Question: If your body is made of baryons...

In real time! How long did it take for all the baryons (Protons and
neutrons) in your physical body and Planet Earth and the Milky Way Galaxy to
be materialized into existence?

Paul Hollister
http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com

"Paul Hollister" wrote in message
...
In real time! How long did it take for all the baryons (Protons and
neutrons) in your physical body and Planet Earth and the Milky Way Galaxy
to be materialized into existence?

Much less than one second:

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


http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com

"With the single exception of hydrogen,
the other atoms are formed by nuclear
fusion in the stars."

That is not true. About 25% of the initial
nucleosynthesis products would be Helium.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Paul Hollister" wrote in message
...
In real time! How long did it take for all the baryons (Protons and
neutrons) in your physical body and Planet Earth and the Milky Way
Galaxy
to be materialized into existence?

Much less than one second

As a hematologist, I am accustomed to looking at the physical universe
face to face and through the microscope rather than through the lenses
of mathematical abstraction. When trying to conceptualize the process
of baryonogenesis in relationship to physical actuality, it helps me to
look at the total sum of baryons in terms that my physical senses can
comprehend. As a starting point, therefore, to conceptually visualize
the magnitude of baryonogenesis in real physical terms, can you help me
calculate by weight in a 100 kg man how much of the physical body is
composed of baryons? As a mathematician and astrophysicist, you can do
this much better than I can but I'll make an initial estimate by using
the mass of a proton to represent all baryons. The human body is
composed of cells and intercellular matrix that consists of atomic
molecular structure. Total body weight therefore is composed of the
baryons (protons and neutrons) and electrons that form its atomic
molecular structure. The mass of a proton is approximately 1836 times
that of an electron, and each atomic nucleus contains almost the entire
mass of the atom. Reciprocally, the mass of electron can be derived
(1/1836 x 100 = 0.055). With one electron for each proton in the human
body, body weight x 0.055 = total electron mass, and body weight -
electron mass = baryonic mass of human body. If I am calculating this
correctly, the baryonic mass of a 150 kg man = 141.75 Kg and electron
mass = 8.25 kg. Therefore 94.5% of human body weight (141.75/150 x 100)
is the baryonic weight of a human being, and this 94.5% of the human
body is said to have materialized into physical existence within ONE
SECOND, according to the Standard Big Bang Model. Help me out with this
if I am making a significant mathematical error, such as the amount of
mass loss that occurs through atomic nuclear fusion.

Now with the baryonic weight of an average human being in mind as a
starting point, I can conceptually visualize the proportionate amount
of baryonic mass of Planet Earth and the Milky Way Galaxy, which is
likewise said to have all materialized into physical existence within
ONE SECOND.
Now we can extrapolate and apply this proportion of baryonic mass to
the 100 billion galaxies that are directly visible through the Hubble
and Chandra telescopes and ask ourselves whether we really believe that
the total baryonic mass of the billions of stars in each of the 100
billion galaxies actually materialized into physical existence in less
than ONE SECOND! Doesn't this seem rather magical?
Why is it decided that all the baryons in the entire physical universe
were materialized into actual physical existence within ONE SECOND?
This is unbelievable! This is no less magical than the original Book of
Genesis!

There is another possibility that can account for the creation of
baryons in the universe. And it is exploding into evidence right in
front of our eyes! Rather than the entire physical universe exploding
into baryonic existence within ONE SECOND, the baryonic mass of the
surrounding visible universe could potentially evolve from an Ongoing
Big-Bang process that is clearly in evidence within the greatest
supermassive densities causing the most powerful ongoing explosions in
the entire physical universe: The Quasar!
Think about this for a moment because the theory fits the facts. When
the supermassive gravitational density of the Quasar is modeled as the
physical site of Ongoing "Big-Bang" quark-gluon fusion into the
atomic nucleus of hydrogen (baryonogenesis), hydrogen in plasma form is
jettisoned from the quasar into surrounding regional space. As a
morphologist, by following the jettison of hydrogen outward I have been
able to define the entire Mainstream Sequence of Galaxy Evolution. The
following hyperlink illustrates the Mainstream Sequence of Galaxy
Evolution and describes how the galaxy grows and evolves from inside
outward from Quasar to Radio Galaxy to Elliptical Galaxy to Spiral
Galaxy (http://www.origin-of-universe.com/#Galaxy_Evolution).


http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com

"With the single exception of hydrogen,
the other atoms are formed by nuclear
fusion in the stars."

