light elements abundance in a static toy universe


by TrickyDicky
Tags: abundance, elements, light, static, universe
TrickyDicky
TrickyDicky is offline
#1
Feb21-12, 04:26 AM
P: 2,889
As an exercise in cosmology-fiction (I actually got curious about this from an actual cosmology textbook problem), taking into account the stellar nuclear reactions that involve the fusion of hydrogen into helium, what would (roughly) be the proportion (in mass) between Hydrogen and He-4 in a static universe?
Would it resemble the proportions of primordial nucleosynthesis given that these are produced close to thermodynamic equilibrium?
Phys.Org News Partner Space news on Phys.org
Red moon at night; stargazer's delight
Computers beat brainpower when it comes to counting stars
Meteorites yield clues to Martian early atmosphere
Chronos
Chronos is offline
#2
Feb21-12, 05:21 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,178
Chemical abundances in 'pristine' [primordial] gas clouds would be very difficult to explain if the universe was significantly more ancient than we suspect. It is not uncommon that what you don't see tells you as much or more than what you do see.
TrickyDicky
TrickyDicky is offline
#3
Feb21-12, 05:37 AM
P: 2,889
Quote Quote by Chronos View Post
Chemical abundances in 'pristine' [primordial] gas clouds would be very difficult to explain if the universe was significantly more ancient than we suspect.
A static universe can't be more or less "ancient", it is symply time-invariant as a whole.
It is totally discarded by science so I'm not sure what your comment means. My question is purely theoretical.

BillSaltLake
BillSaltLake is offline
#4
Feb21-12, 10:32 AM
PF Gold
P: 184

light elements abundance in a static toy universe


Are you assuming that one begins with nothing but pure hydrogen, and that any transmutation was stellar in origin ?
TrickyDicky
TrickyDicky is offline
#5
Feb21-12, 11:24 AM
P: 2,889
Quote Quote by BillSaltLake View Post
Are you assuming that one begins with nothing but pure hydrogen, and that any transmutation was stellar in origin ?
Yes, just the stellar nuclear reactions, only in a static universe makes little sense to say what one begins with, since time is invariant.
BillSaltLake
BillSaltLake is offline
#6
Feb21-12, 01:07 PM
PF Gold
P: 184
Then 4He, 3He, and 2H would be much rarer than observed. Most of these isotopes would be inside active stars and would be consumed during the stars' lives. The initial collapse into stars would be different (I'm not sure of the details) because the initial gas would not be composed of a quarter 4He. I assume there would still be supernovae and metal enrichment, though. There would be probably 1/100 or less 4He than 1H, and most of that locked up in stars. Lower-mass stars (< ~1.5 solar masses) will usually become composed for a limited period of mostly 4He in later life, but this He will eventually fuse to heavier elements.
TrickyDicky
TrickyDicky is offline
#7
Feb21-12, 01:46 PM
P: 2,889
Quote Quote by BillSaltLake View Post
Then 4He, 3He, and 2H would be much rarer than observed. Most of these isotopes would be inside active stars and would be consumed during the stars' lives. The initial collapse into stars would be different (I'm not sure of the details) because the initial gas would not be composed of a quarter 4He. I assume there would still be supernovae and metal enrichment, though. There would be probably 1/100 or less 4He than 1H, and most of that locked up in stars. Lower-mass stars (< ~1.5 solar masses) will usually become composed for a limited period of mostly 4He in later life, but this He will eventually fuse to heavier elements.
I guess you are ignoring that there is no global evolution in the kind of scenario I'm talking about. There can only be a permanent equilibrium distribution. I'm asking what would that distribution be according to the stellar nuclear reactions and core temperature conditions. Maybe it's easier to think in terms of proportion of neutrons and protons in thermodynamical equilibrium at the stars core temperatures.
BillSaltLake
BillSaltLake is offline
#8
Feb21-12, 04:00 PM
PF Gold
P: 184
The meaning of steady state might be a problem. After a very long time, everything might be photons and neutrinos (after black hole evaporation, and after any possible proton decay with the resulting positrons annihilating the existing electrons). I still doubt that the He could ever be over 1% of the H.
I'm assuming that H was distributed (with some density fluctuations) uniformly at the same density as baryonic matter now, and then it interacted, while the expansion factor remained constant. However, in a true steady state model, nothing would change, and the He:H ratio wouldn't change. There is no a priori equlibrium ratio unless there is a high-temp period or perhaps proton decay.
TrickyDicky
TrickyDicky is offline
#9
Feb22-12, 03:55 AM
P: 2,889
Quote Quote by BillSaltLake View Post
The meaning of steady state might be a problem. After a very long time, everything might be photons and neutrinos (after black hole evaporation, and after any possible proton decay with the resulting positrons annihilating the existing electrons). I still doubt that the He could ever be over 1% of the H.
I'm assuming that H was distributed (with some density fluctuations) uniformly at the same density as baryonic matter now, and then it interacted, while the expansion factor remained constant. However, in a true steady state model, nothing would change, and the He:H ratio wouldn't change. There is no a priori equlibrium ratio unless there is a high-temp period or perhaps proton decay.
Steady state and static spacetime are different notions, the most known steady state universe , that of Gold, Bondi and Hoyle was an expanding spacetime, it wasn't static.
In static spacetimes there is no global change wrt time (although there may be locally).
There can be no periods nor "after a very long time"s. No expansion factor either and if you bother to look up some GR text no possibility for the existence of black holes, so no bh evaporation either. As anyone can see it is a completely unrealistic cosmology.

