What would happen if gather all universe matter into one object.

[ciurio]

What would happen if gather all universe matter into one object?

Hello


What would happen if we
would gather all matter in the universe into one object.
What would happen inside such object?

 

[zhermes]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-hole

 

[dipstik]

fussion prolly... unless the density and size permit a black hole.

might want to google what happens inside of different types of stars and planets, although the composition of the resulting mass would be represenitive of the distribution of matter-types in the universe... including dark matter? is it spinning?

 

[zhermes]

fussion prolly... unless the density and size permit a black hole.

I think if you gather all the mass in the universe, including the mass already in black-holes (including super-massive black-holes), you might just have enough to form a black-hole.

 

[adaptation]

I'm not a comsmologist, but I think the term black hole is somewhat of an understatement. We're talking about all the matter in the universe including all the black holes.

The universe began with all matter in one spot. It seems to me that there would be another big bang if it were to happen again. See"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce"[/URL].

 

[QEDick1918]

Total chaos?

 

[brainstorm]

What amount of separation between particles within an object is necessary for the object to be described as multiple objects? I.e. what would be the maximum amount of separation between particles in any part of the universe for it to be considered one object instead of many?

 

[diazona]

It's not about separation, it's about particles being bound together. Usually a single object is something that's not likely to come apart, and the definition can change based on context. For instance, you'd probably consider two books on a bookshelf to be separate objects for purposes of picking them up and reading them, but if you're moving, you might put those two books (along with others) into a box and consider the box a single object. At more extreme scales, cosmologists consider entire galaxies, or even clusters of galaxies, to be single objects, whereas at the other extreme, high-energy particle physicists consider the individual particles within protons and neutrons to be multiple separate objects.

I guess in a certain point of view, you could consider the entire universe as-is as a single object. But it'd be kind of a strange way to look at it, unless you also knew about things that existed outside our universe (other universes, I guess) and were considering this universe in a larger context.

 

[MarsWTF]

What would happen if gather all universe matter into one object.

big bang will be.
And.. its already in one object called The Universe, but this object has low density to bang.
Its like uranium critical mass..

 

[brainstorm]

It's not about separation, it's about particles being bound together. Usually a single object is something that's not likely to come apart, and the definition can change based on context. For instance, you'd probably consider two books on a bookshelf to be separate objects for purposes of picking them up and reading them, but if you're moving, you might put those two books (along with others) into a box and consider the box a single object. At more extreme scales, cosmologists consider entire galaxies, or even clusters of galaxies, to be single objects, whereas at the other extreme, high-energy particle physicists consider the individual particles within protons and neutrons to be multiple separate objects.

This is what I was trying to get at in a simple way. The OP asked about the entire universe being gathered as a single object, so I wondered what the criteria for "single object" would be. If singularity is just a matter of subjective framing, you could say that the entire universe has always been a single object and it has evolved "rifts" between matter through the progress of gravitation. If space/distance was treated as completely relative, in what sense would you say the universe is "expanding?" You would just treat the universe as a constellation of particles without regard for size or distance between the particles. In this sense, the universe could be regarded as having constant size and only evolving in terms of configurational changes in the relative positions and dynamic interactions among particles.

I guess in a certain point of view, you could consider the entire universe as-is as a single object. But it'd be kind of a strange way to look at it, unless you also knew about things that existed outside our universe (other universes, I guess) and were considering this universe in a larger context.

I don't think you would need to compare the universe to something else external to it. You could just talk in terms of relative densities of matter-clusters and how intense the "rifts" between "clusters" are. These rifts could simply be intensifying as a byproduct of gravitational condensation and increasing density-differentials, which could be interpreted as relative separation the way clouds appear separate from other clouds due to lower humidity in the air between them.

 

[ciurio]

Thank you for answers.

 

[Noesis]

It'd be pretty hard to move.