Articles, Blog

The LONGEST time – Numberphile

January 7, 2020

BRADY HARAN: You got another
number for us? TONY PADILLA: I have, yeah. Yeah. It’s the– well, I’ll just write
it down, shall I? That’s probably the
best thing to do. So it is 10 to the 10 to the
10 to the 10 to the 10– and then this is the strange
bit– to the 1.1. OK? This has been claimed to be the
largest finite time that has ever been calculated
by a physicist in a published paper. This is the paper. It’s a bit of a weird paper. It’s not had a huge impact
or anything. It’s about black hole
information loss and conscious beings. We won’t go down that route. He actually calculates something
called the Poincare recurrence time for a certain
type of universe within a certain cosmological model. And this is the number
that he gets out. So this is the one
on I’m on about. Let me just check I got the
number of 10’s right. Yeah. I did. Here it is, equation 16. So he’s put Planck times,
millennia, or whatever, because basically, it don’t
really make any difference whether you use seconds, Planck
times, millennia, years when the number is this big. But there’s other interesting
numbers in here, which is this one here. You got three 10’s
to the 2.08. That’s the Poincare recurrence
time for our universe. BRADY HARAN: What’s all
this about, dude? TONY PADILLA: OK. So Poincare recurrence time. This is something that’s arisen from statistical mechanics. Very simply, if we had a pack of
cards, and we’ve only got a finite number of cards
in that pack. And let’s say we keep
dealing each other hands of five cards. Eventually, if we do it for long
enough, you’re going to get a royal flush, Brady. That’s guaranteed to happen. And if you wait long enough
again you’ll get another one. And so on, and so on, And that’s
true because there’s a finite number of cards. Now what Poincare realized is
that if you take a gas, the particles, you can put
the gas in a box. Now you can put all the
particles in one corner of the box, and then they’ll disperse
and then they’ll move around. But Poincare recurrence tells us
is that after a very, very, very, very long time, those
particles will eventually return to the corner
of the box. You always get a repetition. And it’s basically because the
thing that controls the evolution of that system only
has a finite region of what we call [INAUDIBLE] space, of
solution space, that’s accessible to it. And so eventually, you always
come back to it arbitrarily close to where you started. The time scales are truly
enormous before you start expecting it to happen. So you can apply this quantum
mechanically as well. So what you’re doing in quantum
mechanics, what you’re really talking about is the
evolution of microstates within the quantums, so these
sort of quantum building blocks of your system. And they will eventually
return– they will evolve, but eventually
return to their initial states. And what Don Page in this paper
has tried to do is he’s actually applied that to various
types of universe, models of various types
of universe. It’s a bit of a cheat, because
a universe is what we call a macroscopic object. It’s a large object. It’s not really a quantum micro
state, in some sense. What it is, is it an ensemble,
an average, of all the microstates. So what he’s tried to do is
he’s tried to say, OK, I’m going to treat the universe
as this average of all these states. But then I’m going to count up
all the possible averages and treat them as a sort of
microstate in itself. So it’s a bit of a cheat, but
he gets an extra exponential out from that. BRADY HARAN: Are we talking
about, Jupiter’s over there, the Andromeda Galaxy’s over
there, I’m in this room filming you. TONY PADILLA: Yeah. Yeah. All that. OK? Now there’s a very large number
of possibilities that you can have, but it’s finite. And so as the system evolves,
it’s only got to– and it can only evolve, the
system can only evolve through a finite number of
possibilities. And eventually, it evolves
back to where it started. So actually, it’s– I’ve often heard it said that
the universe, for example, will evolve, will expand. Eventually, everything will be
spread out very far because of the expansion of the universe. That all objects will have
collapsed to form black holes. That then those black holes will
evaporate from Hawking radiation, and all you will
have is this very sort of bleak landscape of just
radiation that’s come out these evaporated black holes,
that’s uniformly distributed, and it’ll be very boring. OK? But that isn’t the end state
of the universe. The end state of the universe is
that after these truly epic time scales, you will eventually
have a Poincare recurrence, and you’ll wind up
back where you started from. And it’s quite easy to see
how it might happen. Imagine you have this sort
of bleak universe, right? Just have a little
fluctuation. That little fluctuation sort of
gathers together, builds up other things. Eventually, it sort of forms
a sort of galaxy, even. From that galaxy, you
get planets, stars. And you keep going,
you keep going. Eventually, you’ll get back to
the situation where it looks like it is today. Now, what I think is fair– I think it’s a fair point– is that there’s no way of ever
being aware of these repetitions over these
large times. And the reason is, you could
never build a device. You could never be an observer
that could measure this. And that’s because over these
huge time scales, such a device or such an observer would
definitely thermalize, would definitely become part
of this recurrence itself. And so there’s never anybody
or anything that could measure it. It’s this sort of idea, this
sort of notion within physics, is that if you can’t
measure it, it’s irrelevant in some sense. So. BRADY HARAN: But according to
this, in this number of– in this time, in this number of
years, you and I are going to make this video again? You and I are going to make
