If the Big-Bang is true then...?

[north]

and if it started as a infinte point of size

that would mean , either there is still a particle or there is another kind of plasma

before the fourth state of matter ( ionic plasma ) is the fifth

the fifth state of matter , being , the plasma state of before a particle manifested , a fluid of sorts , found by an evidence of mist or unfocused detection

we know through " atom smashers " that there are at least few hundred different particles , but as of now no physical evidence of a mist has been found

therefore because particles are finite in size , in terms of Quantum particles , the Universe , the Big-Bang , did not start from an infinite point

[north]

further

what the BB needs is a way of detecting ALL the particles that have so far been detected and varified , by the smahers , in the Universe and so far it can only be done in labs

and could this fifth state of matter be responsible for the " black-energy " conundrum , and ' dark matter " , perhaps

[Strange]

and if it started as a infinte point of size

Do you mean "infinitely small"? But I don't think anyone is saying that is the case.

that would mean , either there is still a particle or there is another kind of plasma

I don't see the logical connection there. Why would it imply any such thing?

And what does "there is still a particle" mean?

before the fourth state of matter ( ionic plasma ) is the fifth

the fifth state of matter , being , the plasma state of before a particle manifested , a fluid of sorts , found by an evidence of mist or unfocused detection

What?

we know through " atom smashers " that there are at least few hundred different particles , but as of now no physical evidence of a mist has been found

Indeed.

therefore because particles are finite in size , in terms of Quantum particles , the Universe , the Big-Bang , did not start from an infinite point

Again, I fail to see the logical connection in those ideas.

[north]

further again;

to be able to detect ALL these Hundreds of particles would also give a sense of direction to the Universe

by understanding where all these particles originate from , we can learn alot , such as , are they pervasive? , or is there some reason that they are drawn together at some particular point in space , in the Universe ?

[north]

therefore because particles are finite in size , in terms of Quantum particles , the Universe , the Big-Bang , did not start from an infinite point

Again, I fail to see the logical connection in those ideas.

because there are particles envolved , particles manifest real soild substance , hence particles , there has been NO fifth state of matter , pre-particle , detected

particles are finite point

[Strange]

because there are particles envolved , particles manifest real soild substance , hence particles , there has been NO fifth state of matter , pre-particle , detected



therefore you cannot

I'm sorry. That makes absolutely no sense. Do you want to try again, in full sentences, maybe?

[north]

I'm sorry. That makes absolutely no sense. Do you want to try again, in full sentences, maybe?

inotherwords inorder to get an infinite point, to the minute , you have to have the property of being non-particle , a liquid of sorts

and so far all we have across are particles , which have size limits

[Strange]

inotherwords inorder to get an infinite point, to the minute , you have to have the property of being non-particle , a liquid of sorts

and so far all we have across are particles , which have size limits

But, no one has said there was an infinitely small (assuming that is what you mean) point. And so the argument is irrelevant.

[north]

But, no one has said there was an infinitely small (assuming that is what you mean) point. And so the argument is irrelevant.

so your trying to tell me that NOBODY has suggested this idea....... REALLY !!! , I MEAN REALLY !!! common

[Shaula]

The theory isn't generally taken to imply that there really was a single infinitely dense point. The infinities mean that the model breaks down at this point and that we need to come up with something better that explains the earlier time steps but still agrees with current evidence gathered.

[Shaula]

so your trying to tell me that NOBODY has suggested this idea....... REALLY !!! , I MEAN REALLY !!! common

People may have said but they'd be wrong. As I said, they are pushing the theory beyond its bounds of applicability.

Also why does an infinitely dense point have to be a liquid?

[north]

The theory isn't generally taken to imply that there really was a single infinitely dense point. The infinities mean that the model breaks down at this point and that we need to come up with something better that explains the earlier time steps but still agrees with current evidence gathered.

the infinties are going towards the very small though because of gravity , hence the dense point

[korjik]

inotherwords inorder to get an infinite point, to the minute , you have to have the property of being non-particle , a liquid of sorts

and so far all we have across are particles , which have size limits

Current theory does think that there will be different states of matter/energy when you are in the first instant of the universe. Hasnt been detected yet cause the energy required to detect it is more that all of humanity has ever generated.

[korjik]

the infinties are going towards the very small though because of gravity , hence the dense point

'infinitely dense point' and 'infintesimally small point' are two very different things. This former does not require the latter.

[north]

'infinitely dense point' and 'infintesimally small point' are two very different things. This former does not require the latter.

sure , the first is based on substance , the second is mathematical based

[Shaula]

the infinties are going towards the very small though because of gravity , hence the dense point

Where does gravity come into the first moments of the big bang? There is a chance it didn't even exist as a separate force that far back.

[north]

Where does gravity come into the first moments of the big bang? There is a chance it didn't even exist as a separate force that far back.

perhaps , but somehow all the known ( hundereds ) particles were all brought together to bring us this Universe as it is

[Strange]

perhaps , but somehow all the known ( hundereds ) particles were all brought together to bring us this Universe as it is

Subatomic particles are not immutable solid "lumps". They can be transformed into one another and into energy. At these earliest times, as Korjik says, they wouldn't have been in the forms we recognise now.

[north]

Subatomic particles are not immutable solid "lumps". They can be transformed into one another and into energy. At these earliest times, as Korjik says, they wouldn't have been in the forms we recognise now.

