• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,346 answers , 22,721 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Is any consensus forming on a solution to the "Lithium Problem"?

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

The "Lithium Problem" relates to the fact very-low-metallicity stars appear to have a Li/H ratio approximately one third of what would be expected. The ratio should be the same as the prediction from Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory. A possibly related problem is that the ⁶Li/⁷Li ratio is several orders of magnitude too high.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2015-09-27 15:57 (UTC), posted by SE-user Aabaakawad

asked Sep 15, 2015 in Astronomy by Aabaakawad (55 points) [ revision history ]
edited Sep 27, 2015 by Aabaakawad
A cursory google search brings up this‌​, which discusses a recent paper that purports to offer a potential resolution: a separate approximation that was in common use is alleged to be flawed, and it is suggested that the correct one may resolve in part or in whole the problem. I'm not informed enough to know how well-supported the referenced paper is, and if any sort of "consensus" has been formed, though.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2015-09-27 15:57 (UTC), posted by SE-user zibadawa timmy
The original academic paper ref'ed in the article @zibadawatimmy linked to can be read here: arxiv.org/pdf/1502.01250.pdf ~ Simply because that is a brand new solution, I doubt it has much consensus around it yet. There are a lot of competing solutions out there. This problem is over a decade old.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2015-09-27 15:57 (UTC), posted by SE-user Aabaakawad


1 Answer

+ 8 like - 0 dislike

No. There is no consensus.

The discrepancy between the predicted big bang nucleosynthetic abundance of Lithium 7 and the measured value can be summarised as follows.

If we take what we know about the the baryonic mass density of the universe and the Hubble constant, we get a self-consistent picture between the cosmic microwave background, observations of galaxy recession etc. and the estimated primordial abundances of Helium and Deuterium.

The problem arises because these same cosmological parameters predict a primordial lithium abundance of $3\times10^{-10}$, when expressed as a ratio to the hydrogen abundance.

On the other hand, measurements of the Li abundance present in the photospheres of the oldest stars (a.k.a. "halo stars") in our Galaxy suggest that the primordial abundance was about $1.2\times10^{-10}$.

The factor of 2-3 difference between these numbers is about 4-5 times the measurement precision. This is the so-called "Lithium problem".

The potential solutions are reviewed by Fields (2012). They fall into the following categories.

  1. Astrophysical solutions - that we don't understand our measurements of the Li abundances because of an imperfect understanding of the atmospheres of low metallicity stars; or that we don't understand interior mixing mechanisms that mean at the photosphere, we see material that has been mixed upwards from the interior where the Li has been depleted in nuclear reactions.

  2. Nuclear physics - maybe the details of the reaction rates and cross-sections in the big bang model are awry? There are still some sizeable uncertainties here which remain to be nailed down, but are seen as rather unlikely solutions.

  3. Additions to the standard big bang model. This includes things like inhomogeneous nucleosynthesis in the early universe - i.e. that it was clumpy even at this early stage. Other possibilities include the possibility that various "constants" were actually different in the early universe or that the equilibrium reactions in big bang nucleosynthesis were upset by the decay of massive dark matter particles.

Thus there are lots of ideas to solve this problem, and other ideas which suggest it is not so much a problem, but that we can't do the measurements properly.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2015-09-27 15:57 (UTC), posted by SE-user Rob Jeffries
answered Sep 16, 2015 by Rob Jeffries (110 points) [ no revision ]
TYVM. I don't have enough rep to vote up yet.

This post imported from StackExchange at 2015-09-27 15:57 (UTC), posted by SE-user Aabaakawad

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights