View Question
Q: More stars than sand particles? ( Answered ,   11 Comments )
 Question
 Subject: More stars than sand particles? Category: Science > Astronomy Asked by: dimator-ga List Price: \$3.50 Posted: 02 Jul 2005 02:05 PDT Expires: 01 Aug 2005 02:05 PDT Question ID: 539329
 ```I remember hearing or reading that there are more stars in the universe than there are particles of sand on Earth. I was at the beach the other day, and there seemed to be a *LOT* of sand particles on the beach, not even considering the rest of the planet. Is such a statement accurate? How can such an estimate be made logically? I want estimates of how many sand particles there are in one cubic inch, foot, mile, ... planet Earth, and also, the latest, most scientifically valid estimates of how many stars are in the universe.```
 Subject: Re: More stars than sand particles? Answered By: richard-ga on 03 Jul 2005 21:10 PDT Rated:
 ```Hello and thank you for your question. "So how many grains of sand are there in the world? You could start off by trying to guess how many grains of sand there are in a spoon of sand. Use a magnifying glass to count how many grains fit in a small section. Then, count how many of those sections fit in your spoon. Multiply the two numbers together to get an estimate. "Using this same principle, plus some additional information, mathematicians at the University of Hawaii tried to guess how many grains of sand are on the world's beaches. They came up with 7,500,000,000,000,000,000, or seven quintillion five quadrillion grains of sand." How many grains of sand are in the world? http://www.miamisci.org/tripod/whysand.html The calculation is detailed here: http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/jsand.html That number is 7.5 x 10^18 or 7.5 billion billion. How many stars, galaxies, clusters, QSO's etc. in the Universe? http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part8/section-3.html "To get the total stellar population in the Milky Way [that is, in our galaxy alone], we must take the number of luminous stars that we can see at large distances and assume that we know how many fainter stars go along with them. Recent numbers give about 400,000,000,000 (400 billion) stars, but a 50% error either way is quite plausible." So in our galaxy alone, there might be between 2 x 10^11 and 6 x 10^11 stars How many galaxies in the Universe? http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part8/section-4.html "the Hubble telescope is capable of detecting about 80 billion galaxies (although not all of these within the foreseeable future!). In fact, there must be many more than this, even within the observable Universe, since the most common kind of galaxy in our own neighborhood is the faint dwarfs which are difficult enough to see nearby, much less at large cosmological distances. For example, in our own local group, there are 3 or 4 giant galaxies which would be detectable at a billion light-years or more (Andromeda, the Milky Way, the Pinwheel in Triangulum, and maybe the Large Magellanic Cloud). However, there are at least another 20 faint members, which would be difficult to find at 100 million light-years, much less the billions of light years to which the brightest galaxies can be seen." So the lower end estimate for the number of galaxies is 8 x 10^10 If we accept even the lower end of these Hubble figures, and if our Milky Way has a typical number of stars in it, that puts the number of stars in the universe to be at least (2 x 10^11) x (8 x 10^10) = 16 x 10^ 21 So if we round the number of sand grains to, say, 10^20 and round the number of stars to, say 10^22 then there are at least 100 stars in the universe for every grain of sand on earth. As you say, that's a *LOT* Search terms used beach sand particles cubic "number of stars in the universe Thanks again for your interesting question Richard-ga```
 dimator-ga rated this answer: `What a great response, I'm glad I brought my question here!`

 Subject: Re: More stars than sand particles? From: iang-ga on 03 Jul 2005 01:02 PDT
 ```Unfortunately, noone knows how how many stars or sand grains there are. If you search for grains, sand, Earth, stars & universe you'll find a lot of suggestions though. Most of them are good at explaining the assumptions they've made in counting grains of sand, but state the number of stars as a matter of fact. In reality there are a lot of assumptions made in counting stars, too - these links might be useful:- http://ganymede.nmsu.edu/astro/a110labs/labmanual/node14.html http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.8.FAQ Ian G.```
 Subject: Re: More stars than sand particles? From: sparkmencer-ga on 03 Jul 2005 14:02 PDT
 ```There are more stars than grains of sand on the earth. With sand, there is a definite number of particles. The cosmos are infinite...the further you look, the more will be found, forever.```
 Subject: Re: More stars than sand particles? From: singularity360cubed-ga on 03 Jul 2005 22:39 PDT