I'm only trying to learn something about stellar nuclear reactions in equilibrium and in a time invariant situation to contrast it with the factual primordial nucleosynthesis context and have a better understanding of it.
TrickyDicky
TrickyDicky is offline
#10
Feb22-12, 04:42 AM
P: 2,889
Being more specific how much would the Nn/Np ratio in the time invariant situation in star's cores differ from the neutron freeze-out ratio in primordial nucleosynthesis (of around 1/6-1/7)?
twofish-quant
twofish-quant is offline
#11
Feb22-12, 07:30 AM
P: 6,863
In any sort of time invariant universe, everything would end up as iron. The difficulty is that with light elements, there isn't a chemical equilibrium. Everything wants to be iron, and there are no cosmologically significant reverse reactions to break down iron into lighter elements.

However, this has been known since the 1940's, and the idea behind the steady state model was that there was a "magic source" of hydrogen to replace anything that got burned to He4. However, if we lived in a universe in which the magic source of hydrogen kept H/He ratios constant, we'd see no deuterium or He3, and a lot more Carbon-12 and heavier elements.

Being more specific how much would the Nn/Np ratio in the time invariant situation in star's cores differ from the neutron freeze-out ratio in primordial nucleosynthesis (of around 1/6-1/7)?
Very different. He4 to C12 has 1:1 and heavier elements are have more neutrons than proton culminating in neutron stars which are all neutrons.
TrickyDicky
TrickyDicky is offline
#12
Feb22-12, 07:41 AM
P: 2,889
Quote Quote by twofish-quant View Post
In any sort of time invariant universe, everything would end up as iron. The difficulty is that with light elements, there isn't a chemical equilibrium. Everything wants to be iron, and there are no cosmologically significant reverse reactions to break down iron into lighter elements.

