Heavy metal stars produce Earth-Like planets

Sep 30, 2011 By Nola Taylor Redd
NASA's Kepler has discovered 1,235 candidate planets orbiting 997 stars. Click on the image for an animation representing these systems. Credit: Daniel Fabrycky

New research reveals that, like their giant cousins, rocky planets are more likely to be found orbiting high metallicity stars. Furthermore, these planets are more plentiful around low mass stars. This could have important implications for the search for life outside of Earth.

New research reveals that, like their giant cousins, rocky are more likely to be found orbiting high metallicity . Furthermore, these planets are more plentiful around low mass stars. This could have important implications for the search for life outside of Earth.

Kevin Schlaufman and Gregory Laughlin, both of the University of California at Santa Cruz, studied the 997 stars with candidate planets thought to be in orbit around them, as reported by Kepler's science team last February. Schlaufman and Laughlin confirmed that both large and small planets were more likely to be found around stars with higher metallicities.

For astronomers, elements other than hydrogen and are considered "metals." Stars with high metallicities contain a significant amount of other elements. These metals were first formed when early stars, composed of the two basic gases hydrogen and helium, died in a violent supernova, spewing their contents into space.

Sally Dodson-Robinson, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted that it wasn't surprising to find that tend to form around more metallic stars.

"Planets formed from the same as their star does," she explained.

An artist's rendition of the Kepler spacecraft as it searches distant stars for planets. Credit: NASA/Kepler mission/Wendy Stenzel

Stars form from the gravitational compression of gas and dust, and the spinning disk of leftover material that orbits the is where planets are made.

Before Kepler, enough gas giant planets had been located for astronomers to say with certainty that these behemoths were linked to metal-rich stars. But it was not known if this applied to rocky planets as well, since so few had been found in the galaxy.

That changed in February, when announced the discovery by Kepler of 68 Earth-sized candidates and 288 super-Earths. This planetary goldmine provided a wealth of systems to study, and enough stars to make firmer correlations about the types of stars that less massive planets .

Because all types of planets are more likely to exist around high-metallicity stars, Schlaufman said this gives a rough time frame for when planets first began to appear in the galaxy. After all, they would have to wait for the first generation of stars to speed through their life cycle and explode, providing the metals required for planetary formation. Each cycle of stars would have created more metals, making it easier for planets to coalesce.

The process would have taken a few billion years. This provides constraints on finding advanced civilizations, since planets - and thus life - would not have formed in the early years of the universe.

Schlaufman added that a stronger case could be made as more extrasolar planets are found in the future, helping astronomers better understand the links between planets and their stars.

But in their study, Schlaufman and Laughlin examined more than the metallicity of stars. They also determined that terrestrial planets were more likely to be found around low mass stars.

The reason is simple: gas giants require a lot of mass to form.

Kepler 10b was the first rocky planet found by the spacecraft. With a temperature of over 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit, the planet is unlikely to have life as we know it. Credit: NASA/Kepler Mission/Dana Berry

"The total mass in the disk is proportional to how massive the star is," Schlaufman said.

Larger disks are more likely to yield massive planets, while smaller stars and their disks seem to result in less massive, rockier satellites.

Schlaufman was quick to note the possibilities for life. Stars more massive than the Sun last only a few billion years, while their lower-mass siblings have much longer lifetimes. This gives a planet more time to develop life - and for that life to evolve into an advanced civilization - before the death of its sun.

The odds of finding life may increase with the more planets that are discovered, especially like the Earth. Kepler's confirmation that such planets are more likely to form around high-metal stars should help in this search. Schlaufman points out that Kepler has seven million stars in its field of view, but can only examine about a 160,000 at a time. Although this introduces a bias in the search for new planets, he praises the results is producing.

Dodson-Robinson agrees.

"If your goal is to find planets, it means you want to look at the most metal-rich stars."

Explore further: Millisecond pulsars clearly demonstrate that pulsars are neutron stars

Related Stories

Planets Living on the Edge

Dec 17, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Some stars have it tough when it comes to raising planets. A new image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope shows one unlucky lot of stars, born into a dangerous neighborhood. The stars themselves ...

Making Jupiters

Aug 21, 2009

IC348 is a glowing nebula of young stars, hot gas, and cold dust seen in the direction of the constellation of Perseus. It is the nearest rich cluster of young stars to earth, being only about one thousand ...

Baby Jupiters must gain weight fast

Jan 05, 2009

The planet Jupiter gained weight in a hurry during its infancy. It had to, since the material from which it formed probably disappeared in just a few million years, according to a new study of planet formation ...

Kepler Set to Launch Tonight on Planet Finding Mission

Mar 06, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The Kepler spacecraft and its Delta II rocket are "go" for a launch tonight that is expected to light up the sky along Florida's Space Coast at 10:49 p.m. EST as the rocket lifts off from ...

