Sizes of Stars and Sub-Stellar Objects: From Brown Dwarf to Red Hypergiant

We've learned about the stellar life cycle, so we know what happens to smaller stars like ours, and we know what happens to larger stars that become neutron stars and black holes. But what are the limits on either side? How small can a star be, and how big can a star be? What is the smallest star we can see, and what is the biggest? Do these limits even exist? Let's take a look!
Music by Simulated Sun:
www.simulatedsun.com/
/ @simulatedsun
Watch the whole Astronomy/Astrophysics playlist: bit.ly/ProfDaveAstronomy
Classical Physics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDavePhysics1
Modern Physics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDavePhysics2
Mathematics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveMaths
General Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveGenChem
Organic Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveOrgChem
Biochemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBiochem
Biology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBio
EMAIL► [e-mail]
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT

[@dross4207]

From the very small, to the very large, the sizes and spaces in between are almost incomprehensible to our minds. On the small side, water molecules are so small that if we were to dye the molecules in a cup of water red, and dumped it in the ocean and let it circulate throughout all the water on the Earth, there would be about 5000 molecules of the dyed red molecules in each cup of water on our planet. On the other end of the spectrum, the distances between the stars is so vast, that if each star had an average size of a grain of sand, there would be 20 grains of sand spread over an area the size of Los Angeles.

[@neithanm]

This was very interesting, although there would be close to 1000 molecules per cup of sea water, not 5000. But a big number nonetheless. GPT4 and I did the math: Let's calculate the number of water molecules in a cup (about 250 milliliters or 0.25 liters), and the total number of water molecules in Earth's oceans (about 1.332 billion cubic kilometers or 1.332 x 10^9 cubic kilometers). Then we can determine the distribution of the dyed water molecules from one cup into all the Earth's ocean water. Firstly, let's find out how many water molecules are there in one cup of water. - The molar mass of water is approximately 18 grams/mole. - The number of molecules in a mole (Avogadro's number) is about 6.022 x 10^23 molecules/mole. - Since the density of water is approximately 1 g/ml or 1000 g/l, a cup of water (0.25 liters) weighs about 250 grams. - Hence, the number of moles in a cup of water is about 250 g / 18 g/mole = 13.89 moles. - So, the number of water molecules in one cup is approximately 13.89 moles * 6.022 x 10^23 molecules/mole = 8.36 x 10^24 molecules. Next, let's estimate the total volume of Earth's oceans in cups: - The volume of Earth's oceans is about 1.332 billion cubic kilometers or 1.332 x 10^9 cubic kilometers. - Converting this to liters (since 1 cubic kilometer equals 10^12 liters), we have 1.332 x 10^9 cubic kilometers * 10^12 liters/cubic kilometer = 1.332 x 10^21 liters. - Since 1 liter is about 4.22675 cups, the total volume of Earth's oceans is approximately 1.332 x 10^21 liters * 4.22675 cups/liter = 5.63 x 10^21 cups. Finally, let's determine the number of dyed water molecules from one cup that would be present in each cup of ocean water: - The total number of dyed water molecules distributed in the Earth's oceans is the number of water molecules in one cup, which is about 8.36 x 10^24 molecules. - If these dyed molecules are evenly distributed among all cups of ocean water (5.63 x 10^21 cups), then the number of dyed water molecules in each cup of ocean water would be 8.36 x 10^24 molecules / 5.63 x 10^21 cups = approximately 1.49 x 10^3 molecules per cup. This value is significantly less than the original statement's value of 5000 molecules per cup. The original statement seems to overestimate the distribution of the dyed molecules. Please note that this analysis uses averages and approximations, and the actual distribution of dyed water molecules might be influenced by various factors such as currents, temperature, and salinity.

