inflation theory and abundance of light elements [Archive]

alistair

Nov30-04, 12:51 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>The relative abundances of the light chemical elements helium,lithium\netc.\nare highly sensitive to the initial rate of expansion of the universe.\nIf the universe had expanded any faster than is currently thought,\nthere would be less helium.However,would this be true if the universe\nhad started out with more mass at the time of the Big Bang\ni.e. is a universe which expanded more quickly with more mass, but\nyielding the same relative abundances of light elements, feasible\naccording to inflation theory.I suspect this is reasonable because I\nhave heard that there is no limit to how quickly space-time can\nexpand.Am I right about this?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>The relative abundances of the light chemical elements helium,lithium
etc.
are highly sensitive to the initial rate of expansion of the universe.
If the universe had expanded any faster than is currently thought,
there would be less helium.However,would this be true if the universe
had started out with more mass at the time of the Big Bang
i.e. is a universe which expanded more quickly with more mass, but
yielding the same relative abundances of light elements, feasible
according to inflation theory.I suspect this is reasonable because I
have heard that there is no limit to how quickly space-time can
expand.Am I right about this?

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

Dec1-04, 11:03 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <861c1b21.0411300550.230fd8dc@posting.google.com>, \nalistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:\n\n> The relative abundances of the light chemical elements helium,lithium\n> etc.\n> are highly sensitive to the initial rate of expansion of the universe.\n> If the universe had expanded any faster than is currently thought,\n> there would be less helium.However,would this be true if the universe\n> had started out with more mass at the time of the Big Bang\n\nI think you need to define "mass of the universe" first.\n\n> i.e. is a universe which expanded more quickly with more mass, but\n> yielding the same relative abundances of light elements, feasible\n> according to inflation theory.\n\nI think you would get better responses if you state WHY you are\nconsidering this possibility.\n\n> I suspect this is reasonable because I\n> have heard that there is no limit to how quickly space-time can\n> expand.Am I right about this?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <861c1b21.0411300550.230fd8dc@posting.google.com>,
alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:

> The relative abundances of the light chemical elements helium,lithium
> etc.
> are highly sensitive to the initial rate of expansion of the universe.
> If the universe had expanded any faster than is currently thought,
> there would be less helium.However,would this be true if the universe
> had started out with more mass at the time of the Big Bang

I think you need to define "mass of the universe" first.

> i.e. is a universe which expanded more quickly with more mass, but
> yielding the same relative abundances of light elements, feasible
> according to inflation theory.

I think you would get better responses if you state WHY you are
considering this possibility.

> I suspect this is reasonable because I
> have heard that there is no limit to how quickly space-time can
> expand.Am I right about this?

alistair

Dec2-04, 06:14 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) wrote in message news:<861c1b21.0411300550.230fd8dc@posting.google. com>...\n> The relative abundances of the light chemical elements helium,lithium\n> etc.\n> are highly sensitive to the initial rate of expansion of the universe.\n> If the universe had expanded any faster than is currently thought,\n> there would be less helium.However,would this be true if the universe\n> had started out with more mass at the time of the Big Bang\n> i.e. is a universe which expanded more quickly with more mass, but\n> yielding the same relative abundances of light elements, feasible\n> according to inflation theory.I suspect this is reasonable because I\n> have heard that there is no limit to how quickly space-time can\n> expand.Am I right about this?\n\nI am asking this question from the point of view if magnetic monopoles\nexisted at the time of the Big Bang - some GUT theories say that there\ncan be 10^78 monopoles in the universe with a mass of up to 10^16 x\nrest mass of proton.Wouldn\'t we expect particles with a mass of 10^16\nGev to decay into smaller particles - possibly more protons and\nelectrons - to conserve electric charge - smaller mass monopoles\n(usually, high mass means short lifetime in accelerators before\ndecaying into something else)and couldn\'t these smaller particles be\nfurther than 10^26 metres if inflation happened faster?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) wrote in message news:<861c1b21.0411300550.230fd8dc@posting.google.com>...
> The relative abundances of the light chemical elements helium,lithium
> etc.
> are highly sensitive to the initial rate of expansion of the universe.
> If the universe had expanded any faster than is currently thought,
> there would be less helium.However,would this be true if the universe
> had started out with more mass at the time of the Big Bang
> i.e. is a universe which expanded more quickly with more mass, but
> yielding the same relative abundances of light elements, feasible
> according to inflation theory.I suspect this is reasonable because I
> have heard that there is no limit to how quickly space-time can
> expand.Am I right about this?

I am asking this question from the point of view if magnetic monopoles
existed at the time of the Big Bang - some GUT theories say that there
can be 10^78 monopoles in the universe with a mass of up to 10^16 x
rest mass of proton.Wouldn't we expect particles with a mass of 10^16
Gev to decay into smaller particles - possibly more protons and
electrons - to conserve electric charge - smaller mass monopoles
(usually, high mass means short lifetime in accelerators before
decaying into something else)and couldn't these smaller particles be
further than 10^26 metres if inflation happened faster?