It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# How much hydrogen and helium does it take to make a -

page: 1
3
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 07:16 PM
Everything I've ever read or heard about the beginning of the universe seems to consistently suggest that nothing but hydrogen and helium came out of the Big Bang. If this is true then my question for today is:

How much hydrogen and helium does it take to make a golf ball?
Would it be a room full of these gases? A house full? How about an area the size of our solar system? My answer is: I don't have even the slightest clue.

I do know (at least I think I know) that, first, the gases have to come together as a sun, and then the sun has to explode, thereby making carbon. I don't even know how the gases came together to do this.

But, getting to the real point of this thread: Ever since I've looked at Hubble's deep field images, and with the understanding that we now know there are billions and billions of galaxies, each with billions of suns and planets, just how much hydrogen and helium did it take to make ALL of those galaxies???

We say that the universe is big, but does our imagination fully comprehend just what that 'big' really encompasses? I'm thinking that whatever size we imagine the universe to be, we'd have to multiply that size to the power of a trillion-trillion in order to accommodate ALL that hydrogen and helium that went into making all the matter in all those galaxies.

Has any math ever been put to work on figuring out how much of these gases are needed to make all that stuff?

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 07:27 PM

The matter in the present universe did not exist until the big pop.
It came into being with the release of energy at the event. That energy was converted into matter.
So it is said.

edit on 3/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 07:39 PM

Maybe that energy was matter prior to that big pop. Hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in some peoples' minds if they are unable or unwilling to accept as fact all the information required to come to the same conclusion as it has been said by those who have said it. ....

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 07:40 PM

Hydrogen atoms combine to form helium. As helium concentrations get higher you will notice helium atoms fusing to create heavier elements. So if the sun explodes you will witness the creation of Carbon. The fusion of the Helium atoms create Deuterium I think, some people will get confused with the hydrogen atoms being combined since that will create something unstable. To understand how much hydrogen is out there you should know that our sun creates 430–600 million tons of hydrogen each second. There are more suns than all the words spoken by all human beings that have ever existed in the universe. If you could only comprehend what God has created you would be shocked.

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:06 PM

For now, let's limit it to the observable universe. The most recent estimate is that the mass of the observable universe is about 6X10^51 kg. A hydrogen atom has a mass of 1.67X10^-24 grams or 1.67X10^-27 kg, so the answer to your question, at least with respect to hydrogen, is that it takes about 10^78 atoms of hydrogen. A helium atom has a mass of 6.67X10^-27 kg, so you can do the math.

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:48 PM

Don't really have a point to make, but rather thought I'd just share some relating information...

Because deuterium is destroyed in the interiors of stars faster than it is produced, and because other natural processes are thought to produce only an insignificant amount of deuterium, it is presently thought that nearly all deuterium found in nature was produced in the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago

en.wikipedia.org...

A few minutes into the expansion, when the temperature was about a billion (one thousand million; 109; SI prefix giga-) kelvin and the density was about that of air, neutrons combined with protons to form the Universe's deuterium and helium nuclei in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis.[46] Most protons remained uncombined as hydrogen nuclei. As the Universe cooled, the rest mass energy density of matter came to gravitationally dominate that of the photon radiation.

en.wikipedia.org...

O wait, I guess I do have a point to make...

It wasn't Hydrogen and Helium, but rather Hydrogen and Helium Nuclei before the formation of stars and after the:

The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the Universe was dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from neutrinos).

en.wikipedia.org...

None of which is necessarily fact, so tootles...

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:58 PM
Now that I think about it, the OP brings forth another great question.

Should all masses be measured and then translated to represent it's relation to mean density of a particular mass and/or volume(particular mean density) of protium. Kind of a way to quantitatively unify the representation of mass across all elements...?

I apologize if I used any of that terminology out of context, it's been a while since I've researched anything relating to the topic.

I hope that made sense LOL!

The most common isotope of hydrogen is protium (name rarely used, symbol 1H) with a single proton and no neutrons

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 27-3-2012 by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS because: clarification

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:12 PM

I doubt if the Big Bang theory is even close to real so comparing things to it time-wise doesn't make sense.
Who makes up these weird theories that become real when enough people believe in them? I see this kind of comparison stuff going on all the time and everywhere. Does it really matter? No, it's just conversation anyway. Now I'm starting to think out-loud in text

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 12:45 AM

To expand on what Phage said: the universe in the aftermath of the Big Bang consisted of something called a quark-gluon plasma. Quarks are the building blocks of protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are the building blocks of atomic nuclei. It was some time after the Big Bang that hydrogen and helium came into existence. The other atoms came later, forged in the hearts of stars and distributed across the cosmos by supernova explosions.