[@BattShytKuhraezy]

W R 0 N G. Distance example. WAY off

[@dross4207]

@@BattShytKuhraezy Just going by the size comparisons and distance comparisons from an Encyclopedia of Astronomy. Give the corrections if they are wrong

[@KrulKrukuw]

UY Scuti and Canis Majoris were very recently detronized. Turns out the distance was measured wrong, hence their sizes as well. There is a new record holder called Stephenson 2-18 or rather still a candidate, cuz it's size isn't certain. You should also specify that the Hyper Giants of these sizes aren't actually perfectly round anymore. They look more like an irregular plasma cloud actually, that just vaguely resembles a sphere, than a typical star.

[@drrach1]

What

[@drrach1]

Uy scuti is not biggest star

[@seven5677]

Lol UY Scuti is not even top 50 anymore.

[@SpaceLover-he9fj]

Im sorry, but there is no uncertainty in the estimate. It turns out the uncertainty was referring to another star, the wikipedia editors got confused lol.

[@suboneplaylistchallange]

stopit

[@mrquadrivium7497]

It's crazy how our minds can't even comprehend the size of these objects.

[@MrFuller876]

Yep

[@mrquadrivium7497]

@The Mandalorian No human mind can. It might seem like you do but you don't.

[@jazmihamizan4987]

@@mrquadrivium7497 i get a tremendous headache up to rigel and can't load any bigger scale into my head

[@UKMonkey]

@@mrquadrivium7497 comprehend... Yes, people can comprehend its size. But appreciating them and understanding the scales is tougher. Flat earthers fail miserably when it comes to just earth!

[@rigierish3807]

We have nothing to compare with, so, sure... it's huge, that's all we can understand. (if a flat-earther would stand on UY Scuti, he would claim that this star is flat, and I think anybody could say it isn't, as it is incredibly huge XD)

[@jamesodom4980]

Notice how all of the objects in this video are spherical.

[@trenken]

Because of gravity.

[@Verulyrus]

yooo thats wild i thought they were fucking triangles bro thanks for pointing it out

[@adrianbundy3249]

Just a clarification on your sizes for other people here: These are the largest sizes in terms of cubic volume. Not necessarily mass or luminosity. Like how you mentioned UY Scuti is the 'largest one we know of', but a star like R136a1 is the largest by mass, and also luminosity interestingly enough. Something like 315 solar masses, but people put a question mark on that, but so far it's the best estimate we have, and it has been rechecked by even more accurate modeling methods over the years. In time, as it dies, it is probable the overall volume might even exceed many of the hypergiants listed here, since they expand; but again, too many unknowns with the star. . I just find it interesting if it was put where Proxima Centauri is, our nearest other star - it would be as bright as a full moon. That'd be interesting to see. . Also, maybe talking about the differences of WR stars to the rest might make some interesting video material, at least I always thought so.

[@sunrazor2622]

possible chance R136a1 might just spontaneously collapse into a black hole before it reaches comparable size to a hyper giant?

[@brandonrusso4377]

Often times the higher mass stars (and planets as well, so I guess I could just say ‘objects’) are smaller in size. The mass usually does not correlate completely to the object’s size or luminosity. The more mass, the more gravity there is that compresses that said object, which makes it smaller (and more dense). Red hypergiants are typically very low density stars. And I don’t believe R136a1 will spontaneously become a black hole until it exhausts all of it’s hydrogen supply into helium and then into carbon and heavier elements. While it is capable burning hydrogen, the forces for fusion are able to withstand those of gravity. Different story though when it runs out.

[@omfgacceptmyname]

it's crazy how these things are just out there, being bigger than me

[@one-of-us9939]

Thanks for bringing reality into focus.

[@nerdzilla1355]

Last time I was this early, everyone knew the Earth was round

[@ManOnTheRange]

and now it is a hexahedron

[@TheCJHowes]

@@Djoga100 Any evidence?

[@justinwebber9968]

@The Observer They're all butt hurt because he keeps making them look stupid...

[@juno2317]

@@Djoga100 Get out. Just get out.

[@freddan6fly]

@@Djoga100You know nothing, you have no proof, you are just a dumb uneducated brainwashed meme parrot.

[@zach5297]

This video is awesome. Really gets the mind thinking. Learning new things is great

[@mirumotsuyasuke8327]

The most informative size comparison ever.

[@superchicken6b610]

Some of these were put into elite dangerous. Blew my mind the first time I flew around betelgues. Good show Dave 👍

[@mooreandless]

I love this! So well explained. A true teacher.

[@douglashanson7489]

Great Video-- Understanding the sheer scale of things, massive and micro, is what separates the average minds from the rest.

[@airmakay1961]

Wow, that star-scale video was terrific.

[@viktoryiarymkevich]

Wow, that just blew my mind. I love your videos and learned a lot from them. Thank you for doing such an amazing content!

[@motivationbullet5561]

Professor Dave has great clarity

[@DylRicho]

I think you should make a video discussing the correlation between mass and physical dimensions, and how they aren't necessarily related. The more massive stars tend to be those in the upper main sequence, which then lose mass as they expand. A video on Wolf-Rayet stars would also be cool since you don't really see those discussed too much.

[@86ifyfarooq]

Love these astronomy videos on this channel.

[@KnighteMinistriez]

How many flerfers would call this fake? It's only because they don't understand science. I actually understood so well it was just review for me. This was stuff I had learned once before, so I was just relearning. It was still a good video. I still liked this video.

[@rporta]

that comparison of the stars is just literally incredible, amazing!

[@rajeevsrivastava3829]

Hi Dave sir , first time I am so early , thank you uploading more videos on space and universe , plz continue to do so and plz reply .

[@hazardmouth]

I second this

[@RiyaSingh-cb4wi]

Very nice information . Great teaching

[@danacollins2625]

If I'm not mistaken, the Eddington Limit, as I think it's called, proposes that the most massive a star can become before it cannot gravitationally hold its outer layers is around 250-300 solar masses, not 150. There has, again if I'm not mistaken, been atleast one star observed around this mass range.

[@jrperez8545]

Another awesome 👍 thanks professor Dave

[@-fuk57]

This is a great presentation. I'm going to make it into a mini-dance party of sorts for something interesting to do the next time I am taking care of kids. We'll all yell out the names of stars (wave at the sun), should be fun!

[@Sleepyboiwonder]

Just subbed! Nice to see a fellow matador with such a big following!

[@sigmawolf6717]

Great video!!! Very informative!!!

[@TsarDragon]

I could be wrong, but didn't UY Scuti's title get taken by Stephenson 2-18?

[@SciFyerGaming]

Yes. UY Scuti was originally thought to be more distant, but its know known to be a closer. A bright star thats more distant than a closer star with the same brightness, is likley more luminous. UY Scuti's closer position indicates that instead of being a very luminous, and thus larger and more massive star, thats farther way; its a still a luminous and large, but less luminous and large and closer star.

[@evanhayes5891]

Hey pal, I don't know what trouble you're aimin' to cause, but in these parts we vote for Scuti. If you're a no-good Stephensonphile then you can GET OUT!!

[@bogdanostaficiuc6385]

@@evanhayes5891 lol a cool kid? GET THE FUCKING OUT!

[@unkownbot5601]

It blows my mind thinking just how big the universe is. You see all these stars in the sky but that’s not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the size of the universe. Imagine what is out there, right now as we sit and sleep. It is inevitable that there is extra terrestrial life because the ingredients for life are scattered all over the universe.

[@learnpianofastonline]

I enjoyed this. I will have to check out your video on the Alpha Centauri system.

[@nolanmajor561]

It turns out that UY Scuti is much closer than originally thought. It no longer holds the title as "largest star discovered." In fact, I believe it's not even in the top 10 anymore. As pointed out by Anton.

[@stansburygreg]

You’re excellent and thank you for the great content.

[@spleefthedude7747]

You see those names and I think of episodes of Star Trek where they mention these stars. Would it be great if we could go to these systems and really study these. Maybe some day...

[@tonygraf]

Professor Dave, do stars of particular sizes reside in the same parts of the galaxy. In other words will an astronomer find stars of similar masses clustered together or is everything scattered randomly. I'm thinking randomly, but I await your answer. Thanks

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

it's pretty random

[@connorwalters3246]

The 8 dislikes are G class stars that are jelly.

