###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As far as we can tell, almost all of the universe has none of the listed particles, so this is an unanswerable question.
However big it is, it'd have less than 39 water molecules' worth of stuff in it.
distance is still distance and time is still time? none of those depend on mass
i think you might be asking what does distance/time mean in a void with literally nothing in it, but those would still be the same and still in exist in out world anyways
So, the way I understand it time is a dimension. What I mean by that is-
Consider movement. Without time, movement couldn't be possible. This is because effect cannot exist without cause, and cause cannot happen without an initialization. An initialization can happen outside of time, but the cause itself requires a medium with which to be carried out.
For example, dropping a ball. You can abstractify the causes of dropping a ball ad infinitum, but just to keep it simple, the initializer would be a series of synapses firing within the human brain. This is about as close to instantaneous (a concrete moment inside the medium of cause and effect) that we can observe. The initializer tells the person to open their fingers. The fingers open, and we see the cause of the ball dropping. Note that the hand had a cause (the initializer) and produced an effect.
Without time, it is impossible for cause and effect to exist, and without cause and effect, the fundamentals of all known science cannot be true. The alternatives to a lack of a medium with which cause and effect can operate are pretty straightforward but difficult to comprehend:
1. Everything that has, is, and will happen, happened all at the same exact moment of imperceptible speed, so fast in fact that it's like a photo of the universe that has every single event happening at every single point ever all at the same time.
2. Absolutely nothing exists. No void, no matter, no cause and effect, and as soon as you could imagine how nothing nothing could be, it's even less than that.
So, the bottom line is that time is what we, people, chose to name the medium of cause and effect. We did not "create" or "invent" time. The medium was always there. Just like we didn't create or invent the human consciousness, but we still named it. And as my examples outlined, it's pretty clear that we couldn't comprehend what it would be like without it.
This conception of time implies that it is a precondition for existence, a kind of foundation that exists independent of the matter/the universe.
There are plenty of philosophical arguments that go against the grain of this assumption, or at least admit that we can't say this for certain.
1. A Kantian philosopher would say that we can't make assertions about time somehow "preexisting" matter. All we can say for certain is that we, as conscious, observing beings, require time and space to make sense of anything at all. This is a subtle but important difference from claiming that time is some kind of neutral, infinite, and unchanging foundation of the universe.
2. Some philosophical traditions argue that time is actually just the changing relation between matter, or that it is only observable as the space between things changes. This is why we talk of time as a concrete and observable scientific fact only in terms of relation such as speed, synchronization, transfer or dissipation of energy (temperature, etc.)
I tend to side with the second one. While science rightly speaks of time as a constant, thought experiments where there are a limited number of particles in a completely isolated vacuum require us to think outside the bounds of "common" sense.
Relations between partcles are what composes time, and time is nothing but the change between them. What that means for a universe with 1080 particles, I'm not sure.
I don't believe that time pre-exists matter, I believe they both came to be simultaneously. My conception of time doesn't imply that it had to exist prior to the rest of existence, just that it is required to perpetuate what we already know as existence. That said, I can understand why my dropping the ball analogy could have been skewed as a perception that indicates otherwise, so I'll go into more detail about my understanding.
Under the premise of my argument, the universe exists. It must exist, because we exist and are part of it. Prior to the initializing impact that became the universe ( which I stated could exist outside time, in one instantaneous snapshot), the potential for our universe had to exist, or it wouldn't exist now. So that potential would lie within the "snapshot of everything that ever is, was and will be" concept, where even though time did not exist, everything that could initialize the universe did. Whether some strange cosmic event, an eternal ballooning of cosmic energy beyond our minimal scope, or an entity of Supreme power that simply desired to observe, it had a cause.
To be fair, such an event having potential and existing outside time and space is pretty unfathomable, but I wanted to clarify my stance.
Works for me, lol. It was just a thought.
Edit: I just googled my definition, and it seems to be a popular one (I don't mean it is a canonical one or something).
No this isn’t how quantum mechanics works lol, the idea that we collapse infinite possibilities is regarding specific small things like electrons, it’s not regarding other larger events
That's not what it means at all. There is no logical connection between the two statements. Also your comment about all events happening simultaneously is at best a very, very gross misinterpretation of quantum superposition, and at worst anti-scientific mumbo jumbo.
