Material Creation

[questor]

let me pick just one prediction:

''No age (of the universe or thing in it) problem''

this goes against current theory. how can you prove your position?

[coldcreation]

let me pick just one prediction:

''No age (of the universe or thing in it) problem''

this goes against current theory. how can you prove your position?

 

Evidence is provided by astrophysically determining the age of certain stars (e.g., in globular clusters). Some appear between 15 and 18 Gyrs old. My guess (this I have not yet calculated) is that some are much older than that (between 20 and 30 Gyrs). Note, the age is older than the big bang universe.

 

High-redshift objects with high metallicity imply directly that neucleosynthesis hase been going on for longer than the suspected age of the universe according to the standard model.

 

no time, back later with more...

 

cheers

 

cc

[questor]

if there are certain stars 30 bilion years old (yet to be proved) does this disprove the general consensus that a cataclysmic event (bb) occurred

around 15 billion years ago? could both of these events have occured?

[bumab]

Since there's no absolute time, you'd better include some relative velocity info in that question, right?

[coldcreation]

if there are certain stars 30 bilion years old (yet to be proved) does this disprove the general consensus that a cataclysmic event (bb) occurred

around 15 billion years ago? could both of these events have occured?

 

If indeed the universe is 13.7 Gyrs old +- 1 Gyr, then no star can be older than 14.7 Gyrs. If one is found, a modification must be made. Historically, stellar ages have been changed to fit the standard model.

 

If a 20 Gyr old star was found and its age confirmed, that would be a large modification to make, perhaps too large.

 

Note: if a 10 Gyr old star is found at the visual horizon, say, 10 billion light years away, this would explicitly mean the universe is at least 20 Gyrs old: a violation of the standard models prediction. This is what we should learn when the James Web Space Telescope (lauch set for 2011) sends us back data.

 

Don't fight the chill.

 

cc

[coldcreation]

Since there's no absolute time, you'd better include some relative velocity info in that question, right?

 

there is always some relative motion, or real intrinsic motion

 

cc

[modest]

From "Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or a limitation in astrophysics?"

 

I have a question for you Hilton.

 

How does classical mechanics account for the helium abundance?... What about deuterium

 

If I may intercede, I think I can answer that quesrion.

 

The stable deuterium abundance is very small with about .015% that are stable.

Deuterium is not a true element like Helium because it is an isotope of hydrogen.

 

While on the other hand, helium, being a true element, is very stable. It seems to be the 'building blocks' for the heavier elements.

The deuterium nuclei are formed like 'bar magnets' in the star interiors. When in close proximity, like the star interiors, one will flip to form helium nuclei as two 'bar magnets' will do.

That is my opinion.

 

Regarding your last question, No.

 

Mike C

 

The stable deuterium abundance is very small with about .015% that are stable.

All deuterium is stable (1)

The deuterium nuclei are formed like 'bar magnets' in the star interiors.

Stars destroy Deuterium permanently - they don't create it. (2)

 

-modest

 

That URL requires more selecting.

I have my own book on the elements that are much more informative than any website.

Title - The Elements by John Emsley

 

Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen and constitutes .015 of the total portion of the hydrogen gases.

Atomic mass number 3 is unstable. So hydrogen is the only other gas that represents 99.985% of the total.

I think that deuterium total is in the ocean waters.

 

Where was the deuterium in the oceans created?

A deuteron that is the nucleus of deuterium is created in the stars because that is where the neutrons are created. A deuteron is a composite of an electron, proton and a neutron.

So with a neutron within, it had to be created in the Sun.

 

Mike C

[modest]

I have my own book on the elements that are much more informative than any website.

The URL I gave you is a chart of nuclides from the National Nuclear Data Center. It is the authoritative source on isotope information and has detailed level schemes, half-life, mode of decay and other stuff. Your book is not more informative.

 

That URL requires more selecting.

Yes, it shows every isotope of every element. If you click on 1-H or 2-H, you will find Hydrogen and Deuterium info.

 

 

Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen and constitutes .015 of the total portion of the hydrogen gases.

Atomic mass number 3 is unstable. So hydrogen is the only other gas that represents 99.985% of the total.

