What's left of big bang?!

[search]

"An international team of astronomers involving researchers at the Australian National University have announced the completion of a large survey of the nearby Universe. Amongst their findings is that 20% of the normal matter in the Universe has already been turned into stars.<br /><br />One of the most important goals for cosmologists is to find out where all the normal matter that was produced in the Big Bang is today, 14 billion years later. The new survey reveals that about 20% is in stars, a further 0.1% lies in dust expelled from massive stars (and from which solid structures like the Earth and ourselves are made), and about 0.01% is in super-massive black holes.<br /><br />According to the survey leader, Dr Simon Driver at the University of St Andrews, the remaining material is almost completely in gaseous form lying both within and between the galaxies, and forming a reservoir from which future generations of stars may develop."<br /><br />http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/news/archive/2006/08_aug/

 

[derekmcd]

They are, of course, assuming that the <i>entire</i> Universe is flat, isotropic, and homogeneous. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[search]

Good question D<br /><br />I do not know the parameters used but the survey was "of the nearby Universe".<br /><br />Here are the OPERATIONAL CONCEPT DEFINITION DOCUMENT and if you or somebody else have time maybe can find something about it. I have no time now. <br /><br />I found however this interesting article in their website:<br />http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/news/media_releases/media_release_040108.php#content<br /><br />Plus a presentation from a guest speaker:<br />http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/cas/presents/Jeremy%20Mould.html

 

[search]

Back again D.<br /><br />Regarding the Operational Concept website do not waste time on it it unless you have a specific interest. <br /><br />Regarding your comment: "assuming that the entire universe is flat, isotropic and homogeneous".<br /><br />Since the study was via "observation" only on "nearby universe" but the extrapolations are for the entire universe I would say that they must have considered a Lambda Cold Dark Model . But for sure I cannot assert from the article itself and probing their website I got this:<br /><br />http://info.anu.edu.au/mac/Media/Media_Releases/_2006/_August/_180806universefuel.asp<br /><br />Previous work (interesting);<br />http://info.anu.edu.au/mac/Media/Media_Releases/_2005/_January/_120105redshift.asp<br />

 

[newtonian]

Search - Did they give a value for the mass of our universe, such that 20% are in stars?<br /><br />For example, decades ago Sir Arthur Eddington had calculated the mass of the universe to be 10^79 something (simlilar to amu = atomic mass units, I forget the exact unit.).<br /><br />There are also various estimates as to the percentage of matter which lies within the observable universe, i.e. within our visibility horizon or light cone - percentage of the total which would include the entire universe (or, at least, the portion of the origin of our universe which remains gravitationally influenced by the gravity of our universe and/or remains within at leat one of the various light cones generated at the origin of our universe.

 

[search]

Density of matter in the universe (observable) = 3 x 10^30 g/cm3<br />Mass of universe (observable) = 3 x 10^55 g<br /><br />I did not get any info from this site but got from others.<br /><br />From (basic):<br />http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=342<br /><br />Microcosmos and Macrocosmos approach:<br />"The Extension, Age and Mass of the Universe, calculated by means of atomic physical quantities and Newton's gravitational 'constant'":<br />http://www.rostra.dk/louis/styr.html?nf=quant_11.html&titel=The%20Extension,%20Age%20and%20Mass%20of%20the%20Universe&fra=http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=nl-nl&q=mass+of+universe&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8<br /><br />I am sure that you will be able to find many different numbers and results but what I found interesting was the last remarks:<br /><br />"In earlier epochs of the Universe the increase has been faster. In other words, the electron has been smaller when the Universe was younger. This also seems to be a logical evolution, for how could there otherwise be space enough for electrons in the very earliest and extremely much smaller Universe? If you ask: does the extension of protons and other composite particles also vary as the Universe expands? Then the reply must be Yes!"

 

[Kalstang]

This is all assuming of course that there is an actual edge/end to this universe. Once they find the edge/end to this universe and prove that it IS the edge/end then i'll start to think that they could even remotely possibly calculate any of this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ffff00"><p><font color="#3366ff">I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.</font> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~</font> <br /><font color="#cc99ff">Guns dont kill people. People kill people</font>.</p></font><p><font color="#ff6600">Solar System</font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<i>This is all assuming of course that there is an actual edge/end to this universe.</i><br /><br />Actually, no it's not. The numbers provided are not calculations of the entire universe. Only what can be observed which is merely a sample. This 'sample' is justified as indicative of the rest of the Universe due to the belief that it is isotropic and homogneous (i.e observed to be the same no matter the location the observation is being made or which direction the observer is looking). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[search]

Hi K.<br />I could not be more clear than D. above. These calculations are only refering the known or observable universe (the standard 13.7). <br /><br />The rest is unknown and not possible to search with current technology and law knowledg.<br /><br />I keep saying: the next step of science is to turn the impossible into reality