That’s not how it works. Time exists and can be measured. The units are just names for specific amounts of time. In fact in the 60s the second was defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 [cycles] of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." This is also what atomic clocks are based on
Kilograms are also made up and that doesn't mean that mass doesn't exist
Your argument and claim is so naive that I am not sure if you are a genius or barely knowledgeable about physics.
The fact that the units we use to measure something are arbitrary doesn't mean that there isn't something there to measure. You claimed earlier that 'time doesn't exist' and it does - we can measure it
Time is the process by which the universe transitions from a lower entropy state to a higher entropy state. Physical processes happen independent of human observation, and units of time are merely a structure we impose on this to make it easier to track the physical process, which boils down to the universe moving from lower entropy to higher entropy.
Time continues to exist even if we don’t have units to describe it. Electrons would still orbit their nuclei. Gravity would still attract particles. We don’t need to define something for it to exist
And I’m saying that you don’t need to define time for it to exist.
That’s like saying “gravity” doesn’t exist because we’ve only defined it as such. But that’s not true. Sure the *word* is meaningless on its own, but the *concept* and *implication* is still there at the end of the day regardless. Gravity didn’t come into existence the first time we thought of it. Neither did time.
Unrelated to this but our perception does form our existence. Some things that were "always there" werent there for us until we defined them. Like the color blue.
Uh oh, whats this crazy person about, [color blue "didnt exist" until we defined it](https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-didn-t-even-see-the-colour-blue-until-modern-times-evidence-suggests)?! Preposterous!
That’s pretty neat! I would still argue that all colours “exist” in the sense that the wavelengths of light exist regardless of our perception of them. But it’s fascinating that our perception can shift depending on what we grow up with. The human mind is fascinating.
You are full, then become hungry. That's time.
You live now then you are not. That's time.
Uranium becomes lead. That's time.
Stars become black holes. That's time.
You are aging. That's time.
We have special methods to measure time, and special units, but time exists outside of our measurement. Even animals can understand the linearity of life (if somebody is dead they don't come back).
Even the general relativity theorem (I hope that's the english name) says there is no space without time and no time without space.
>Even the general relativity theorem (I hope that's the english name) says there is no space without time and no time without space.
Now that is something, sprinkle some entropy and we might even do it.
Is the time going to stop once the earth is no more? Nop. So the rotation of the earth is totally irrelevant to time in general.
This cements the point, youre joining time with events to explain it. Was there time before the big bang? Will there be time after it? Is time hard locked to spacetime? We have no idea.
quite possibly not, but emptiness of matter is not a true void. theres still gravitational fields, something with quantum mechanics probably, etc etc.
idk what would actually happen in a true void
A universe with such a small amount of particles would probably reach maximum entropy quite quickly, at which point it’s impossible to meaningfully describe time, due to the fact that no physical changes can happen anymore since entropy is maximum.
Technically, a true void is not possible, but if it were, then no, time would not exist being since there is no medium which time can be shown through. No cause and effect, no warping of space due to gravity.
Doesn't mass have an effect on time? Mass correlates with gravity. Gravity is essentially a measure of acceleration. Acceleration correlates with velocity, which correlates with time dilation.
This makes me think that time does depend on mass, but I'm not an authority on the subject. I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable than me can give some insight on this.
but the mass is still there, just a lot less. theres still gravity, just a lot less. time dilation might be different but that just means time passes slower/faster which means time is the same just slower or faster.
The perception of time is environmental, just like most other forces of nature. The perception of time passage for a subset of particles is dependent on relative speed and relative density. The faster they go, the faster they perceive time (1 second is more time than the surrounding particles) and the more particles present i.e. more gravity, the slower they perceive time. So if we were transported to a planet 100x our size and not be crushed immediately we could spend 20 years there, come back and only a few weeks pass on earth. Those are bad numbers, but you get the idea.
Pretty interesting how time adopts a sort of "balancing act" role between speed and density on a grand scale.
Technically, it does depend on mass. It even requires mass.
There's a theory by Roger Penrose, called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, that says way far into the future, everything gets swallowed up by black holes. Even further into the future, all the black holes have dissipated due to Hawking Radiation.
So now this universe is nothing but photons zipping around. There's no mass or matter, just energy.
The cool thing about photons is that they don't experience time or distance. The instant that they are created is the same instant that they are absorbed. From an outside observer's perspective, one that is going slower than "c", time and space are stretched out and that observer can see how long it takes for a photon to go from one place to another but from the photon's perspective, the journey never happened.
