PSI Blog 20230130 Heavy Elements Produced by Convergence in
the Infinite Universe
Supernova explosions finally are rejected as the progenitors of
elements heavier than iron.
I have always been suspicious of the assumption that heavy
elements were produced by explosions. Even common sense indicates everything in
the universe is produced by things coming together, not coming apart. My thesis
work used neutron activation analysis in which we bombarded volcanic ash
samples with neutrons—always producing radioactive isotopes that were heavier,
not lighter than the naturally occurring isotopes.[1] Apparently,
this experience had a significant influence on me. I was later to devise the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity
(All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things).[2]
For the most part, our Sun, a relatively small, young star, has
only enough pressure (convergence) to force hydrogen atoms close enough
together to produce helium and, eventually, a few atoms as heavy as iron. All
the really heavy atoms, such as gold, silver, uranium, and the rare earth elements
I used came from outside the solar system. These obviously were ejected during
explosions of large, elderly stars that previously had enough pressure to produce
those elements before the explosions took place.
Explosions do not create anything complex, but I suppose that
mistake might be expected from naïve cosmogonists who assume the entire universe
was created in an explosion either of a singularity or of nothing. So, you can see how the supernova recantation is
another step in the rejection of the Big Bang Theory and its ultimate
replacement by Infinite Universe Theory. Of course, change in cosmogony
takes a while, with the original symposium article being produced in 2008 and
the summary article in 2018. Here is the article by Frebel and Beers announcing
the recantation. It’s not bad if you ignore the cosmogonical propaganda:
The
formation of the heaviest elements
The
rapid neutron-capture process needed to build up many of the elements heavier
than iron seems to take place primarily in neutron-star mergers, not supernova
explosions.
Figure 2. Absorption lines for light from two old stars, labeled by element symbols. The blue spectrum corresponds to a small low-pressure star, while the red spectrum corresponds to a large high-pressure star.[3]
[1]
Borchardt, Glenn, 1970, Neutron Activation Analysis for Correlating Volcanic
Ash Soils: Corvallis, OR, Oregon State University, Ph. D., 219 p.
[http://hdl.handle.net/1957/21727]. Theisen, A.A., Borchardt, Glenn, Harward,
M.E., and Schmitt, R.A., 1968, Neutron activation for distinguishing Cascade
Range pyroclastics: Science, v. 161, no. 3845, p. 1009-1011.
[10.1126/science.161.3845.1009].
[2]
Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science:
Toward a New Scientific Worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/ttaos-amazon]
or [https://go.glennborchardt.com/TTAOSfreepdf]
[3]
Adapted from: Frebel, 2008, in Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on
Nuclei in the Cosmos, SISSA, article 025.
Posts
2 comments:
Explosions can create heavier elements , but it depends on where the explosion occur .
If the explosion occur in-between two layers of matter then the matter closes to the core will get compressed and the matter further away from the core will be thrown off , the question is what really cause supernova's , if stored up gas is what gets ejected from during a supernova then you are most likely right , since the release of the gas would reduce the pressure exerted on the core , thus slowing down fusion. I suppose you would also agree that colder thing provided the same pressure as hot things will fuse more effectively , provided that it doesn't expand when cooled like water does . Useful for forming heavier elements, but very bad for energy production, unless we lived on Neptune. Do you know how to tell the difference between a chemical
reaction and a nuclear reaction, apart from one producing more light ?
Thanks for the question. All reactions involve the exchange of motion as well as matter. That is why some chemical reactions require motion inputs and others release motion.
Fusion in the Sun releases motion (i.e., as light waves) because one He exhibits less microcosmic motion than two H.
Fission does the reverse, with atoms coming apart. For instance U235 absorbs matter (neutrons) to produce unstable and radioactive U236, which then splits into two atoms and yields neutrons and gamma rays (electromagnetic radiation similar to light motion).
You are correct that colder, slow microcosms are likely to approach one another more closely than hotter, rapid microcosms. You might think of fusion this way: First comes the pressure and then comes the temperature. Neutron stars are so large and have produced so much pressure that, like other vortices (e.g., Earth and Sun), their cores become increasing dense, having produced extremely heavy elements along the way to the axis.
While there may be some transformations during explosions, I doubt they are anywhere as significant as was implied by the old “supernova explosion” hypothesis. I especially like the collision hypothesis because we find basically two kinds of meteorites: chondrites (less dense rocks like those on Earth’s crust) and Ni-Fe (highly dense rocks like those in Earth’s core). These would have to be the result of planetary collisions like the one that would occur if Earth was to collide with another rocky planet.
Post a Comment