The Big Bang model

A few minutes into the expansion, when the temperature had dropped to 109 degrees, neutrons combined with protons to form deuterium and helium nuclei. Most protons remained uncombined as hydrogen nuclei. As the universe continued to cool, the rest mass energy density of matter (gravity) came to exceed the energy density of the photons 

---

F. Hoyle and R. J. Tayler point out significance of additional neutrinos for helium synthesis in the Big Bang model. 

In this chapter, we reviewed the broad outlines of the Big Bang model for the origin of the universe and discussed some of the supporting observations. We showed that the Big Bang gave rise to hydrogen, helium, and some lithium, beryllium, and boron, but that other elements were produced primarily in stars. The rest of the elements were synthesized in stars via the nuclear reactions that cause the stars to shine. To understand stellar nucleosynthesis, it is necessary to understand the characteristics of stars. Astronomers use... 

If cosmology is to be consistent with all of science it requires serious revision in order to come into line with chemical evidence pertaining to the periodicity of matter, the cosmic abundance of nuclides and the self-similar symmetry between objects large and small. All of these aspects, either refute, or remain neutral to the provisions of the big-bang model. A valid model, in line with... 

Cosmic microwave background radiation The uniform background radiation in the microwave region of the spectrum that is observed in all directions in the sky. Its discovery added credence to the big bang model of the universe. 

There is a perception that standard cosmology is firmly based on the general theory of relativity, which is said to supersede the dictates of special relativity. However, this is a fabrication that only serves to corroborate the big-bang fantasy. Ironically, many opponents of the big-bang model fail to recognize this fundamental fallacy at the root of the expan ding-universe avowal. 

The relative abundances of the various isotopes of the light elements Li, Be and B therefore depend to some extent on which detailed model of the big bang is adopted, and experimentally determined abundances may in time permit conclusions to be drawn as to the relative importance of these processes as compared to x-process spallation reactions. 

On the basis of these estimates, we can identify the flow of nuclear reactions and plot the rivers they follow on the (A, Z) map. By coupling this network of nuclear reactions with models of stars or the Big Bang, which predict temperature and density variations in space and time, we may hope to identify the nature of the elements and isotopes produced, as well as their relative proportions. 

As we cannot get hold of the stars, the galaxies and other universes, as we cannot manipulate them, we make models. In this way, numerical experiments provide support for telescopic observations, and for real experiments, such as those carried out in particle accelerators, which simulate energy conditions in the Big Bang and stars. 

In recent times, several cosmological models have flourished, including one of great renown, known as the Big Bang theory. This is a simple theory with considerable predictive power. The Big Bang is the exceptionally hot and dense state considered to initiate cosmology as we know it today. It explains why stars are invariably made of hydrogen... 

What was the Big Bang What is some of the observational evidence that supports this model ... 

Experiment to Test de Broglie Tired-Light Model for the Photon and Its Implications for the Cosmological Expanding Model of the Big Bang in the Universe... 

Could that be so that the Universe was created with the preponderance of matter over antimatter We have no support for such hypothesis. Einstein remarked If that s the way God made the world then I don t want to have anything to do with Him [7]. Indeed, the contemporary Standard Model of Physics suggests that equal amounts of matter and antimatter were born during the Big-Bang. Where has the antimatter gone What causes the apparent asymmetry between matter and antimatter Obviously the antiparticles have been annihilated by particles - but apparently this process was not fully symmetric, since enough matter was left over for our Universe. We seem to be the result of an accident, caused by a a slight imperfection of Nature. 

The chemical composition of the Universe is primarily estimated from models of the Big Bang (Delsemme, 1998, 19-42) and spectrographic analyses of nebulas and the atmospheres of stars (Krauskopf and Bird, 1995, 563-564). Currently, hydrogen and helium are the most abundant elements, representing 71% and 28%, respectively, of all known matter in the Universe (Delsemme, 1998, 22). Arsenic has been ranked as the 39th most common element in the Universe with an average concentration of 0.008 mg kg-1 (Matschullat, 2000, 299 Table 3.1). 

Could there really have been nothing It is hard to imagine, yet the standard model of the Big Bang starts with a submicroscopic space of very high density. That does not mean that it is true, but it is the model that arises from doodling with Einsteins equations and Einstein is the best bet around.1... 

You can never calculate a reaction, only a model for it. Let us suppose that Is is necessary to enter into a computer the coordinates of one molecule. Just the input for lmmol will then require 6.02 X 1020 s, i.e. about 19 billion years, or, if you prefer, the same order of magnitude as the number of seconds elapsed since the Big Bang And if your model is chemically absurd, then no matter how carefully your calculations are done, the results will be ludicrous (see p. 243 for some illustrative examples). Remember the adage garbage in, garbage out ... 

The atoms, specifically their nuclei, that comprise the solar system were made in a variety of environments (cf. Woolum, 1988). H and most of the He were made in the Big Bang. The He/H ratio, and the isotope ratios D/H and 3He/4He, are adequately accounted for in Big Bang models perhaps a better statement is that these ratios provide important constraints on such models. The Big Bang made just a little heavier... 

Weizsacker s theory shared with other theories of element formation the assumption of an equilibrium mechanism. It was the abandonment of this assumption in the 1940s that paved the way for the first successful big-bang model of the universe, proposed by George Gamow and his collaborators in 1948. That the equilibrium hypothesis might not be tenable had been suggested as early as 1931, when the two American chemists Harold Urey and Charles Bradley argued that the relative abundance of terrestrial elements could not be reconciled with the hypothesis, whatever the temperature of the equilibrium mixture. [45]... 

The agreement between the predictions of the SBBN model for the abundances of deuterium, helium-4, helium-3 and lithium-7 and the observations of the primordial abundances of these light elements is one of the successes and therefore one of the cornerstones of the Big Bang Cosmology. 

The primordial abundances of the light elements are not measured easily and simultaneously. The main difficulties come from systematic uncertainties in inferring abundances from observations and in modeling their chemical evolution since the Big Bang. 

It is impossible to deny that the Big Bang has been an enormously fruitful physical model of the universe and, even though large questions remain (as they inevitably do in basic science), that the model was justified by the observational data. Scientists such as Einstein, Eddington, and Hoyle fudged and twisted in their efforts to resist a scientific theory that flowed naturally from the data because they thought they would be forced to accept unpleasant philosophical or theological conclusions. They weren t they had other options. 

---