The observed Lithium abundance is in disagreement with the standard big bang model. What are the possible solutions to the problem? How much the observations are reliable in this case? Is it possible to exist a method of destruction of Li that we don't considering or it is beyond standard model phenomenon?
Not everybody thinks that the standard Lambda-CDM theory of cosmic structureformation is a good idea. Recent patches to the theory propose that the strongest signal in the COBE/WMAP/PLANCK background maps is baryonic accoustic oscillations, but nobody has the courage to ask, "If the baryons dominate structure formation scenario, what about turbulence in the baryons?" Indeed many find that the background overall obeys fractal mathematics and is turbulent in origin at z = 1100. See papers by Carl H. Gibson (UCSD), Sylos Labini (Rome), and Bershadskii (Tel Aviv).
If that is true, and turbulence traces back to the era of atomic element formation, the standard assumption of a homogeneous Universe expanding in thermal equilibrium are in question, and in particular the Michael Turner and more recent calculations of thermal equilibrium elemant formation are questionable. For example, when the temperature of the hj-z universe was 10^7, local heating of a volume would produce atomic fusion with its very strong 10^12 temperature dependence. This would cause runaway fusion and solve the puzzle of the Spite minimum in atomic abundances, the fact that we do not find any Pop III stars at any redshift, or anywhere in our Galaxy or Halo.
High-energy photons are suggested here
as the destroyer of the missing Lithium.
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-loophole-theory-insight-lithium-problem.html
Regards,
Joachim
I have developed a structural model for the formation of nuclei that that reveals the relative stability of each chemical isotope and allotrope. Based upon this work, it seems most likely that the relative lack of Lithium found is a result of the structural instability of the Lithium nucleus compared to Hydrogen, Helium and to a lesser degree Beryllium. The model also shows why Lithium-5 is so rare.
Not everybody thinks that the standard Lambda-CDM theory of cosmic structureformation is a good idea. Recent patches to the theory propose that the strongest signal in the COBE/WMAP/PLANCK background maps is baryonic accoustic oscillations, but nobody has the courage to ask, "If the baryons dominate structure formation scenario, what about turbulence in the baryons?" Indeed many find that the background overall obeys fractal mathematics and is turbulent in origin at z = 1100. See papers by Carl H. Gibson (UCSD), Sylos Labini (Rome), and Bershadskii (Tel Aviv).
If that is true, and turbulence traces back to the era of atomic element formation, the standard assumption of a homogeneous Universe expanding in thermal equilibrium are in question, and in particular the Michael Turner and more recent calculations of thermal equilibrium elemant formation are questionable. For example, when the temperature of the hj-z universe was 10^7, local heating of a volume would produce atomic fusion with its very strong 10^12 temperature dependence. This would cause runaway fusion and solve the puzzle of the Spite minimum in atomic abundances, the fact that we do not find any Pop III stars at any redshift, or anywhere in our Galaxy or Halo.
Short answer for now.
The disagreement in the Lithium abundance is more significant than most cosmological researches care to admit. Its basically a factor of 2, too low and that is significant. In the past, Lithium abundances were difficult to measure but there has been substantial improvement in measurement techniques which make the discrepancy real and problematic.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.3551.pdf
is a good treatment of the issue.
Dear Rudolph E. Schild ,
"If the baryons dominate structure formation scenario, what about turbulence in the baryons?"
Turbulence would be there , if there is sharp temperature change. Is not it? But CMB shows thats not true.
It appears that the focus of attention on solving the missing lithium problem is on macroscopic factors that create conditions for the formation of lithium. I believe that an equally important factor is the nuclear structure of lithium itself that makes it more difficult for lithium to form, compared to helium and hydrogen, for example, and therefore significantly contributes to the result of a less than expected abundance of lithium.
Dear Dr. Sarkar,
The CMB formed at z = 1100, and the time the Universe was at temperature of fusion, z = 10^7, and so there were 300,000 years for the gas to smooth out at sound speed. Indeed, the process may have caused what is now called the baryonic acoustic oscillations. Notice that in agreeing that the turbulence would be present, we are saying that there is some violation of what is called the cosmological principle of homogeneity, which posits that the Universe is homogeneous on all scales. Of course we know that the Universe is not so locally on scales of Mega-parsecs, but the nuclear fusion instability may have made it inhomogeneous on much larger scales, and these may have damped out after the universe had further cooled and stabilized. To my knowledge, this has not been modeled, for the reason that you would need to include viscosity in the model, and theoreticians are either too lazy or too unsure of gravitational fluid dynamics
The Lithium-5 "problem" is well understood which just leads to the expectation that the abundance of lithium will be low. The amount of cosmological lithium that has been destroyed by stars or interstellar medium processes remains a source of uncertainty but neither of these fully explain the factor of two discrepancy - so this remains a problem.
The worst part of the lithium problem for Big Bang cosmology is that the Spite plateau breaks down at lower metal abundance and the lithium abundance declines further as metallicity declines, without any new plateau in sight. This is completely inconsistent with a hot Big Bang epoch and completely consistent with production of all lithium by stars in the early stages of galaxy formation.
- Badges
- Science topic