return to uniformity

[AntonioLao]

In the beginning there was uniform motion. It was without shape or form and void permeated the baby universe before the big bang of perfect symmetry. Then the creative force of the cosmos let there be broken symmetry and thus began the explosion that resulted in the decoupling of its only cosmic trinity: mass, energy, and space-time continuity.

Within 60 minutes of creation, the products are quarks, leptons, and energetic photons. As the cosmic temperature decreases, the constituents of quarks, mainly ups and downs, begin to form nuclei of light atoms mostly: hydrogen and helium with abundance ratio of 3 to 1. This ratio cannot be explained by current theories of cosmology. However, in terms of space-time quanta or charges H+ and H-, the mystery vanished. The space-time quanta of the up quark is ( 5, 1 ) that is 5H+ and 1H-. The down quark is ( 1, 3 ). For a proton, there are 2 ups and 1 down and its total space-time charges is ( 11, 5 ). For neutron is ( 7, 7 ). On the other hand the total space-time charges of an electron is ( 1, 7 ). Since hydrogen atom is made of 1 proton and 1 electron its total space-time charges is ( 12, 12 ). For a single helium atom, it is made of 2 protons, 2 neutron, and 2 electrons with total space-time charges of ( 38, 38 ). It is clear that ( 38, 38 ) is approximately 3 times ( 12, 12 ). Since the total space-time charge of the universe is uniformly conservative, the formation of neutral atoms must follow a principle of even number conservation of total space-time charges as a return to a universal uniformity.

[mkirkpatrick]

A balanced mind can be very uniform,me thinks!




regards michael.

[neutralino]

In the beginning there was uniform motion. It was without shape or form and void permeated the baby universe before the big bang of perfect symmetry. Then the creative force of the cosmos let there be broken symmetry and thus began the explosion that resulted in the decoupling of its only cosmic trinity: mass, energy, and space-time continuity.

[FONT=Verdana]Within 60 minutes of creation, the products are quarks, leptons, and energetic photons. As the cosmic temperature decreases, the constituents of quarks, mainly ups and downs, begin to form nuclei of light atoms mostly: hydrogen and helium with abundance ratio of 3 to 1. This ratio cannot be explained by current theories of cosmology.

[size=2]I was under the impression that the standard cosmology does account for the abundance of heavier elements??

...the big bang perfectly explains the abundance of helium and other nuclei like deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) in the universe. (from here)

[AntonioLao]

the standard cosmology does account for the abundance of heavier elements

It does but only much later at the stellar nucleosynthesis not primordial nucleosynthesis.

[neutralino]

It does but only much later at the stellar nucleosynthesis not primordial nucleosynthesis.

I can't say that I agree with you on this:

http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/bbndetails.html

...This confirms that helium has mostly not been synthesized along with the heavier elements, such as the metals, but was made prior to the formation of the first stars. The coincidence between observation and prediction of the helium abundance in the universe provides one of the major pieces of evidence for the Big Bang theory.

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...primordnuc.htm

In fact, all the helium production in stars isn't very important compared to the production in the first three minutes after the Big Bang.

Do you have any references to back up your claims?

[MJA]

In the beginning there was uniform motion. It was without shape or form and void permeated the baby universe before the big bang of perfect symmetry. Then the creative force of the cosmos let there be broken symmetry and thus began the explosion that resulted in the decoupling of its only cosmic trinity: mass, energy, and space-time continuity.

Hi AL,

Perhaps before the big bang mass or energy was uniform and symmetric,
and perhaps the universe still is uniform today.

If it is that you see the mass of the universe as united, uniform, symmetric or one before the big bang blew it apart: then I suggest that there inlies the flaw.

Perhaps if you percieved the universe today as still united or one, you might find it more uniform and symmetrical than you think, or have measured.

The universe is simply a matter of perception.
I see it not as you say "decoupled," but rather: beautifully symmetrical, united, uniform, equal, or one.

=
MJA

[AntonioLao]

guys, everyone can hypothesize about the early universe but observations have only detected certain abundances, for example, 3 to 1 for hydrogen to helium and heavier elements are only a few parts per millions. But since I am not the one doing these observations, all I can do is to take their words as they are.

[neutralino]

guys, everyone can hypothesize about the early universe but observations have only detected certain abundances, for example, 3 to 1 for hydrogen to helium and heavier elements are only a few parts per millions. But since I am not the one doing these observations, all I can do is to take their words as they are.

You appear to have completely missed my comment, and are now back-tracking. I'll recap: you say that no standard cosmology can agree with the observations of the abundances of the light elements. However, I have given you two links which show that the hot big bang model does agree with observations for the abundance of helium and, furthermore, says that the only way this ratio could have come about was through primordial nucleosynthesis.

Now, clearly, either I am misinterpreting your opening comments, or you disagree with the predictions that the standard model make. So, is it the former, or the latter?

[AntonioLao]

the predictions that the standard model make

The standard model uses the fact to fit their calculated numbers. What it really does is postdictions not prediction. It explains facts that have already happened not facts to be from the future.

[neutralino]

The standard model uses the fact to fit their calculated numbers. What it really does is postdictions not prediction. It explains facts that have already happened not facts to be from the future.

Yes, ok, so the wording of the phrase you quoted is incorrect, however it was hard to word without using the word "prediction." Note that, up until then, I did not say the standard model predicts the ratio of the light elements to be...

However, again you've missed the main point of my post, and picked up on a minor detail. I'll try again. In your opening post you say This ratio cannot be explained by current theories of cosmology. I have then provided links for you which show that the standard model does explain these predictions. So, where is your quibble? I have no problem with you questioning something if you have some evidence to back it up.

If you think that the assertion you make in your opening post is incorrect, there is no harm in admitting it!