How is the duration of BBN calculated?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Doctor Strange
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lcdm
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the calculation of the duration of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), exploring its implications for elemental abundances in the universe. Participants examine the factors influencing BBN, including temperature, time, and expansion rates, while considering theoretical and experimental aspects of the process.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the duration of BBN is critical because it affects the mix of elements formed, with a longer duration potentially leading to the formation of heavier elements like iron.
  • Others argue that the physics of BBN is well-studied, relying on thermodynamics and computer models to estimate primordial elemental abundances.
  • A participant notes that the expansion rate of the universe influences the neutron-proton inter-conversion rate, which is crucial for understanding BBN dynamics.
  • Some contributions describe the sequence of events during BBN, including the formation of deuterium and helium, and the concept of the deuterium bottleneck.
  • There are questions about the timing of neutron decay and how the Hubble expansion rate affects neutron depletion during BBN.
  • Participants discuss the relationship between temperature, expansion rate, and the production of elements, emphasizing the importance of the universe's thermal history.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the factors influencing BBN, with no clear consensus on the exact mechanisms or the significance of different variables. Disagreements remain regarding the interpretation of the expansion rate's impact on nucleosynthesis.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the complexity of the models used to calculate elemental abundances and the dependence on specific definitions and assumptions regarding temperature and expansion rates.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying cosmology, astrophysics, or nuclear physics, particularly in relation to the early universe and elemental formation processes.

Doctor Strange
Messages
31
Reaction score
2
BBN is believed to have started a few tenths of a second after the big bang when temperatures were roughly 116 GK, and lasted until the universe had cooled to about 1.16 GK. According to the FLRW metric, this was about 16 minutes.
I get the impression that the duration is important, but don't understand how. Are the relative abundances of elements dependent on the temperature difference (i.e. BBN starts at 116 GK when stable nucleus can form and ends at 1.16 GK when they are frozen), or is it time dependent (e.g. it starts at 116 GK and goes for 16 minutes after which time no more nuclei can be formed because the raw materials are used up)? Or is it volume dependent (e.g. It begins forming at 116 GK and continues as long as the volume of space expands at some rate)?
 
Space news on Phys.org
The duration is important because it changes the mix of elements: if the duration of BBN were long enough, then all of the normal matter in our universe would be made of iron atoms. The short duration makes it so that heavier elements don't have a long enough time to form.

As for BBN itself, the physics involved in BBN is well-studied in terrestrial experiments, and a combination of those physics plus thermodynamics is used to calculate the primordial elemental abundances. I believe that the more detailed estimates use fairly complicated computer models to arrive at their conclusions.
 
Chalnoth said:
The duration is important because it changes the mix of elements: if the duration of BBN were long enough, then all of the normal matter in our universe would be made of iron atoms. The short duration makes it so that heavier elements don't have a long enough time to form.
I've seen some descriptions of BBN state that the expansion rate is a factor, but can't find a more detailed explanation. One source says:
As the temperature dropped, the neutron-proton inter-conversion rate fell faster than the Hubble expansion rate, ##H ∼ \sqrt {g∗GN} T^2##, where g∗ counts the number of relativistic particle species determining the energy density in radiation (see ‘Big Bang Cosmology’ review).
I've got a pretty good idea how FLRW metric expansion works but I'm having trouble understanding how this relates to a particle reaction. Any insight in layman's terms would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
When the universe was just a baby [prior to about 3 minutes old] only elementary particles [e,n,p] could exist. At first the only element was naked hydrogen nuclei [free protons], which, fortunately, is stable. Free neutrons, however, are more than happy to bind with free protons at around 3 billion degrees because they will decay into protons out of despair if left unwed for more than a few minutes. So they rapidly married protons to form deuterium and helium. As the temperature dropped to about 1 billion degrees the number of deuterium and helium nuclei apiked, and the abundance of unwed neutrons plummeted. This is called the deuterium bottleneck. By the time the universe was about 20 minutes old, the available neutrons had been depleted. The only way heavier nuclei could form was through hydrogen and helium nuclei fusing with one another in various combinations resulting in lithium, berrylium, and a small amount of boron. The universe cooled too fast for this to continue for very long and never did get high enough to synthesize the next stable element - carbon - until stars came along. The binding energies of the elements is indicative of the energy necessary to synthesize an element, which must exceed its binding energy.
 
Last edited:
Chronos said:
The binding energies of the elements is indicative of the energy necessary to synthesize an element, which must exceed its binding energy.
This is a fine description of the sequence, but I still have this question about the timing. It appears that there's a window after the temperature has dropped below 3 billion K of about 20 minutes before neutrons decay into protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos. I've seen various sources refer to the issue of the Hubble expansion rate as one of the factors that determined how quickly the neutrons were depleted. Can you add any insight to how this works?
 
Doctor Strange said:
This is a fine description of the sequence, but I still have this question about the timing. It appears that there's a window after the temperature has dropped below 3 billion K of about 20 minutes before neutrons decay into protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos. I've seen various sources refer to the issue of the Hubble expansion rate as one of the factors that determined how quickly the neutrons were depleted. Can you add any insight to how this works?
The temperature drops at a rate of 1/a, where 'a' is the scale factor. A faster expansion means the scale factor increases at a more rapid pace, which causes the temperature to drop more quickly.

If the temperature is too high, no atomic nuclei can exist, because they get destroyed as quickly as they are created. Once it gets too low, nuclear fusion stops. So there's a range in temperature where the elements are produced, and how long the universe spends at that temperature depends upon the rate of expansion.
 
The Hubble expansion rate [which was huge in the infant universe]strongly affects the depletion rate of free neutrons. The universe is still dense and hot enough that arounf T=1 second weak interactions involving neutrinos can convert neutrons to protons and vice versa. Since neutrons are more massive than protons, they are less abundant — so conversion of a neutron to a proton is less probable than conversion of a proton to a neutron. At thermal equilibrium, the ratio of neutrons to protons is set by e−Q/kT- where Q ≡ (mn −mp)c2 = 1.2934 MeV, which occurs around T=3 seconds and kT declines to about 0.7 MeV. Since the conversion rate drops rapidly as density and temperature declines due to expansion, proton to neutron conversion has a very short window, and, the neutron to proton ratio “freezes in” at ≈ e[−1.2934/0.7], or about 1/6. The decay time for free neutrons is ∼ 900 sec, so by around T= 2 minutes when deuterium synthesis began, a non-negligible fraction of the neutrons left over from “freeze-out” have decayed. The neutron-to-proton ratio at this time is about 1/7. Had the infant universe expanded more slowly, proton to neutron conversion would have persisted longer resulting in a higher 'freeze in' ratio of neutrons to protons and synthesis of more heavy elements during BBN. Since observation constrains the mass ratio of elements heavier than hydrogen to about 25% of the total, this enables us to back fit the temperature history of the infant universe sufficient to account for neutron depletion.
 
Doctor Strange said:
One source

Which source? Please give a specific reference.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
11K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
10K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
15K
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
22K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K