Andy Beaton✅Jul 31, 2023
Geoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿
In numerical terms, this must be one of the biggest corrections ever made by a newspaper.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/24/the-big-idea-why-the-laws-of-physics-will-never-explain-the-universe
The big idea: Why the laws of physics will never explain the universe

We should think of the cosmos as more like an animal than a machine

The Guardian
Jul 24, 2023 at 2:40pmWeb
Show threadGeoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Jul 24, 2023

For anyone not familiar with this kind of mathematical notation, here's the difference:

1,057

versus

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Show threadSérgio MachadoJul 25, 2023
@_thegeoff 😂 uops
Show threadMedea Vanamonde🏳️‍⚧️ ♀Jul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff oh lord
Show threadMark CaldwellJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff the inverse of every "I didn't use Pythagoras Theorem today" meme on Facebook
Show threadAlan Langford 🇨🇦🧤🧊摏Jul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff Well there goes my hopes that the sun produced a previously unknown class of ultra-heavy elements.
Show threadGabriel PettierJul 24, 2023
@alan @_thegeoff now thinking about atoms with quintillions of protons 😵 .
Show threadAlan Langford 🇨🇦🧤🧊摏Jul 24, 2023
@tshirtman @_thegeoff Yep, like what is the half life of that thing, exactly?
Show threadGabriel PettierJul 24, 2023
@alan @_thegeoff i'm entirely unqualified to decide if it would split, collapse on itself to become a black hole, or do something else 😆 .
Show threadAlan Langford 🇨🇦🧤🧊摏Jul 24, 2023
@tshirtman @_thegeoff IIRC most super-heavy elements have extremely short half lives and split into more stable forms, tossing off all sorts of particles in the process. Based on that I'd expect a very short-lived and extremely dangerous bang. Even if it was somehow stable, it's not the sort of thing one would want to get close to. I suspect it would be equally likely to form a small black hole.
Show threadGeoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Jul 24, 2023
@alan @tshirtman There's a proposed "Island Of Stability" from theory around isotopes of element 114....but we're a tad beyond that...
Show threadTechronic9876Jul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff @bonkerfield ironically your alt text has the same glitch 😄
Show threadGeoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Jul 24, 2023
@Techronic9876 @bonkerfield HA! I hadn't noticed, Mastodon clearly doesn't like pasted superscript! 🤣
Show threadLot⁴⁹Jul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff By several orders of magnitude. Fifty-three as a matter of fact.
Show threadllewellyJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff
things would be much simpler if the universe contained only 1057 atoms.
Show threadGeoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Jul 24, 2023
@llewelly But a tad more boring....assuming there is anything capable of boredom...
Show threadllewellyJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff
I'm not so sure ... there is whole branch of physics devoted to investigated a time period shortly after the Big Bang during which there were very few atoms in the universe ... but maybe physicists are excited by boring things.
Show threadGeoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Jul 24, 2023
@llewelly Good point, there was a significant period of time when there were no atoms at all. And then there were quite a lot.
I wonder what the odds are that there were *exactly* 1057 at any given point, or whether so many were condensing out that it was thousands or more per Planck time, making the creation effectively simultaneous. My gut reaction is the latter.
Show threadllewellyJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff
I don't know, interesting question. Now that you mention it - I think I lean towards "lots of new atoms per Planck time", but I didn't think of it that way beforehand.
Show threadGeoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Jul 24, 2023
@llewelly I've asked around: https://mastodon.social/@_thegeoff/110770292910034259
Show threadBornachJul 24, 2023
@llewelly @_thegeoff
"What is the nature of the universe?"
https://youtu.be/pu8JjjESu-I?t=1m5s
Small Universe

YouTube
Show threadMrDependableJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff 1057 is a running joke in certain Guardian departments
Show threadSeriousMoonlightJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff Huh. You know, I was thinking, "Those must be some frickin' HUGE atoms!"
Show threadpenguin42Jul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff That maybe one of the Grauniad's smaller mistakes.
Show threadPartially StochasticJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff There are thousands of atoms, thousands!
Show threadGeoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Jul 24, 2023

@partiallystochastic "Space is big. Quite big. I mean, you think it's a long way to the shops, that's almost as big as space..."

(Apologies to Douglas Adams)

Show threadGarthTheChickenJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff Super!
Show threadBullet With Butter Tart WingsJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff They're putting atoms in everything now. It's a conspiracy that goes all the way to the top!
Show threadRodneyPetersonTalentAgencyJul 24, 2023

@_thegeoff We’re very sorry. The bank made a computer error and deposited 10 to the 57th power cents into your account not your measly $10.57 check you peasant piker. Please return the funds IMMEDIATELY or we will be forced to…

…what’s that? He did? Are you sure? Well, okay then…Never mind sir, we see you bought the bank and our parent company. Also, deepest apologies for any references to peasant piker or similar messages you may still receive. Forgive me, sir! I have kids!

