Talk:Big Bang/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 15

The big bang, its proponents, and its critics

So, JDR and I agree that there is a systematic bias within academia. This is obvious: if you polled those people throughout the world, a much smaller proportion would believe in the big bang than do scientists, or physicists, in the academy. I don't think this means we should list their objections, any more than we should list the layman's commonsense objection that "It just doesn't make sense!" on the quantum mechanics or special relativity pages, or the objection "I don't look anything like a monkey!" on evolution page. The opinion of experts, who are largely academics, needs to be given greater importance. There needs to be some critical standard applied to objections.

  • While there is a systematic bias in academia, it is not nearly as bad as JDR might think. Careers are not made by dotting i's and crossing t's, they are made by branching out, poking holes in existing theories and suggesting new ones. Dark matter wouldn't exist if everybody had ignored the problems with BBN, structure formation and flat rotation curves. Dark energy wouldn't exist if people didn't realize there was a missing mass problem. Inflation wouldn't exist if nobody had the cojones to mention the horizon problem.
  • Of Eric Lerner's edits, two were highly subjective statements and three were immediately discredited by well known results in the literature. The remaining two comments are highly controversial, have not been peer-reviewed and appeared in the last two months. In an article about as mature a theory as the big bang, it seems like the only reasonable thing to delete them.

I disagree with JDR's assertion that it is the business of Wikipedia to counter systematic bias in academia. It is the business of Wikipedia to report the scientific consensus, and any significant dissent within and outside the community, weighted according to its importance. That is the policy and I think this is discussed now in the article. –Joke137 17:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my view .... I will respond more later (about "branching out" within the "mainstream", etc.), but suffice to say right now .... it's the business of Wikipedia to remain neutral. That means' that wikipedia should not futher the systematic bias in academia and address the topic neutrally. This would mean including laymen and "expert" views. Sincerely, JDR (Btw, some careers are made by dotting i's and crossing t's ... =-) (PS. the strawman arguement (in the QM, SR, and evolution parts) doesnt help your point.)

Well, we disagree about what neutral means. I think it means presenting things as they are, and that trying to correct systematic biases is something that is invariably more subjective. –Joke137 17:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC) (Yes, some careers are made that way. Fortunately, not all of them, or the best of them.) (PS. It's not a strawman argument. I'm just trying to represent that there is a continuum of views, and some criterion needs to be applied to make Wikipedia a useful resource.)

