Why is the red shift a logical fallacy and not just incorrect?
No Big Bang?
- Thread starter BdS
- Start date
Yes it does. In fact that is the main strength of the BB. It explains the evolution of all we see from t+10-43 seconds.
All things including life was born in the belly of stars. We are just star stuff.
While you remain ignorant of so many things, the question of who is stupid is obvious.
Except there is.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
For those readers with functioning brains cells and who are free of psychological conditions relating to modern physics, the foundational paper on the synthesis of the elements is famously known as "B²FH", after the initial letters of the names of its four authors (Burbidges, Fowler and Hoyle). I quote one para from the Wiki entry on it:
"Because the authors of B2FH argued that a majority of all elements except for hydrogen must come from stars, their ideas are called the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis.[5] The key difference between this theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and all previous accounts for the origin of the elements, is that B2FH predictedchemical evolution of the universe, which is testable by looking at stellar spectral lines. Quantum mechanics explains why different atoms emit light at characteristic wavelengths and so, by studying the light emitted from different stars, one may infer the atmospheric composition of individual stars. Upon undertaking such a task, observations indicate a strong negative correlation between a star's heavy element content (metallicity) and its age (red shift) and, that more recently formed stars tend to have higher metallicity."
The article goes on to mention some of predictions the paper makes that have been borne out subsequently by observation.
I remember encountering it in my first year inorganic chemistry lectures at university. It made me look at the Periodic Table in a new way, seeing for the first time everything as being "descended" from hydrogen and helium (and lithium?). Cosmic, man.
Last edited:
I don't have time (or much interest) in reading the new theory, but have a question: Does "star age" mean: (1) years between first thermonuclear reactions in it core and when the last of possible several sequally and different fusion (up to forming iron for big stars) OR (2) how early in the history of the universe it first had thermonuclear core? The metallicity of stars formed from the explosion debris of the first big stars will be much richer than they were in post iron elements.
It was long accepted that all the exothermic fusion reactions would occur in stages if the star was initially massive enough and most of the first to form were. When the modeling of this process was done, a problem was discovered (I forget the details) but at some relatively early step, instead of fusion, fission back to an early stages seem to dominate. Hans Beta, found the solution, and general model was saved. I.e. all the elements up to (and including) iron were formed in a series of fusions and there relative abundance was predicted by the model, and agreed with facts as well as they were known.
The post iron elements were formed in super nova's explosion's shock waves and small part by "endothermic cooking" in the final few fusion stages, but not much as they were also destroyed in those hot cores. I.e. a dynamic equilibrium between destruction and formation for each of the post iron elements was established.
It is true that one can infer the amount of elements in a star from the radiation it emits, but process is quite uncertain as (1) you need to know the transition probabilies (not possible, yet, to calculate for ions of several ionizations. For example oxygen five times ionized. It will mainly have spectrum in the x-ray range but transitions between two highly excited states may make radiation that can reach detectors in earth orbits. AND (2) The star's thermal structure as function of depth in the near surface layers (many or no "sun spots" etc. So how well can one infer the amount of He in the sun? (checking against the H to He fuion rate's production)? I don't know, but bet getting agreement to even a factor of two, is possible only with a lot of "fudging." Doing that for say Ag ion +++++++++ radiation is impossible.
BTW, what astronomers consider "metallicity" includes oxygen, carbon, etc. - Most of their metallicity is things others don't consider to be metals.
Last edited by a moderator:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I assume age in this context is measured by red shift (that's what the article says) i.e. the bigger the red shift the further back in time you re looking, so the stars with bigger red shifts will be younger. But I am not an astronomer.
And yes, I've always thought it most peculiar the way that, to astronomers, everything except hydrogen is considered a "metal".
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Correction: everything except hydrogen and helium.
While agreeing on face value the terminology of "stellar metallicity" does appear rather contradictory to what is normally referred to as metals, it is actually referring to different epochs of Universe and stellar evolution.
eg: Our first stars were population 111 stars that were formed from the only elements available at that precise epoch, H and He.
These stars were in the vast majority of cases gigantic and many times more massive than the Sun, and so finally after relatively short life spans [measured in the 10s of millions of years] went supernova, spewing heavier elements into the Universe that finally under the auspices of gravity formed Population 11 and Pop 1 stars composed of various degrees of C, N, Mg and O and other heavier elements.
So we can see that the older generations of stars will have much lower "metallicities" than our present population.
Our Sun is a POP 1 "metal rich" star, or a star with a higher concentration of elements heavier than H and He.
I realise that the two posters whose quotes I have used probably know all this, but I thought it would be beneficial to mention the reasons.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Ah OK thanks, I had that wrong then. And the next one in the series, lithium, is a metal, after all.
So, your argument boils down to this: "I can't understand the big bang theory, and so I will claim that it must be wrong, despite having no evidence or argument to back up my position."
Ho hum.