How what the singularity calculated to be so small,considereing the size and volume of the Universe.I figure that mass can be compacted if the space in the mass structures were removed.However the volume calculated is a lot lot bigger than that of a golf ball.?
134083
Size & volume of the current universe have little bearing on how "big" or "small" the singularity was at the moment this universe came into being, since the structures of the various sub-atomic particles that make up atoms and unltimately the "stuff" you have difficulty in "compacting" were not yet defined sufficiently for your question to have meaning.  Not that it's a bad question.  It's just in the same family as "well i know the Universe is infinite, but what's outside it?"\n\nStephen W.Hawking might be a good place to start.
574827
Dimensions are not the same thing as a parellel universe.  It's one popular misconceptions carried on by mystics but created by turn-of-the-20th-century scientists when spirits were thought to exist in higher dimensions.\n\nDimensions are concepts of sides of objects and time, no more, no less.  We exist in what is visually a four dimensional universe, height, width, depth, and time.  We can't visualize objects in higher dimensional space because there is no evolutionary advantage to such a thing; tigers don't leap out at you from the fifth dimension.  String theory suggests there are 11 dimensions (or more); at the Big Bang all the dimensions existed at once then split apart.  Our 4-dimensional universe expanded in the however many other dimensions (the number depends on the theory) shrunk down to the Planck length (10^-35 meters).\n\nA parallel universe is usually what people and mystics mean when they say dimensions.  Even though a parallel universe is technically just another universe existing just out of reach of our own (possible even nanometers away).  This theory seems to be common to multiverse theory, string theory, m-theory, and a few others.\n\nOnward, if we shrink to smaller than an atom, down to the Planck length for example, we'd not lose our four-dimensionalism.  We'd just be really, really small.  We wouldn't be visible to the naked eye nor the most powerful of electron microscopes.  Nothing that exists today can probe down to that desperately small scale; there are plans to eventually do so, however.  We wouldn't slip into another world or into a 3-dimensional space (length, width, and time).\n\nThis isn't an insane question, nor is it stupid.  It's actually asking something very simple.  Remember Einstein asked himself a simple question when considering light.  "What would happen if you were to race alongside a beam of light?"  Einstein was a master of looking at things at their simplest level; from that question above came one of the most remarkable and elegant theories ever to exist: Relativity.
430961
There are only about 100 kinds of atoms in all the Universe, and whether these atoms form trees or tyres, ashes or animals, water or the air we breath, depends on how they are put together. The same atoms are used again and again. Structure determines not only the appearance of materials, but also their properties. \n\nOur universe consists of all known mass, energy, space, and time. Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity. The science called cosmology studies and hypothesizes on how the universe has evolved from singularity to its present as well as possible future states. The dominant theory of universal evolution goes by the familiar name of big bang (or big bang cosmology). At its simplest the big bang refers to a explosive expansion of the entire universe, starting from singularity and continuing to today. Thus, the big bang encompasses all of the events in our universe that have occurred subsequent to singularity. Particularly, all of the energy and mass in our universe was formed within and subsequent to singularity. Every atom that ever was and every atom that ever will be (such as those in our bodies) was created in the course of the big bang.