 

[ce]{^{1}H}[/ce] Hydrogen or "Protium" is stable and makes up 99.98% of the isotopes.

[ce]{^{2}H}[/ce] Deuterium is also stable and makes up .0026% of Hydrogen gas and .0184% of Hydrogen in water by mole count.

[ce]{^{3}H}[/ce] Tritium is not stable and has a half-life of 12.32 years. It will beta-decay into Helium-3. The heavier isotopes are also unstable with half-lives much less than a second.

 

A deuteron is a composite of an electron, proton and a neutron.

A deuteron does not have an electron. A "composite of an electron, proton and a neutron" is deuterium - the atom.

 

A deuteron that is the nucleus of deuterium is created in the stars because that is where the neutrons are created.

...

 

So with a neutron within, it had to be created in the Sun.

...

 

Where was the deuterium in the oceans created?

 

So far, Big Bang neucleosynthesis is the only method known to explain natural deuterium in the universe. (1)

 

Stellar fusion destroys deuterium (2)

[coldcreation]

 

A deuteron does not have an electron. A "composite of an electron, proton and a neutron" is deuterium - the atom.

 

So far, Big Bang neucleosynthesis is the only method known to explain natural deuterium in the universe. (1)

 

Stellar fusion destroys deuterium (2)

 

 

I recommend you look at THE ORIGIN OF HELIUM AND THE OTHER LIGHT ELEMENTS, Hoyle, Burbidge, 1998, Section 4, D and He.

 

In that work, Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar present a simple mechansim for the production not just of deuterium (through stellar astrophysical processes) but of all the other light elements and their isotopes:

 

 

• "...we believe that the most likely source of cosmoic deuterium is the dwarf star. It is known that dwarf M stars are a major constituent of normal galaxies. They have extensice conective envelopes, and thus they are likely to have outer layers in which extensive flare activity takes place...In our view, it is the cumulative effect of stellar winds and flares from these low-mass stars that has lead to the build up of deuterium."
  

 

 

The details of this process is described in the paper. Though you are correct that "stellar fusion destroys deuterium," you over-look the fact that there are other astrophysical processes at work (besides fusion) in the outer layers and in the direct environment of stars responsible for the synthesis of elements and their isotopes (some of which occurs during novae, supernovae and in the environment of the cooling shell remnant).

 

 

So you see, contrary to what you write above, modest, big bang neucleosynthesis (primordial creation) is NOT the only method known to explain natural deuterium in the universe, so far.

 

 

• “The fact that the great majority of the 320 stable isotopes have been generated astrophysically has always made the idea that all of the isotopes were made this way very attractive.” (Burbidge, Hoyle 1998)
  

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

In that work, Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar present a simple mechansim for the production not just of deuterium (through stellar astrophysical processes) but of all the other light elements and their isotopes:

 

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is the only way to account for the abundance and ratio of ALL the light elements in the cosmos including Deuterium.

Using very simple statistical formula (Boltzmann equations) the model of primordial nucleosynthesis can be defined. Using observations the model can be tested against reality. The results cannot be ignored.

 

 

There is no steady-state model that can do this.

 

Hoyle’s Deuterium supposition would mean Lithium, Boron, and Beryllium would have higher abundance ratios to Deuterium than observed. (Richard I. Epstein, W. David Arnett “Can Supernova Produce Deuterium?”)

 

I see no reason to assume a supposition that does not fit the evidence is correct over a well-tested theory that does.

 

-modest

[C1ay]

A star is created out of gas, dust and whatever undifferentiated matter is floating around in the initial cloud that would condense under gravitational collapse.

 

A molecule is created when atoms bond to form pairs or chains.

 

Heavy elements are formed (or created) when atoms fuse under extreme pressure. This is not simply a redistribution of matter. It is the creation of heavy nuclei composed of protons and neutrons, alone with the creation of electron shells that would otherwise not have been.

 

The creation of a hydrogen atom H is created when a proton and electron bond.

 

A proton is created when three quarks a bounded.

 

A triple-quark combo is created when enough energy is consentrated at cryogenic temperatures (exeedingly close to absolute zero on the Kelvin scale).

 

Gas, dust and undifferentiated matter from where?

 

Atoms from where?

 

Protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks from where?

