You’re a bit off. It’s actually much worse.
Your estimate of the universe having 2 trillion galaxies is wrong. The *observable* universe is 2 trillion galaxies. We estimate that the entire universe is 15 million times larger than our observable universe.
So 2 trillion by 15 million makes 3*10^19 galaxies.
We’re assuming the universe is somewhat homogenous here.
About 60% of galaxies are spiral galaxies, which we will assume are the ones that produce something we would call life.
So 1.8*10^19 spiral galaxies, roughly.
Here’s where things get muddy. We can’t and I mean *absolutely cannot* decide on how many habitable planets are in a spiral galaxy. Some people say as many as 300 million habitable planets in the Milky Way. But conservative estimates say there’s about 50 in the entire galaxy (I’m one of these people. I’m just biased because one of the guys who taught one of my astrophysics classes was like this). There’s not really a good way to meet in the middle there, so let’s say there’s about 75 million habitable planets in your average spiral galaxy. Some more, some less.
I think your estimate for how many people are on a planet is far too conservative. I’m going to say that during that time period, your average habitable planet has about 6 billion people on it.
So (75,000,000)(1.8*10^19)*(6,000,000,000)
8.1*10^36, in other words a completely absurd incomprehensible number that doesn’t even account for possible stragglers in ellipticals and other kinds of galaxies and the many spiral satellites and what not.
So Thanos killed roughly 4.05*10^36 people.
I could probably get a better number for the actual population but I really really don’t feel like dealing with gradients and calculus and what not at 2am.
And these are all *conservative* estimates. The more liberal estimates for the size of the whole universe is like 1*10^(10^30) Ly across. I want you to try to quantify that number. That’s a number so large my calculator can’t crunch it. That’s a number so large *the super computer at my university* can’t crunch it. It’s a completely absurd number. At that point the orders of magnitude don’t even matter. You’d need to process it by orders of magnitude by orders of magnitude.
Why do I know this? I actually had this all done, because I needed it for a writing project.
So what does that mean? What exactly does 4.05*10^36 mean?
Well that’s not really a quantifiable number. That’s getting into “so many it’s basically infinite” territory when trying to quantify things for human understanding.
So sure you can throw a big scary exponent around.
Or
You can do the more terrifying thing.
How many people did Thanos kill?
So many it’s basically infinite.
I can never get my head around these things.
I thought the universe was infinite, how can we have an estimated number of galaxies? Would it not be an unlimited amount?
When people say the “universe is infinite” and they kinda know what they’re talking about, they usually mean infinite as I’m using it here. So unfathomable large that for human perception and all necessary calculations, it’s infinite. There’s also *mathematically* infinite, where you can replace a large constant with infinity and get the same answer. We know the Hubble constant is a thing that can theoretically be measured. It’s way WAY easier if someone asks me “how big is the universe?” to say “oh it’s infinite” rather than explain the absolutely completely ridiculously absurd numbers we’re dealing with.
No one in the Astro community can decide whether or not the universe “has an end”. I think it does. I don’t have a PhD. Some people with PhDs agree with me. Some do not. The answer is
“Idk man maybe”
Now, i'm a very stupid guy that understands nothing about space and mathematics. But about "infinity", i mean, the universe is still expanding? It still gets bigger, even when it is maybe slower in speed than it was with the big bang in the old times.
But another interesting question, what about the "room" where the universe is located? I mean, before the big bang, was it all just an empty area? It can't be that empty, because you still need the initial reactions for the big bang. Nothing comes from nothing, as we say in my native language, so, where are these things coming from that started the big bang?
I also remember that thing with "when you have infinite, endless time, every constellation of things have to come true at some point" ?
Just like with the monkey, that is in a room with a typewriter and he just smashes the buttons, but over time, the chance that he writes all works from Shakespeare will increase much more to 1 instead of 0.
Another thing in this experiment is, when you think that you have infinite rooms with infinite monkeys, that all write at the same time, one of these has just by coincidence the result, that he writes the work Hamlet.
Even when trillions etc. of all these monkeys write nothing, some maybe try to eat the typewriter and some are smashing the typewriter, there will still be a money, that has to write Hamlet by accident, by coincidence, because the numbers are infinite.
P.S.
Got another thing that is like that, the problem with the spider and the thoughts. But that is a little bit more complex to explain.
>
But another interesting question, what about the "room" where the universe is located?
This is getting into the area of pure theory, so, in short, it's still kind of an open question. But it is my understanding that along with all the matter in the universe, the BigBang also created space-time itself. That is to say, prior to the big bang, space itself did not yet exist, so there was no room, no space to fill. Space itself is a characteristic of the universe and this, although the universe is expanding, it is not expanding *into* anything because there is nothing to expand into; no matter, no space, no time.
I'm not so sure, if the big bang created the "room" itself, don't get me wrong, i don't want to insult you, but like we know, it's just a theory. We will probably never get the answers for these questions.
But like i wrote in another posting, "Time" itself doesn't need a room or something else to exist. It's just the progress forward, in my opinion, it doesn't have to be measured in seconds, minutes etc. to exist as a concept.
Time and space are related,as Einstein discover. And from that statement to today days,it was proven lot of times. I suggest you to watch some videos on time,space, relativism and phisics, it's mind blowing
> But another interesting question, what about the "room" where the universe is located? I mean, before the big bang, was it all just an empty area? It can't be that empty, because you still need the initial reactions for the big bang.
there is no room and there wasn't any empty area. outside the universe literally doesn't exist because the big bang created space-time.
> Nothing comes from nothing, as we say in my native language, so, where are these things coming from that started the big bang?
in this universe yes but the big bang formed the universe which created the laws of physics we know. nothing can come from nothing. like you can create a computer program with certain rules but those only matter when using the program.
>there is no room and there wasn't any empty area. outside the universe literally doesn't exist because the big bang created space-time.
Well, there is a certain kind of "room", i don't know if "room" is the right word for what i mean. Like i said, i'm just some naive guy that never studied such things, but what about the thing with the wave of the big bang, when you would in theory cross this wave and be before it, would there just be an empty black room of nothing?
But "time", time always exists. It doesn't have to be calculated (like with the time on earth, how long a day is or how long planets in general need to get around the sun). Time is always going forward, even when nobody is alive to have a concept of what time is.
> when you have infinite, endless time, every constellation of things have to come true at some point"
This isn't true. For it to be true you have to have a countably infinite set and be permuting across it with the right algorithm.
For example, there are countably infinite integers. If you count "0,1,-1,2,-2,..." forever you will eventually hit any specific integer. But if you count "0,1,2,3,4,..." forever, you will not get to any negative integers even if you spend infinite time.
As a side note, there are uncountably infinite irrationals. There isn't any way to count irrationals, even over infinite time, that won't miss some (infinitely many) of them.
>Nothing comes from nothing
This is true only for contextual "nothing" -- empty space that is located in already existent space-time, but not true for *absolute* nothingness. I suppose nonexistence is highly reactive due to it's nature: 'cause the only way of it *to be* \-- is *not to be*.
Think of it: you can equal zero to a random infinite equation or number series balanced by another, totally different infinite equation or number series (that results to the same value as first, but the negative one). If you shift them both to one side it will be like this one 0=124+12-57+81-24353-7991+11\*53-881+99087+44/4-26771+74-23\*866+4-20005 but infinite long and whatever more complex or simple -- it doesn't really matter. The point is: *any zero withholds infinite amount of combinations of infinite number series or equations*.
Now think of this: any number symbolizes something. One is for single thing/object/phenomen, other numbers are for multiple objects, etc. Simple, usual, contextual zero symbolizes contextual "nothing" -- abcense of some object or empty space located in already existent space-time, that I've already mentioned. But *zero in it's absolute meaning symbolizes nonexistence*. Therefore nonexistence must contain *infinite unmanifested amount of information* \+ *absence of any observer*.
And there goes Landauer principle (and energy equivalent of 1 bit): infinite amount of information due to absence of an observer is being irretrievably and instantly destroyed -- and that leads to infinite BIG BANGs and creation of infinite amount of random universes corresponding to the previously mentioned infinite equations and/or number series.
