Early universe: equilibrium before nucleosynthesis

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the evolution of the universe just below 100 MeV, highlighting the presence of neutrons, protons, and other particles. Key reactions maintaining kinetic and chemical equilibrium are identified, while the poster questions the omission of certain reactions, particularly those involving neutrinos. It is suggested that the cross sections for these reactions may be negligible, and some may be forbidden by existing models. The poster speculates that other reactions sufficiently account for the necessary equilibrium conditions. The inquiry also touches on the appropriateness of cross-posting the question in a different forum section.
Davide82
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Hi.

I am studying the evolution of the universe.
In particular, I am reading the history of the universe happening just under a temperature of 100 MeV.
At this time, it is said that neutrons and protons are present along with some other particles: electrons, positrons, photons, neutrinos and anti-neutrinos.
They say the reactions which maintain kinetic equilibrium are:
e^- + e^+ \longleftrightarrow \gamma +\gamma
e^\pm + \gamma \longleftrightarrow e^\pm + \gamma
while the reactions which are responsible for both kinetic and chemical equilibrium are:
e^- + e^+ \longleftrightarrow \nu + \bar\nu
\nu + e^- \longleftrightarrow e^- + \nu
n + \nu_e \longleftrightarrow p + e^-
n + e^+ \longleftrightarrow p + \bar\nu_e
n \longleftrightarrow p + e^- + \bar\nu_e
I am wondering why reactions such as:
\nu + \bar\nu \longleftrightarrow \gamma + \gamma
p + e^+ \longleftrightarrow p + e^+
p + e^- \longleftrightarrow n + \nu_e + e^+ + e^-
are not taken into account.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am sorry that the TeX-interpreter doesn't seem to render my post...
 
here it is in a more readable manner:

I am studying the evolution of the universe.
In particular, I am reading the history of the universe happening just under a temperature of 100 MeV.
At this time, it is said that neutrons and protons are present along with some other particles: electrons, positrons, photons, neutrinos and anti-neutrinos.
They say the reactions which maintain kinetic equilibrium are:

e- + e+ <---> photon + photon
e+- + photon <---> e+- + photon

while the reactions which are responsible for both kinetic and chemical equilibrium are:

e- + e+ <---> neutrino + anti-neutrino
neutrino + e- <---> e- + neutrino
n + neutrino(e) <---> p + e-
n + e+ <---> p + anti-neutrino(e)
n <---> p + e- + anti-neutrino(e)

I am wondering why reactions such as:

neutrino + anti-neutrino <---> photon + photon
p + e+ <---> p + e+
p + e- <---> n + anti-neutrino(e) + e+ + e-

are not taken into account.
 
oh, now the first post with TeX has been fixed!
 
I would assume the cross sections for those last three reactions to be negligibly small. Especially the ones involving neutrinos.
 
I am still digging...
I believe the \nu + \bar\nu \longleftrightarrow \gamma + \gamma is forbidden by the model.
The second maybe is not interesting because the other reactions already take care of the kinetic equilibrium of protons and electrons.
Since these reactions are brought up to make some calculations about their frequencies, maybe the last reaction is not needed because its cross section is similar to the other expressions involving protons and neutrons and the only difference would be the phase space in which the mass of the electron would play a small role? So, basically, we are accounting for it in the others?

I would like to post my question in the astrophysics section of the forum, but I don't know if I am allowed to, or this is considered a bad cross-posting...
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top