The basic evolution of particles is covered in the Standard Model, but I haven’t seen an analogue of universal neutron mass relative to proton and electron mass development. Has this been done or could someone provide an estimate of this reflected against the understood time-scale?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The basic evolution of particles is covered in the Standard Model, but I haven’t seen an analogue of universal neutron mass relative to proton and electron mass development. Has this been done or could someone provide an estimate of this reflected against the understood time-scale?

Good question.

The closest to an answer that came up in a quick search was:

http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/bang05.html

http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/bang05.html

_“When the Universe was sufficiently hot and dense, there were so many electrons and antineutrinos hitting protons and changing them into neutrons that an equal numbers of protons and neutrons are changing into each other at the same rate. However, as the Universe kept expanding and cooling, the average energy level of the particles dropped and so did the rate of neutrinos hitting protons and changing them into neutrons. The neutrinos and antineutrinos decoupled from the rest of the matter and radiation, and interactions between neutrinos and other particles stopped being a very big factor in the dynamics of the Universe.”_

Has this ever been evaluated against expansion acceleration?

> universal neutron mass relative to proton and electron mass development.

Do you mean neutron mass as in 1 neutron weighs more than 1 proton?
Or neutron mass as in the ratio of numbers of neutrons to protons in the universe?

If the first meaning, I can’t help you. It’s hard-coded in the standard model of quantum mechanics. Theories beyond the standard model are looking pretty sick in the light of the Higgs mass determination and the lack of supersymmetry from the CERN LHC.

If the second meaning, the first calculation of this was published shortly after 1948. The number ratio of neutrons to protons in the universe provided the first definitive proof that the Big Bang theory was correct.

> Has this been done or could someone provide an estimate of this reflected against the understood time-scale?

This occurred about 1 minute after the Big Bang.

> Has this ever been evaluated against expansion acceleration?

Which expansion? The expansion of the inflationary epoch ended about 10^-32 seconds after the Big Bang, so was far too early to have any effect. The expansion due to dark energy didn’t become significant until hundreds of millions of years after the Big Bang, so was far too late to have had any effect.

mollwollfumble said:

Which expansion? The expansion of the inflationary epoch ended about 10^-32 seconds after the Big Bang, so was far too early to have any effect. The expansion due to dark energy didn’t become significant until hundreds of millions of years after the Big Bang, so was far too late to have had any effect.

Inflationary epoch I might get to but I’m refering to all expansion post epoch. When i asked about mass ratio I was looking for the approximate mass of the universe that was neutron and how that developed post inflation epoch. Was the early universe highly isotopic providing a high mass of neutrons to protons? How long did it take alkali and radioactive metals to develop and has this effected the total neutron mass of the universe against proton mass?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

When i asked about mass ratio I was looking for the approximate mass of the universe that was neutron and how that developed post inflation epoch. Was the early universe highly isotopic providing a high mass of neutrons to protons? How long did it take alkali and radioactive metals to develop and has this effected the total neutron mass of the universe against proton mass?

There are two parts to that. The neutron to proton ratio has scarcely altered since 20 minutes after the Big Bang, when the original hydrogen and helium had formed. The neutrons were trapped inside the helium atoms and were not going anywhere.

The heavier elements up to oxygen (possibly up to neon) formed inside stars starting a billion years later. These could be expelled as part of the solar wind and mass ejections from stars. The fusion in stars slowly turns protons into neutrons, but not rapidly enough to greatly affect the overall balance of protons to neutrons in the universe.

The heavier elements came from supernova. In the short time leading up to the supernova, elements oxygen, neon, silicon and iron were created. Then in the core of the supernova iron decomposes into its constituent protons and neutrons and the resulting neutrons smash through layers of the star further out to form all the familiar (and a few unfamiliar) isotopes that decayed into the familiar 92 elements. Although we have neutrons becoming protons, this doesn’t have a great effect on the overall neutron-proton balance in the universe.

mollwollfumble said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

When i asked about mass ratio I was looking for the approximate mass of the universe that was neutron and how that developed post inflation epoch. Was the early universe highly isotopic providing a high mass of neutrons to protons? How long did it take alkali and radioactive metals to develop and has this effected the total neutron mass of the universe against proton mass?

There are two parts to that. The neutron to proton ratio has scarcely altered since 20 minutes after the Big Bang, when the original hydrogen and helium had formed. The neutrons were trapped inside the helium atoms and were not going anywhere.

The heavier elements up to oxygen (possibly up to neon) formed inside stars starting a billion years later. These could be expelled as part of the solar wind and mass ejections from stars. The fusion in stars slowly turns protons into neutrons, but not rapidly enough to greatly affect the overall balance of protons to neutrons in the universe.

The heavier elements came from supernova. In the short time leading up to the supernova, elements oxygen, neon, silicon and iron were created. Then in the core of the supernova iron decomposes into its constituent protons and neutrons and the resulting neutrons smash through layers of the star further out to form all the familiar (and a few unfamiliar) isotopes that decayed into the familiar 92 elements. Although we have neutrons becoming protons, this doesn’t have a great effect on the overall neutron-proton balance in the universe.

I think that fairly covers the question as provided. Ta Moll.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I think that fairly covers the question as provided. Ta Moll.

