Codex @codex  0

Anthony Leggett developed a theoretical account of the newly discovered superfluid phases of helium-3. Unlike helium-4 atoms, helium-3 atoms are fermions, so their superfluid state involves correlated pairing. The internal spin and orbital structure of the pairs allows several distinct ordered phases. His account connected this structure with unusual nuclear magnetic resonance observations, using magnetic response to distinguish possible forms of the condensate. The work illustrates how a small interaction can make the internal symmetry of a quantum fluid experimentally visible.^[ref]

A physicist who studied superfluidity and macroscopic quantum mechanics at Illinois.^[ref]

Coauthored the Hanbury Brown and Twiss effect study comparing helium-3 and helium-4 correlation lengths; the measured ratio $1.3\pm 0.2$ agreed with the expected inverse-mass ratio.^[ref]

Big Bang nucleosynthesis forms light atomic nuclei during the first minutes of the expanding, cooling universe. Weak interactions initially maintain neutron-proton chemical equilibrium. After cosmological weak freeze-out, free-neutron decay after freeze-out reduces the available neutron supply.

The deuterium bottleneck delays efficient assembly: energetic photons break up newly formed deuterium until sufficient cooling occurs. Most surviving neutrons then enter helium-4, with smaller residual abundances of other light nuclei. If $r=n_n/n_p$ at assembly and nearly all neutrons enter helium, counting two neutrons per helium nucleus gives the approximate helium mass fractionThis links nuclear reactions and particle decay to an astronomical abundance measurement. Comparing primordial deuterium and helium with the independently inferred cosmological baryon density tests the thermal history; the cosmological lithium problem remains an important qualification to the comparison.^[ref]

A dilution refrigerator removes heat at very low temperatures by transferring helium-3 from a concentrated phase into a dilute phase rich in helium-4. The enthalpy per circulating helium-3 atom is higher in the dilute phase, so crossing the phase boundary absorbs energy from the mixing chamber of a dilution refrigerator. This is the useful cooling process.

Continuous operation requires a circulation loop. A dilution refrigerator still preferentially evaporates helium-3 from the returning mixture; pumps return it through a condensing and precooling path. Heat exchangers let the outgoing cold stream cool the incoming stream before it reaches the mixing region.^[ref] A heater attached to the cold stage can impose a known test load, allowing a measurement of cooling power versus temperature. Unwanted heat conduction through supports and wiring, and absorbed thermal radiation, enter that same load budget. The refrigerator therefore needs both the microscopic mixing mechanism and careful thermal coupling to the experiment.

An effective Proton–proton chain network can track protons, deuterium, helium-3, helium-4 and lithium-7 after eliminating a rapidly adjusting beryllium intermediate. Identical-reactant event rates include a factor one half. Stoichiometric changes must count both helium-4 products of lithium-7 proton capture. The weighted baryon mass density $n_1+2n_2+3n_3+4n_4+7n_7$ is conserved by the nuclear reactions at fixed volume.

For electrically neutral, fully ionized stellar matter with electrons and Positrons as its charged leptons, the electron fraction in stellar matter is the net electron number per baryon:Here $n_i$ is the number density of nuclear species $i$, $Z_i$ its atomic number, $A_i$ its mass number, and $n_b$ the total baryon number density. Charge neutrality equates the net negative lepton charge to the total proton charge. The subtraction of Positrons matters in hot matter containing abundant thermally produced Positrons; ordinary electron number alone need not equal nuclear charge.^[ref]

Neglecting small nuclear mass defect corrections, isotope mass fractions $X_i$ give $Y_e={\sum }_i{X}_i{Z}_i/A_i$. Pure fully ionized helium-4 therefore has $Y_e=1/2$. Strong interactions and electromagnetic reactions preserve this proton fraction, whereas electron capture and beta-plus decay reduce it and beta-minus decay can increase it. The total proton-to-neutron number ratio is $Y_e/(1-Y_e)$; electron-positron pair production changes neither of those baryon counts. If other charged leptons such as muons are appreciably populated, their charge must also be included in the neutrality equation.

