Posted on 02/15/2007 5:11:32 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE
We exist, therefore we question.
Or at least, that paraphrases (poorly) an old quote from an old scholar...
We know the masses and general composition of the four inner (rocky) planets in our solar system, and from basic chemistry, we know the number of atoms in a gram of any material.
Multiplying Avogadro's number x the mass of these four planets, dividing by a weighted average atomic weight for the materials in each planet, we get about 3 x 10^ 50 heavy nuclei produced since creation/the big bang.
Take your pick, that's the number of atomic nuclei we have to account for. Another 5 x 10^50 heavy nuclei are probably in the rocky cores of the Jovian planets, though core weights are very difficult to estimate. Astronomers estimate that icy comets and dust in the Oort cloud may double the mass of the inner eight planets.
So, in this little bitty solar system, we have (at least) 8 x 10^50 atomic nuclei that were created somehow.
Convention theory holds that these were formed inside supernova's, were ejected into space, captured by nearby stellar clouds, condensed into a star large enough to go supernova, went through another supernova and fused into higher level elements, and got ejected into space, captured by another gas cloud ... etc. Finally, they were captured by our proto-sun in our region of space, and, under gravity condensed into a spinning cloud that in turn, condensed further into rings, then these rings congealed into planets.
We see this process going on, and supernova's seem to occur in visible galaxies, about once every 50-100 years. Dust clouds ejected from supernova's in our galaxy within the last 1000 years are visible - clearly the conventional wisdom works.
Further, conventional teaching holds that the earth has been solid for 4.6 some-odd billion years - solid rocks in Canada and Australia test out that old, and are "untouched" by subsequent supernovas and catastrophic melting. The moon is a little older than those 4.5 billion years, and theory holds it was formed from a near-miss of an asteroid collision: was ejected into space as a large mass of earth's crust, then congealed into a sphere. So, we can prove from the moon and Canada that "new" matter has NOT been formed in the solar system in any quantity since at least 6-8 billion years ago.
But ... Dramatic pause.
There aren't enough supernova's, not enough nearby stars, and not enough time between the big bang (14.5 billion years ago) and the formation of the solid planet dust rings (6 some-odd billions of years ago) for the elements to have been created.
14.5 billion years (BB) - 6 billion years (solids as dust found orbiting a proto-sun in our solar system) = 8.5 billion years.
We are told that our sun is a second generation star, which reasonable, and that it will burn for another 4-6 billion years. Again, reasonable. The 100 closest stars are mostly much smaller than the sun, and most are dimmer than the sun. Sirius A, for example, is one of the few that are brighter than the sun. Distances vary of course, but most are further than 15-20 light-years. Obviously there are no supernova's nearby, and none have been nearby - or we would "see" the remnants of the supernova, and (if dark) we would have sensed the remainder as a black hole: since the black hole would distort light, radio, infrared, and microwave radiation nearby. No nearby "heavy" masses are found at all - out to some 30 light-years at least.
The wide-ranging COBE satellite surveys that were looking for minute distortions in the background microwave radiation, for example, would have sensed nearby distortions from near-earth black holes.
8 x 10^50 atomic nuclei / 8.5 x10^9 years /31.5 x10^6 seconds per year = 3 x 10^33 atoms ejected nearby supernova's per second, traveling through space for thousands of light-years at speeds just a small fraction of light, and re-entering our gas cloud. The closest star cluster is only 4.5 light-years away: that dust cloud is a very small target for dust to be randomly ejected into its gravitational field in time to get condensed into planets.
3 x 10^33 nuclei per second sounds like a lot, and it is. But spread out over a dust cloud the size of the proto-solar system, it (almost) sounds reasonable.
But consider the requirement that ALL of these 10^50 element nuclei being ejected in one generation from a "cloud" of thousands of billions of supernova's surrounding the sun, all of these supernovas randomly but evenly spaced close enough to our dust cloud that enough of their randomly ejected elements drift our direction.
Further, these randomly-but-evenly spaced
supernova's all have to gather into superstars, go through a complete lifecycle, and go supernova in very close to the same time: a particle of dust (itself many trillions of trillions of atoms - each having had to get generated itself) that comes by our future solar system's cloud too early, or too late, will not get captured by the future sun. If you assume that the average dust particle coasts through space faster (so its travel time is less getting here so there is more time for supernova's to condense and blow up) then you have to assume that the coordinated "supernova" time for all of the first generation supernovas is even more closely timed.