I disagree

a quark is a quark

[Shaula]

perhaps , but somehow all the known ( hundereds ) particles were all brought together to bring us this Universe as it is

What does this even mean? Are you talking about the Big Bang assembling the laws of nature? Or do you think that it was a Big Crunch first?

There are 6 leptons, 6 quarks and 4 guage bosons in the SM. Even including antiparticles that is 28 particles. Not hundreds. The rest are composites.

And quarks can anihilate to energy, can change flavour or decay, A quark is not a quark for ever. We see this all around us. Why do you think particles with strangeness, charm, truth and beauty had to be made in particle accelerators?

[north]

What does this even mean? Are you talking about the Big Bang assembling the laws of nature? Or do you think that it was a Big Crunch first?

There are 6 leptons, 6 quarks and 4 guage bosons in the SM. Even including antiparticles that is 28 particles. Not hundreds. The rest are composites.

And quarks can anihilate to energy, can change flavour or decay, A quark is not a quark for ever. We see this all around us. Why do you think particles with strangeness, charm, truth and beauty had to be made in particle accelerators?

ALL particles are composites

my point is this , the essence of what makes a quark a quark , never changes

inotherwords , to put another-way , a tree can never be concrete , because of , both , of their structutre differences

[Strange]

ALL particles are composites

Reallly? What do you base that on?

my point is this , the essence of what makes a quark a quark , never changes

What is that essential quarkness? And what has it got to do with the big bang?

[north]

Reallly? What do you base that on?

by all the energy and matter in this Universe

What is that essential quarkness? And what has it got to do with the big bang?

what-ever particles it takes to form a quark

as I said , BB is particle based , therefore cannot reach , infinite density

[Shaula]

The 28 I mentioned are thought to be fundamental - not composites. There is no accepted theory of what they are made of.

Once again you mention this infinite density. Current physics breaks down before we get to that point. You cannot disprove the Big Bang through overextrapolation.

Can you clearly state, for idiots like me, what you are proposing here. That the Big Bang sprang from a 'primordial atom'? That it never happened? That quark-antiquark anihilation doesn't happen? That there is some sort of fundamental particle zoo we haven't got down to?

[nokton]

Lets just dwell for a while on our current understanding of a black hole, theories abound, a singularity surrounded by an event horizon,
Lets get real here, we are told to believe that, to us, a concept space ship at the event horizon would not move, but to the crew, they would.
So something is there, and not there, at the same time.
Point is, if a super super massive black hole reached a critical point, with all the mass contained, reversed its condition, and made a big bang......

[korjik]

ALL particles are composites

Wrong. The particles Shaula mentions are not composites.

my point is this , the essence of what makes a quark a quark , never changes

Wrong. When you get above the energy levels where the strong force splits off of electroweak, the distinctions between the known quarks becomes meaningless.

inotherwords , to put another-way , a tree can never be concrete , because of , both , of their structutre differences

Meaningless statement. trees and concrete are different compositions. fundamental particles have no composition

[north]

The 28 I mentioned are thought to be fundamental - not composites. There is no accepted theory of what they are made of.

fine

Once again you mention this infinite density. Current physics breaks down before we get to that point. You cannot disprove the Big Bang through overextrapolation.

yes I did , and thats my point , current physics of course does break down at that point because it is trying to break down a particle , into , a size that it cannot be broken into , my fifth state of matter ( NOT DIMENSION ) a plasma state , a fluidic state of substance

Can you clearly state, for idiots like me, what you are proposing here.

That the Big Bang sprang from a 'primordial atom'?

no , primordial particles

That it never happened?

maybe

That quark-antiquark anihilation doesn't happen?

and this is relevent because ....

That there is some sort of fundamental particle zoo we haven't got down to?

perhaps

actually more so , that we cannot detect any of the particles that have been found by accelerators , out in the Universe

[Garrison]

fine



yes I did , and thats my point , current physics of course does break down at that point because it is trying to break down a particle , into , a size that it cannot be broken into , my fifth state of matter ( NOT DIMENSION ) a plasma state , a fluidic state of substance







no , primordial particles


maybe and this is relevent because ....





perhaps

actually more so , that we cannot detect any of the particles that have been found by accelerators , out in the Universe

Sorry but where do you think the particle accelerators are if not 'out in the universe? Are you proposing that physics is somehow different elsewhere in the Universe? And please state clearly what your theory is and your evidence to support it because perhaps and maybe aren't really very helpful here.

[north]

there two consequenes to my very last statement

1) every particle that has been found is present in our Universe but has not been found as of yet

OR

2) that the particles that fundamntally make up the particles we do know came from beyond the boundries of our space in this Universe

[baric]

by all the energy and matter in this Universe








what-ever particles it takes to form a quark

as I said , BB is particle based , therefore cannot reach , infinite density

OK, it seems to me that you are saying that all particles are ultimately composed of the same substance, perhaps like the different elements are ultimately composed of protons, neutrons and electrons.

And also that this substance is non-compressible.. i.e. it has a fixed density. Therefore, since the the universe at the time of the big bang was of infinite density, it could not have been composed of the base substance used to make particles -- since that has a finite density.

The conclusion then is that there is an additional, undiscovered state of matter, which you are comparing loosely to a fluid, that the universe must have been in when it was at a point of infinite density.

Is that the general thrust of what you are saying?