[@kiltedjohn1000]

Or Flat earthers

[@Octolicia]

More like Flat Earther. ^^

[@bobkin611]

Please do more space stuff. Super entertaining stuff man

[@F3ND1MUS]

Good stuff, thank you

[@matthewb8229]

I LOVE vids about the sizes of stars! The immensity of them is just mind boggeling. And now we wait for a FE/Space denier to quip "Look how close all the planets are in the opening shot! If the sun is soooo huge, Dave, why aren't the planets sucked into it?" On a serious question, do you think, or is there research that would suggest a hypergiant star has enough mass that it could form a proto-galaxy (for lack of better term)? Must a black hole be present for a galaxy to form?

[@jojol.2630]

Each star coming a long was like “hold my beer”

[@jacobblack2544]

Prof. Dave, you are my inspiration! I love you and I respect you a lot. May god bless you with good health and prosperity. You are doing a very great job, your lectures are a donation to mankind, I will always remember you even when i'll grow old. you are a legend and you are born to rock. such a blessing to earth. THANKYOU SO MUCH SIR Your efforts and hardwork means a lot. I can't express in words how much i love you.

[@nathanmckenzie904]

@Dubz 2020 which god, there are several of them that people believe in

[@myuu22]

Wasn't it recently discovered that UY Scuti isn't so large? The GAIA program found that UY Scuti is a lot closer to Earth than we initially thought, and so must be smaller in order to have its observed luminosity.

[@vegatronld]

Good stuff!

[@Tiagomottadmello]

Great fantastic vídeo !!! 👍👍

[@theredkey3288]

do a video on pop 3 stars, i think they were able to get up to 1000 solar masses with way larger sizes than uy scuti because of different laws of physics or whatever, i'd be interested to learn about those

[@nikhilmishra3030]

UV Scuti is not the largest star anymore. our calculations were wrong. UV Scuti is now not even in the top 100.

[@randomperson1418]

actually it still is in the top 100, just barely

[@oisnowy5368]

Top 10 or 100... it's just one zero more or less. Approaching the right magnitude's generally good enough for astronomy. :P

[@outerlands3382]

all calculations are wrong , earths flat as scientists prove time after time with repeated experiments

[@Ijsz23]

Did you heard of Stephenson 2-18? I'm courius to see it in the size comparison

[@xk1390]

So cool!

[@ajhieb]

What is proposed as the mechanism for the upper limit for the size of stars? Is it simply a matter of likely distribution of mass, where instead of forming one giant star, you'll likely get multiple smaller stars? Or is it more along the lines of getting so massive that it bypasses fusion and just collapses directly into a neutron star or black hole? Or is there some other mechanism that is proposed to cap the upper limit?

[@MrChasanDayve]

Am I right in assuming that the fewer heavy elements present in the initial dust cloud, the larger a star will become? That is to say would a star made from a pure hydrogen cloud be larger, because it needs a more material to reach the critical mass for fusion to begin?

[@ninochua9256]

Nice Video

[@eaftadatasin4676]

sir, according to morn1415's explanation,,,, Recent measurements of the Gaia Telescope revised the size of a lot of stars. Knowledge of star sizes constantly changes due to better technology. In the case of UY Scuti we found more accurate ways to measure its distance. It turned out it is way closer, therefore the measured size is smaller in relation.

[@sofianem2987]

5:24-7:20 The "black hole gourmet buffet" 😋🍊🍑🍎🥚🍩🍨🥙🍔🍪🫓🥯

[@BigStank]

Quality content

[@ironmoop]

professor dave... i love ur content... i learn a lot.... just a question... do u think black holes should be considered as stars as well??? i mean if u think about it we consider white dwarves and neutron stars as such and they are remnants of stars... so black holes being a remnant of stars shouldnt we include them??? just a thought and thank u for all ur content and education u have been giving... keep at it sir

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

i mean i think just referring to it as a star remnant is sufficient!

[@Ffollies]

Since UY Scuti looks way more than 150 times larger in size (not mass) than our sun, I'm assuming it's not nearly as dense as our sun since if it was the same density as our sun it would be way more massive than 150 solar units. Is that correct?

[@robbennett2829]

Good vid. Wish everyone believed in science. Keep it going

[@logiticalresponse9574]

Is this size chart some would call a " stellar rave " , cause they appear to be "burning up " from an intense trip/roll.

[@professionalsimpdestroyer4135]

I love space so much. It is so beautiful, and scary at the same time.

[@charlesmartin1121]

Quiz Question: at 1080p on a 10" x 18" screen--if the diameter of the sun is represented by one pixel, then what is the largest star that could be depicted in it's total diameter on screen?

[@eldandraken4850]

the downvotes are people who were expecting a "your mom" joke at the end of the chart.

[@PolarisNC001]

Oh man, one of my favorite memories. I was teaching a unit on astronomy and showed a slideshow much like this vid. At the end one kid asks "Is there anything bigger than that?" And I seriously asked myself, "Will I get fired? Eh, probably not." and went for it. Class resumed like 10 minutes later.

[@xpercade8926]

@@PolarisNC001 howd the class react?

[@MiasmicGusto]

@@xpercade8926 Assume from Dan's concluding sentence that there was uproar.

[@mathswala-safiibhai303]

That is too good information

[@XtreamDenny]

We are just a spec of dust in this universe. Fascinating.

[@aircommandslipperz]

actually much smaller than that

[@trinoxneon1237]

Atom

[@sandeepbharadwaj6914]

Fascinating video.Just wanted to ask...Isnt the maximum mass for a star to collapse into a neuton star(Chandrashekhar limit) 1.4 solar masses?What did the 8 SM from the previous video mean then?

[@SciFyerGaming]

Its complicated but when it comes to a the limit of a massive star ending its stellar life as a black hole or neutron star, in addition to its inital mass, metallicity also plays a part. "Metals" are defined as any element higher than hydrogen or helium. Generally metals are better at stopping that collapse of matter than more primordial elements such as hydrogen and helium, hence gas clouds in the early universe without a bunch of heavy metals were able to form monstrously large stars. For a star with a very low metal content, such as stars in the early universe, an initial mass of about *25* solar masses is the turnoff point for when a star would become a black hole. For massive stars today with a metallicity near that of our own Sun, an inital stellar mass of about *40* solar masses is the turnoff.

[@Dan-uf2vh]

So basically the smaller the mass, the denser the star: the more massive, the easier it triggers fusion and is comparatively more inflated, resulting in smaller densities. A similar mass-to density principle is applicable to black holes, with a black hole the size of our Universe being consistent with its density.

[@explorer1968]

And when the JWST enters operationally to work, some surprises will emerge to leave us stunned for a big while!!

[@AridChannelOfficialSG]

Nice

[@mee6211]

UY Scuti : hold my iron Stephenson 2-18 : shut the f up

[@yuanzddd7122]

quasi star is larger🤓

[@turtle2720]

5:20 Put this video on 1.25 playback speed (mute this) and find "The Black Hole" theme... now play both. Perfect match :)

[@mangojulie123]

Interestingly, I play almost all KZbin videos at 1.25 playback speed by default.

[@andydonnelly8677]

Thanks Dave, not many KZbin channels increase my IQ but your's feels like it does.😎👍

[@altheamantes2041]

Woooow awesome

[@spencerderosier6649]

You should make more videos

[@meatsuitsublimator8506]

Dave, I was wondering whether you thought it was possible that our Sun and Proxima Centauri may have been a binary system at some point. If the Sun was the vampiric of the pair, then it may have ejected P. Centauri into the galaxy as a low-mass stellar remnant.

[@darryljf7215]

Showing relative sizes of Stars this way is great but you quickly lose the sense of scale as they shunt off screen. Corridor Crew rectified the scale problem and produced an entertaining video too.

