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

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

[NicknamedBob]

The problem is you're looking at a slow eddy in the flow and wondering how all the pebbles got there.

The Solar System consists of about 99.99% Hydrogen, mostly in the Sun, and a few odd collections of the remaining debris, which has been selectively separated out like wheat from the chaff in much the same way.

The violent roiling and tossing of the primordial Earth gave ample opportunity for lighter elements to be "blown away" by the solar wind. Perhaps much of it was vacuumed up by Jupiter, which itself is another huge pool of Hydrogen, and small amounts of other stuff.

We didn't need millions of supernovae ... we really only needed one.

[Robert A Cook PE]

But the COBE satellite covered the entire "horizon" looking for 1/100,000 variations in the background radiation from the big bang. That radiation IS (in conventional theory) to be the edge of the big bang, so we have looked at the way back in time.

And, if these superN were at that point in time, their effect in changing the "strings" that created the galaxies would have to be accounted for (somehow) in the current 3rd and 4th dimensional string theories, right?

Sure, the remnants could be the "missing" 90% of our matter that is needed by the math. But, where is this missing 90% of the universe's matter, if they are close enough to have ejected matter that drifted into our sun's influence?

[DuncanWaring]

A further question I've had for a few years now is:

"After all these superstar/supernova/superstar/supernova cycles, one would expect that the atoms of the various elements would be pretty well stirred-up and randomly distributed. Where, then, did gold nuggets and iron meteoroids come from?"

[timer]

In the book of Job you will find the phrase : And the morning stars sang together. This refers to the first generation of super massive stars that formed after the 300,000 years matter-radiation decoupling period. These MONSTER stars quickly went supernova and began the heavy element seeding process. Their shock waves also created the "soap bubble" texture of galactic formation. Searching for these first stars is at the very edge of observation limits right now. We KNOW they were there, but they haven't been SEEN yet(extreme Z).

As to iron 56, that's at the bottom of the nuclear force binding energy curve. It is a ball of Fe56 nuclei at the core of a supernova that gets hammered into a neutron star or black hole. You knew that didn't you? The heavier elements are created in the explosion but some 299 out of 300 energy units of a supernova go into the neutrino burst of the core getting hammered into a sea of neutrons(from protons).

It's a complex subject and the writer doesn't have a full grasp yet of all the facts of astrophysics. As to this nonsensical Impact-Splash theory, another illustration of right brain off the wall theorizing vs reality. We wouldn't even BE here as water rich critters if a mars had hit the earth 4.4 billion years ago : no OCEANS! Where did the earth's OCEANS come from? The clue is in Gen 2:6.

[ml/nj]

brains in a vat, man

Look in the mirror clown. There's a good chance I scored more on one SAT than you did on both. You have no idea what sort of education I have, or what I've read.

I think the "big bang" is a big joke. I'm not alone. Have a look at The Big Bang Never Happened for starters.

ML/NJ

[Robert A Cook PE]

Most of that geology I can accept, given the melting and crustal movements. But, admittedly, coordinating the simultaneous explosions of 10^40 supernova's is a bit tough.

8<)

And, as stated, today's physics and mass-energy do a pretty good job of explainig what's happening right now.

[Robert A Cook PE]

See my bio page. ..... 8<)

[bennowens]

I believe in the steady state theory of the universe. Albeit that two Nobel Prizes have been awarded to two scientists that "detected" the echo of the big bang. The big bang is a big bust.

[Enosh]

The "missing/dark matter" an interesting question, but I was trying to address your initial one: "Where did all the Snovas go?"

To do that, I pointed out that the universe used to be smaller and had a habit of getting bigger. Rapidly.

We also know that the larger a star is, the shorter its lifespan.

So, given the compact state of the early universe plus its expansion, imagine Snovas not popping off every hundred years or so, but every ten.

Then, expand that space junk across the entire universe and you may have the answer to the thread title.

[SmartAZ]

The reason the theory doesn't work right is that it postulates that gravity is the only force in the universe. We know that electrical effects also operate. The northern lights, for example. Plasma physicists routinely demonstrate all the effects seen in the universe using electric discharges, including the synthesis of heavy molecules at various apparent ages.

If you care to check this theory, you can find more at thunderbolts.info.

[neverdem]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

I found it to be a handy link.

[DuncanWaring]

Most of that geology I can accept, given the melting and crustal movements.

Melting and crustal movements can explain a lot, but they don't explain how randomly distributed gold atoms coming out of a supernova cluster together into solid nuggets on our planet.

That's a violation of the Law of Gaseous Diffusion, analogous to "flatulence" diving back into your trousers after everyone in the room has smelled it.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Certainly: Gaseous neon10 for example, should be much richer than it is on earth, but was was present been blown further out. Of course, that means even more fusion reactions must be added to the missing 10^40 that we can measure to account for the "missing" nuclei.

The lighter elements, particularly those matching the He4/2 (stable) sets, form the most common elements. I ignored (deliberately) the 99% of the universe that is H and He. Those (their mass ratios) are readily explained by the current theory: In fact, their very abundance is why the current theory appears strained by the "missing" sources for the 10^30 kilograms of elements that ARE present.

But, as Einstein pointed out when people criticized his theory of relativity, the correct theory must work for all observations, not just the 99% that fit the data.

[Robert A Cook PE]

An earlier reaader posted a link to "The Big Bang Never Happened" - It has a good explanation of plasma physics and cosmology that many people haven't ever found yet.

The author does get off into some tangents that distract fro his message, but I admire his writing anyway, and have had a copy of his book for many years.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Right: Weinberg's "First Three Minutes" - one of the links in your link to the GSU site, is an excellent beginner's description of the current theories.

But it doesn't address this issue.

GSU's site is also the location where I found the best list of 100 closest stars. They are a good reference point.

[RadioAstronomer]

Actually out star/solar system was created by a combination of at least three former stars that went supernova. We know this by the number of elements found inside our Sun. I am typing this off the top of my head so this value may be off but the number that comes to mind is 63 known elements.

I will write more when I get out of the lab.

[RadioAstronomer]

Actually or best estimate is 3.

[Pox]

The first generation of stars were likely very massive and thus very short lived, likely along the lines of the Wolf Rayet type. I would think that the remnants of those massive stars formed the foundation of our galaxy's central black hole.

The metals, basically anything heavier than Hydrogen and Helium, were spread out throughout the entire galaxy, some forming into new stars, and some being compressed back into the central black hole.

I would think there are a lot of possible explanations that would answer this question. Our current level of knowledge of the universe is still in the 'pre-school' stage, and although we may not currently have a good theory of everything, we are learning at an ever increasing pace it seems.

[NicknamedBob]

Shouldn't the relative presence or scarcity of various elements always be measured in terms of Iron?

Anyplace where iron can be found, heavier and lighter elements should exist also. Half of Earth is iron. The rest is all the other stuff.

Except for the scarcity of lighter elements, Earth appears to show a proper spectrum of elements, from the ubiquitous lighter weight oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen, on up through medium weight sulfur and iron, and then into more rare elements such as gold and "rare earth" elements.

That's because it's a planet. Elementary distributions will differ between stars, protostars, and planets.

One could even theorize that all planets formed from cometary materials. Then you would not need so many Supernovas.

Also, if stars were very much closer together, an exploding supernova might have converted ordinary stars around it into a well-distributed mix of various elements.

[NicknamedBob]

"And every nucleus in every gram of every ton of ore, in current theory at least, has to come from its own supernova."

Are you for some reason concluding that each atom required its own supernova?

No wonder you're running a bit short.