Elements formed in Big Bang not in stars or supernovae

[scerri]

I am looking for an authoritative and definitive list of the elements/isotopes that are supposed to have formed shortly after the big bang, as opposed to those later formed in the interior of stars or supervovae.

 

The sources I have seen show some annoyiong variations.

 

regards,

Eric Scerri PhD

UCLA, Department of Chemistry.

[InfiniteNow]

I am looking for an authoritative and definitive list of the elements/isotopes that are supposed to have formed shortly after the big bang, as opposed to those later formed in the interior of stars or supervovae.

 

The sources I have seen show some annoyiong variations.

 

 

Hmmm... In science, is anything EVER truly "definitive?" Anyway, have you spoken with the folks in your local astrophysics department?

 

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis - UCLA

 

 

I've also learned to trust the folks at Caltech on this sort of thing:

 

Review of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and Primordial Abundances - Tytler et al.

 

 

Here's a site by NASA, but I'm not a chemist so cannot attest to it's authority:

 

WMAP Cosmology101: Formation of the Elements

 

 

Cheers.

[scerri]

Thanks very much for the citations.

 

Of course I did not mean completely definitive!

 

 

Have you seen my book on the Periodic Table?

The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance, OUP, New York, 2007.

 

I have a section on nucleosynthesis but am preparing to write a new book and to tighten up on some aspects.

 

regards,

eric scerri

[Mike C]

I am looking for an authoritative and definitive list of the elements/isotopes that are supposed to have formed shortly after the big bang, as opposed to those later formed in the interior of stars or supervovae.

 

The sources I have seen show some annoyiong variations.

 

regards,

Eric Scerri PhD

UCLA, Department of Chemistry.

 

Since I refuted the BB as a violation of the Conservation Laws (CL), I do not give these BB creations any credibility.

 

The BB was created in the mind of a catholic priest named Georges Lemaitrae that also had a PhD.

So as an evolving universe, when you go back in time, the BB is a 'dead end' universe at time zero. This is a 'creation out of nothing' and a violation of the CL's.

 

There is much other evidence that refutes the BB.

 

NS

[InfiniteNow]

No Science,

 

While I concede that the standard model has its faults and we need to continue searching for better descriptions, I'd suggest that your reference to your own work does little to put the nail in the coffin of BB cosmology.

 

 

Anyway... Eric, here's another link for you. You may or may not have already seen it:

 

Formation of the elements/Nucleosynthesis in the early universe

 

 

Can you describe more what types of inconsistencies you've found in your search already?

[jackson33]

NS; Since the gentleman has written a book on the subject, we may be able to learn additional material from his work.

 

 

scerri: For one, I would like some fresh ideas on the element formations during the so called, BB cool down from someplace over 20 Billion K. Personally one of my problems with BB, is that generated heat which should require time to cool and then how it got to 3K.

Is there a heat dispersement theory, I have missed?

[InfiniteNow]

I would like some fresh ideas on the element formations during the so called, BB cool down from someplace over 20 Billion K. Personally one of my problems with BB, is that generated heat which should require time to cool and then how it got to 3K.

Is there a heat dispersement theory, I have missed?

 

I think the issue lies in a basic understanding of heat. It's the boom boom friction thing with all of the components of the universe which influences it's overall heat. Assuming a certain degree of accuracy in existing models, the universe expands, and as it does all of the components which make up the universe become farther apart, and hence cooling occurs. There's also some interesting work you might enjoy on velocity dispersion which covers some concepts on this.

 

Please note also that the OP is a chemist, not a cosmologist. I know it can be tough to discern this difference since they both start with the letter "C."

[coldcreation]

I am looking for an authoritative and definitive list of the elements/isotopes that are supposed to have formed shortly after the big bang, as opposed to those later formed in the interior of stars or supervovae.

 

The sources I have seen show some annoyiong variations.

 

regards,

Eric Scerri PhD

UCLA, Department of Chemistry.

 

I would go for this article myself, not just for the list (^4He, D, ^3He, ^6Li, ^7Li, ^9Be, ^10B, and ^11B ), but, too, for the mechanism. Check it out.

 

The Origin of Helium and the Other Light Elements

 

Authors: Burbidge, G.; Hoyle, F.

 

Here is the full work in PDF format

 

Enjoy

 

 

 

 

CC

[Moontanman]

I am looking for an authoritative and definitive list of the elements/isotopes that are supposed to have formed shortly after the big bang, as opposed to those later formed in the interior of stars or supervovae.

 

The sources I have seen show some annoyiong variations.

 

regards,

Eric Scerri PhD

UCLA, Department of Chemistry.

 

Umm, hydrogen, helium and a tiny amouint of lithium, and possibly a few isotopes of these three elements? Everything else was almost nonexistant at least that was what I was told when my brain was being dammaged in school.

 

Michael

[CraigD]

I am looking for an authoritative and definitive list of the elements/isotopes that are supposed to have formed shortly after the big bang, as opposed to those later formed in the interior of stars or supervovae.

I would go for this article myself, not just for the list (^4He, D, ^3He, ^6Li, ^7Li, ^9Be, ^10B, and ^11B ), but, too, for the mechanism. Check it out.