Recommended for you

How small can galaxies be?

Sep 29, 2014

Yesterday I talked about just how small a star can be, so today let's explore just how small a galaxy can be. Our Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light years across, and contains about 200 billion stars. Th ...

The coolest stars

Sep 29, 2014

One way that stars are categorized is by temperature. Since the temperature of a star can determine its visual color, this category scheme is known as spectral type. The main categories of spectral type are ...

Simulations reveal an unusual death for ancient stars

Sep 29, 2014

(Phys.org) —Certain primordial stars—those 55,000 and 56,000 times the mass of our Sun, or solar masses—may have died unusually. In death, these objects—among the Universe's first-generation of stars—would ...

User comments : 64

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
1.2 / 5 (43) Sep 30, 2011
Ahhh, the assumptions abound, and needs to be pointed out as not being fact:
After all, they would have to wait for the first generation of stars to speed through their life cycle and explode

So where is the evidence to support this rather large number of required first generation explosions? It doesn't exist. The visible remnants of supernovas have been counted and they are nowhere near the required no.

This gives a planet more time to develop life - a

Are they seriously suggesting that life can develop on it's own from just purely physical processes and inanimate matter? Has it not already been shown that life only comes from life? Just what magical unknown physical/chemical process is there that's capable of producing life spontaneously? Where is it documented, given that they sound so sure that this occurs?
Nothing and nowhere has such a process/event been discovered and authenticated. This quoted statement is sheer speculation of the first order.
Husky
5 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2011
Great, this might provide some explanation for Fermis paradox, that we have'nt received radiosignals from extraterrestrials because of the metallicity constraints on the timeframe of civilisations to be born/evolve, rougly synchronizing their existence, it might be that as we speak some civillasiations with the same or slightly more advanced radiocapabillities, but due to vast distances/expansion of universe their signals haven't reached us yet, personally I expect the next 10.000 years that the skies will gradually fill with signals from civillisations outgrowing the dormant stages reaching the technological stage.
Nanobanano
1.4 / 5 (12) Sep 30, 2011
Lord Kelvin once said there was no use for Radio.

Just shows how wrong and short-sighted a scientist can be.

We deserve better science than this with better tools and rigor.

Unfortunately, the existing space telescope programs have been consistently over budget, short-sighted, and in general, applied in rather useless endeavors.

To do real exoplanetary astronomy we need multiple space telescopes and arrays of space telescopes.

Unfortunately, the way things are currently done, that's probably too expensive to make any time soon.

Ironically, when they build a telescope, like James Webb, they do all this R&D and testing, and then they only make one copy of it...

Since a huge portion of the cost was R&D and Testing, it would seem like if they made a couple clones of it the cost of each additional telescope would be much less than the original, since you already know how to do it and how to get it right without excessive additional R&D costs....
rubberman
4.4 / 5 (29) Sep 30, 2011
Definition of IRONY - Devout, Religious believer accuses scientists of "Speculation" and demands proof of "assumptions" . Asks for evidence to support beleifs.
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2011
Interesting findings. If the assumptions are proved correct regarding the formation of "rocky" planets and the stars they form around, it should really help mankind in the search for actual "earth-type" worlds.
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (22) Sep 30, 2011
like their giant cousins, rocky planets are found orbiting high metallicity stars


Why?

1. Stars have metal-rich interiors like the Sun [A-D].

2. Stars are "stirred" by gravitational interactions with orbiting planets.

3. Gravitational "stirring" is induced by giant gaseous planets and by rocky (terrestrial) planets.

A. "Solar abundances of the elements", Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)

www.omatumr.com/a...nces.pdf

B. "Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate",
Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002)

http://arxiv.org/.../0501441

C. The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass", Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, 1847-1856 (2006)

http://arxiv.org/.../0609509

D. "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun", Energy and Environment 20, 131-144 (2009)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09
gwrede
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 30, 2011
My apologies to the community, I just klicked 5 stars to kevin.

The intent was to give one.
SemiNerd
5 / 5 (11) Sep 30, 2011
kevinrts - Logically, the statement that life only arises from life is provably false. Its like the old joke about the earth residing on the back of a giant turtle. When asked what the turtle is resting on, the answer is always... "Its turtles all the way down".
Pressure2
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 30, 2011
Quote Kevinrtrs:
"So where is the evidence to support this rather large number of required first generation explosions? It doesn't exist. The visible remnants of supernovas have been counted and they are nowhere near the required no."

It is highly doubtful there would be any visible remnants of a supernova after a few hundred million years.