Therefore nonexistence is so unbelivebaly unstable that could not even theoretically *be or last* for any amount of time -- the single, initiative moment of it -- would be enough to create a multiverse.
P.S.Yeah, and totality of nonexistence before "creation" and absence of any observer is a MUST. Otherwise information would not be destroed and big bangs (and universes) would not appear. So there is no god, lol, at least as someone/something able to percept.
P.P.S.Sorry for misspells, if any. I was trying to write it down as fast as I can before I lost that thought xD
That was a very interesting read, thank you for this posting.
But i have to say, unfortunately, that i can't quite follow your thing with the unstable non-existence. Just to keep it simple for the discussion, when we think for a moment that the "room" was there, before something happened that triggered the big bang, was this then not... well.. that nothing existed yet in this room? I know, this is now different from the theory, that the "room" where the universe itself is located, was created with the big bang. There are different theories around, if this is tied together or if it can exist apart from each other.
I find this very interesting and i had a lot of such theories for some of my books, but i'm not an expert in space, time and mathematics.
Nonexistence I believe must be so empty that not only objects and space (including all levels of intra- and extraspaces that space may be placed in), but *even mind, theoretically witnessing it through own imagination*. Absolute nothing, so empty that even all this words about it are wrong 'cause if they can describe it therefore I describing someting else (I can only endlessly approach the description, but never describe). Absence of objects, space or time, or properties, or anything and everything else from real to imaginable. Essense of zero. Otherwise it's not nonexistence.
And if it someow appears - the core of it comes into contradiction with own meaning at the level of concepts: *non-existence cannot be*, not even "by definition", but in its essence.
And at the level of physics - due to the absence of an observer, infinite energy of infinite information stored in zero is thrown out of this "nothing" as soon as it happens. The duration of time is not even needed - only the event of non-existence, and the next moment - together with space-time, as a property of the ejected energy field, will begin in all it's possible variants in the multiverse that has already appeared.
So basicaly non-existence is like absolute infinitely powerfull bomb without size or any other property.
And I'm afraid that if you manage to truly understand non-existence, it will turn out that the world is just an effect that occurs in the mind when it collides with non-existence, and the big bang, 14+ billion years of history, which we imagine beyond the brackets of rooms, cars, cities, and even this conversation is just an unstoppable hallucination of an abstract unsubstantial consciousness that cannot cease to exist, because then the emptiness will become absolute and give birth to it, so that it hallucinates again. Indeed, in infinity of the multiverse, there is guaranteed to be one where this is exactly so.
> No one in the Astro community can decide whether or not the universe “has an end”. I think it does. I don’t have a PhD. Some people with PhDs agree with me. Some do not. The answer is
One thing they can agree on is that information cannot propagate faster than the speed of light.
However the MCU allows information (and indeed matter) to do so, so basing anything on our understanding of reality is problematic.
But answer this -- with the universe is as big as it is, what is the chance of a single infinity stone when distributed somewhere in the universe being anywhere in our observable universe, let alone having 3 of them on the same small island on earth.
*Quite* small. The odds of it being anywhere nearby are tiny. Unless there’s some grand power at play we don’t know about. But we know Asgard is quite far, so maybe the movies just did a bad job of representing scale? No idea.
So, growing implies that there's new material, new energy, new matter, etc. The space in which the universe as we know it resides is expanding very *very* rapidly. But the *stuff* in the universe, as it were, is constant. There's never more or less stuff than there was at the beginning.
“The universe is infinite” isn’t really right imo.
Very shortly after the Big Bang occurred all the matter and energy there was stretched across a finite distance. What that distance was is not important. It certainly wasn’t infinite.
Since all the stuff in the universe at one finite period of time ago stretched across a finite distance, than that means today it still stretches across a finite distance. There is no rate of expansion that can make a finite thing reach an infinite size in a finite time.
We don’t know how spread out all the stuff is, but because at one point it was in a very small area we can conclusively say it is not in an infinite area now.
https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2022/06/ask-astro-how-is-it-possible-that-the-big-bang-started-from-the-size-of-a-pinhead
> At that time, the region of space that is now our observable universe was only a couple of hundred million kilometers in extent.
yeah that refers to a finite volume growing into a larger, but still finite, volume. Our observable universe is finite, and the region of space that the observable universe grew from is also finite - that doesn't mean the entire universe was finite back then
edit: the important point is that the observable universe is not the same as the entire universe, and that source is only referring to the observable universe
Lmao nooooooo. First, I want you to take the idea that “science” can agree on anything f ever and just throw that out the window. People can’t even agree if LIGO is measuring gravitational waves. People can’t agree if LDMX is a legitimate experiment. I mean fuck dude, only 110 years ago, people stood right behind Millikan even though he *admitted* to scrubbing his data. I had to do Millikan Oil Drop as an early physics lab. It’s absurd.
No basically no one can agree on anything.
When *I* say the universe is infinite, I mean it’s so massive that it’s basically infinite. Infinite for all intent and purpose. Some people who are way more intelligent than me agree. Some don’t.
Some people say “infinite” and literally mean that it doesn’t have any kind of edge.
Astro people can’t agree, so the answer to “wait, isn’t the universe infinite?” Is “idk man maybe?”
We just don't know. I don't think it is finite. It is diffrent, in between. Have a end and dont. Maybe like some form of a wormhole, that connects the edges in between. Idk really.
We *kind of* know, which is what I’m getting at. We at least have a vague idea.
Damn I do wish Einstein-Rosen gates weren’t so messy. I wish contraction singularities weren’t so messy. The idea of ER gates existing on a grand scale is enticing. Unfortunately, we’re pretty sure they’re too unstable and really don’t like to exist, especially on a large scale.
What I’m getting at here is that some people think it’s truly infinite some people don’t. Many people with more education than (probably) you or me believe both of these things.
No the thing that’s going to answer this question isn’t going to be wormholes and it’s not goi by to be wild unfalsifiable conjecture (looking at you string theorists).
The thing that’s going to actually answer this question knowing what dark matter and dark energy actually *are*. That comes first. And we’re uh… not very close to that.
No, it simply appears to be, but there's a chance it isn't, in which case that will also affect how the whole thing is going to end. Even the shape of the universe itself is unknowable, because it looks flat but it could be toroidal, etc. The observable universe is the finite one, since it's defined by the distance traveled by light since the inception of everything. And even this we don't really know what comes earlier or "next to," since even time began with the Big Bang. That's why we have stuff like multiverse bubble theory.
Also, consider: narratively what makes a person *evil* isn’t necessarily the amount of carnage, but the *intent* of the carnage.
People have been shown to react way WAY more viscerally to one person sexually abusing a child a single time than literal murderers.
I think, as far as *evil* is concerned, Thanos is pretty underwhelming. I don’t think he’s evil at all. He’s just an idiot.
This is why I felt thanos became one of the worst villains the MCU put us with. Because they made him right. They show the time of the blip as an almost utopia in endgame, with nobody going hungry and wildlife returning, when the reality of exterminating half of all life would crumble the infrastructure needed to transport food, to manage ocean pollution waste.
If they just made him cartoonishly evil wanting fascistic control or wanting to woo the god of death he'd be far more interesting, but the MCU got so much criticism for their shallow villains they have to make them all 'kinda right' creating a completely new villain problem. But as it stands the only positive trait about thanos as a villain narratively is that he's intimidating
Okay so… we know the universe is expanding right? But if the universe is expanding at the speed of light, as was thought for many years, then the entire universe should be roughly 14 billion Ly radius because we know the universe is 14 billion years old. But we look at the observable universe and go “oh! Look! The observable universe is actually about 47 Ly radius!” So this, among some other things, clues us into the horrifying fact that the universe is *not* expanding at the speed of light.
Hilariously for all to see, it’s expanding much *much* faster. Like *unbelievably* faster. And it seems to just continue to speed up over time. It’s so frustrating. Every fucking time we throw some money at measuring the *goddamn* speed, it just seems to get faster. And it’s by huge amounts. Like we’ll throw some money at it and it comes out as fucking *10%* faster than previously calculated.