 

The Origin of Helium and the Other Light Elements

 

Authors: Burbidge, G.; Hoyle, F.

 

Here is the full work in PDF format

Umm, hydrogen, helium and a tiny amouint of lithium, and possibly a few isotopes of these three elements? Everything else was almost nonexistant at least that was what I was told when my brain was being dammaged in school.

I’m just repeating a claim from the wikipedia article “Big Bang nucleosynthesis”, which I’ve not personally worked thought in detail, but it states and my understanding from long-ago reading is that the Big Bang was limited to synthesizing nuclei with fewer than 8 nucleons. This limits it to the atomic numbers 1-4, the isotopes [ce]^1H[/ce], [ce]^2H[/ce], [ce]^3H[/ce], [ce]^3He[/ce], [ce]^4He[/ce], [ce]^6Li[/ce], [ce]^7Li[/ce] and [ce]^7Be[/ce]. Since [ce]^7Be[/ce] decays to [ce]^7Li[/ce] with halflife ~53 days, “primordial” [ce]^7Be[/ce] should be very rare.

 

Atomic number 5 [ce]^{10}B[/ce] and [ce]^{11}B[/ce] could not, according to the 8 nucleon limitation, have been synthesized in the early Big Bang.

 

:) PS: Hey all, note the use of the [ce] “chemical equation” markup elements recently added, and other ones described in 12086.

[Mike C]

No Science,

While I concede that the standard model has its faults and we need to continue searching for better descriptions, I'd suggest that your reference to your own work does little to put the nail in the coffin of BB cosmology.

 

I just thought Scerri should do more research in the probability of the BB as it happened to save himself some work.

No harm intended.

 

NS

[InfiniteNow]

I just thought Scerri should do more research in the probability of the BB as it happened to save himself some work.

No harm intended.

 

NS

 

Understood. I know your thoughts on the topic, and at least you're consistent. I have a sneaking suspicion that the OP was just pimping his book via Hypo's google strength anyway. ;)

 

 

Cheers. :hihi:

[Pluto]

I have read all the above posts on BBN and I find them not scientific.

 

To begin with they assumed that the BB did occur and than tried to fit the parts together.

 

IF!

 

All the elements up to Fe and Ni can be formed within stars.

and

All other elements are formed during supernova.

 

Why bring in ad hoc ideas to make the BB model work?

 

Yes the BBT is the standard model, but we should not be locked into a model that is based on weak foundations.

[Buffy]

The BB *is* the standard model, and you're welcome to debate it in threads where its validity is being debated. We're quite open to such discussions.

 

However, barging into a discussion like this one and scolding people about their "assumptions" is unbelievably rude and will not be tolerated.

 

Take it elsewhere.

 

Thank you for your cooperation,

Buffy

[CraigD]

All the elements up to Fe and Ni can be formed within stars.

Except, of course, Hydrogen.

Why bring in ad hoc ideas to make the BB model work?

Can you be more specific? What ad-hoc ideas?

Yes the BBT is the standard model, but we should not be locked into a model that is based on weak foundations.

On the other hand, we should not reject all models based on an assertion that none of them have sufficiently “strong foundations”, nor adopt a model that cannot predict an abundance of elements consistent with observation. We should also not assert that any theory is weak, without stating a specific prediction of that theory that disagrees with observations.

 

Pluto, describe a model that predicts the observed abundance of elements in which all elements except hydrogen were formed by stellar fusion, or show a specific prediction of the Big Bang theory that conflicts with observation.

I have read all the above posts on BBN and I find them not scientific.

is merely an unsupported statement of opinion.

[Pluto]

Hello Buffy

 

You said

The BB *is* the standard model, and you're welcome to debate it in threads where its validity is being debated. We're quite open to such discussions.

 

However, barging into a discussion like this one and scolding people about their "assumptions" is unbelievably rude and will not be tolerated.

 

I have not scolded people.

 

I'm just stating that the Big Bang is based on foundations that are weak.Please read the following links and let me know what you think.

 

Bullet Cluster Shoots Down Big Bang

So Far and yet so Near

Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005

Big Bang Distortions

[InfiniteNow]

I have not scolded people.

 

I'm just stating that the Big Bang is based on foundations that are weak.Please read the following links and let me know what you think.

I believe the basic point was that a member was discussing quilting and you came into the conversation to rant about the poor labor practices in China which are responsible for the yarn we purchase. Admittedly, another member did the same thing first, so you do not bear the brunt of the (this isn't really a good word to describe it, but...) fault. :lol:

 

Most of us acknowledge that there are weaknesses to BBT. Most of us would enjoy seeing a new proposal which actually serves as a more complete representation and served as a better overall model. However, the opening question stated a maxim assuming that BB, being the currently accepted standard model, is correct, and asked a question about element formation and early cosmic nucleosynthesis in that scenario.

 

 

So, Scerri... What are these inconsistencies you reference? Are we talking anything major, or just some minor differences of interpretation between folks? Can you give some more context for the interested reader? :doh:

 

 

Cheers. :bouquet: :cup: