Nope.  Next big step protons.    

BTW mass & weight two separate things.  

Rick Seddon

-----Original Message-----
From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of P
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 7:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: physically off topic

Small indeed the primitive particle was, but what would its mass or weight have been, esp. once the h.b. did its thing? Might it have been macro?
With ignorance fully on display,

Richard Seddon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Apologies for belaboring the subject but the universe weren't very "macro" at the big bang.  The point of the CERN experiments is to discover a very fundamental particle of matter, the Higgs boson, predicted by the "standard model" of physics.  In fact it is the Higgs boson which is thought to give matter its "matterness".  The connection to Big Bang is that at the moment the universe started and for an extremely short time afterwards (the Big Bang) all that existed were the most fundamental particles of what was to become "matter".   The universe wasn't very "macro" at this time.  Expansion had not occurred.  Those particles are now bound into the matter/energy that is today's "macro" universe. 
>If you are at all interested there is a very recent popularization (mathless) of cosmological theory,  "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence M Krauss which discusses in some detail how the universe might have gotten to the big bang.  He is of the "anti-God" faith so may be offensive to some.
>Rick Seddon
>Portales, NM