Physicists Pin Down Nuclear Reaction From Moments After the Big Bang

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

Today's publication of Quanta Magazine:

In a secluded laboratory buried under a mountain in Italy, physicists have re-created a nuclear reaction that happened between two and three minutes after the Big Bang.

The reaction involves deuterium, a form of hydrogen consisting of one proton and one neutron that fused within the cosmos’s first three minutes. Most of the deuterium quickly fused into heavier, stabler elements like helium and lithium.

Their measurement of the reaction rate, published today in Nature, nails down the most uncertain factor in a sequence of steps known as Big Bang nucleosynthesis that forged the universe’s first atomic nuclei.

Display More

Read for example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2878-4

«Although astronomical observations of primordial deuterium abundance have reached percent accuracy³, theoretical predictions^4,5,6 based on BBN are hampered by large uncertainties on the cross-section of the deuterium burning D(p,γ)³He reaction. Here we show that our improved cross-sections of this reaction lead to BBN estimates of the baryon density at the 1.6 percent level, in excellent agreement with a recent analysis of the cosmic microwave background⁷. Improved cross-section data were obtained by exploiting the negligible cosmic-ray background deep underground at the Laboratory for Underground Nuclear Astrophysics (LUNA) of the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso (Italy)^8,9. We bombarded a high-purity deuterium gas target¹⁰ with an intense proton beam from the LUNA 400-kilovolt accelerator¹¹ and detected the γ-rays from the nuclear reaction under study with a high-purity germanium detector.”

Have you read it? And now the question ... Show me the source of FORCES in nature, which, by analogy with this experiment - "We bombarded a high-purity deuterium gas target with an intense proton beam from the LUNA 400-kilovolt accelerator", can also accelerate protons ... Tell me this source and explain to me the physics of generating THIS POWER. I am sure that you will try to do this and fail, because there is no such acceleration in nature ... Why is that? That is why magnetic interactions dominate in nature and it is the magnetic FORCES that can and act on the proton ... But ... But nature does not build accelerators - this is the work of man, not nature ... So what do these researchers want to understand then? And they will never understand anything, since their accelerators are useless toys of physicists ...

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

Today's publication of Quanta Magazine:

In a secluded laboratory buried under a mountain in Italy, physicists have re-created a nuclear reaction that happened between two and three minutes after the Big Bang.

This is something for children minds for sleepwell lecture... I stopped reading anything based on the standard model as already thinking about it is a waste of time...(This here too...)

Quote from Cherepanov2020

Read for example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2878-4

«Although astronomical observations of primordial deuterium abundance have reached percent accuracy³, theoretical predictions^4,5,6 based on BBN are hampered by large uncertainties on the cross-section of the deuterium burning D(p,γ)³He reaction. Here we show that our improved cross-sections of this reaction lead to BBN estimates of the baryon density at the 1.6 percent level, in excellent agreement with a recent analysis of the cosmic microwave background⁷. Improved cross-section data were obtained by exploiting the negligible cosmic-ray background deep underground at the Laboratory for Underground Nuclear Astrophysics (LUNA) of the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso (Italy)^8,9. We bombarded a high-purity deuterium gas target¹⁰ with an intense proton beam from the LUNA 400-kilovolt accelerator¹¹ and detected the γ-rays from the nuclear reaction under study with a high-purity germanium detector.”

Have you read it? And now the question ... Show me the source of FORCES in nature, which, by analogy with this experiment - "We bombarded a high-purity deuterium gas target with an intense proton beam from the LUNA 400-kilovolt accelerator", can also accelerate protons ... Tell me this source and explain to me the physics of generating THIS POWER. I am sure that you will try to do this and fail, because there is no such acceleration in nature ... Why is that? That is why magnetic interactions dominate in nature and it is the magnetic FORCES that can and act on the proton ... But ... But nature does not build accelerators - this is the work of man, not nature ... So what do these researchers want to understand then? And they will never understand anything, since their accelerators are useless toys of physicists ...

Sir there are accelerators in our universe, check those magnetic plasma loops and outbursts in the suns corona. Think all the polar jets on quasars, black holes, magnitars, supernova etc.

Quote from LeBob

Sir there are accelerators in our universe, check those magnetic plasma loops and outbursts in the suns corona. Think all the polar jets on quasars, black holes, magnitars, supernova etc.

This is your deep delusion and ... a broad fantasy ... A hypothesis ... which is not supported by the modern "physics of the microworld" ... which embraces ever wider layers of physicists from different countries of the world ... I just feel sorry for you ..

Quote from Cherepanov2020

This is your deep delusion and ... a broad fantasy ... A hypothesis ... which is not supported by the modern "physics of the microworld" ... which embraces ever wider layers of physicists from different countries of the world ... I just feel sorry for you ..

This is the physics of the microworld and the macroworld. It's somewhat fractal, ignoring alternatives doesn't make ones theory better. It's a sign of the worst kind of bias when proposals consistently ignore the obvious patterns in this designed reality! Happy learning, Sir.

Взаимодействие с другими людьми

Quote from LeBob

This is the physics of the microworld and the macroworld. It's somewhat fractal, ignoring alternatives doesn't make ones theory better. It's a sign of the worst kind of bias when proposals consistently ignore the obvious patterns in this designed reality! Happy learning, Sir.

Dear LeBob!