 

Yes, higher level matter is created from lower level matter. Is there any evidence though, of any kind, that the building blocks of nature were created from nothing? That they just magically appeared? Is there any observable evidence to suggest where the matter of the universe came from? IMO, any theory that there was absolutely nothing before the theorized Big Bang is unfounded and unsupportable.

[modest]

C1ay makes a good point. As long as we're talking about Hoyle it needs to be noted that his nucleosynthesis starts with Hydrogen. So, where does this Hydrogen come from? It is continually created from nothing throughout the universe. (1)

 

His steady-state theory may satisfy people's dislike for BBT, but the details appear ghastly on closer inspection.

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is the only way to account for the abundance and ratio of ALL the light elements in the cosmos including Deuterium.

 

This statement is false. See the Hoyle-Burbidge paper.

 

Writing big bang neucleosynthesis with capital letter does not make it any more real or Superior to any other model that accounts for the observed abundances.

 

 

Using very simple statistical formula (Boltzmann equations) the model of primordial nucleosynthesis can be defined. Using observations the model can be tested against reality. The results cannot be ignored.

 

These results can very easily be ignored.

 

If observational data had shown a cosmic abundance of He to be 25%, or, even 55%, the so-called results (shown on the chart above) would be different, i.e., tweaked to fit the data. That is how the entire concept was created: by looking at the data and making theory fit.

 

Yes, Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar et al do the same, and get the same abundance ratio result.

 

 

There is no steady-state model that can do this.

 

Steady state models do NOT have primordial creation as a mechanism for light element synthesis, and so do NOT need to describe primordial creation (as presented in the graph above).

 

 

Hoyle’s Deuterium supposition would mean Lithium, Boron, and Beryllium would have higher abundance ratios to Deuterium than observed. (Richard I. Epstein, W. David Arnett “Can Supernova Produce Deuterium?”)

 

No one is arguing that deuterium is produced in supernovae. That was the first steady state model.

 

Quasi-steady state cosmology, QSSC, has deuterium produced in the flares of dwarf M stars (it is a "cumulative effect of stellar winds and flares from these low-mass stars"), so the 1974 article you paraphrase is outdated.

 

That was an old argument against Hoyle.

 

The QSSC model dates back to 1993, I believe.

 

 

I see no reason to assume a supposition that does not fit the evidence is correct over a well-tested theory that does.

 

The entire primordial nucleosynthesis assumption is a supposition. It was designed to fit the evidence. It did not predict the abundances then test it against observations (as you seem to imply).

 

The abundance of light elements and the microwave background radiation are used as primary evidence in favor of the standard hot big bang cosmological model. However, as Hoyle and Burbidge point out, “this argument is only powerful if there is no other way to explain the helium abundance and the microwave background radiation.”

 

It is suggested by those who believe in big bang nucleosynthesis that it would be impossible to yield the required abundance of light elements through astrophysical processes within the time frame of 15 billion years (the supposed age of the universe). But if the universe is not 15 billion years old and the time scale is literally limitless, then the universe had as much time as it needed to produce all of its constituents, through standard astrophysical processes.

 

 

CC

[coldcreation]

Gas, dust and undifferentiated matter from where?

 

Atoms from where?

 

Protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks from where?

 

Yes, higher level matter is created from lower level matter. Is there any evidence though, of any kind, that the building blocks of nature were created from nothing? That they just magically appeared? Is there any observable evidence to suggest where the matter of the universe came from? IMO, any theory that there was absolutely nothing before the theorized Big Bang is unfounded and unsupportable.

 

The question of where hydrogen comes from is answered in the QSSC model with the so-called C-field.

 

One remarkable feature of quasi-steady state cosmology is the perpetual creation of matter. MacMillan and Nernst had postulated the creation of matter from some form of radiation.

 

The C-field concept of QSSC seems to reflect this type of creation as well, despite some differences. This avoids the tenuous problem of explaining how matter would be created out-of-nothing, and at the same time the law of energy conservation (first law of thermodynamics) is not violated.

 

Ideas on the creation of matter in space go back to the 1880’s with the British chemist William Crookes’s far-reaching concept of evolutionary genesis of matter from primordial latent energy potentialities.

