Where was the supernova that created the Solar System?

[Reaper]

As we all well know, the sun and it's system of planets are all products of some supernova that occurred long ago. But what I'm wondering is, does anyone know where this original star and it's subsequent supernova took place? Looking at a map of the nearest stars within 12 light years and 20 light years, respectively, there are no known pulsars or black holes located, which would indicate the "smoking gun". And, the Centauri system, the closest stars to our own solar system, are much older than the sun (about 6 billion years old or more...)

 

So, does anyone have any idea on where or what type of supernova triggered the birth of our solar system?

[Martin]

So, does anyone have any idea on where or what type of supernova triggered the birth of our solar system?

 

That's a nice question and you've taken initiative and searched around in the solar neighborhood for tell-tale remnants. Personally I don't recall ever seeing reports where they actually identified ex-stars that cooked up our atoms for us. Maybe someone else has a link on this.

 

The way I picture it (correct me somebody if I'm wrong) is that a star-forming region can be big (like a 1000 lightyears wide) and the crud in it can be enriched by several supernovae---perhaps tens, or even hundreds. So as I picture it, our heavier-than-helium elements, our carbon etc, could have been cooked by quite a few different stars, or even in several generations.

 

There is bound to be oneormore proximate causes though, some nearest remnants. It would be interesting to have them identified.

[Sisyphus]

Since the molecular clouds from which stars eventually condense are so large, and stars don't maintain their relative positions over time (especially over several billion years, which is what we're talking about), would it be fair to say that the sources of the heavy elements in our own sun could be pretty much be anywhere and everywhere in the galaxy?

[Martin]

Since the molecular clouds from which stars eventually condense are so large, and stars don't maintain their relative positions over time (especially over several billion years, which is what we're talking about), would it be fair to say that the sources of the heavy elements in our own sun could be pretty much be anywhere and everywhere in the galaxy?

I think you are probably right, Sisyphus. I just haven't seen anything about it.

Another question, in case anybody wants to do some googling, concerns the stability of spiral arms. How long do they last? Are we still in the same spiral arm where we formed or have we migrated?

I'm comparatively ignorant about Milkyway and galaxy structure generally. Who here might know? DH, NowThat (new member), anyone?

[Reaper]

Since the molecular clouds from which stars eventually condense are so large, and stars don't maintain their relative positions over time (especially over several billion years, which is what we're talking about),

 

Well, don't all stars mostly move in the same direction? And the stars and stellar material that would have given birth to the sun and other star systems would have had more or less the same period, so I don't know if the original stars would be that far off...

[Martin]

Well, don't all stars mostly move in the same direction? And the stars and stellar material that would have given birth to the sun and other star systems would have had more or less the same period, so I don't know if the original stars would be that far off...

 

Reaper my feeling is we don't have enough grist for our mill here. Somebody has to websearch and get some grit to provide traction.

 

Stability of largescale features like spiral arms has been studied, I just don't know the literature.

 

The sun goes once around every 200 million years. And our orbit radius is about 28,000 LY. Things closer in go faster, things farther out go slower.

If the sun is 6 billion years old, it has made 30 orbits around center. I'm just saying stuff you already would have figured out. How cohesive is our immediate neighborhood? Does it hang together for as long as 30 orbits?

 

How about you try googling things like "galaxy structure" and "spiral arm" maybe even "spiral arm lifetime". If its is all technical jargon and gibberish then forget I asked:embarass: sorry----but if you find something helpful that would be really nice:cool:

[NowThatWeKnow]

As we all well know, the sun and it's system of planets are all products of some supernova that occurred long ago...

So, does anyone have any idea on where or what type of supernova triggered the birth of our solar system?

 

I don't ("As we all well know".) Why would you think there had to be a supernova for our solar system to exist? Did every star have a supernova? Let me see if I understand this. You have to have a star to have a supernova and you have to have a supernova to have a star. So witch came first, the chicken or the egg? Are you guys that far above my head or am I just tired?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Since the molecular clouds from which stars eventually condense are so large, and stars don't maintain their relative positions over time (especially over several billion years, which is what we're talking about), would it be fair to say that the sources of the heavy elements in our own sun could be pretty much be anywhere and everywhere in the galaxy?

