Slashdot Mirror


Colliding, Exploding Stars May Have Created All the Gold On Earth

coondoggie writes "Two dead stars smashing into each other and releasing massive amounts of energy may have created all of the heavy elements such as gold found on Earth. That's the main conclusion of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) researchers who estimated such a collision and subsequent blast of energy known as a gamma-ray burst produced and ejected as much as 10 moon masses worth of heavy elements — including gold."

22 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. Old news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I thought this was old news.

    1. Re:Old news? by c0lo · · Score: 5, Informative

      TFA/TFS is misleading. The reported discovery:
      * is not about gold can be created only by the collision of two stars (the supernova nucleosynthesis is still another channel, very probable the main one)
      * is not about gold on Earth being originated in the collision of two start
      * is about the collision of a neutron star which, besides producing a gamma-ray burst (due to acceleration of charged particles), have shown an afterglow characteristic to decays of "too neutron rich" nuclei into more stable elements (gold included)

      Besides, the authors are not even sure

      "We've been looking for a 'smoking gun' to link a short gamma-ray burst with a neutron star collision. The radioactive glow from GRB 130603B may be that smoking gun," said Wen-fai Fong, a graduate student at the CfA and a co-author of the paper.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Old news? by black3d · · Score: 4, Informative

      The difference between this and the common knowledge is that the gold wasn't produced inside a single exploding star. As Neil deGrasse Tyson would eloquently phrase it - almost all the matter in our bodies and indeed on our planet is produced by a star going supernova and "spewing it's enriched guts throughout the cosmos".

      For gold and some other heavy elements, the fusion of a star, even one going supernova, still can't produce these elements. These need a much bigger bang - that produced by TWO stars colliding together for a truly spectacular energetic detonation. The finding of these researchers isn't to suggest that this is just where gold on earth came from, but they're stating that all the heavy elements in the universe can only come about in similar cataclysmic events - rather than merely from a single star dying.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    3. Re:Old news? by black3d · · Score: 2

      I should clarify, as c0lo has pointed out - this information isn't the "discovery" as such, but that this is what the article is largely about. The actual discovery regarding a particular detonation in question is only covered briefly in one paragraph. That is, they have discovered evidence of a gamma burst which supports the theory previously discussed.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    4. Re:Old news? by dido · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not sure if that is true. Ordinary stellar nucleosynthesis can only produce elements up to iron, because nuclear fusion of iron or any other heavier element produces less binding energy per nucleon, and thus cannot be a viable means of producing energy for a star. The s-process that takes place in stars prior to going supernova is capable of producing elements like gold, all the way up to bismuth. Heavier elements are produced by the r-process, that is supposed to occur in core collapse supernovae.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    5. Re:Old news? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How you gonna get page views without incoherent, misinformed rambling?

      You're no fun any more. /snark

    6. Re:Old news? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Funny

      I never have gotten the appeal of that show. I catch it every so often when I'm driving to or from a late install job. Every time it's some caller talking about being visited by aliens, or a guest proclaiming he has proof of the loch ness monster. Or worse yet, healing powers of crystals/pyramids/the mind. After a few minutes I have to turn it back to something rational.

      And it's not that I don't believe in aliens and some of the other stuff on CtC, but these people are like 3rd graders in their proof and arguments.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    7. Re:Old news? by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Coast to Coast with Art Bell was an amazing show. His voice was a great partner through late dark nights (Noorey's is bland and annoying). He had on crazy guests and random-ass callers and they reveled in alien/conspiracy/ghost/multi-dimensional/pseudo-science-bullshit glory for like five hours every night. Yeah, you had to suspend your disbelief (and you got the sense that Art Bell felt the same way -- he entertained his guests and callers, but was always questioning and clearly sort of "in on the fun"), but it was just the sort of late night story-telling BS kind of thing that could occasionally get past your reality and critical-thinking and for just a second or two, send a chill up your spine (especially when it was 2am, dark as hell, and you were totally alone).

      Then, he left and Noorey took over the show that Art created. He turned it into a right-wing religious love-fest. He never *ever* questions his callers or guests, never really digs deeper into the things they say or claim, never even seems prepared for interviews. All he does is have guests on who are pimping books, promotes their books, and sound like a piece of silly putty. Worse, he's a shitty interviewer and every topic he ever has is based around religion (angels, etc). It sucks so fucking bad. It's just a shill hack pimping a tired point of view with a bunch of goofy paranormal mumbo-jumbo coating it.

      Apparently Art Bell even left a comment once somewhere basically referencing how the show had turned to total crap.

      Seriously - go dig up some 1990s shows, when Art was in his prime and hadn't handed the show over to Noorey. It was fantastic (and so was Whitley Strieber, the author, who hosted every weekend). It was just this fantastic tall-tale-telling late-night-around-the-campfire party, even though you know everything they talk about in it is bullshit (well, except when they had people like John T. Drake aka Cap'n Crunch on there).

  2. Get rich quickly .. by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 3, Funny

    .. smash two stars together, close enough to the earth to collect all of the gold .. GOLD!!!

    1. Re:Get rich quickly .. by mlheur · · Score: 2

      Holds true for hollywood stars too - smash them together, collect the gold bits that scatter.