322387
our mind cannot imagine what it never and can never experience.\n\nU can imagine the spacetime as like a sphere. but a sphere is a 3D object. The universe is a 4D sphere. Can u imagine that? no. Imagine a dot, then imagine a line, then imagine a square, then imagine a cube, then imagine a... 4D cube. physically, u cannot imagine it. But these r consistent logical object. They can exist logically despite unobservable and unimaginable by us.\n\nWhen i say logically it exists, i mean, it exists. for example, on a sphere, if u keep travelling eastward, u could end up where u started. in a 4D spherical universe, u can travel straight forward and come back to where u started. the problem is, will the universe last long enough for u to do it even if your human life is that long.\n\nThe reason our universe is proposed to be spherical(not in the 3D sense) is because of the geometrical properties it has that resemble a 3D sphere. For example, it is observed, galaxies r accelerating away from each others in every direction. They say the universe is expanding. This in 3D is equivalent to having a 3D sphere/ballon blown up. u will see points on the ballon get further and furtehr apart at increasing relative speed as their distance increases.\n\nOf coz a 4D "sphere" "looks" nothing like a 3D sphere.(can u even look at it??) It is just called a sphere because we do not have another name for it. We don't call circles 2D spheres because... they have names.\n\nAs for, if the universe is a (4D) sphere, where does this spehere exist?? in vacumm? the vacumm as we know it is IN a 3D spatial space. Just like a 3D sphere cannot exist on a 2D plane, a 4D sphere definitely cannot exist on a 3D space. When u place a 3D sphere in a 2D plane, u only see "parts" of it, as circles. And by induction, in our 3D universe and with our 3D minds, when a 4D sphere is place in front of u, all u see is normal 3D spheres which are just "parts" of the complete 4D thing that we will never be able to imagine, but know exist. So, the universe as a 4D sphere must exist in a 5D or higher space then?? And then where does this 5D(or higher) space exist in?? even higher space? and so on and so forth? This then becomes a question of philosophy and logic, instead of science.\n\nwhen u try to look at a 4D spatial thing in our 3 spatial D space, we use time to assist us. So, a 4D spahere if appear to us would not appear all at once, but in a series of change. This is the curiosity of our time dimension. Although it is equivalent to spatial dimensions as demonstrated by einstein, it however knit its existence into our conscience. It is as if our mind is not capable of understanding the 4th D all "at once" and so, we observe the 3Ds we can handle, and the forth D is revealed to us slowly. God was saying, "don't worry, i wont overwhelm u with this 4th D. I'll show u bit by bit." Maybe if u wanna see a 4D spehre at once... u should "experience" all the experiences of 3D parts at once, whatever that means. or this is like...knowing. You know what u know. u do not need to go thru the mind and recall every pieces of knowledge piece by piece to know u know. at once u know. so, to imagine a 4D sphere, all u have to do is know it. And hence, here come mathematics to help u describe something that u know but cannot describe.\n\nok i m drifting off to something unrelated and soon i will be talking about my garden and the stock market. bye
137175
Evidence I have seen points to the contrary: that the universe is acutally accelerating in expansion. The majoraty of scholars propose that theory to explain a universe without a singularity, but the evidence favors an accelerating universe.
28334
Very intersting question which I or no-one else can answer with 100% certainty. I'm no expert in physics but i figure that to create the source of the 'big bang' would  require an infinite amount of matter to be squeezed into a small ball by an even more infinite amount of pressure - which would have to be equal on all sides... so where did all this matter & pressure come from???
659685
This "nothing" is what we perceive without the laws of physics. Our universe is limited by the knowledge we have about it. Recent theories (the "M" theory) suggest that endless universes exist, and sometimes they even collide one into other. Probably, out there, beyond the boundaries of 12 billions light years, others dimensions, other plan of existence exist.
15132
expansion does not require an increase in mass in order to occupy a larger area.  all that is required is for whatever the object.  is for it to simply distribute itself over more area.  for example a balloon with out being blown up takes up conderably less area than one that is full.  note;  the balloon never actually gains mass.  the material its composed of has just been distributed over a larger area.  although the universe is substantialy larger and more complicated set of objects the analogy still applies.  oh, and it's not accelerating it's just expanding.  in order for it to accelerate it would require some source of propulsion like some kind of powerplant in a vehicle.  since astronomical objects aint' got none of that. they just keep truckin' right along at a steady, consistent rate.
583902
this is actually a common misconception about the big bang.  the universe may be something like the two dimensional surface of a sphere.  it is finite yet has no boundary and no center.  nothing exists "outside" the universe.  to quote a dead writer, "there is no there, there".\n\nread this:\nhttp://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147
608954
The current status of the universe actually does work like that.  Technically, with gravity the universe should collapse back upon itself and the big bang would occur all over again.  However, gravity is one of the weakest forces in the universe.  With that said, it has been measured that the universe is expanding and accelerating at a rate that exceeds the gravitational forces required to initiate the "big crunch."\n\n\nThere are two schools of thought right now.  One is that the universe will continue to decelerate but never completely stop or collapse upon itself.  More recent theories have stated that the universe appears to be accelerating.\n\nAs it stands now, I would say that it is safe to say that the odds are extremely low of the universe collapsing back to a singularity.\n\nSee the link below for some more information.
