Guest123456

14 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Also keep in mind we can only extrapolate our Observable universe portion. The original singularity we have no way of knowing if it is finite or infinite. We only know the portion of shared causality at 10−43 that leads to our observable universe was an extremely hot dense state smaller than an atom but that is only our observable portion in the past not the entirety of the universe. Which could be finite or infinite. A finite cannot become infinite nor the reverse. So if it's infinite now then it's infinite in the past. ( In volume portionality) which is different than mathematical singularities where the math no longer accurately describes it.

Actualy, thats kind of the question and the answer i was looking for. And what I had in mind writing in this forum. "If it turns out that it is infinite that means it was infinite in the past." 

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

What does "infinite in reverse" mean?

The idea that the universe is expanding and that it started as a dense point go together, and were both proposed by the same person. After all, if it expanding, then it must have been smaller and denser in the past. Lemaitre, who first came up with the idea, called this initial hot, dense state "the cosmic egg"!

Sry for my small vocabulary. 

Infinite means there is no end, so why cant it be that there was no begining(the cosmic egg)? 

I do know that what happens when particals ar compressd ect. For expemle plazma. 

But just what if it was possible, I mean there are still lots to discover about the universe, meybe becouse it was so dense there could be some other reason how it got to that? How it got so dense in the first place("the cosmic egg").That even before the egg another even smaller universe egzisted that ended its end is what we call the big bang?

And seriuosly i do know it sounds ridiculous, there are a lot of other factors i dont know about, mainly cuz i am just kid.

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

To put it another way, all of space has always been full of matter. But in the past, because space was smaller, that matter was hotter and denser.

Thats what i had in my mind, just didnt think to explaint it more.

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

Either because it is infinite or because it "wraps round" 

Thats my point, we are not sure yet, wich is it(we probably wont be for a long time). But in the case thats it is infinite couldnt it be infinite in reverse? 

For exeple, at one point in our history we only knew that the universe was expanding, then came the theory that it started at some dense point we never knew it could be the other way around.

17 minutes ago, Sensei said:

The all modern web browsers have dictionaries which can be installed by user. Wrong words will be highlighted with red underscore to instruct you, that they need attention, to fix them (right mouse click on such word to open list of correct equivalents).

https://www.google.com/search?q=installation+of+english+dictionary+firefox

 

It's not a matter of size, but a matter of energy these particles do have. Particle with bigger rest-mass decays to couple new with smaller rest-masses, and the rest of mass-energy is conserved as kinetic energy of newly created particles. They carry energies corresponding to rest-mass (conservation of momentum). So, if particle decays to two equivalent, like neutral pion meson pi, with rest-mass approximately 135 MeV/c^2, two newly created gamma photons have energies approximately 67.5 MeV (half of mass-energy of pion prior decay).

For the first part of your answer: 

I am on my phone and this is just an idea that popd into my head a few minutes ago. I dont really care how correct it was. I just thought it seemd interesnting and wanted some explanations.

For the second part:

I do see your point. But could it not just split in to smaller photons with even less and less energy?

The universe is allways expanding so based on that we can think that at some point in the past when it hasnt expanded to this point. that it was a one dense point in the space(The big bang theory). And it suggests that it was so dense and high in tempeture that there was nothing in it but particales pressed in to one point. So the theory now is that before the big bang there was nothing. But what if we look at it in a diffrent view?. Not so long ago using the headron colidor there were discoverd new particals, so small that how advenced we are now we cant look inside of them and see what they are made of. So they were called the ellementary particals. But what if we could look even deeper and discover even smaller particeles and so on... So based on that why cant we try imagine that meybe the universe is just like that one elementary partical? And meybe thats why we cant even try and find the edge of the universe. Becouse there isnt one? What if we look at the universe the same, as we look true a microschope into a partical? Meybe at one time our known universe was just a particle to some kind of other particle and so on? Based on this there could be infinet qouestions how small whats smaller whats smaller after that and so on. But we can try and think the other way around whats bigger than solar system whats bigger than a galaxy whats bigger and a univers? Human kind cant explain it cant figure it out, but what if there never was a begining and there never will be an end, just like an infinyti doesnt have a begining or an end?

P.s. sry for the grammatic mistakes. English is not my first language.

I just want an opinion on my thoughts.