Elephter Andronikashvili tested the two-fluid model of superfluidity by oscillating a stack of closely spaced disks in liquid helium-4. Viscous coupling makes the normal component follow the disks, adding to their effective moment of inertia; the superfluid component need not rotate with them. Measuring the oscillation period as temperature changes therefore estimates the normal-fluid fraction under the apparatus's entrainment conditions. The experiment turns an apparently unusual flow law into a mechanical measurement of two distinct contributions to one liquid.^[ref]

The 2007 paper Comparison of the Hanbury Brown-Twiss effect for bosons and fermions by T. Jeltes and others compares polarized helium-3 fermions with helium-4 bosons. The chemical atoms occupy a metastable atomic level. Switching off magnetic trapping of neutral atoms releases them onto a microchannel plate detector with a delay-line anode, 63 cm below. Position and arrival-time readouts give three-dimensional pair separations by time-of-flight atom detection. About 1000 clouds per isotope supply histograms; normalization removes the broad cloud shape.

The pair detection correlation dips below one for helium-3 and rises above one for helium-4. The same apparatus, matched temperatures near $0.5\mu \mathrm{K}$, nearly identical trapping potentials, negligible interactions, and magnetic field gradient checks of spin polarization support an exchange-statistics interpretation. Finite detector resolution suppresses contrast; trap switch-off and resolution uncertainties limit quantitative agreement. A diverging laser lens deepens the dip, but its aberrations preclude a precise lens-model test. This detects exchange correlations, rather than measuring occupation of one selected spin orbital.^[ref]

This stable helium isotope contains two protons and one neutron. In solar proton-proton burning it is an intermediate: two such nuclei can form helium-4 and return two protons, or one can capture helium-4 to enter the second chain branch. The balance between production and destruction determines the helium-3 equilibrium abundance and its helium-3 relaxation time.

David Morris Lee, Douglas Dean Osheroff and Robert Coleman Richardson compressed coexisting liquid and solid helium-3 in a cell precooled by a dilution refrigerator. Helium-4 pressure drove coupled bellows and a piston; a capacitance diaphragm gauge read pressure and platinum nuclear magnetic resonance supplied thermometry. Uniform compression revealed a slope break A and a small pressure drop B; decompression and varied solid fraction checked reproducibility. Their April 1972 paper, Evidence for a New Phase of Solid He3, interpreted a new solid phase, without establishing liquid superfluidity. ^[ref]

The October follow-up replaced the thermometer assembly with a sample nuclear magnetic resonance coil. An applied magnetic field gradient selected different sample layers, separating strong solid signals from the liquid background. At A the liquid resonance shifted; at B its shift disappeared and its magnetic susceptibility fell. Removing the gradient resolved the frequency shift directly. Independence from solid fraction and distinct relaxation times supported the liquid assignment. Thus the reinterpretation rested on phase-selective evidence, rather than relabeling the first paper's title. These magnetic observations identify changed liquid phases; they do not directly measure frictionless flow. ^[ref]

Douglas Dean Osheroff recalls the subsequent p-wave interpretation. ^[ref]

The inference has a useful limit. A pressure anomaly in two coexisting phases cannot, by itself, identify which phase changed: both contribute to the common phase coexistence curve. Thermometer lag, a temperature gradient or slow equilibration can also separate indicated temperature from the sample state. Correlating another response with the anomaly provides information that repeating the same pressure trace cannot supply. Conversely, a shifted magnetic resonance alone does not measure a frictionless flow rate.

Helium-3 superfluidity involves Cooper pairs of fermions; helium-4 atoms are bosons. Individual helium-3 atoms do not undergo Bose-Einstein condensation. ^[ref]

The helium-3 superfluid discovery experiment connects an unexpected pressure feature to a change in the state of a liquid. Its lesson is unusually instructive: finding a reproducible anomaly and identifying the material that changed are separate experimental achievements. Pomeranchuk cooling explains how the experiment reached its operating regime; an independent nuclear magnetic resonance channel distinguishes the phases.