You don't disagree with me .... you disagree about what neutral means as Wikipedia states it.
It's not "correcting" systematic biases ... it avoiding the furtherance of such bias (a POV) in Wikipedia ... that is why the NPOV policy is there, to wit "Wikipedia policy is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias"
Sincerely, JDR 20:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
(PS., It's was a strawman argument, eg. "create a position that is easy to refute" (and implicitly "attributing that position" to the other side from where you are arguing from). Criteria can applied and this is delineated in the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. The criteria you espouse is, at best, according to a Wikipedia:Scientific point of view, this is UNACCEPTABLE to wikipedia's mission. SPOV exclusion violates the policy of including all knowledge and SPOV prioritising (eg., _subjectively_ bringing to the fore) violates the NPOV. The criteria you espouse is, in the worse case, an academic POV ... and as I discussed before that is not a NPOV.)
Please stop attributing novel statements to me. I was suggesting just the opposite, that the views about quantum mechanics, special relativity and evolution were views that everybody could agree shouldn't be included. I was not implicitly attributing them to you, nor was I suggesting that your position logically requires their inclusion. I was merely making a trivial example that I thought we could easily agree upon.
I have not espoused any scientific point of view. I am merely stating that, in the particular case of the big bang, given that it is such an old and well developed theory, a critic ought to be quite authoritative to merit inclusion. I am perfectly aware of your quote from the NPOV policy, and I agree with it. I disagree with your interpretation, and I do not think the correct interpretation is at all obvious. Lawyers are familiar with this problem: if it were so easy to interpret rules, the United States would not have such a ruckus every time a justice retires from the Supreme Court. –Joke137 20:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Whereas it wouldn't come as surprise for User:Reddi, I want to state it for all bystanders: I fully agree with the line of reasoning of User:Joke137. If something is the subject of study of academic science, it isn't Wikipedia's business to outsmart the scientists. We shouldn't appeal to the lynch mob, to delete Banach-Tarski paradox because it is against all common sense [1].
Reddi knows that hard core dogmatists like myself have a hard time with articles like Testatika or Motionless Electrical Generator, but we can accept that this stuff should be documented in Wikipedia. But this doesn't imply by analogy that "mainstream" articles should include all amateurish and fringe critics.
Pjacobi 18:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
It does not come as a surprise that you Pjacobi agree that wikipedia should take a "academic POV". (As a side note, are you saying that you are a "hard core dogmatist"? I would have gave more of a benefit of the doubt than that .... but I'll let you label yourself =-])
Wikipedia's mission isn't to "outsmart the scientists", it's "business" is to remain neutral' ... a "prime directive" as someone stated in another discussion. Wikipedia shouldn't appeal to the "lynch mob" view. Also, Wikipedia shouldn't appeal to a "academic POV". Wikipedia should appeal to a NPOV. "Stuff should be documented in Wikipedia". "Mainstream" articles should include significant critics (be that "experts" (do these come a dim a dozen?) or from non-academic sources (ie., "laymen"); eg., people that have point based on "real" studies), not "amateurish" (more precisely, arguement from a unlearned position or with non-pertinent information, not someone having an expertise or skill in a field without pay) critics.
I do take exception to your point of excluding so-called "fringe" critics. As discussed earlier .... it is not NPOV to exclude scientific inquiry in an established field that departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories (and thier criticism). Much of the significant "minority" could be labeled as such by "scientific fundementalist". As I stated above, excluding "significant" minority views from this article is not a NPOV. Sincerely,JDR 20:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Who, praytell, decides what qualifies as a significant critic? Right now the page lists the fact that critics exist and points us to them. If you think this isn't enough, start an RfC. Joshuaschroeder 20:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If you would apply some critical thinking, Joshua, and think about what qualifies as a significant critic, it woulod be kinda easy to find out. These are people that offers skillful interpretation with valid and well-reasoned opinions and analysis involving negative (and positive) observations. The policy of NPOV gives some damn indication. "To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. [...] If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents".
Just listing the fact that some critics exist "somewhere" and points to another article ... and not listing thier issues with the Big bang theory (a way of brushing thier concerns aside ... ) is not NPOV. Also to claim items solely for the BB (such as the 'Cosmic microwave background radiation'; "Big Bang theory predicted the existence of ..." bull, the BB myth was as wrong as the others .... you can read all of this thread Cosmic Background Radiation (Not Very Speculative, Honestly)) ...is not NPOV, if there are contentions with other theories.
If I (or others) don't think there isn't enough, I'll edit the page to include them. What may happen is if you keep editing them out (as the history has shown), a RfC may be needed.
Sincerely, JDR 16:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you should RfC. Your edits are now well-founded or supported here on the talkpage. Joshuaschroeder 16:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Reddi, pointing to forum postings just makes your point more absurd. The areas of academic research in physics and mathematics will have to be presented from the "academic POV" in Wikipedia, as in any encyclopedia. Yes, there is a -- rather unrelated -- place for notable crackpottery, but that POV explicitely is forbidden to invade the main articles. --Pjacobi 16:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Pjacobi, are you suggesting that the forum participants pointed to, such as John Baez, are crackpots?
"Academic POV" is not a NPOV. A "POV explicitely is forbidden to invade the main articles"
Wlnk'ing to "Aetherometry" and "Time Cube" does not help your point ... nor are the 'group of critic' (of the BB) insignificant nor as "fringe" as such a wlnk implies.
Sincerely, JDR 16:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm suggesting that forums are in itself a weak reference.
The "academic POV" is a so called POV. Academia is not monolithic and encompasses multiple POVs. The scientific process is an established process to falsify or add support to old theories and create new theories. Your suggestion to go outside academia for other POVs on topics in mathematics and physics is strange and unencyclopedic. It is nowadays very, very uncommon that input outside academia advances mathematics and physics. And the few exceptions are noted by academia and integrated in the usual process. There is no cabal.
Pjacobi 17:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
An "academic POV" is not a NPOV. My only sugesstion is to have a NPOV. There seems to be a 'academia cabal' at this article slanting it to a POVed status (again .... a "Academic POV" is not a NPOV. A "POV explicitely is forbidden to invade the main articles"). JDR
A "one academic's POV" is a POV. The generic "academic POV" is a fiction. Our primary goal is an to write an encyclopedia, and this limits the range of POVs to be represented in articles. And yes, there are some POV explicitely forbidden (by precedent, community consensus, or ArbCom ruling) to invade main articles. E.g. it is settled that the Time Cube theory will not be presented in the time and day articles. And the same fate would hit an inclusion of the Nazi moon base POV in Moon. --Pjacobi 19:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The primary goal is an to write an NPOV encyclopedia. To only write from the BB POV and exclude significant critics is not a NPOV. JDR (PS., I imagine to some many sources would be "weak references" if they didn't support the BB POV, JIMO)

Eddington did not predict the CMB. He computed an effective temperature for the highly non-thermal spectrum of starlight, and clearly stated that it was not a thermal spectrum. –Joke137 16:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you Ned? if you are nice site (and I seen your eddington "debunk" page), but totally POV'ed ....
Anyways .... As early as 1926 Arthur Eddington calculated the photon temperature in and around galaxies at about 3K .... this phenonomena was later rename the CMBR (mainly to support the BB theory). Sincerely, JDR 19:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not Ned, but it is clear as day on his site. It has nothing to do with the CMB. His observations were at optical frequencies, they were not of a 3K thermal spectrum, they apply only in the galaxy and they were not of microwaves. It is nothing more than numerology. –Joke137 20:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Whatever joker, I just thought that'd I ask.
His site (which is completely and utterly bias toward the BB ... and as I have noted above in the Talk he has been wrong) does state that ... but there are other sites such as (Jerrold G. Thacker, "Reinventing the Universe" The Cosmic Background Radiation. 2002.) that states that it does ... Sincerely, JDR

JDR, don't start a revert war. Eric Lerner's edit has been discredited. Nobody has bothered to reply to any of the clear-cut, referenced, scientific objections that have been made to it. Just because he says CP asymmetry hasn't been discovered doesn't make Fitch and Cronin wrong. –Joke137 16:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

JDR, please provide a list of specific, concrete changes you would like to see in the article for it to become, in your eyes, NPOV. I think I have provided good reasons why the changes you and Eric Lerner have made are unacceptable, but neither of you seems willing to engage on discussing the specifics of these edits. –Joke137 19:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Go through the fricken history, Joker. Here just a few thing that were POV infavor of the BB ...

  • removed "Proponents of non-standard cosmology maintain that the explanations provided by the Big Bang theory are usually formulated only after the observational results, and that given the number of adjustable parameters in the theory, it is not surprising that the model is able to replicate whatever observations are made."
That is not true. The one case I can think of is dark energy. –Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The low number of input parameters in ΛCDM; resulting in good fits of many observations is even a distinguished feature of the theory. Remarkably, trying to introduce more parameters doesn't give significantly better fits. --Pjacobi 14:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't editors be allowed to remove statements that are out-and-out false? Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • removed "although, as Big Bang skeptics point out, this prediction was only qualitative, and failed to predict the actual temperature of the CMB."
That is true. It is impossible to predict the actual temperature of the CMB without precise knowledge of the expansion history of the universe and the physics of decoupling. I don't see that as relevant – the successful prediction that it is thermal was clearly borne out. Should we, on the plasma cosmology page, maintain a litany of all the ongoing failures of plasma cosmology to predict anything? –Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
There prediction for the temperature of the CMB was dead on for the assumptions they made (which turned out to be measured to be incorrect). A detail history of the prediction of the temperature of the CMB is rightly included on the CMB page. What is important is that the CMB is a fundamental characteristic of the Big Bang theory that had to be postdicted by the steady-state proponents. That's why the CMB is important from a historical perspective. Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • overstatements such as "widely accepted"
I see I'm not the only one who thinks this phrase is over the top. Mr. Schroeder and I had a brief discussion on it earlier, but all he could provide was anecdotal evidence for it's support. I still stick to my theory that dark matter is only necessary in cosmology(i.e., it's a hack). Any belief in it outside of cosmology is most likely due to propaganda by cosmologists and the fact that scientists in other fields (i.e., everyone else) have no need for dark matter, hence no need to investigate it's authenticity.the1physicist 15:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Personal theories are not allowed in wikipedia: WP:NOR. Instead we need to have a discussion of how many papers which claim to contradict the existence of dark matter. In the last year I've been purusing astro-ph I've seen no more than ten for the hundreds which are about dark matter. So how can it be claimed that it isn't widely accepted? Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • removed "While the theory is widely supported, critics of the theory contend that its predictions have been contradicted by observations in many significant ways"
This rests on the notability of the critics. There are a very small handful of critics and we mention that they exist in the article. Why can't this statement be placed on non-standard cosmology (where indeed it currently resides)? Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • removed "According to the big bang theory, the"
We discussed the fact that the "early universe" has no context other than in the big bang. Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • removed "The necessity for big bang theorists to introduce an unobserved type of matter (dark matter) and an unobserved type of energy (dark energy) to resolve contradictions between the big bang theory and observation has been compared by critics of the theory to the epicycles introduced by Ptolemy to resolve problems with the heliocentric model of the solar system."
See discussion of "observation" below in Eric Lerner's criticism section. Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • removed "The big bang theory predicts that surface brightness, brightness divided by apparent surface area, decreases as (z+1)^-3, where z is redshift. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But recent observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the big bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense."
See discussion below. Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • removed |as to myths| "(a term other writers have applied to the Big Bang)"
See comments below and above. –Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I would not object to reintroducing this to the links section, with a different caption. –Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Neither would I. Joshuaschroeder 17:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • removed whole "apparent expansion" section
I don't remember this section. –Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • removal of point out various assumptions that the BB makes
Which ones in particular? –Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • switching "Big Bang is a scientific theory" to "Big Bang is the scientific theory"
See the archived discussion. "The big bang is the scientific theory that": you missed an important word. –Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • removed "One feature of the Big Bang theory was the prediction of"
???–Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • removed "the oscillating universe"
The oscillating universe is still in. –Joke137 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I could go on and on and on .... but the history of the article exposes the POV editing by BB proponents.JDR