[@AvroBellow]

The limit of how massive a star can get is actually simple to calculate in theory. A star's mass is limited by the fact that its gravity cannot be stronger than the outward push of its nuclear fusion. The whole reason why supermassive stars go supernova is that when they start fusing iron, the energy output of their fusion reaction drops dramatically and so the gravity/fusion balance can no longer be maintained and gravity wins out. The star's core collapses on itself and the outer part of the star is thrown off. The pressures of supernovae are what create all elements heavier than iron.

[@mathnerd97]

Larger stars don't tend to have smaller densities, right? If so, you could find an upper limit where the corresponding radius is the schwarzchild radius.

[@rporta]

space is just incredible

[@blackhogarth4049]

I learned from Anton Petrov that UY Scuti is no longer considered the largest star. The Gaia telescope gave us a more accurate measurement of its distance. It's much smaller than we originally thought. The new current champion is Stephenson 2-18. Check it out!

[@appleiphone69]

Professor they have discovered that the measurement of UY SCUTI and other massive stars are incorrect, the distances to them are 40% closer than originally measured, making their true size not in the top 50. Stephenson2-18 is now reported to be the largest.

[@theprincipal1110]

Would it have made an important difference in the evolution of the solar system if Jupiter actually gathered enough mass in its creation to become a brown dwarf/ dim red dwarf (which would make our solar system a binary star system, how cool is that)? Would it strongly influence the movement and evolution of the other planets/ its Galilean moons? What an interesting thought experiment, I am gonna look up on this right now.

[@ProfessorDaveExplains]

Well yeah, if Jupiter was a red dwarf it would be at least 80 times more massive, so the solar system would be totally different based on that alone, let alone the radiation and solar wind from the new star.

[@thexsoar]

Impressive... but what we all need to really know is can the Star Force travel the 198,000 light years and back... in just one earth year?

[@prateek16]

Hey Dave 😀😀😀😀

[@austinharding9734]

I'll tell you exactly what the theoretical limit of a stars formation can be, and will remain theoretical due to its very nature. The very highest theoretical limit of a stars mass would be a star that explodes immediately upon its formation, one that burned thru all its hydrogen within milliseconds! The very 1st stars may not even had reached this limit, but it is the true limit, since you cannot have a star explode(die) before it even formed. This brings up other more philosophical questions like~ Whats the upper limit of a black hole? Is there something else that forms beyond a black hole that breaks even more laws of nature? (Quick notes: I find black holes perplexing cuz of 2 things i cannot understand, one; they say not even light can escape a black hole, and if i understand correctly, gravity only effects things with mass, yet light is mass-less, how can light even be affected? and two; [again as i understand it] a black hole is infinitely dense existing at a single point, yet we see different sizes of black holes; shouldn't they all exist as one size being that they are are infinity dense existing within a single one-dimensional point?) So continuing on, what if something exists [or is possible] that is even greater than a black hole? what if we have a black hole where the point that tears thru spacetime goes into hyperspace and actually creates another universe on a different brane than the one we are on? even within our universe size is relative, so Since we'd be leaving our 3-dimensional space and into hyperspace, this new universes size is completely irrelevant (of coarse given if String Theory holds to be true)

[@SticknodesinScartch]

UY Scuti is largest known star, but there is A Star called Quasi star is larger than UY Scuti, it's hyprogical.

[@scottabc72]

Regarding the 'upper limit', isnt it hypothesized that the early universe had even bigger stars and these maybe the source of supermassive black holes?

[@nickjans3846]

I believe that was more of a case of a larger amount of massive starts instead of even larger stars, but I could be wrong. Although if there where so many massive stars it seems quite logical that the were indeed even larger stars

[@jochem1986]

Black holes become massive because of sucking in multiple objects, anything can become a black hole if there is enough internal pressure.

[@bloodybobbygamecatx2532]

@@Dziaji what?

[@jochem1986]

@@Dziaji The electric force... You're the type of person people should be weary of. Big mouth, zero content.

