For some reason, OE won't indent your post. I'll
indicate your text, sorry for the non-standard
format.


"Paul Hollister" wrote in message
oups.com...
2) "What abundances do you derive for deuterium, helium-3, and
helium-4, and how do those abundances change with time?"

George Dishman wrote...
Steve asked "What abundances do you derive ...". You have
not given any values in your reply. All scientific theories must
make quantitative predictions. BB synthesis is capable of doing
that and the predicted values are a good match to the observed
abundances which is strong evidence that it is correct. Where
are your numbers?

Paul Hollister wrote...
Derive in the dictionary is defined as "to arrive at by reasoning".
If you had said all scientific theories should ultimately be formulated
in mathematical terms that can make precise quantitative predictions, I
would have agreed with you. However, theories also have conceptual
origins that do not by necessity begin with mathematical formulation.

True, but cosmology is becoming a 'hard' science,
one based on formulae derived from experiment and
observation. There was a time when your were right,
views were based more on philosophy, but since
Hubble measured the cosmological red shift, that
has changed.

Paul Hollister wrote...
Darwin's Origin of Species and morphogenesis in the science of
embryology are examples of observational sciences that were not
conceived through the process of mathematical formulation. First we
must have a conceptual vision of what the theory entails. Then we can
design precise investigational protocols by which to evaluate and test
the scientific hypothesis in both morphological and mathematical terms.

No, we now have sufficient detailed meaurements
that we can formulate the concepts by derivation.
The results are not what a simple philosophical
approach might have produced. For example there
is no reason why dark matter or dark energy might
ahve been suggested, yet from observation they
are clearly required.


Paul Hollister wrote...
The circumnuclear torus
surrounding the quasar is composed of proton-electron plasma
(hydrogen)
under enormous temperature and gravitational density conditions
that
result in accelerated nuclear fusion of deuterium, ...

George Dishman wrote...
Fusion destroys deuterium, it does not create it. In any
environment where it might be made, the cross-sections are
such that it is destroyed faster than it is produced. It is the
fact that the Big Bang happens in a very short time that lets
the deuterium level get 'frozen' in a non-equilibrium state. In
other words, some is made while the temperature is high
and the temperature falls so fast that it doesn't have time to
be destroyed.


Paul Hollister wrote...
When you clip the sentence immediately after deuterium, it makes it
look like deuterium stands alone in the statement, which it doesn't.
("The circumnuclear torus surrounding the quasar is composed of
proton-electron plasma (hydrogen) under enormous temperature and
gravitational density conditions that result in accelerated nuclear
fusion of deuterium, helium-3 and helium-4...") Deuterium, like
helium-3, is a step in the sequential process of helium formation, the
same process by which 4 atoms of hydrogen are fused into helium in the
stars. Fusion of hydrogen with hydrogen forms deuterium. Fusion of
hydrogen with deuterium forms helium-3. Fusion of hydrogen with
helium-3 forms helium-4. In this context I suppose you can say
"Fusion destroys deuterium", but you cannot say nuclear fusion does
not create deuterium. Hydrogen fusion creates deuterium and helium-3
fusion "destroys" deuterium.

Sorry, it is your wording that threw me. When you said
"fusion of deuterium, helium-3 and helium-4", I read that
as meaning all were end products rather than stages.
Perhaps if yous said "via deuterium, helium-3 and
hence to helium-4" it would be clearer.

The bottom line remains the same, we observe deuterium
in material which there is good evidence to suggest is
primordial and your idea doesn't explain that.

(snip)
I have stressed throughout the treatise that the quasar is the
site of
hydrogen nucleosynthesis because this is the key to recognizing
that
the galaxies have materialized and grown from inside outward into
their
range of visible morphologies (Mainstream Sequence of Galaxy
Evolution). Whereas deuterium and helium can result from nuclear
fusion
within the circumnuclear region around the quasar, and within the
AGN
region, and within the stars,

No, deuterium cannot be synthesised this way.

hydrogen nucleosynthesis can only occur
within the quasar!

With respect Paul, this is nonsense since hydrogen contains
a single proton and doesn't need to be synthesised at all.
"Nucleosynthesis" means creating larger nucleii from protons,
neutrons and other smaller nucleii.

Paul Hollister wrote...
Within the context of t`he Standard Big Bang Model and dictionary
definition of the term, I stand corrected. In the context of the
Ongoing Big-Bang Model, I have used "nucleosynthesis" of hydrogen
as a convenient misnomer. Sometimes I have written "quark-gluon
particle fusion of the atomic nucleus of hydrogen", which more
precisely describes the process, but it is very long to write.

It is also wrong as quarks don't exist as free
particles at the temperatures involved even in
quasars.

http://www.particleadventure.org/par...nfinement.html

Paul Hollister wrote...
Hydrogen
has a nucleus. The nucleus of hydrogen is the proton. Within the
context of the Ongoing Big-Bang Model, the nuclear synthesis of
hydrogen makes sense.

It makes sense to talk of building a house from
bricks but it doesn't make sense to talk of
building a brick from bricks. For the same
reason it doesn't make sense to talk of building
a hydrogen nucleus from protons.

Paul Hollister wrote...
The very foundation of this theory is the nuclear
synthesis of hydrogen within the supermassive thermal and gravitational
density conditions of the quasar. Contrary to the idea that the
"proton doesn't need to be synthesized at all", the proton is
indeed synthesized from quark-gluon plasma by a particle-fusion
process.

Synthesising protons from quarks is however not
nucleosynthesis. Nor do you olve any problems
because the quarks had to exist before you make
the protons from them. All you are doing is
recycling matter in quasars and for that you
only need sufficient temperature to break down
complex nucleii into baryon soup.

I'll snip the rest, the fundamental question
you are ignoring is where the quarks came from.
Taking pre-existing matter and reverting it to
hydrogen doesn't solve anything.

The Big Bang model leads by calculation to
values for which are very close to what is
observed. Read the last paragraph of this
page and realise that cosmology is now
sufficiently advanced that if your theory
doesn't predict values within one or two
percent of what is observed, it will be
considered as falsified by observation.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html

George