How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang?

Arghhh What do you need to add to the ocean to get waves? Energy! Does this mean that waves are made of energy? No! Ocean without waves, and ocean with waves are both just made of the ocean.Energy can excite a matter field from a ground state (no matter) to a higher level state (matter). But both 'no matter' and 'matter' are the same thing: different states of the matter field.

Nice essay, with just a couple of red-ink requirements I think you mean charge, rather than spin. Quarks are spin 1/2, as are protons and neutrons. But their charges are -2/3, -1/3, 1/3, 2/3, where-as protons are +1 (and -1 for the anti-proton) and 0 for the neutrons. Hmmm, I smell layman-ese bullshit Where does this idea come from? The Higgs simply gives particles effective non-zero rest-mass. It doesn't generate gravity, or any of that other crap that gets thrown around. The gravitational mass of an astronomical body is 99.9% binding energy, and only 0.1% rest mass!

That's actually all fine. Spin 1/2's can be combined into Spin 1, as happens in this case. But the Spin 1 is an entire nucleus, and is made up of the Spin 1/2 nucleons. You were refering to quarks making up nucleons, in which case all are spin 1/2. We also don't use the word fractional to refer to spin 1/2 - it is usually reserved for talking about the fractional electric charges of the quarks. No, the spins are fine - the proton is 1/2 1/2 1/2, the neutron is 1/2 1/2 1/2, and the electron and neutrino are both 1/2. So it all works, and you can think of it that way. No. The Universe expands fine on its own without any need of an inflaton field. Inflation merely gives us the initial super expansion that explains away all the usual problems. Not quite to that extreme - but it was certainly considered. They are both scalar fields, but they don't behave in same way if they are to represent reality, which is always useful if not totally necessary in our game I'll try to get back to flesh out the other stuff later.

No, definitely not. That's like saying a compressed spring is a form of energy. Matter is a field, and a field is not energy. You can use energy to compress a spring, but it remains a spring. And you can use energy to excite a matter field so that you see a matter particle, but it remains a matter field. Of course not, but you wouldn't want me to sit idly by and watch layman language dominate when EvC can do so much beter, now would you? I think this is worth a thread of its own as I've probably been far too vague in the past on this subject. It will also help with "something from nothing" bullshit...

Possibly, but the question is certainly not settled. Oh yes it is In fact, the classic big bang cosmology, before all this accelerating expansion confusion was known, had three classic variants, two of which were infinite.

It's a deep and complex topic so really deserves a thread of its own. Why not propose one, and I'll join in. I was thinking of starting a thread on 'what is matter and energy?', but that may well be best placed in your thread.BTW, this thread is about what came out of the Big Bang, not what may or may not have gone into it

No. I am saying that matter is a field and that means that matter is not also stored energy. Not any that I would have recommended to my students. No, it is not. But you are free to be mistaken if that is your wish. Yes, it is. And it demonstrates rather nicely why you are mistaken. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

when teaching postgrads quantum gravity in the world's leading theoretical physics department, what standardisations do you think I should have used?Now, stop talking parrotting crap, stick around, and you may just learn something.

Very true, you cannot destroy mass; but... There is mass in that there heat, so when that heat dissipates, you're total mass will be less. Exactly as in nuclear reactions. You are releasing binding energy (chemical bonds or nuclear bonds) and that energy counts for some of the mass. There is nothing magically mass-into-energy about nuclear energy; no more so than burning coal.

why, you seem to think you know it all. Think I'll just leave you stupid; you're funnier that way.

Agh, you can't turn matter into energy. We've got a whole thread on it going on!ABE: to elucidate - we can turn two particles of matter (electron + positron) in to two particles that aren't matter (two photons), but we still have two particles - two field excitations. The initial particle pair (e-/e+) contain exactly the same energy as the final particle pair (photons). But we have still just turned particles into particles. Though we certainly have "destroyed" the matter No, mass is a measure of energy. Chemical binding energy has the same mass as the heat it becomes.ABE: stop me if I'm getting too anal Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Sorry Meldinoor, I jumped in too late. Looks like you had it all under control Your last paragraph goes a little wayward, but the rest is close to spot on.Just read my post on the similarity between chemical and nuclear, and make sure you keep your distinction between matter (field excitation) and mass (measure of energy).Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Incorrect. Our current understanding has a unified picture of matter, forces, gravity, space-time, and energy. So you may well be justified in claiming that "it's not really clear what reality is", but to single out matter is just ill-informed. Ditto. It sounds as if you think our current understanding is at the level of layman explanations... At the level of this discussion, there is almost complete agreement - between physicists who actually understand this particularly narrow field. Who cares what physicists outside this field think? No, we are talking about mathematical physics. No, this is layman bullshit once again trying to sound authoratative.

You don't. You associate energy and mass. Mass measures how much energy there is in a particular volume of space. The mass of a proton is made up of the rest-mass of the quarks (tiny) plus the mass of the binding energy between the quarks (huge in comparison).

Actually, it says everything - that is the bizarre revelation of fundemental physics, and marks the boundary between the classical physics of "stuff" with properties, and the modern realisation that there is no "stuff". You are confusing our existing discussion with that of quantum mechanical interpretation. Although that is an interesting topic, once you get away from the sloppy layman terminology, it is largely irrelevant for our discussion here as it actually sits at a higher level.When I say electron, I mean a one-electron state. I don't care that you are upset that this could be interpreted as a matter wave, localised particle, or whatever. Which of these all depends upon the environmental conditions of which you, as an observer, are part. Hmm, what is this "nature" and what is the "entity"? And do these characteristics enter into our observations? If I have a set of quantum numbers describing an electron state, then what am I missing? "the nature of matter"... at this level we try to be a little more precise with our language. What do *YOU* mean by matter? Who would be stupid enough to claim that there is no "matter" prior to a measurement??? Again, you don't understand the terms you are using.