If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

•       •       •

476 clicks; posted to STEM » on 25 Aug 2021 at 6:42 AM (21 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:

 Paginated (50/page) Single page, reversed
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Ugggh... It was the size of the universe.

The universe is literally always the size of the universe. Its size at any point is literally incomparable to any reference frame apart from itself. Any other 'universe' within the multiverse cannot be measured in comparison.

Yo momma so fat, when she sits around the universe, she sits AROUND the universe.

johnny_stingray: Yo momma so fat, when she sits around the universe, she sits AROUND the universe.

Yo momma so fat she collapsed ALL the wave functions.

uttertosh: Ugggh... It was the size of the universe.

The universe is literally always the size of the universe. Its size at any point is literally incomparable to any reference frame apart from itself. Any other 'universe' within the multiverse cannot be measured in comparison.

He is talking about the current observable universe, which has a definite size now as well as in the past.

revrendjim: uttertosh: Ugggh... It was the size of the universe.

The universe is literally always the size of the universe. Its size at any point is literally incomparable to any reference frame apart from itself. Any other 'universe' within the multiverse cannot be measured in comparison.

He is talking about the current observable universe, which has a definite size now as well as in the past.

Does it though? Can you perfectly compute the volume of the universe when every expert in the field is in agreement that it is still expanding? Then answer you give now is not going to be correct in 2 seconds, and its not going to be a small difference either, the difference is volume between mere seconds of measurement is going to be staggering. Do you measure space-time itself, and all the curves and bends caused by the matter inside it? Is it just the boundaries that WE KNOW OF, or do you accept that we might have only scratched the surface of physics and what exists outside our understanding could make the universe seem as big as a grain of sand

What if there are multiple dimensions in the same boundary, does only one count or do you have to add every dimensions volume together to get the true size of the universe?

What about black holes, by many theories they could be the bridge between universes. If they are, wouldnt that mean the universes are physically connected and as such should have their volumes counted together?

Or should we just be smart enough to remember that admitting to not knowing something is a good thing, and not a bad thing, because saying "we dont know" is the most honest answer you could possibly give for the question at hand

The author confuses himself with his backwards approach.  Obviously, winding the mass/volume ratio of the universe further back in time than his human-sized version will yield bizarre results. It's already bizarre with an almost infinite amount of mass smooshed into a space the size of my slightly hefty human vessel. But if you go any further, you are literally dividing by zero.

How do you get an infinite amount of mass inside of a zero volume vessel?

It doesn't work going backwards. You can't get that much stuff back into nothing.  So what about going forwards?  Start at t=zero. Where do we get an infinite amount of matter? From nothingness. Infinite and equal amounts of matter and anti-matter exist in nothingness.

The moment the nothingness split was the Big Bang. Everything else follows in much the same way the author's rewind plays out in real time.

revrendjim: uttertosh: Ugggh... It was the size of the universe.

The universe is literally always the size of the universe. Its size at any point is literally incomparable to any reference frame apart from itself. Any other 'universe' within the multiverse cannot be measured in comparison.

He is talking about the current observable universe, which has a definite size now as well as in the past.

No, the headline's question was "How Small Was The Universe At The Start Of The Big Bang?".

The whole concept of measuring relative size of the universe is flawed because it isn't just the matter being compressed, but the spacetime containing the matter being compressed, and therefore relativistic measurement is all but meaningless - you may as well say that the universe was the size of [whatever tiny thing your mind can manage to comprehend] and be done with it. A plank length, or a whole freakin Rhode Island, it is without size other than 'universe' size.

uttertosh: Ugggh... It was the size of the universe.

The universe is literally always the size of the universe. Its size at any point is literally incomparable to any reference frame apart from itself. Any other 'universe' within the multiverse cannot be measured in comparison.

The universe is and was infinite in size, as best we can determine.

You can, however, use finite measurements when talking about the observable universe.

I don't think pop science reporting puts much effort into drawing the distinction.

uttertosh: revrendjim: uttertosh: Ugggh... It was the size of the universe.

The universe is literally always the size of the universe. Its size at any point is literally incomparable to any reference frame apart from itself. Any other 'universe' within the multiverse cannot be measured in comparison.

He is talking about the current observable universe, which has a definite size now as well as in the past.

No, the headline's question was "How Small Was The Universe At The Start Of The Big Bang?".

The whole concept of measuring relative size of the universe is flawed because it isn't just the matter being compressed, but the spacetime containing the matter being compressed, and therefore relativistic measurement is all but meaningless - you may as well say that the universe was the size of [whatever tiny thing your mind can manage to comprehend] and be done with it. A plank length, or a whole freakin Rhode Island, it is without size other than 'universe' size.

You are taking about the metric changing. We can account for that and definitely calculate the size of the visible universe at any time, well at least after 10-40 seconds or so. Or are you saying the math in my general relativity textbooks is wrong? It is a moot question, though, if you are talking about the universe a a whole, because it is almost certainly infinite, which means that it has always been infinite. It started with infinite size.

It's also possible that the matter/energy/space/time existed first, and then causality, somehow, started.

covfefe: It's also possible that the matter/energy/space/time existed first, and then causality, somehow, started.

The one I like is, "When all the matter in the universe has decayed into photons - all of which exist in a timeless state and do not affect each other like matter does - all the photons will effectively be everywhere, creating an infinite expanse of infinite density.  When the last bit of matter decays there will be a simultaneously infinite and instantaneous period before everything erupts in another Big Bang".

No idea if that makes any sense to a physicist or not, I think it was one of those 'crackpot Russian physicists looking to make headlines' kind of deals, but I'm ignorant enough that it sounds both possible and cool to me.

Unsung_Hero: covfefe: It's also possible that the matter/energy/space/time existed first, and then causality, somehow, started.

The one I like is, "When all the matter in the universe has decayed into photons - all of which exist in a timeless state and do not affect each other like matter does - all the photons will effectively be everywhere, creating an infinite expanse of infinite density.  When the last bit of matter decays there will be a simultaneously infinite and instantaneous period before everything erupts in another Big Bang".

No idea if that makes any sense to a physicist or not, I think it was one of those 'crackpot Russian physicists looking to make headlines' kind of deals, but I'm ignorant enough that it sounds both possible and cool to me.

The only things left by the time the last star burns out will be black holes. And it isnt by something you could considered to be a close comparison either, because its estimated that it will take the largest black hole we know of is at least 10100years

lifeslammer: The only things left by the time the last star burns out will be black holes. And it isnt by something you could considered to be a close comparison either, because its estimated that it will take the largest black hole we know of is at least 10100years

Consider Hawking radiation; there will be particles in existence as long as black holes are in existence.

Unsung_Hero: lifeslammer: The only things left by the time the last star burns out will be black holes. And it isnt by something you could considered to be a close comparison either, because its estimated that it will take the largest black hole we know of is at least 10100years

Consider Hawking radiation; there will be particles in existence as long as black holes are in existence.

I wonder if when its nothing but black holes they will start to drift together and merge into a singularity and have a new big bang. I mean sure it might take a trillion trillion years but its the only thing that really makes sense

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest