how was hydrogen born?
- Thread starter Arlich Vomalites
- Start date
- Status
Arlich Vomalites
Registered Member
I am coming to a conclusion that the Big Bang was a fusion reaction where electrons and positrons fused to form hydrogen. The main problem why scientists have not been able to figure out the reaction is because they assume that the fundamental particles themselves, the electrons and positrons, should also have been born at the Big Bang. If we assume instead, that the origin of these fundamental particles can be unknown for the moment, we can realize that hydrogen, also the matter in the universe, was born out of these constituents at the Big Bang. But the constituents themselves were not born at the Big Bang.
The BB was an evolution of space and time as we know them, from an extremely hot dense state. With this spacetime was the Superforce, a conglomeration of the four forces we know of today....strong nuclear, weak nuclear, EMF and Gravity.
As this hot dense state expanded and cooled somewhat, this superforce started to decouple...gravity first.
Remembering Einstein's E=Mc2 this decoupling created phase transitions, analogous to water turning to ice, and the excesses of energy went into creating our first fundamental particles, such as quarks and electrons.
The Universe at this stage was still a hot dense opaque mixture of these fundamental particles.
As temperatures further dropped with expansion, the quarks "united" to form protons and neutrons.
The nuclei of hydrogen is a proton.
The Universe was still dense and opaque with hydrogen nucleii and electrons and neutrons.
After 370,000 years temperatures had dropped to around 5000C and electrons were able to unite with the hydrogen nucleii.
Part of this has already been explained to you.
Last edited:
Within the first three minutes if I'm not mistaken.
There was also a book written about it by Stephen Weinberg.
Arlich Vomalites
Registered Member
Where did the quarks cames from?
Science has an answer that the "heavy elements" come from hydrogen. But science does not have an answer to how hydrogen was born. Just saying that hydrogen was born at the Big Bang does not explain anything. It is the same as "God did it".
It is actually me who is explaining these things to you, and not vice versa.
paddoboy said:
Yes, if your interest in science is genuine, maybe you also check what people have written previously.
Why do you think I need your help? You suspect that I have religious agenda. How does your agenda differ from a religious agenda if all you got is "the Big Bang did it"?
You are suggesting that the science has an answer: the almighty Big Bang, although you don't tell how
it did everything.
You have already been informed of that.
E=Mc2
You have already been informed of that.
God, or any other pixie in the sky myth, is not science.
It appears it is actually you who is ignoring what you have been informed of, probably due to some pixie in the sky agenda.Calm down! No one has said science yet knows everything. It doesn't. Although we have good overwhelming evidence of the BB, all the BB says is how the Universe/spacetime/matter/energy evolved from a hot dense state.
It is common knowledge that as yet we do not know how the BB banged, or why the BB banged. Science just knows that it did most likely happen.
Worth noting also that the evidence for the BB is so strong, that even the Catholic church has recognised it along with the evolution of life.
In fact it was a Belgian Jesuit Priest who actually first came up with the BB. A bloke by the name of George La-Maitre.
Of course from the BB scenario, the church then takes the non scientific path of saying that their magical pixie in the sky caused it.
[Which then of course makes a great big joke out of the Bible!]
Now I suggest you again go back to post 23 where the creation of hydrogen was explained to you.
BB explain the many characteristics , the qualities , of hydrogen
You do not need to come to any conclusion about the BB being a "fusion reaction" it wasn't quite that or though there are periods of similarities .
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.
The fundamentals evolved after the superforce started to decouple.
One unsolved mystery of the fundamentals that evolved from the energetic state of the BB is the apparent asymmetric nature of matter and anti matter.
What was born at the BB, or evolved, was space and time, with our four forces united as a "superforce"
All our fundamentals evolved out of that hot dense state as expansion continued and pressures and temperatures dropped, or as I just said, conditions were such that the basic fundamentals of matter, quarks electrons etc, could not exist due to excessive temperatures and pressures.
So, no, the constituents or the fundamentals were not born directly from the BB itself, but the first atomic nucleii [hydrogen] were in place within the first three minutes.
Hydrogen then of course after 370,000 years when temperatures had dropped to around 5000C and electrons coupled with the atomic nucleii.
Last edited:
Yes the fundamentals are based on gravity
Yet the hottest spot observing the sun , is not the core but rather the corona
I'm confused. What has this to do with the price of fish?Actually not quite correct. The core is the hottest part of the Sun by a long way.
The mystery your trying to convey is the corona being hotter than the photosphere, and has been logically explained.
The BB is not a good description of how hydrogen is made
I mention the sun and its corona because in conventional thinking the core of the sun should be hottest part of the sun , its not
The corona of course and how hot it is
Yes it is.
The core is the hottest part of the Sun by a long way.
The mystery your trying to convey is the corona being hotter than the photosphere, and has been logically explained.
Yes it is.
The core is the hottest part of the Sun by a long way.
The mystery your trying to convey is the corona being hotter than the photosphere, and has been logically explained.
The core is about 15,000,000C The photosphere is around 5700C and the corona is about 2,000,000C
Perhaps you have been reading to much junk science?
The corona being at around 2,000,000C obviously consists of a plasma state of matter.
The probable reasons as to why it is hotter than the surface of the Sun, is thought to be magnetic field lines evolving from deep inside the Sun, arcing upwards and outwards to the surface and beyond to the corona.
Perhaps a more detailed explantion has now been given, its been awhile since I have checked it out, and we have had a number of solar probes devoted to the science of the Sun.
The probable reasons as to why it is hotter than the surface of the Sun, is thought to be magnetic field lines evolving from deep inside the Sun, arcing upwards and outwards to the surface and beyond to the corona.
Perhaps a more detailed explantion has now been given, its been awhile since I have checked it out, and we have had a number of solar probes devoted to the science of the Sun.
- Status