this video again? TONY PADILLA: Oh,
I know this is– less than that. This is for a special type
of universe that’s particularly large. The number for us is at least
less than this other number that he’s written down here,
which is 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 2.08. I’ll just say years. So this one is the one that
applies to us in our physical universe, what we call
our causal patch. This one applies to seeing
what is the Poincare recurrence time for a truly vast
domain of universe that you can get out of certain
models of cosmology. So they’re all based, of course,
on the same idea. We can work through where
these numbers come from. So the Poincare recurrence time
of any system is roughly proportional to the number
of states in that system. Because we’re applying this to
the universe, this is really the number of macrostates, the
number of these averages of microstates that you
could talk about. So let’s call this Nmacro. This, then, where we’d expect it
to be about the exponential of the number of microstates. Now why is that? Well, this doesn’t really
have to be an e. It could be a 2 or whatever. Basically, any microstate is
either in or out of the averaging with some weighting. And so this is the number
that you get out. The number of microstates when
you relate to the entropy is e to the entropy. Let’s look at some volume
of the universe, of some radius r. Then the entropy– we’ve done this before. This is the same arguments
you have before– the entropy that you could
possibly have in this region of space, basically it’s
proportional to– I’ll just be a bit sloppy
with factors– r squared over the Planck
length squared. So the next step is e
to the e to the– So now let’s apply it. So let’s apply it to
the really big number that he does. The question is, what’s r? Well, the radius of the universe
is about 10 to the 26 meters, our visible universe,
so far as we can see. What we call our causal patch. The Planck length is about 10
to the minus 34 meters. So r over n l Planck squared is
about 10 to the 120, which is a number you often see
in physics, actually. This is sort of the number
that’s associated with cosmological constant
problems. But anyway. Well, 120 is about
10 to the 2.08. That’s where that
is coming from. I don’t know why he’s so precise
about this 2.08, because what he’s going
to do next is– the number we have is e
to the e to the 10 to the 10 to the 2.08. But what he does here is
he just approximates these e’s as 10’s. Which is fine, really, in the
broader scheme of things. e, 10. For the sake of cosmology,
they’re more or less the same thing. All the e’s become 10’s, and
you’re got 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 2.08. Which hopefully is what he’s
got there, and it is. So that’s where that
number comes from. So this is basically the
Poincare recurrence time for our visible universe,
for our patch. BRADY HARAN: Why is the
other number bigger? TONY PADILLA: Well, because
the other number– there, he’s looking at– he’s trying to get a
big number is what I guess he’s doing. He’s trying to get
a bigger number. What he’s looking out there
is a model of inflation. Now, inflation is a model of the
very early universe, where the universe grew really quickly
out of a very small patch of the universe. The amount by which it blows
up depends on various parameters in the model. But basically, the thing that
you get is you get to the size of the universe. So r, for that case,
is of order e to the 4 pi over M squared. So this is actually
r over l Planck. He’s done everything
in Planck units. But M here is the mass of some
of this influx, what we call the inflaton field. It’s just some field
in the model that causes the expansion. 1 over M squared is
10 to the 12. I think this might
be 13, actually. 10 to the 12. So this is about 10
to the 13 overall, because 13 is about 10. Bear with me. So this is e to the 10
to the 13, roughly. The 13, well, is about
10 to the 1.1. That’s where the
1.1 comes from. He’s very precise about this
1.1, and yet he’s very sloppy with some of the
other factors. You get e to the e to another
e to the 10 to the 10 to the 1.1. And then we do the same thing. We turn all the e’s into 10’s. BRADY HARAN: Help me understand,
because obviously, you have bit numbers there. How long a time is this? TONY PADILLA: OK. So this is truly vast. Like I said, there’s no device,
there’s no observer, anything that could survive
this kind of length of time scale. In fact, you would probably say
that the universe is more likely to tunnel out of the
current state before this could happen, in some sense. This is such a long time scale
that one might say that actually the probability of
tunneling to a new phase of the universe, completely
different, is actually going to dominate over this. That that would occur first. So maybe this is kind of
an irrelevant point. Yeah. It’s truly vast. It’s bigger than a
googol, clearly. Way bigger. Is it bigger than
a googolplex? I think so. So you know, let’s
just check that. Yeah, clearly it is. It’s enormous. It won’t be as big as Graham’s
number, but you know, Graham’s number’s the daddy, right? So. Well, I didn’t actually
know about this paper. But yeah, I was just– I just thought, oh,
big numbers. Let’s see what’s interesting
about big numbers. And then I stumbled
across this paper. What he claims– in
fact, he says it– he claims, “So far as I know,
these are the longest finite times that have been explicitly
calculated by any physicist.” So whether somebody
has calculated a longer one– and I’m sure some of the viewers
will try to calculate a longer one and then
claim that they’ve– but this is in a published
paper. So you’ve got to get the
paper published. But the challenge is on, I
guess, to find a longer one. There probably has been, too,
but he was the one that pointed it out.

You Might Also Like


  • Reply Electromorphous October 14, 2018 at 8:35 am

    Oh boy LITERALLY can't wait to comment this again when it's uploaded again e^e^10^10^2.08 years later!

  • Reply MalcolmCooks October 23, 2018 at 3:29 am

    woooooah-oh-oh (for the longest) for the longest time

  • Reply edouard Bail October 24, 2018 at 5:47 pm

    It's the time we have to wait before avengers 4 title.

  • Reply Loan Ducaneaux October 26, 2018 at 12:24 pm

    Wouldn't 10^10^10^10^10^1.1 just be the same as 10^11000?

  • Reply Supgamer November 6, 2018 at 8:02 am

    Deja vu

    I've just been in this place before

  • Reply SMHDragon Ball Super Ace of Spades November 14, 2018 at 6:34 am

    Boltzmann Brain anyone

  • Reply Kedar Pakhare November 14, 2018 at 6:29 pm

    If a research paper from non US or non Euro country has a word 'whatever' in it, it's guaranteed to not get published😂

  • Reply Prateek Mahajan November 15, 2018 at 11:05 am

    Poincaré recurrence will occur for a finite solution space but applying it to our universe which is expanding (increasing in space) does not justify how universe will stop expanding and start contacting.

  • Reply Gordez November 19, 2018 at 11:18 pm

    sometimes i have dreams about events months before they are going to happen, when i already clearly forget that about the event, then they occur and i'm like – wait…

  • Reply Karthik Srinivasan November 29, 2018 at 11:36 pm

    If this recurrence is true, it implies there's no free will

  • Reply Firstname Lastname December 1, 2018 at 11:08 pm


  • Reply steven mulya December 5, 2018 at 1:28 pm

    10:27 i got confused as there was three e’s but the other e is part of the entropy

  • Reply flop snail December 6, 2018 at 2:44 am

    You seem to imply though, that the universe will stop accelerating in its expansion and collapse. No. More likely, It will reach heat death, and then over an epic time scale every particle will tunnel ask to the same exact point in spacetime and a new universe will be created.

  • Reply manw3bttcks December 8, 2018 at 11:20 pm

    HIs idea of a recollection of particles to form a galaxy (4:45) doesn't take into account that the baryons may have decayed long long before the recurrence time. That universe would only have a gas of photons and maybe neutrinos

  • Reply Lapid Palid December 9, 2018 at 11:43 am

    5:48 lmao!!!

  • Reply DoritoPanda1423 December 14, 2018 at 3:22 am

    B I L L Y J O E L I N T E N S I F I E S

  • Reply Selinor578 December 30, 2018 at 5:45 pm

    I've worked out a larger number. It's 10^10^10 repeating till it starts sounding like The Overture to William Tell.

  • Reply Tanish Islam January 20, 2019 at 9:45 am

    But doesn't the constantly increasing entropy mean that this recurrence is not possible, because we keep adding to the finite amount of entropy?

