBELLZ’S HOPES AND DREAMS.
3 Likes
I can still dream
Not reading it for a reason
3 Likes
Oh man, if you did physics essentially on your own, then, good job! That’s actually pretty impressive.
2 Likes
That is a shame
1 Like
What about some cooking classes instead?
2 Likes
New forum thread idea?
4 Likes
I am a novice for physics, but isn’t atom not the smallest unit? And a game stored in a computer is not by arranging atoms in board shapes, just energy running around in circuits. And energy can be converted to mass. So if we can work out the minimum energy required to run a game, is it possible to calculate the mass equivalent adding up? Would it still out-weights the universe?
3 Likes