Originally posted by FabianFnasFab, did you perchance read the October issue of Scientific American?
I'll try to answer parts of the [b]"How dense can we humans make an object? I mean, if we put an object in a diamond vise or something and squeeze it really tight and give it nowhere to go but 'in,' can we start to make objects with extremely high densities? Are those object stable, or upon release, do those objects expand to less dense structures?" ...[text shortened]... wrong here and there. So you are allowed to give alternate explanations if you like.[/b]
There is an article by a VERY smart dude, Martin Bojowald, Assistant prof at Penn State University, where he basically turned the Big Bang 180 degrees around and using quantum loop gravity, deduced the presence of these objects he calls "Space atoms' for want of a better word. His work gets rid of the Relativistic limits where in the BB, the density looks like it goes to infinity which just means relativity breaks down at that level. His new work says each space atom is the size of the Plank distance and during the BB time each space atom holds the mass of 1 trillion stars! Mind boggling stuff, eh. So using that as a starting point, I did some arithmetic, calling one galaxy approx. equal to 1 trillion stars and we know we can see about 100 billion galaxies (we think there are more we can't see but I am just using the ones we can see) and taking the cube root, come out with a size of the volume of the space atoms at maximum crunch, of about 4600 atoms cubed.(4641 to the third power~= 100,000,000,000)
So I googled him, found his email address, he is only about 60 miles from me here in Pennsylvania, and showed him my calcs and asked him one more question, besides if I was more or less in the ballpark as to how many space atoms it takes to make a universe, the next question I put to him was this: If that number is more or less correct, how close does the density come inside a black hole, is it near the level of the BB space atom density?
So I just sent that email tonight, I'll put his reply, if any, on this thread. Don
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseInteresting. Keep us posted, sonhouse.
Fab, did you perchance read the October issue of Scientific American?
There is an article by a VERY smart dude, Martin Bojowald, Assistant prof at Penn State University, where he basically turned the Big Bang 180 degrees around and using quantum loop gravity, deduced the presence of these objects he calls "Space atoms' for want of a better word. His work g density?
So I just sent that email tonight, I'll put his reply, if any, on this thread. Don
On a side note, any idea on the reliability of that trillion stars number? I presume the confidence interval for that interval may be huge.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI thought that many galaxies have about a billion stars, but it is important to note that in this particular case the star count is not important, what is important is the total mass of the galaxy. I believe that the centre of the galaxy often contains a significant portion of the mass, and that dark matter contains another large portion.
Interesting. Keep us posted, sonhouse.
On a side note, any idea on the reliability of that trillion stars number? I presume the confidence interval for that interval may be huge.
Maybe somebody could find out what our galaxy's mass is and what the average is. I think that our galaxys mass has been calculated by analyzing the motion of stars.
To give an analogy, the planet count of the solar system does not tell us much about the solar systems mass.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI was talking about this:
I thought that many galaxies have about a billion stars, but it is important to note that in this particular case the star count is not important, what is important is the total mass of the galaxy. I believe that the centre of the galaxy often contains a significant portion of the mass, and that dark matter contains another large portion.
Maybe somebody ...[text shortened]... alogy, the planet count of the solar system does not tell us much about the solar systems mass.
His new work says each space atom is the size of the Plank distance and during the BB time each space atom holds the mass of 1 trillion stars!
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe statistical distribution relative sizes of starts in our galaxy is well known by decennia back. So actually we can count the stars and know the mass of the galaxies collected stars is. Or we can calculate the mass and deduce the numbers of stars in it.
To give an analogy, the planet count of the solar system does not tell us much about the solar systems mass.
The analogy of our planetary system is not accurate, because (1) we have only a few planets within our solar system, and we have only a few outside our solarsystem, to base any statistics on. We don't know average number of planets in exo solar systems, we don't know how normal our solar system is compared with others.
So the analogy is flawed. We do know more about galaxies than solar systems.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOne thing you can't overlook is the mass of dark matter, it is several times that of our matter. That mass is also included in the 'trillion star mass per space atom'.
I thought that many galaxies have about a billion stars, but it is important to note that in this particular case the star count is not important, what is important is the total mass of the galaxy. I believe that the centre of the galaxy often contains a significant portion of the mass, and that dark matter contains another large portion.
Maybe somebody ...[text shortened]... alogy, the planet count of the solar system does not tell us much about the solar systems mass.