I State of the Universe if we increase/decrease the binding energy of deuterium

AI Thread Summary
Decreasing the binding energy of deuterium would delay its formation after the Big Bang, leading to neutron decay before they can combine into nuclei, thus preventing heavy element formation and making life impossible. In contrast, increasing the binding energy of deuterium would not significantly impact the universe's ability to support life, as it would still allow for hydrogen fusion. The discussion highlights that a lower binding energy would actually make it easier for deuterons to split rather than combine, complicating the formation of necessary elements. The universe's cooling period is critical for deuterium formation, and excessive reduction of binding energy could extend this period, resulting in neutron decay. Ultimately, the ability to form deuterium is essential for the development of life as we know it.
Phys12
Messages
351
Reaction score
42
[Sorry for the vague title, had a limit.]

I have a question given in my Astronomy class:
Below is a list of possible ways in which the universe could have been different. Some of these changes would make life as we know it impossible in our universe.

Tick the boxes next to all the changes that would definitely make life as we know it impossible. You may assume that there were many more protons than neutrons even before neutrons start to decay.

1) Decreasing the binding energy of deuterium, so that deuterium cannot form until an hour after the Big Bang.

2) Increasing the binding energy of deuterium so that it can form less than ten seconds after the Big Bang

The explanation for why the first one is true and not the second one is given as follows:
"If the binding energy of Deuterium were decreased, neutrons would decay before being combined into nuclei, making heavy element formation impossible. Increasing the binding energy would make less difference."

However, if you decrease the binding energy of deuterium, wouldn't it make it easier for neutrons to combine into nuclei? And if you increase the binding energy, wouldn't there be less Hydrogen which would later fuse to Hydrogen and so on to make life possible?

Thanks!
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Phys12 said:
However, if you decrease the binding energy of deuterium, wouldn't it make it easier for neutrons to combine into nuclei?

A decreased binding energy would make it easier for a newly formed deuteron to split back into a proton and a neutron. Our universe had to cool down to about 109 kelvins before deuterium could form. Reducing the binding energy would have required an even longer cooling off period before deuterium could form. Reduce it enough and the waiting period will be so long that almost all of the neutrons will have decayed into protons.[/QUOTE]
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top