GUITAR prediction of He4 Abundance in the Universe
The Big Bang theory claims the calculation of He4 abundance in the universe as one of the three pillars supporting the BB theory. They further claim that virtually all of the He4 in the universe was synthesised within the first 3 minutes of the Big Bang, and that He4 synthesised during thermal nuclear reactions in stars does not constitute a significant amount.
Nothing could be further from truth. The existence of supernova explosions along tells you that a significant stars could exhaust almost all hydrogen and synthesised a big portion of He4 by the time of supernova erruption.
I will show here how the correct amount of abundance of He4 in the universe can be obtained from thermal nuclear processes in stars, therefore leaving zero percent of He4 to be explained by the BigBang.
I will start with the same g factor I derived a while ago, which was used to obtain the correct baryon density, the correct CMB temperature, and the correct solar radiation constant. Basically:
g = (2/PI)*sqrt(alpha), alpha = fine structure constant.
We know:
(Baryon density)/(Critical density) = g = 5.4383%
(CMB energy density)/(Critical density) = g^3/PI = g^2/PI * 5.4383%
So the ratio of radiation energy (CMB) to luminant mass (baryon density) is
g^2/PI = (4/PI^3)*alpha
Now, let's start with all hydrogens, and allow a certain percentage (p) of hydrogen to synthesis into He4. During this process a certain amount of mass turns into the energy. Let see how much that amount is.
The thermal nuclear process goes like 4 hydrogens turn into one He4 plus some energy release. Look up the atomic weight of Hydrogen and He4:
Hydrogen: 1.008
He4: 4.0026
The loss of mass, which is converted into energy, during this process is:
Delta E = Delta M = 1.008 * 4 - 4.0026 = 0.0294
Compare this mass change (energy release) with the mass of hydrogen:
0.0294/(4 * 1.008) = 0.007292
Please note how extremely that ratio is close to alpha (1/137.036). Actually it should be exactly alpha if it were not for the uncertainty of atomic weights.
So when hydrogen is turned into He4, alpha of the total mass is turned into energy.
Half of that energy will be carried away by the neutrino, and the other half released as radiation. So
(P: Percentage of Hydrogen converted) * 0.5 * alpha = CMB/Baryon
(P/2)*alpha = g^2/PI = (4/PI^3)*alpha
Therefore we get p, which is the percentage of Hydrogen converted into He, which is also the He abundance in the universe:
(P/2) = 4/PI^3
P = (2/PI)^3
P = 25.8%
So we obtained He abundance of 25.8%, which agrees perfectly with the observed value of one quarter.
This falsifies the Big Bang completely, just as the star radiation energy falsifies CMB as Big Bang remains. The problem is we KNOW thermal nuclear reactions happen in stars. So stars do radiate the right amount of energy for CMB, as well as generate the right amount of He4 in the process to account for the 1/4 He4 abundance.
The problem for Big Bang is we have to attribute 100% of the observed amount of He4 as generated by stars, that leaves no He4 to be generated in the first 3 minutes of Big Bang. Like wise we have to attribute 100% of CMB energy to star radiation energy, which again leaves 0% to be atrributed as remains of Big Bang.
And the third pillar of Big Bang, the Hubble redshift, has successfully been explained as the universal relativity, due to limited and closed spacetime of the universe. So that's a complete success on the GUITAR part and complete failure of the Big Bang model.
This absolutely is NOT numerology! The g was exactly derived from first principle in GUITAR, when I have time I will show exactly where that (2/PI) factor came from, and the same g is used to obtain baryon density, CMB temperature, solar radiation constant, and He4 abundance. The same g = (2/PI)*sqrt(alpha)!
Quantoken
posted by Quantoken at 11:45 PM
1 Comments:
Some one posted anonymously on Lubos's BLOG regarding this. So here is my followup:
Mr Anonymous, you are encouraged to go post your opinion on my BLOG and discuss there. I am following up here on Lubos's blog only because you post it here.
