I like the idea, but it’s plausible that the big wins during my lifetime will bel in biology. Of course, the big wins come from breakthroughs nobody expects, so….

You are right that the physics I’ve mentioned so far determines what temperature BBN occurs at, not what time.

A creation-science type would take this admission and run with it. You admit that the creation could have been 6000 years ago! They can be quite annoying.

The time-temperature correspondance is a prediction of big bang theory that arises directly from thermodynamics and general relativity, entirely independent of BBN. Basically, once you know the temperature you’re interested in, you can just “look up” the corresponding time.

So you’re using the combination of multiple theories. Each of them is self-consistent and is compatible with all the available data, so you’ve built a complex picture that could easily be true, as far as we know.

This weird “baryon-to-photon ratio” I keep mentioning basically is the plasma density.

My prejudice when I hear “plasma density” is to think of just the density of the mass. Do the baryons and photons change into one another? Is the “density” of photons constant? Did I misunderstand completely?

So the plasma density matters for the production of trace elements, but not for the H:He ratio. You can get an order-of-magnitude estimate of the plasma density by looking at the currently observed density of matter in the Universe and scaling back, but now that BBN is well-understood and the trace element abundances are well-measured, you can get a better value by fitting to the BBN model.

That makes clear sense. Of course if you use data from BBN to fit BBN then you can expect a very close match indeed. ;-) But BBN is compatible with the estimates you made without using it.

All our work assumes that the relevant physical constants were the same in the BBN era as now. …. we know (assuming constant rates of change) that proton, neutron, and electron masses and nuclear binding energies have changed less than ~ppm over ~10B years.

That all looks pretty straightforward. If the answers had come out different you probably could have found complications to fudge them that you naturally ignore now. Physical constants could have changed fast back then and very very slowly over the last 10B years, etc. But your simpler model fits the known facts, which makes it more believable than the more complicated possibilities that might have fit the facts if the facts were different.

With evolution we can’t depend on simplicity. We try to use the simplest models that fit the facts out of a sort of maximum-entropy sense, but there’s every reason to think they’re wrong—we just don’t have the detailed data yet. It’s entirely predictable that evolution has resulted in genetic mechanisms that let organisms evolve faster. We can predict some approaches that would allow faster adaptation, but without the detailed work we can’t know whether any of them are in operation—they might have been outcompeted by even better approaches, or any one guess may never have evolved.

So when I look at what you say with a biological mindset, I naturally look for alternatives. (And lacking the background data it’s easier for me to imagine alternatives might fit.) One of the central things that living things do is to make enzymes. Chemical reactions have rates that they approach equilibrium, and enzymes work by speeding up that rate. They can’t affect the equilibrium, they only affect the approach to that equilibrium, by somehow tunneling through the required activation energy. Living things can also change the rates and direction of chemical reactions by changing the relative concentrations of reactants and products. It takes energy to change those concentrations, so to make one reaction go against the grain you need to couple it with another more energetic reaction.

Could there be something analogous for your case? Some special circumstance where protons and neutrons get switched without needing so much energy? Maybe a neutron switches to proton and the energy is somehow stored, waiting to convert a proton back to a neutron? Well, but to happen outside a big bang it would probably need to have hydrogen and helium getting switched back and forth too. It would probably have to be happening in interstellar space at some low frequency for a very long time. Given the amount of time available it could be an extremely low rate and still approach equilibrium.

I can’t say it’s possible, but from a position of massive ignorance I’ll guess that if there was a viable alternative it would look something like that. Didn’t some astronomer a long time ago propose hydrogen getting formed continually in empty space? Maybe his name was Hoyle. I vaguely remember they looked at the possibility and eventually even he decided that it just didn’t work. But that was a long time ago, how much effort has been put into showing that it doesn’t work given what you know now?

Off Topic: J Thomas, you ask excellent questions. Are you sure you don’t want to be a physicist?

You are right that the physics I’ve mentioned so far determines what temperature BBN occurs at, not what time. The time-temperature correspondance is a prediction of big bang theory that arises directly from thermodynamics and general relativity, entirely independent of BBN. Basically, once you know the temperature you’re interested in, you can just “look up” the corresponding time.

This weird “baryon-to-photon ratio” I keep mentioning basically is the plasma density. So the plasma density matters for the production of trace elements, but not for the H:He ratio. You can get an order-of-magnitude estimate of the plasma density by looking at the currently observed density of matter in the Universe and scaling back, but now that BBN is well-understood and the trace element abundances are well-measured, you can get a better value by fitting to the BBN model.

All our work assumes that the relevant physical constants were the same in the BBN era as now. The physical conditions as BBN are actualy not that far away from lab experience: the density of the Universe at that time was about the density of water and the relevant energies are those known from low-energy nuclear physics experiments that we were doing 50 years ago. You could use BBN to set limits on the rate of change of the relevant physical constants, but we get much better limits from observing the spectrum of distant, old stars; because we can measure spectral frequencies to ~15 decimal places, we know (assuming constant rates of change) that proton, neutron, and electron masses and nuclear binding energies have changed less than ~ppm over ~10B years.

“Q [Board member] Mrs. Geesey, I ve just handed you a copy of your deposition transcript from I believe it was March the 10 .
A Yes.
Q And you recall that deposition?
A Yes.
Q I just handed it to you now because we might be referring to it.
I’m not sure I heard the last point you made. You say you did not want your children being exposed to evolution?
A No, I do.
Q You do want them?
A Um-hum.
Q And what was it about the Christian school that you didn’t like as much as you like about the Dover schools?
A At the time that—he’s in eighth grade now, so when he was going to kindergarten they did not teach everything, they didn’t teach different views.
Q What do you mean “everything” and “different views”?
A They didn’t teach evolution, you know, it was Christian, they just taught one thing.
Q What was the one thing they taught?
A Genesis, you know, Genesis.
Q And you don’t have a background in science, do you?
A No.
Q And your educational background involves finishing high school?
A Yes.
Q And you haven’t had any science courses since then?
A No.
Q You attended all of the board meetings in March—I’m sorry, in 2004 except one?
A I believe it was two; I was certain of one.
Q And you were not on the curriculum committee in 2004?
A No.
Q And you weren’t involved in curriculum committee discussions?
A No.
Q So you wouldn’t have been involved in any of the curriculum committee discussions about the Miller and Levine textbook?
A No.
Q And you weren’t involved in the committee discussions about Pandas?
A No.
Q And you weren’t involved in the committee discussions about changing the curriculum to include intelligent design?
A No.
Q Now, in the summer of 2004, you didn’t do anything to learn more about the Miller and Levine textbook, did you?
A No.
Q And you didn’t take any steps to learn more about the whole concept of intelligent design?
A No.
. . [snip]. . .
Q Now, you said you voted for the October 18 curriculum change because you liked it.
A Yes.
Q You supported the change.
A Yes.
Q It—because it gave a balanced view of evolution.
A Yes, I mean . . .
Q It presented an alternative theory?
A Yes.
Q And the policy talks about gaps and problems with evolution?
A Yes.
Q Yes. You don’t know what those gaps and problems refer to, do you?
A No.
Q But it’s good to teach about those gaps and problems?
A That—yes, that’s our mission statement, yes.
Q But you have no idea what they are?
A It’s not my job, no.
Q Is it fair to say that you didn’t know much about intelligent design in October of 2004?
A Yes.
Q And you didn’t know much about the book Of Pandas and People either, did you?
A Correct.
Q So you had never participated in any discussions of the book?
A No.
Q And you made no effort independently to find out about the book?
A No.
Q And the administration had made copies of the book available to board members.
A Yes.
Q But you never read the book.
A No.
Q And no one ever explained to you what intelligent design was about.
A No.
Q And you never got any instructional materials or tapes about intelligent design.
A No.
Q And you never viewed any or read any books about intelligent design.
A No.
Q And you didn’t study it independently.
A No.
Q You didn’t go on the Internet and look it up.
A No.
Q So you didn’t really think too much about intelligent design.
A No.
Q You just knew it was something else that the kids were going to learn?
A Yes.
Q And it was a theory that was different from Darwin’s view.
A Yes.
Q And what you testified earlier is that you were relying on the recommendation of the curriculum committee.
A Yes.
Q And that was their job.
A Yes.
Q And because they were recommending the introduction of intelligent design, you were going to go along with that.
A Yes.
Q And you thought it was a good idea to introduce an alternative to evolution.
A Yes.
Q Now, it wasn’t the entire curriculum committee that was recommending this change, correct?
A I don’t know.
Q Well, who was on the curriculum committee?
A Bill, Allen, and I can’t remember the other one.
Q Was Sheila Harkins on it?
A I don’t know.
Q Do you know if Sheila Harkins was supportive of intelligent design?
A I don’t know that. I don’t know. I never really thought about it.
Q So the two people you were really listening to and talking to about this were Bill Buckingham and Allen Bonsell.
A Yes.
Q And Casey Brown, I’ll just tell you, Casey Brown was the last member of the curriculum committee. Does that sound right?
A Yes.
Q And she was not supportive of this change.
A No.
Q In fact, she was adamantly opposed to introducing intelligent design into the curriculum.
A Yes.
Q But you weren’t listening to her, were you?
A She wasn’t—she was ignoring me, she wasn’t mentoring me, so . . .
Q But she was there advocating against introduction of intelligent design, so it wasn’t like the curriculum committee was unified?
A Right.
Q But you chose to listen to Mr. Buckingham and Mr. Bonsell?
A Correct.
Q Now, I know you said you don’t have any background in science, correct?
A Correct.
Q And do you know whether Mr. Buckingham has a background in science?
A No, I do not.
Q Do you know that in fact he doesn’t have a background in science?
A I don’t know. He’s law enforcement, so I would assume he had to take something along the way.
Q Did he ever tell you he knew something about biology?
A No.
Q How about Mr. Bonsell, do you know what his background is?
A No.
Q Do you know what he does for a living?
A He’s a business owner, I believe.
Q He’s not a scientist, to your knowledge?
A Not to my knowledge, no.
Q He’s not a science teacher?
A No.
Q Now, there are people employed by the school district who do know a little something about science, correct?
A Correct.
Q And that would be the teachers.
A Yes.
Q And you know Ms. Bertha Spahr?
A Yes.
Q And she’s been with the school district a long time.
A Yes.
Q And she’s head of the science department.
A Yes.
Q And you know Ms. Miller.
A Yes.
Q And you know Mr. Eshbach.
A Yes.
Q And you know Mr. Lanker?
A I don’t—I wouldn’t be able to place him, but I know the name, I know he’s a teacher.
Q And he’s a science teacher?
A Yes.
Q And you knew that the science teachers were all opposed to introducing intelligent design?
A Correct.
Q And the teachers had in fact told you that they were concerned about introducing intelligent design because they were worried that they would get sued.
A Correct.
Q And specifically they were worried about teaching from the Pandas book, correct?
A I don’t—I don’t know.
Q Do you recall in August of 2004 you had a discussion about approving the new Biology book?
A Yes.
Q And at that time Mr. Buckingham did not want to vote to approve the Biology book unless Of Pandas and People was approved?
A Correct.
Q And do you recall Ms. Spahr making any comments about Of Pandas and People?
A No. No.
Q Could you look at page 63 of your deposition, please. Are you there?
A Yes.
Q Let me read to you starting on line seven, and this is Mr. Schmidt asking a question.
“And I understand that the afraid of being sued referred to something that she said about teaching religion in the science curriculum.
“Answer”—that’s you—“correct.”
“Question. Can you tell me any more about your understanding of what she meant when she said that?
“Answer. She thought we were going to make them teach religion.
“Question. Again, what did you understand her to be referring to when she said that?
“Answer. I don’t know because we weren t, we weren’t doing that, so to me it was an unfounded statement.
“Question. What do you think she was referring to?
“Answer. The Pandas book.”
Now, did I read that accurately?
A Yes.
Q So your understanding in March, when you were deposed, was that in fact they were concerned that teaching the Pandas book would be teaching religion?
A It says “at some point during the summer of 2004,” and right now, I answered the way I did because I’m thinking that she did all this in October.
Q So does this refresh your recollection?
A It does, I know she said that. I would have to sit here and really think to see when she said it, but that was—that’s how it happened.
Q But you’re not disputing now, after you ve looked at this, that in fact the teachers were concerned about teaching Pandas because they thought it was religion?
A No, I was just—I was thinking it was October, that’s why I answered your question the way I did.
Q And you didn’t frankly agree with the teachers that Pandas was teaching religion, right?
A No, no, I did not agree with the teachers, no.
Q And you thought their position that Pandas taught religion was unfounded?
A Right.
Q But you never read Pandas, right?
A No.
Q Now, prior to the October 18 vote to change the curriculum, do you recall the science teachers explaining that intelligent design was not science?
A Yes.
Q And you never asked them any more questions about their position why they didn’t think this was science?
A No.
Q And you will recall also that Ms. Spahr expressed concerns that she thought intelligent design was religious?
A Yes.
Q And you knew that the teachers were opposed to introducing this intelligent design change because they were afraid they were going to get sued for teaching religion?
A Yes.
Q And so the only people in the school district that you’re aware of that have a science background were opposed to introducing intelligent design; they thought it wasn t science, they thought it was religion, and you ignored that?
A Yes.
Q And you voted for the proposal because Mr. Buckingham and Mr. Bonsell encouraged you to do so?
A I agreed with them, that’s why I voted for the proposal.”

-David – a) what would you have said to her, if the school board had been gunning for the big bang instead of evolution?,
b) this sort of thing, repeated endlessly – can you see why it might get some folks a little annoyed when faced with a scientist and educator with advanced degrees seemingly not bothering to do their homework before insisting that that evolution has serious problems with falsifiability, etc?,
and – do you think kids in intro high school astronomy should be taught “gaps and problems” with big bang theory, not in any usual sense (this is how science works and progresses) but using materials that, for example, go into obsessive detail about relatively small differences in the observed and predicted abundance of lithium-7, at a level of detail completely inappropriate for the course, with kids not very familiar w/ stuff like “isotopes”

That’s not what the ID movement (of which those guys are fierce opponents) is about at all. It’s just the latest ruse (basically, a legal strategy, though it ain’t working) to try to smuggle biblical creationism into public schools under yet another disguise.

IOW, it’s all a load of wank….

Ah, how was it determined that BBN was complete by 3m? That didn’t obviously follow just from what you said so far.

Could the density of the plasma matter at all?

Would your results imply that all the physical constants were the same back then as they are now when the lab experiments get done?

What sort of things swayed you?

What seems necessary isn’t to waste classroom time on creationism drivel, but to simply teach the logical fallacy involved in believing we need an intelligent designer to exist and then ignoring the question of who designed the designer.

Enjoy.

the wikipedia page has some general audience links

And here is a post by Canadian ID creationism advocate Denyse O’Leary musing “Will the rarity of the element lithium endanger the Big Bang theory?”

Sadly, too many folks agree.

“ a Radio interview in which he expounded on “small” id somewhat and seemed very sensible in his treatment of the subject and where it fits in the scheme of things both in the academic and public mind.”

I have to admit, I’m curious.

“with another decade or two of warming revealed to me will be proof positive of the story of Sedna”

Now that might make a good speculative fantasy tale . . .

“ I certainly do encounter many people who, when I mention that I did cosmology, immediately say “I don’t believe in the big bang”. I don’t say “you don’t know what you’re talking about.” ”

Which is good. I think Steve got irritated because you sort of played the role of a biologist taking part in the conversation who starts going in about how well, don’t you know that big bang theory has serious problems with falsifiability, and while my work, makes clear predictions, if you can’t think of a measurement that could be made that would make you stop believing in macro-evolution, it isn’t a scientific theory . . .
While it’ll be great if the biologist eventually announces himself partly swayed by part of your utterly standard explanation (if still underwhelmed by others) – even in the face of somewhat rough language . . . well, it would suggest that said biologist hadn’t bothered to look very deeply beforehand. You could imagine being a bit annoyed that they had been making these kind of confident pronouncements without taking it seriously, as it were, especially if there was a organized and extremely resilient sociopolitical movement aimed at undermining physics education (and ultimately bio, and chem – indeed, science itself, but starting with physics), no?