Originally posted by AThousandYoungGreat! I just learned something new. Thanks. 🙂
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
Oh, and I liked this site:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fireworks/fire.html#
So, fire is the light we see when oxygen interact with other atoms (parts of molecules and some free) so fast that they release a lot of energy in the form of heat. Right? 😕
Originally posted by stockenWell the heat is released no matter what speed the reaction occurs; rust, for example, is the oxidation of iron and it releases heat, but it's much slower. I don't know if one could call rusting "burning" or not.
Great! I just learned something new. Thanks. 🙂
Oh, and I liked this site:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fireworks/fire.html#
So, fire is the light we see when oxygen interact with other atoms (parts of molecules and some free) so fast that they release a lot of energy in the form of heat. Right? 😕
We see flames because the reaction happens quickly though.
Originally posted by arrakisIf I'm reading the material in your posted link correctly, the new findings show how helium-3 is converted to hydrogen and helium-4 (a heavier isotope). Heavy elements are created when lighter elements undergo fusion, which mainly occurs in supernovae.
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
Originally posted by darvlayIf by the first law you assert that matter can neither be created or destroyed but is merely transformed from one state to another, then we have a winner in aisle 13.
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?
At the atomic level there is no 'burning' as we perceive it. Sub-atomic particles may result from a bit of atom smashing but what we see as the charred remains of something is the chemical residue of a release (as has been mentioned) of a disproportionate amount of heat energy.
Wiki sums up flames pretty well
\\Flames, or at least portions of them, are often considered to be partial plasmas or a partially ionized gas, but in more general terms a flame is a region of exothermic chemical reaction of high enough temperature to emit visible light. A central region enclosed by such a reaction (but which does not necessarily participate in the reaction itself) is often also considered part of the flame.//
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame
Originally posted by arrakisI've never trusted the theory on rain either.
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
I mean, if that water goes up and gets heavy, why on earth doesn't it full down like a large bucket of water. What's with all the dripping?
And it's cold up there. I've parachute jumped, no way can that water stay condensed up there. It's just not happening.
It's one watery loophole after another.
Clouds my arse!
Originally posted by aging blitzerit didn't took anything. time didn't existed before big bang
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.
Originally posted by shavixmirerrrrm have you thought long on what you just said or is it just something you wrote after you woke up in the middle of the night, stil hangover from the vodka, acid and magic mushrooms you had three hours earlier?
I've never trusted the theory on rain either.
I mean, if that water goes up and gets heavy, why on earth doesn't it full down like a large bucket of water. What's with all the dripping?
And it's cold up there. I've parachute jumped, no way can that water stay condensed up there. It's just not happening.
It's one watery loophole after another.
Clouds my arse!
Originally posted by scottishinnzBut the original question was why don't atoms get destroyed by supernovae and such. The answer to that is it takes not billions of degrees which is what you get in novae but the condition that created the universe going in reverse which is a state that goes beyond mere temerature to the ultimate compression of space and time, you go in reverse and thats what you run into. That is the ONLY way atoms themselves can be destroyed. If you just heat up atoms to say, a quadrillion degrees, you create a cloud of energy but when the energy goes back down to a certain point, the constituent quarks will start to self assemble into atoms again so they cannot be said to have been destroyed I would think.
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 ...[text shortened]... atoms are "used up" or destroyed.
[edited to replace BdN with Stocken (sorry guys)]
Originally posted by sonhouseexcellent point.
But the original question was why don't atoms get destroyed by supernovae and such. The answer to that is it takes not billions of degrees which is what you get in novae but the condition that created the universe going in reverse which is a state that goes beyond mere temerature to the ultimate compression of space and time, you go in reverse and thats wha ...[text shortened]... to self assemble into atoms again so they cannot be said to have been destroyed I would think.
Originally posted by sonhouseThe lowest potential energy state for the components of atoms are in atoms of a moderate size (iron? lead? I forget). Bigger elements will tend to break apart to form these elements, and smaller elements will tend to combine to form them, in both cases with a release of energy (fission and fusion). The energy from the star comes from fusion reactions. If the energy comes from fusing atoms into bigger atoms, clearly it would not be able to simultaneously break them apart into subnuclear particles!
But the original question was why don't atoms get destroyed by supernovae and such. The answer to that is it takes not billions of degrees which is what you get in novae but the condition that created the universe going in reverse which is a state that goes beyond mere temerature to the ultimate compression of space and time, you go in reverse and thats wha ...[text shortened]... to self assemble into atoms again so they cannot be said to have been destroyed I would think.
Originally posted by aging blitzerThanks. That same article also says that energy can come from gravitational attraction between the iron atoms and this energy can break them back up into helium nuclei, so I guess I was mistaken.
Iron
"As iron has the highest binding energy per nucleon of all the stable elements, it cannot produce energy when fused,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Oh, sure, but
If by the first law you assert that matter can neither be created or destroyed but is merely transformed from one state to another, then we have a winner in aisle 13.
At the atomic level there is no 'burning' as we perceive it. Sub-atomic particles may result from a bit of atom smashing but what we see as the charred remains of something is the chemical r on itself) is often also considered part of the flame.//
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame
"Exothermic chemical reaction of high enough temperature to emit visible light On!"
doesn't carry as much dramatic impact as:
"Flame On!" so Stan Lee stuck with the latter when penning the Fantastic Four.