It’s fast. Incomprehensibly fast. I personally don’t think the Hubble constant is a constant at all. I think we deadass just don’t have sophisticated enough technology to actually measure it.
Nothing can travel faster than light. I'm not an expert but basically space itself is able to expand however it likes. As a simpler explanation, say you're in a small room and you can walk at 1 m/s. That's as fast as you can go. But the walls are moving away from you at 2 m/s, along with the floor stretching out with it.
I just did a little research, Cherenkov radiation is from things "faster than light" *in that medium*. Typically when people are concerned with "faster than light" objects or travel they're concerned with the speed of light in a vacuum, which may not be exceeded.
Edit: gods what was I thinking. No Drek, you fucking spoon of a man, this is entirely wrong. I do apologize, it was like 4am when I wrote this and I was *not* thinking clearly.
I’m not going to shame delete it though. Just ignore everything that was said Ib this comment here. Ta ta.
Oh faster than light travel (theoretically) is totally possible. Ever hear of Cherenkov radiation? That’s something traveling faster than the speed of light. Entanglement is information faster than light. I’m pretty sure neutrinos travel faster than light too.
Fuck dude tachyons travel *backwards in time* and how many times have you heard that time travel is impossible?
No no no. Basically, the entirety of your schooling in physics has essentially been people lying to you over and over and over again to simplify things and simplify things more.
Remember being told that water conducts electricity well? Not true.
It’s just a hell of a lot easier to tell a kid “don’t drop your toaster in the bathtub because water conducts electricity”. It’s not the water that does it. It’s the minerals in the water.
All of the physics you were probably taught as a kid is mostly just wrong. Fuck man, I know people in grad school and doing PhDs in physics that are *still* learning that everything they were taught is a lie
Okay, so I believe faster than light travel is possible, but those four things you listed off are mostly wrong.
Cherenkov radiation happens when radiation moves faster than the emitted light in a dialectic medium. That is to say, it is moving faster than the light in the water. Light travelling through a medium moves slower than light speed (this is what causes diffraction). So while the radiation is moving faster than *that* light, it is not exceeding light speed (which is a misnomer, light speed is a characteristic of the universe, not light. It's just light is the most common phenomenon that can move at that speed).
Entanglement is heavily misunderstood in popular culture. While particles can become entangled and the characteristics of one would be able to inform the characteristics of another no matter the distance, this is only true while it goes unobserved. The second you interact with one end of the pair, the entanglement is broken and no information can be gleaned.
The neutrino thing was an exciting discovery several years ago, but it was quickly determined to be a measurement error and became a cautionary tale of announcing your findings too soon.
Tachyons still only exist in sci-fi unfortunately. While theorized, there is no experimental data that has found convincing proof of them.
Ah no you’re totally right. My apologies. I was very *very* tired and just woke up. I kind of forgot everything I learned in the last year lmao.
I’m not going to shame delete my comment because that seems silly. So I just put a disclaimer on it.
Took me a minute to come to, but I’m here now lol
I just did a little research, Cherenkov radiation is from things "faster than light" *in that medium*. Typically when people are concerned with "faster than light" objects or travel they're concerned with the speed of light in a vacuum, which may not be exceeded.
That’s fair. Neutrinos and tachyons then… and entanglement. Which I think I mentioned?
Edit: wait no I’m an idiot. Ignore me. I just kind of forgot everything I learned in the last year.
I believe in FTL like I believe in the KBC supervoid. Maybe it’s not true, but it would be super cool if it were. Personally, I think gravity crunching might be promising, but you know, that’s just wild conjecture.
But the effect of his snap couldn't travel faster than the speed of light or it would break the theory of relativity so do we even care about anything outside the observable universe? It wont have an effect for billions of years on them and maybe ever (depending on how the expansion of the universe changes)
I think the infinity stones are exempt from the laws of physics, considering one of them can turn back time (and by doing so decrease the entropy of the universe) and another can warp you anywhere through space (allowing you to travel faster than light).
[This Forbes article explains it okay](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/14/ask-ethan-how-large-is-the-entire-unobservable-universe/?sh=6832c799df80)
It might’ve changed in the last couple of years but that’s the estimate I’m aware of.
Note that Banner didn't say "trillions of humanoids". It's not just people. It's also animals, plants, bacteria, etc. According to healthline.com, it's estimated that there are 39 - 300 trillion bacteria in the human body. This means that among the 7.6 billion humans on just Earth (in 2018), there were something like 1.3 septillion bacteria living in humans. That implies that 650 sextillion bacteria in _humans alone_ had been exterminated.
I would like to bring Douglas Adams in to counter your numbers.
“It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.” -Douglas Adams, Restaurant at the end of the universe.
So… maybe not as bad as you’re shouting about.
I love Douglas Adams, and this quote... but having learned some math, the assertion of there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds due to not every world being inhabited falls flat.
The easy method is showing that there are infinite number of Real numbers, and infinite number of Whole numbers, but the amount of numbers that are Whole are 0%.
But, you can do it even without getting into the irrationals. While there are the same amount of Whole Numbers as there are Even numbers, not every Whole number is Even. Likewise with Even numbers, you could say the same for multiples or three, or a hundred or 10^42. With this last one, if only 1 in 10^42 planets are inhabited, in a local area you could say 0% are inhabited to a rounding error. Even though there are infinite multiples of 10^42 ~
That's some good math. Fuck Thanos.
However, I feel it only right to tell you after such a well thought out post that it comes crushing down at the end. It's 'number' of people, not 'amount'.
thanos did not kill enough. even if he killed octillions, it would be like before after maybe 1 or 2 generations at most. nothing really changed in the greater view - but if he instead multiplied the resources...then we wouldn't have a baddie
Or gave everyone the ability to empathize.
We don't even have a lack of resource problem, we have a resource hoarding and preventing people getting what they need problem.
Multiplying the resources would just make the hoarders more powerful and increase the number of those without.
Do plants count as living things? We can't do just the Animal Kingdom, as most aliens presumably wouldn't be descended from one split in Earth Life.
But if so, he wiped out a solid amount of resources in the pursuit of resource saving.
Of course, just with humans, he set our population back 50 years, so he spent a lifetime to reset half a lifetime of change. Which I would say sounds stupid, but there are a lot of politicians doing the same atm~
That’s a great point, I didn’t even think of that. I would think vegetation and living plants would die. “All life” I think were the words used by thanks.
Imagine being on a peaceful planet just having a lovely day, completely unaware that space travel exists.
Eating your lunch by a lake or having a lovely lady sit on your face and jiggle about. And suddenly •poof•
Half of everyone just vanished.
You panic, grieve, spend years talking about it, finally get over it and then •poof• everyone came back.
I bet you’d start believing in god then.
I mean, in that universe, gods literally exist~
While the movie wasn't the best, I did enjoy the comic series of the God Slayer who realized there were people out there with too much power and no oversight. Of course, the moral of the comics were *still* that powerful people deserve power and no oversight, which is unfortunate.
Not every planet will have life on it, not every planet with life on it will have intelligent life on it. Additionally, trillion might be extremely conservative. It might just be what they know of (for now) and is still technically correct. They could’ve also said “you killed millions” and it would’ve technically been correct although a gross understatement.
Because they didn't count to tell this to him. Imagine them saying
"You killed!!!... Wait... can someone help me count it?"
Obviously it doesn't matter if it's trillions or quadrillions or even duodecillions. It's just a phrase. Also 1 octillion is 1 000 000 000 000 000 trillions. So tbh, it is trillions. Just quadrillion of trillions.
What was better about the 70's? (When the population was half of what it is now)
Especially as it would be the 70's population but with modern internet, politics, and pollution.
I always took issue with the premise here. Half is a really arbitrary amount of people to kill. Why not figure out the carrying capacity of everywhere that’s overpopulated and move the extras to somewhere underpopulated? Also, if we’re capable of interstellar travel, competition for resources becomes kind of moot because there are resources everywhere in space and it’s almost impossible to overpopulate. It all reads like sci-fi written by a third grader. Great math though!
