Mass of the universe? [Archive]

deets

09-21-2009, 03:21 AM

I have heard places that there is a mass of the universe, and that the universe is only so big because it has been expanding since the big bang at the speed of light. So my question is, why that mass? Like, why that exact number of neutrons and protons? Are there any theories on this, or am I completely getting it wrong from the start up?:confused:

Xlite

09-21-2009, 03:26 AM

Well since the univers is indeed expanding (not yet with the speed of light), there is no constant mass of it, as far as i know.

If the univers was expanding with the SoL, we would have a big problem.

Lets say that at one end of the univers, we have A, and at the other end we have B.
In time A and B would separate from eachother with a speed greater than the SoL.

Gravity, the electromagnetic forces, matter and other kinds of stuff will then expand with the SoL, so when A and B moves away from eachother with that speed+, not even gravity or the electromagnetic forces will be able to hold them together, no matter how close they are to eachother.

One day, light wouldn't be able to reach one side of the Milky Way from the other anymore, and gravity would stop holding galaxies together.
In time, light wouldn't even be able to reach pluto from the sun, and by that time, our solar system will be tearing itself apart.
This is the Big Rip theory, and my personal favorit.

lolocaust

09-21-2009, 03:30 AM

you'll find this interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

there is indeed an estimate of the mass of the observable universe, but it's possible that there's more we can't measure yet, so it appears the mass of the entire universe is unknown. you ask an interesting question though, I imagine other people with more of a physics background can elaborate.

Irukanji

09-21-2009, 03:39 AM

The mass of the universe is INFINITE.

Uni = 1
Verse = verse(????)
Finite = limited
In = un

Leonidas

09-21-2009, 07:29 AM

The mass of the universe is INFINITE.

Uni = 1
Verse = verse(????)
Finite = limited
In = un

so....unlimited first verse? pretty gay song if you ask me

Equinox

09-21-2009, 10:33 AM

The mass of the universe is INFINITE.

Uni = 1
Verse = verse(????)
Finite = limited
In = un

:facepalm:

JustAnotherAsshole

09-21-2009, 10:42 AM

The mass of the universe is INFINITE.

Uni = 1
Verse = verse(????)
Finite = limited
In = un

LOL

Archetype

09-21-2009, 08:41 PM

Assuming you meant "matter" when speaking about the universe, all that matter is manifest as individual bodies of mass separated by distance in a massless vacuum. Simply thinking of matter, dark matter etc. as being all that the universe is, is preposterous. By that flawed reasoning, the mass of the universe would be infinite, in which case we obviously wouldn't exist. :rolleyes:

Figures obtained through conventional means are just the summation of the masses of all the bits of isolated matter inside the observable universe, but this doesn't take into account the varying speeds of different bits of matter in a relativistic frame of reference, only the rate of the universe's expansion.
So the answer is, nobody will ever know precisely. :)

whocares123

09-22-2009, 03:26 AM

look new people and animals are born all the time. where do they come from? their mother's ass. ok but where was their mass before they existed? it wasn't in their parents. its not like having kids causes you to lose 100 lbs and mroe and mroe weight as they grow and you shrink. the mass in the universe is forever getting higher and higher, and perhaps lower depending on chance, but i think there is an upward trend. there is not a set number of neutrons and protons or whatever wtf are you talking about OP?

lolocaust

09-22-2009, 03:31 AM

Sanchez_Machine

09-22-2009, 04:41 AM

BIG.

whocares123

09-22-2009, 05:04 AM

you should really consider graduating high school

am i right or not, faggot?

superspeedz

09-22-2009, 05:08 AM

Well since the univers is indeed expanding (not yet with the speed of light), there is no constant mass of it, as far as i know.

If they univers was expanding with the SoL, we would have a big problem.

Lets say that at one end of the univers, we have A, and at the other end we have B.
In time A and B would separate from eachother with a speed greater than the SoL.

Gravity, the electromagnetic forces, matter and other kinds of stuff will then expand with the SoL, so when A and B moves away from eachother with that speed+, not even gravity or the electromagnetic forces will be able to hold them together, no matter how close they are to eachother.

One day, light wouldn't be able to reach one side of the Milky Way from the other anymore, and gravity would stop holding galaxies together.
In time, light wouldn't even be able to reach pluto from the sun, and by that time, our solar system will be tearing itself apart.
This is the Big Rip theory, and my personal favorit.

Technically incorrect,
The "universe" by definition is everything, that would make it a closed yes a closed system, the conservation of mass/energy/first law of thermodynamics dictates that mass cannot change in a closed system assuming energy is not "lost", now energy cannot be lost as the universe is everything, therefore the mass would indeed be constant, however what is constantly changing is the distribution of the mass.

chompchompchomsky

09-22-2009, 06:03 AM

You know, there's this really good analogy (actually a true story) that I was reading in my physics textbook that I think is worth sharing:
There was a boy named Joe Maclean, and he liked to play basketball. Every day he would go out with his friends and play it for hours and hours on end. He really thought about it, too. All of the minute muscle movements involved, the precision: the absolute perfection that was required to shoot and score or to get away from another player with the ball still in hand. He would read the biographies of famous basketball players: dreaming of one day becoming like them.
One day he was playing with his friends when a group of gangsters came up and threatened them...And then his mom got scared and said, "You're moving in with your auntie and your uncle in Bel Air."