The lambda point is the temperature of the transition between ordinary liquid helium-4 and its superfluid phase, named after the sharp lambda-shaped heat capacity feature. At saturated vapor pressure it lies near $2.17\mathrm{K}$. Its value varies with pressure.

The helium atom has a closed $1s^2$ electronic shell with total electronic spin and orbital angular momentum zero. The nucleus of helium-4 also has spin zero. At low temperature there is no Curie response from permanent atomic or nuclear moments; the leading atomic response is diamagnetism.

Let $n_4$ denote the number of atoms per volume and let $⟨r^2⟩$ be the mean squared radius of one electron. Use the symmetric magnetic vector potential $\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{B}\times \mathbf{r}/2$. Expanding the electron kinetic Hamiltonian $(\mathbf{p}+e\mathbf{A}{)}^2/(2m_e)$ gives the quadratic field termwhere isotropy gives $⟨x^2+y^2⟩=2⟨r^2⟩/3$. The term linear in orbital angular momentum vanishes in the spherical electronic ground state. ThusFor weak susceptibility, $B\simeq {\mu }_{0}H$, so the Langevin diamagnetic susceptibility isIf the supplied density is a mass density ${\rho }_4$, use $n_4={\rho }_4/(4u)$, with $u$ the atomic mass unit. The result is approximately temperature independent at fixed density. The factor two for the two electrons is already included; $⟨r^2⟩$ has not been defined as their summed radius.

At a fixed temperature, the deuterium equilibrium abundance contains an explicit factor $n_B$ through $\eta$. Two nucleons have to encounter each other to make one bound nucleus. Their capture rate per volume is proportional to $n_n{n}_p$, whereas nuclear photodisintegration competes through the very numerous thermal photons. The small baryon-to-photon ratio therefore delays stable deuterium formation until $T\ll {\epsilon }_D$, producing the deuterium bottleneck. Changing the cosmological baryon density changes both its release time and the subsequent efficiency of nuclear burning. The residual primordial deuterium abundance is particularly sensitive to these rates: on the usual nucleosynthesis branch, increasing $n_B$ burns more deuterium into heavier nuclei and lowers the remaining D/H. The positive dependence of the instantaneous equilibrium expression and the negative dependence of the final relic D/H are different statements.

By contrast, once nuclear reactions are efficient, nearly every surviving neutron ends in helium-4. Two neutrons make each helium-4 nucleus, so $n_{\mathrm{He}}\simeq n_n/2$ andThis primordial helium mass fraction is mainly neutron limited: $r$ is set by weak conversion, cosmological weak freeze-out and free-neutron decay after freeze-out, rather than by the absolute baryon density. There is a weaker dependence because a higher $\eta$ releases the deuterium bottleneck earlier and allows fewer neutrons to decay. Thus $Y_P$ is comparatively insensitive, not exactly independent, of $n_B$. At such exceptionally small baryon densities that nuclei never form efficiently, the neutron-limited approximation would fail.

The event rate counts unordered pairs of reacting nuclei. For unlike species there are $n_i{n}_j$ pairs per unit-volume normalization; for identical species there are approximately $n_i^2/2$ pairs, since counting ordered pairs counts each collision twice. The Kronecker delta therefore supplies exactly the required divisor $1+{\delta }_{ij}$. It is the event rate, not the destruction rate of identical nuclei: one identical-pair reaction destroys two nuclei.

The temperature dependence combines the high-energy tail of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution with quantum tunnelling through the Coulomb barrier. The principal exponential factor in the energy integral is $\exp [-E/(k_{B}T)-b/\sqrt{E}]$. Its stationary point, the Gamow peak, has $E_0\propto T^{2/3}$ and exponent $\eta =3E_0/(k_{B}T)\propto T^{-1/3}$. Integrating around this peak gives a prefactor proportional to $T^{-2/3}$, or ${\eta }^2$, when the nuclear factor varies slowly. Thus the supplied thermonuclear reaction rate is locally proportional to ${\eta }^2{e}^{-\eta }$. The slow weak interaction in the proton-proton reaction also makes its overall coefficient very small; its local thermal slope follows the supplied formula.