The amount of matter in the universe today is the same as it was at the moment the Big Bang occurred.

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:54 AM

Originally posted by Warpedconsciousness

To understand how much hydrogen is out there you should know that our sun creates 430–600 million tons of hydrogen each second.

Huh? I thought suns burned hydrogen, not created it???

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:09 AM

Originally posted by rickymouse

I doubt if the Big Bang theory is even close to real so comparing things to it time-wise doesn't make sense.
Who makes up these weird theories that become real when enough people believe in them? I see this kind of comparison stuff going on all the time and everywhere. Does it really matter? No, it's just conversation anyway. Now I'm starting to think out-loud in text

Yup, just chat and satisfying our own curiosity, which would bring me to my second question: If the universe is SO big that we can't even fully comprehend or imagine its size, then if we reverse the direction of the galaxies we can see, how do we know that all this matter doesn't come together in the form of a black hole that blew up 13.5 billion years ago? How do we know that we aren't in just a small quadrant of the universe that was made by a black hole in another quadrant, which was made by another black hole in another quandrant.

I'm just thinking that, for all the observable matter to have originated from THEE Big Bang, well, it would make the universe kind of small, wouldn't you think?

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 04:22 AM

Originally posted by Astyanax

The amount of matter in the universe today is the same as it was at the moment the Big Bang occurred.

Right, but the lighter elements and gases had to come together to form all the observable matter in the universe, which is why I ask how much is needed to make a golf ball. My question is really about the size of space needed to contain that incredibly light materials. Sorry, I'm not being very clear. Let's try it this way: In order to make a golf ball we would need to compress all the hydrogen and helium in a space the size of our solar system. No doubt it's a false statement, but I need to make that statement in order to show what I'm getting at. I'm thinking that the space needed to contain the lighter elements that made all the galaxies we see has to be huge, Huge HUGE! Beyond our imagination. Yes? No? A shrug of shoulders here.

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 05:19 AM
Here a guess, ignoring gravity, temperature and any nuclear reactions.

If you assume metallic hydrogen with density of about 800kg/m3 and a total mass of about 6*10^51kg. This gives a cube with about 2 light-years edge length.

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:03 AM

The properties of things we observe here from earth doesn't necessarily mean these properties exist elsewhere. Within a solar system the properties may be similar but outside the solar system they may be way different. Within comparable galaxies the situation may be similar at the galactic level. The universe we perceive could be actually growing like a plant sprouting from a bud. We could be observing the growth of a leaf like structure that is flat in nature. It doesn't have to be alive, but it's growth would be connected by electrical energy. It could be mineral based growth. We could be within this at something like a molecular level. If we studied smaller things we may see what is really happening on a large scale. Repeating shapes and patterns are starting to be studied. It may not be a false sense that the gasses of the cosmos are combining to form things we see here on earth. I read an article about the possibility of creating a periodic table of shapes that repeat themselves forming larger shapes of the same kind. This is interesting and fits into my perception of things when I was young. We have been conditioned to see things as others do, following a way to suppression of intellect. Imagination coupled with intelligence and basic knowledge of everything is the best way to understand things. Studying the perception of the young teaches you more than the knowledgeable can teach. Cast aside our pride in our knowledge and start learning again what the unconditioned see in life. Compare this to what mankind thinks he knows and you get closer to the truth.

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:18 AM

The processes of the maple tree turns Magnesium into Chromium. Life breaks down higher denser metals into lighter metal crystals or minerals. The properties of transitional metals is somewhat understood. It seems as if this planet would have been high in pure heavy metals at one time and life broke them down. New life evolved to the new changed mineral combinations. Why are we turning it back to pure metals again?

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:30 AM
The question is, "What is matter?"

Particles with different charges that can organize themselves in various ways to give you various elements. The particles are all the same thing, just with different charges. Zooming in further, string theory believes that particles are made of vibrating one dimensional lines called, "strings".

