Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Why do people cite the abundance of hydrogen as BBT evidence

  1. #1 Why do people cite the abundance of hydrogen as BBT evidence 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    ????


    Any proton or neutron that gets let loose in an atomic reaction is likely to find an electron and become a hydrogen atom, isn't it? Actually, I guess a neutron is likely to split into a proton/electron pair, but you see my point, right?

    Don't most stars radiate large amounts of such protons and neutrons into outer space?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Very true, but first you have to synthesise larger atoms that form bigger compounds of protons and neutrons. So, it is obvious that in the beginning there were almost only the basic particles, i.e. protons, neutrons and electrons. We call the simplest combination of those hydrogen. In order to produce larger atoms, you need energy.

    And yes, neutrons decay very easily into a proton, an electron and an anti-neutrino.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Very true, but first you have to synthesise larger atoms that form bigger compounds of protons and neutrons. So, it is obvious that in the beginning there were almost only the basic particles, i.e. protons, neutrons and electrons. We call the simplest combination of those hydrogen. In order to produce larger atoms, you need energy.

    And yes, neutrons decay very easily into a proton, an electron and an anti-neutrino.
    The Laws of Conservation of Matter say that these two particles always existed.

    In other words, the ad hoc science that followed the cosmological redshift observations cannot be true.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    The Laws of Conservation of Matter say that these two particles always existed.

    In other words, the ad hoc science that followed the cosmological redshift observations cannot be true.
    No, mass and energy are equivalent. The particles condensed out of pure energy (photons) quickly after the big bang. This does not violate the fundamental law of energy conservation. In fusion processes, we see the opposite: Matter is transformed into energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    The Laws of Conservation of Matter say that these two particles always existed.

    In other words, the ad hoc science that followed the cosmological redshift observations cannot be true.

    Cosmo
    Now, after Einstein related mass and energy, we do not speak of conservation of just mass or just energy, but of mass+energy. So, During nuclear reactions, we cannot neglect the energy difference since it mainly arises from conversion of mass into energy.
    Beyond Equations,

    Pritish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Very true, but first you have to synthesise larger atoms that form bigger compounds of protons and neutrons. So, it is obvious that in the beginning there were almost only the basic particles, i.e. protons, neutrons and electrons. We call the simplest combination of those hydrogen. In order to produce larger atoms, you need energy.

    And yes, neutrons decay very easily into a proton, an electron and an anti-neutrino.
    So really it's only evidence if we assume that there *must* have been a beginning. It couldn't just be a matter of the elements always having existed in all forms, and hydrogen continually forming from free protons and neutrons at a proportional rate to the formation of other elements inside stars.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •