3 ms·

We know that the force carrying particles of all forces have a frequency, just like any other particle. That means that if particles on average move faster than

We know that the force carrying particles of all forces have a frequency, just like any other particle. That means that if particles on average move faster than, say, double that frequency, they can't exist. So there must have been a time when electromagnetism, the weak and even the strong force just didn't exist. They couldn't. So particles would just have totally ignored those forces. We don't know if gravity is the same, but ... why wouldn't it. Though of course according to relativity gravity just wouldn't care, but that just raises a lot more questions than it answers.

addaon 3y ago
> particles on average move faster than, say, double that frequency What does it mean to compare ("faster") a velocity and a frequency (inverse time)?
- candiodari 3y ago
  I don't think there's a good answer to this question, at least not when it comes to the nature of particles and light, because we don't have a good answer to what movement and time are. We already know both light and particles are you moving relative to fields. Light is you moving relative to an electromagnetic field. If you move towards a magnetic field you would find it starts "glowing", in fact, that is what light is. But it's not like a magnetic field reacts to you because you start moving. The issue is that movement and time are fundamental to the universe, yes, in the way relativity describes but also in a totally different unknown way. In some ways particles are "just" things moving relative to one another. Which, for one thing, brings the perspective question (if you accelerated to a "real" speed, would you see a different universe? Because you would disagree with us slowpokes here on earth on what particles exist at least in some cases. But would you see an entirely different universe?)
  - malux85 3y ago
    This is a really interesting answer, the “light and particles are you moving relative to fields” would make a great blog post
mensetmanusman 3y ago
If the energy density was too high to allow for quarks to exist, maybe there were no strong forces present.

addaon 3y ago

> particles on average move faster than, say, double that frequency What does it mean to compare ("faster") a velocity and a frequency (inverse time)?

candiodari 3y ago
I don't think there's a good answer to this question, at least not when it comes to the nature of particles and light, because we don't have a good answer to what movement and time are. We already know both light and particles are you moving relative to fields. Light is you moving relative to an electromagnetic field. If you move towards a magnetic field you would find it starts "glowing", in fact, that is what light is. But it's not like a magnetic field reacts to you because you start moving. The issue is that movement and time are fundamental to the universe, yes, in the way relativity describes but also in a totally different unknown way. In some ways particles are "just" things moving relative to one another. Which, for one thing, brings the perspective question (if you accelerated to a "real" speed, would you see a different universe? Because you would disagree with us slowpokes here on earth on what particles exist at least in some cases. But would you see an entirely different universe?)
- malux85 3y ago
  This is a really interesting answer, the “light and particles are you moving relative to fields” would make a great blog post

mensetmanusman 3y ago

If the energy density was too high to allow for quarks to exist, maybe there were no strong forces present.