Ignore the need for our galaxy's dust cloud of H and He to congeal from the expanding gasses randomly ejected from the BB, for these gasses and dust particles to themselves drift into proto-stars, and for the first generation of stars (all of the first generation stars cannot be assumed to be supernova-sized of course) to go through the billions of years to change from a H-H to H-He, to Li, to Be ... up to the carbon and neon and eventually into the iron fusion changes. See, all of the heavier-than-iron atomic nuclei have to be created as well, and they can ONLY be created after the iron cycle begins: granted, there are not as many heavier-than-iron particles as the lighter ones: H, He, nitrogen, silicon, carbon, etc are much more readily found than the heavier ores. But many billons of tons of these atoms are certainly present. And every nucleus in every gram of every ton of ore, in current theory at least, has to come from its own supernova.
Granted, the universe is considered to be "smaller" the earlier that you go back in time. A smaller universe means that any given supernova is closer to the (future) position of our galaxy's (future) dust cloud, and our own sun's (future) dust cloud.
But a closer supernova still ejects 99.9 percent of its newly-formed heavy elements the wrong direction. They may form other planets, but they are useless in forming our own planet. (And, being a dweller of this planet, I can afford to be a bit selfish about not caring whether other solar systems have rocky planets or not.) Now, 99.9% of the heavy nuclei going the wrong direction is better than 99.9999 percent going the wrong direction, but it still means that many tens of thousands of supernova's are required to create our own solar system - with all of the heavy elements as we know it now.
Further, we could suppose (somehow, and no mathematical or theoretical reason exists to justify these assumptions) that the first generation of stars was somehow different that today's second generation of stars: somehow the first generation gathered tens of thousands quicker than the dust clouds we see in global clusters and nebulas, condensed into super heavy stars quicker than they do now and were much more likely to gather into super heavy dust clouds than they do now, and those newly-condensed super-heavy stars burned through their nuclear fuel cycles tens of thousands of time faster than they do now.
All these assumptions are possible.
But, if they are correct, where did the 10^40 (?) supernova remnants go? Where are they now? They could only be 10^9 through 10^12 years old, and could not be very far from our galaxy and our sun: Why can we not find them? Our search for black holes reveals less than a few dozen heavy objects. The galaxy might have a massive black hole at its center. But even assuming that every galaxy has a black hole at center, that leaves 10^25 left to discover.
I wuz
Born in the Big Bang, I wuz
Born in the Big Bang
Why do the eggheads believe that the creation event (the Bang if you prefer) did not produce heavy elements as well as light?
No, as you indicate, each atomic nuclei was formed in "a" supernova (according to current theory) but many x 10 ^many were formed in each of the ten layers of the many x 10^many superstars that were reacting to fuse elements up to iron56. Each layer is deeper, at higher pressure and temperature, and creates heavier elements from fusion in turn. Before the supernova, H -> deuterium, tritium and He layer is at the outside, and Fe at the inside.
Then, each/some/many/most/all of these manyx10^many superstars went supernova at nearly the same time to produce the elements past Fe56 in the "compression zone" of outgoing fused elements: again, the same supernova can create many tens of trillions of element nuclei: but, if the resulting explosion is symmetric, then only the few elements that are headed in the right direction get to our (eventual) planet.
The closer the supernova's are together, the greater their angle of incidence, and the more likely their expelled residue will get to our planet. The faster the first generation of stars condenses, compresses, and goes through its fusion cycle, the closer it will be to us - if the universe is expanding as theorized.
But, I've never seen a justification (calculation/prediction/article) explaining either "why" the first stars are different than today's (billions times more massive ? Why?) or reacted faster than today's stars: going through in tens of years what now takes thousands or millions of years.
The first stars may have existed in an environment so rich in stellar fuel that a temporary abundance in one area would trigger star formation, which would grow so quickly, and go supernova so quickly, that hardly had it blown its gaseous shell away before several other stars were compressed out of its explosion.
Thus one supernova would trigger others in a continuous cycle like a forest fire.
This compression zone you speak of could have started at the surface of the supernova, with some heavier elements fusing as they were expelled outwards. But more likely the real fusing was going on as the pressure increased downward.
But as more and more shells of gas were blown off, those newly fused elements would be blown off with them, creating yet more pressure behind them, for more new elements to be formed, and then blown off in their turn.
A supernova is a process. It may happen quickly in stellar terms, but there is sufficient time for a great quantity of material to be forged, and expelled in all directions.
Speaking of all directions -- the elements did not make a beeline for this location so we could come into existence here. Rather, our here came into existence where the materials collected.
Good point.
Your theory too would seem to present yet another question in creation.
Another opportunity to try and figure out God.
Yours is one of those posts that make FR so freaking valuable and entertaining.
It isn't concerned with politics. But it is concerned with something important (I think) -- and something I don't know a damn thing about.
But, in reading it, I learned something.
Thanks for the post.
bio? Where? As to the formation of the earth-moon system, do you prefer to stay with the failed I-S nonsense, or learn how RC/RC happened, and thus made this a LIFE planet? Are you still young enough to make an intellectual quantum leap?