Oh, I forgot Kevinrtrs does have a point if the universe is only 6000 years old.

that_guy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2011
Look Kevin, They saw Ozzy out there making an earth like planet in one of the pictures, caught him red handed.

and on a more serious note, this does support a lot of currently accepted theories regarding system formation, etc. etc. It is more of a confirmation than new ideas per se.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2011
@kevinrtrs,
So where is the evidence to support this rather large number of required first generation explosions?
Cosmic element abundances, measured from emissions and absorption spectra of astronomical objects. Universe is mostly hydrogen and some helium, with only trace quantities of heavier elements. Over time, heavier elements are forged in stars. Older stars tend to be more metal-poor. Early on, universe was more dense and stars were larger and consisted mostly of hydrogen. Large, hot stars burn out fast and go supernova in a hurry.
The visible remnants of supernovas have been counted and they are nowhere near the required no.
The first generations of stars died roughly 12 Billion years ago; their light can only come to us from the very edge of the visible universe. Those aren't the supernovas we've seen to date. The James Webb telescope, when it launches and goes operational, should finally allow us to actually see those first generations of stars and galaxies.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2011
Are they seriously suggesting that life can develop on it's own from just purely physical processes and inanimate matter?
Are you seriously still asserting that it can't? And how are the atoms in your body physically different from the atoms outside of your body: what is this mystical distinction between "animate" vs. "inanimate" matter? Matter is matter. There is only one variety that we know of.
Just what magical unknown physical/chemical process is there that's capable of producing life spontaneously?
Life as you know it? None.

But life as you know it did not arise spontaneously: this highly sophisticated construct has gone through some 4 Billion years of evolution. The original, far more primitive constructs you'd have a very hard time even recognizing as "life": most likely it was little more than a collection of mutually-catalyzing macromolecules in solution.
jsdarkdestruction
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2011
why do you guys bother? all of this has been explained to kevin repeatdley. it's pretty obvious his religious worldview cant be altered by fact or sceince. 5 stars to all who tried though.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2011
@kevinrtrs,

Having mentioned the JWST, it occurred to me that I haven't heard any news regarding it lately. So I went on its web site, and wouldn't you know: it contains a very layman-friendly page that discusses your first set of questions quite briefly and nicely:

http://www.jwst.n...ght.html
Deesky
5 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2011
@kev

Ahhh, the assumptions abound, and needs to be pointed out as not being fact:

So where is the evidence to support this rather large supernatural entity? It doesn't exist. The visible remnants of god have not been counted and they are nowhere near the required number to convince anyone with a rational mind.

Are you seriously suggesting that god can develop on it's own from just purely (meta)physical processes and inanimate matter? Has it not already been shown that god only comes from god? Just what magical unknown physical/chemical process is there that's capable of producing god spontaneously? Where is it documented, given that you sound so sure that this occurs?

Nothing and nowhere has such a god creation process/event been discovered and authenticated. Your quoted statement is sheer speculation of the first order.
SteveL
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2011
Ah the classic "If God came first, then where did God come from?" Got to love those classics. But they only serve to distract us from valuable and pertinant discussion with dozens of posts that have nothing to do with the real topic. Sometimes I think the plan actually is to distract us from scientific discussion with religious discussion, and often it works.

I have a question that is on topic. I notice that the article states that rockier planets tend to orbit low-mass stars. Is there any theory as to why a particular mass distribution occoures in a solar system? The reason I ask is because it would be helpful to understand the "whys" of mass distribution in a solar system as this would help us determine candidate locations for rocky planets and potential life as we understand it.
Pressure2
1.2 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2011
SteveL, this is not the accepted theory but I read this a long time ago. "Star systems like our solar system were once supernova," which created the rocky heavy metals that formed the inner planets. This would also explain why these stars are smaller but it does not explain how a neutron star could regenerate itself back into a star like our sun.
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2011
IMO the notion of giant deterministic universe follows from fact, the intelligent life has developed at the spatially limited area of random universe, which managed to travel along a long path repeatedly at single place. The idea, the formation of intelligent life requires the repetitive recycling of atomic matter plays well with this view. The so complex form of matter existence, like the intelligent life is requires the presence of as many types of atoms, as possible with rich chemical behaviour. Such colourful collection of atoms cannot be formed during single stellar explosion, so we are a product of certain cosmic pre-selection of inorganic matter. It shouldn't be so surprising in this context, if it turns out, that the Sun is a star of extraordinarily high metalicity.
yyz
5 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2011
"Ah the classic "If God came first, then where did God come from?" Got to love those classics. But they only serve to distract us from valuable and pertinant discussion with dozens of posts that have nothing to do with the real topic. Sometimes I think the plan actually is to distract us from scientific discussion with religious discussion, and often it works."

Ah, but Kevs posts often seem in service of some unnamed deity he worships. IIRC, doesn't lucifer rely on all manners of deceit, trickery & lies in order to cause doubt and coerce people into his way of thinking?

Kinda makes me wonder just what sky fairy Kev worships.

Ramen
SteveL
5 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2011
@Pressure2: I'd think that with the relative age much of our universe's stellar masses are made of at least 2nd generation and likely 3rd generation materials. This path leads dangerously close to the neutron core iron shell idea that Oliver likes to innudate us with (that he has no real evidence to support).

But that doesn't answer the question of the factors that determine mass redistribution in a forming solar system after a nova or supernova.
Callippo
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2011
This path leads dangerously close to the neutron core iron shell idea that Oliver likes to innudate us with
The idea, Sun is gaseous iron sphere is as old, as the spectroscopic finding of iron in solar photosphere (i.e. the end of 19th century). The people immediately proposed a viable solution of this finding - the elevated concentration of iron there comes from siderites and comets falling back into Sun and it may not be representative to the bulk of the Sun at all. So far I don't see any better evidence or contradiction of this hypothesis. In adition, I don't see any reason, why the Sun core should be formed with neutrons, powered with neutron decay the less. The p-p chain and CNO cycles are well mapped theoretically and many experimental findings are confirming them quantitatively. Every alternative theory would face many conceptual problems there. It's like the explanation of distribution of gene sequences with other theory, than with phylogenetic tree.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2011
Irresistibly attractive.
As if gravity's motion was an inspiration to fashion a model of beauty just the opposite in scale.
Bohr.

omatumr
1 / 5 (13) Oct 02, 2011
The idea, Sun is gaseous iron sphere is as old, as the spectroscopic finding of iron in solar photosphere (i.e. the end of 19th century).


You are right.

Fred Hoyle reports in his autobiography that he, Sir Eddington, and the other scientists he knew all believed the Sun was mostly iron until after the end of World War !! (1945).

By that time research was underway to build the Hydrogen bomb, and almost the entire scientific community suddenly switched their opinions without debate and claimed the Sun is mostly Hydrogen.

See this brief history on the model of the H-filled Sun (Jan 7, 2002)

http://arxiv.org/...410569v1

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
jsdarkdestruction
3.4 / 5 (15) Oct 02, 2011
total nonsense oliver, its sickening. You make shit up and then try to say stuff supports you when it doesnt. youve got no right to call yourself a scientist anymore, you are a senile demented spammer who cant face reality.
Sinister1811
1 / 5 (3) Oct 02, 2011
Sounds like the metallic stars are the ones we should be searching. But there would be a few exceptions, I would imagine. They should also take into account the planet's size and atmospheric composition.
kochevnik
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2011
This article is deceptive. Everyone knows heavy metal stars are in it for the groupies!
Nanobanano
1.8 / 5 (14) Oct 02, 2011
Why doesn't anyone offer an explanation of why stars do not automatically explode catastrophically if they have that much hydrogen at such insane densities and pressures?

In the "Hydrogen Bomb" they use a Fission Bomb primer to start Fusion inside a Lead and Iron shell which is designed to contain the radiation untill the heat and pressure goes critical to begin hydrogen fusion.

We are lead to believe that the Sun's gravity alone produces the initial conditions of Fusion of Hydrogen, but then, once you have THAT much heat, why wouldn't it just immediately have a chain reaction and fuse the entire core in a matter of seconds?

Machio Kaku was consulted on making nuclear weapons, and he said that it's possible to make a multi-stage Fusion bomb of any yield, provided you have enough fuel: That even a planet destroying technology, like the Death Star, is theoretically possible.

So why, in the hydrogen bomb, fuel fuses and "bam".

Why doesn't Sun's core just pop instantly?
Pressure2
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2011
Nanobanano, a very good question, I doubt if anyone has a good answer. That is probably why they gave you a 1 star rating. I'll give you a 5 and wait for someone to answer your question.
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2011
Why doesn't Sun's core just pop instantly?
To fuse, hydrogen nuclei must be forced together by a certain amount of pressure. In the Sun's core, this comes mainly from gravity (why "mainly", will be explained later.)

When two hydrogen nuclei fuse to product helium, they release energy in the form of gamma ray photons, which are absorbed by the surrounding material and converted to heat. What happens to a gas when it heats up under constant pressure? Its volume will expand. When the volume of a gas expands while its mass remains the same, this changes the density of the gaseous body. The resulting less-dense body experiences less gravitationally-induced pressure at its center.

The upshot is that if the Sun's core begins to fuse hydrogen too rapidly, it will heat up too fast, and the Sun will expand so much and thus lower its density to such a degree that the fusion at the core will stop due to insufficient pressure.

ctd.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2011
In the Sun (and other stars), there is thus an equilibrium between the inward pressure of gravity upon the core, and the outward pressure of fusion-induced heat from the core. If somehow gravity were increased (e.g. if more material accretes onto the star) then the pressure on the core would grow, more fusion will occur, and the core will get hotter until its density drops down to just point where it produces enough heat to counterbalance gravity. This is the reason why more massive stars burn hotter and are short-lived next to less massive stars.