The opinions of Reddi on the matter ignore the talk about each and every one of these edits. As such, I find his dredging through the history to be incomplete as his rationale for the NPOV notice. I move the notice be removed from the page. Joshuaschroeder 02:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The "dredging through the history" was incomplete and done in haste (though I did nnotice that your edits Joshua were mostly of a POV type) ... but the rationale for the NPOV notice is justififed. DO NOT REMOVE the tag, dammit, just because you don't agree with the tag ... or other tags that you put up should be removed on another editor's whim. Joker has posted a RfC, and I added additional comment there. I will also comment in the section below by him .... JDR 17:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You could respond directly to the points delineated above. Please do so or I submit that the tag should be removed for lack of evidence. Joshuaschroeder 17:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Exapansion?

Can someone please expand some space from me? thanks .... JDR 20:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (disreguard this note if you can't)

Now that Joke137 has admitted he is no expert in the field, it does not matter what his name is, so I will proceed to answer all his points.

I never admitted any such thing, only that it doesn't matter. –Joke137 14:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The harassment of Joke137 is unacceptable. This user's edits and contributions to talkpages speak for themselves. --Joshuaschroeder 17:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Change: While the theory is widely supported, critics of the theory contend that its predictions have been contradicted by observations in many significant ways.

Joke: Very few physicists think the theory has been contradicted

Reply: See www.cosmologystatement.org for a list of some of the critics, also see July 2 New Scientist.

Completely unauthorative, arugmentative, and a list full of "critics" who range from geologists to the out-and-out insane (such as VanFlandern). Joshuaschroeder
Yes, I agree. –Joke137 14:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Change: Critics of the theory, however, point out that there is no experimental evidence for any process that produces an asymmetry between matter and antimatter. In particle accelerators, matter and antimatter are always produced in exactly equal amounts. If such equal amounts of matter and antimatter existed at high density, they would have annihilated each other during the expansion, leaving behind a very dilute universe. Thus, critics contend, the big bang theory, combined with observed physical laws, produces a universe that is billions of times less dense than that observed.

Joke: (re: baryogenesis) Fitch and Cronin discovered CP asymmetry in 1962

Reply: Any physicist will explain that CP violation is a necessary but NOT sufficient condition for baryon number non-conservation. Baryon number non-conservation has never been observed in nature, not even a teensy bit. Nor has the decay of the proton ever been observed.

So check the Sakharov conditions and see how its parametrized. Joshuaschroeder 05:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
You are being obtuse. It is well known that baryon number is not conserved in the standard model (see, e.g. chiral anomaly). It is B − L which is thought to be conserved. –Joke137 14:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Again the notion of dark matter has been sharply criticized by some physicists, who point out that laboratory searches for such dark matter particles have given only negative results for the past 25 years.

Joke: no comment

Reply: wisely, as the statement is indisputably true and highly relevant.

Unless you look at the cross sections predicted by the big bang and realize that particle accelerators wouldn't have found the particles yet. Joshuaschroeder 05:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Concur with JS. Direct dark matter detection is notoriously difficult, because of low local densities. If we don't find anything at LHC, then people will get worried. Right now there are, if anything, a superabundance of candidates. –Joke137 14:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Change:The necessity for big bang theorists to introduce an unobserved type of matter (dark matter) and an unobserved type of energy (dark energy) to resolve contradictions between the big bang theory and observation has been compared by critics of the theory to the epicycles introduced by Ptolemy to resolve problems with the heliocentric model of the solar system.

Joke: no comment

Reply: Again the statement is indisputably true and highly relevant.

