The strong force question/proposal

[QuantumT]

Existence, the universe and how nature works, is constantly on my mind. I can't help myself. I just want to learn as much as I possibly can about reality, and I will probably keep wondering about it 'till the day I die.

Sometimes I get an idea, that I've never heard about, and I think 'wow, that makes sense', so I google it to see if it's a well known theory. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not, and sometimes I get nothing. Not even a repudiation. This is one of those. So here goes:

Could most of the heat from the big bang have turned into the strong nuclear force? (The rest would then be the CBR.)

 

Thank you, in advance, for taking time to consider my question.

[MigL]

The strong nuclear force is actually the 'residual' or spill-over, from the color force  of QCD, and which governs the interactions between quarks and is mediated by gluons.
the heat from the Big Bang is a measure of the energy density of the early universe, and as such, can account for particles ( mass ) or energy, but not with forces,

The CMB is accounted for by the expansion of the universe since it became opaque.
The universe has expanded slightly over 3 orders of magnitude, and the temperature of the CMB is 3 orders of magnitude less than the temperature where electrons can't 'stick' to nucleii.

[swansont]

Heat is energy transfer (or, colloquially used, it’s thermal energy), and the strong interaction is essentially a force, described above by MigL. Not the same category.

Furthermore, when nucleons bind to each other, this represents a release of energy. Helium-4, for example, must give up about 28 MeV if formed from free protons and neutrons, and you would need to add that much energy to break it apart.

So your conjecture has an energy creating an energy deficit. Doesn’t work.

 

[QuantumT]

Thank you!

[storyteller]

On 6/12/2021 at 11:58 AM, QuantumT said:

Could most of the heat from the big bang have turned into the strong nuclear force? (The rest would then be the CBR.)

 

 

From what I understand so far about Particle Physics, strong nuclear force is what elementary particles together, such as 3 quarks to form a hadron particle, like a proton or neutron. And as you would know, protons and neutrons make up certain atoms, eg deuterium nuclei, helium nuclei, lithium nuclei, which would have existed before, although hydrogen nuclei don’t have neutron. These atoms with no electrons attached to them (ionized atoms) were formed during the Primordial Nucleosynthesis.

And from what I understand about CMBR in the Big Bang model, the CMBR occurred because electrons bonded with ionized atom nuclei, for the first time, creating electrically neutral atoms, during BB’s Recombination Epoch. The bonding causing the EM radiation, by decoupling photons, as well as leaving heat signatures everywhere in the universe, that we now view as Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

So, I don’t think strong nuclear forces have anything to do with CMBR.

[QuantumT]

11 hours ago, storyteller said:

 

From what I understand so far about Particle Physics, strong nuclear force is what elementary particles together, such as 3 quarks to form a hadron particle, like a proton or neutron. And as you would know, protons and neutrons make up certain atoms, eg deuterium nuclei, helium nuclei, lithium nuclei, which would have existed before, although hydrogen nuclei don’t have neutron. These atoms with no electrons attached to them (ionized atoms) were formed during the Primordial Nucleosynthesis.

And from what I understand about CMBR in the Big Bang model, the CMBR occurred because electrons bonded with ionized atom nuclei, for the first time, creating electrically neutral atoms, during BB’s Recombination Epoch. The bonding causing the EM radiation, by decoupling photons, as well as leaving heat signatures everywhere in the universe, that we now view as Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

So, I don’t think strong nuclear forces have anything to do with CMBR.

I was referring to the split-second after the big bang, when there were only heat, radiation, quarks and electrons. My hypothesis was that the intense heat, present at that moment, turned into gluons. I was wrong. The math don't work. (Although I am not sure it our current math applies to that specific moment.)

But I'm quite sure swansont knows what he's talking about. So I must be wrong.