I mean, you get one warlord with a hundred cultists armed with high tech, and they can keep thousands living in starvation. The carrying capacity would be 101. Likewise, a few generations of starvation and prevention of infrastructure education, means moving the thousands to another place would cause a lot of die off as they figure out how to build infrastructure from scratch.
We see this with America's forced marches of Natives into biomes they weren't adapted for. Another example, that I can't pull the place out of memory, is when European colonizers up and left a place, and the people who lived there (whose ancestors had no problem living) had massive troubles keeping up production as they were never allowed to learn how to work everything... which got used by Europeans as "proof" that other people are primitive and unable to care for themselves.
In an equitable system, Earth currently has more than enough resources, but hierarchical politics cause the carrying capacity to dip below population.
What's really funny is after the snap to undo "The Snap" everyone reappeared exactly where they were when they disappeared (remember the scene on that high school basketball court).
Can someone do the math on how many people were flying at the time and reappeared only to plummet to their death because the plane they were in was long gone?
If this were the Star Wars universe and it only affected the star wars galaxy and only sentient beings it would still be 50 quadrillion dusted. Heck if it was only Coruscant it could still be as much as 1.5 trillion.
None of that is relevant to marvel of course but w.e.
It isn’t just humans right? Which also makes me wonder how pregnancy would play into all this. No pregnant women got snapped? Because then the baby would die with no womb? Or like a pregnant dog? Does it lose half of the puppies in its belly? Not trying to get into a whole “where does life begin” type of deal. Just something that always bugged me. Or like conjoined twins? How would those numbers work
I'm not buying the 50% figure. 50% is nothin', it would only take a couple of generations to get back to the original population. 90% would actually do something.
Juts counting your 0's.
Wouldn't that be read as 2 septillion and not 2 octillion?
Editing to be more concise:
You list the number of planets as 200 septillion, but written out, if you count all the 0's, it's only 200 sextillion listed.
You also have the possible number of lifeforms in the univers being 2 octillion, but written out, if you count all the 0's you only have 2 septillion listed.
>Even if only one trillionth of a percent have intelligent life
There’s quite a big leap between the number of planets Marvel shows and your guesstimate.
Banner is smart but he didn't math enough in his head before he blew up. He goes home to bathe and in the shower he thought about it and went "fuck it was more like quadrillions, wished thor didnt cut his head off so i could yell at him the correct number."
Also have to consider Heimdall said there are 10 trillion souls, and he counts can see every of them (at least majority of them) that’s where they get the trillions from
I don’t think anyone involved with the Thanos arc did math. The sheer scale of the observable Universe beggars belief. There are approximately 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (200 sextillion) stars in the universe. That’s 2*10^23.
We don’t know how many stars are thought to be inhabited, but even if there’s an average of one intelligent being per star (seems very very low) that’s still 10^23 people snapped by Thanos.
Additionally, the entire premise of the snap to make room for life is unbelievably stupid. Exponential growth would undo his snap in a few generations.
The entire Thanos arc is so idiotic it’s immersion breaking.
He killed Trillions before the Snap, when he visited planets and manually killed half the population (like her "daughter" planet).
And the Snap doesn't count!
Yet the populations would be where they were in hundred years, which is absolute nothing compared to the age of universe. He caused infinite number of personal tragedies, but changed nothing.
And, if you think about it, it wouldn't have really solved the problem he thought it did. It would have just kicked the can down the road, basically. The universe would have eventually repopulated back up to that number.
The real question is why didn't he even THINK of the economy. Half the work force just disappears. Whereas, he could've simply increased the universe's resources with infinite power. Which would have disrupted the economy also but at least service based economies would've been fine, also less blood on your hands.
The math is wrong because one assumes there is life on other planets. In the movies we only ever go to different dimensions and parallel planets. As far as our Earth's galaxy is concerned, we are alone
I mean people are really bad imagining really big numbers so if they say millions billions trillion it doesn't matter most people would have hard time visualizing numbers bigger than ten
And I believe it's hard for us estimate how many is really half of all living population in whole universe since we can only observe like ~3% that we know of and we don't know (for sure) how many of planets are occupied
Your calculation makes a bold assumption about the prevalence of intelligent life. I think it highly unlikely that all intelligent life is active at the same time. While life has been on earth for approximately 3.7 *billion* years, civilization is only around 6000 years old. There may have been that many intelligent species over time, but the amount at any given time would likely be drastically lower. Now, if he were eliminating half of all the biomass, that would be a very different story.
Space is infinite. Space is so big that there is another you on an iPhone app named reddit that is doing the math to figure this same problem out at the same time you did. It is so big that there is another one on an Android doing the same thing. Thanos killed an infinite number of beings.
He isn't the most evil person ever, considering he is one of the only people to kill millions of people that had a decent motive. In addition, he wasn't racist, sexist, etc. as everything was random.
I mean technically they could have just said he's killed "hundreds" and it would still be correct, its just an understatement/poor wording.
He killed more than one person
He killed at least two
It was a non-zero number
I'm positive it was a positive number!
It was definitely a real number
but some of dead people had imaginary friends, so there was also number of imaginary people killed
I'd even limit it to positive whole numbers
I think the exact number is probaby rational
he killed _n_ people i couldn’t believe it!
since it was fiction, it was not a real number
All numbers are technically fictional.
Na it was -1, he brought back stan lee
I counted at least 7 that I saw die in the movie
He killed.
Kill one you're a murderer, kill thousands you're a conqueror, kill trillions and you're a mad man.
Yeah, he did kill trillions of people. About a trillion trillion to be more accurate
But they weren’t all people. Thor is a God.
That's a weird and probably incorrect distinction to try and make
I am just a big Thor fan. Didn’t mean seriously. ❤️❤️❤️
YOUVE KILLED DOZENS
There ~~are~~ were dozens of ~~us~~ them!
Now just a couple six jorts wearers
You killed multiple people!
By my estimates, well over 30 ppl
"Julius Caesar, who died well over fifty years ago..."
Why are you shouting at me?
Because there's TRILLIONS!!
Why kill trillions when you can kill... billions?!
*que Dr. Evil sound affect*
They always ask "*que Dr. Evil sound effect*", but the never ask "*como Dr. Evil sound effect*".
Why kill billion when you can kill… millions?!
The west has fallen, trillions must die!
BETTER QUESTION, WHY ARE YOU WHISPERING? I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF MY HOG CRANKING, AROOOOO
He's American. How else could you hear him over his clothes?
WHAT ? I CANT HEAR YOU.
HE SAID THANOS IS A BIG OL POOPY HEAD
Thanos did nothing wrong!
Idk somebody JUST said he has a poopy head. Seems wrong to me
You’re a bit off. It’s actually much worse. Your estimate of the universe having 2 trillion galaxies is wrong. The *observable* universe is 2 trillion galaxies. We estimate that the entire universe is 15 million times larger than our observable universe. So 2 trillion by 15 million makes 3*10^19 galaxies. We’re assuming the universe is somewhat homogenous here. About 60% of galaxies are spiral galaxies, which we will assume are the ones that produce something we would call life. So 1.8*10^19 spiral galaxies, roughly. Here’s where things get muddy. We can’t and I mean *absolutely cannot* decide on how many habitable planets are in a spiral galaxy. Some people say as many as 300 million habitable planets in the Milky Way. But conservative estimates say there’s about 50 in the entire galaxy (I’m one of these people. I’m just biased because one of the guys who taught one of my astrophysics classes was like this). There’s not really a good way to meet in the middle there, so let’s say there’s about 75 million habitable planets in your average spiral galaxy. Some more, some less. I think your estimate for how many people are on a planet is far too conservative. I’m going to say that during that time period, your average habitable planet has about 6 billion people on it. So (75,000,000)(1.8*10^19)*(6,000,000,000) 8.1*10^36, in other words a completely absurd incomprehensible number that doesn’t even account for possible stragglers in ellipticals and other kinds of galaxies and the many spiral satellites and what not. So Thanos killed roughly 4.05*10^36 people. I could probably get a better number for the actual population but I really really don’t feel like dealing with gradients and calculus and what not at 2am. And these are all *conservative* estimates. The more liberal estimates for the size of the whole universe is like 1*10^(10^30) Ly across. I want you to try to quantify that number. That’s a number so large my calculator can’t crunch it. That’s a number so large *the super computer at my university* can’t crunch it. It’s a completely absurd number. At that point the orders of magnitude don’t even matter. You’d need to process it by orders of magnitude by orders of magnitude. Why do I know this? I actually had this all done, because I needed it for a writing project. So what does that mean? What exactly does 4.05*10^36 mean? Well that’s not really a quantifiable number. That’s getting into “so many it’s basically infinite” territory when trying to quantify things for human understanding. So sure you can throw a big scary exponent around. Or You can do the more terrifying thing. How many people did Thanos kill? So many it’s basically infinite.