 

now that makes sense to me.

Edited January 8, 2009 by NowThatWeKnow
Consecutive post/s merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't ("As we all well know".) Why would you think there had to be a supernova for our solar system to exist? Did every star have a supernova? Let me see if I understand this. You have to have a star to have a supernova and you have to have a supernova to have a star. So witch came first, the chicken or the egg? Are you guys that far above my head or am I just tired?

 

Not our star, but our planet. The heavy elements, especially those heavier than iron, are quite rare in stars and pretty much or completely absent from the original hydrogen/helium clouds from the Big Bang. Making elements heavier than iron takes energy, which would kill a star. But unless the star exploded, it would all just sit there. So, supernovas are the only source I know of for the heavy elements.

 

I'd imagine a supernova explosion would be powerful enough to send matter clear across the galaxy, but don't take my word for it.

[CaptainPanic]

First off, I probably know little about it. But I'd like to make a few obvious remarks. Wikipedia came up with a few interesting points as well.

 

1. Copypasted directly from Wikipedia:

A long-standing puzzle surrounding supernovae has been a need to explain why the compact object remaining after the explosion is given a large velocity away from the core.[68] (Neutron stars are observed, as pulsars, to have high velocities; black holes presumably do as well, but are far harder to observe in isolation.) This kick can be substantial, propelling an object of more than a solar mass at a velocity of 500 km/s or greater.

Over the 5 billion years (or 1.6E17 seconds) that our sun has been around, this object can have moved away approximately 1.6E17 * 500 km = 7.9E19 km away, if it would have had a constant linear velocity. That's the equivalent of over 8 million light years.

 

I also know that the escape velocity for the milky way is 1000 km/s (approx.) so the object is likely to be still around somewhere in the galaxy. I just wanted to point out that it can be practically anywhere if we started off with a phenomenon ("kick") like I just mentioned.

 

2. The remark by Mr Skeptic: Supernovae blast material into the galaxy at high speeds. In addition to the "compact object" having a high velocity, the gas clouds also have a high velocity.

 

3. Another interesting piece of text is a description about motion of stars. What it comes down to is that stars near us move around pretty much randomly.

 

I guess motion of stars is a bit like gas molecules. Individually they all move randomly (I believe that some stars even move towards us), but in convection, there is an average motion in a certain direction. We see that in the movement of the whole galaxy that spins around the center.

[Klaynos]

A couple of things I'd like to add here

 

Not just our planet needs there to have been a previous star, but also our sun, the makeup of elements in it means it cannot be a first population star....

 

Now, in star forming regions (sorry I've no references for this as this is from research lectures given by people in my department) you get alot of stars being born in quite a small area (normally several of these areas in one region), but once the stars have been formed they are effectively flung out of the system at a very very fast speed relative to the starting point, similiar to the sling shot effect used by spacecraft, this means that after a few billion years (as has been) the stars created by that region are spread far and wide across the skies...

 

I am unaware of anyone identifying our star forming region though...

[NowThatWeKnow]

Not our star, but our planet. The heavy elements, especially those heavier than iron, are quite rare in stars...So, supernovas are the only source I know of for the heavy elements.

 

Thank you for your reply. Wikipedia says:

While "supernovae play a significant role in enriching the interstellar medium with higher mass elements", I suspect it ia a collective effort and not a single supernova per heavy element solar system scenario. It seems we are on are way to discovering that most stars have planets and heavy element solar systems will be common. I think that assuming supernovae are the only source for heavy elements is unwise, sort of like NowThatWeKnow.

 

I did some reading and learned something because of this thread. Next I will try to learn to read then post rather the post then read.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that assuming supernovae are the only source for heavy elements is unwise, sort of like NowThatWeKnow.

 

Where else do you think we might get heavy elements from?

[Baby Astronaut]

A long-standing puzzle surrounding supernovae has been a need to explain why the compact object remaining after the explosion is given a large velocity away from the core.[68] (Neutron stars are observed, as pulsars, to have high velocities; black holes presumably do as well, but are far harder to observe in isolation.) This kick can be substantial, propelling an object of more than a solar mass at a velocity of 500 km/s or greater.

Wow, it could mean that objects propelled by systems elsewhere and hurdling through space might one day, conceivably, smash into an unsuspecting planet. At the speed of 500 km/s or greater.