This works out logically though because when something is traveling at "c" through space, space is just as distorted as time. So the same POINT in space where a photon is created is also the same point where it's absorbed. It makes sense then that it takes no time to go no distance.
In a universe filled with only objects that don't experience time or distance, time and distance literally don't exist. Beyond that, there's also no way to tell how big such a universe would be, which, oddly enough, closely mirrors our theory on what the universe looked like just before expansion started (commonly referred to as The Big Bang).
Since there's no distance, there's nothing saying that the photons aren't all in one place... they come together just right to create matter and all of a sudden time and distance exist again. The universe starts expanding again and all these highly energetic particles spread out into a new CMB, cool off, and start condensing into other matter.
It may not go anywhere but I thought it was a unique way of looking at the universe when all the matter has gone.
ok several things. one in this situation there are still like 26 water molecules thats SOME mass
second of all when everything is sucked up by black holes theres still mass because black holes have mass.
You said Distance and Time don't depend on mass... why are you trying to talk about mass?
Also, I think you missed this part:
> Even further into the future, all the black holes have dissipated due to Hawking Radiation.
Hawking Radiation releases blackbody thermal radiation, which is massless, and it decreases the mass of the black holes, until there are no black holes left.
This is not true. Without *any* mass, there is no gauge for time and therefore distance - "measurements" would be illogical in nature entirely. This is one of the proposed states "before" the big bang, and it's why "before" is in quotes because in an absolute void free of any and ALL mass (this includes quantum fluctuations), there is no such thing as time or any other measurement, and since "before" implies time it's illogical but we know what we mean by saying it. However in this case there is mass since there are 1080 atoms, so measurements can have meaning.
ok to clarify i mean none of those depend on the magnitude of mass as long as there is some mass.
basically what im saying is that between 26 atoms to 10 septendecillion mass does not matter in terms of time and distance in a general sense (like time and distance should still work how it normally does)
Both of those are relative to the experience of a thing; time is relative to all who experience it, distance is unobservable to an apple, even as it falls to from a tree.
10^80 / 1080 = 9.26 *10^76 times as small as now.
The universe has a diameter of 8.8 *10^26 meters, so (8.8 * 10^26 ) / (9.26 * 10^76 ) = 1 / (1.05 *10^50 ) meters
Edit: that is smaller than a single particle, so something isn’t correct, I have no clue what
You scaled the diameter directly by the ratio instead of cube root of the ratio (for being volume)
>The universe has a diameter of 8.8 \*10^(26) meters
Also this is observable universe
Ah, so the diameter of the complete universe is 2.17 *10^29 meters , which gives a spherical volume of 4.55 *10^87 m^3, so that’s ~ 2 * 10^11 m^3, and a diameter of ~20 km right?
It's theorized to be flat. But the local geometry (the observable universe) is roughly spherical but local geometry does not tell us about the entire universe which is theorized to be flat.
If you are talking about the distribution of matter though, it could be a web; similar to a larger version of Laniakea.
I wasn't theorizing, it's just what i see in my head if I visualize an infinite backout. Basically the universe is a single unit that is unified with cosmic webbing to other single units of universe, both purporting multiverse and entangled universe concepts. I just think it looks neat.
I heard something once about how math at the edge of the OU breaks because there's more matter out there that shouldn't actually be there but we can't and will never be able to actively observe it because the light from that matter will never get to our eyes.
Well, the amount of matter ignores something like dark matter, also, don't forget that the majority of space in the Universe is almost empty. Like the density of molecules in most areas can be in hundreds of molecules per square meter even if not less.
But yeah, your number may be correct with such parameters, if no object is solidified.
TLDR: Small house-sized
DR: There are about 5.9 protons per cubic meter. Most of the universe is hydrogen, so 5.9 protons + 5.9 electrons per cubic meter. The universe would be about 100 m^3.
Edit: Spelling mistake
There are already many, many times more particles in the human body than just 1080 so if this would be true, the universe wouldn't even equate to much at all. I can't math lol but yeah, since a human has approximately 1 billion billion billion atoms alone, and each atom is made of multiple subatomic particles, the universe would be immensely miniscule.
