Darwin Confesses evolution not being conceivable!

[ifriit]

From my training in the nuclear field (and I fail to see why astronomers do not "see" this) the heaviest element that can be formed in the fusion process (stars are fusion reactors) is iron. Of course, according to the periodic table of elements there are many elements heavier than iron so this is in my opinion a fallacy. A supernova produces an extreme environment unlike any star which is conducive for the fusion process at the highest levels, yet fails to produce an element heavier than iron. Where could the heavier elements have come from and in such abundance as they currently exist without an "outside" influence?

Actually (according to a website ):

The Iron core will not compress to fuse into other elements, because of Iron's atomic structure. Iron has one of the most efficient structure of all elements, therefore making it very difficult to undergo fusion. Iron does undergo fusion, but not at the temperature found inside of any star, no matter how large the star is!

The same site continues on another page, discussing the death of giant stars:

[font=Arial, Helvetica]The Iron formed is unable to undergo any more nuclear change, because its nuclear construction will not allow it. The Iron instead continues to compress into a very compact core. This compression raises the core's temperature to over 100 billion K. The mass of the Iron core now determines its fate. If the core is around 1.5 solar masses (approx. 2.8 x 10[size=-2]30[/size] kg or 2.7 x 10[size=-2]27[/size] tons) it will compress from a ball the same diameter as the Earth to a ball only 16 km / 10 miles in diameter! This compression causes the nuclei of Iron to fuse together into one large ball of neutrons and neutrinos. The core recoils from the repulsion of neutrons, releasing the neutrinos. This sudden recoil sends a shockwave through the outer layers of the star. This shockwave is enough to perform fusion past Iron. All of the elements in the universe heavier than Iron are created in this manner.

So, in other words, it is unsurprising that fusion in anything smaller than a star would fail to produce elements heavier than iron, but it would appear that if the temperature is high enough, heavier elements are produced.

Any reason we should doubt this information?
[/font]

 

[Vxer1000]

Actually (according to a website ):

The Iron core will not compress to fuse into other elements, because of Iron's atomic structure. Iron has one of the most efficient structure of all elements, therefore making it very difficult to undergo fusion. Iron does undergo fusion, but not at the temperature found inside of any star, no matter how large the star is!

The same site continues on another page, discussing the death of giant stars:

[font=Arial, Helvetica]The Iron formed is unable to undergo any more nuclear change, because its nuclear construction will not allow it. The Iron instead continues to compress into a very compact core. This compression raises the core's temperature to over 100 billion K. The mass of the Iron core now determines its fate. If the core is around 1.5 solar masses (approx. 2.8 x 10[size=-2]30[/size] kg or 2.7 x 10[size=-2]27[/size] tons) it will compress from a ball the same diameter as the Earth to a ball only 16 km / 10 miles in diameter! This compression causes the nuclei of Iron to fuse together into one large ball of neutrons and neutrinos. The core recoils from the repulsion of neutrons, releasing the neutrinos. This sudden recoil sends a shockwave through the outer layers of the star. This shockwave is enough to perform fusion past Iron. All of the elements in the universe heavier than Iron are created in this manner.

So, in other words, it is unsurprising that fusion in anything smaller than a star would fail to produce elements heavier than iron, but it would appear that if the temperature is high enough, heavier elements are produced.

Any reason we should doubt this information?
[/font]

I am not 100% sure on this, but I will try. The average star is unable to produce elements heavier than carbon under normal circumstances. Supernova (a collapsing and then exploding giant star) produce more energy in the instant it explodes than all the stars in that galaxy combined. Yet, for all the energy and heat they produce it is not likely they can produce elements heavier than iron.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html#c2

Heavier elements tend to fission rather than fusion in a violent environment. Even if heavier elements did form they would probably fission milliseconds later by the same environment that created them. This is just my personal thoughts on the subject based on my studies.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I am not 100% sure on this, but I will try. The average star is unable to produce elements heavier than carbon under normal circumstances. Supernova (a collapsing and then exploding giant star) produce more energy in the instant it explodes than all the stars in that galaxy combined. Yet, for all the energy and heat they produce it is not likely they can produce elements heavier than iron.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html#c2

Heavier elements tend to fission rather than fusion in a violent environment. Even if heavier elements did form they would probably fission milliseconds later by the same environment that created them. This is just my personal thoughts on the subject based on my studies.

Let's look at a quote from a different part of the same web site you reference above.