Now, in a system that hovers just at equilibrium around the critical pressure level sufficient for fusion, any kind of shockwave will push it over the threshold and trigger additional fusion. Thus, internal pressure waves within the Sun that travel too close to its core (where pressures approach the fusion threshold) will trigger more fusion which will cause additional heat-expansion and reverberate until equilibrium is reached.

ctd.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (14) Oct 02, 2011
As the star continues to fuse lighter elements into heavier elements, its density increases (helium is more dense than hydrogen, beryllium is more dense than helium, etc.) The energy needed to fuse lighter elements like hydrogen is lower than that for heavier elements and fusion of lighter elements outputs more energy as well, so at first only hydrogen is burned. But as the star becomes more dense, its gravitational pressure upon the core grows until it is enough to start burning helium. Eventually, there's enough to start fusing even heavier elements. But even as gravity increases, fusion of ever-heavier nuclei yields diminishing returns in terms of energy produced.

Depending on the star's overall mass, it may at some point stabilize through simple radiative cooling (and become a white dwarf.) In heavier stars, gravity will eventually overcome the core's temperature and collapse the star, until so much fusion is triggered that the star rebounds and blows apart in a supernova.
Jotaf
not rated yet Oct 03, 2011
Thank you for a fascinating explanation, PinkElephant! I already knew about the fusion/gravity opposite forces, and how for massive stars gravity loses in the end; but the content of the first two posts was new to me.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (18) Oct 03, 2011
Why doesn't anyone offer an explanation of why stars do not automatically explode catastrophically if they have that much hydrogen at such insane densities and pressures?


Good question.

The 1967 Bilderberg model of the Sun as a homogeneous, steady H-fusion reactor "in equilibrium" [1] was adopted by world leaders in 1971 so natural "global climate change" could be blamed on humans and used as the "common enemy" to unite nations.

This week WikiLeaks [2] exposed this Trojan Horse as a plan to redistribute wealth under united nations. Experimental data on the Sun [3] have been ignored for decades to support the Bilderberg misunderstanding.


1. "Bilderberg Model of the Sun"

http://adsabs.har....3....5G

2. "Trojan Horse", Nature 477, 517-518 (2011)

www.nature.com/ne...20110929

3. "Neutron repulsion", APEIRON J (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2011
The Spammer strikes again. How many threads this time?

So just how do Neutron Stars form when neutron repulsion is alleged by you to be so powerful that it stops Black Holes from forming no matter how large the mass?

Ignoring the question won't magically make you right Oliver. The ideas are contradictory and I bet even the Plasma Universe Cranks can see that now that it has been pointed out.

Ethelred
Pressure2
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2011
PE did offer a very good explanation but I wonder if it has ever been proven that two protons can in fact be fused?
that_guy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2011
PE did offer a very good explanation but I wonder if it has ever been proven that two protons can in fact be fused?

I second that PE's explanation was thorough and well thought out.

Your question is an odd one. It has been more than proven that two atomic nuclei can be fused. When they are fused, it releases excess binding energy among other things. (If there is excess binding energy - when the atomic nuclei get heavy enough, fusion requires adding energy instead)

It sounds like you're asking if two protons can be fused together into a single subatomic particle? That is not what is meant when one talks about fusion...
SteveL
5 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2011
So just how do Neutron Stars form when neutron repulsion is alleged by you to be so powerful that it stops Black Holes from forming no matter how large the mass? Ethelred
Also that Neutron stars have more mass than our sun. Is there any evidence that the sun is somehow 1.5 times as heavier than it has been calculated?

Or that an iron shell somehow coats the proposed neutron core without being stripped of its neutrons and somehow not producing the expected levels of gamma radiation from atomic destruction.

Consider also the rotation of the Sun (25.5-31 days depending on solar lattitude) vs. that of all other detected Neutron stars (1.5 - 30 seconds).

Last (for me) but not least is the fact that the sun does not produce X-rays in the quantity that a Neutron star does. If it did life as we know it would not have developed on earth.

So many holes in that idea (I won't suggest significance by calling it a theory) you couldn't patch them with bondo.
Pressure2
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
PE did offer a very good explanation but I wonder if it has ever been proven that two protons can in fact be fused?

I second that PE's explanation was thorough and well thought out.

Your question is an odd one. It has been more than proven that two atomic nuclei can be fused. When they are fused, it releases excess binding energy among other things. (If there is excess binding energy - when the atomic nuclei get heavy enough, fusion requires adding energy instead)

It sounds like you're asking if two protons can be fused together into a single subatomic particle? That is not what is meant when one talks about fusion...

Isn't the first fusion step in our sun and the stars the fusing of two protons? If so has it ever been proven that it is possible?

yyz
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2011
"Last(for me) but not least is the fact that the sun does not produce X-rays in the quantity that a Neutron star does. If it did life as we know it would not have developed on earth."

