Creating Elements after BB: Where did the Supernova's Go?(Vanity)

NA | 2007/02/15 | Robert A. Cook

[Robert A Cook PE]

I'm very comfortable with (the theory) creating heavier and heavier elements at the center of supernova's in today's universe.

Heat, pressure, times, energy levels, and percentage of elements produced work out reasonably well.

But that leaves the original question: Where did today's heavy elements come from, if we can't find the missing supernova's from the first generation stars that created them from hydrogen and helium?

[LibWhacker]

[spunkets]

"Obviously there are no supernova's nearby, and none have been nearby - or we would "see" the remnants of the supernova"

You just got through saying the heavy elements were created in an Snova. Look at your hand and the computer you're typing on. That's the remnant's of the Snova.

[Robert A Cook PE]

I'm putting my (somewhat dubious) credibility on the line in full view as a target, but I can't figure this one out.

Haven't seen this addressed in any other physics or astronomy or university (classroom notes) web site, nor in any cosmology blog or textbook I've found. (Almost) every one discusses the classic theory - some in more detail than others, but none disagree about the current theory. Further,t none go through the math or mention the transition from supernova-creates-elements-and-ejects-them to the next step of dust-cloud-forms-and-our-sun-begins-rotating-and-condensing ...

There's got to be something I've missed. Some reason or some way that other (more experienced) observers have figured out this problem that I've skipped over.

[gcruse]

Bookmark

[ml/nj]

Maybe there wasn't a "BB"?

ML/NJ

[Robert A Cook PE]

Er, yes. But - where are the other 10^40 left-over superN's?

My hand, about a kg, would need some 10^30 atoms, but (under conventional theory at least) you can't assume that the original superN was exactly symmetrical with our solar system's center of mass.

Or do you have to? Do we have to assume that this superN stayed stable enough long enough at exactly the center of our solar system's cloud - and the observed superN burned out in only a few weeks - to burn enough atoms to form our planets as we know them?

Further, observed supernova's eject matter - far too great a distance (Crab nebula is never going to reform into planets!) for the newly-formed nebula's to re-condense into the same system that they started from.

[mhx]

So here's a theory: First supernova quickly seeded universe with stuff of life

[Sols]

"Further,t none go through the math or mention the transition from supernova-creates-elements-and-ejects-them to the next step of dust-cloud-forms-and-our-sun-begins-rotating-and-condensing ..."

Well if you don't take a course in astrophysics, you can't have much of an in depth knowledge about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_capture

[wastedyears]

I'm not fully stupid when it comes to science, but this stuff just doesn't make any sense. It seems like they're making something we have absolutely no idea about, into something extremely complicated.

Why can't scientists just say "we don't know?"

[Sols]

Maybe there's no universe, either. Maybe we're all like.. brains in a vat, man.

[Bender2]

Re: Where did today's heavy elements come from...

Please, Alf... They will not believe it was the Klingons!

[Enosh]

if we can't find the missing supernova's from the first generation stars that created them from hydrogen and helium?

Consider what you said.

The universe itself is expanding and such an early burst would by now have not only dispersed itself by its own energy, but would have been carried along by the universe's expansion as well.

How large would such an early burst be by now? Could we hope to detect such a diluted signature?

[Mr. K]

good question- Physicist? any thoughts?

[earglasses]

One explanation worth considering is that the Big Bang never happened, and that anything is possible given infinite time. For thirty reasons that a respected astrophysicist believes in an ageless cosmos, see... http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

[Robert A Cook PE]

Nope.

My major was nuclear engineering, I've been working in that field for 30 odd years, and taken several relativity and nuclear engineering classes since.

I KNOW the theory, have taught fusion-fission theory, KNOW the energy-matter conversion equations. Heck, while running a reactor, I've executed those equations, and felt the heat coming from those equations. Those equations describe clearly and accurately TODAY'S physics.

What they describe though IS the "conventional theory" - which is why I said conventional theory is missing some 10^40 supernova's.

[Enosh]

One thing you haven't mentioned is Einstein.

Namely, the further out you look, the further back in time you look.

Hence, any ancient "local" events would by now be far too distributed to be detectable.

[Stirner]

I've also wondered at the apparent superabundance of elements Fe and above. There doesn't seem to have been enough time and enough supernovae. My guess is that we've either misjudged the time scale or, much more speculatively, the early universe was not composed of bare quarks, but already consisted of nuclei, including heavy atoms and that the BB was not really a truly universal origin but a local bubble protruded by a more encompassing process.

[Robert A Cook PE]

True: One of my favorites is the idea of plasma currents gathering and stringing through the gas clouds that would create the vortices's and spirals we see - those have been created in the high-energy labs.

Also, if you allow for Hawking radiation at the quantum level FROM a black hole to exist at some very low probability, then a steady-state universe is possible: 1 atom per cubic meter appearing from a black hole's center is enough to create a steady-state universe and account for Einstein's "positive pressure" cosmological constant.

Of course, once you get a steady-state universe, then you have all the time in the world to form elements. (Creation of course, isn't constrained, it just moves the 7 days a bit further back a bit that's all. And the ancient shepherds couldn't count 10^40 years anyway - they didn't have a "zero" yet, much less powers-of-ten.)

[somemoreequalthanothers]

A bit over my head, but ping to someone who may understand.