I got a 1450 but I don't reckon that makes me more clever than anyone who scored worse or less clever than anyone who scored better.
That you would even bring it up is telling. I don't know anyone over age 18 who flaunts their SAT score like the size of their phallus.
I thought Sol was a third generation star. ............ FRegards
Robert, what effect would Sol being a third generation star have.
I really didn't wan't to think this hard tonight, old friend ......... FRegards
A single particle in our tiny sun can experience about 4x1019 collisions in only a million years, based on a mean free path calculation.
There are about 1056 atoms in the sun. In a million years, our sun, by itself, can produce about 4x1075 collisions.
In one estimate, the stars in our galaxy contain about 1068 atoms. So if you allow for the same rate of collisions that our sun can produce, that gives about 4x1087 collisions for our galaxy as a whole in a million years.
If the universe is made of 400 billion galaxies, that gives about 1099 collisions without even taking into count the affects of a supernovae.
Now it's true that every collision won't result in fusion. But even if it's only one out of 1010, there are still 1089 collisions remaining without even considering supernovae.
This is enough collisions to replace all the atoms in the known universe (about 1080) with heavy nuclei in a million years assuming nothing more than stars like our sun.
This problem is really more complicated than this and I doubt I could come up with a good answer even in multiple sittings, but I thought I'd throw this out there.
To see a "bio" in FR, if the person has written one - any many/most do not - rt-click on their name under one of their posts.
I-S = ? Don't recognize that abbreviation.
You indicated that our galaxy has around 10^68 atoms.
We should question that: because the "rocky mass" in our little solar system, not counting any H or He, and not counting items out in the Oort cloud we can't find, has 10^50 heavy nuclei, and each of those represents only the material we know about that has undergone anywhere from 3 through 20 different fusion events. To fuse two carbon nuclei, for example, only takes one fusion event. One super high-energy collision as you pointed out. But, to get those two carbon nuclei in the right place to collide with other at the right temperature and pressure requires a whole series of previous collisions of exactly the right energy, direction, and pressure in the right star.
Thus, perhaps our "number of nuclei" count should be "number of fusions" represented BY the number of heavy elements we can measure.
If two carbon nuclei fuse in those 99/100 (995/1000 ?) stars too small to continue burning into a supernova, we don't care. As far as earth's core cares, they never existed.
I've got it!
Breeder reactors. Yep, breeder reactors. That's where the heavy elements came from.
Whew! Had me worried for a while there. I'm glad I figured it out.
Good Night!
I-S is my shorthand for Impact-Splash, the latest in failed earth-moon theories. Loudly touted as GOD'S TRUTH...it fails on statistical and geochemistry grounds. Typical pharisee stuff, in denial of simple facts...
I'll be damned if I can find the thread, but I do remember the passage I quoted at the time. Here it is again.
From Chemical Evolution by Stephen F. Mason, p. 47:
Calculations of the relative rates of production of the heavy long-lived radioisotopes provide estimates of the length of time needed to attain the immediate presolar abundance ratios 4.8 billion years ago. The calculated production ratios for 232Th/238U and for 238U/235U of 1.80 and 1.42, respectively (Fowler 1978), or of 1.39 and 1.24, respectively (Thielemann et al. 1983), indicate that heavy-element production began in the Galaxy between 12 and 18 billion years ago. These values are wholly independent of other estimates for the age of the universe, based on the relation between the spectral red-shift and the distance of the remote external galaxies, or on the ages of the oldest stars, although the separate estimates are in remarkable agreement (Fowler 1984). The uncertainties of the nuclear cosmochronology estimates are mainly those of the heavy radioisotope production rates, the magnitude of the immediate presolar supernova nucleosynthesis, and the time interval between that event and the condensation of closed solid systems in the solar nebula. The uncertainties of the Hubble red-shift estimates are principally those of the constancy, or the increase or the decrease, of the recession rate of the distant external galaxies.
Those time calculations assume only standard nuclear physics (which dictates, within bounds, the heavy isotope abundances produced by supernovae) and a rate of one supernova per galaxy every 30 years (observed in distant galaxy surveys).
The reason you don't see all the supernova remnants is that they expand and cool to invisibility, get distorted unrecognizably by tidal forces and the interstellar medium, and (when they encounter denser regions of the galaxy) coalesce into stars and planets.
Except under special circumstances, supernova remnants aren't easily recognizable as such for more than a few thousand years. You wouldn't expect to see more than a couple hundred of them in our galaxy, and that is what we see.
Nuclear cosmochronology is practically an industry unto itself. It's easy to find discussions about it, even on the web.
Because the universe was far denser than it is today.
or reacted faster than today's stars: going through in tens of years what now takes thousands or millions of years.
That follows directly from the larger stellar mass.
Suggested Google search term: "Population III"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.