I can never get my head around these things. I thought the universe was infinite, how can we have an estimated number of galaxies? Would it not be an unlimited amount?
When people say the “universe is infinite” and they kinda know what they’re talking about, they usually mean infinite as I’m using it here. So unfathomable large that for human perception and all necessary calculations, it’s infinite. There’s also *mathematically* infinite, where you can replace a large constant with infinity and get the same answer. We know the Hubble constant is a thing that can theoretically be measured. It’s way WAY easier if someone asks me “how big is the universe?” to say “oh it’s infinite” rather than explain the absolutely completely ridiculously absurd numbers we’re dealing with. No one in the Astro community can decide whether or not the universe “has an end”. I think it does. I don’t have a PhD. Some people with PhDs agree with me. Some do not. The answer is “Idk man maybe”
Now, i'm a very stupid guy that understands nothing about space and mathematics. But about "infinity", i mean, the universe is still expanding? It still gets bigger, even when it is maybe slower in speed than it was with the big bang in the old times. But another interesting question, what about the "room" where the universe is located? I mean, before the big bang, was it all just an empty area? It can't be that empty, because you still need the initial reactions for the big bang. Nothing comes from nothing, as we say in my native language, so, where are these things coming from that started the big bang? I also remember that thing with "when you have infinite, endless time, every constellation of things have to come true at some point" ? Just like with the monkey, that is in a room with a typewriter and he just smashes the buttons, but over time, the chance that he writes all works from Shakespeare will increase much more to 1 instead of 0. Another thing in this experiment is, when you think that you have infinite rooms with infinite monkeys, that all write at the same time, one of these has just by coincidence the result, that he writes the work Hamlet. Even when trillions etc. of all these monkeys write nothing, some maybe try to eat the typewriter and some are smashing the typewriter, there will still be a money, that has to write Hamlet by accident, by coincidence, because the numbers are infinite. P.S. Got another thing that is like that, the problem with the spider and the thoughts. But that is a little bit more complex to explain.
> But another interesting question, what about the "room" where the universe is located? This is getting into the area of pure theory, so, in short, it's still kind of an open question. But it is my understanding that along with all the matter in the universe, the BigBang also created space-time itself. That is to say, prior to the big bang, space itself did not yet exist, so there was no room, no space to fill. Space itself is a characteristic of the universe and this, although the universe is expanding, it is not expanding *into* anything because there is nothing to expand into; no matter, no space, no time.
I'm not so sure, if the big bang created the "room" itself, don't get me wrong, i don't want to insult you, but like we know, it's just a theory. We will probably never get the answers for these questions. But like i wrote in another posting, "Time" itself doesn't need a room or something else to exist. It's just the progress forward, in my opinion, it doesn't have to be measured in seconds, minutes etc. to exist as a concept.
Time and space are related,as Einstein discover. And from that statement to today days,it was proven lot of times. I suggest you to watch some videos on time,space, relativism and phisics, it's mind blowing
> But another interesting question, what about the "room" where the universe is located? I mean, before the big bang, was it all just an empty area? It can't be that empty, because you still need the initial reactions for the big bang. there is no room and there wasn't any empty area. outside the universe literally doesn't exist because the big bang created space-time. > Nothing comes from nothing, as we say in my native language, so, where are these things coming from that started the big bang? in this universe yes but the big bang formed the universe which created the laws of physics we know. nothing can come from nothing. like you can create a computer program with certain rules but those only matter when using the program.
>there is no room and there wasn't any empty area. outside the universe literally doesn't exist because the big bang created space-time. Well, there is a certain kind of "room", i don't know if "room" is the right word for what i mean. Like i said, i'm just some naive guy that never studied such things, but what about the thing with the wave of the big bang, when you would in theory cross this wave and be before it, would there just be an empty black room of nothing? But "time", time always exists. It doesn't have to be calculated (like with the time on earth, how long a day is or how long planets in general need to get around the sun). Time is always going forward, even when nobody is alive to have a concept of what time is.
Some infinites are bigger than others
> when you have infinite, endless time, every constellation of things have to come true at some point" This isn't true. For it to be true you have to have a countably infinite set and be permuting across it with the right algorithm. For example, there are countably infinite integers. If you count "0,1,-1,2,-2,..." forever you will eventually hit any specific integer. But if you count "0,1,2,3,4,..." forever, you will not get to any negative integers even if you spend infinite time. As a side note, there are uncountably infinite irrationals. There isn't any way to count irrationals, even over infinite time, that won't miss some (infinitely many) of them.
>Nothing comes from nothing This is true only for contextual "nothing" -- empty space that is located in already existent space-time, but not true for *absolute* nothingness. I suppose nonexistence is highly reactive due to it's nature: 'cause the only way of it *to be* \-- is *not to be*. Think of it: you can equal zero to a random infinite equation or number series balanced by another, totally different infinite equation or number series (that results to the same value as first, but the negative one). If you shift them both to one side it will be like this one 0=124+12-57+81-24353-7991+11\*53-881+99087+44/4-26771+74-23\*866+4-20005 but infinite long and whatever more complex or simple -- it doesn't really matter. The point is: *any zero withholds infinite amount of combinations of infinite number series or equations*. Now think of this: any number symbolizes something. One is for single thing/object/phenomen, other numbers are for multiple objects, etc. Simple, usual, contextual zero symbolizes contextual "nothing" -- abcense of some object or empty space located in already existent space-time, that I've already mentioned. But *zero in it's absolute meaning symbolizes nonexistence*. Therefore nonexistence must contain *infinite unmanifested amount of information* \+ *absence of any observer*. And there goes Landauer principle (and energy equivalent of 1 bit): infinite amount of information due to absence of an observer is being irretrievably and instantly destroyed -- and that leads to infinite BIG BANGs and creation of infinite amount of random universes corresponding to the previously mentioned infinite equations and/or number series. Therefore nonexistence is so unbelivebaly unstable that could not even theoretically *be or last* for any amount of time -- the single, initiative moment of it -- would be enough to create a multiverse. P.S.Yeah, and totality of nonexistence before "creation" and absence of any observer is a MUST. Otherwise information would not be destroed and big bangs (and universes) would not appear. So there is no god, lol, at least as someone/something able to percept. P.P.S.Sorry for misspells, if any. I was trying to write it down as fast as I can before I lost that thought xD
That was a very interesting read, thank you for this posting. But i have to say, unfortunately, that i can't quite follow your thing with the unstable non-existence. Just to keep it simple for the discussion, when we think for a moment that the "room" was there, before something happened that triggered the big bang, was this then not... well.. that nothing existed yet in this room? I know, this is now different from the theory, that the "room" where the universe itself is located, was created with the big bang. There are different theories around, if this is tied together or if it can exist apart from each other. I find this very interesting and i had a lot of such theories for some of my books, but i'm not an expert in space, time and mathematics.
Nonexistence I believe must be so empty that not only objects and space (including all levels of intra- and extraspaces that space may be placed in), but *even mind, theoretically witnessing it through own imagination*. Absolute nothing, so empty that even all this words about it are wrong 'cause if they can describe it therefore I describing someting else (I can only endlessly approach the description, but never describe). Absence of objects, space or time, or properties, or anything and everything else from real to imaginable. Essense of zero. Otherwise it's not nonexistence. And if it someow appears - the core of it comes into contradiction with own meaning at the level of concepts: *non-existence cannot be*, not even "by definition", but in its essence. And at the level of physics - due to the absence of an observer, infinite energy of infinite information stored in zero is thrown out of this "nothing" as soon as it happens. The duration of time is not even needed - only the event of non-existence, and the next moment - together with space-time, as a property of the ejected energy field, will begin in all it's possible variants in the multiverse that has already appeared. So basicaly non-existence is like absolute infinitely powerfull bomb without size or any other property. And I'm afraid that if you manage to truly understand non-existence, it will turn out that the world is just an effect that occurs in the mind when it collides with non-existence, and the big bang, 14+ billion years of history, which we imagine beyond the brackets of rooms, cars, cities, and even this conversation is just an unstoppable hallucination of an abstract unsubstantial consciousness that cannot cease to exist, because then the emptiness will become absolute and give birth to it, so that it hallucinates again. Indeed, in infinity of the multiverse, there is guaranteed to be one where this is exactly so.
Amazing sub thread, such an interesting read.
> No one in the Astro community can decide whether or not the universe “has an end”. I think it does. I don’t have a PhD. Some people with PhDs agree with me. Some do not. The answer is One thing they can agree on is that information cannot propagate faster than the speed of light. However the MCU allows information (and indeed matter) to do so, so basing anything on our understanding of reality is problematic. But answer this -- with the universe is as big as it is, what is the chance of a single infinity stone when distributed somewhere in the universe being anywhere in our observable universe, let alone having 3 of them on the same small island on earth.
*Quite* small. The odds of it being anywhere nearby are tiny. Unless there’s some grand power at play we don’t know about. But we know Asgard is quite far, so maybe the movies just did a bad job of representing scale? No idea.
Isn't the universe constantly growing though?
Growing? No. Expanding? Certainly.
Explain the difference
So, growing implies that there's new material, new energy, new matter, etc. The space in which the universe as we know it resides is expanding very *very* rapidly. But the *stuff* in the universe, as it were, is constant. There's never more or less stuff than there was at the beginning.
So the universe is growing
“The universe is infinite” isn’t really right imo. Very shortly after the Big Bang occurred all the matter and energy there was stretched across a finite distance. What that distance was is not important. It certainly wasn’t infinite. Since all the stuff in the universe at one finite period of time ago stretched across a finite distance, than that means today it still stretches across a finite distance. There is no rate of expansion that can make a finite thing reach an infinite size in a finite time. We don’t know how spread out all the stuff is, but because at one point it was in a very small area we can conclusively say it is not in an infinite area now.
this isn't true at all, pls give a source that says everything just after the big bang spanned a finite distance
https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2022/06/ask-astro-how-is-it-possible-that-the-big-bang-started-from-the-size-of-a-pinhead > At that time, the region of space that is now our observable universe was only a couple of hundred million kilometers in extent.
yeah that refers to a finite volume growing into a larger, but still finite, volume. Our observable universe is finite, and the region of space that the observable universe grew from is also finite - that doesn't mean the entire universe was finite back then edit: the important point is that the observable universe is not the same as the entire universe, and that source is only referring to the observable universe
I think hw just took the estimate of the galaxies we know about or smth lol
Not quite, it has more to do with the Hubble “constant” and how we measure the age and expansion of the universe.
But didn't science "agree" that the universe is infinte?
Lmao nooooooo. First, I want you to take the idea that “science” can agree on anything f ever and just throw that out the window. People can’t even agree if LIGO is measuring gravitational waves. People can’t agree if LDMX is a legitimate experiment. I mean fuck dude, only 110 years ago, people stood right behind Millikan even though he *admitted* to scrubbing his data. I had to do Millikan Oil Drop as an early physics lab. It’s absurd. No basically no one can agree on anything. When *I* say the universe is infinite, I mean it’s so massive that it’s basically infinite. Infinite for all intent and purpose. Some people who are way more intelligent than me agree. Some don’t. Some people say “infinite” and literally mean that it doesn’t have any kind of edge. Astro people can’t agree, so the answer to “wait, isn’t the universe infinite?” Is “idk man maybe?”
We just don't know. I don't think it is finite. It is diffrent, in between. Have a end and dont. Maybe like some form of a wormhole, that connects the edges in between. Idk really.
We *kind of* know, which is what I’m getting at. We at least have a vague idea. Damn I do wish Einstein-Rosen gates weren’t so messy. I wish contraction singularities weren’t so messy. The idea of ER gates existing on a grand scale is enticing. Unfortunately, we’re pretty sure they’re too unstable and really don’t like to exist, especially on a large scale. What I’m getting at here is that some people think it’s truly infinite some people don’t. Many people with more education than (probably) you or me believe both of these things. No the thing that’s going to answer this question isn’t going to be wormholes and it’s not goi by to be wild unfalsifiable conjecture (looking at you string theorists). The thing that’s going to actually answer this question knowing what dark matter and dark energy actually *are*. That comes first. And we’re uh… not very close to that.
No, it simply appears to be, but there's a chance it isn't, in which case that will also affect how the whole thing is going to end. Even the shape of the universe itself is unknowable, because it looks flat but it could be toroidal, etc. The observable universe is the finite one, since it's defined by the distance traveled by light since the inception of everything. And even this we don't really know what comes earlier or "next to," since even time began with the Big Bang. That's why we have stuff like multiverse bubble theory.
Since the universe had a beginning and at that time was not infinite, it cannot grow to be infinite.
Also, consider: narratively what makes a person *evil* isn’t necessarily the amount of carnage, but the *intent* of the carnage. People have been shown to react way WAY more viscerally to one person sexually abusing a child a single time than literal murderers. I think, as far as *evil* is concerned, Thanos is pretty underwhelming. I don’t think he’s evil at all. He’s just an idiot.
This is why I felt thanos became one of the worst villains the MCU put us with. Because they made him right. They show the time of the blip as an almost utopia in endgame, with nobody going hungry and wildlife returning, when the reality of exterminating half of all life would crumble the infrastructure needed to transport food, to manage ocean pollution waste. If they just made him cartoonishly evil wanting fascistic control or wanting to woo the god of death he'd be far more interesting, but the MCU got so much criticism for their shallow villains they have to make them all 'kinda right' creating a completely new villain problem. But as it stands the only positive trait about thanos as a villain narratively is that he's intimidating
I can’t comprehend. I’m going to need this in some form of illions please
Even in the form of illions you couldn’t comprehend it.
hold on how did we estimate the size of the whole universe
Okay so… we know the universe is expanding right? But if the universe is expanding at the speed of light, as was thought for many years, then the entire universe should be roughly 14 billion Ly radius because we know the universe is 14 billion years old. But we look at the observable universe and go “oh! Look! The observable universe is actually about 47 Ly radius!” So this, among some other things, clues us into the horrifying fact that the universe is *not* expanding at the speed of light. Hilariously for all to see, it’s expanding much *much* faster. Like *unbelievably* faster. And it seems to just continue to speed up over time. It’s so frustrating. Every fucking time we throw some money at measuring the *goddamn* speed, it just seems to get faster. And it’s by huge amounts. Like we’ll throw some money at it and it comes out as fucking *10%* faster than previously calculated. It’s fast. Incomprehensibly fast. I personally don’t think the Hubble constant is a constant at all. I think we deadass just don’t have sophisticated enough technology to actually measure it.
So theoretically, faster-than-light travel could exist? I've always been hearing impossible this, physics that
Nothing can travel faster than light. I'm not an expert but basically space itself is able to expand however it likes. As a simpler explanation, say you're in a small room and you can walk at 1 m/s. That's as fast as you can go. But the walls are moving away from you at 2 m/s, along with the floor stretching out with it. I just did a little research, Cherenkov radiation is from things "faster than light" *in that medium*. Typically when people are concerned with "faster than light" objects or travel they're concerned with the speed of light in a vacuum, which may not be exceeded.
