Go back
Latest ideas about the Big Bang Theory

Latest ideas about the Big Bang Theory

Debates

A
D_U_N_E

Arrakis

Joined
01 May 04
Moves
64653
Clock
01 Nov 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

And I just want to ask the question... if all the heavy elements that we are made of are created from the explosion of stars, why didn't these atoms burn up from the exploding supernova?

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Scientists-Saved-the-Big-Bang-Theory-38865.shtml

s

Joined
23 Sep 05
Moves
11774
Clock
01 Nov 06
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by arrakis
And I just want to ask the question... if all the heavy elements that we are made of are created from the explosion of stars, why didn't these atoms burn up from the exploding supernova?

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Scientists-Saved-the-Big-Bang-Theory-38865.shtml
An atom can't burn. Can it? As I understand it, fire is really just a process where certain elements of a material are released due to great heat. No?

So, if you take wood, expose it to heat, and combined with oxygen the wood will at a temperature of about... what?.. 200 Celsius, release certain particles. We see this as smoke. The flames are heated air.*

Though, I could be seriously off here. I don't really know where I got this from. 😕

* Turns out I was right, but not the way I thought I was. Heat apparently always emit light. And fire require heat. The heat that rise from the burning spot thus emit light, hence the flames.

Fascinating.

AThousandYoung
HELP WEREWOLVES!!!

tinyurl.com/yyazm96z

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
27003
Clock
01 Nov 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by stocken
An atom can't burn. Can it? As I understand it, fire is really just a process where certain elements of a material are released due to great heat. No?

So, if you take wood, expose it to heat, and combined with oxygen the wood will at a temperature of about... what?.. 200 Celsius, release certain particles. We see this as smoke. The flames are heated air.* ...[text shortened]... t. The heat that rise from the burning spot thus emit light, hence the flames.

Fascinating.
"Burning" is when molecules are oxidized by the O2 from the air. It's an exothermic reaction - that is, it gives off heat.

ab

Joined
28 Nov 05
Moves
24334
Clock
01 Nov 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

I remember "The First three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg as being a very good book on the start of the universe.

It must be over 20 years since I read it though, so i can't remember any detail.

it appears to have been updated for the 2nd edition.
http://www.amazon.com/First-Three-Minutes-Origin-Universe/dp/0465024378

s

Joined
23 Sep 05
Moves
11774
Clock
01 Nov 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
"Burning" is when molecules are oxidized by the O2 from the air. It's an exothermic reaction - that is, it gives off heat.
Ye, isn't that in essence what I wrote? 😕

ab

Joined
28 Nov 05
Moves
24334
Clock
01 Nov 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis
Production of elements heavier than iron:
* Neutron capture:
o The R-process
o The S-process
* Proton capture:
o The P-process

kmax87
Republicant Retiree

Blade Runner

Joined
09 Oct 04
Moves
107422
Clock
01 Nov 06
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by aging blitzer
It must be over 20 years since I read it though, so i can't remember any detail.
If you believe in infinite parallel universes then given a finite probability of a big bang happening, and it must be a finite probability because it happened in our case did it not(no circular logic here at all!) then we have aslo yet to discover 3,504,000 new parralel universes that have ben formed since you read your book, asuming that three minutes is all it takes to make one.

ab

Joined
28 Nov 05
Moves
24334
Clock
01 Nov 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by kmax87
asuming that three minutes is all it takes to make one.
That's a big assumption.
The book is about what happened in the first three minutes of the universe.
How long it took to get the thing that the big bang came from into the state in which it was ready to go BANG is probably an unknown unknown.

kmax87
Republicant Retiree

Blade Runner

Joined
09 Oct 04
Moves
107422
Clock
01 Nov 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by aging blitzer
That's a big assumption.
The book is about what happened in the first three minutes of the universe.
How long it took to get the thing that the big bang came from into the state in which it was ready to go BANG is probably an unknown unknown.
Where's Rumsfeld when you need a quick estimate?

AThousandYoung
HELP WEREWOLVES!!!

tinyurl.com/yyazm96z

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
27003
Clock
01 Nov 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by stocken
Ye, isn't that in essence what I wrote? 😕
No. You wrote that "atoms can't burn" but sodium atoms for example are quite flammable. You seemed to suggest that the releasing of visible particles is essential to burning, but it's not. The particles that make up smoke, in fact, are visible precisely because they are incompletely burned. If they were fully burned they'd be carbon dioxide and water vapor which are mostly invisible. You did not refer to a chemical reaction except incidentally by mentioning that you had to expose wood to oxygen.

d

Joined
05 Jan 04
Moves
45179
Clock
01 Nov 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No. You wrote that "atoms can't burn" but sodium atoms for example are quite flammable. You seemed to suggest that the releasing of visible particles is essential to burning, but it's not. The particles that make up smoke, in fact, are visible precisely because they are incompletely burned. If they were fully burned they'd be carbon dioxide and water ...[text shortened]... chemical reaction except incidentally by mentioning that you had to expose wood to oxygen.
He said that "an atom can't burn" and he is more or less right, although burn is a horrible word to use in this context as we mostly associate it with a visual phenomenon.

AThousandYoung
HELP WEREWOLVES!!!

tinyurl.com/yyazm96z

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
27003
Clock
01 Nov 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by darvlay
He said that "an atom can't burn" and he is more or less right, although burn is a horrible word to use in this context as we mostly associate it with a visual phenomenon.
I disagree. There are many atoms which are quite capable of being oxidized in a combustion reaction and which are found free; that is, not in molecular form. Sodium is one example.

http://www.ucc.ie/academic/chem/dolchem/html/dict/combust.html

d

Joined
05 Jan 04
Moves
45179
Clock
01 Nov 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I disagree. There are many atoms which are quite capable of being oxidized in a combustion reaction and which are found free; that is, not in molecular form. Sodium is one example.

http://www.ucc.ie/academic/chem/dolchem/html/dict/combust.html
Yep, you're right. I was thinking more along the lines of subatomics and was being a bit silly. Man, do I ever regret making that post! 🙄

s
Kichigai!

Osaka

Joined
27 Apr 05
Moves
8592
Clock
01 Nov 06
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I disagree. There are many atoms which are quite capable of being oxidized in a combustion reaction and which are found free; that is, not in molecular form. Sodium is one example.

http://www.ucc.ie/academic/chem/dolchem/html/dict/combust.html
I think we're talking at crossed purposes here. ATY is right, the sodium atoms can be oxidised (and I propose that we use oxidation, rather than burn), but stocken was really pointing out that the sodium atoms survive the process! A case of muddy thinking, but I believe stocken's answer whilst technically not perfect, is probably less obfuscatory to a non-chemist than ATY's, which seems to imply (although I know that it wasn't ATY's intention) that the sodium atoms are "used up" or destroyed.


[edited to replace BdN with Stocken (sorry guys)]

d

Joined
05 Jan 04
Moves
45179
Clock
01 Nov 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I think we're talking at crossed purposes here. ATY is right, the sodium atoms can be oxidised (and I propose that we use oxidation, rather than burn), but BdN was really pointing out that the sodium atoms survive the process! A case of muddy thinking, but I believe BdN's answer whilst technically not perfect, is probably less obfuscatory to a non-che ...[text shortened]... I know that it wasn't ATY's intention) that the sodium atoms are "used up" or destroyed.
Stocken, not Bosse.

But yes, confusing it is. Can't we just quote refer to the first law of thermodynamics and be done with it?

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.