[Sisyphus]

I can't imagine it would be that unsuspecting. An incoming neutron star would cause all sorts of gravitational havoc long before any actual collisions.

[NowThatWeKnow]

Where else do you think we might get heavy elements from?

 

Wikipedia says:

"Supernovae play a significant role in enriching the interstellar medium with higher mass elements".

 

What do you think they mean by significant? It sounds like they are leaving themselves open for other sources of heavy elements.

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/nucleosynthesis.html

 

"The buildup of heavy elements from lighter ones by nuclear fusion. Helium and some lithium was produced by cosmic nucleosynthesis just after the Big Bang, but today most element-building nucleosynthesis takes place in stars."

 

What do they mean by "most"? Maybe we do need nuclear fusion but do we need a supernova? What is happening in those big black holes and what is shooting out of them? Nuclear fusion and heavy elements?

 

I do not have the answers but "NowThatWeKnow" usually has consequences. In 10 years from now it will be

[Royston]

Not that this addresses the OP, but the supernova debate (i.e as an origin for our solar system) has only been settled recently. Although suitable candidates i.e radioisotopes have been found that point towards a supernova, the conditions when they were formed wasn't confirmed.

 

However this thread reminded me of an article from sciencedaily, where the debate appears to have been put to rest...

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081002172445.htm

 

From the article...

 

"We've had chemical evidence from meteorites that points to a supernova triggering our Solar System's formation since the 1970s," remarked lead author, Carnegie's Alan Boss. "But the devil has been in the details. Until this study, scientists have not been able to work out a self-consistent scenario, where collapse is triggered at the same time that newly created isotopes from the supernova are injected into the collapsing cloud."

 

Short-lived radioactive isotopes—versions of elements with the same number of protons, but a different number of neutrons—found in very old meteorites decay on time scales of millions of years and turn into different (so-called daughter) elements. Finding the daughter elements in primitive meteorites implies that the parent short-lived radioisotopes must have been created only a million or so years before the meteorites themselves were formed. "One of these parent isotopes, iron-60, can be made in significant amounts only in the potent nuclear furnaces of massive or evolved stars," explained Boss. "Iron-60 decays into nickel-60, and nickel-60 has been found in primitive meteorites. So we've known where and when the parent isotope was made, but not how it got here."

 

Using an adaptive mesh refinement hydrodynamics code, FLASH2.5, designed to handle shock fronts, as well as an improved cooling law, the Carnegie researchers considered several different situations. In all of the models, the shock front struck a pre-solar cloud with the mass of our Sun, consisting of dust, water, carbon monoxide, and molecular hydrogen, reaching temperatures as high as 1,340°F (1000 K). In the absence of cooling, the cloud could not collapse. However, with the new cooling law, they found that after 100,000 years the pre-solar cloud was 1,000 times denser than before, and that heat from the shock front was rapidly lost, resulting in only a thin layer with temperatures close to 1,340°F (1000 K). After 160,000 years, the cloud center had collapsed to become a million times denser, forming the protosun. The researchers found that isotopes from the shock front were mixed into the protosun in a manner consistent with their origin in a supernova.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Snail

[NowThatWeKnow]

This kick can be substantial, propelling an object of more than a solar mass at a velocity of 500 km/s or greater.

 

That brings up a question I have had for awhile. So, while we have all these great minds together:

Will this speed (in relationship to it's starting point) be maintained? Or will it eventually come to rest in it's current location. It seems the frame it is in would require sustained power to maintain speed from an observers prospective. So would E=MC^2 eventually bring it to rest in its current location? Or would after reaching relativistic speed in your space ship, would you have to maintain power to maintain speed (relative to your starting point)?

 

Edit - This does pertain to the OP since it could explain the distribution of heavy elements.

Edited January 8, 2009 by NowThatWeKnow

[Jacques]

What about the crazy idea that the supernovae remanant is at the center of the sun.

The material of the supernovae is ejected and collide with the interstallar gas and slowdown and after a while start to fall back to the remanent and reform a new star.