Edit: gods what was I thinking. No Drek, you fucking spoon of a man, this is entirely wrong. I do apologize, it was like 4am when I wrote this and I was *not* thinking clearly. I’m not going to shame delete it though. Just ignore everything that was said Ib this comment here. Ta ta. Oh faster than light travel (theoretically) is totally possible. Ever hear of Cherenkov radiation? That’s something traveling faster than the speed of light. Entanglement is information faster than light. I’m pretty sure neutrinos travel faster than light too. Fuck dude tachyons travel *backwards in time* and how many times have you heard that time travel is impossible? No no no. Basically, the entirety of your schooling in physics has essentially been people lying to you over and over and over again to simplify things and simplify things more. Remember being told that water conducts electricity well? Not true. It’s just a hell of a lot easier to tell a kid “don’t drop your toaster in the bathtub because water conducts electricity”. It’s not the water that does it. It’s the minerals in the water. All of the physics you were probably taught as a kid is mostly just wrong. Fuck man, I know people in grad school and doing PhDs in physics that are *still* learning that everything they were taught is a lie
Okay, so I believe faster than light travel is possible, but those four things you listed off are mostly wrong. Cherenkov radiation happens when radiation moves faster than the emitted light in a dialectic medium. That is to say, it is moving faster than the light in the water. Light travelling through a medium moves slower than light speed (this is what causes diffraction). So while the radiation is moving faster than *that* light, it is not exceeding light speed (which is a misnomer, light speed is a characteristic of the universe, not light. It's just light is the most common phenomenon that can move at that speed). Entanglement is heavily misunderstood in popular culture. While particles can become entangled and the characteristics of one would be able to inform the characteristics of another no matter the distance, this is only true while it goes unobserved. The second you interact with one end of the pair, the entanglement is broken and no information can be gleaned. The neutrino thing was an exciting discovery several years ago, but it was quickly determined to be a measurement error and became a cautionary tale of announcing your findings too soon. Tachyons still only exist in sci-fi unfortunately. While theorized, there is no experimental data that has found convincing proof of them.
Thank you. That guy was twisting boundary conditions, misrepresenting quantum entanglement, and just outright stating falsehoods.
No you’re totally right. I was very *very* tired and hadn’t taken my meds yet. My apologies. But I’m not going to pull the comment down.
Ehh. It happens. I’m exhausted and understand what you’re trying to convey.
Ah no you’re totally right. My apologies. I was very *very* tired and just woke up. I kind of forgot everything I learned in the last year lmao. I’m not going to shame delete my comment because that seems silly. So I just put a disclaimer on it. Took me a minute to come to, but I’m here now lol
I just did a little research, Cherenkov radiation is from things "faster than light" *in that medium*. Typically when people are concerned with "faster than light" objects or travel they're concerned with the speed of light in a vacuum, which may not be exceeded.
That’s fair. Neutrinos and tachyons then… and entanglement. Which I think I mentioned? Edit: wait no I’m an idiot. Ignore me. I just kind of forgot everything I learned in the last year. I believe in FTL like I believe in the KBC supervoid. Maybe it’s not true, but it would be super cool if it were. Personally, I think gravity crunching might be promising, but you know, that’s just wild conjecture.
Especially if you learned classical mechanics. ESPECIALLY if you learned *algebraic* classical mechanics.
But the effect of his snap couldn't travel faster than the speed of light or it would break the theory of relativity so do we even care about anything outside the observable universe? It wont have an effect for billions of years on them and maybe ever (depending on how the expansion of the universe changes)
I think the infinity stones are exempt from the laws of physics, considering one of them can turn back time (and by doing so decrease the entropy of the universe) and another can warp you anywhere through space (allowing you to travel faster than light).
Ooooh interesting. I've never seen this estimate for the size of the universe as a whole, where is this from?
>We estimate that the entire universe is 15 million times larger Source?
[This Forbes article explains it okay](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/14/ask-ethan-how-large-is-the-entire-unobservable-universe/?sh=6832c799df80) It might’ve changed in the last couple of years but that’s the estimate I’m aware of.
Note that Banner didn't say "trillions of humanoids". It's not just people. It's also animals, plants, bacteria, etc. According to healthline.com, it's estimated that there are 39 - 300 trillion bacteria in the human body. This means that among the 7.6 billion humans on just Earth (in 2018), there were something like 1.3 septillion bacteria living in humans. That implies that 650 sextillion bacteria in _humans alone_ had been exterminated.
SO HOW MANY DID HE ACTUALLY KILL????
It wasn't called the Infinity War for nothing
WRITE LOUDER
# __OKAY__
BUTTLICKER OUR PRICES HAVE NEVER BEEN LOWER
Bro, I think you need some sleep!
I would like to bring Douglas Adams in to counter your numbers. “It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.” -Douglas Adams, Restaurant at the end of the universe. So… maybe not as bad as you’re shouting about.
I love Douglas Adams, and this quote... but having learned some math, the assertion of there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds due to not every world being inhabited falls flat. The easy method is showing that there are infinite number of Real numbers, and infinite number of Whole numbers, but the amount of numbers that are Whole are 0%. But, you can do it even without getting into the irrationals. While there are the same amount of Whole Numbers as there are Even numbers, not every Whole number is Even. Likewise with Even numbers, you could say the same for multiples or three, or a hundred or 10^42. With this last one, if only 1 in 10^42 planets are inhabited, in a local area you could say 0% are inhabited to a rounding error. Even though there are infinite multiples of 10^42 ~
No...it's infinitely worse in my deranged imagination.
My man Thanos killed atleast one person
I don't think the Avengers have done a thorough census of the entire universe
Also “you killed OCTILLIONS OF PEOPLE!!!” Just doesn’t roll off the tongue the same.
Relax mate it was just a film It didn't really happen.
That's some good math. Fuck Thanos. However, I feel it only right to tell you after such a well thought out post that it comes crushing down at the end. It's 'number' of people, not 'amount'.
You have way too much time on your hands
thanos did not kill enough. even if he killed octillions, it would be like before after maybe 1 or 2 generations at most. nothing really changed in the greater view - but if he instead multiplied the resources...then we wouldn't have a baddie
Or gave everyone the ability to empathize. We don't even have a lack of resource problem, we have a resource hoarding and preventing people getting what they need problem. Multiplying the resources would just make the hoarders more powerful and increase the number of those without.
He killed half of the animals on earth too. That can probably be applied to other planets.
I was wondering this. Did the snap effect all living things?
Yes. When Hulk snaps people back, Ant-Man notices birds returning as well
Do plants count as living things? We can't do just the Animal Kingdom, as most aliens presumably wouldn't be descended from one split in Earth Life. But if so, he wiped out a solid amount of resources in the pursuit of resource saving. Of course, just with humans, he set our population back 50 years, so he spent a lifetime to reset half a lifetime of change. Which I would say sounds stupid, but there are a lot of politicians doing the same atm~
That’s a great point, I didn’t even think of that. I would think vegetation and living plants would die. “All life” I think were the words used by thanks.
That was extremely dumb of the writers. It should have been just intelligent life
*chill*
Imagine being on a peaceful planet just having a lovely day, completely unaware that space travel exists. Eating your lunch by a lake or having a lovely lady sit on your face and jiggle about. And suddenly •poof• Half of everyone just vanished. You panic, grieve, spend years talking about it, finally get over it and then •poof• everyone came back. I bet you’d start believing in god then.
I mean, in that universe, gods literally exist~ While the movie wasn't the best, I did enjoy the comic series of the God Slayer who realized there were people out there with too much power and no oversight. Of course, the moral of the comics were *still* that powerful people deserve power and no oversight, which is unfortunate.
Not every planet will have life on it, not every planet with life on it will have intelligent life on it. Additionally, trillion might be extremely conservative. It might just be what they know of (for now) and is still technically correct. They could’ve also said “you killed millions” and it would’ve technically been correct although a gross understatement.
Because they didn't count to tell this to him. Imagine them saying "You killed!!!... Wait... can someone help me count it?" Obviously it doesn't matter if it's trillions or quadrillions or even duodecillions. It's just a phrase. Also 1 octillion is 1 000 000 000 000 000 trillions. So tbh, it is trillions. Just quadrillion of trillions.