But that still doesn't answer the question, "What is matter?" So what is it? Energy? The ability to do work? There seems to be more to it than the simple definition of "the ability to do work".

Honestly this is a rhetorical question, because the truth is, we really don't know what matter is.

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:34 AM

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The question is, "What is matter?"

Particles with different charges that can organize themselves in various ways to give you various elements. The particles are all the same thing, just with different charges. Zooming in further, string theory believes that particles are made of vibrating one dimensional lines called, "strings".

But that still doesn't answer the question, "What is matter?" So what is it? Energy? The ability to do work? There seems to be more to it than the simple definition of "the ability to do work".

Honestly this is a rhetorical question, because the truth is, we really don't know what matter is.

But I'll give you a hint. An organic seed the size of a pee contains the information to go on to make a much larger tree. Matter is a seed. The purpose of the universe is to create life. Life comes from seeds. Matter is life.

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:54 PM

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The question is, "What is matter?"

Particles with different charges that can organize themselves in various ways to give you various elements. The particles are all the same thing, just with different charges. Zooming in further, string theory believes that particles are made of vibrating one dimensional lines called, "strings".

But that still doesn't answer the question, "What is matter?" So what is it? Energy? The ability to do work? There seems to be more to it than the simple definition of "the ability to do work".

Honestly this is a rhetorical question, because the truth is, we really don't know what matter is.

But I'll give you a hint. An organic seed the size of a pee contains the information to go on to make a much larger tree. Matter is a seed. The purpose of the universe is to create life. Life comes from seeds. Matter is life.

Interesting, but my question would still apply to that seed. Instead of asking how much hydrogen and helium, or quarks or whatever, we would have to ask how much water and nutrients does it take for a tree to mature? The answer would still be probably more than we could imagine.

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:21 PM

I'm thinking that the space needed to contain the lighter elements that made all the galaxies we see has to be huge, Huge HUGE! Beyond our imagination. Yes? No?

Atoms, even hydrogen atoms, are mostly empty space. Take out the space, which you do when you dismantle them into their component parts, and they take up much less room.

However, that isn't the real trouble. The universal singularity is thought to have been of zero dimensions. No length, no breadth, no height, no duration. This is what the universe came out of.

Immediately after the Big Bang, the universe would have been tinier than the tiniest thing you can possibly imagine. And yes, all the matter and energy it now contains would have been cooped up inside that implausibly tiny space. In fact, there was a lot more matter than there is now, because most of the matter and antimatter (which is also a kind of matter, and takes up space) in the universe would have vanished in a huge blast of mutual destruction immediately it came into existence.

According to [the hypothesis of] inflation, the universe expanded by a factor of at least 10^78 (that's 10 with 78 zeroes after it), all in less than a second. This stage could have formed the basis for the large-scale structure we can detect in the distribution of galaxies around us now. Source

Matter as we understand it didn't come into existence until about 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. That's almost no time at all, yet the universe would already have been pretty big by then.

Here's a fascinating article about the Big Bang that may answer some of your questions – and raise a few more.

*

If the universe is SO big that we can't even fully comprehend or imagine its size, then if we reverse the direction of the galaxies we can see, how do we know that all this matter doesn't come together in the form of a black hole that blew up 13.5 billion years ago? How do we know that we aren't in just a small quadrant of the universe that was made by a black hole in another quadrant, which was made by another black hole in another quandrant.

We could be. Some such idea made the headlines back in the Eighties when it was put forward by a South African physicist; it's kind of old hat now. Other physicists have suggested that the universe is a holographic projection in three dimensions of a two-dimensional reality. Still others like to believe that our universe is one of many in a 'multiverse'.

The trouble is, such claims are not really scientific because they cannot be tested. The universe would look the same to us whether or not it was embedded within another universe, whether or not it was one of many, etc., so there is no way to tell

Science cannot answer all our questions.

*

The processes of the maple tree turns Magnesium into Chromium.

Maple trees are not particle accelerators. Almost every assertion of 'fact' you have made in this thread is false.

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Astyanax
The universe would look the same to us whether or not it was embedded within another universe,

OH! This just reminded me of another question. You know how scientists have somehow detected the cosmic microwave background (image below). Is anyone claiming that this is the edge of our universe and that there is nothing beyond it?

3