how was hydrogen born?

[Arlich Vomalites]

The fusion reactions occurring at the center of the Sun convert nuclei of hydrogen into helium.
The origin of all other elements heavier than helium lies also at the heart of the stars: Stellar Nucleosynthesis— the origin and production of the “heavy” elements.

The question remains: was hydrogen also born at the Big Bang by a fusion process similar to that occurring at the heart of the stars?
If the answer is yes, next question is: what did fuse to give birth to hydrogen?
In other words, did something collide causing a fusion reaction, so that the kinetic energy of this something transformed into matter known as hydrogen? And what might this something have been?

My guess is that there were two rays colliding into each other at the Big Bang. The kinetic
energy of these rays converted into hydrogen nuclei.
Two rays could have been enough: one ray of electrons, particles of matter, one ray of positrons, particles of anti-matter.
It could have similar to electron-positron annihilation reaction, which can also explain how the first light
was born.

 

[Billy T]

The fusion reactions occurring at the center of the Sun convert nuclei of hydrogen into helium.
The origin of all other elements heavier than helium lies also at the heart of the stars: Stellar Nucleosynthesis— the origin and production of the “heavy” elements.

The question remains: was hydrogen also born at the Big Bang by a fusion process similar to that occurring at the heart of the stars?
If the answer is yes, next question is: what did fuse to give birth to hydrogen?
In other words, did something collide causing a fusion reaction, so that the kinetic energy of this something transformed into matter known as hydrogen? And what might this something have been?

My guess is that there were two rays colliding into each other at the Big Bang. The kinetic
energy of these rays converted into hydrogen nuclei.
Two rays could have been enough: one ray of electrons, particles of matter, one ray of positrons, particles of anti-matter.
It could have similar to electron-positron annihilation reaction, which can also explain how the first light
was born.

As the temperature declined some of the cooler* quarks did fuse, three at a time, making protons, probably in a two step process with only two initially joining and probably they were of opposite charges then before they were separated a third positive quark fused with the pair.

I don't know if quark pairs have excited states, probably they do I would guess, but if they do not, then some how (radiation? or KE transfer to a "near by" quark?) lowered their total energy so the pair could "bind."

* low energy "tail" of the LTE distribution.

 

[exchemist]

The fusion reactions occurring at the center of the Sun convert nuclei of hydrogen into helium.
The origin of all other elements heavier than helium lies also at the heart of the stars: Stellar Nucleosynthesis— the origin and production of the “heavy” elements.

The question remains: was hydrogen also born at the Big Bang by a fusion process similar to that occurring at the heart of the stars?
If the answer is yes, next question is: what did fuse to give birth to hydrogen?
In other words, did something collide causing a fusion reaction, so that the kinetic energy of this something transformed into matter known as hydrogen? And what might this something have been?

My guess is that there were two rays colliding into each other at the Big Bang. The kinetic
energy of these rays converted into hydrogen nuclei.
Two rays could have been enough: one ray of electrons, particles of matter, one ray of positrons, particles of anti-matter.
It could have similar to electron-positron annihilation reaction, which can also explain how the first light
was born.

It might save us all time if you read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang and then came forward with issues of questions arising from it.

 

[Billy T]

It might save us all time if you read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang and then came forward with issues of questions arising from it.

Thanks for the link. It is not very clear on "quark production" but has link to this Wiki article that I now, below quote slightly from:

Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the Universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed....

I have I think a better reason for this last bold part:

In my cosmic horror story book Dark Visitor the dark visitor is approaching our solar system and will pass thru it about 11AU from earth giving an impulse to all the planets and making Earth's orbit slightly more elliptic* (winters of N. hemisphere a little warmer and summers a little cooler -but that is a disaster as heavy snow falls only occur in mild winter which is after DV all winter long and masses of Ocean water accumulate on land during the following decade as the cooler summer can not melt it all.) Average albedo growing with the increasing amount of "white ground" rapidly accelerates the coming of a new and permanent ice age in the N. hemisphere, but there are serious problems all over the world with falling sea levels making all ports useless, etc.

The Scary thing is the DV could be coming and we would have no warning - not even any "gravitational lensing" as it is small and moving too fast in angle. (You need before and after photos of the back ground star distortions or shifts to observed "gravitational lensing" and they are tiny and over too quick.)

Chapter 8 speculates as to what the DV could be that reflects no light. A small black hole (mass of 2.2 solar masses) is the obvious best bet, but I tell several other possibilities. One is a very dense aggregate of magnetic monopoles. Theory predicts them each to be very much more massive than a proton and it seems likely they would very rapidly condense into extremely dense and tiny objects with their long range inverse square attraction, compared to the slow gravitational formation of even just the gas clouds stars come from to form cubic crystals like NaCl does. I. e. showing only a 2D section, like:

NSNSNSNSNS
SNSNSNSNSN
NSNSNSNSNS
SNSNSNSNSN
NSNSNSNSNS

* I actually did the three body/ time-step problem to find that the Earth's excentricity increases from: 0.0171 to 0.0836 in a year, post DV, that is 378 days long.