The comparison that critics make to parts of the Big bang they dislike is not relevant to the big bang page, just as Gene Ray's criticisms aren't relevant to the time article. Joshuaschroeder 05:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The statement is unreferenced and highly subjective, and already mentioned: There are a small number of proponents of non-standard cosmologies who doubt that there was a Big Bang at all. They claim that solutions to standard problems in the Big Bang theory involve ad hoc modifications and addenda to the theory.Joke137 14:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Change:The big bang theory predicts that surface brightness, brightness divided by apparent surface area, decreases as (z+1)^-3, where z is redshift. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But recent observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the big bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.

Joke: No reply

Reply: I have dealt with Joshua, who has still not read the paper, above.

I have read your paper, and have delineated exactly why it is problematic. Like the quasar skeptics before you, there is a willful refusal to accept that there could be intrinsic differences in populations. There is no reason to believe you have culled an unbiased sample in lookback time or in evolution.

Change: However many observers pointed out that the anisotropies in the WMAP data were not random or Guassian, as predicted by inflation. Instead they had strong alignments in the sky--for example with the Local Supercluster of galaxies. Such alginments of the CMB with local features in the universe contradicted the big bang explanation of the CMB.

Joke:re: alignment of CMB) This is contradicted by Slosar and Seljak who state that "as soon as foreground uncertainties are included the evidence for this alignment disappears."

Reply: There are at rough count about 15+ papers contradicting this explanation and showing that the non-Gaussianity and alignments are real. If “consensus” is what Joke wants, it clearly is that the alignment is real.

The "alignment" in question corresponds to two of the worst measured moments in the CMB anisotropy spectrum. Joshuaschroeder 05:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree with JS. Please list these 15+ papers contradicting Slosar and Seljak. The followup to one of the original papers (C. J. Copi, D. Hueterer, D. J. Schwarz and G. D. Starkman, "On the large-angle anomalies of the microwave sky", arXiv:astro-ph/0508047) agrees with this conclusion: Multipole vectors, like individual a_lm, are very sensitive to sky cuts, and we demonstrate that analyses using cut skies induce relatively large errors, thus weakening the observed correlations but preserving their consistency with the full-sky results. I don't think any big bang cosmologist thinks this is serious evidence against the big bang, although some think it might signal new gravitational dynamics on the largest scales. Should we list the thousand or so multipoles the plasma cosmology model can't fit, while the big bang model fits them all with five parameters? –Joke137 14:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

change: In addition, in 2005 Richard Lieu and colleagues presented a study of the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect of 31 clusters of galaxies. In this effect, CBR from behind the clusters is slightly “shadowed” by hot electrons in the clusters. Lieu showed that the effect for these clusters was at most one quarter of that predicted, strongly implying that most of the CBR radiation originated closer to us than the clusters, as predicted by the plasma model, but in sharp contraction to the big bang model, which assumes that all the CBR originates at extreme distances.

Joke: (re: Sunyaev-Zel'dovich) The Lieu paper has not been peer-reviewed, so certainly does not belong in the main big bang article.

Reply; replied to above. Anyone want to bet that it will be rejected by ApJ?

Conclusions can be jumped to by people looking for "contradictions". Where's your reference to the "horizon problem" or the "flatness problem"? Convenient theorizing is what this is. Joshuaschroeder 05:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Writing an encyclopedia article based on the few articles critical of the big bang that have appeared over the past few months is absurd sensationalism. –Joke137 14:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

change: in section on light elements- replacing factually inaccurate statement that there is agreement between BB predictions and observations: However, increasingly accurate measurements of these abundances point to values that are in contradiction with the values predicted by the big bang. In particular, lithium abundances are only one quarter of that predicted by big bang theory, a difference far larger than the uncertainties of lithium measurements. Critics have pointed to this contradiction as another failure of the theory.

Joke: (re: BBN) There is a problem with lithium abundances. They are a little less than 50% low, not 75% as you state. See Steigman. This may be due to astrophysics. There are still large experimental uncertainties. (You may be familiar with the physics joke that 95% of 2σ results are wrong.)

Reply: joke admits himself there is contradiction not agreement with lithium and Steigman says with both Li and He. Steigman does not find any satisfactory explanation for either discrepancy which he concludes are outside measurement uncertainties.Elerner 05:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Except to say that these abundances are notoriously difficult to measure, subject to strange location dependencies, and so low as to be questionable as to whether they are really primordial. The same absolute errors in associated hydrogen, helium, or even deuterium abundances would not be the same problem. In short, rare primordial elements are subject to more conditions. Joshuaschroeder 05:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

reverted to NPOV, but forget to add edit description: all objections have been answered, so reverted to my changes.Elerner 05:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)