That is not true. About 25% of the initial
nucleosynthesis products would be Helium.


Since when does a scientific theory define what is true and "not
true"? It is scientific investigation that defines what is true and
not true. The sentence you have quoted, which introduces a new
scientific paradigm concerning galaxy evolution, simply states that
hydrogen is not formed in the stars. I then introduce evidence showing
that the quasar is the site of hydrogen nucleosynthesis.
In response to the second of five questions by Steve Willner about the
Ongoing Big-Bang Model, I have previously summarized how, when and
where deuterium and helium nucleosynthesis occur in this new paradigm
of universe evolution:
(Professor Willner's second question about the Ongoing Big-Bang Model
for galaxy and universe evolution, from sci.astro at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e1df8cbc15eacb):

2) "What abundances do you derive for deuterium, helium-3, and
helium-4, and how do those abundances change with time?"

Hydrogen accounts for 73 percent of the observed mass of the universe
and is the most common element in the universe. Helium accounts for
about 25 percent of the mass of the universe and is the second most
common element. All mainstream sequence stars in the universe
(Hertzsprung-Russell diagram) are predominantly composed of hydrogen.
All newborn stars throughout the universe are ignited into visible
existence by the thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium.
Throughout much of their life span (mainstream sequence of stellar
evolution), thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium continues to
occur in the stars. In the Standard Big Bang Model, all the hydrogen
and most of the deuterium, helium-3 and helium-4 in the universe were
created within 3 MINUTES following the mathematical point of beginning
of Big Bang. In the Ongoing Big-Bang Model, the nucleosynthesis of
hydrogen is produced inside the supermassive thermal and gravitational
density conditions of the quasar. This Ongoing Big-Bang nucleosynthesis
of hydrogen results directly in the formation of the quasar's
circumnuclear torus and cosmic plasma jets of proton-electron plasma,
as described under Question #1 above. 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 and atomic elements that are in evidence immediately around
the quasar and within the active galactic nucleus (AGN) region of the
galaxy. The following hyperlink contains detailed description and
testable predictions of this Ongoing Big-Bang process that results in
atomic nucleosynthesis and AGN evolution: Chapter 12 -- Quasar and AGN
Evolution, section -- Ongoing Big-Bang Alignment of Quasars and
Circumnuclear AGNs (page 149, CD Edition)
(http://www.origin-of-universe.com/ch...chapter_12.htm).
The following excerpt from the hyperlink describes how accelerated
nuclear fusion immediately around the quasar forms atoms of higher
atomic weight and gives rise to the active galactic nucleus (AGN)
region of the galaxy:

"As the quasar matures, the environment around the quasar evolves
from two separate but simultaneous and closely interrelated processes,
each of which have their own unique regional rate of evolution: 1) The
quasar's radio jets account for the accumulative formation of the
galaxy's radio structure and hydrogen atmosphere that results in the
starburst growth and evolution of the optical galaxy, as previously
described, which accounts for the evolution of the elliptical galaxy.
2) The quasar's plasma torus accounts for the evolution of the
circumnuclear environment around the quasar, which over time evolves
into the galaxy's visible active galactic nucleus (AGN), which in
turn accounts for the massive materialization of circumnuclear galaxy
dust and morphological evolution of the spiral galaxy. The astronomical
temperature conditions and massive amounts of hydrogen produced by the
Big-Bang process of quark-gluon fusion within the quasar account for
the sequential formation of the circumnuclear plasma torus and
resulting materialization and fueling of the AGN. Within the
thermonuclear inferno of the AGN is where the massive amounts of higher
atomic-molecular weight dust is formed that is responsible for
gradually reshaping the galaxy from spherical to elliptical to spiral
form. Whereas the increasing volume and size of the elliptical stages
of optical galaxy evolution are largely due to the radio jets and rain
of hydrogenous matter throughout the space of the galaxy, the
increasing ellipticity (E0-E7) of the galaxy and transformation from
elliptical to spiral galaxy form (S0) and progressive increase in the
total atomic-molecular dust and mass of the spiral stages (Sa-Sc) of
galaxy evolution are primarily the result of events taking place in the
circumnuclear AGN."

