Chapter 3: Neutrons
The theory developed in the previous chapter dealt with the genesis of protons out of spacetime during the Big Bang. It explained a great deal, including the basic elements of the EM spectrum of hydrogen, but there’s already a fly in the ointment. Anyone familiar with modern cosmology will immediately point out that neutrons were not among the particles discussed. And without neutrons, neither helium nor lithium could have formed, despite the fact that the formation of these elements just after the Big Bang is a fundamental part of the standard model. According to the theory I am developing here, there is no such thing as Big Bang nucleosynthesis, because there were no neutrons available to form complex atoms. This aspect of the theory is a potential problem because it is well known that there is considerably more helium in the universe (roughly ten percent of its total baryonic mass) than can be explained by stellar nucleosynthesis alone. There simply aren’t now, nor have there ever been, enough stars, as they are currently understood, to account for all of this helium. My new theory of nucleosynthesis must make up this deficit.
Another challenge of this theory is to explain the curious uniformity of neutrons the universe over. The pressure under which protons formed was decisive for determining their complement of partettes. It is reasonable to assume that neutrons also depend on a particular pressure to determine their mass. And yet stars come in all different sizes, which would seem to imply that they have all different internal pressures. More mass means more gravity which means higher pressure. Different pressures should give rise to particles of different mass, because the number of partettes necessary to maintain equilibrium is inversely proportionate to the pressure under which they formed. High pressures would create smaller particles with fewer partettes, while lower pressures would create larger particles with more partettes. Yet there is no evidence that neutrons, regardless of where they came from, vary by the slightest amount. The neutrons that make up my computer keyboard are the same as neutrons in the Andromeda Galaxy. This vexing issue is not even addressed by the standard model, but it will be the primary consideration of the theory to follow.
Finally, this new theory must take seriously the colossal energies released by gamma ray bursts (GRBs) and supernova explosions. The standard model argues that a star’s core gradually fills with metals (astrophysics refers to all elements heavier than helium as metals) as it burns progressively heavier elements in a series of fusion reactions. The star runs out of fuel when it either generates a large iron core (iron being the heaviest element that liberates energy during fusion) or, if it is a smaller star, when its gravitational force is exceeded by the nuclear binding energy of whichever element it last created. In either case, the only thing left over to account for the death of a star, supernova or otherwise, is the gravitational energy of a heavy metallic core. Despite the heroic efforts of mathematical physicists, there is simply no way to explain the energy of a supernova with nothing more to work with than a hot, metallic ball. And, as we’ll see, the standard model completely collapses when confronted with the most energetic phenomena in the universe—gamma ray bursts. What I will show, unbelievable as it might sound, is that nuclear fusion has nothing to do with how a star generates its energy. The cosmic abundances of elements as well as their binding energies—the primary clues used to justify the standard model—may well be the greatest red herrings of all time.publ...@gadflyllc.com.