Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Big bang and quarks

  1. Apr 21, 2004 #1
    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!
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 21, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

    - Warren
  4. Apr 21, 2004 #3
    kurious, your minimum length is too big. The currently meaningful length is the Planck length which is

    [tex] 10^{-33} [/tex] cm

    This is determined by the relative sizes of the constant of gravity, the speed of light and Planck's constant.
  5. Apr 21, 2004 #4
    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.
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2004
  6. Apr 21, 2004 #5
    I need to look up something before I give my reply.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook