4 ms·
> Or is it true that there were always 10^80 atoms worth of quarks and gluons in the observable universe, and always will be? Pretty much, yes. (Let's ignore
by mr_mitm 3y ago
> Or is it true that there were always 10^80 atoms worth of quarks and gluons in the observable universe, and always will be?
Pretty much, yes. (Let's ignore the possibility of proton decay for now.)
> Galaxies recede faster than light, so atoms are shedded by that process. If anything it seems like there must have been more matter in the early observable universe than today. But “10cm in diameter” seems to imply otherwise.
Not sure what you mean by "shedding atoms", but I'm pretty sure I can say that this is not the case.
- sillysaurusx 3y agoAlright. Thank you.
- ClumsyPilot 3y agowell we loose access to them, so for all intents and purposes observable universe looses atoms. Very anthropo-centric, but not wrong.
- ben_w 3y agoWe've lost access to many which are still visible, thanks to the continuing expansion of the universe; eventually the light from them may be red-shifted to a wavelength larger than the visible universe, making them undetectable in any meaningful sense.
- bowsamic 3y agoPhysics is always anthropocentric: if we can't measure it, we can't say anything about if it exists