big bang and quarks

[kurious]

If Christoph Schiller is right about the maximum force in nature being 10^ 45 Newtons (c^4 / 4G) then if quarks have
a radius and are not point like this would mean (assuming a quark is spherical and
made of partial electric charges on the surface of the sphere) that the minimum size a quark can become
is given by:
k q^2/ r^2 = 10^ 45
i.e radius of quark = 10^ - 37 metres.
I have not used quantum field theory because I do not think
it applies to forces between the partial charges of a quark sphere.
The minimum radius of the universe at the time of the Big Bang would then be
10^26 x 10^ - 37 = 10 ^ - 11 metres.
(10^26 because I am assuming a density of 1 quark per cubic metre in the
current universe where there are 10^ 78 quarks).
Quarks with a finite radius overcome the problem of a singularity in relativity!

[chroot]

Admin note: Stop posting your personal theories in the general physics forums.

- Warren

[Antonio Lao]

kurious, your minimum length is too big. The currently meaningful length is the Planck length which is

10^{-33} cm

This is determined by the relative sizes of the constant of gravity, the speed of light and Planck's constant.

[kurious]

The Planck length is only the point at which gravity is not expected to obey general relativity (as it is currently formulated).But my bigger length means that the universe was hotter than expected at 10^-11 metres and so presumably we would expect the microwave background to be hotter now - by a factor of 10^72 ( one volume divided by the other) What happened to all that heat? Did the energy become vacuum particles? 10^72 x mass equivalent of cosmic microwave background gives 10^124 kg
This is 10^141 Joules!!10^21 times more energy than an often quoted figure of 10^120 Joules.This could mean that the original maximum force should have been 10^31 Newtons and not 10^45.

[Antonio Lao]

I need to look up something before I give my reply.