webboffin
- 24
- 0
If we say collected all matter in the universe and made one giant lump?
webboffin said:If we say collected all matter in the universe and made one giant lump?
webboffin said:Hi, okay, I never thought about that. How about if we restrict the size of the universe to what is observable.
Also this is kind of a sub question. If the universe is infinite would the mass of the universe be infinite? Or should I ask this in a fresh thread? I am kind of new here so still discovering the etiquette of the forum.
ZapperZ said:This is vague even IF we know the total mass of the universe. Why? Because you have not defined the density of this final mass.
1 gram of lead has a smaller volume than 1 gram of Styrofoam, simply because the lead has a higher density than Styrofoam. So you simply can't say let's collect all the mass and then ask what is the volume, because that volume depends very much on how compact the final object becomes.
Zz.
webboffin said:Thanks, I seem to have got myself in a spot of bother with asking this as I am not a physicist nor clever in physics but just interested in physics as something of an on going interest that I am learning about.
It is just that I read somewhere that if all the matter in the known universe was compressed into a single mass with no spaces between the atoms of the matter it would be about the size of a large beach ball.
I just wanted some clarity on that.
webboffin said:It is just that I read somewhere that if all the matter in the known universe was compressed into a single mass with no spaces between the atoms of the matter it would be about the size of a large beach ball.
webboffin said:Besides when I think about it, if so much matter was clumped together it would ultimately become a black hole due to its gravity and all the matter would become a dimensionless singularity.
Nugatory said:Perhaps not, but you're much more on the right track by thinking about it this way.
It's likely that our best current theories (General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) won't make accurate predictions under such unimaginably high densities; so it may be that something other than the dimensionless singularity suggested by GR will happen. But we don't know what that might be; finding a theory of quantum gravity that will tell us is an important unsolved problem.
mrspeedybob said:As you condense matter you get to the point where you have a black hole. The volume of a black hole is defined as the volume of the sphere defined by it's event horizon. If we assume this to be a Schwarzschild radius then the radius is proportional to the mass, and therefore the density is proportional to the inverse square of the mass. The more mass you have the less dense you can make it.
I was going to go ahead and perform the calculation for the Schwarzschild radius for the estimated mass in the observable universe but it appears that someone beat me to it. Per the Wikipedia article on Schwarzschild radius the radius would be about 10 billion light years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
CWatters said:I'm surprised that the black hole would be such a significant percentage of the size of the observable universe?