Skip to main content


If we calculate how many grains are in a teaspoon of sand (an average) & multiply that by the amount of sand estimated on every beach & desert in the world, we get (roughly) seven quintillion, five hundred quadrillion grains of sand on Earth. https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/09/17/161096233/which-is-greater-the-number-of-sand-grains-on-earth-or-stars-in-the-sky #space #science

Meanwhile, there are ~70 thousand million, million, million stars in the observable universe - a figure vastly surpassing all of those grains of sand. The universe is immense, breathtaking & beyond imagination ✨
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Something I learned recently, talking of unfathomably large numbers. A Rubiks cube has 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 possible combinations. Only one of which = solved. https://thecube.guru/rubiks-cube-combinations/
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

It's not untrue then. I tried to tell my grandchild (10yrs) that. Gave me a silly grin. Sure granddad.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I hate it when we get silly with changing terms.

"70,000 million million million" simplifies to 70 x 10^21

7.5 quintillion is 7.5 x 10^18

So... 10,000 times, +/-

70,000 quintillion vs 7.5 quintillion

It's almost 0300hrs, why am I deobfuscating stuff like this in my head?

Oh, yeah, it annoys me.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Archimedes did this same calculation some 25 centuries ago. Had different numbers but came to the same conclusion. 😃
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Purely coincidentally, I was considering this question last night & your number for stars is probably too high.

The current best estimate for the total number of galaxies in the observable universe is 2 x 10^12. But most are much smaller than our Milky Way & have only 100 million stars on average.

That makes 2 x 10^20 stars vs 7.5 x 10^18 grains of sand on Earth.

So yes, more stars than grains of sand, but “only” by a factor of ~25 or so.

(All with big error bars, of course 🙂)
in reply to Mark McCaughrean

@markmccaughrean Thanks. Yes, I was going with the estimates in the linked NPR piece.

Even the lower estimate is still astounding.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Thanks, Sheril – it certainly is 🙂

If I’m right, the 2012 NPR piece uses estimates from 2003, so the data have improved since then, mostly through the Hubble Deep Fields & Gaia.

Very spooky though to know that I was pondering this last night & exchanged emails with Chris Conselice, one of the people who have thought about this deeply 😱
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

time to wheel out my favourite Douglas Adams quote again... 😀
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Universe has abundance for everyone ,every time and everything but harnessing the abundance limited due to mindset .Do evangelists of multi planetary civilisation make first step towards that direction before we transition towards multiverse harnessing.Who know what’s in store with evolution of human intelligence.technological progress and once we build AGI & quantum computing capability .Exciting times and just a matter of time for machine to pass Turing test 😊
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

⬆️ ✅

There are many more atoms in a handful of sand than there are stars ✨ in the (currently) observable universe!

“Chemical Eye 👁️ on Counting our Blessings” 👉 http://www.sitnews.us/MacDougall/112805_macdougall.html

#chemistry #chemiverse #WilliamBlake #AmadeoAvogadro
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Brilliant data and wonderful image. I mentioned something similar to this as my wife and I poured 27 Kilo bags of sand into a sink-hole near our water meter.

The Universe is one amazing place and the particles making it and every one of us aren't sub-microscopic bits of "stuff" but persistent disturbances in bizarre 3D quantum fields....

Its a never-ending source of wonder, fascination and deep interest for me...and as for the JWST..what a breathtaking piece of engineering origami!
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

And just to add to that there are unimaginable atoms in each one of those stars but the number of possible chess games overwhelmingly exceeds the number of atoms in the universe.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

with all these stars there must be aplenty of planets ! Is there one planet where the humans could go after this is destroyed ( by the humans) ?
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

@MeanwhileinCanada Quintillions and quadrillions sure sound like a lot more. Perhaps you should’ve used the same measurements in the comparison but at least you told us which one is bigger. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

So in the big picture we hardly exist, only the dimmest little blip of energy in the cosmos. Our significance is questionable, but we can dream big.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Amazing! I have a question about the “2 light-years” scale bar: is this for the nearest stars, most distant, or somewhere in between? I don’t understand how the scale bar makes sense when the dots we’re looking at are not in a flat plane. Thanks!
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I understand the scales here, but I think its slightly disingenuous to choose different word measures like you did.

"If we calculate how many grains are in a teaspoon of sand (an average) & multiply that by the amount of sand estimated on every beach & desert in the world, we get (roughly) **seven and a half million million million** grains of sand on Earth.

Meanwhile, there are ~70 thousand million, million, million stars in the observable universe"

Now it's easily noticeable there are about 10,000 times more stars than grains of sand.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

We can't even imagine all the weird and/or wonderful things it contains. We may never overcome the technical challenges of visiting the rest of it. But we can all stare up at it and be overwhelmed by its power, beauty and mystery.

Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.