...... and how were these then able to go on to form atoms?
Again, the question is 'How did elementary particles form? Words like <<Initially, various kinds of subatomic particles are formed in stages>> do not, frankly, cut it.
You were given precise answers. You didn’t specify anything about how how theoretical you wanted the answer, so there was no possible way for us to know that is what you wanted until now.hence the (I thought quite precise) question 'In the beginning how did the elementary particles form?' The 'answers' I have been pointed to seem too theoretical.
The first atoms of hydrogen formed when protons and electrons cooled down enough that they were slow enough that a proton could capture an electron.how were atoms of hydrogen first formed?
I would call myself a practical Physicist, hence the (I thought quite precise) question 'In the beginning how did the elementary particles form?' The 'answers' I have been pointed to seem too theoretical.
heoretical Physicists, bless them, have, IMHO, gone a long way to make Physics obscure for an averagely-intelligent person. I have only ever come across one Physicist - Feynman - who could speak to the masses in a way they could understand.
Perhaps I can ask the question again, slightly differently; how were atoms of hydrogen first formed? Maybe someone could just slip in a statement about how protons and electrons were formed before hydrogen atoms.
You didn’t specify anything about how how theoretical you wanted the answer, so there was no possible way for us to know that is what you wanted until now.
Theoretical Physicists, bless them, have, IMHO, gone a long way to make Physics obscure for an averagely-intelligent person. I have only ever come across one Physicist - Feynman - who could speak to the masses in a way they could understand.
To the contrary! Theoretical physics is concerned with making physics simpler and easier to understand than a collection of empirical facts. You are right when you say that theoretical physics cannot be described by words, because the adequate language is mathematics, and accepting this and learning the actual mathematics you need to do modern physics provides great intuition about things far beyond our everyday experience, extending it into the realm of the very small (down to sub-atomic particle scales and up to huge scales of the entire universe).Theoretical physics IS obscure, counter intuitive and can’t be described in words, as a physics graduate from your 1966 finals, how many of you exam questions/answers were answered in words?
For QM and GR?
Pretty tough describing general relativity in words only and it the attempts I have read were entirely unsatisfying.
“Space tell mass how to move and mass tells space how to bend.” Does that really tell you anything?
Lots of wordy descriptions for the layman on virtual particles that turn out to be wrong because the words just don’t cut it.
Richard Feynman who you said was an exception described the atom like this, (paraphrase) “It is not like a star with orbiting planets it is not like a cloud of electrons encircling the nucleus it is like nothing you can imagine.”
I think that is a pretty unsatisfying explanation of something. What something isn’t.
Where the science/data/research stops (like at T=0) the perfectly good answer is, from what I have read on PF is “We don’t know.” (I am not one of the "we")
Or “We don’t know yet.” (I prefer that one)
Baryons are subatomic particles such as protons and neutrons, that are composed of three quarks. It would be expected that both baryons, and particles known as antibaryons would have formed in equal numbers. However, this does not seem to be what happened – as far as we know, the universe was left with far more baryons than antibaryons. Almost no antibaryons are observed in nature. Any explanation for this phenomenon must allow the Sakharov conditions to be satisfied at some time after the end of cosmological inflation. While particle physics suggests asymmetries under which these conditions are met, these asymmetries are too small empirically to account for the observed baryon-antibaryon asymmetry of the universe.