"(1)A lot of the helium produced in stars during their main sequence phase subsequently gets burned to form carbon and nitrogen in the red giant phase. Type Ic supernovae have no helium lines since all the helium has been burned up."
Evidently only an insignificant amount of He4 is converted this way. Astronomical observation shows a dorminate hydrogen at 3/4, and He4 at 1/4, and only a very tiny fraction of the baryon mass are other, heavier elements.
Do not read too much into the lack of He4 spectrum line in Supernova. At the kind of extreme temperature of supernova eruption, there is hardly any whole He4 atoms left. Everything is ionized so why do you expect to see any atomic emission spectrum lines? You would only be able to see absorption lines when the light pass through inter-galaxy gas clouds. So it only tells you the lack of He4 in those clouds.
"(2) Only a tiny amount of the energy produced in the P-P cycle is carried off by neutrinos NOT half of it."
Neutrino is still a big mistery so don't believe every data you are told. Basic physics instinctions will tell you that the energy is likely shared evenly by all degrees of freedoms. Therefore if neutrinos are massless particles like photons, I expect them to carry away the SAME amount of energy as photons.
Scientists could hardly produce REAL nuclear fusions in labs, the same condition like what goes on in the Sun, and in a very controled manner while doing accurate measurements. Controlable thermal nuclear fusion is still a few decades away.
Therefore, although the total energy released in solar proton processes is known, precisely, by looking at the difference of atomic weights. Exactly who carries how much portion of that energy is NEVER actually measured, but deduced from some models which may or may not be correct.
Doing an experimental measurement of the actual energy partition would require simulating the SAME temperature and density in the core of the Sun, not higher and not lower. And you would expect the reaction rate to be extremely low because it is extremely low on the Sun. No such experiment is feasible in the near future.
"(3) Stars have thermal gradients
in their atmospheres and can never be producers of perfect black body radiation. The CMB radiation also has angular scale-invariant fluctuations, measured with great precision now, that star radiation can never have."
No one says the CMB photons come directly from the star. I only said the CMB energy originated from star radiations. The lights emitted from stars must have been mediated by some sort of intergalactic matters, before it is converted to CMB radiation. Such mediation would even it out to form perfect blackbody spectrum.
The universe is an incredibly huge shallow chamber, perfectly suited to create and maintain blackbody radiation. The mediating matter can be extremely thin (extremely low density), and does NOT need to fill out the whole space, and does not even need to be very absorptive or emittive at CMB wavelength range. As long as it has minimal interaction with CMB radiation at all, given long enough time the CMB will reach perfect blackbody equilibrium.
Remember how blackbody spectrum is derived in general physics class? The emissibility of the material forming the chamber does NOT matter. Once it reaches thermal equilibrium, it's perfect blackbody spectrum. That's because the energy will be perfectly evenly partitioned among all degrees of freddoms, upon thermal equilibrium.
As what you claim "The CMB radiation also has angular scale-invariant fluctuations, measured with great precision now" That's a complete lie. There is no great precision. The fluctuation is about the same order as instrumental errors. That's why just a few years ago when the instruments were slightly less precise they could not even detect such fluctuation at all. Now they just have some instrument slightly more sensitive and beginning to see the fluctuation, but it is in no may much bigger than the instrumental errors. The signal to noise ratio is still very low.
So stop lying about "great precision". There is none.
Do you realize "angular scale-invariant fluctuations" is just a fancier word describing what people normally would just call "white noise".
You detected some white noises. Big deal? Your theory predicted there would be some white noises. Big deal. Any physics system or any measurement contain white noises. White noises are every where you look.
Big Bang hasn't been able to predict the exact magnitude of that white noise fluctuation. All it ever predicted is the fluctuation will be "angular scale invariant", i.e., it should exihibit white noise characteristics, i.e., no recognizable pattern.
I would have taken them more seriously if they found some specific pattern that make the fluctuation different from white noise, and they were able to predict that characteristics before hand. "Prediction" of existence of white noise is just a joke.
Quantoken
1:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home