- #1
artis
- 1,481
- 976
I've been thinking about this from time to time,
I'll try to make this short and understandable.
So we go back to the early universe within our current best model of extrapolation called the Big bang theory. In the early universe as it was expanding we have a very dense and energetic matter everywhere, and judging by the CMB radiation the differences in energy from one spot to another were very minimal (which is what I get from reading about the CMB) so in other words the universe was rather monolithic in it's structure and energy correct?
Now if so far everything is correct then , why later as the universe keeps expanding and the overall density as well as energy decreases and first stars and planets start to form , why is the chemical makeup of these planets and stars so different?
In other words why we have very hot and dense stars composed mainly of light elements such as hydrogen and helium (the by product of hydrogen fusion) and then we have smaller planets much like Earth composed mainly of elements that have very large atomic masses compared to hydrogen and much heavy metals and very little light elements.?I understand (sort of) the official theory that in the early universe as the first large stars were born they fused enough elements into heavier ones that as with time they exploded one after the other the universe now had an ever increasing amount of heavier elements that could form planets with time and Earth just so happens to be the result of this, but since none of these reactions were "guided" but instead happened randomly then shouldn't it be the case that as the planets formed they could have caught both lighter elements like hydrogen as well as heavier elements?
But if this were the case then I suppose the chemical structure of planets as we know them today should have been rather different from the one we observe should it not?
I'll try to make this short and understandable.
So we go back to the early universe within our current best model of extrapolation called the Big bang theory. In the early universe as it was expanding we have a very dense and energetic matter everywhere, and judging by the CMB radiation the differences in energy from one spot to another were very minimal (which is what I get from reading about the CMB) so in other words the universe was rather monolithic in it's structure and energy correct?
Now if so far everything is correct then , why later as the universe keeps expanding and the overall density as well as energy decreases and first stars and planets start to form , why is the chemical makeup of these planets and stars so different?
In other words why we have very hot and dense stars composed mainly of light elements such as hydrogen and helium (the by product of hydrogen fusion) and then we have smaller planets much like Earth composed mainly of elements that have very large atomic masses compared to hydrogen and much heavy metals and very little light elements.?I understand (sort of) the official theory that in the early universe as the first large stars were born they fused enough elements into heavier ones that as with time they exploded one after the other the universe now had an ever increasing amount of heavier elements that could form planets with time and Earth just so happens to be the result of this, but since none of these reactions were "guided" but instead happened randomly then shouldn't it be the case that as the planets formed they could have caught both lighter elements like hydrogen as well as heavier elements?
But if this were the case then I suppose the chemical structure of planets as we know them today should have been rather different from the one we observe should it not?
Last edited by a moderator: