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.dipstik said:fussion prolly... unless the density and size permit a black hole.
big bang will be.What would happen if gather all universe matter into one object.
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.diazona said: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 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.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.
The current understanding of the universe's matter is that it is distributed throughout the universe and is constantly expanding. This matter is made up of atoms, which are the building blocks of all matter, and is spread out in a relatively even manner across the vast expanse of the universe.
If all of the universe's matter was gathered into one object, it would create a supermassive black hole. The force of gravity from the massive amount of matter would be so strong that it would collapse into a single point, known as a singularity. This would result in an incredibly dense and powerful object with an intense gravitational pull that would absorb any nearby matter.
No, the object would not have infinite mass. While it would have an incredibly large amount of mass, it would still be finite. This is because the laws of physics dictate that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. The matter that makes up the universe would simply be condensed into a smaller space, rather than creating an infinite amount of new matter.
The impact on the rest of the universe would depend on the size and location of the object. If it was located in the center of the universe, it would have a strong gravitational pull on all other objects, potentially disrupting the orbits of planets and stars. However, if it was located in a less central location, the impact may be minimal.
In theory, it is possible to gather all of the universe's matter into one object. However, the amount of energy and technology required to do so would be beyond our current capabilities. Additionally, the gravitational pull of such a massive object would make it difficult to control and contain. It is more likely that the universe's matter will continue to be spread out and exist in its current form.