 

[paddoboy]

The question remains: was hydrogen also born at the Big Bang by a fusion process similar to that occurring at the heart of the stars?

Early on just after the birth of the Universe/spacetime, conditions were such that the basic fundamentals of matter, quarks electrons etc, could not exist due to temperatures and pressures. As these dropped with the continued expansion of spacetime, quarks formed protons and neutrons...as temperatures dropped further, after a period of 380,000 years, temperatures were such that electrons were able to couple with atomic nucleii, so forming our first element hydrogen.
It's as simple as that.

 

[Arlich Vomalites]

...... after a period of 380,000 years, temperatures were such that electrons were able to couple with atomic nucleii, so forming our first element hydrogen.
It's as simple as that.

You are talking about the decoupling , 380000 years from the Big Bang, when neutral hydrogen forms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#mediaviewer/File:History_of_the_Universe.svg

But nuclei of hydrogen existed already before the decoupling, hydrogen was ionized.

So how were the nuclei of hydrogen atoms born? Could the Big Bang have been similar to stars which
produce the "heavy" elements? Did a fusion reaction produce nuclei of hydrogen at the Big Bang?
And what was the "something" that was being fused together?

I am suggesting that two rays of particles collided and fused to produce nuclei of hydrogen at the Big Bang.
The kinetic energy of the particles was converted to form matter of hydrogen.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

It might save us all time if you read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang and then came forward with issues of questions arising from it.

The wiki article says that they formed when the universe was cool enough.
All the protons that ever formed, were made in the first second, and then nearly all of them were destroyed.

At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons.

I'd imagine that protons etc formed because they were the most stable particles that could form,
but wiki doesn't go into a great amount of detail.

Has anyone got a more informative link on the subject?

 

[paddoboy]

You are talking about the decoupling , 380000 years from the Big Bang, when neutral hydrogen forms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#mediaviewer/File:History_of_the_Universe.svg

But nuclei of hydrogen existed already before the decoupling, hydrogen was ionized.
.

The element hydrogen was formed just after 380,000 years as I have said.
The nuclei of hydrogen, the most basic of atomic nuclei [proton] formed as I have said.....

Early on just after the birth of the Universe/spacetime, conditions were such that the basic fundamentals of matter, quarks electrons etc, could not exist due to temperatures and pressures. As these dropped with the continued expansion of spacetime, quarks formed protons and neutrons...as temperatures dropped further, after a period of 380,000 years, temperatures were such that electrons were able to couple with atomic nucleii, so forming our first element hydrogen.
It's as simple as that.

 

[Boris2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Why are Baryons generally made of three quarks?
Not two or four.
And what are quarks anyway?

 

[Billy T]

Why are Baryons generally made of three quarks? Not two or four. ...

I now add to my post 2 a possible answer to "why three?" Possibly the charge neutral quark pair I speculated in post 2 as the first step in making a proton is stable / bound only in some excited state. That is true of some chemical compounds. (Only the excited state has net negative energy - is bound. - I forget all the examples.)

{post 2 in full} As the temperature declined some of the cooler* quarks did fuse, three at a time, making protons, probably in a two step process with only two initially joining and probably they were of opposite charges then before they were separated a third positive quark fused with the pair.

I don't know if quark pairs have excited states, probably they do I would guess, but if they do not, then some how (radiation? or KE transfer to a "near by" quark?) lowered their total energy so the pair could "bind."

* low energy "tail" of the LTE distribution.

After a proton has formed, another positive quark trying to join to bring the total to four would be repelled. If it was an negative quark tryng to join, the would make four with no net charge, If I'm correct that the neutral pair of two is meta-stable, then It seems likely that the neutral group of four would be unstable too as their are more ways for it to "fly apart." The stong force is with a very short range, may be part of answer to "why not four?" too. One "simple minded" quasi-classical way to think about it is that if there is a union of a proton and a positive quark, the mutual repulsion between the two + is like a "vapor pressure" so one of the two net + "boils or evaporates" away.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

When the quarks bound to make baryons there must have been a massive amount of energy released.
What happened to it?

 

[James R]

Why are Baryons generally made of three quarks?
Not two or four.
And what are quarks anyway?

Quarks have a property called "color" (which has nothing to do with ordinary color - it's just a name for a particular quantum property). They come in three "colors" called red, green and blue. There are also anti-quarks, which have anti-color.

Quarks combine in such a way that the particles they form are "white". So, we can have mixtures of 2 quarks (e.g. red and anti-red) or 3 quarks (red, green and blue). Particles made of 2 quarks are called mesons. Particles made of 3 quarks are baryons. Things are a little more complicated than this, but these are the basics.