I have pointed out this fact in the past and the reply is that a semi-rigid shell of heavy elements (Fe, Ti and the like and completely unsubstantiated by helioseismology) completely absorb this blast of subatomic particles and HE radiation over the life of the pulsar! And still this stubborn resistance to acknowledge the existence of a high energy x-ray bow shock that has been found to reside in the equatorial plane of the Crab pulsar *10 light-days* from the surface of the neutron star.

Not to mention the obvious high energy interaction(s) between the photosphere and the energetic bipolar jets launched from the magnetosphere of the pulsar. Where is any quantitative understanding of this complex interaction?

In short, this represents a fantasy interpretation of his data, lacking any corroboration.
PinkElephant
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2011
Isn't the first fusion step in our sun and the stars the fusing of two protons? If so has it ever been proven that it is possible?
Have you ever heard of this device, called the "Hydrogen Bomb"? There's your answer.
Pressure2
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
Isn't the first fusion step in our sun and the stars the fusing of two protons? If so has it ever been proven that it is possible?
Have you ever heard of this device, called the "Hydrogen Bomb"? There's your answer.

No it is not the answer, a hydrogen bomb fuses deuterium not hydrogen. It does not fuse two protons.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2011
Deuterium AND tritium.

And they ARE hydrogen.

Proof of H-H fusion would require that we have a Sun in the lab. Its a rare collision that does it and the pressure is just a tad high for labs. We can manage the temperature but not the pressure OR the vast amount of hydrogen that is needed to get those VERY rare reactions.

However the math that shows the H-H fusion occurs is the same math that predicted that the D-T fusion could be managed. And we have done it in several different ways and not just in at least two radically different kinds of bombs.

Ethelred
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2011
As Ethel mentions, deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen, and a direct product of fusing two protons, whereupon one of the protons undergoes beta decay and becomes a neutron. These are the first steps of the main process that constructs helium from hydrogen in Sun-like stars (there are other, less significant pathways as well):

http://physics.info/fusion/

In terms of experiments actually demonstrating protons fusing to make deuterium, I don't know of any. The necessary conditions would be quite difficult to achieve in a lab (we haven't even measurably achieved it in bombs, AFAIK), and super-high-energy proton-proton collisions in particle accelerators tend to smash the protons to bits rather than fuse them.

However, the fusion of protons is predicted with high confidence by the theory of quantum mechanics, and has a number of indirect confirmations (such as for instance, elemental abundances in the universe):

http://aether.lbl...y_a.html
Pressure2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2011
Both of you could be right. But reverse beta decay also happens. Since there is no direct proof of proton proton fusing that may not be the first step in the fusion process powering the sun and stars. The first step might be reverse beta decay of which there is direct proof. Reverse beta decay creates a neutron which could easily fuse with a proton thus creating deuterium. We have direct proof in the hydrogen bomb that deuterium fuses.

PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2011
But reverse beta decay also happens.
It only happens for protons already bound up into heavier nuclei. Free protons (i.e. plain-vanilla hydrogen nuclei) are exceedingly stable. It actually takes considerable energy to convert a proton to a neutron (neutrons are heavier than protons.)
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2011
Please, . . .

a) Read papers [1-7], reviewed by editors and PhD scientists

b) Study nuclear rest mass data shown here:

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

c) Recall the Solar Wind carries H (a neutron-decay product) FROM the Sun

You may grasp that neutron repulsion and the pulsar-centered Sun are empirical facts, UNLESS you have a better explanation for the data, including

d) Increasing values of M/A as the value of Z/A decreases from Z/A ~0.50 to Z/A~0 at every mass number on Bohr-Wheeler mass diagrams

e) The Sun discarding H

f) Solar mass fractionation

g) Isotopic anomalies from nucleosynthesis

1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons" JFE 19, 93-98 (2001)

www.omatumr.com/a...tnuc.pdf

2. www.springerlink....ak3lyrc/

3. www.springerlink....6685079/

4. www.omatumr.com/lpsc.prn.pdf

5. www.omatumr.com/a...2002.pdf

6. www.omatumr.com/a...2002.pdf

7. http://arxiv.org/.../0501441

OKM
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2011
q]a) Read papers [1-7], reviewed by editors and PhD scientists I read them. Reviewed crap is still crap.

b) Study nuclear rest mass data shown here:
Which is STILL only evidence for the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Spamming the site with it won't change that. You refuse to address this problem thus it is pure spam and I will continue to report it.

IF you ever stop ignoring the VERY relevant questions THEN I will stop reporting the SPAM.

c) Recall the Solar Wind carries H (a neutron-decay product) FROM the Sun
Bullshit. Hydrogen is vast majority of the Universe's matter as can be seen all over the Universe. Helium is most of the rest.

You may grasp that neutron repulsion and the pulsar-centered Sun are empirical facts,
They are speculation only.