My task on this site is for each of you to accustom yourself to the idea that any of us can be wrong, that the great physicists from whom we studied physics were also wrong ... And today I have prepared for you translation of a chapter from the textbook by FM Kanarev, which, as it seems to me, should very much please you all. You can download or read here - 47 - Chapter 2. Photon, Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich, Russia, 2010 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5Duh/3EpDAGkMb

47 - Chapter 2. Photon, Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich, Russia, 2010 - https://drive.google.com/file/…dvT7LPPp/view?usp=sharing

In physics we only have two basic valid theories. Newton & Maxwell. If a photon does express an E field (=charge) and a B-field = magetntic flux then you must a find a topology that is able to produce both. To produce charge magnetic flux must be fully contained inside a flux tube and further two space derivatives of the flux must be different from 0 and cannot be constant. There are more conditions to produce the so called topological charge that is needed to contain the magnetic on the very same radius that corresponds to its frequency flux.

To make it short: All classic models (also the above) are just phenomenological descriptions of the photons behavior and not a model for the photon. This can only be done in higher dimensions and proper Maxwell source terms.

Why higher dimensions? The magneto static solution can only be found with 4 rotations of non crossing flux lines.

Quote from Cherepanov2020

Read for example here - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2878-4

But ... But nature does not build accelerators - this is the work of man, not nature ...

A bit philosophical, but nature built man, and man built accelerators, so didn't nature build accelerators?

Or alternatively, if you prefer, God built nature, and God built man, so God could have built an accelerator before man.

Either way, the statement "nature does not build accelerators" is unsupported.

Quote from Wyttenbach

In physics we only have two basic valid theories. Newton & Maxwell. If a photon does express an E field (=charge) and a B-field = magetntic flux then you must a find a topology that is able to produce both. To produce charge magnetic flux must be fully contained inside a flux tube and further two space derivatives of the flux must be different from 0 and cannot be constant. There are more conditions to produce the so called topological charge that is needed to contain the magnetic on the very same radius that corresponds to its frequency flux.

To make it short: All classic models (also the above) are just phenomenological descriptions of the photons behavior and not a model for the photon. This can only be done in higher dimensions and proper Maxwell source terms.

Why higher dimensions? The magneto static solution can only be found with 4 rotations of non crossing flux lines.

Do you understand what mistake you are making? I think that you do not understand your delusion ... You are trying to rely on the "knowledge" of a person - his name was Maxwell, who worked 150 years ago ... And today this mathematician, who was then very well established in physics, is considered by me as trivial " UNKNOWN "- he does not know physics, he could not then 150 years ago imagine thousands of different discoveries ... It was a mathematician who stopped time in his equations ... and made the coordinate and time independent ... But in nature there is NO motion in which the coordinate body would not depend on time ... Here is my article on this topic - Maxwell's equations for the magnetic field in matter, August 27, 2018 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/46aS/46NBmbp31

Maxwell's equations for the magnetic field in matter, August 27, 2018 -

https://drive.google.com/file/…uPPabVZ4/view?usp=sharing

And especially for you, I spent a whole day today to translate a chapter from Kanarev's book about a photon - read it, please - 47 - Chapter 2. Photon, Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich, Russia, 2010 - https://cloud.mail.ru/ public / 5Duh / 3EpDAGkMb

47 - Chapter 2. Photon, Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich, Russia, 2010 - https://drive.google.com/file/…dvT7LPPp/view?usp=sharing

Quote from Wyttenbach

In physics we only have two basic valid theories. Newton & Maxwell. If a photon does express an E field (=charge) and a B-field = magetntic flux then you must a find a topology that is able to produce both. To produce charge magnetic flux must be fully contained inside a flux tube and further two space derivatives of the flux must be different from 0 and cannot be constant. There are more conditions to produce the so called topological charge that is needed to contain the magnetic on the very same radius that corresponds to its frequency flux.

To make it short: All classic models (also the above) are just phenomenological descriptions of the photons behavior and not a model for the photon. This can only be done in higher dimensions and proper Maxwell source terms.

Why higher dimensions? The magneto static solution can only be found with 4 rotations of non crossing flux lines.

The other side of the question ... How can you not understand me - I gave you a special analysis of the original treatises by Charles Coulomb, Poisson and Thomson, in which they clearly indicated to US - descendants what they understood as "CHARGE" - "ELECTROSTATIC CHARGE", The "MASS of an electric fluid" and they followed Newton, who proposed the concept of MASS and which he expressed in kilograms ... Therefore, the dimension of "CHARGE" in Charles Coulomb, Poisson, and Thomson was in kilograms - Coulomb wrote that - "product of masses of electricity of two balls" ... And your beloved Maxwell - mathematician and mathematical formalist, perverted Coulomb and led physics to a dead end, because together with the masses, he introduced a "charge with an incomprehensible dimension" ... And in 1899 Schreber subjected THIS to severe criticism, but you do not seem to notice this ... This is wrong!

Quote from Cherepanov2020

The other side of the question ... How can you not understand me - I gave you a special analysis of the original treatises by Charles Coulomb, Poisson and Thomson, in which they clearly indicated to US - descendants what they understood as "CHARGE" - "ELECTROSTATIC CHARGE", The "MASS of an electric fluid" and they followed Newton, who proposed the concept of MASS and which he expressed in kilograms ...

I do not history.- I do physics = reproducing the behavior of nature != just describing the behavior of nature!