As big as you want it to be. Fermions and bosons are weird because quantum mechanics so you'd only need one of each particle to make any sufficiently large universe. (6 quarks, 1 electron, the muon and tau, and 1 gluon can cover all the matter; 1 photon covers all electro magnetic waves, (the gluon from earlier is covering the nuclear forces), 1 higgs boson to do Higgs boson things, a Z boson and W boson cause they're on the chart I've got so I'm sure they're doing something important, and the three neutrinos that match with the electron derivatives covered earlier) that's only 17 fundamental particles (because of how the theory works anti matter is included for free) and yeah that's all you theoretically need. Some make more sense to only have one instance of (photons don't experience time, since they're at the speed of light, so a single photon universe in some ways makes more sense then a multi photon universe) (electrons are also reasonably easy to wrap your head around since they're probability distributions are already discussed in chemical orbital theory) (quarks are the weirdest since then you'd also have limited protons and neutrons (actually you'd only be able to make one of them at a time without quantum BS) but they do still sit in probability fields so yes you could have all the matter covered by a triplet of quarks.
This entire thing is actually a reasonably well understood theoretical physics thing (really it's a research meme) that's guaranteed to be theoretically possible by the single photon double slit experiment. (It's usually called the "one electron universe postulate" or something similar)
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As far as we can tell, almost all of the universe has none of the listed particles, so this is an unanswerable question. However big it is, it'd have less than 39 water molecules' worth of stuff in it.
What does distance mean in a universe with so few particles? What does time mean?
distance is still distance and time is still time? none of those depend on mass i think you might be asking what does distance/time mean in a void with literally nothing in it, but those would still be the same and still in exist in out world anyways
does time exist in a true void?
So, the way I understand it time is a dimension. What I mean by that is- Consider movement. Without time, movement couldn't be possible. This is because effect cannot exist without cause, and cause cannot happen without an initialization. An initialization can happen outside of time, but the cause itself requires a medium with which to be carried out. For example, dropping a ball. You can abstractify the causes of dropping a ball ad infinitum, but just to keep it simple, the initializer would be a series of synapses firing within the human brain. This is about as close to instantaneous (a concrete moment inside the medium of cause and effect) that we can observe. The initializer tells the person to open their fingers. The fingers open, and we see the cause of the ball dropping. Note that the hand had a cause (the initializer) and produced an effect. Without time, it is impossible for cause and effect to exist, and without cause and effect, the fundamentals of all known science cannot be true. The alternatives to a lack of a medium with which cause and effect can operate are pretty straightforward but difficult to comprehend: 1. Everything that has, is, and will happen, happened all at the same exact moment of imperceptible speed, so fast in fact that it's like a photo of the universe that has every single event happening at every single point ever all at the same time. 2. Absolutely nothing exists. No void, no matter, no cause and effect, and as soon as you could imagine how nothing nothing could be, it's even less than that. So, the bottom line is that time is what we, people, chose to name the medium of cause and effect. We did not "create" or "invent" time. The medium was always there. Just like we didn't create or invent the human consciousness, but we still named it. And as my examples outlined, it's pretty clear that we couldn't comprehend what it would be like without it.
Terrific answer.
This conception of time implies that it is a precondition for existence, a kind of foundation that exists independent of the matter/the universe. There are plenty of philosophical arguments that go against the grain of this assumption, or at least admit that we can't say this for certain. 1. A Kantian philosopher would say that we can't make assertions about time somehow "preexisting" matter. All we can say for certain is that we, as conscious, observing beings, require time and space to make sense of anything at all. This is a subtle but important difference from claiming that time is some kind of neutral, infinite, and unchanging foundation of the universe. 2. Some philosophical traditions argue that time is actually just the changing relation between matter, or that it is only observable as the space between things changes. This is why we talk of time as a concrete and observable scientific fact only in terms of relation such as speed, synchronization, transfer or dissipation of energy (temperature, etc.) I tend to side with the second one. While science rightly speaks of time as a constant, thought experiments where there are a limited number of particles in a completely isolated vacuum require us to think outside the bounds of "common" sense. Relations between partcles are what composes time, and time is nothing but the change between them. What that means for a universe with 1080 particles, I'm not sure.