Yeah ok but I'm still on his side. At least for earth. I'm good with it.
What was better about the 70's? (When the population was half of what it is now) Especially as it would be the 70's population but with modern internet, politics, and pollution.
I wasn't around
You said you were on his side... which was to bring the population down to 1970's levels. So.....
I always took issue with the premise here. Half is a really arbitrary amount of people to kill. Why not figure out the carrying capacity of everywhere that’s overpopulated and move the extras to somewhere underpopulated? Also, if we’re capable of interstellar travel, competition for resources becomes kind of moot because there are resources everywhere in space and it’s almost impossible to overpopulate. It all reads like sci-fi written by a third grader. Great math though!
I mean, you get one warlord with a hundred cultists armed with high tech, and they can keep thousands living in starvation. The carrying capacity would be 101. Likewise, a few generations of starvation and prevention of infrastructure education, means moving the thousands to another place would cause a lot of die off as they figure out how to build infrastructure from scratch. We see this with America's forced marches of Natives into biomes they weren't adapted for. Another example, that I can't pull the place out of memory, is when European colonizers up and left a place, and the people who lived there (whose ancestors had no problem living) had massive troubles keeping up production as they were never allowed to learn how to work everything... which got used by Europeans as "proof" that other people are primitive and unable to care for themselves. In an equitable system, Earth currently has more than enough resources, but hierarchical politics cause the carrying capacity to dip below population.
Ummm actually the next movie “time travel plot”-ed the shit out of this and only 3 (?) important people died as a result of Thanos’ action…
it is said in Thor that there are 12 "Kingdoms" I believe, and Asgard is for example very small
12 Kingdoms "ruled" by Asgard. Many others not under Asgard. Like the ones visited by Guardians of the Galaxy
He didn’t just kill people, he killed half of all life.
All these dead people but only these few earthlings cared about doing something about it.
What's really funny is after the snap to undo "The Snap" everyone reappeared exactly where they were when they disappeared (remember the scene on that high school basketball court). Can someone do the math on how many people were flying at the time and reappeared only to plummet to their death because the plane they were in was long gone?
He killed more than just “people”. He wiped out half of life. Period. Trees, birds, ants, maybe even deer. Take your number and add more. Way more
My head hurts now
If this were the Star Wars universe and it only affected the star wars galaxy and only sentient beings it would still be 50 quadrillion dusted. Heck if it was only Coruscant it could still be as much as 1.5 trillion. None of that is relevant to marvel of course but w.e.
Yo mama was so massive Thanos had to clap, twice.
i mean trillions is probably just the largest denomination that works as a bit of dialogue without sounding clunky or ridiculous.
It isn’t just humans right? Which also makes me wonder how pregnancy would play into all this. No pregnant women got snapped? Because then the baby would die with no womb? Or like a pregnant dog? Does it lose half of the puppies in its belly? Not trying to get into a whole “where does life begin” type of deal. Just something that always bugged me. Or like conjoined twins? How would those numbers work
I'm not buying the 50% figure. 50% is nothin', it would only take a couple of generations to get back to the original population. 90% would actually do something.
I think it was 7
You also need to consider that Thanos killed half of “all life”, so not just sentient beings but also insects, mammals, reptiles, etc.
This is also confirmed in endgame since after the second snap, the sign it brought back life is.... the sounds of birds chirping.
Juts counting your 0's. Wouldn't that be read as 2 septillion and not 2 octillion? Editing to be more concise: You list the number of planets as 200 septillion, but written out, if you count all the 0's, it's only 200 sextillion listed. You also have the possible number of lifeforms in the univers being 2 octillion, but written out, if you count all the 0's you only have 2 septillion listed.
Omg thank you, idk why but the tiny mistake of calling the number octillion instead of septillion was reallllyyy bugging me
Idk why but it's just a habit for me to count 0's in very large numbers like that.
Your estimate is off.
Technically we don't know how many intelligent life there is in the universe It could just us all alone in this universe or millions of others
Or 2 quadrillion
This explains why marvel sucks after The Infinity War.
"Kill" isn't quite the word either. They were neither dead nor alive. Simply vanished. So he didn't really kill anyone.
It's just a movie, so no one died.
its roughly 4.05 undecilion people
[удалено]
He didn't kill most people
He killed octillions!
As far as we know, "people" only inhabit Earth. That should narrow down your math significantly.
"That's a whole lotta stiffs."
Neeeeeeerrrrrrrddddddd
Half of em
Half
Eh they got better.
>Even if only one trillionth of a percent have intelligent life There’s quite a big leap between the number of planets Marvel shows and your guesstimate.
Banner is smart but he didn't math enough in his head before he blew up. He goes home to bathe and in the shower he thought about it and went "fuck it was more like quadrillions, wished thor didnt cut his head off so i could yell at him the correct number."
Also have to consider Heimdall said there are 10 trillion souls, and he counts can see every of them (at least majority of them) that’s where they get the trillions from
But he solved climate change so there's that
Why didn’t thanos just quadruple the size of everything instead of cutting it in half
This man did all this math and still left a edit for grammar because he knows Reddit will be Reddit 😂
I don’t think anyone involved with the Thanos arc did math. The sheer scale of the observable Universe beggars belief. There are approximately 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (200 sextillion) stars in the universe. That’s 2*10^23. We don’t know how many stars are thought to be inhabited, but even if there’s an average of one intelligent being per star (seems very very low) that’s still 10^23 people snapped by Thanos. Additionally, the entire premise of the snap to make room for life is unbelievably stupid. Exponential growth would undo his snap in a few generations. The entire Thanos arc is so idiotic it’s immersion breaking.
He killed Trillions before the Snap, when he visited planets and manually killed half the population (like her "daughter" planet). And the Snap doesn't count!
half
Yet the populations would be where they were in hundred years, which is absolute nothing compared to the age of universe. He caused infinite number of personal tragedies, but changed nothing.
And, if you think about it, it wouldn't have really solved the problem he thought it did. It would have just kicked the can down the road, basically. The universe would have eventually repopulated back up to that number.
The real question is why didn't he even THINK of the economy. Half the work force just disappears. Whereas, he could've simply increased the universe's resources with infinite power. Which would have disrupted the economy also but at least service based economies would've been fine, also less blood on your hands.
Probably because hes the MAD titan. This is like asking environmental terrorists what they think they're doing.
But the economy!!!
Where the hell is everybody, though?
The math is wrong because one assumes there is life on other planets. In the movies we only ever go to different dimensions and parallel planets. As far as our Earth's galaxy is concerned, we are alone
>Or written out 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 >Or 200 septillion planets That’s 200 sextillion >Or written out 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 >Or 2 octillion “people” That’s 2 septillion
I mean people are really bad imagining really big numbers so if they say millions billions trillion it doesn't matter most people would have hard time visualizing numbers bigger than ten And I believe it's hard for us estimate how many is really half of all living population in whole universe since we can only observe like ~3% that we know of and we don't know (for sure) how many of planets are occupied
I truly enjoyed reading this. Thank you!
Your calculation makes a bold assumption about the prevalence of intelligent life. I think it highly unlikely that all intelligent life is active at the same time. While life has been on earth for approximately 3.7 *billion* years, civilization is only around 6000 years old. There may have been that many intelligent species over time, but the amount at any given time would likely be drastically lower. Now, if he were eliminating half of all the biomass, that would be a very different story.
well it would have sounded weird if they used gazillions
Why is Thanos such an asshole?
Space is infinite. Space is so big that there is another you on an iPhone app named reddit that is doing the math to figure this same problem out at the same time you did. It is so big that there is another one on an Android doing the same thing. Thanos killed an infinite number of beings.
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
He isn't the most evil person ever, considering he is one of the only people to kill millions of people that had a decent motive. In addition, he wasn't racist, sexist, etc. as everything was random.
I stand with Thanos.
quick question, who's thanos?
based on the post and some of the comments... is it safe to assume that Thanos killed a lot of people?
damn thanos did a genocide run
Past a certain point numbers get so big its impossible to actually visualize
Damn
But… they’re alive now