This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science
related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should
explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments
should further the discussion of math and science.

When posting on Brilliant:

Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .

Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.

Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.

Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.

Markdown

Appears as

*italics* or _italics_

italics

**bold** or __bold__

bold

- bulleted - list

bulleted

list

1. numbered 2. list

numbered

list

Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly

well at what time it's mass is ${ 10 }^{ 50 }$ kg ? Because Personally I feel That Universe is Expanding Continuously Since from Big Bang , So I Think That Mass would Be Variable . So Personally I think That it is difficult to measure mass of Universe at particular instant of Time . Also In which frame u r Talking ? Beacuse Mass depends on reference frame .
(I don't Know whether I'am correct or not But I just share My thinking .) !$\ddot\smile$.

the only frame we can access is earth frame, and no i dont feel expansion causes rise in mass except due to the fact that the expansion is speeding up and we know mass rises when it moves fast relativistically, but expansion by itself doesnt cause mass change because even what we define as a unit mass also changes in the same manner as the rest of the universe

well I Know very - very Little about Relativistic-ale Mechanics , But Still I didn't Understand what did You Mean By
"we define unit mass ............... as the rest of the universe" ?
In My views Since from Big-bang mass is continuously increases beacause after Big-Bang , Lot's of energy would have been Produced , So this Energy should be converted into mass , due to which massive bodies are formed such as Planets ...etc. So Mass should be continusly increasing In My Views.

Note, here I just share my views , May be I completely wrong . But I just share my hypothetical Views .
!$\ddot\smile$

@Deepanshu Gupta
–
i mean to say that if i define 1 metre as the length of my elbow, and then you somehow scale up everything in the universe by a factor 2, even then i will feel everything to be same size because everything has scaled up by 2, even my arm which i called 1 meter.

and i do not think the energy released in the big bang is changeing into mass, Rather, in all the stars, hydrogen atoms fuse to form helium and energy is released meaning that products have lesser mass than reactants, meaning that mass must in that sense be decreasing as a whole, infact all that energy released rather causes an enhance in entropy of the universe, i am unfamiliar about any reverse process in the universe.

Also relativistically, the mass of an object increases with speed, and expansion is increasing, and hence their rates, and hence the objects masses,

Now i do not know how correct i am, or which one of them has the upper hand in the universe's rate of change of mass.

But as far as i know, they are based on some credible sources, like books, and as far as i know about special relativity (only kinematics and a very small part of dynamics) , and some physics problems present a highly approximate classical model of expansion of universe from where i learnt some stuff

when we define unit mass we actually are referring to a relative mass concept(or unit mass defined with respect to a specified standard).But when we consider mass of universe we are actually talking about the absolute mass{energy being converted to mass to attain stability as per standard potential energy v\s radius(or size)graph},which according to big bang theory,is increasing continuously.

yes,i agree because mass is relativistically variant and can vary with different frames depending on the speed(not velocity) and acceleration of the selected frame.As you know the relation is given by $m=\frac { { m }_{ 0 } }{ \sqrt { 1-\frac { { v }^{ 2 } }{ { c }^{ 2 } } } }$

Easy Math Editor

This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.

When posting on Brilliant:

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in`\(`

...`\)`

or`\[`

...`\]`

to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewest10^50 kg is far too less for the mass of the universe. Earth itself weighs 10^24 kgs

Log in to reply

well at what time it's mass is ${ 10 }^{ 50 }$ kg ? Because Personally I feel That Universe is Expanding Continuously Since from Big Bang , So I Think That Mass would Be Variable . So Personally I think That it is difficult to measure mass of Universe at particular instant of Time . Also In which frame u r Talking ? Beacuse Mass depends on reference frame . (I don't Know whether I'am correct or not But I just share My thinking .) !$\ddot\smile$.

Log in to reply

the only frame we can access is earth frame, and no i dont feel expansion causes rise in mass except due to the fact that the expansion is speeding up and we know mass rises when it moves fast relativistically, but expansion by itself doesnt cause mass change because even what we define as a unit mass also changes in the same manner as the rest of the universe

Log in to reply

well I Know very - very Little about Relativistic-ale Mechanics , But Still I didn't Understand what did You Mean By "we define unit mass ............... as the rest of the universe" ?

In My views Since from Big-bang mass is continuously increases beacause after Big-Bang , Lot's of energy would have been Produced , So this Energy should be converted into mass , due to which massive bodies are formed such as Planets ...etc. So Mass should be continusly increasing In My Views.

Note, here I just share my views , May be I completely wrong . But I just share my hypothetical Views . !$\ddot\smile$

So what did You Say ?

Log in to reply

and i do not think the energy released in the big bang is changeing into mass, Rather, in all the stars, hydrogen atoms fuse to form helium and energy is released meaning that products have lesser mass than reactants, meaning that mass must in that sense be decreasing as a whole, infact all that energy released rather causes an enhance in entropy of the universe, i am unfamiliar about any reverse process in the universe.

Also relativistically, the mass of an object increases with speed, and expansion is increasing, and hence their rates, and hence the objects masses,

Now i do not know how correct i am, or which one of them has the upper hand in the universe's rate of change of mass.

But as far as i know, they are based on some credible sources, like books, and as far as i know about special relativity (only kinematics and a very small part of dynamics) , and some physics problems present a highly approximate classical model of expansion of universe from where i learnt some stuff

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Then you are saying that, if we just take the whole universe, and measure its mass at any point of time, it will be constant, forgetting the unit?

Log in to reply

when we define unit mass we actually are referring to a relative mass concept(or unit mass defined with respect to a specified standard).But when we consider mass of universe we are actually talking about the absolute mass{energy being converted to mass to attain stability as per standard potential energy v\s radius(or size)graph},which according to big bang theory,is increasing continuously.

Log in to reply

yes,i agree because mass is relativistically variant and can vary with different frames depending on the speed(not velocity) and acceleration of the selected frame.As you know the relation is given by $m=\frac { { m }_{ 0 } }{ \sqrt { 1-\frac { { v }^{ 2 } }{ { c }^{ 2 } } } }$

Log in to reply

I don't know how to solve this problem,can anyone help me out? https://brilliant.org/problems/these-springs-again/?group=mvDbOLCWDkmy

Log in to reply