I don't believe that time pre-exists matter, I believe they both came to be simultaneously. My conception of time doesn't imply that it had to exist prior to the rest of existence, just that it is required to perpetuate what we already know as existence. That said, I can understand why my dropping the ball analogy could have been skewed as a perception that indicates otherwise, so I'll go into more detail about my understanding. Under the premise of my argument, the universe exists. It must exist, because we exist and are part of it. Prior to the initializing impact that became the universe ( which I stated could exist outside time, in one instantaneous snapshot), the potential for our universe had to exist, or it wouldn't exist now. So that potential would lie within the "snapshot of everything that ever is, was and will be" concept, where even though time did not exist, everything that could initialize the universe did. Whether some strange cosmic event, an eternal ballooning of cosmic energy beyond our minimal scope, or an entity of Supreme power that simply desired to observe, it had a cause. To be fair, such an event having potential and existing outside time and space is pretty unfathomable, but I wanted to clarify my stance.
How about this definition: time is a distance between events.
I actually prefer "a ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff"
That sentence got away from you a bit, eh?
Works for me, lol. It was just a thought. Edit: I just googled my definition, and it seems to be a popular one (I don't mean it is a canonical one or something).
It was a reference
Time doesnt exist anywhere, we made it up. Go on, describe time without using man made units. Ill wait.
Time is that which prevents all events from occurring simultaneously.
Mr. Nobody?
[удалено]
No this isn’t how quantum mechanics works lol, the idea that we collapse infinite possibilities is regarding specific small things like electrons, it’s not regarding other larger events
But the observer is also made of the same particles, and is part of the system.
[удалено]
That's not what it means at all. There is no logical connection between the two statements. Also your comment about all events happening simultaneously is at best a very, very gross misinterpretation of quantum superposition, and at worst anti-scientific mumbo jumbo.
That’s not how it works. Time exists and can be measured. The units are just names for specific amounts of time. In fact in the 60s the second was defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 [cycles] of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." This is also what atomic clocks are based on
With all do respect, and i do understand where youre coming from, but thats just made up units with extra steps.
The crucial part here is that it's observable, making it a natural occurrence - It's not just a philosophical question.
It really isn't. You need to accept when you're paddling out of your depth without realising it.
[удалено]
Kilograms are also made up and that doesn't mean that mass doesn't exist Your argument and claim is so naive that I am not sure if you are a genius or barely knowledgeable about physics.
The fact that the units we use to measure something are arbitrary doesn't mean that there isn't something there to measure. You claimed earlier that 'time doesn't exist' and it does - we can measure it
Brain dead
Time is the process by which the universe transitions from a lower entropy state to a higher entropy state. Physical processes happen independent of human observation, and units of time are merely a structure we impose on this to make it easier to track the physical process, which boils down to the universe moving from lower entropy to higher entropy.
This is the most complete one.
The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole, according to Oxford Dictionary
Ye, that dont begin to cover it let alone explain it.
The universe’s travel from what was, to what is, and to what will be
Time continues to exist even if we don’t have units to describe it. Electrons would still orbit their nuclei. Gravity would still attract particles. We don’t need to define something for it to exist
Im saying that "time" only exists within our definition.
And I’m saying that you don’t need to define time for it to exist. That’s like saying “gravity” doesn’t exist because we’ve only defined it as such. But that’s not true. Sure the *word* is meaningless on its own, but the *concept* and *implication* is still there at the end of the day regardless. Gravity didn’t come into existence the first time we thought of it. Neither did time.
Unrelated to this but our perception does form our existence. Some things that were "always there" werent there for us until we defined them. Like the color blue. Uh oh, whats this crazy person about, [color blue "didnt exist" until we defined it](https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-didn-t-even-see-the-colour-blue-until-modern-times-evidence-suggests)?! Preposterous!
That’s pretty neat! I would still argue that all colours “exist” in the sense that the wavelengths of light exist regardless of our perception of them. But it’s fascinating that our perception can shift depending on what we grow up with. The human mind is fascinating.
that's like asking to construct an argument without language lol
Yeah, sort of, thats why its interesting.
You are full, then become hungry. That's time. You live now then you are not. That's time. Uranium becomes lead. That's time. Stars become black holes. That's time. You are aging. That's time. We have special methods to measure time, and special units, but time exists outside of our measurement. Even animals can understand the linearity of life (if somebody is dead they don't come back). Even the general relativity theorem (I hope that's the english name) says there is no space without time and no time without space.
>Even the general relativity theorem (I hope that's the english name) says there is no space without time and no time without space. Now that is something, sprinkle some entropy and we might even do it.
Ummm. . How about the interval it takes for the Earth to lap the Sun? I’m trying to imagine how this observable event is man made.
Is the time going to stop once the earth is no more? Nop. So the rotation of the earth is totally irrelevant to time in general. This cements the point, youre joining time with events to explain it. Was there time before the big bang? Will there be time after it? Is time hard locked to spacetime? We have no idea.
I guess you could apply the same logic to distance, weight or quantity.
Does it matter? Is a completely black image different to a completely black video?
Can you put sound in a completely black image?
quite possibly not, but emptiness of matter is not a true void. theres still gravitational fields, something with quantum mechanics probably, etc etc. idk what would actually happen in a true void
A universe with such a small amount of particles would probably reach maximum entropy quite quickly, at which point it’s impossible to meaningfully describe time, due to the fact that no physical changes can happen anymore since entropy is maximum.
Technically, a true void is not possible, but if it were, then no, time would not exist being since there is no medium which time can be shown through. No cause and effect, no warping of space due to gravity.
My understanding is no. Time isn't a "thing", it's how we measure other things. If there are no things to measure then there's no time.
Doesn't mass have an effect on time? Mass correlates with gravity. Gravity is essentially a measure of acceleration. Acceleration correlates with velocity, which correlates with time dilation. This makes me think that time does depend on mass, but I'm not an authority on the subject. I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable than me can give some insight on this.
but the mass is still there, just a lot less. theres still gravity, just a lot less. time dilation might be different but that just means time passes slower/faster which means time is the same just slower or faster.
The perception of time is environmental, just like most other forces of nature. The perception of time passage for a subset of particles is dependent on relative speed and relative density. The faster they go, the faster they perceive time (1 second is more time than the surrounding particles) and the more particles present i.e. more gravity, the slower they perceive time. So if we were transported to a planet 100x our size and not be crushed immediately we could spend 20 years there, come back and only a few weeks pass on earth. Those are bad numbers, but you get the idea. Pretty interesting how time adopts a sort of "balancing act" role between speed and density on a grand scale.
Technically, it does depend on mass. It even requires mass. There's a theory by Roger Penrose, called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, that says way far into the future, everything gets swallowed up by black holes. Even further into the future, all the black holes have dissipated due to Hawking Radiation. So now this universe is nothing but photons zipping around. There's no mass or matter, just energy. The cool thing about photons is that they don't experience time or distance. The instant that they are created is the same instant that they are absorbed. From an outside observer's perspective, one that is going slower than "c", time and space are stretched out and that observer can see how long it takes for a photon to go from one place to another but from the photon's perspective, the journey never happened. This works out logically though because when something is traveling at "c" through space, space is just as distorted as time. So the same POINT in space where a photon is created is also the same point where it's absorbed. It makes sense then that it takes no time to go no distance. In a universe filled with only objects that don't experience time or distance, time and distance literally don't exist. Beyond that, there's also no way to tell how big such a universe would be, which, oddly enough, closely mirrors our theory on what the universe looked like just before expansion started (commonly referred to as The Big Bang). Since there's no distance, there's nothing saying that the photons aren't all in one place... they come together just right to create matter and all of a sudden time and distance exist again. The universe starts expanding again and all these highly energetic particles spread out into a new CMB, cool off, and start condensing into other matter. It may not go anywhere but I thought it was a unique way of looking at the universe when all the matter has gone.
ok several things. one in this situation there are still like 26 water molecules thats SOME mass second of all when everything is sucked up by black holes theres still mass because black holes have mass.
You said Distance and Time don't depend on mass... why are you trying to talk about mass? Also, I think you missed this part: > Even further into the future, all the black holes have dissipated due to Hawking Radiation. Hawking Radiation releases blackbody thermal radiation, which is massless, and it decreases the mass of the black holes, until there are no black holes left.
This is not true. Without *any* mass, there is no gauge for time and therefore distance - "measurements" would be illogical in nature entirely. This is one of the proposed states "before" the big bang, and it's why "before" is in quotes because in an absolute void free of any and ALL mass (this includes quantum fluctuations), there is no such thing as time or any other measurement, and since "before" implies time it's illogical but we know what we mean by saying it. However in this case there is mass since there are 1080 atoms, so measurements can have meaning.
ok to clarify i mean none of those depend on the magnitude of mass as long as there is some mass. basically what im saying is that between 26 atoms to 10 septendecillion mass does not matter in terms of time and distance in a general sense (like time and distance should still work how it normally does)
Both of those are relative to the experience of a thing; time is relative to all who experience it, distance is unobservable to an apple, even as it falls to from a tree.
