|
This is getting off-topic, but I'll respond to some of the quark stuff anyways.
Under current ideas, quarks cannot be split. I think you are referring to separating one quark from another. Our best theories say that this can't be done. It is understood, though, that those ideas break down long before you could throw the "energy of the big bang" into the problem. So if that's what you read, the author just made it up. It makes no sense at all on many levels.
I'm not sure why you think gluons are less "real" than quarks. Neither is observed directly. Yet both of them have consequences that have been confirmed many times over by now. The point I was trying to make in my previous post was that these things are just labels of specific mathematical objects in a specific theory. To say that there is evidence for quarks means that we have confirmed the consequences of a certain theory which contains mathematical objects Gell-Mann decided to call quarks (the ideas have evolved a bit since then without changing names, but my point is the same). Add more interpretation at your own risk.
Gravitons, by the way, are not a part of any accepted theory of physics. They are a hypothesis made by analogy with the other forces (even though gravity is very very different). String theory has them, but that is very far from being a coherent set of ideas, yet alone an accepted one.
|