Show threadGeoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Jul 24, 2023
@RodneyPetersonTalent That's a hilarious scenario...and as far as I can tell, actually works? You may have trouble proving to regulators that you genuinely have $10^57, but $10^57 can also smooth over a lot of regulations! Worldwide hyperinflation would probably kick in, but even if you loose 99.99% of your balance that's still... *does sums* ...a lot.
Show threadRodneyPetersonTalentAgencyJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff if you like funny and entertaining stuff check out my extremely multi talented and uniquely different client. She’s a hoot. I’ve posted several videos here and at the You Tube page I created for her.
Show threadJohn RobinsonJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff 1057 is the Grauniad error rate per hour 😀
Show threadRichard W. Woodley ELBOWS UP 🇨🇦🌹🚴‍♂️📷 🗺️Jul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff
superscript matters, eh
Show threadjtbJul 24, 2023

@_thegeoff The difference is

999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998943

Show threadCrazy PonyJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff recently we had here one with 10⁸⁰
Show threadPotung ThulJul 24, 2023

@_thegeoff
Hey, I think your alt text needs correction, as it makes the exact same mistake as the article, this time even with the benefit of hindsight. Your alt text says:

"This article was corrected on 24 July 2023. The number of atoms in the sun is 1057 not 1057 as previously stated."

Perhaps you should change the first 1057 to "10 to the power of 57". Otherwise it might get very confusing for blind users. Right, @eilonwy ?

Show threadGeoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Jul 24, 2023
@potungthul @eilonwy Interesting - yeah, there was the same error in there (guessing Mastodon converted superscript), but somebody pointed it out and I corrected it to "10^57" a few hours ago. Are you still getting the original error? Does a refresh help?
Show threadTim McCormackJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff @potungthul @eilonwy /me tosses you a ⁵⁷ and hopes it's still the same size when you catch it
Show threadJae HJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff What’s 54 orders of magnitude between friends???
Show threadGeoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Jul 24, 2023
@attendingjohn Lend me a penny?
Show threadOmarEldahanJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff Are you responsible for this, @lowqualityfacts ? This seems like a particularly low quality fact tbh.
Show threadDaniel DuqueJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff 1057 was a decent number for a simulation close to the "thermodynamic limit" (infinite atoms) back in the 80s
Show threadJombuchaJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff They must have been advised of their mistake by a whole lot of moles.
Show threadGeoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Jul 24, 2023
@mangetout That's still only, what, a ten millionth of a mole of orders of magnitude?
Show threadGabriel PettierJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff off by 54 orders of magnitude, much respect…
Show threadWalt CrawfordJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff The article wasn't exactly wrong. There are 1057 atoms in the sun, just as there are 23 people in the United States. There are also a whole bunch more in both cases...
Show threadGeoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Jul 24, 2023
@waltcrawford The population of the US being 23 is pretty much bang on in comparison.
Show threadbillheywoodJul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff
They are both wrong 😆
Show threadWatchcat 🐈Jul 24, 2023
@_thegeoff LOLOL
Show threadKevin Karhan Jul 25, 2023
@_thegeoff I'm convinced that was a typo done in layouting...
Show threadGeoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿Jul 25, 2023
@kkarhan Oh, totally, superscript formatting getting scrubbed or similar, I made exactly the same mistake pasting their text into the alt on my screenshot!
It's still *quite* a noteable error margin though 🤣😉
Show threadKevin Karhan Jul 25, 2023

@_thegeoff again, I'm not shure about their toolchain used to layout...

Some mishaps like that may happen when people use #DOCX and import it into #QuarkExpress or a #CMS for the articles.

Show threadwheatley gamingJul 25, 2023
@_thegeoff i spent way too long editing this
Show threadJames FlukerJul 25, 2023
@_thegeoff 😂😭
Show threadThe TurtleJul 25, 2023
@_thegeoff not repnosible fro typhograhpicla esrorr.
Show threadOldTurk🗽Focus: #FreePeltierJul 25, 2023
@_thegeoff if that’s happened to me once, it’s happened 10^10^10^10^10^ 10^10^10^10^10 times
Show threadCarsten O. 💚🌻📯Jul 25, 2023
@_thegeoff a small change, just a type style change.
@GuidoKuehn it’s your turn,
Show threadGraniteGeekJul 25, 2023
@_thegeoff I once had a correction of a factor of 1000 in a story estimating the number of leaves on New Hampshire trees. I thought that was pretty good (i.e., bad) but now I realize that I was a piker
Show threadjoanneJul 25, 2023
@_thegeoff Thank goodness. I'd been thinking about it wrong all this time.
Show threadMeditativehiphopJul 25, 2023
@_thegeoff haha that’s funny
Show threadRichard "RichiH" HartmannJul 26, 2023
@_thegeoff