, UNLESS you have a better explanation for the data, including
Yes. The standard models don't require magic. Yours doesn't even come close to fitting known physics.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2011
d) Increasing values of M/A as the value of Z/A decreases from Z/A ~0.50 to Z/A~0 at every mass number on Bohr-Wheeler mass diagrams
The PEP does that quite nicely. You refuse to even acknowledge that Wolfgang Pauli even existed.

e) The Sun discarding H
Magnetic storms.

f) Solar mass fractionation
There is no evidence for it so I don't have to explain it YOU have to produce evidence. It is a wild assed hope to support you non-physical demand that the Sun has a neutron core and an iron mantle. There is NO evidence to support either claim. The Sunspot you keep posting is evidence to the contrary and does not support you in anyway. Traces of iron is not a mostly iron mantle. It exactly fits what the standard models expect.

g)Isotopic anomalies from nucleosynthesis
That one is a bit sparse. If you are talking about the stability of alpha particles that fits the models that are based on known physics.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2011
1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons" JFE 19, 93-98 (2001)
Which there is no evidence for that the PEP doesn't cover at least as well.

I will give you some time, 48 hours, to respond in a rational manner. Rational means you don't demand my credential in all caps and you actually deal with the questions. If you don't that was just more spam and I will give the post a one and report it as such.

What differentiates your neutron repulsion from the PEP? Actual lab evidence not speculation based on your claims that galaxies are shredding themselves as that is circular reasoning.

How can a neutron star form in the first place since you claim neutron repulsion is so strong that Black Holes cannot form no matter how high the mass involved?

Where is there real evidence of solar mass fractioning as opposed to the stuff you base on your assumptions that do not fit any known physics?

Where is ANY evidence of an iron mantle? That sunspot photo actually disproves your claim

Ethelred
jsdarkdestruction
3 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2011
Oliver, do you not know of phase 2 of the plan? see kissinger and nixon knew about neutron repulsion and it being the main source of the suns and the universes power but chairman mao did not. as the world all followed their lead in the conspiracy they said it was to prevent nuclear war. however under the guise of that the united states had different reasons. as the climatoligists/scientists destroy our economy and power while funneling money to third world nations for supportung the scam the chinese will soon grow too strong and overpopulated for anyone but the us to even have a chance of stopping the chinese from taking over the world, at that moment neutron repulsion will be officially "discovered" and cheap easy neutron repulsion energy will be used both to power production of weapons and supplies and as weapons of mass destruction themselves in neutron repulsion bombs. saving the united states and allowing us to finally take over the whole world without looking like the bad guys...
Pressure2
1 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2011
But reverse beta decay also happens.
It only happens for protons already bound up into heavier nuclei. Free protons (i.e. plain-vanilla hydrogen nuclei) are exceedingly stable. It actually takes considerable energy to convert a proton to a neutron (neutrons are heavier than protons.)

As you stated in one of your previous post (proton proton fusion) what happens here on earth may not include all that is happening inside the sun.
We do not have proof reverse beta decay does not happen between an electron and proton inside the sun.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
We do not have proof reverse beta decay does not happen between an electron and proton inside the sun.
We have no evidence for it and since the reaction is endothermic it doesn't fit a sun that is producing heat. Our Sun does produce heat you know. That is why it is so bright.

Waving your hands rapidly is not part of science no matter how popular it is with cranks. Theory that fits real evidence is a key. Speculation about unknown physics with non-existent evidence that produces ideas that are contrary to real evidence, like Oliver does, is not science.

It's Cranking.

However I do see you actually trying to respond so that is one for you that Oliver can't seem to manage.

Ethelred
Pressure2
1 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2011
Ethelred, you are overlooking the beauty of reverse beta decay happening in the sun. Sure it is endothermic but that could be what keeps the sun form exploding. It starts with gravitational heating. From then on reverse beta decay absorbs some of this heat which cools the sun. Some of these newly created neutrons would fuse with protons releasing a little heat. The newly formed deuterium fuses to produce helium which releases a lot of energy, or heat. The whole cycle releases much more energy then is absorbed by reverse beta decay.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2011
Ethelred, you are overlooking the beauty of reverse beta decay happening in the sun.
I NOT overlooking that it DOES NOT produce heat.

Sure it is endothermic but that could be what keeps the sun form exploding.
Gravity does that. Fusion only takes place in the core.

It starts with gravitational heating.
Which heats up the core quite nicely till the fusion starts and then that heat stops the contraction of the Sun.

From then on reverse beta decay absorbs some of this heat which cools the sun.
Only that isn't based any physics and is unneeded for the Sun to function as it appears to.

Some of these newly created neutrons would fuse with protons releasing a little heat.
Again unneeded as fusion CAN take place in the core AND deuterium most likely was in the Sun to begin with. Its a BB product.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2011
I am getting odd results with jsdarkdestruction link on this page. A tampermonky warning.