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, hydrogen nucleosynthesis can only occur
within the quasar! This is the key by which I was able to define the
mainstream sequence of galaxy evolution: Quasars make hydrogen! From
this perspective, the origin of the Intergalactic Medium and the Lyman
alpha forest can be looked at in a new light. (To avoid any
misunderstanding or confusion about what constitutes the Standard Big
Bang Model perspective see Professor Bill Keel's excellent
essay about Quasars, AGN and Lyman Alpha Forest at
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/agn/).

Within the Intergalactic Medium, from Ongoing Big-Bang perspective, all
hydrogen can be traced directly to Ongoing Big-Bang nucleosynthesis
within the quasar. Accelerated nuclear fusion of deuterium, helium-3
and helium-4 can occur in the circumnuclear region around the quasar
and AGN region of the galaxy. The presence of ionized helium (He II)
within the Lyman alpha forest can be the result of intragalactic
nuclear fusion or the result of helium being carried outward as a minor
component of the jets. The process of baryonogenesis within the quasar
and nuclear fusion within its circumnuclear torus occurs in sequence
from quark-gluon plasma to hydrogen to deuterium to helium-3 to
helium-4. Whether or not a fractional portion of helium can be
jettisoned into intergalactic space rather than confined to the
circumnuclear torus and AGN region would depend in part on where
deuterium and helium nucleosynthesis begins in relationship to the
formation of the quasar's circumnuclear torus and plasma jets. If
helium nucleosynthesis begins to occur after the formation of the
plasma jets, there should be no significant levels of intergalactic He
II. If helium nucleosynthesis begins to occur within the circumnuclear
torus, intergalactic jettison of He would be potentially possible. If
helium nucleosynthesis begins to occur proximal to the formation of the
circumnuclear torus, more He could be jettisoned into intergalactic
space.

"Paul Hollister" wrote in message
oups.com...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Paul Hollister" wrote in message
...
In real time! How long did it take for all the baryons (Protons and
neutrons) in your physical body and Planet Earth and the Milky Way
Galaxy
to be materialized into existence?

Much less than one second

As a hematologist, I am accustomed to looking at the physical universe
face to face and through the microscope rather than through the lenses
of mathematical abstraction.

I guess this question might be more appropriate for a
bacteriologist but when you do that, do you sometimes
measure the time it takes for a cell to divide? Would
you then accept that an extrapolation that the number
of cells could grow at an exponential rate based on
that measurement. That is the only level of
"mathematical abstraction" involved.

When trying to conceptualize the process
of baryonogenesis in relationship to physical actuality, it helps me to
look at the total sum of baryons in terms that my physical senses can
comprehend.

No, that won't help because your mind will have as much
difficulty imagining the immense volume of space as
dealing with the enormous mass. The universe was very
uniform at that time so a better approach is to consider
density. At the time of nucleosynthesis, it was around
that of water.

As a starting point, therefore, to conceptually visualize
the magnitude of baryonogenesis in real physical terms, can you help me
calculate by weight in a 100 kg man how much of the physical body is
composed of baryons? As a mathematician and astrophysicist, you can do
this much better than I

I am neither a mathematician nor an astrophysicist, I
am a communications system designer with a degree in
physics reading cosmology as a hobby.

can but I'll make an initial estimate by using
the mass of a proton to represent all baryons. The human body is
composed of cells and intercellular matrix that consists of atomic
molecular structure. Total body weight therefore is composed of the
baryons (protons and neutrons) and electrons that form its atomic
molecular structure. The mass of a proton is approximately 1836 times
that of an electron, and each atomic nucleus contains almost the entire
mass of the atom. Reciprocally, the mass of electron can be derived
(1/1836 x 100 = 0.055). With one electron for each proton in the human
body, body weight x 0.055 = total electron mass, and body weight -
electron mass = baryonic mass of human body. If I am calculating this
correctly, the baryonic mass of a 150 kg man = 141.75 Kg and electron
mass = 8.25 kg. Therefore 94.5% of human body weight (141.75/150 x 100)
is the baryonic weight of a human being, and this 94.5% of the human
body is said to have materialized into physical existence within ONE
SECOND, according to the Standard Big Bang Model. Help me out with this
if I am making a significant mathematical error, such as the amount of
mass loss that occurs through atomic nuclear fusion.

