The discussion explores the hypothetical scenario of gathering all matter in the universe into a single object, examining the implications of such an action on the nature of that object and the universe itself. Topics include potential outcomes like black holes, fusion, and the concept of separation versus binding of particles.
Participants express multiple competing views regarding the implications of gathering all matter into one object, and the discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on the outcomes or definitions presented.
Participants acknowledge various assumptions about density, binding, and the nature of objects, but these remain unresolved and depend on differing interpretations of physical concepts.
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.