Odd the link on this page cleared up after I tested it with IE8 BUT the activity link on the profile page now produces the tampermonkey warning.

Ethelred
Pressure2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2011
Ethelred, how long would the deuterium from the BB last in a star, a few years?
You say fusion can take place in the core, yes we agree on that. But you say reversed beta decay is unneeded but you have yet to prove your claim that two protons can in fact be fused. There is proof that reverse beta decay takes place and could start a chain of events in a star releasing a lot more heat than the reverse beta decay absorbs.

I don't know anything about your odd results but occasionally I am blocked from posting or responding to messages.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2011
Ethelred, how long would the deuterium from the BB last in a star, a few years?
For 4.5 billion years so far. Fusion only takes place in the core. The deuterium there is likely all gone. The rest should remain.

You say fusion can take place in the core,
DOES, not can.

But you say reversed beta decay is unneeded but you have yet to prove your claim that two protons can in fact be fused.
The physics that made the hydrogen bomb in a variety of ways AND in more than one tokomaks has worked every time. No reason to think it won't work in the Sun.

here is proof that reverse beta decay takes place and could start a chain of events in a star releasing a lot more heat than the reverse beta decay absorbs.
No. There is no proof of that. The key is the RATE and there is no evidence to support the rate. No math either. A rare event that is dependent on other rare events equals an exceeding rare thing.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2011
Despite the low odds of H-H fusion there is rather a lot of it and hydrogen is most of the material. Deuterium is rare. In the core it must be VERY rare even if there is reverse beta decay does occur the odds of the collision of two deuterium atoms would be far less likely than a H-H collision. Deuterium DOES collide with Hydrogen in the standard model. And the deuterium is formed from a proton during the intial proton-proton collision.

http://en.wikiped...on_power

http://hyperphysi...cyc.html

I don't know anything about your odd results but occasionally I am blocked from posting or responding to messages
The site isn't all that stable and sometimes it simply isn't responding. Just try again later. What I was getting seems to mostly happen when I am using Chrome.

Ethelred
stellar-demolitionist
5 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2011
Please, . . .

b) Study nuclear rest mass data shown here:

http://www.omatum...Data.htm

OKM


There is nothing to see there. Your students "discovered" the
constant mass number, A, parabolic shape of the semi-emperical
mass formula (SEMF), owing to the asymmetry term:

http://en.wikiped..._formula

which has been known since 1935. The valley of stability, the
most bound nuclei at any A, is at roughly Z/A = 0.5 at low A,
until the Coulomb-repulsion term pushes it to smaller (neutron-rich)
values when Z is large.

The SEMF is valid for isolated nuclei, and is not valid for nuclear
matter where the "nuclei" get so close as to touch each other.
The SEMF cannot be extrapolated to the case of neutron stars for
this reason.

It is the equivalent of using the Ideal Gas Law to describe the
behavior of liquid water, or crystalline quartz.

Finally, a NS is not a nucleus, held together by the nuclear force.
It is a star, held together by gravity.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2011
Quote: "The physics that made the hydrogen bomb in a variety of ways AND in more than one tokomaks has worked every time. No reason to think it won't work in the Sun."

Proton proton fusion doesn't work in the hydrogen bomb, that is why they use deuterium and tritium. Since it doesn't work in atomic bombs what would give you the idea it would work in the sun?

I agree that deuterium and hydrogen can fuse. But if you are claiming that the deuterium from the BB alone could power the sun for 4.5 billion years, well that is just not credible. Hydrogen must be the source of most of the energy given off by the sun by either the reverse beta decay method, for which we have evidence happens, or proton proton fusion for which there is no proof it can even happen.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2011
Proton proton fusion doesn't work in the hydrogen bomb
Not because it can't work, but because it's easier to get D-D to fuse and output almost just as much energy, so the designers solve the easier problem instead of trying to solve the harder one for no good practical reason. I'm sure some accidental P-P fusion does occur in H-bomb explosions, but would be hard to detect amidst the overall messy fireball.
what would give you the idea it would work in the sun
It's called the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics, and alongside other branches of Quantum Mechanics, it is supremely accurate, as demonstrated in a multitude of experiments. That, and the fact that we can calculate the temperature/pressure conditions near the Sun's core.
deuterium from the BB alone could power the sun
That is not true; Ethel did mention in passing that D gets created inside the Sun's core all the time via P-P fusion, then gets used up via D-D fusion. I think he's being clumsy with his phrasing.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2011
Not really. He was clumsy in his reading and didn't follow the links.

At no time in that post or any other did I claim the Sun is presently burning BB deuterium. That should be long gone.

Ethelred
jsdarkdestruction
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2011
"But if you are claiming that the deuterium from the BB alone could power the sun for 4.5 billion years, "
where did he claim that?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2011
Oliver's spam has been reported as an abuse.

All this time and you can't manage a rational answer Oliver.

Ethelred