Xlite

09-22-2009, 03:23 PM

Technically incorrect,
The "universe" by definition is everything, that would make it a closed yes a closed system, the conservation of mass/energy/first law of thermodynamics dictates that mass cannot change in a closed system assuming energy is not "lost", now energy cannot be lost as the universe is everything, therefore the mass would indeed be constant, however what is constantly changing is the distribution of the mass.

What? if the univers is expanding then so will the mass within in, because the univers cannot expand without mass. So the mass of the univers can't be constant.

And what excatly makes the univers a closed system? there's black holes / wormholes and other gateways, and you call it closed?
If the size of the univers is infinite, then so is the matter within it.

You can then debate whether or not something infinte is constant.

superspeedz

09-22-2009, 11:01 PM

What? if the univers is expanding then so will the mass within in, because the univers cannot expand without mass. So the mass of the univers can't be constant.

And what excatly makes the univers a closed system? there's black holes / wormholes and other gateways, and you call it closed?
If the size of the univers is infinite, then so is the matter within it.

You can then debate whether or not something infinte is constant.

first of all you need to learn2math, secondly the mass will not be infinite, as the mass in the closed infinite system is CONSTANT, expansion only means a change in that distribution of mass...

Your logic is fault at best, a simple counterexample that expansion can happen without the addition of mass is baking a cookie.
Blackholes are not gateways/teleportation get off the crack.
By a closed system i mean that nothing goes in or out of the universe (by definition its the set that encompasses everything).
There is no relationship between size and mass, your postulate that if size increases mass should is faulty at best, the logical implication of your hypothesis is that mass/energy would need to increase which requires that to come from something the universe being a closed system, you cannot add or subtract mass or energy to it, only change the distribution.

Xlite

09-23-2009, 12:41 AM

first of all you need to learn2math, secondly the mass will not be infinite, as the mass in the closed infinite system is CONSTANT, expansion only means a change in that distribution of mass...

Your logic is fault at best, a simple counterexample that expansion can happen without the addition of mass is baking a cookie.
Blackholes are not gateways/teleportation get off the crack.
By a closed system i mean that nothing goes in or out of the universe (by definition its the set that encompasses everything).
There is no relationship between size and mass, your postulate that if size increases mass should is faulty at best, the logical implication of your hypothesis is that mass/energy would need to increase which requires that to come from something the universe being a closed system, you cannot add or subtract mass or energy to it, only change the distribution.

Thats great, but you don't really know if the univers is a closed system, you belive you know, like many others.
Just because it wouldn't make sense, it doesn't mean its wrong.

And distribution of mass? if mass is added or removed then the remaining mass will increase or decrease, hence its not constant. Thats math for ya.
Wormholes are potential gateways, so get of the get of the crack bs.

By (baking a cookie) i imaging you meaning blowing air into a ballon. Yes, the ballon expands, without any huge increase of mass. But how can you compare the univers with that?

And stop writing in colored text you twoll

Overman

09-23-2009, 12:59 AM

Thats great, but you don't really know if the univers is a closed system, you belive you know, like many others.
Just because it wouldn't make sense, it doesn't mean its wrong.

What a load of bullshit lol.

Also mega LOL @ you calling him a troll, when you're completely clueless on this topic.

Xlite

09-23-2009, 01:02 AM

What a load of bullshit lol.

Also mega LOL @ you calling him a troll, when you're completely clueless on this topic.

He's calling himself a troll you retard.

Overman

09-23-2009, 01:05 AM

Wrong.

Go fuck up some other thread.

Xlite

09-23-2009, 01:07 AM

Wrong.

Go fuck up some other thread.

Idiot. For wasting my time, i will add you to my ignore list.
I won bitch, now fuck off.

Overman

09-23-2009, 01:08 AM

MegaLOL.

rabbit boy

09-23-2009, 01:34 AM

Mmm...

This thread is sooo... bad.

The person who pointed to the Observable Universe thing has the right idea. We only have estimates for the size of the observable universe right now.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html

However... if the universe has a flat or hyperbolic geometry, then the mass of the entire universe (including what is not observable) would be infinite, because it started out with an infinite volume and a uniform density (mass = volume * density). It would go on forever and ever and ever with no end.

On the other hand, if the universe has a closed geometry, then the mass of the universe would be nearly constant and finite. That's assuming you're including energy in the total, since stars are converting mass to energy. I say nearly constant because there are quantum uncertainties, fluctuations and all that. If you go far enough in a straight line, it's like walking around on the surface of a sphere -- eventually you'll come back to your starting point.

edit: even if the geometry is closed, I believe that they do not think the observable universe is all there is to it. I'm guessing it's because of inflation, but I'm not sure.

superspeedz

09-23-2009, 05:10 AM

Thats great, but you don't really know if the univers is a closed system, you belive you know, like many others.
Just because it wouldn't make sense, it doesn't mean its wrong.