No hang on. I thought this had gone off track. I was trying to get an idea of individual masses, not ratio of neutrons to protons/electrons.

If atomic particles have different masses, wouldn’t this create an increase in neutron mass over proton and electron mass as the universe becomes more atomically complex?

bump for Moll.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I think that fairly covers the question as provided. Ta Moll.

No hang on. I thought this had gone off track. I was trying to get an idea of individual masses, not ratio of neutrons to protons/electrons.

If atomic particles have different masses, wouldn’t this create an increase in neutron mass over proton and electron mass as the universe becomes more atomically complex?

I’m still trying to figure out whether the nature of fusion generation means that the relative neutron mass of the universe is outpacing the proton/electron mass of the universe PM?

There are various areas I’d guess the question might apply to. Heat death of the universe may be more accurately estimated through this possibly, idk. I am also wondering if phenomena related to DE/DM may be reliant on the balance of charge v mass in the universe?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I’m still trying to figure out whether the nature of fusion generation means that the relative neutron mass of the universe is outpacing the proton/electron mass of the universe PM?

There are various areas I’d guess the question might apply to. Heat death of the universe may be more accurately estimated through this possibly, idk. I am also wondering if phenomena related to DE/DM may be reliant on the balance of charge v mass in the universe?

So I guess this would have been clearer stated as ‘is there a sliding mass/charge ratio in the universe’?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I’m still trying to figure out whether the nature of fusion generation means that the relative neutron mass of the universe is outpacing the proton/electron mass of the universe PM?

There are various areas I’d guess the question might apply to. Heat death of the universe may be more accurately estimated through this possibly, idk. I am also wondering if phenomena related to DE/DM may be reliant on the balance of charge v mass in the universe?

So I guess this would have been clearer stated as ‘is there a sliding mass/charge ratio in the universe’?

As far as we know, the total electric charge in universe has always been zero. Nuclear reactions do not create or destroy charge, although they may re-arrange it. Sure, stellar fusion gradually converts some protons to neutrons, but it doesn’t actually destroy the positive charge. When a proton in the stellar core changes into a neutron a positron is emitted and that positron then annihilates with an electron, so the charge balance remains the same.

As Molly said earlier, the total amount of neutrons created by various stellar processes so far over the lifetime of the universe is only a small fraction (around 1 or 2 percent) of the number created during the era of nucleosynthesis (3 minutes to 20 minutes after the start of the BB).

Now, some stellar processes (certain types of supernova) do create a large number of neutrons in a very short time span, but such neutrons are effectively isolated from the rest of the universe, trapped in neutron stars. Or they soon get ripped to pieces as the supernova remnant collapses into a black hole.

…

I don’t see what the relevance of all this is to DM, since DM doesn’t participate at all in electromagnetic interactions – it’s “blind” to photons so it’s unaffected by electric charge.

At this stage, we don’t know much about DE, but it’s unlikely to have any direct connection to EM.

As for the heat death of the universe, that’s so far in the future, that the current age of the universe is totally insignificant in comparison. OTOH, the fine details of what will happen as the universe dies does depend on things like the stability of the proton, but turning some protons into neutrons won’t really have much effect on that, since we know that free neutrons are unstable.

PM 2Ring said:

I don’t see what the relevance of all this is to DM, since DM doesn’t participate at all in electromagnetic interactions – it’s “blind” to photons so it’s unaffected by electric charge.

At this stage, we don’t know much about DE, but it’s unlikely to have any direct connection to EM.

As for the heat death of the universe, that’s so far in the future, that the current age of the universe is totally insignificant in comparison. OTOH, the fine details of what will happen as the universe dies does depend on things like the stability of the proton, but turning some protons into neutrons won’t really have much effect on that, since we know that free neutrons are unstable.

not so much about charge but mass? is mass dominating charge potential as the complexity of the universe evolves might be more useful. If the atoms of the universe were unbound so that the neutrons, protons and electrons were seperated, would there be more neutron mass now than originally, in regard to proton and electron mass?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

is mass dominating charge potential as the complexity of the universe evolves might be more useful.

I don’t know what that means. If you’re asking is the ratio of neutrons / (protons + electrons) increasing, then the answer’s yes. However, neutrons & protons aren’t fundamental – they’re each made of 3 charged quarks.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

If the atoms of the universe were unbound so that the neutrons, protons and electrons were seperated, would there be more neutron mass now than originally, in regard to proton and electron mass?

Not for long. Free neutrons have a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes.

PM 2Ring said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

is mass dominating charge potential as the complexity of the universe evolves might be more useful.

I don’t know what that means. If you’re asking is the ratio of neutrons / (protons + electrons) increasing, then the answer’s yes. However, neutrons & protons aren’t fundamental – they’re each made of 3 charged quarks.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

If the atoms of the universe were unbound so that the neutrons, protons and electrons were seperated, would there be more neutron mass now than originally, in regard to proton and electron mass?

Not for long. Free neutrons have a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes.

they don’t need to be actually seperated to be counted. The fundamentallity of the particles is a fair point. I am not sure exactly how to weigh it up against the question quite yet, but the difference between the nature of electrons and that of proton and neutron generation is fundamental to the question. I think a vague stab at the overall question is one of charge management over a 3 dimensional vacuum, but I could be reaching for that to be simplifying it.