swansont Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 I understand the most of the elements of the universe come from the implosions of neutron stars. Nuclear fusion of hydrogen makes other more dense elements and so on and so forth. But what is the origin of hydrogen? Formed as the universe cooled after the big bang. But as to the formation of other elements, supernovae are not implosions of neutron stars, they are implosion/explosions of normal stars, at the end of their life, some of which will subsequently form neutron stars.
DrDNA Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 More specifically, it is believed that hydrogen atoms were formed about one microsecond after the original Big Bang. Let there be hydrogen.....boom! Most helium atoms....about tree minutes later with the heavier elements being formed later by nuclear reactions in the cores of stars.
alexsciri Posted October 22, 2007 Author Posted October 22, 2007 isnt the big bang just a theory though?
DrDNA Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 isnt the big band just a theory though? Mais oui, of course....that's the part where the "it is believed" comes in.
Mr Skeptic Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 I understand the most of the elements of the universe come from the implosions of neutron stars. Nuclear fusion of hydrogen makes other more dense elements and so on and so forth. But what is the origin of hydrogen? That's a hard one. High energy photons can convert into matter. Where the original energy came from is speculative. The photons can form into matter/antimatter pairs, but for some reason matter won out and there is very little antimatter in the universe. Conservation of charge seems more fundamental, so we ended up with overall neutral universe with mostly protons, neutrons, and electrons. Also dark matter and dark energy, whatever those are. In summary, it confuses me so it should confuse you too
ydoaPs Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 isnt the big bang just a theory though? Isn't gravity just a theory though?
Mr Skeptic Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 Isn't gravity just a theory though? Yes, but due to the shear number of Darwin Awards given to those who don't believe in gravity, we have been genetically predisposed to believe it.
DrDNA Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 Isn't gravity just a theory though? Theory or no theory, I just hope that it is correct, so we don't all float off into space. And if the big bang theory is incorrect, it would mean that the universe doesn't exist so I must be close to the next stop, which is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man. A dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. The middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition.
swansont Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 More specifically, it is believed that hydrogen atoms were formed about one microsecond after the original Big Bang. Let there be hydrogen.....boom!Most helium atoms....about tree minutes later with the heavier elements being formed later by nuclear reactions in the cores of stars. Protons (and He and Li) were formed then, but it wouldn't have been atomic hydrogen until the so-called recombination ~300ky later.
DrDNA Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 Protons (and He and Li) were formed then, but it wouldn't have been atomic hydrogen until the so-called recombination ~300ky later. Yeah. I think it is amazing. And molecular hydrogen doesn't form just by a chance encounter of two hydrogen atoms floating around in empty space. A surface is needed to make the chemical reaction occur and evidence seems to indicate that molecular hydrogen forms on tiny grains of interstellar dust.
John Cuthber Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 "A surface is needed to make the chemical reaction " Care to think about that in the context of the early universe?
ajman2463 Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 That's a hard one. High energy photons can convert into matter. Where the original energy came from is speculative. The photons can form into matter/antimatter pairs, but for some reason matter won out and there is very little antimatter in the universe. Conservation of charge seems more fundamental, so we ended up with overall neutral universe with mostly protons, neutrons, and electrons. Also dark matter and dark energy, whatever those are. In summary, it confuses me so it should confuse you too Actually, only one third of the universe is matter, the other two thirds is anti-matter and/or dark matter.
DrDNA Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 "A surface is needed to make the chemical reaction "Care to think about that in the context of the early universe? Good question. And I'm not that kind of chemist, but I'll take a shot at it any way. A third particle (surface) seems to be necessary to carry away the energy released in the reaction so molecular hydrogen is formed on tiny specks of dust ("star dust"). The tiny rains of dust can be formed, for example, when carbon and oxygen atoms coalesce. Since elements like carbon and oxygen are formed inside stars, perhaps the carbon and oxygen had to wait for the first stars or star-like bodies to form from collapsing clouds of hydrogen plasma (hydrogen atoms). That sound about right? EDIT: rains = I meant grains
insane_alien Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 DrDNA, in the early universe, there was no dust. every single thing in the universe was in a plasma state. there could be no solids. also, it is quite possible to have a raction without any third particle as the energy can easily be carried away through kinetic energy of the products. for instance, in a flame. this is particularly evident in rockets.
swansont Posted October 23, 2007 Posted October 23, 2007 DrDNA, in the early universe, there was no dust. every single thing in the universe was in a plasma state. there could be no solids. also, it is quite possible to have a raction without any third particle as the energy can easily be carried away through kinetic energy of the products. for instance, in a flame. this is particularly evident in rockets. Well, one implication would be that there was little molecular hydrogen in the early universe. Actually, only one third of the universe is matter, the other two thirds is anti-matter and/or dark matter. Probably not antimatter. We don't see the annihilation radiation one would expect.
DrDNA Posted October 24, 2007 Posted October 24, 2007 Here is a very cool presentation on the early univ...the formation of hydrogen and helium are near the end. http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/WoodRock-11531-early-universe-News-Reports-ppt-powerpoint/
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now