  • Reply Tc14 Hd January 29, 2019 at 8:41 pm

    physics be like pi = e = g = 10

  • Reply CG Account January 30, 2019 at 7:33 pm

    If the universe is infinite wouldn't things be repeating right now?

  • Reply Misfits74 February 3, 2019 at 6:05 pm

    I love this guy he is brilliant at explaining bonkers concepts to mere mortals like myself..

  • Reply Matthieu Montecot February 14, 2019 at 2:47 pm

    But is universe finite? doesn't universe expention apply anyway?

  • Reply Pedro Alvarez February 16, 2019 at 12:26 am

    I came back here after watching A Ghost story and a Futurama episode.

  • Reply 北村明 February 21, 2019 at 2:02 am


    10(3)< Universe < 10(4)

    The Universe ≒10(π) m

    I have thought that way before. I think that it is close to your way of thinking.
    I agree with your way .

  • Reply Walt F. February 28, 2019 at 12:29 am

    But what if the box – or the universe – is expanding exponentially? Does the Poincare recurrence time still apply?

  • Reply Tom Mason March 16, 2019 at 12:59 am

    Surely in a recurrent universe it's more likely for there to be small fluctuations that resemble some past state of the universe as opposed to an enormous fluctuation. We're far more likely to live (if we do live in a recurrent universe) in a small fluctuation, an isolated pocket of low entropy in a universe of high entropy. Yet when we look out into the night sky, we see order as far as we can see. Why is this? Surely the chances of there being a fluctuation the size of at least the observable universe is minimal compared to the chances we would be living in a small fluctuation.

  • Reply Sari Çizmeli Mehmet Ağa March 19, 2019 at 7:20 pm

    I hope the universe doesn't reset.

  • Reply Tutoring Western March 21, 2019 at 11:33 pm

    Impossible. Particles will have to move faster than light to interact with each other.

  • Reply GD Gameplayer March 22, 2019 at 10:09 pm

    Like if you’re here after the universe resets itself

  • Reply Adam Gray March 28, 2019 at 10:01 pm

    Us plebs: e~3
    Don Page, an intellectual: e~10

  • Reply ll dEEtEE x March 31, 2019 at 8:48 pm

    This guy looks like the kid from Toy Story who tortured the toys

  • Reply saultube44 April 7, 2019 at 12:36 am

    You really need to normalize the audio volume

  • Reply Captain Pålegg April 16, 2019 at 12:20 am


  • Reply Rodri Meléndez April 19, 2019 at 1:54 am

    I strongly recommend reading "The Last Question" from Isaac Asimov. It's a short story that talks about all this crazy entropy stuff. …In the 50's. When you finish reading it, you end up with that strange sensation 🙂

  • Reply Anita Gofradump April 21, 2019 at 7:05 pm

    engineers get ridiculed for e=pi=3
    e=10 is next level i love it!

  • Reply Vailabe Gaming April 22, 2019 at 8:46 pm

    10^1…(ten billion zero's)=
    1…(ten billion zero's of zero's)

  • Reply Vinesh April 25, 2019 at 12:54 pm

    watches video
    Entropy: AM I A JOKE TO YOU?

  • Reply Vojtěch Sejkora April 29, 2019 at 1:09 am

    How that particles can return to the corner with 100% probability? Even when there is finite states, that doesnt mean, that it return to the start… it can cycles between some another states :-o?

  • Reply Stephen Law May 8, 2019 at 10:21 am

    So is this poincare conjecture also imply that, if we dissolved a cube of sugar in a cup of coffee, and stirred that cup for liquid for 10^n years, where n=10^10^10^10^on and on, we'd eventually get back our cube of sugar?

  • Reply Will Galmot May 10, 2019 at 2:45 am

    Sounds like a subject tetration would apply very well to

  • Reply Seb M May 14, 2019 at 4:33 pm

    Billy Joel would be proud

  • Reply Endermage77 May 28, 2019 at 4:35 am

    "How long can we do this math?"

    Fooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooor the longest time

  • Reply LoL-O-Mat 1000 June 2, 2019 at 2:47 am

    Does not happen if the universe keeps expending.

  • Reply Ely Powell June 2, 2019 at 8:44 pm

    His chompers are gargantuan!

  • Reply Paolo Benda June 4, 2019 at 11:52 pm

    Is the Universe very big or very small?