And distribution of mass? if mass is added or removed then the remaining mass will increase or decrease, hence its not constant. Thats math for ya.
Wormholes are potential gateways, so get of the get of the crack bs.

By (baking a cookie) i imaging you meaning blowing air into a ballon. Yes, the ballon expands, without any huge increase of mass. But how can you compare the univers with that?

And stop writing in colored text you twoll

Ok, To formulate what im saying.
Let S denote the UNIVERSE, which is the space of everything (infinite set, any movement in this space stays within the space, aka closed), Composed of regions that currently have mass (X1.....Xn) (n is a positive integer), and "empty" regions (Y1....Yz)(z is a positive integer).

Now, What I am postulating, is that S being closed and infinite, has a constant mass,(X1+....+Xn), Now as that mass changes from spaces in (X1...Xn) to (Y1...Yz), those previously "empty" spaces now have mass, due to expansion. The increase in the previously empty regions will be equal to the decrease in the X's. However the total number of mass in the closed set cannot change, which is why the Universe (defined as everything which is a closed set), has a finite mass.

superspeedz

09-23-2009, 09:31 AM

All that fancy mathematical talk is great, but you don't understand what it means for the universe to expand. Space stretches, increasing the volume of the universe. However, matter itself does not stretch or increase in mass. The law of Conservation of Mass says that in a closed system, where no energy or mass is coming in or out, the mass remains the same.

If all the particles increased in either mass or size (volume) over time, it would change the laws of nuclear physics and chemistry, which obviously does NOT happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

The mass gets more dispersed i.e. less dense and takes up more volume

superspeedz

09-23-2009, 09:57 AM

Matter is composed of particles. The individual particles do not stretch -- the space BETWEEN them does.

The universe as a whole increases in volume:
Density = mass / volume

Mass is constant, volume increases, and density decreases.

The expansion of the universe isn't even noticeable on a local scale (size of galaxy) except for red shifting of light. This is because galaxies and all of their constituents are held together by 3 of the 4 fundamental forces -- gravity, electromagnetic, and strong force. I'm not sure about the weak force.

Anyway, the volume of the galaxy will remain the same as the space in the universe stretches. Super clusters of galaxies will eventually become gravitationally unbound, and then clusters, until our galaxy is isolated in the universe. That is, if the universe continues expanding at an accelerating rate.

I never said the particles stretch, all i said is the mass or particles get more dispersed, i.e. the spaces in between them changes, aka the distribution of them changes.

negz

09-23-2009, 10:38 AM

The pink dude makes sense to me. Space between particles gets bigger. As far as I know, empty space doesn't have mass.

superspeedz

09-23-2009, 10:45 AM

What don't you get about the formula for density and the conservation of mass? Here it is again.

density = mass / volume

I'll make an example: air in a balloon. Say we have 1 liter (1000 mL) of air in it, which is about 1.3 grams, and by inserting it in liquid nitrogen we decrease its volume to 100 mL.

Original:
density = 1.3g / 1000 mL = 0.0013 g / mL

New:
density = 1.3g / 100 mL = 0.013 g / mL

The mass stays the same (conservation of mass), while the density and volume change.

I've been saying that mass says the same for the whole thread....

rabbit boy

09-23-2009, 10:48 AM

I've been saying that mass says the same for the whole thread....

Ugh... my bad. Sorry about that.

I'm deleting the other posts so as to not clutter up the thread.

Stainless

09-23-2009, 02:35 PM

LOL at whoever thought the mass of the universe changes.

whocares123

09-23-2009, 03:35 PM

LOL at whoever thought the mass of the universe changes.

hey fucker where do you think you and your cat and the tree in your yard fucking came from? basically out of fucking thin air dipshit.

Overman

09-23-2009, 06:55 PM

hey fucker where do you think you and your cat and the tree in your yard fucking came from? basically out of fucking thin air dipshit.

I thought it came from a wormhole :rolleyes:

Stainless

09-23-2009, 09:04 PM

hey fucker where do you think you and your cat and the tree in your yard fucking came from? basically out of fucking thin air dipshit.

The same matter that once made a star, 'dipshit'.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990625080416.htm

rabbit boy

09-24-2009, 01:40 AM

hey fucker where do you think you and your cat and the tree in your yard fucking came from? basically out of fucking thin air dipshit.

Me and cat -- food.
Tree -- carbon dioxide, water, and sunshine

Leonidas

09-24-2009, 04:02 AM

Me and cat -- food.
Tree -- carbon dioxide, water, and sunshine

Yea thats totally what trees are made of

rabbit boy

09-24-2009, 04:05 AM

Yea thats totally what trees are made of

Sarcasm?

I was just describing photosynthesis. They use the carbon from carbon dioxide in the air, along with water to make starch and cellulose. That's what trees are mostly made of. I didn't mention the nutrients from the soil, though.