In the supernova explosion, a large flux of energetic neutrons is produced and nuclei bombarded by these neutrons build up mass one unit at a time to produce the heavy nuclei. With large neutron excesses, these nuclei would simply disintegrate into smaller nuclei again were it not for the large flux of neutrinos which make possible the conversion of neutrons to protons via the weak interaction in the nuclei.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/nucsyn.html

So it seems your experts have a different opinion from yourself.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Vxer1000]

Let's look at a quote from a different part of the same web site you reference above.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/nucsyn.html

So it seems your experts have a different opinion from yourself.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Like you said, it is an opinion. Not a fact. What theories, if any, do you have on the subject? I am not closed to the fact that I could be wrong. But, just as an atheist wants proof that God exists (which I believe He does) I require a repeatable proof that there is sound science at work here. Just because an element can be sysnthesized in a labratory (under controlled conditions) does not mean it will be produced in significant quantities in a chaotic environment like this. I believe if you factor in probability (which is a part of the calculations involved in nuclear physics) the odds are very much against the heavier elements being formed in the way scientists describe. Also, scientists theorize that only hydrogen and helium came as a result of the Big Bang (a far more energetic process than even a supernova) and gravitated toward each other to form stars and eventually galaxies (As to how this happened there is not even a good theory; being that the universe was supposed to be expanding at a phenominal rate gravity could not account for galaxy formation). It is supposed that heavier elements "only" came from supernova and that neutrinos interact with neutrons to form the heavier elements by converting neutrons to protons, yet neutrinos interact with very few things (a neutrino can pass through a 100 million mile wall of lead without interacting) and thus this goes against the laws of probability (look earlier in this post for the comment on probability). Remember, in a collapsing giant star (state of a supernova prior to it's explosion) there are protons (in the iron core) as well as neutrons which means that the proven theories on fusion still apply (stable elements like iron and other elements nearby on the periodic table will tend to form because of their high binding energies). Again, elements much heavier than iron will probably not even form due to the fact the process requires an unbelievable amount of energy (which they say is supplied by neutrinos) required. Lighter elements will tend to fuse until reaching the "iron group" and heavier elements (if they existed or were formed at some part of the process) would probably fission until reaching the "iron group".

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Like you said, it is an opinion. Not a fact.

It is interesting that you would quote from a website to try to make a point and then deny the information from the same website with it shows your point is false. How are we to interpt this? You only accept the science that agrees with your bias and reject science from the same source if it disagrees with your bias. Now it was you who stated that supernovas can't produce heavy elements as if it were a fact when you wrote.

A supernova produces an extreme environment unlike any star which is conducive for the fusion process at the highest levels, yet fails to produce an element heavier than iron. Where could the heavier elements have come from and in such abundance as they currently exist without an "outside" influence?

As least you later said you weren't absolutel sure. Looks like it's not such a fact after all.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Mainframes]

The mechanics behind the production of heavy elements isn't that hard to grasp. It is a standard fusion process but unlike all the elements smaller than iron, these heavy elements actually absorb energy when they fuse. This is one of the reasons why novas occur, the absorption of energy caused the temperature of the star to drop, casuing the pressure outwards to fall. Gravity becomes the dominant force and the star collapses. As it does so the temperature rises rapidly, fusion once again occurs and the star explodes.

 

[Vxer1000]

The mechanics behind the production of heavy elements isn't that hard to grasp. It is a standard fusion process but unlike all the elements smaller than iron, these heavy elements actually absorb energy when they fuse. This is one of the reasons why novas occur, the absorption of energy caused the temperature of the star to drop, casuing the pressure outwards to fall. Gravity becomes the dominant force and the star collapses. As it does so the temperature rises rapidly, fusion once again occurs and the star explodes.

Try not to discuss things that are way over your head. The star collapses because the fusion process begins to diminish. It's not until the collapse they hypothysize the production of iron(which requires an immense amount of heat and pressure to sustain the reaction). They also do not say that elements heavier than iron are produced by fusion, but rather the bombardment of a neutron nucleus by neutrinos (which coverts the neutrons to protons, or so they say ). What happens to the existing protons during this process? They don't say. Would the heavier elements fission in this volatile enviroment thus negating their creation? This is two dimensional thinking used to support a theory by ignoring other relevant facts. Scientist are infamous for this type of thinking. They ignore the facts to "prove" a theory.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Try not to discuss things that are way over your head. The star collapses because the fusion process begins to diminish. It's not until the collapse they hypothysize the production of iron(which requires an immense amount of heat and pressure to sustain the reaction). They also do not say that elements heavier than iron are produced by fusion, but rather the bombardment of a neutron nucleus by neutrinos (which coverts the neutrons to protons, or so they say ). What happens to the existing protons during this process? They don't say. Would the heavier elements fission in this volatile enviroment thus negating their creation? This is two dimensional thinking used to support a theory by ignoring other relevant facts. Scientist are infamous for this type of thinking. They ignore the facts to "prove" a theory.

Nothing happens to the existing protons. The heavy nuclei that are formed have an excess of neutrons and would be highly unstable except that the neutrons are converted to protons by the massive neutrino flux of the supernova, making heavy elements. If this site is so incredible why did YOU point to it to try to make a point in one of your posts? I hope you are not over your head.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/nucsyn.html
"With large neutron excesses, these nuclei would simply disintegrate into smaller nuclei again were it not for the large flux of neutrinos which make possible the conversion of neutrons to protons via the weak interaction in the nuclei. "

The Frumous Bandersnatch

 

[Vxer1000]

It is interesting that you would quote from a website to try to make a point and then deny the information from the same website with it shows your point is false. How are we to interpt this? You only accept the science that agrees with your bias and reject science from the same source if it disagrees with your bias. Now it was you who stated that supernovas can't produce heavy elements as if it were a fact when you wrote.

As least you later said you weren't absolutel sure. Looks like it's not such a fact after all.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Maybe you can provide me with some theories of your own (i.e. a display of some understanding of the priciples involved here) rather then using the "cut-paste" method used by so many "experienced" 22 year old college students.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Maybe you can provide me with some theories of your own (i.e. a display of some understanding of the priciples involved here) rather then using the "cut-paste" method used by so many "experienced" 22 year old college students.

My, My aren't we arrogant today. And this from someone who asked

"What happens to the existing protons during this process? "

Perhaps you can tell us in your own words why the standard theory of heavy element formation in supernovas must be wrong rather than just making an argument from incredulity. After all you pointed us to the web site with the standard model. Just saying that neutrinos only interact weakly won't get it done because the flux of neutrinos from a supernova is enormous and the excess neutrons in the heavy nuclei that are forming are right there to absorb the neutrino flux. Saying that heavy elements require and "unbelievable amount of energy" to form doesn't really help your case either since an unbelievably amount of energy is available in a supernova. The detection of gamma rays from SN 1987A is said to have confirmed the synthesis of heavy elements in a supernova. Can you tell us why this must be false?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Gracchus]

It would seem that Vxer1000 is trying to defend a bastion of ignorance lest his god be driven from another gap.

 

[Vxer1000]

Obviously there are some areas here that I am not well versed in. I am working off a straight forward nuclear physics backround. I haven't spent a great deal of time looking into quantum physics (yes, I know the two are related). Do protons interact with neutrinos(I ask because I don't know, I would think if they can interact with neutrons to form a proton that they could also react with protons to cause an effect)? Even if heavy elements form what is to stop them from fissioning? Change will tend toward more stability rather than less (elements with higher binding energy). It takes less initial energy to start the fission process and it would seem the exploding supernova would provide a good environment for fission to occur in heavier elements. Or is this not logical? I am still in the learning phase myself as I told you before and am open minded provided someone can give me solid evidence.

 

[Vxer1000]

It would seem that Vxer1000 is trying to defend a bastion of ignorance lest his god be driven from another gap.

Exactly which God do you suppose that is? I define ignorance as a lack of knowledge, but stupidity as not letting the facts get in the way of proving a theory. There is far too much evidence against the Big Bang to "assume" that it is true (and the Big Bang is probably the biggest assumption out there). Any other theories as to how the universe formed or will everyone just swallow some unprovable (continually revised) theories that have already been accepted by the scientific community? By the way, Frumious, I was using my own words and thoughts on the subject unless you ignored the rest of my post in your zealous haste to rebutt me. I am just having a little fun here with the subject so don't take it too personal. I love to learn and there are certainly many things that escape me. I may never have the time to fully pursue my desire for complete knowledge, but that does not stop me from trying.

 

[-Jae-]

What evidence is there against the Big Bang?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

By the way, Frumious, I was using my own words and thoughts on the subject unless you ignored the rest of my post in your zealous haste to rebutt me. I am just having a little fun here with the subject so don't take it too personal. I love to learn

So I was giving you a web page (actually from the same set of pages you referenced) to learn from not cut and pasting like a 22 year college student. I once was a 22 year old college student but it was long ago. I doubt anyone who met me would mistake me for 22 for many years now.

There is far too much evidence against the Big Bang to "assume" that it is true (and the Big Bang is probably the biggest assumption out there). Any other theories as to how the universe formed or will everyone just swallow some unprovable (continually revised) theories that have already been accepted by the scientific community?

What make you think the big bang theory was just swallowed? The term Big Bang was orginally a term of derision coined by Fred Hoyle who was a proponent of the steady state universe. The big bang was postulated because the universe is expanding so it is logical that it was once much smaller. It was not widely accepted until the discovery of the microwave background radiation. The big bang with hyperinflation as postulated by Guth IIRC is now accepted as the best model for the formation of the universe because it best fits the available data. If a scientist could come up with a different model that fits the data better and show clearly that it does he would undoubtably win a Nobel Prize in physics so I don't think anyone is just swallowing things. What do you think this evidence againts the big bang is? Maybe you would like to discuss it on some other thread. We probably have a big bang thread or two around or we could start a new one. This is all pretty off topic for a thread on what Darwin allegedly thought about evolution.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[revolutio]

What evidence is there against the Big Bang?

What evidence is there against there being a giant fuzzy, invisible bunny rabbit in the sky?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

What evidence is there against there being a giant fuzzy, invisible bunny rabbit in the sky?

None. What evidence is there for it. Is there a bunny s**t background permeating the universe?

The Frumious Bandersnatch