Now with the baryonic weight of an average human being in mind as a
starting point, I can conceptually visualize the proportionate amount
of baryonic mass of Planet Earth and the Milky Way Galaxy, which is
likewise said to have all materialized into physical existence within
ONE SECOND.
Now we can extrapolate and apply this proportion of baryonic mass to
the 100 billion galaxies that are directly visible through the Hubble
and Chandra telescopes and ask ourselves whether we really believe that
the total baryonic mass of the billions of stars in each of the 100
billion galaxies actually materialized into physical existence in less
than ONE SECOND!

What you are forgetting is that this was happening
throughout space during this early period. The question
is could your 150kg of mass be created in a volume of
about a tenth of a cubic metre in a second.

Doesn't this seem rather magical?

Why is it decided that all the baryons in the entire physical universe
were materialized into actual physical existence within ONE SECOND?

As a haematologist, I am sure you know that, when it was
first suggested that tiny animals caused disease, few
people believed it. Once you see bacteria through the
microscope, you have no choice but to accept them. The
same is true in this case only the physicists microscope
is the particle accelerator. They see these processes
happening all the time and they measure their cross
sections from which they can calculate the rate of the
processes at different densities and temperatures.

That rate is so high that the mass of your body could
have been created and destroyed in the relevant volume
billions of times in one second. The rate we see is so
high that neutrons and protons would have formed
hydrogen and the hydrogen would then have been broken
apart again over and over again allowing the mix to
reach a situation of dynamic equilibrium. It is the
way that equilibrium mix then cools that gives the
predicted ratios.

This is unbelievable! This is no less magical than the original Book of
Genesis!

Whether you can believe it or not, it is what we
observe in accelerators. You are asking me to
believe that what is observed doesn't happen.

There is another possibility that can account for the creation of
baryons in the universe. And it is exploding into evidence right in
front of our eyes! Rather than the entire physical universe exploding
into baryonic existence within ONE SECOND, the baryonic mass of the
surrounding visible universe could potentially evolve from an Ongoing
Big-Bang process that is clearly in evidence within the greatest
supermassive densities causing the most powerful ongoing explosions in
the entire physical universe: The Quasar!
Think about this for a moment because the theory fits the facts.

The facts are that we see that energy is conserved
in closed systems and your suggestion violates that.
In the Big Bang model, there is a strange fact that
probably tells us something fundamental, the amount
of energy created as mass and photons in any volume
is exactly equal to the negative gravitational energy
in the same volume. The sum of the two is zero so this
isn't a problem for the standard model.

snip

"With the single exception of hydrogen,
the other atoms are formed by nuclear
fusion in the stars."

That is not true. About 25% of the initial
nucleosynthesis products would be Helium.

Since when does a scientific theory define what is true and "not
true"?

When the theory is a simple extrapolation of real
observations within the bounds of applicability.

It is scientific investigation that defines what is true and
not true. The sentence you have quoted, which introduces a new
scientific paradigm concerning galaxy evolution, simply states that
hydrogen is not formed in the stars.

It doesn't actually, it says everything other than
hydrogen isn't formed anywhere but stars, but we know
from accelerator experiments that the conditions that
would form hydrogen would also form about 25% of
helium.

I then introduce evidence showing
that the quasar is the site of hydrogen nucleosynthesis.

What you haven't offered is any evidence for the
contention that helium wouldn't be produced in
big bang nucleosynthesis or evidence for the
failure of conservation of energy.


In response to the second of five questions by Steve Willner about the
Ongoing Big-Bang Model, I have previously summarized how, when and
where deuterium and helium nucleosynthesis occur in this new paradigm
of universe evolution:
(Professor Willner's second question about the Ongoing Big-Bang Model
for galaxy and universe evolution, from sci.astro at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e1df8cbc15eacb):

2) "What abundances do you derive for deuterium, helium-3, and
helium-4, and how do those abundances change with time?"

Hydrogen accounts for 73 percent of the observed mass of the universe
and is the most common element in the universe. Helium accounts for
about 25 percent of the mass of the universe and is the second most
common element.

The key here is the word "derive". You have to show
how you calculated those numbers from your model for
them to carry any weight, not just state what is
observed. The check is whether the calculated values
match the observed values.