 

 

Nothing is created from nothing.

 

 

CC

[modest]

If observational data had shown a cosmic abundance of He to be 25%, or, even 55%, the so-called results (shown on the chart above) would be different, i.e., tweaked to fit the data. That is how the entire concept was created: by looking at the data and making theory fit.

 

No!

Big bang nucleosynthesis provides the primary determination of baryon to photon ratio or cosmic baryon density. WMAP tested this predicted value with great observational constraint. The two measures are independent and neither is ‘tweaked’. They were found in agreement with one another.

 

These results can very easily be ignored.

 

It would obviously be foolish to ignore how powerful this is.

 

 

Yes, Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar et al do the same, and get the same abundance ratio result.

 

What possible equation or law could be used to describe the abundance of deuterium created in a manner the scientific community says does not happen?

 

Steady state models do NOT have primordial creation as a mechanism for light element synthesis, and so do NOT need to describe primordial creation (as presented in the graph above).

 

And the only way they can describe abundance of light elements is with spontaneous generation of Hydrogen. Talk about tweaking the results!

 

 

No one is arguing that deuterium is produced in supernovae. That was the first steady state model.

 

Hoyle argued this in his paper: 'On the Origin of Deuterium'

I could also quote you 1 post ago:

 

The details of this process is described in the paper. Though you are correct that "stellar fusion destroys deuterium," you over-look the fact that there are other astrophysical processes at work (besides fusion) in the outer layers and in the direct environment of stars responsible for the synthesis of elements and their isotopes (some of which occurs during novae, supernovae and in the environment of the cooling shell remnant).

 

Quasi-steady state cosmology, QSSC, has deuterium produced in the flares of dwarf M stars (it is a "cumulative effect of stellar winds and flares from these low-mass stars"),

Easy to test, do solar flares show more intense spectral lines for deuterium than the sun's reference spectra? No?

 

so the 1974 article you paraphrase is outdated.

 

That was an old argument against Hoyle.

 

That was an old argument FROM Hoyle. I guess I'm confusing his different theories about deuterium.

 

The QSSC model dates back to 1993, I believe.

 

So, after big bang nucleosynthesis gave the correct results. Interesting.

 

The entire primordial nucleosynthesis assumption is a supposition. It was designed to fit the evidence. It did not predict the abundances then test it against observations (as you seem to imply).

 

Let me direct you here again. The math is simple and well-founded. The curves are a function of values agreed upon and they agree with values measured. They are not tweaked or twisted or supposed. As our accuracy in measurement has increased - BBN's predictions are better and better realized.

 

It is suggested by those who believe in big bang nucleosynthesis that it would be impossible to yield the required abundance of light elements through astrophysical processes within the time frame of 15 billion years (the supposed age of the universe). But if the universe is not 15 billion years old and the time scale is literally limitless, then the universe had as much time as it needed to produce all of its constituents, through standard astrophysical processes.

 

Standard astrophysical processes over limitless time yield iron, iron, and mostly iron. You can get around this by supposing new hydrogen is sprung up around the universe - but really? This is what you're going with?

 

-modest

[C1ay]

Nothing is created from nothing.

 

Doesn't that mean matter has always existed then in one form or another?

[coldcreation]

No!

Big bang nucleosynthesis provides the primary determination of baryon to photon ratio or cosmic baryon density. WMAP tested this predicted value with great observational constraint. The two measures are independent and neither is ‘tweaked’. They were found in agreement with one another.

 

The WMAP data was interpreted then tweaked with vast quantities of nonbaryonic dark matter and undetectable (i.e., elusive) dark energy.

 

 

It would obviously be foolish to ignore how powerful this is.

 

Primordial creation is only powerful to the extent that the final result is in accord with the abundances of elements observed (and extrapolated). However, when you look at the opposite end of the scale (nearer the moment of creation), you will see that the quantity of each element necessary to fulfill requirements is arbitrary, i.e., depending on production rate now extrapolated back in time. That is why I said before if 55% helium was observed the chart would accommodate it just as easily: by shifting the entire He line, and thus the initial primordial quantity required.

 

Looking at it from the reverse perspective, the initial quantity of each element (and their isotopes) is set at

 

Whatever cannot be produced astrophysically in 13.7 Gyr is assumed to have originated primordially. And so the initial quantity of each element is not predicted by the BBT, but is arbitrarily attained by an extrapolative process (ad hoc) that is absorbed into the model no matter what abundance is observed today.

 

The slope at which each element declines, or varies with time, is based on astrophysical evidence. And the initial creation abundance depends on whatever is missing. That is why it is ad hoc.

 

 

 

What possible equation or law could be used to describe the abundance of deuterium created in a manner the scientific community says does not happen?

 

The scientific community agrees that deuterium is not produced in supernovae events (other heavier elements are produced in SNe explosions and subsequent cooling). But there is no consensus that deuterium production does not occur in the environment of stars, viz during solar flares surrounding dwarf M low-mass stellar components.

 

Again, your argument appears outdated.

 

 

 

And the only way they can describe abundance of light elements is with spontaneous generation of Hydrogen. Talk about tweaking the results!

 

Indeed, the abundance of all elements and their isotopes ultimately depends on hydrogen production values (for all steady state models). Some models have hydrogen produced steadily, in a slow trickle (CC), others yet in large spurts (QSSC).

 

As Hoyle points out, the continuous creation of matter (continually or in spurts) is no worse than having it all pop out at once.

 

 

 

Hoyle argued this in his paper: 'On the Origin of Deuterium'

I could also quote you 1 post ago:

 

I was referring to heavier elements produced in SNe, not deuterium. I thought that was clear enough (with the words "some of which" [elements]).

 

 

 

Easy to test, do solar flares show more intense spectral lines for deuterium than the sun's reference spectra? No?

 

You sound like you know what you are talking about. Do you have in your possession a peer review paper that discusses solar flare deuterium abundance (or production) is the vicinity of dwarf-M stars you wish to share with us?

 

SOHO will not provide that information.

 

 

 

That was an old argument FROM Hoyle. I guess I'm confusing his different theories about deuterium.

 

All cosmologies evolve and adapt to the latest findings on observational fronts. That was the key reason for the transition in the early 1990's from the classic steady state models to the new QSSC model.

 

Note too that, more recently (post-1998), the standard hot-BB model underwent a radical transition: one that included incredible quantities of dark matter (not made of electrons. protons and neutrons) and Einstein's "greatest blunder," lambda, reinterpreted as the driving force of accelerated expansion: dark energy.

 

 

 

Let me direct you here again. The math is simple and well-founded. The curves are a function of values agreed upon and they agree with values measured. They are not tweaked or twisted or supposed. As our accuracy in measurement has increased - BBN's predictions are better and better realized.

 

Again, the initial (primordial creation) quantities is not predicted. It is derived at by an extrapolatory process. There is nothing wrong with that, per say, but it can certainly not be used as an argument in favor of, or as evidence for, the standard model.

 

 

 

Standard astrophysical processes over limitless time yield iron, iron, and mostly iron. You can get around this by supposing new hydrogen is sprung up around the universe - but really? This is what you're going with?

 

The possibility that hydrogen was not created all at once (primordially) is compelling for a variety of reasons. Ultimately, the preferred model depends on whether or not one believes the universe is infinite spatiotemporally, stable (nonexpanding) and evolving dynamically, or whether one believes the universe sprang into existence at some time t.

 

If you don't believe neither the once-upon-a-time-theory (BB) or an at-any-time-theory (QSSC), the only other possibility is a you’ve-come-a-long-way-baby-theory that describes an infinite, dynamic, non-expanding, relativistic, stationary universe that evolves with time. The latter is my preferred option (though I will not elaborate here since it would be off-topic for this forum board, dedicated to the discussion of standard astronomy and cosmology, rather than alternative theories).

 

Though QSSC is arguably an "alternative" model, it is practically the only fully developed model capable (at this time) of being tested observationally and compared to the standard model: something essential to the scientific method.

 

I would rather discuss the formation of heavy elements in the thread dedicated to metallicity in distant galaxies (Early Galaxy Evolution (High-z Metallicity).

 

I will just say here that standard astrophysical processes over limitless time do NOT "yield iron, iron, and mostly iron." In none of the static models I am aware of does that conclusion result.

 

 

 

 

CC