What is bigger than a googolplex?

Infinitely many things — a googolplex plus one, a googolplex squared, ten to the power of a googolplex. Among famous named numbers, Graham's number dwarfs a googolplex so completely that ordinary exponent notation cannot even express it, and numbers like TREE(3) dwarf Graham's number in turn. Every one of them is still finite.

Does anything in the physical universe reach a googolplex?

No known physical count comes anywhere near it. The number of atoms in the observable universe is estimated around ten to the eightieth power — vastly less than a googol, let alone a googolplex. Googolplex-scale numbers show up in mathematics and in some far-future physics thought experiments, not in anything you can count.

← All guides

Googolplex vs infinity: why big isn't "almost infinite"

Q: Is infinity a number?

Not in ordinary arithmetic. Infinity is not a point sitting at the end of the number line — it is a description of something without end. That is why arithmetic with infinity breaks the usual rules, and why no finite number, however enormous, gets you any closer to it.

Q: Are some infinities bigger than others?

Yes — this is one of the most famous results in mathematics. Georg Cantor proved that the infinity of the counting numbers is strictly smaller than the infinity of all decimal numbers: no matter how you try to pair them up, decimals are always left over. Infinity comes in different sizes.

People reach for the same phrase whenever a number gets absurd: "it's basically infinite." It never is. The strange, wonderful truth is that a googolplex — a number too large to write down using every particle in the universe — is exactly as far from infinity as the number 1. Here's why.

A quick recap: googol and googolplex

A googol is 10¹⁰⁰ — a 1 followed by a hundred zeros, already more than the number of atoms in the observable universe. A googolplex is 10 raised to the power of a googol: a 1 followed by a googol of zeros. You could not write out its digits even with an atom-sized pen and the whole cosmos for paper — there isn't enough universe to hold them. (For how these names arise, and the ladder from million to centillion, see our googol guide.)

Infinity is not a number on the line

The intuition that fails here is picturing infinity as a destination — a final stop at the far end of the number line, which giant numbers slowly approach. But infinity is not a point on the line at all. It is a statement about the line: that it never ends. There is no place where numbers stop, so there is no place called infinity to get close to. Every actual number you can name — 7, a trillion, a googolplex — sits at a finite spot, with the entire endless line still stretching past it.

Equally far from the end that isn't there

Here is the cleanest way to see it. How many numbers come after 1? Infinitely many. How many numbers come after a googolplex? Also infinitely many — a googolplex + 1, a googolplex + 2, and on forever. Both have an endless road ahead, so neither is "closer" to infinity in any meaningful sense. Bigness among finite numbers is real (a googolplex is genuinely, staggeringly bigger than a trillion), but closeness to infinity is not a thing any finite number can have. That's the precise reason "basically infinite" is always wrong — charming, but wrong.

Try it in your browser

Cosmic Scale lets you type any number — a trillion, a googol, far beyond — and see its proper name in short and long scale, pinned to real-world comparisons so the size actually lands. Free and instant, right in your browser.

Open Cosmic Scale →

Bigger than a googolplex (and still finite)

The googolplex isn't even the end of the named numbers. Graham's number, which arose in a genuine mathematical proof, is so vast that exponent towers — tens raised to tens raised to tens — cannot express it; mathematicians had to invent a new notation just to describe how it's built. And combinatorial monsters like TREE(3) make Graham's number look like a rounding error. Yet all of them are finite. Each one sits at a definite spot on the number line with the same endless road beyond it — which is, in its way, the whole point of this article.

Infinity comes in sizes

One last twist, and it's a beauty: infinities themselves can be compared, and they are not all the same size. In the 1870s Georg Cantor proved that the infinity of the counting numbers (1, 2, 3, …) is strictly smaller than the infinity of all decimal numbers. His famous diagonal argument shows that any attempted pairing between the two must leave some decimals unmatched — there are simply too many of them. So mathematics doesn't have one infinity; it has an endless hierarchy of ever-larger ones. The gap between a googolplex and infinity turns out to be just the first step of a much stranger staircase.

Frequently asked questions

Is infinity a number?

Not in ordinary arithmetic — it's a description of endlessness, not a point on the number line. That's why no finite number can be "close" to it.

What's bigger than a googolplex?

Infinitely many things, starting with a googolplex + 1. Among famous named numbers: Graham's number, then monsters like TREE(3) — all still finite.

Are some infinities bigger than others?

Yes — Cantor proved the infinity of decimals outranks the infinity of counting numbers. Infinity comes in sizes.

Related guides: how big is a googol? Or browse all the guides.