There is four state of matter exists in nature; solid, liquid, gas and plasma. The origin of everything is Big bang; I need to know which state of matter exists first in the universe.
I am quoting from Steven Weinberg's book the first three minutes,
"At about one-hundredth of a second, the earliest time about which we can speak with any confidence, the temperature of the universe was about a hundred thousand million (1011) degrees Centigrade. This is much hotter than in the centre of even the hottest star, so hot, in fact, that none of the components of ordinary matter, molecules, or atoms, or even the nuclei of atoms, could have held together. Instead, the matter rushing apart in this explosion consisted of various types of the so-called elementary particles, which are the subject of modem high-energy nuclear physics."
The answer to your question therefore is "none of these". In the beginning there were just elementary particles and their antiparticles. But it is possible to formulate certain theories of baryogenesis. These theories explain how abundance of matter started to dominate over than of anti matter and how stable particles (which are seen today) such as the proton were formed.
I am quoting from Steven Weinberg's book the first three minutes,
"At about one-hundredth of a second, the earliest time about which we can speak with any confidence, the temperature of the universe was about a hundred thousand million (1011) degrees Centigrade. This is much hotter than in the centre of even the hottest star, so hot, in fact, that none of the components of ordinary matter, molecules, or atoms, or even the nuclei of atoms, could have held together. Instead, the matter rushing apart in this explosion consisted of various types of the so-called elementary particles, which are the subject of modem high-energy nuclear physics."
The answer to your question therefore is "none of these". In the beginning there were just elementary particles and their antiparticles. But it is possible to formulate certain theories of baryogenesis. These theories explain how abundance of matter started to dominate over than of anti matter and how stable particles (which are seen today) such as the proton were formed.
Wanessa,
You are mistaken. Gas is formed by atoms, but atoms could not have existed at the BigBang.
Wanessa Paiva,
What you called gas becomes plasma at very high temperatures, which is the case of the very early universe.
Atoms are electrons orbiting nuclei, and gas is hot atoms.
Plasma are free electrons, photons and unstable particles.
Wanessa, as the universe expanded, it also cooled, so the plasma came first and it cooled into gas later. That change happened when it was about 378,000 years old.
The answer to the original question is, as far as we know, what is called "quark-gluon plasma". As that cooled, it would first become "normal" plasma and later become gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark%E2%80%93gluon_plasma
“Dark energy does not exist” Adrian Ferent
I explained: Big Bang and Big Crunch oscillation, from Ferent wall.
Einstein's theory of gravitation is wrong and my theory explains the cosmic acceleration.
God is eternal.
Wrong 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, no Dark energy!
“Our Milky Way galaxy will be absorbed by a supermassive black hole from Ferent universe” Adrian Ferent
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310163469_Dark_energy_does_not_exist
Article Dark energy does not exist
Thanks for all of them. I really impressed with all your answers and especially thanks to Professor Matts Roos
“…The term for what Steven Weinberg described is plasma…”
- it seems that the term “plasma” isn’t, in certain sense, relevant to the Matter’s state at Beginning, since usually this term is applied to “ordinary” matter; and so, seems, Weinberg doesn’t use it in his book; though that isn't, of course, a principal point.
At that it isn’t evident that just at Beginning the created stuff was so hot as Weinberg writes. It seems as rational to suggest that the primary Matter consisted of cool primary Planck mass particles, which are fundamentally neutral particles and so logically Matter yet at Beginning “was made” from matter only, i.e. practically without antimatter. Further Planck mass particles interactions [with releasing at every interaction energy ~ 1019 BeV] resulted in appearance of “usual”, i.e. observed now fundamental elementary particles, baryons, electrons, photons, etc. This soup of “usual particles” indeed turned out to be rather hot.
More – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494 ; [ concretely in this case -Sec. 3.3 Planck mass particles}
.
Cheers
Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics
With respect to quark gluon plasma, the hottest temperature created in laboratory is only 4 trillion degrees celcius. So any talk about very high temperature at the beginning of the universe is only a speculation. Besides I see one serious problem with such speculations. All our ideas of heat transfer and temperature are based on the property of light particle which is photon. Photon (electromagnetic force) is capable of transfering heat and making the temperature go up and down. But when the electromagnetic force and the weak force unite into electroweak force, the photon no longer exist as an independent particle. And this happens at a comparatively low temperature. Besides there is no experimental evidence that electroweak force or strong force or combined nuclear force can transfer heat. In the absence of the heat transfer, how can there be temperature rise?
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Can-electroweak-force-transfer-heat
So to answer your question, the first thing that came into existence at the beginning of the universe was energy and that is what we see all around us. In following quantum gravity theory, the first particle that appeared as energy are called Savitons having planck energy at planck time.