George

In article .com, "Paul
Hollister" wrote:


molecular structure. The mass of a proton is approximately 1836 times
that of an electron, and each atomic nucleus contains almost the entire
mass of the atom. Reciprocally, the mass of electron can be derived
(1/1836 x 100 = 0.055). With one electron for each proton in the human
body, body weight x 0.055 = total electron mass, and body weight -
electron mass = baryonic mass of human body. If I am calculating this
correctly, the baryonic mass of a 150 kg man = 141.75 Kg and electron
mass = 8.25 kg. Therefore 94.5% of human body weight (141.75/150 x 100)
is the baryonic weight of a human being, and this 94.5% of the human
body is said to have materialized into physical existence within ONE
SECOND, according to the Standard Big Bang Model. Help me out with this
if I am making a significant mathematical error, such as the amount of
mass loss that occurs through atomic nuclear fusion.

This is in error, if the electron is 1/1836 of a proton and there
are about as many nuetrons as protons in a atom, the fraction of
an atom that is electrons is 1/(2 * 1836) = 1/3672. In a 150kg
person the weight of electrons is ~0.041kg. Baryons are ~99.973%
of the weight.

Dark skies,

tom

--
We have discovered a therapy ( NOT a cure )
for the common cold. Play tuba for an hour.

"Paul Hollister" wrote in message
oups.com...

(Professor Willner's second question about the Ongoing Big-Bang Model
for galaxy and universe evolution, from sci.astro at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e1df8cbc15eacb):
2) "What abundances do you derive for deuterium, helium-3, and
helium-4, and how do those abundances change with time?"

(snip) In the Ongoing Big-Bang Model, the nucleosynthesis of
hydrogen is produced inside the supermassive thermal and
gravitational
density conditions of the quasar. This Ongoing Big-Bang
nucleosynthesis
of hydrogen results directly in the formation of the quasar's
circumnuclear torus and cosmic plasma jets of proton-electron plasma,
as described under Question #1 above. 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 and atomic elements that are in evidence immediately around
the quasar and within the active galactic nucleus (AGN) region of the
galaxy.
(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, hydrogen nucleosynthesis can only occur
within the quasar! This is the key by which I was able to define the
mainstream sequence of galaxy evolution: Quasars make hydrogen!
(snip)
The process of baryonogenesis within the quasar
and nuclear fusion within its circumnuclear torus occurs in sequence
from quark-gluon plasma to hydrogen to deuterium to helium-3 to
helium-4. Whether or not a fractional portion of helium can be
jettisoned into intergalactic space rather than confined to the
circumnuclear torus and AGN region would depend in part on where
deuterium and helium nucleosynthesis begins in relationship to the
formation of the quasar's circumnuclear torus and plasma jets. If
helium nucleosynthesis begins to occur after the formation of the
plasma jets, there should be no significant levels of intergalactic
He
II. If helium nucleosynthesis begins to occur within the
circumnuclear
torus, intergalactic jettison of He would be potentially possible. If
helium nucleosynthesis begins to occur proximal to the formation of
the
circumnuclear torus, more He could be jettisoned into intergalactic
space.


After reading the above, I don't know how you could conclude that I
have mitigated the importance of helium nucleosynthesis in this model.
In the Ongoing Big-Bang Model, the baryonogenic and nucleosynthesis
process occurs sequentially from quark-gluon plasma to hydrogen to
deuterium to helium-3 to helium-4. Whereas in the Standard Big Bang
Model, nucleosynthesis is an extremely abrupt event that produced all
the hydrogen and most of the helium in the entire universe within 3
minutes, nucleosynthesis of hydrogen and helium in the Ongoing Big-Bang
Model is a gradual process that is directly observable within the
surrounding universe. I have described this process in detail in
Chapter 13 -- Galaxy Evolution from Ellipse to Spiral.
http://www.origin-of-universe.com/ch...chapter_13.htm

For convenience relevant to our discussion, I have posted an excerpt
from Galaxy Evolution from Ellipse to Spiral (CD Edition pages 160-161,
163-164) at http://origin-of-universe.blogspot.com/ that shows galaxy
images from recent press releases to which the following description of
galaxy evolution from an Ongoing Big-Bang perspective applies.