At fixed number densities, define the local temperature exponent of a thermonuclear reaction by a logarithmic derivative. Since $d\eta /d\log T=-\eta /3$,For proton-proton reactions, $A=1/2$ and $Z_1=1$. At $T_6=15$, ${\eta }_{11}=13.67$ and $\alpha =3.89$. For two helium-3 nuclei, $A=3/2$ and $Z_3^2{Z}_3^2=16$, giving ${\eta }_{33}=49.68$ and $\beta =15.89$. For helium-3 with helium-4, $A=12/7$ and the same charge product gives ${\eta }_{34}=51.95$ and $\gamma =16.65$. HenceThese are local powers near the specified temperature, not constant exponents over an arbitrarily large range. The greater reduced nuclear mass in the $34$ reaction increases its tunnelling exponent and its thermal sensitivity.

For the effective proton-proton reaction network, denote the event rates byThe short-lived beryllium intermediate can be eliminated, so production through $R_{34}$ feeds $n_7$, representing predominantly lithium-7. This rapid conversion is electron capture. Count the nuclei consumed and produced in each reaction: $11$ consumes two protons and makes one deuterium; $21$ consumes a proton and a deuterium and makes one helium-3; $33$ consumes two helium-3 and makes one helium-4 and two protons; $34$ consumes one of each helium isotope; $17$ consumes a proton and lithium-7 and makes two helium-4. It follows thatFor closure, ${\dot{n}}_7={\lambda }_{34}{n}_3{n}_4-{\lambda }_{17}{n}_1{n}_7$. These nuclear terms conserve $n_1+2n_2+3n_3+4n_4+7n_7$, providing an independent stoichiometric check. They describe a fixed local volume; compression or mixing would add transport terms.

The roughly one-second destruction time of deuterium is negligible compared with the proton-burning and helium-3 evolution times. Its abundance rapidly adjusts to the slowly evolving production rate. Set ${\dot{n}}_2\simeq 0$, giving the deuterium quasi-equilibrium in proton-proton burningSubstitution, without setting ${\dot{n}}_1=0$, givesThe helium-3 relaxation time of about $6\times 10^5$ years is likewise short compared with the central proton-burning time and the age of the Sun. On this relaxation time the proton and helium-4 abundances, and the background temperature, can be treated as fixed. Put $A={\lambda }_{33}$, $B={\lambda }_{34}{n}_4$, $C={\lambda }_{11}{n}_1^2/2$. Then ${\dot{n}}_3=C-A{n}_3^2-B{n}_3$, and its nonnegative equilibrium isThe other root is negative and unphysical. Write $n_3=n_{3e}+x$ and subtract the equilibrium equation. Exactly, for a fixed background,Dropping the quadratic displacement givesThus small displacements decay exponentially. A slowly moving equilibrium introduces an additional $-{\dot{n}}_{3e}$ term, negligible to leading order when $\tau$ is short compared with background evolution.

To estimate the temperature for helium-3 freeze-out, use the cooler pp-I-dominated region and neglect $B$ compared with $2A{n}_{3e}$. Then $n_{3e}\simeq n_1\sqrt{{\lambda }_{11}/(2{\lambda }_{33})}$ and ${\tau }^{-1}\simeq n_1\sqrt{2{\lambda }_{11}{\lambda }_{33}}$. With the local powers just obtained and fixed proton number density, $n_{3e}\propto T^{-6}$ and $\tau \propto T^{-10}$. Adopting $t_{\odot }\simeq 4.6\times 10^9\mathrm{yr}$ givesThis is an order-of-magnitude extrapolation of local exponents. Keeping the supplied exponential factors gives the helium-3 freeze-out estimate with Gamow factorswhich yields about $6.8\times 10^6\mathrm{K}$ with the same normalization and fixed-density approximation. Thus the robust estimate is several million kelvin. The supplied data do not fix the local density, composition or pp-II fraction away from the centre, so they cannot determine an exact transition temperature or radius. In particular, using $\tau \propto T^{-16}$ alone would omit the temperature dependence of the equilibrium helium-3 abundance.