 ```I would refer you to the Deep Field Image, that the Hubble came up with. You will soon find that the count of stars has to be of greater number, given the small patch that the Deep Field Image represents, once it is factored...! Steve```
 Subject: Re: More stars than sand particles? From: pinkfreud-ga on 04 Jul 2005 11:43 PDT
 ```What a great answer, Richard! I'd have given it five stars. Or 500 grains of sand. :-D```
 Subject: Re: More stars than sand particles? From: dprk007-ga on 04 Jul 2005 20:22 PDT
 ```sparkmencer-ga Modern theories of cosmology contend that our Universe is FINITE both in size, when it was born and total number of GALAXIES and STARS. The researcher has done a calculaton to indicate a lower limit on the number of stars. However there would be an actual total number of stars (i.e. which is not infinite) DPRK007```
 Subject: Re: More stars than sand particles? From: pugwashjw-ga on 04 Jul 2005 20:47 PDT
 ```Genesis 1;16-18 " And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, AND ALSO THE STARS. 17. Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth. 18. And to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that it was good". The scripture implies that Earth is a very special place. More important even than the stars in the universe. The words 'and also the stars' seem to relegate them to a lesser importance. Maybe we have to learn to look after this place before we are allowed out THERE.```
 Subject: Re: More stars than sand particles? From: dprk007-ga on 07 Jul 2005 19:22 PDT
 ```pugwashjw-ga As I do not read the bible that much, I am a little bit unfamiliar with the biblical jargon. So perhaps you can confirm what you have said can be interpeted thus in pure layman's terms: 1. God Said Let there be a Planet earth and a planet earth appeared. 2. One or two days later God said let there be the sun and and a G type yellow dwarf appeared on the scene. 3. A couple of days later God said let there be stars and 10^22 stars appear (as per Richard-ga estimation) along with Planets , moons of planets, asteriods, pulsars, quasars, galaxies,brown dwarfs, planetary nebula and many other types of astronomical bodies which we may never have heard of. 4. And then god said let there be man and a man appeared on October 23rd 4004 BC (was a pretty hectic week all round!!) Regards DPRK007```
 Subject: Re: More stars than sand particles? From: dprk007-ga on 07 Jul 2005 19:25 PDT
 ```oops regarding my point 4 I meant to say: And then god said let there be man and a man appeared on October 23rd 4004 BC at nine o'clock !!. DPRK007```
 Subject: Re: More stars than sand particles? From: nemtudom-ga on 25 Jul 2005 04:25 PDT
 ```7,500,000,000,000,000,000 is seven quintillion five *hundred* quadrillion. It's interesting to note that ancient people, without telescopes, somehow had the idea that the number of stars was so great as to be in the same league with the grains of sand, e.g., "I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore" (Genesis 22:17). It's interesting to note that most statements beginning "it's interesting to note" are not interesting to note.```
 Subject: Re: More stars than sand particles? From: noseallinit-ga on 10 Jan 2006 21:35 PST
 ```http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99215.htm Ask A Scientist© Astronomy Archive Stars or Sand Question: Are there more stars or are there more grains of sand? m french Answer: Well, if every star came with a planet like earth that had billions of sand grains, there would have to be more sand grains than stars! The number of stars in our galaxy is around 100 billion or 10^11 in exponential notation. The number of sand grains on earth is probably somewhere between 10^20 and 10^24. Th e number of sand grains on earth is therefore much greater than the number of stars in our galaxy. However, our galaxy is only one of about 100 billion in the visible universe, and so the total number of stars we know about is around 10^22, which is kind of in the same ballpark as the number of grains of sand on earth. Of course, those numbers are much bigger than we can count - I'm not sure whether better estimates of both numbers would give more stars, or more sand grains - there's a lot of both! Asmith```
 Subject: Re: More stars than sand particles? From: richard-ga on 07 Jun 2006 07:31 PDT
 ```According to this recent article, http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9282-andromeda-galaxy-hosts-a-trillion-stars.html the Andromeda galaxy has a trillion stars, that is, 10^12 So if that's the size of a typical galaxy, there are closer to 10^23 stars in the universe, or about 1,000 stars for each grain of sand. By the way, if you recall Avogadro's number from chemistry (6 x 10^23), the number of stars in the universe neatly matches the number of molecules in 22.4 liters (6 gallons) of uncompressed air or other gas at standard temperature (0 celsius or 32 fahrenheit) and pressure (1 atmosphere). -R```