Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Lithium from super nova confirmed

slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 12:48:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

..........
The light chemical element lithium is one of the few elements that is predicted to have been created by the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago. But understanding the amounts of lithium observed in stars around us today in the Universe has given astronomers headaches. Older stars have less lithium than expected [1], and some younger ones up to ten times more [2].
.............

The very detailed new data revealed the clear signature of lithium being expelled at two million kilometres per hour from the nova [4]. This is the first detection of the element ejected from a nova system to date.

Co-author Massimo Della Valle (INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, Naples, and ICRANet, Pescara, Italy) explains the significance of this finding: "It is a very important step forward. If we imagine the history of the chemical evolution of the Milky Way as a big jigsaw, then lithium from novae was one of the most important and puzzling missing pieces. In addition, any model of the Big Bang can be questioned until the lithium conundrum is understood."
.........
slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 12:52:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The first empirical evidence that lends credibility of supernova spreading lithium across the universe.

Nice little observation.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 4:28:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 12:52:47 AM, slo1 wrote:
The first empirical evidence that lends credibility of supernova spreading lithium across the universe.

Nice little observation.

Good find!
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 10:39:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 12:48:27 AM, slo1 wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

..........
The light chemical element lithium is one of the few elements that is predicted to have been created by the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago. But understanding the amounts of lithium observed in stars around us today in the Universe has given astronomers headaches. Older stars have less lithium than expected [1], and some younger ones up to ten times more [2].
.............

The very detailed new data revealed the clear signature of lithium being expelled at two million kilometres per hour from the nova [4]. This is the first detection of the element ejected from a nova system to date.

Co-author Massimo Della Valle (INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, Naples, and ICRANet, Pescara, Italy) explains the significance of this finding: "It is a very important step forward. If we imagine the history of the chemical evolution of the Milky Way as a big jigsaw, then lithium from novae was one of the most important and puzzling missing pieces. In addition, any model of the Big Bang can be questioned until the lithium conundrum is understood."
.........

I was puzzled after reading this piece. The only elements formed in any quanitity after the Big Bang were hydrogen and helium. There were only traces of heavier elements, lithium included. Therefore you would expect that older stars would have very little lithium and younger stars, benefiting from intervening novae and supernovae, would have much greater amounts. This is true of all elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. So what exactly is special about this discovery? Is it that the ratio of lithium in older and younger stars didn't fit the theory, or is it that the production of lithium in novae and supernovae had never been observed before? What precisely is the lithium conundrum? I'm a little confused.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 10:52:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It seems to be about the ratios:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The present measurement of helium-4 indicates good agreement, and yet better agreement for helium-3. But for lithium-7, there is a significant discrepancy between BBN and WMAP/Planck, and the abundance derived from Population II stars. The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4 to 4.3 below the theoretically predicted value and is considered a problem for the original models,[11] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the abundances of 7Be(n,p)7Li versus 7Be(d,p)8Be.[12]
slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2015 9:39:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 10:52:32 AM, dee-em wrote:
It seems to be about the ratios:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The present measurement of helium-4 indicates good agreement, and yet better agreement for helium-3. But for lithium-7, there is a significant discrepancy between BBN and WMAP/Planck, and the abundance derived from Population II stars. The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4 to 4.3 below the theoretically predicted value and is considered a problem for the original models,[11] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the abundances of 7Be(n,p)7Li versus 7Be(d,p)8Be.[12]

It is both. It is the first empirical evidence of a common theory that explains why young star formations have much more lithium than would expect from the initial BB distribution.

When you get into heaver elements such as gold, they have not been observed from Supernova. In fact, I believe the newer theory which was supported from observations is that gold and other metals are formed from colliding neutrino stars. We still have conformations on most material hypothesized from Supernovea on anything heavier than lithium, thus why there are still people trying to gain confirmation on exactly how materials got spread around the galaxy.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 3:17:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/9/2015 9:39:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/7/2015 10:52:32 AM, dee-em wrote:
It seems to be about the ratios:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The present measurement of helium-4 indicates good agreement, and yet better agreement for helium-3. But for lithium-7, there is a significant discrepancy between BBN and WMAP/Planck, and the abundance derived from Population II stars. The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4 to 4.3 below the theoretically predicted value and is considered a problem for the original models,[11] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the abundances of 7Be(n,p)7Li versus 7Be(d,p)8Be.[12]

It is both. It is the first empirical evidence of a common theory that explains why young star formations have much more lithium than would expect from the initial BB distribution.

This is a mere formality then? I mean this was never seriously in doubt, surely?

When you get into heaver elements such as gold, they have not been observed from Supernova. In fact, I believe the newer theory which was supported from observations is that gold and other metals are formed from colliding neutrino stars.

Interesting. I didn't know that.

We still have conformations on most material hypothesized from Supernovea on anything heavier than lithium, thus why there are still people trying to gain confirmation on exactly how materials got spread around the galaxy.

Sorry, this is unclear. We do or we don't have confirmation of heavier elements than lithium? Surely spectroscopy would have revealed this a long, long time ago. This paper seems to indicate that.

http://arxiv.org...

It sounds like Lithium has been a hold-out until now. That would make sense, but as I said, it's just a crossing of the t's and dotting the i's. Nothing really too exciting.
slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 12:21:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 3:17:12 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/9/2015 9:39:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/7/2015 10:52:32 AM, dee-em wrote:
It seems to be about the ratios:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The present measurement of helium-4 indicates good agreement, and yet better agreement for helium-3. But for lithium-7, there is a significant discrepancy between BBN and WMAP/Planck, and the abundance derived from Population II stars. The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4 to 4.3 below the theoretically predicted value and is considered a problem for the original models,[11] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the abundances of 7Be(n,p)7Li versus 7Be(d,p)8Be.[12]

It is both. It is the first empirical evidence of a common theory that explains why young star formations have much more lithium than would expect from the initial BB distribution.

This is a mere formality then? I mean this was never seriously in doubt, surely?

When you get into heaver elements such as gold, they have not been observed from Supernova. In fact, I believe the newer theory which was supported from observations is that gold and other metals are formed from colliding neutrino stars.

Interesting. I didn't know that.

We still have conformations on most material hypothesized from Supernovea on anything heavier than lithium, thus why there are still people trying to gain confirmation on exactly how materials got spread around the galaxy.

Sorry, this is unclear. We do or we don't have confirmation of heavier elements than lithium? Surely spectroscopy would have revealed this a long, long time ago. This paper seems to indicate that.

You are right, I overstepped my boundaries. I believe iron is pretty well understood because it is formed from standard processes in stars. However Supernova was thought to form the heavier elements during the explosion, but that has changed to the model of colliding neutrino stars. The problem of origination is that even if a spectral reading were to show gold in a supernova or even a star, one does not know whether it was made in the object or whether it was acquired during the stars formation.

http://arxiv.org...

It sounds like Lithium has been a hold-out until now. That would make sense, but as I said, it's just a crossing of the t's and dotting the i's. Nothing really too exciting.

you are right, nothing too exciting. That is why all the glamour is in the theoretical side and not the empirical side of science. I'm clearly not an astronomer. Maybe someone could clarify what exactly in heavy element formation and dispersion has empirical evidence which is validated versus that which is still outstanding.