For example, all protons are alike, all electrons are alike, all neutrons, all quarks, etc...  You'd think in the Big Bang you would just get an immense amount of chaotic pieces of matter and energy - not such uniformity at the subatomic level.
200889
Good question. There really is no good answer except to say that the basic equations of physics have a lot of symmetry. To get that symmetry requires there to be only a handfull of truly elementary particles. The Big Bang has nothing to do with this. It wasn't an explosion in the conventional sense and didn't 'break up' matter into the fundamental particles. It's more like the fundamental particles 'condensed' out of the vacuum.
518642
The electrons of an atom are arranged in shells. These shells can be completely filled or only partly. The  elements in the same period have the same number of completely filled or closed shells.
643525
OK.  There was a discrepancy in the atomic mass of elements.  We have electrons, which have insignificant mass, and an equal number of protons (to make the atom neutral), but the atomic mass exceeds the sum of the masses of the protons + electrons.  So we hypothesize that there is another particle in the atom which has atomic mass roughly the same as a proton but no charge.\nIt makes sense that this particle is in the nucleus.\nBUT, we can't use magnetic properties to isolate this particle.  And an atom is pretty much indivisible.  So we must actually strip off the electrons AND the protons to isolate neutrons.  That's not easy.
554122
The basic building block of matter, and the foundation for modern theories of matter and the universe. Quarks combine with gluons to make the protons and neutrons that make up every atom in the universe.
430961
There are only about 100 kinds of atoms in all the Universe, and whether these atoms form trees or tyres, ashes or animals, water or the air we breath, depends on how they are put together. The same atoms are used again and again. Structure determines not only the appearance of materials, but also their properties. \n\nOur universe consists of all known mass, energy, space, and time. Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity. The science called cosmology studies and hypothesizes on how the universe has evolved from singularity to its present as well as possible future states. The dominant theory of universal evolution goes by the familiar name of big bang (or big bang cosmology). At its simplest the big bang refers to a explosive expansion of the entire universe, starting from singularity and continuing to today. Thus, the big bang encompasses all of the events in our universe that have occurred subsequent to singularity. Particularly, all of the energy and mass in our universe was formed within and subsequent to singularity. Every atom that ever was and every atom that ever will be (such as those in our bodies) was created in the course of the big bang.
103058
All the protons and neutrons are not bound equally strongly to the nucleus.\nI don't think the second or third law of thermodynamics are  involved. It is only a matter of binding energy and E=mc2.
661018
Don't know who told you that "atoms only consist of energy", but in general, that's nonsense. Atoms consist of electrons and the nucleus (protons and neutrons, which again are made up from quarks), and these particles have a well defined rest mass. Einsteins theory of relativity is well proved and gives us the famous equation E=mc^2 for the energy equivalence of a rest mass, *which does not mean that energy and mass are the same*. It just means that you can transform energy and mass into each other and are equivalent in a certain (relativistic) way.\n\nSo if you want to make a fool out of yourself: Go ahead and try to disproof Einstein, like thousands of fools have tried before. If you're really interested in physics, go and get some good books about the basics, and you're welcome to come back with some more serious questions.
101817
its the same as why does gravity not apply in the subatomic...when we know the answer a new dawning in science will amaze the world...
323847
First of all: God doesn't exist so that explanation is out.\n\nHydrogen was not the only element that existed right after the big bang.  The universe was 75% Hydrogen and 25% Helium with trace amounts of what astrophysicists call 'metals' (which in astrophysics means anything other than Hydrogen or Helium and so rather confusingly includes such things as Oxygen and Nitrogen).\n\nThe rest were created by nuclear fusion reactions inside stars until Iron because a net energy gain is possible when fusing anything lighter than Iron.  Those heavier than Iron were created in supernova when the energy of the Iron core of a really massive star collasping into a Neutron Star allowed for Iron to be fused and some of the heavier stuff (includings things even heavier than Uranium) were expelled and ended up becoming part of our planet.\n\nThat is why there are 90 naturally occuring elements on Earth (not 92, there are two elements lighter than Uranium which don't occur naturally on Earth).
428123
it is very simple, the shells, subshells actually represent energy levels in the atoms. it is just like big building having different storeys and them again the rooms. You can compare storeys as shells, and individual apartments as subshells and the rooms in each apartment as orbitals where we the electrons are revolving
14433
emilyrose gave a very thoughtful answer. \n\nReality on a small scale is quite a bit different than what we experience on our scale (the so-called "macroscopic scale"). I might make a few comments:\n\n1. Not only do the electrons in an atom have some wavelike properties, but the nucleus of an atom does as well. \n\n2. A "vacuum" is actually not really empty space, but a seething mass of virtual particles appearing and disappearing a very short time later (the Casimir effect is a strange force that is evidence for this mysterious force).
178265
Subatomic particles are under the influence of totally different forces than the large objects that are affected by gravity, etc.  The forces affecting subatomic particles act ONLY under extremely short distances and despite the efforts of Einstein and everybody since him, those forces cannot be resolved or integrated with gravity, etc.\n\nIn other words, you are comparing two totally different things: apples and elephants.
4208
I know what you're thinking. Is the solar system a molecule in a vastly larger scaled uber-universe. The answer is no. The physical characteristics of planets ect are different than the physical characteristics of protons ect.
24896
B only seems impossible because you're looking at it from a small, everyday perspective.  Read a book on quantum phenomenon and you'll discover that particles literally appear out of no where everyday, and we take this as completely normal.  The Universe and Everything is far more sophisticated than you're giving it credit for.
459850
If something is spinning around, and breaks apart, then all the parts continue to spin in the same direction.\nWhen the big bang happened, and everything in the universe came together in a tiny tiny space  so compact that the pressure was so great that it exploded. That was the big bang. Okay, the law of the conservation of angular momentum says that everything in that explosion must spin in the same direction. But, it does not. Some galaxies spin opposite from others, Some of the planets in our solar system and their moons spin in different directions. All this means is there was not a big bang. The big bang is a theory, the law of conservation of angular momentum is a "law". Big bang (theory) must yield to law.\nEvolution supposedly started with the big bang.
603952
Order doesn't come out of chaos. In other words, a big chaotic bang didn't create the complex human being and the world with all its amazing attributes. So, we know something created us. Either an "accident" (the big bang) or an intentional act by someone/something ("Creator"). And honestly, which makes more sense? I find it irrational to believe that an explosion of gases in outerspace could produce human beings and animals and even something like a snowflake.
654945
In fact, there is a great deal of evidence showing it is not. What little we know of the dark matter and energy is that they are not composed of baryons. But anti-protons *are* bosons. There are some candidates for the dark matter (axions are a good bet) but anti-matter in the usual sense is ruled out by observation.