[@sigmundcostouch4145]

Why are all stars' names so damn epic? :D

[@chris_ackroyd]

... and now the reverse journey - how small can particles get before they start being quasi-theoretical forces/vectors etc.?

[@jochem1986]

Anything down to the planck length I presume

[@mathadventuress]

professor dave, can you explain how the universe in its entirety can have 10^80 atoms... but if we look at just avogadros constant...6.022x10^23... If we look at a mole of water, which is like 18 grams...thats 6.022x10^23 molecules of water, no? So...double that for hydrogen and that same amount for oxygen...and seeing how theres a lot of water on this planet, and air, and also on other planets... I just don't see how the universe can only have 10^80... I understand the sun is estimated to have 10^57...and theres 10^23 (awfully familiar)...but not all stars are the same sizes...or as dense... Can you perhaps explain this? It has been bugging me. I know 10^80 is astronomically bigger than 10^23...but so is the universe compared to only 18 grams of water... thank you :)

[@Tornadopelt]

Oh, it's soooooo much bigger you don't even realize. Okay, so if 6.02x10^23 is 18 grams of water, then 6.02x10^26 is 18 kilograms of water. 6.02x10^29 is 18 TONS of water. 6.02x10^32? 18 kilotons. 6.02x10^35, 18 megatons. 6.02x10^38? 18 GIGATONS. Then 18 teratons, 18 petatons, 18 exatons, and so on. Every additional zero is another decimal point, another factor of ten. Every three zeroes is a full factor of 1,000. So something like 10^23 is PEANUTS compared to the universe. Let's look at it as if 6.02x10^23 is really just a simple, single object. Something like 6.02x10^80 wouldn't be 57 times bigger. Oh, no, it'd be on the order of one *_octodecillion_* times bigger.

[@flyinhigh7681]

I think part of the problem is that the scale in scientific notation is kind of muddy, people see 23 compared to 80 and think “that’s pretty close” that it’s only 57 away, but if you were to write out the full numbers (although it is slightly impractical) that would give a better scale

[@davepowder4020]

@@Tornadopelt That is an EXCELLENT reply to the 'how many atoms' question. The sense of scale vs. exponential (Scientific) notation is a tricky one for the human mind. Just to play a bit more, in order to get one googol of atoms, or 10^100, we'd need 100 billion, billion (or 100 quintillion) universes that were the same size as ours. (Assuming a universe that had 10^80 atoms!)

[@starsofaheartattack6286]

UPDATE: UY Scuti is no longer the largest star, the currect title belongs to Stephenson 218.

[@iGoogooX]

As far as I know, masses of star is more limited than its size, as the iron core exceeds a limit, the star collapses and supernova, leaving behind a neutron star, or in case of a more massive star - a black hole.

[@zihaoooi787]

"UY scuti, which is 20% larger than VY canis majoris" Stephenson 2-18: ._.

[@jotigill4187]

Stepheson, 218 is the biggest star in the entire universe, 23 times better than the largest star that used to exist

[@kennybaker3141]

There would have to be an upper limit on stars size before it would start to affect time and space with the gravitational force exerted by it.

[@user-pk9qo1gd6r]

What? any object with mass affects spacetime, there's no upper or lower limit. All stars affect spacetime.

[@phillm156]

Latest observations states that UY Scuti is 40% closer than previous observations, making it much smaller than VY Canis majoris.

[@Sagitta62]

question where do blue giants fit in this scale

[@bestoftheworldmusicsoykut]

I made a rocky planet 13.9x the mass of jupiter simply by using Universe sandbox 2.

[@stephenmorley1991]

When a massive star becomes a black hole and it's mass is so much that light cannot escape, how has it gained that mass from it's former self as a star specially if went super nova and exploded i.e it must have lost mass in the explosion?

[@mrm8522]

Technically, Teide 1 is a red dwarf star. The type of Teide 1 is an M8 type star.

[@shawnroark582]

Yes, we have discovered bigger stars!

[@KarlosRaver]

Wasn't there a new larger star found recently?

[@Neonblue84]

My self-confidence is like UY Scuti.^^