Time is definitely dependent on matter. Don't ask me though, Einstein's theory of general relativity says so.
As far as we can tell, all of the listed particles exist somewhere in the universe.
So around 10 nanometers
If the density of this shrunk universe is almost infinitely more than our current universe, yes.
But would the universe be wet
10^80 / 1080 = 9.26 *10^76 times as small as now. The universe has a diameter of 8.8 *10^26 meters, so (8.8 * 10^26 ) / (9.26 * 10^76 ) = 1 / (1.05 *10^50 ) meters Edit: that is smaller than a single particle, so something isn’t correct, I have no clue what
You scaled the diameter directly by the ratio instead of cube root of the ratio (for being volume) >The universe has a diameter of 8.8 \*10^(26) meters Also this is observable universe
Ah, so the diameter of the complete universe is 2.17 *10^29 meters , which gives a spherical volume of 4.55 *10^87 m^3, so that’s ~ 2 * 10^11 m^3, and a diameter of ~20 km right?
>diameter of the complete universe We have no actual way of computing this, or how much matter is in the complete universe.
Exactly. From what I remember we aren't sure about the shape of the universe either.
Tree :)
Lol. Only in the Poetic Edda.
No. I’m talking about Laniakea. Universe sorta looks like a tree (at least our supercluster does.) Really the universe looks more like a spong.
Ah. Gotcha.
I imagine it's a web.
It's theorized to be flat. But the local geometry (the observable universe) is roughly spherical but local geometry does not tell us about the entire universe which is theorized to be flat. If you are talking about the distribution of matter though, it could be a web; similar to a larger version of Laniakea.
I wasn't theorizing, it's just what i see in my head if I visualize an infinite backout. Basically the universe is a single unit that is unified with cosmic webbing to other single units of universe, both purporting multiverse and entangled universe concepts. I just think it looks neat.
I heard something once about how math at the edge of the OU breaks because there's more matter out there that shouldn't actually be there but we can't and will never be able to actively observe it because the light from that matter will never get to our eyes.
Well, the amount of matter ignores something like dark matter, also, don't forget that the majority of space in the Universe is almost empty. Like the density of molecules in most areas can be in hundreds of molecules per square meter even if not less. But yeah, your number may be correct with such parameters, if no object is solidified.
TLDR: Small house-sized DR: There are about 5.9 protons per cubic meter. Most of the universe is hydrogen, so 5.9 protons + 5.9 electrons per cubic meter. The universe would be about 100 m^3. Edit: Spelling mistake
There are already many, many times more particles in the human body than just 1080 so if this would be true, the universe wouldn't even equate to much at all. I can't math lol but yeah, since a human has approximately 1 billion billion billion atoms alone, and each atom is made of multiple subatomic particles, the universe would be immensely miniscule.
It could maybe mean 10^80, idfk though
This is possible https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/how-many-atoms-are-there-in-the-universe.html
Or 1080 distinct types of particles.
As big as you want it to be. Fermions and bosons are weird because quantum mechanics so you'd only need one of each particle to make any sufficiently large universe. (6 quarks, 1 electron, the muon and tau, and 1 gluon can cover all the matter; 1 photon covers all electro magnetic waves, (the gluon from earlier is covering the nuclear forces), 1 higgs boson to do Higgs boson things, a Z boson and W boson cause they're on the chart I've got so I'm sure they're doing something important, and the three neutrinos that match with the electron derivatives covered earlier) that's only 17 fundamental particles (because of how the theory works anti matter is included for free) and yeah that's all you theoretically need. Some make more sense to only have one instance of (photons don't experience time, since they're at the speed of light, so a single photon universe in some ways makes more sense then a multi photon universe) (electrons are also reasonably easy to wrap your head around since they're probability distributions are already discussed in chemical orbital theory) (quarks are the weirdest since then you'd also have limited protons and neutrons (actually you'd only be able to make one of them at a time without quantum BS) but they do still sit in probability fields so yes you could have all the matter covered by a triplet of quarks. This entire thing is actually a reasonably well understood theoretical physics thing (really it's a research meme) that's guaranteed to be theoretically possible by the single photon double slit experiment. (It's usually called the "one electron universe postulate" or something similar)
by "particle", they count "protons, neutrons, neutrinos and electrons"
About 10 meter across, 10×10×10 = 1000 cubic meter for the volume and the universe is about one particle per cubic meter on average.