  • Reply Sébastien Grand Bois June 11, 2019 at 8:52 pm

    That was clearly the best guy to explain this

  • Reply son goku June 15, 2019 at 7:28 am

    I've calculated the 10^10^10^10^10^1.1
    It's over 1 followed by 315,027,680 zeroes

  • Reply יהודה שמחה ולדמן June 15, 2019 at 6:47 pm

    And this is why human scientists become fully arrogant dumbasses…

  • Reply ████████████████████l███████████████████ June 16, 2019 at 3:17 pm

    nowadays anyone can get anything published…

  • Reply Dick Kimmins June 17, 2019 at 12:59 pm

    This guy's mumbling is all but unintelligible.

  • Reply Mevlud Macharashvili June 17, 2019 at 4:05 pm

    What if sleeping actually travels you back in time by 10^10^10^10^10^2.08 years and you dream about what you see during the travel????

  • Reply James Allen June 19, 2019 at 12:58 am

    Grahams number in years.
    How many iterations of this particular comment did I make in that time span?

  • Reply Lord Feish June 21, 2019 at 5:15 am

    doesn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics because after maximum entropy is reached in the universe it won't go back?

  • Reply george lastrapes June 25, 2019 at 11:56 pm

    As often happens, Roger Penrose supplies hopeful wisdom– with his CCC . Epoch follows epoch, over and over, time and again; time slows down, distance becomes stupifyingly enormous, but conformal rescaling saves us, the universe is recreated, carry on.
    I can believe in this. But knowing you, we will argue about this forever.

  • Reply Kamna Singh June 26, 2019 at 3:33 pm

    No I don't think it is a longest time its a 357686312646216567629137^99999999^π

  • Reply AL spezial June 26, 2019 at 4:31 pm

    how could any timespan ever be greater than the reaccurance time of the universe?

  • Reply Damo Cawley June 28, 2019 at 6:30 am

    So if mayo play in an infinite number of all Ireland finals we will eventually win one😉

  • Reply peanut12345 June 28, 2019 at 6:35 am

    Why didn't some college kid at the community college write this?

  • Reply Johannes H June 30, 2019 at 12:10 pm

    But our universe expands faster than the time where anything will happen. This reason only works with a non-expanding universe, and then it is like with the Boltzmann Brain, which is soo cool! Everything, independent how unlikely it is, will eventually happen. If there are finitely many states (if, then there are very, very many) it has to repeat after going through every possible sequence of events.

  • Reply Dustless Page July 1, 2019 at 5:05 pm


  • Reply doesnt matter July 3, 2019 at 11:54 am

    Seems like an incredibly small number for what his is calculating honestly.

  • Reply TheFamousArthur July 6, 2019 at 2:50 am

    10, to the 10, to the 10, to the 10, to the 10 to the 1.1

  • Reply Tcrane787 July 14, 2019 at 12:12 pm

    all e's become 10s xD

  • Reply Lord Skeptic August 3, 2019 at 10:40 am

    If you want to save time those numbers can be written as

  • Reply Ummer Farooq August 7, 2019 at 11:56 am

    10^120 is the number of chess games possible I read

  • Reply Ummer Farooq August 7, 2019 at 12:03 pm

    The point behind 10 vs e is the curve in a square as you extend squares with a path that traces a Fibonacci spiral.

  • Reply Kuusik 100 August 21, 2019 at 12:56 pm

    10^10^10^10^10^1.1 years

  • Reply Leo179 August 27, 2019 at 2:17 pm

    to the one point one.

  • Reply Garry Sekelli August 29, 2019 at 1:37 am

    Web Will be having this discussione again

  • Reply Physics Meerkat August 29, 2019 at 5:51 pm

    e = 10

  • Reply Midnight Games September 4, 2019 at 5:59 pm

    4:56 time will still exsist after gravity is no longer a thing?

  • Reply Danelius September 4, 2019 at 8:54 pm

    For some reason I've watched this a second time. Mind boggling.

  • Reply PaulBunkey September 6, 2019 at 10:05 am

    This is plain false. Here is the argument: I drop the ball into a pit. Question: how long it will take for the ball to return to where is was dropped from? Answer: as long as gravity exists, it never will. Generalization: system changes from higher energy state to low energy state and never returns until laws by which the system lives stop affecting the system. Gas molecules will NEVER all condense into a corner, if laws of thermodynamics never change.

  • Reply Horváth Áron September 7, 2019 at 10:49 am

    Of course it is smaller then Graham's number

    it is even smaller then g1 or 3^^^3

  • Reply Huong Tong September 10, 2019 at 5:18 am

    the longest time without power 1.1 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ( plank time )

  • Reply WhoistheJC? September 12, 2019 at 9:01 am

    So first law of engineering is e = π = 3. And the first law of cosmology is e = 10?…

  • Reply James Humphreys September 14, 2019 at 8:09 am

    I'm surprised no one has come up with a symbol to save time in writing the same power.

  • Reply Pietro Squilla September 20, 2019 at 11:26 pm

    Matematicamente l'eterno ritorno di Nietzsche

  • Reply Jerry Rupprecht September 21, 2019 at 8:49 pm

    Lol! e=10

  • Reply Jeff Shipp September 30, 2019 at 3:06 pm

    I understand the finite argument that eventually everything will happen in a finite amount of time even exact repititions.

    I would like to know that using the argument that finite change can happen at any time, isnt there an equal chance that it won't. IE picture that moment at the right before the universal Royal flush there is an equal chance you dont get a royal flush.

    Thank you

  • Reply uesdto signin October 1, 2019 at 8:33 am

    Poincaré recurrence —> 5:43 …you and I are going to make this video again. You and I are going to make this video again…

  • Reply Mauricio Ubillus Geometry Dash Lubtu October 5, 2019 at 4:15 am

    "I'm not interested in approximations"


  • Reply Le Mirage October 9, 2019 at 8:56 pm

    It's funny how he says some of the viewers will try to get larger time. 😀 yes they usually do, all the time, posting things like that and also using the classic Fermat's signature line. 🙂

  • Reply Taran Mellacheruvu October 13, 2019 at 2:14 am

    5:47 I just freaked out when I saw that

  • Reply simdimdim12 October 27, 2019 at 1:15 pm

    Thats assuming the universe was finite/constant sized tho which we or the majority of astronomers these days assume it is not.

  • Reply Nash Shrestha October 29, 2019 at 3:24 am

    Engineers: e = pi = 3

    Physicists: e = 10

  • Reply Jaeden Vaithianathan October 29, 2019 at 5:28 am

    1:42 why is it guaranteed? This seems like it’s possible to never get a royal flush, even if there is a minuscule chance, there still is a chance, right? That statement seems rather illogical.

  • Reply Caleborg November 1, 2019 at 3:00 am

    I love how Numberphile video titles at first glance seem to be clickbaity, but are 100% of the time, totally legit and not clickbaity at all.

  • Reply James Orr November 2, 2019 at 6:32 am

    Hey subtitlers. He's obviously saying phase space

  • Reply T. November 2, 2019 at 10:57 am

    I am… oh I don't know, 10^10^10 whatevers old

  • Reply Lee Fisher November 6, 2019 at 6:30 pm

    There are currently pi comments, (3,141) which I'm now ruining by my claim that there were pi comments when I wrote this comment. Well, sort of, because there are now 3,142 comments.

  • Reply Alex November 10, 2019 at 3:30 pm

    Regarding the current subtitle gap after 2:15 ("[INAUDIBLE] space"), is it "phase space"?

  • Reply Generic Asian Boi November 21, 2019 at 2:54 am

    Me, an intellectual: 10^10^10^10^10^1.2

  • Reply Jochem Leeslamp November 21, 2019 at 10:43 pm

    So basically I have been lying in bed watching this video for about an infinite number of times already, and will do it a lot more…


  • Reply Mr. Prometheus November 28, 2019 at 6:53 am


    Dude's infamous at his uni.

  • Reply Mark Simpson November 30, 2019 at 7:08 am

    Is 10^10^10^10^2.08 the same as 10^1000^2.08?

  • Reply Jonas A. December 8, 2019 at 2:05 am

    Some would say they experienced that time length during a 10g psilocybin mushrooms in dark silence.

  • Reply Wyatt December 16, 2019 at 12:28 am

    10^10^10^10^10^1.2 years. There, calculated a longer time.

  • Reply S. E. December 28, 2019 at 5:14 pm

    This is also the time span Rapid Wien will win its next title in Austrian soccer league. Last occurence 2008.

  • Reply MGsquared January 4, 2020 at 10:45 pm

    When you realize e^e^e≈3814280 and 10^10^10 is a 1 followed by 10000000000 zeroes.

  • Leave a Reply