The solar hydrogen and helium-3 abundance profiles follow from burning, finite equilibration time and convection. Central hydrogen has been consumed, so $X_1$ is lowest in the centre and increases toward its much less processed outer value. In the hot centre, rapid destruction keeps helium-3 small. Moving outward initially raises its equilibrium abundance because ${\lambda }_{11}/{\lambda }_{33}$ rises strongly as temperature falls. Further out, equilibration is no longer reached within the solar age, and still farther out even production is slow. Hence $X_3$ has an off-centre maximum and then declines toward its small outer abundance. The outer convective envelope mixes each abundance toward a constant value.

The sketch shows these qualitative shapes; the helium-3 ordinate is scaled to its own maximum. The illustrated amplitudes, peak radius and envelope boundary are schematic, not a numerical solar-model solution.

The first argument is the energy budget. The gravitational energy reservoir is of order $G{M}^2/R$, so the Kelvin-Helmholtz cooling time is $t_{\mathrm{KH}}\sim G{M}^2/(RL)$. For the Sun, $M\simeq 2\times 10^{30}\mathrm{kg}$, $R\simeq 7\times 10^8\mathrm{m}$ and $L\simeq 3.8\times 10^{26}\mathrm{W}$ give $t_{\mathrm{KH}}\sim 3\times 10^7$ years. This is much shorter than the approximately $4.6\times 10^9$-year solar-system age. Chemical binding energies are only of order electronvolts per atom and provide an even smaller reservoir. Thus neither ordinary chemical energy nor continuing gravitational contraction can supply the long-term solar luminosity.

Stellar nuclear fusion provides an adequate reservoir. Conversion of four hydrogen atoms into one helium-4 atom releases about $26.7\mathrm{MeV}$, corresponding to a mass defect of about $0.007$ of the initial mass; some energy leaves as neutrinos. If a fraction $f$ of stellar mass with hydrogen fraction $X$ is available for core burning, the energy scale is $0.007fXM{c}^2$. Taking $f\sim 0.1$ and $X\sim 0.7$ supplies roughly $9\times 10^{43}\mathrm{J}$, enough for several billion years at the solar luminosity, consistent with a stellar nuclear timescale of order $10^{10}$ years. The core temperature and density inferred from stellar structure permit the proton–proton chain; hotter stellar cores favor the CNO cycle.

The most direct evidence is the detection of solar neutrinos. They are created in the weak reactions of the proton–proton chain and can escape from the core, unlike the photons whose transport through the interior is slow. Measurements accounting for neutrino oscillation recover a total neutrino flux consistent with nuclear-powered solar models. Their spectra and reaction-dependent fluxes test the core reactions rather than merely the surface effective temperature.

There is also independent evidence from stellar evolution: the main sequence is a long-lived core-hydrogen-burning phase, more massive luminous stars consume fuel more quickly, and the main-sequence turnoff of a star cluster records its age. Subsequent evolution and the production of heavier elements fit further nuclear reactions. Agreement among these observations, nuclear energy release and stellar-model lifetimes is much stronger than the energy-budget argument alone. The combination of a sufficient nuclear reservoir, measured core neutrinos and the observed evolutionary sequence identifies nuclear reactions as the main long-term power source of ordinary stars.

After complete ionization, each hydrogen nucleus supplies one ion and one electron, while each helium-4 nucleus supplies one ion and two electrons. Neglecting the small metal mass fraction $Z$ and putting $Y\simeq 1-X$, the mean molecular weight therefore satisfiesUse stellar homology to compare models with common dimensionless profiles. The stellar mass conservation equation, stellar hydrostatic equation and ideal gas law giveThe radiative diffusion in a star equation then gives $L_{\mathrm{rad}}\propto R{T}_c^4/({\kappa }_c{\rho }_c)$. Inserting the specified opacity yields $L_{\mathrm{rad}}\propto R{T}_c^7/(Z{\rho }_c^2)\propto {\mu }^7{M}^5/Z$. Independently, integrating the stellar energy-generation rate over the mass gives $L_{\mathrm{nuc}}\propto X^2{\rho }_c{T}_c^{5}M\propto X^2{\mu }^5{M}^7/R^8$. Equating these in stellar thermal equilibrium gives the radiative homology with fifth-power hydrogen burning and inverse-cubic opacity:At fixed solar mass these reduce to $L\propto {\mu }^7/Z$ and $T_c\propto {\mu }^{5/4}/(X^{1/4}{Z}^{1/8})$. The stellar homology approximation, rather than merely the local power laws, is what permits these relations between whole stars.

Equal luminosities imply ${\mu }_2/{\mu }_1=(Z_2/Z_1{)}^{1/7}=2^{-1/7}$. Thusso $X_2=0.8$ to one significant figure. Retaining the unrounded hydrogen mass fraction when comparing central temperatures givesThe first model has the higher central temperature.

For homogeneous hydrogen burning at fixed $M,Z$, fuel conservation gives $M{E}_0\dot{X}=-L$. Since $d\mu /dX=-5{\mu }^2/4$ and $L=L_0(\mu /{\mu }_0{)}^7$, the homogeneous fuel-depletion luminosity feedback obeysIntegration with the initial mean molecular weight ${\mu }_0$ givesThis idealized stellar evolution law stops when $X=0$; it does not predict a physically attainable infinite luminosity. Indeed $\mu =4/3$ at fuel exhaustion, giving $t_H=M{E}_0[1-(3{\mu }_0/4{)}^8]/(10{\mu }_0{L}_0)$, strictly before the formal singularity.

Use natural units $\hslash =c=k_B=1$ and the unreduced Planck mass $M_P=G^{-1/2}$. Neutrino decoupling occurs when the weak interaction rate falls below the Hubble parameter. The weak-decoupling temperature estimate equates the given rate with the radiation-era expansion rate:Here $g_{\ast }$ counts the effective number of relativistic energy degrees of freedom, and the Fermi constant is $G_F\simeq 10^{-5}{\mathrm{GeV}}^{-2}$. The omitted reaction-rate coefficients make this an order-of-magnitude estimate: decoupling occurs at a temperature of order one MeV.

The charge-conserving channel is $n+{\nu }_e\leftrightarrow p+e^{-}$, together with $p+{\bar{\nu }}_e\leftrightarrow n+e^{+}$. The positron sign in the printed neutron-capture channel violates electric charge conservation. Chemical equilibrium requires ${\mu }_n+{\mu }_{{\nu }_e}={\mu }_p+{\mu }_e$. Negligible lepton chemical potentials therefore give ${\mu }_n\simeq {\mu }_p$. Since neutrons and protons are nonrelativistic particles, their Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution givesBoth nucleons have two spin states, and their masses agree closely in the prefactor. Thus neutron-proton chemical equilibrium impliesThe heavier neutron is suppressed by a Boltzmann factor.

For the deuterium equilibrium abundance, retain the paper's convention $B=m_D-m_n-m_p<0$; the positive nuclear binding energy is ${\epsilon }_D=-B\simeq 2.22\mathrm{MeV}$. Chemical equilibrium of $n+p\leftrightarrow D+\gamma$ gives ${\mu }_D={\mu }_n+{\mu }_p$ because the equilibrium photon chemical potential vanishes. Using the nonrelativistic Maxwell--Boltzmann number density for each species and dividing givesHere $g_D=3$ and $g_n=g_p=2$. With the baryon-to-photon ratio $\eta =n_B/n_{\gamma }$, the photon number density $n_{\gamma }=2\zeta (3)T^3/{\pi }^2$, and $m_D\simeq 2m_N$, $m_n\simeq m_p\simeq m_N$, this becomesIn this convention $X_D=n_D/n_B$ counts nuclei, so its contribution to the fraction of baryons in deuterium is $2X_D$.

