Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Primordial abundance — where it appears

The amount of a light element present before any star existed. It is never observed directly: what is measured is an abundance today, corrected backwards for stellar processing, and the correction is only trustworthy for species that stars move in one direction.

Named by 3 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A factor of 2.9, and the density that would remove it. The predicted ⁷Li abundance against the baryon density, with the halo-star measurement as a horizontal band and the microwave background's density as a vertical one. At η₁₀ = 6.13 the network gives 4.70e-10 and the stars show 1.60e-10, a factor of 2.94 — 0.47 in the logarithm, which is the number every proposed resolution has to produce. The obvious cure is drawn as the second marker: ⁷Li rises as η², so the density that would reproduce the observation is η₁₀ = 3.58, a third below the measured one. That is where the cure fails, and it fails on a different element. Deuterium falls as η^(−1.6), so at 3.58 the predicted D/H is 5.946e-5 against the 2.527e-5 measured in quasar absorbers — 2.35 times too much, and 114 times deuterium's own error bar. Helium, meanwhile, moves to 0.2445 and stays inside its measurement, because its curve is flat. The three light elements do not fail together, and that is what rules out a single wrong parameter: whatever is wrong is wrong about mass seven specifically.

A factor of three, and the flatness that prices every cure

The oldest stars in the Galaxy show a third of the lithium the first three minutes should have left. Three kinds of resolution have been offered, and the datum that rules on all three is not how much lithium is missing but how uniformly it is missing.

cosmology · Nucleosynthesis A bound on the baryon density from an abundance nobody can extrapolate. Primordial deuterium against the baryon density, with the upper bounds that the solar system's own deuterium and helium-3 place on it. The inequality is D_p ≤ D_obs + ³He_obs/g₃, and it holds for any star-formation history whatever: a deuteron entering a star becomes ³He, so the pair can only be moved from one member to the other and then destroyed, never increased. With pre-solar values of D/H = 2.0e-5 and ³He/H = 1.5e-5, the bounds are 3.50e-5 at g₃ = 1, 5.00e-5 at g₃ = 0.5, 8.00e-5 at g₃ = 0.25 — and because deuterium falls with density, each upper bound on the abundance is a lower bound on η: η₁₀ > 4.98, η₁₀ > 3.99, η₁₀ > 2.97. The weakest of them, at a survival fraction of 0.25, still excludes 52 per cent of the density range below the answer. That was the state of the measurement for most of the 1980s, and the shape of it is the thing worth carrying: an abundance too poorly understood to be extrapolated at all still constrained the quantity, because its direction of change under processing was known even though its magnitude was not. The microwave background's 6.13 sits above every bound drawn, which is not a coincidence and is not evidence — a bound that excluded the answer would have been an error, and a bound that admits it is only a bound.

An abundance with no direction to correct in

Every primordial abundance is measured today and extrapolated backwards, and the extrapolation works because processing moves each species one way. Helium-3 is made by small stars and destroyed by large ones, so the sign of its correction is not merely uncertain — it is unknown.

cosmology · Nucleosynthesis A lumpy universe makes more of both, and one of them was already too much. The deuterium–lithium plane, with the curve a homogeneous universe traces as its baryon density varies and the points a two-zone universe reaches at a fixed mean density of η₁₀ = 6.13. The dense zone occupies 15 per cent of the volume, and the contrast between the zones runs from 1 — which is the homogeneous case — to 100. Every mixture lies up and to the right of its own homogeneous point, and that is not a modelling choice: an abundance is measured per baryon, so what a telescope averages is η times the abundance — and for both deuterium and lithium that product is a convex function of the density, whose average therefore exceeds its value at the average. The excess is large. At a contrast of 100 the mixture gives D/H = 1.13e-4 against 2.51e-5 smooth, and ⁷Li/H = 1.77e-8 against 4.70e-10, a factor of 37.7. The extra deuterium is exactly what the proposal was for: it lets the mean baryon density be raised while the observed D/H is still matched, which in the 1980s was the one way to make the baryons account for all the matter that dynamics required. The extra lithium is what it costs. The measured abundance was already a factor of 2.9 below the homogeneous prediction, and every step toward the lumpy universe that fixes the density makes that discrepancy worse — which is why the answer to "the baryons are lumpy" turned out to be that the extra matter is not baryons.

The universe that was lumpy at one second

If the baryons were unevenly spread when the network fired, each region ran its own nucleosynthesis and what is observed is an average. For a decade that was the one way to make ordinary matter account for all the matter — and the reason it fails is a theorem about convex curves.

cosmology · Nucleosynthesis

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Baryon-to-photon ratioBig bang nucleosynthesisDeuterium abundanceBaryon densityConvective envelopeLithium problemAstrationChemical evolutionConvexityCritical densityCross-sectionDark matter

All concepts