Article Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology
The forms of state of matter are determined by interactions of forces among particles in the materials system. The interaction summary of the forces can be considered as actions of the opposite forces. On the one side, these forces are repulsive forces (F), on the other side, these are attractive forces (P) among the particles in the materials system. The forms of state of matter correlate with the value of the |F|/|P| ratio in the universe. When the value of |F|/|P| is changing from 0 to ∞, the forms of state of matter are transforming in the following order: “Super-black-hole”, “Black-hole”, “Hyperon”, “Neutron”, “Super-solid”, “Solid”, “Liquid”, “Gas”, “Plasma”, and “Super-plasma”. In the beginning of the universe the value of |F|/|P| is very high (close to ∞). Therefore, at this condition, matter exists mostly in form of “Super-plasma” state as elementary particles. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265412193_Forms_of_State_of_Matter
Technical Report Forms of State of Matter
Attention Please, You all suggest that Plasma is the first element exit but the periodic table is start with Hydrogen atom. so it can't lose the electron anyway but helium formed by the fusion process (gaining an electron). I mean the first element is not plasma.
Plasma isn't an element. A hydrogen atom is one proton and one electron bound together. To separate them requires 13.6eV which can be reached with temperatures around 10,000K. Helium is more tightly bound but higher temperatures produce the same effect. Plasma is a state of matter in which the the electrons and nuclei move freely so is the state at all temperatures above a few tens of thousands of degrees.
A similar effect occurs at a much higher temperature when protons and neutrons break down into free quarks and gluons, that is called a quark-gluon plasma and that is what was the earliest form of matter.
Hi,
As I understand Your question relates to visible matter. Cosmologists speculate also about Dark Matter and Dark Energy – what ever the latter two might be. In my Math, see the project, which now is in progress, a speculative answer to Your question is given that first the Universe was inflated by Dark Matter. Therefore, in answering your question we must know in which phase form the Dark Matter evolution might taken place. We do not know what are the courses of gravity distortions called “dark matter” at all.
Best, JM
Starting from the point that our Universe is now a huge black hole (according to Schwarzschild radius) and believing that this is not again a strange coincidence (...), I suggest that BB was nothing more than a singularity of the horizon. The quantum mass of Universe's "at the very first moment" did not differ from the vacuum density, and its energy (temperature) might not be as high as we think. Black holes(BHs) were the usual form of "matter" because c (light velocity) was very small at the beginning, and hence the radius required for a given mass to form BH was considerable large.
At the beginning( of UNIVERSE) nobody knows ! but it's sure that plasmas has more than four states ! and if we hope responses we havec to modify our formalism in quantum physics and consider TIME as state of plasma with uma constituted by bricks of memories- the mass is -64 uma(minus)- time has a weight ! crazy !!!!there fore time is not duration but physicall entity, we wrote this twenty years ago 1997, the same for TIME CRYSTAL ! so you could explain a lot of "mysteries" black- white hole nano holes , dark matter and so on... we are looking for mathematicians in order to pursue the job with the correct formalism (MATRIX MECHANICS ) ....also built the experiment to demonstrate the theory All the best Christian
www.GlycanSpaceXR-Agency.com
“…I believe time is a human construct and in fact is, from a purely scientific standpoint, non-existent ….. There is no physical particle that corresponds to time. …..”, etc.
What are the fundamental physical phenomena “Space” and “Time” [and “Energy”, “Inertia”, etc. as well ] can be, and are, properly understandable and defined only in the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute
DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904.
The absolutely fundamental Rule/Possibility “Time”, and the absolutely fundamental Rule/Possibility “Space”, are elements of the “Logos” Set, and they exist absolutely really, since are absolutely necessary for any informational pattern/system could exist at all (Space), and, at that, to change (Time), any changing pattern’system exists and changes only in some spacetime.
The human construct that space and time are real is scientific, the constructs where space and/or time are claimed as illusion(s) is antiscientific.
More about Space and Time [as some comment to the link above, of course] see, for example, SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_dimension_relate_to_cosmogenesis
The informational system Matter’s spacetime is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian “empty container” with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct); where particles are some close-loop algorithms, so are some 4D gyroscopes, which move in the 4D sub-spacetime (cτ,X,Y,Z) with 4D speeds of light.
Including
“…The idea that a positron is an electron moving backwards in time (i.e, backwards time travel) grew out of the collaboration between Feynman and Wheeler.….”
the Feynman–Stueckelberg ad hoc idea that antiparticles move backwards in time, which turns out to be experimentally adequate to the reality, indeed is adequate; antiparticles indeed move only backwards in the “coordinate time”, i.e. cτ-time in the sub-spacetime above; particles move in positive direction in this dimension.
However all, particles and antiparticles, move only in one direction in the “true time”, ct, in the true time any “travels in time” are impossible.
Returning to this thread question – see the SS post above (2 years ago now), one mouse click on the “Show previous answers”.
Cheers
The last SS post in the thread
https://www.researchgate.net/post/what_is_the_most_important_problem_in_the_theoretical_physics_now#view=5ca36014979fdc70ec0419fc
is relevant to this thread.
Cheers
The two last SS posts in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_physics_of_dark_energy_the_same_as_the_physics_of_the_big_bang#view=5ca74148a5a2e23be41fecac
seems as are relevant to this thread.
Cheers
I think all the three states of matter. As for plasma, it is not yet scientifically proven to be a state of matter.
- Badges
- Science topic