"This disk of visible dust has been formed by the following
evolutionary sequence: 1) the supermassive gravitational density within
the quasar ("black hole") reached the Big-Bang threshold (burning
orb) of quark-gluon fusion into baryons; 2) the baryonogenic products
exploding outward from the Big-Bang gravitationally gathered into a
torus of particle plasma that orbits around the quasar's equatorial
plane as a synchrotron plasma disk; 3) proton-electron particles from
the ongoing Big-Bang are jettisoned outward at right angles to the
plasma disk on the axis of the quasar's spin, forming the radio jets;
4) the active galactic circumnuclear region (AGN) around the quasar
("black hole") is an inferno of thermonuclear fusion in arcs and
filaments and threads and stars and supernova that result in massive
atomic fusion into atoms of progressively higher atomic weights; 5) in
the various thermal regions of that AGN environment, atoms combine into
molecules that gather in the cooler regions into giant molecular clouds
and orbiting rings of dust; 6) as the amount of visible dust
continuously accumulates from this ongoing sequential process of baryon
and atom and molecule formation, the heavier masses of dust spread
centrifugally outward to form these massive Rings of Dust rotating in
the equatorial plane around galaxy center, which is responsible for the
increasing ellipticity of this E4 galaxy and, as the dust-accumulation
process continues, will eventually mold this galaxy into a disk."

I'd like to know what you think.
Respectfully,

Paul Hollister
http://www.Origin-of-Universe.=ACcom contains the complete manuscript of
Origin
and Evolution of the Universe, a Unified Scientific Theory by Paul
Hollister, M.D.
http://origin-of-universe.blogspot.com/ contains author's News and
Views at Origin of Universe

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.
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.


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.


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.

(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.

Within the context of the 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. 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. 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. Whereas in the Standard Big Bang Model the conditions for
particle-fusion of quark-gluon plasma into baryons occurred within one
brief theoretical second 15 billion years ago (Particle Era of Standard
Big Bang), quark-gluon fusion into the atomic nucleus of hydrogen is
the threshold point of the Ongoing Big-Bang process that is visibly
occurring within the supermassive gravitational density of the quasar.
This Ongoing Big-Bang process accounts for the cosmic plasma jets of
proton-electron plasma (Hydrogen!) that is visibly flooding into
surrounding space. In this new theory of galaxy and universe evolution,
this is the process by which all hydrogen in the universe is made.

If you heat hydrogen gas,
it splits into a plasma of independent protons and electrons.
As soon as it cools, they reform hydrogen and give off the
the characteristic spectral lines of the Balmer series, etc..
You can see this purple light around the edge of a Bunsen
flame, and this isn't nucleosynthesis happening!

I should hope not. Otherwise when you turn your Bunsen burner on there
would be a nuclear explosion, because nucleosynthesis (nuclear fusion)
of hydrogen into helium is exactly what makes the sun and stars what
they are. But levity aside, I have illustrated in the Mainstream
Sequence of Galaxy Evolution how "Hydrogen Evolution" from plasma
to ionic to atomic to molecular form within the Radio Galaxy
systematically gives rise to star birth conditions that result in the
evolution of the optical galaxy. The section entitled Radio Galaxy in
Chapter 11 of Origin and Evolution of the Universe describes the
evolution of hydrogen within the radio galaxy. The section entitled
Mapping the Galaxy from Big Bang to Birth of Stars in Chapter 8 - The
Cosmic Microtome - Dissecting the Galaxy in 4 Spatial Dimensions
illustrates and describes the sequential relationship between the Radio
Jets from Quasar, Hydrogen ion HII Regions, Hydrogen Balmer Lines of
hydrogen ion to atom conversion, Neutral Hydrogen HI Regions and
Molecular Hydrogen Nebula formation leading to the birth of stars.

snip
Perhaps you could comment on my post of the 26th in the
newsgroup. Your argument seems to be based solely on
the idea that a few seconds it too short a time for the process
to have happened, but the time taken is calculated from the
time required as measured in accelerators. I'd like to know
what evidence you have to suggest that those measurements
are in error.


This theory is based on the realization that the supermassive density
of the Quasar is the site of an Ongoing "Big-Bang" process of
quark-gluon fusion into the atomic nucleus of hydrogen! As a result of
this insight, I was able to morphologically define and elucidate
through evidence the entire Mainstream Sequence of Galaxy Evolution!
Based on the realization that hydrogen is being massively produced by
an Ongoing "Big-Bang" process within every quasar in the
surrounding visible universe, I have argued that the Standard Big Bang
Model assumption that all the hydrogen in the universe was created
within ONE SECOND is physically unrealistic.

Respectfully,

Paul Hollister
http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com contains complete manuscript of
Origin and Evolution of the Universe, a Unified Scientific Theory
by Paul Hollister, M.D.
http://origin-of-universe.blog=ACspot.com/ contains News and Views at
Origin of Universe

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