198895
because according to general relativity E=mc^2, so you can say that energy is a form of mass, but when you include this to the uncertainty principle it's incorrect to say that void has no energy (x & v = 0) so you have to go the other way, since there's a lot of void out there you should have the equivalent mass, and since mass is gravity we should be seeing the BIG CRUNCH right now, obviously that ain't happening, so one of the two theories must be wrong, but scientists prefer to say that both of 'em r parcially or entirely wrong
350661
I hate to be the philosopher but that is why the question still reamins. No one can accuratly tell what lies beyond the boundries of the universe. Is there another? Is it just white noise? I believe that space is infinite and our "universe" could well be a part of a cluster of "multiverses". i was once told that the universe is expanding in the same way that a balloon is blown up. So what lies beyond our universe? I say space, space, and more space! \n\nIf our universe began with the "big bang" then that would mean that at some point the universe had collapsed upon itself, leaving empty space.
20026
The correct answer is that no one knows.  We don't even know what most of the universe is made of (right now it's being called dark matter, because all we know about it is that we can't see it).\n\nIf I had to make a bet, I would go with total energy equals zero.  \n\nThere is a lot of matter in the universe, as everyone is saying, and that makes for a lot of mass energy.  But, the flip side is that there is a lot of mass in the universe, and that makes for a lot of negative gravitational potential energy.  It is possible they cancel.
155351
There is no "outskirt" to the universe-Each point is the center, just as every point on the surface of a sphere is a center.  One of the primary engines of motion is gravity, which is a warping of space/time.  There is a "thing" we call space/time, which has certain properties, but not necessarily substance (as mass, for example).  According to current theory, at the sub-quantum level, there is a bubbling of space/time in which energy is created and destroyed, but it exactly evens out-the "zero-point" energy.  So, yes, there is a thing called space-time which allows things to exist, but no, there is no outskirts of the universe.
135112
The visible universe is supposedly that size because we can see the light from the beginning and therfore base the size on how far light has travelled in the time; However, the universe is not actually that size, since there are areas beyond the Event Horizon which light has not come from yet, and thus the universe is larger than that estimate.\n\n More to answer your point, the universe is expanding at its limits, but as it does so it creates teh space that we as three-dimensional beings can move in, like a dot on the surface of a balloon; If the dot could move anywhere on the surface, it could move all over the balloon, but never cover all of it as it expands. In the same way, the univrese is finite in size, but unbounded in dimension and therefore to practiacl purposes probably infinite.\n\n It's a hard concept and many people have trouble with it.:)
357452
First off the Universe is not a sphere that would assume that there is internal area. Most theorists think that space is an infinite sheet, but if it was a shperoid it is similar to a baloon. The baloon is three dimensions and the skin is two the skin would be our universe.\n\nThat being said dark mass and energy occupe 95% or so percent of the mass in the uniform. We have no idea what dark energy or dark mass actually is we only think it is there because our theories dtermine there is a lot more stuff in the universe then we have been able to measure
73137
There is disagreement over whether the universe is indeed finite or infinite in spatial extent and volume.\n\nHowever, the observable universe, consisting of all locations that could have affected us since the Big Bang given the finite speed of light, is certainly finite. The edge of the cosmic light horizon is 13.7 billion light years (4.19 Gpc) distant. The present distance (comoving distance) to the edge of the observable universe is larger, due to the ever increasing rate at which the universe has been expanding; it is estimated to be about 78 billion light years (7.8 × 1010 light years, or 7.4 × 1026 m). This would make the comoving volume, of the known universe, equal to 1.9 × 1033 cubic light years (assuming this region is perfectly spherical). The observable universe contains about 7 × 1022 stars, organized in about 100 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters. The number of galaxies may be even larger, based on the Hubble Deep Field observed with the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope discovered galaxies such as Abell 1835 IR1916, which are over 13 billion light years from Earth.\n\nBoth popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" when they really mean "observable universe". This is because unobservable physical phenomena are scientifically irrelevant; that is, they cannot affect any events that we can perceive. See also Causality (physics).