However, this has been known since the 1940's, and the idea behind the steady state model was that there was a "magic source" of hydrogen to replace anything that got burned to He4. However, if we lived in a universe in which the magic source of hydrogen kept H/He ratios constant, we'd see no deuterium or He3, and a lot more Carbon-12 and heavier elements.
For some reason you guys keep mixing static with eternal steady state models, even though I tried to clarify the difference in a previous post.
In steady state models there is time dependency, it is a expanding model. In static spacetimes nothing "ends up", there must be just an equilibrium distribution related to temperature, density and mass difference of protons and neutrons but independent of time.
phyzguy
phyzguy is offline
#13
Feb22-12, 08:25 AM
P: 2,068
Quote Quote by TrickyDicky View Post
For some reason you guys keep mixing static with eternal steady state models, even though I tried to clarify the difference in a previous post.
In steady state models there is time dependency, it is a expanding model. In static spacetimes nothing "ends up", there must be just an equilibrium distribution related to temperature, density and mass difference of protons and neutrons but independent of time.
There can be no equlibrium as you envision it unless there is a two-way pathway. So in your hypothetical static universe you need to answer twofish's question about what moves things "uphill" from iron back to hydrogen. Otherwise the equilibrium distribution in the universe you are asking about is a universe filled with black holes and iron. The steady-state universe answers this by postulating continuous creation of hydrogen and expansion.
TrickyDicky
TrickyDicky is offline
#14
Feb22-12, 10:11 AM
P: 2,889
Quote Quote by phyzguy View Post
There can be no equlibrium as you envision it unless there is a two-way pathway. So in your hypothetical static universe you need to answer twofish's question about what moves things "uphill" from iron back to hydrogen. Otherwise the equilibrium distribution in the universe you are asking about is a universe filled with black holes and iron. The steady-state universe answers this by postulating continuous creation of hydrogen and expansion.
What moves things "uphill" is the fact that in a static universe both ways of the two-way path have the same probability by definition, or at least that is what time-reversible reactions seem to imply.
mathal
mathal is offline
#15
Feb22-12, 12:52 PM
P: 71
Quote Quote by TrickyDicky View Post
What moves things "uphill" is the fact that in a static universe both ways of the two-way path have the same probability by definition, or at least that is what time-reversible reactions seem to imply.
Clearly in the model you present there is no entropy and yes theoretically all reactions are time invariant so without entropy there would be no way to discern a 'direction' to time. To answer your question, in such a universe you can have whatever ratio of elements you like since all reactions are matched with their counterpart (or your universe won't remain static).
mathal
TrickyDicky
TrickyDicky is offline
#16
Feb22-12, 01:05 PM
P: 2,889
Quote Quote by mathal View Post
Clearly in the model you present there is no entropy and yes theoretically all reactions are time invariant so without entropy there would be no way to discern a 'direction' to time. To answer your question, in such a universe you can have whatever ratio of elements you like since all reactions are matched with their counterpart (or your universe won't remain static).
mathal
Thanks for your input mathal, finally someone sees what I mean.
You are right, that was in fact my initial thought, that in such a universe any ratio would be possible, but I'm trying to introduce some constraints in the form of typical stellar core temperature , pressure and density and supposing the usual stellar nucleosynthesis reactions would also work so that some equilibrium distribution can be given that would make more sense than some other.
Chronos
Chronos is offline
#17
Feb22-12, 10:20 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,178
An interstellar medium enriched by stellar ejecta would be anything but static. A universe without entropy would be not even wrong, but, I naively suspect it would remain in its original state. A universe without BB nuclosynthesis still needs a source of hydrogen for primordial stars to form. Once the stellar formation process began, the ISM would be continuously enriched by stellar ejecta. I fail to see how that could ever achieve equilibrium. It would merely continue to be enriched until so heavily metallized it could no longer support stellar fusion. The answer seems to be stars would not form in a universe without entropy.
mathal
mathal is offline
#18
Feb22-12, 11:01 PM
P: 71
Quote Quote by Chronos View Post
An interstellar medium enriched by stellar ejecta would be anything but static. A universe without entropy would be not even wrong, but, I naively suspect it would remain in its original state.



A universe without BB nuclosynthesis still needs a source of hydrogen for primordial stars to form. Once the stellar formation process began, the ISM would be continuously enriched by stellar ejecta. I fail to see how that could ever achieve equilibrium. It would merely continue to be enriched until so heavily metallized it could no longer support stellar fusion. The answer seems to be stars would not form in a universe without entropy.
Exactly. This is merely a thought experiment. Objects like stars from our universe are not static- they age, things change, proportions of elements change with time. They couldn't exist in the form they have here. I find it hard to conceive of such a universe, the interrelationship of the laws that govern this universe are not workable without entropy. It is not that it is a physical law, merely that it is a consequence of the laws we operate under (in particular gravity).

You are thinking of primordial stars- our universe. The static universe TrickyDicky is presenting requires they just be here timelessly. An impossible requirement from my understanding of physics.
mathal


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Where would the observation of a static Universe have lead us? Cosmology 4
Static spacetime as static universe Cosmology 7
Einsteins Static Universe Cosmology 5
static universe Astrophysics 8