On the origin of life's most crucial isotope

Oct 12, 2012 by Ken Kingery

Since the Big Bang, the universe has been evolving. From the formations of simple protons and neutrons to the wide breadth of elements and molecules known today, it is ever growing in complexity and variety. And now, nuclear physics theorists have gained new insights into a fundamental nuclear reaction that gave rise to life as we know it.

The reaction is known as the triple-alpha process and it is responsible for the large amount of found throughout the universe. For years, the process by which stars combined light, simple nuclei into the most crucial element has been understood only as a two-step process. But recently, the problem was revisited to unveil the full scope of mechanisms behind the formation of life's most crucial isotope, carbon-12.

Specifically, that problem was the rate of carbon-12 production at low temperatures. Previous calculations made by a group led by Kazuyuki Ogata, professor of from Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, resulted in dramatic models where stars would burn up so fast that they could not reach the red giant phase.

A problem, seeing as how there are plenty of to be found throughout the cosmos.

"The Kyushu theory predicting rates of carbon-12 production were incompatible with observations and the whole nuclear astrophysics community was going bezerk," said Filomena Nunes, nuclear physics and professor at NSCL. "I was getting emails all over the place. The method being used was sound and the Kyushu group members are experts on that method. So there had to be something wrong with the approximations."

Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe, and carbon-12 is its most common form. With an even number of six protons and six neutrons, this simple nucleus forms the basis of all known life. However, the processes that create carbon-12 and the reasons for its abundance are not so simple.

In a matter of after the Big Bang, quarks and gluons formed protons and neutrons. Just three minutes later, simple hydrogen and helium nuclei came on the scene. But it wasn't until one million years later that electrons joined the party to form neutral atoms and ten billion years after that until stars began to form.

Within the cauldron of a star, protons began combining through a sequence of reactions into helium nuclei. But then the nuclear synthesis process came to an impasse. Add another single proton to helium and you get lithium-5, a nucleus that nature does not permit to exist. Fuse two helium nuclei together and you get beryllium-8, another non-existent nucleus due to the laws of nuclear physics.

But clearly the stars continued churning away, creating all the different elements we see around us. So how is this possible? This question nagged astrophysicists for years because, NSCL graduate student Ngoc Bich Nguyen said, "If we cannot explain the abundance of carbon-12, we cannot explain how our universe formed."

The answer comes in the form of a reaction involving three helium nuclei, also known as alpha particles. Though beryllium-8 decays in mere nanoseconds, if a star is hot enough, a third alpha particle can fuse with the short-lived nucleus. And because the energy of a beryllium-8 nucleus added to the energy of an alpha particle is almost exactly the same as a carbon-12 nucleus in an excited state, it creates a resonance that greatly increases its rate of production.

But there is another way that stars can create carbon-12.

At low temperatures, when the energy is not enough to reach the resonances, carbon-12 can still be formed through the simultaneous fusion of three alpha particles. And while in the past, nuclear theory accurately modeled the rates of the two-step process, it was woefully inaccurate when it came to the single-step process. The Kyushu group made a serious improvement on those predictions.

"However their results prohibited the formation of red giants, which we know exist because we've observed them," said Nunes. "So I had the idea for an alternative approach without the limitations of the one that was being used at the time."

Together, Nunes and Nguyen solved this very challenging three-body scattering problem. When their new results were obtained, they agreed with the prior theory for high-temperature carbon-12 formation. At lower temperatures, however, they predicted an increase of the rate by about 10 trillion times from the estimates from the past.

While this seems like a lot, it still was much less than Ogata's predictions.

"With our new results, red giants finally exist again!" said Nunes. "From here, we have to use the new rates in many more astrophysical scenarios. We hope it will resolve some issues lingering in novae and supernovae."

Explore further: Seeking 'absolute zero', copper cube gets chillingly close

More information: Low-Temperature Triple-Alpha Rate in a Full Three-Body Nuclear Model, Physical Review Letters, 109, 141101 (2012) prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v109/i14/e141101

Related Stories

Carbon, carbon everywhere, but not from the Big Bang

May 11, 2011

As Star Trek is so fond of reminding us, we're carbon-based life forms. But the event that jump-started the universe, the Big Bang, didn't actually produce any carbon, so where the heck did it – and we – come from? ...

Fundamental question on how life started solved?

May 09, 2011

For carbon, the basis of life, to be able to form in the stars, a certain state of the carbon nucleus plays an essential role. In cooperation with US colleagues, physicists from the University of Bonn and Ruhr-Universitat ...

Team maps the nuclear landscape

Jun 27, 2012

An Oak Ridge National Laboratory and University of Tennessee team has used the Department of Energy's Jaguar supercomputer to calculate the number of isotopes allowed by the laws of physics.

The atomic nucleus: fissile liquid or molecule of life?

Jul 30, 2012

A new view of the nucleus that unifies its liquid and molecule-like aspects has been put forward by a team of researchers from France.  By making an analogy with neutron stars, the researchers have for ...

New picture of atomic nucleus emerges

Mar 02, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- When most of us think of an atom, we think of tiny electrons whizzing around a stationary, dense nucleus composed of protons and neutrons, collectively known as nucleons. A collaboration between ...

Recommended for you

Backpack physics: Smaller hikers carry heavier loads

21 hours ago

Hikers are generally advised that the weight of the packs they carry should correspond to their own size, with smaller individuals carrying lighter loads. Although petite backpackers might appreciate the ...

Extremely high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging

21 hours ago

For the first time, researchers have succeeded to detect a single hydrogen atom using magnetic resonance imaging, which signifies a huge increase in the technology's spatial resolution. In the future, single-atom ...

User comments : 6

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Peteri
4.8 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2012
"But it wasn't until one million years later that electrons joined the party to form neutral atoms and ten billion years after that until stars began to form."

I think the "billion" should be corrected to "million" perhaps?
JGHunter
3.5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2012
"But it wasn't until one million years later that electrons joined the party to form neutral atoms and ten billion years after that until stars began to form."

I think the "billion" should be corrected to "million" perhaps?


Yeah, but when they won't change "quantam" to "quantum", it's unlikely they'll correct anything like that.
dtyarbrough
1 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2012
Red giants exist because fusion only occurs during the death of stars. It would be nice to know what they call low temperatures.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.8 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2012
@ dtyarbrough: Fusion occurs only during the life of stars, they die precisely because the fusion sources runs out.

Their definition of low temp is in the abstract, follow the link.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2012
Not a well-written article. The method used by the researchers to obtain faster rates of low-temperature carbon fusing were left muddy and unclear.

And there's a rather large mistake. No, the first stars did not wait for ten billion years after the Big Bang to appear. Come on, PhysOrg, you know better.
dan42day
3.3 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2012
"But it wasn't until one million years later that electrons joined the party to form neutral atoms and ten billion years after that until stars began to form."

I think the "billion" should be corrected to "million" perhaps?


Wow, missed it by 3 orders of magnitude! That's ALMOST as bad as the creationists!