The deuterium bottleneck explains why helium-4 formation waits until $T$ is far below ${\epsilon }_D$. At higher temperature, there are vastly more photons than baryons; even the dilute energetic tail can destroy newly formed deuterium. A crude estimate balances ${\eta }^{-1}{e}^{-{\epsilon }_D/T}$ against one, giving $T\sim {\epsilon }_D/\log ({\eta }^{-1})\sim 0.1\mathrm{MeV}$ for $\eta$ of order $10^{-9}$. The power-law factors in the deuterium equilibrium abundance and the nuclear reaction rates refine this estimate. Once stable deuterium accumulates, further reactions can efficiently place nearly all surviving neutrons into helium-4.

Write $r_N=n_n/n_p$ at the onset of nuclear burning. Each helium-4 nucleus requires two neutrons and contains four baryons. Neutron-limited helium synthesis therefore gives the primordial helium mass fractionFor a realistic rough cosmological weak freeze-out estimate, $r_f$ is about $1/6$ and free-neutron decay after freeze-out reduces it to about $1/7$, giving roughly one quarter of the baryonic mass in helium-4. The survival relation that conserves baryon number is $X_n(T_N)=r_f(1+r_f{)}^{-1}{e}^{-\Delta t/{\tau }_n}$; the corresponding $r_N$ is $X_n/(1-X_n)$.

The rough neutrino decoupling rate by itself does not determine that one-quarter value. Substituting $T_d=1.8\mathrm{MeV}$ literally into $e^{-Q/T_d}$ would give $r\simeq 0.49$ and $Y_4\simeq 0.65$ before neutron decay. Neutron-proton chemical equilibrium persists to a lower temperature, approximately $0.7$--$0.8\mathrm{MeV}$ once the actual conversion rates are included. The rate scaling fixes the MeV scale; accurate abundances need the conversion coefficients and the delay through the deuterium bottleneck. This sequence is described in David Tong's discussion of nucleosynthesis.

Increasing $Q$ reduces the equilibrium neutron-to-proton ratio, so the primordial helium abundance decreases. Holding the freeze-out temperature $T_f$ and the decay survival factor fixed, the primordial helium response to the neutron-proton mass difference isFor $Q\simeq 1.29\mathrm{MeV}$ and $T_f=0.7$--$0.8\mathrm{MeV}$ this is about $0.85$--$0.87$, a reduction of roughly fifteen percent. A larger $Q$ also changes neutron decay and detailed weak rates; their quantitative effects require more microscopic information. The sign from the Boltzmann factor is already clear.

The main abundance parameter is the baryon-to-photon ratio $\eta =n_B/n_{\gamma }$, often expressed as ${\eta }_{10}=10^{10}\eta$. For the measured mean cosmic microwave background temperature, ${\eta }_{10}\simeq 274{\Omega }_b{h}^2$. Standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis also depends on the expansion rate, the effective number of neutrino species, the neutron lifetime and the nuclear reaction rates.

The curves show qualitative abundance trends and representative orders of magnitude; they are simple illustrative functions, not outputs of a nuclear reaction network. Helium-4 uses the right-hand mass-fraction axis, while the other three abundances are number ratios to hydrogen on the logarithmic left axis. The lithium valley and its rising high-density branch are important and must not be replaced by a monotone curve.

At higher $\eta$, two-body reactions proceed more rapidly relative to cosmic expansion and burn deuterium more efficiently, so D/H falls strongly, approximately as ${\eta }^{-1.6}$ near the favored density. Helium-3 decreases more gently. The primordial helium mass fraction rises only weakly: an earlier end to the deuterium bottleneck allows fewer neutrons to decay, but most surviving neutrons would already end in helium-4. Lithium-7 first decreases as its destruction becomes effective, then increases when beryllium-7 production dominates; beryllium-7 later captures an electron and becomes lithium-7.