 

[Arlich Vomalites]

Thanks all for your contribution.

I am looking for an explanation for what was the Big Bang.
I think that there was a reaction, and it could have been similar to a nuclear fusion reaction.
Another possibility that I have in mind, is that the reaction could also have been a chemical reaction.
Look at this reaction of zinc and sulfur:

The reaction is initiated by touching the mixture with a red hot iron rod.
If the Big Bang really was a similar kind of chemical reaction, what was the spark or the seed of the fire or the"first fire" which initiated the Big Bang ? Where did the "first fire" came from, what gave birth to it, did it also need to be ignited?
That would lead us into an infinite regress. Or does fire come from fire?

 

[origin]

Thanks all for your contribution.

I am looking for an explanation for what was the Big Bang.

It was the formation of the universe.

I think that there was a reaction, and it could have been similar to a nuclear fusion reaction.

No. There was no matter so there could not be a fusion reaction.

Another possibility that I have in mind, is that the reaction could also have been a chemical reaction.

No. There were no elements so there could be no chemical reactions.

The entire universe was contained in a tiny area and that tiny area expanded into the universe we know today - this is what we call the big bang.

 

[Arlich Vomalites]

It was the formation of the universe.

No. There was no matter so there could not be a fusion reaction.

No. There were no elements so there could be no chemical reactions.

The entire universe was contained in a tiny area and that tiny area expanded into the universe we know today - this is what we call the big bang.

You do seem to know a lot about the Big Bang.

If so, why don't you go on and tell us how hydrogen was born?
Where did fire came from?
Where did water came from?
Where did the universe came from?

 

[AlexG]

Atomic hydrogen was formed at the recombination era, aprox 377000 years after the initial expansion. It was then that the temperature dropped low enough to permit electron capture by a proton.

Fire is an exothermic chemical reaction. It didn't 'come' from anywhere.

Water formed when oxygen was produced via stellar nucleosynthesis in massive stars and broadcast via supernovas.

The answer to your last question is unknown.

 

[paddoboy]

If so, why don't you go on and tell us how hydrogen was born?

You have been told that at least 4 times previously.

Where did fire came from?

The Universe just after the BB, was in a hot dense state.....Otherwise not sure what you inferring with fire.

Where did water came from?

Stars are fusion factories, and fuse elements up to and including Iron/Nickel. Oxygen is among the elements formed.

Where did the universe came from?

The Universe/spacetime evolved from the BB.
Where did the BB come from? Why did it bang?? How did it bang??
We don't know as yet.
If your interest in science and cosmology is genuine, then you need to check the previous answers and people will contiue to help in that regard.....If you have a religious agenda though, to some how denigrate cosmology and insert your deity/pixie in the sky of choice, then you are being dishonest and in the wrong section.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Hydrogen was born in a hydrogen manger, on Christmas day.

 

[Aqueous Id]

why don't you go on and tell us how hydrogen was born?

Well, 3 quarks went into a bar. That was just too much pressure. It was getting late, so the exotic particles sort of came out of their shells and the loners dissipated due to lack of excitement. The colder it got the greater the attraction. One thing led to another and 9 very pregnant Planck times later, tiny Proton was born. After that the charm was gone so the quarks, well, annihilated. There's a less explicit story of the stork that delivered 3 quarks, but for the gory details see CptBork.

Where did fire came from?

From plasma.

Or is that a trick question? From quarks playing with matches?

Quarks sure are fading the heat here.

Where did water came from?

A leak? What water? Find the water and you'll find the leak. But you'll have to wait for the birth of oxygen, you know, the O in H2O. You sure are jumping around. Does talking about the Big Bang make you uncomfortable?

Where did the universe came from?

From no place at all.

You are talking about the decoupling , 380000 years from the Big Bang, when neutral hydrogen forms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#mediaviewer/File:History_of_the_Universe.svg

But nuclei of hydrogen existed already before the decoupling, hydrogen was ionized.

So how were the nuclei of hydrogen atoms born?

You mean how were protons born? See above. Research the birth of electrons, to get the full pedigree of Hydrogen.

Could the Big Bang have been similar to stars which
produce the "heavy" elements?

Only if expansion and compression are similar. That and a lot more dissimilarity.

Did a fusion reaction produce nuclei of hydrogen at the Big Bang?

Only if "fusion reaction at the Big Bang" means "Combining of quarks in the year 377,000 or so."

And what was the "something" that was being fused together?

Exactly. What does that tell you?

I am suggesting that two rays of particles collided and fused to produce nuclei of hydrogen at the Big Bang.

Is that your version of the stork? So you're squeamish after all.

The kinetic energy of the particles was converted to form matter of hydrogen.

Only if "kinetic energy"means "electron capture by protons".

But you might be onto something. When energy converts to matter, what forms first? Atoms? Quarks? Something else?