(By the way supernovae doesnot always fly away Look at the Cassiopea or the Crab nebula)

[Klaynos]

That brings up a question I have had for awhile. So, while we have all these great minds together:

Will this speed (in relationship to it's starting point) be maintained? Or will it eventually come to rest in it's current location. It seems the frame it is in would require sustained power to maintain speed from an observers prospective. So would E=MC^2 eventually bring it to rest in its current location? Or would after reaching relativistic speed in your space ship, would you have to maintain power to maintain speed (relative to your starting point)?

 

It will slow because there is some friction in space. And the gravity from the galaxy will move it into an orbit I'd imagine...

 

But it is of course at rest in it's own rest frame...

 

E=mc² has nothing to do with this, the speed is not relativistic, and that's not the full form of the equation anyway, but only valid for stationary objects.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What about the crazy idea that the supernovae remanant is at the center of the sun.

The material of the supernovae is ejected and collide with the interstallar gas and slowdown and after a while start to fall back to the remanent and reform a new star.

(By the way supernovae doesnot always fly away Look at the Cassiopea or the Crab nebula)

 

If we were at the location of a former supernovae we would see remnats of the cloud all around us, we don't. Also what remains is a neutron star or black hole, neither of which are at the centre of the sun.

[Jacques]

If we were at the location of a former supernovae we would see remnats of the cloud all around us, we don't.

We don't because the cloud condensed back into the sun.

Also what remains is a neutron star or black hole, neither of which are at the centre of the sun.

How are you so sure that a neutron star is not at the center of our sun ? Heliosysmographie doesn't have the resolution to detect a few kilometers sphere.

I don't tell that it is it, but just speculating

[NowThatWeKnow]

It will slow because there is some friction in space. And the gravity from the galaxy will move it into an orbit I'd imagine...

 

But it is of course at rest in it's own rest frame...

 

 

Is this right?

The object at rest in it's own frame is not at rest in the larger frame of the space and stars around it. As the objects frame travels through the larger frame it will slow and eventually come to rest so both will be in the same frame again.

 

This sounds like space is more then just a metric and you have to actually travel through it.

[Klaynos]

And what about the rest of the mass? What happened to all the energy from the supernovae?

 

We're actually quite good at modelling what goes on in the sun, we know where the energy comes from and how much nuclear fussion happens where because we can do quite complicated neutrino experiments... as well as modelling...

 

The sun doesn't have enough mass to have a neutron star AND be as bright as it is.

[Jacques]

That bring me to the question What is happening to a neutron star after a few billion years ? will it acreate more and more gas ? Will it turn into a blackhole ?

[Klaynos]

Is this right?

The object at rest in it's own frame is not at rest in the larger frame of the space and stars around it. As the objects frame travels through the larger frame it will slow and eventually come to rest so both will be in the same frame again.

 

This sounds like space is more then just a metric and you have to actually travel through it.

 

There is no rest frame of space, any rest frame you select is as correct as any other (with the exception of a rest frame moving at c).

 

The star will at that kind of speed travel threw dust clouds, these will slow it down until the star is not moving in the rest frame of the local interstellar gas... I suspect stars are bit more special than that as they're so large they gravitationally attract it at a noticeable rate...

 

Space is not empty it's full of stuff...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

That bring me to the question What is happening to a neutron star after a few billion years ? will it acreate more and more gas ? Will it turn into a blackhole ?

 

If they accrue enough mass I'd assume they would undergo another collapse. I can only imagine this happening in binary systems though, as in single star systems most of the mass is blown away before and then during the supernova...

[NowThatWeKnow]

There is no rest frame of space, any rest frame you select is as correct as any other (with the exception of a rest frame moving at c).

 

Please bear with me as this is making my head hurt. I will try to ask a simple question that has a yes or no answer. I really am not trying to be a pain. Klaynos is not the only one with much more physics knowledge then me so any one that can answer in layman terms please chime in.

 

Since the Milky Way stars are fairly constant in the short term I will use them as a reference point. Lets try to ignore gravity for this question.

 

1. your said (the supernova matter thrown out) "It will slow because there is some friction in space." Are you saying relative to the stars in the Milky Way it will slow?

 

2. I am traveling to a near by star in my space ship. I am almost half way there traveling at .99 relativistic speed with two light years to go. I shut down my propulsion system. Relative to my destination star, will my speed slow down?