  3. Re:Not first-generation supernovae? by c0lo · · Score: 5, Informative

    I thought our heavy elements came mostly from the short-lived first generation of hypergiant hydrogen stars going supernova.

    Supernova nucleosynthesis is still the main mechanism for creation of elements heavier than Fe. The guys report that they think other type of events may lead to the creation of heavy elements and they believe we already witnessed such an event

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  4. Try tracing the calcium in your bones by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

    Try tracing the calcium in your bones to their origin. It's a very interesting flight of fancy:

    "Calcium comes from stars. In fact, all of the elements that make up your body and the planet Earth itself, other than hydrogen and helium, were made in stars or during during explosions of massive stars." -- http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/calcium/got_calcium_litho.html

  5. Re:Not supernovae? by rusty0101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I suspect that the concern of heavy elements being supernova products has to do with the short duration of the event, the perceived amount of time needed to generate the heavey elements involved, and the apparent distribution of heavy elements compared to the percieved age of the universe. Additionally while supernova events are not likely to be the sources of the high volume of grb events that are being detected. So what would be the products of grb's, and what are the likely causes of the events in the first place, if you eliminate the possibility of a grb being the result of supernova events even larger than what we think is the maximum, you end up having to look at other types of events, stars coliding with each other, dead stars coliding with each other, dead stars coliding with Neutron Stars, Neutron stars coliding with each other, dead stars with neutron stars, stars, dead stars, or neutron stars coliding with black holes, and black holes colliding with each other. Any of these collisions are possible, though of these the most probable are stars with stars, stars with dead stars, and dead stars with dead stars, as the perception is that small stars are far more frequent than stars large enough to collapse in a supernova.

    As far as why to link to Networkworld.com, I suspect that the submitter couldn't find a better source.

    --
    You never know...
  6. You know by EzInKy · · Score: 2

    You blow up one sun and everyone expects you to walk on water!

    To those who talk about this encouraging mining remember, the more you have a something the less valuable it tends to be. Sure gold has many industrial uses, but its main value is its perceived relative scarcity. Change that and you will essentially achieve the opposite of the alchemist's dream and turn gold into lead.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:You know by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 2

      To those who talk about this encouraging mining remember, the more you have a something the less valuable it tends to be.

      Don't beat up on mining, or you'll force it underground.

      --
      READY.
      PRINT ""+-0
    2. Re:You know by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      The space mining company that's recently been setup should be a gold investors worst nightmare. They could capture a gold asteroid and bring it into earths orbit and slowly deorbit more gold than the entire mining industry can produce every year with little to no cost (for re-entry) once it's in a stable earth orbit. They could easily destroy the entire value of gold and make themselves insanely rich in the process. And it's not just gold, it's any metal, there are asteroids the size of small cities up there that are 90% pure raw metal (no nasty oxygen in space to ruin everything). The trick is getting into orbit, but once it's there it's darn near trivial to hack pieces off and deorbit them.

      I imagine in a decade or two they could have in orbit a dozen asteroids a mile or so in diameter each. They could cover every precious metal and even put in orbit less valuable metals such as nickel, zinc or even iron. In fact I think if we ever intend to build a real space station this will be how it's done.

      The only difficulty is the putting them in orbit problem, but we might find that even something as simple as a solar sail could do it.

    3. Re:You know by Artea · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wouldn't the abundance of a semi-scarce highly useful industrial product be a net gain for society? Malleable, resistant to corrosion, excellent conductivity, low melting point. Not obtaining more of a useful material in order to maintain scarcity seems counter-productive.

  7. And to finish the thought... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Informative

    In case anyone was wondering, Iron (Fe) is the limit to what is formed in convention fusion processes because any element heavier than iron takes more energy to fuse than is produced by the fusion. Iron and lighter fuse with an energy surplus, anything heavier requires an energy input and produces a deficit.

  8. Where is the mention of Gold in the real link ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    TFA gave a link to http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/colliding-exploding-stars-may-have-created-all-gold-earth , which led to another link at http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.3960 , which I have dl-ed the PDF at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.3960v1.pdf? but no matter how I search, I couldn't find any mention of the word 'gold' anywhere

    Can someone please point us to the real article, please ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Where is the mention of Gold in the real link ? by somersault · · Score: 2

      The end of TFA has this quote:

      "We've been looking for a 'smoking gun' to link a short gamma-ray burst with a neutron star collision. The radioactive glow from GRB 130603B may be that smoking gun," said Wen-fai Fong, a graduate student at the CfA and a co-author of the paper.

      Still, I don't know why gold was mentioned. Probably because it's shiny and associated with money. I'm not sure why Network World thought that singling out gold was necessary to get geeks interested in science..

      --
      which is totally what she said
  9. Re:10 moon masses sounds awfully small.... by MickLinux · · Score: 2

    There's about a lunar mass of gold in my Madoff fund potfolio.

    Oh, wait a minute, that's out of date. I need to see how the fund has been doing recently. Anyone know how to look up that listing?

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  10. ridiculous by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    The probability of two stars that are both dead smashing into each other is so unlikely, this is completely ridiculous. That's like making a pool shot from new york to LA blindfolded except a million times less likely and don't forget, they both have to be dead stars.