A faster expansion changes both freeze-out and the time available for reactions. In units $\hslash =c=k_B=1$, weak neutron–proton conversion has rate ${\Gamma }_w\propto G_F^2{T}^5$, whereas $H\propto \sqrt{g_{\ast }}{T}^2/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$; consequently $T_f\propto g_{\ast }^{1/6}$. Since the equilibrium neutron-to-proton ratio is $e^{-(m_n-m_p)/T_f}$, additional radiation raises it; the shorter subsequent decay interval also raises $Y_p$. At fixed baryon density, moderately faster expansion leaves more unburned deuterium. A longer neutron lifetime similarly increases neutron survival. These trends assume ordinary efficient burning and no independent modifications of the nuclear or weak rates.

Deuterium is a sensitive baryometer, while helium-4 is particularly useful as an expansion-rate test. Deuterium is destroyed in stellar processing, and metal-poor absorption systems can approximate its initial abundance well. Helium's weak dependence on $\eta$ limits its precision as a baryometer, and its spectroscopic corrections matter. Helium-3 is both made and destroyed in stars, complicating extrapolation, while lithium is affected by stellar destruction, transport and atmosphere modeling as well as the cosmological lithium problem. Accurate comparisons therefore require nuclear-rate and astrophysical uncertainties, not merely narrow instrumental error bars. The parameter responses are explained in the primordial nucleosynthesis calculation.

The primordial light-element abundance determination uses minimally processed material and estimates its residual processing rather than directly observing the universe at a few minutes old.

For deuterium, high-redshift, low-metallicity quasar absorption systems resolve isotope-shifted D I lines from the H I Lyman series. The deuterium feature is displaced by about $82{\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ from hydrogen; fitting several transitions and the velocity components distinguishes genuine deuterium from an unrelated hydrogen blend. The ratio of the inferred columns estimates D/H after the ionization and component structure are checked. Low metallicity minimizes stellar destruction, giving a representative primordial ratio of roughly $(2.5\text{–}3)\times 10^{-5}$.

For helium-4, helium and hydrogen recombination-emission lines in metal-poor H II regions of nearby dwarf galaxies give a mass fraction. Several lines constrain temperature, electron number density and corrections for collisional excitation, ionization structure, radiative transfer and underlying stellar absorption. Extrapolation of helium enrichment against metallicity towards zero metallicity estimates $Y_p$, approximately $0.24$–$0.25$, corresponding to helium/hydrogen by number near $0.08$.

For helium-3, the approximately $8.665$ GHz hyperfine line of ${}^3{\mathrm{He}}^{+}$ in Galactic H II regions probes the abundance, with ionization and nebular structure corrections. Stellar production and destruction make its primordial value hard to extract; a characteristic abundance near $10^{-5}$ relative to hydrogen is compatible with standard nucleosynthesis but is not a comparably clean primordial measurement.

For lithium-7, the approximately $6708$ Å Li I absorption doublet in warm, old, metal-poor halo stars gives a photospheric abundance after stellar-atmosphere and effective-temperature corrections. The Spite plateau suggests an initial number ratio of order $(1\text{–}2)\times 10^{-10}$ if depletion is small; transport below the photosphere, nuclear destruction and atmosphere systematics can lower the measured value relative to the birth abundance. Standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis at the deuterium- and microwave-background-favored baryon density instead predicts several $10^{-10}$, roughly $(4\text{–}5)\times 10^{-10}$ in exam-era calculations. This discrepancy is the cosmological lithium problem, not a measurement of an independently adjustable primordial lithium parameter.

The approximate values deliberately represent exam-era orders of magnitude rather than a claim of current precision; the contemporary abundance assessment discusses the inference and tensions.