What % of the heavy elements are produced by kilonovas vs. supernovas?

In summary: Considering that neutron stars themselves are already rare, and mergers of neutron stars are exceedingly rare, and you are postulating that all heavy elements were produced by this one mechanism, it seems unlikely.In summary, a recent neutron star merger event showed that most heavy elements (such as gold, platinum, and uranium) are produced in kilonovas, which were previously thought to be mainly produced in supernovas. However, with neutron star mergers being so rare, it is unlikely that they are the sole source of heavy elements in the universe. The amount of heavy elements produced in kilonovas versus supernovas is currently unknown, but it is estimated that only
  • #36
snorkack said:
No, what I mean is that it is not orbiting the nucleus at all, even loosely - it bounces off in a single collision and never returns.
You're talking about a neutron bullet hitting a nucleus, I assume?

snorkack said:
A neutron is stabilized if a neutron is more strongly bound than a proton would be bound in its place - and stable if it is more strongly bound at least by the margin of neutron decay energy, which is 782 keV.
On the other hand, a loosely orbiting neutron can be actually destabilized. Because a loosely orbiting neutron may decay into a tightly orbiting proton. A process which can release much more energy and happen much faster than decay of free neutron to a free proton.
How is a loosely orbiting neutron determined vs. a tightly orbiting one?

snorkack said:
Because He-3 is also a bound state. And, as it happens, although the neutron in T is stabilized - the neutron in T is actually orbiting less loosely than the proton in He-3 - it is not stabilized quite enough. Free neutron has decay energy of 782 keV and half-life of 10 minutes. Triton has decay energy of mere 18 keV, and half-life of 12 years.
When you say the neutron in T is "orbiting less loosely" than the proton in He-3, shouldn't that be "more loosely"?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #37
bbbl67 said:
When you say the neutron in T is "orbiting less loosely" than the proton in He-3, shouldn't that be "more loosely"?

"more loosely" means "has more energy"? A free neutron decays with 782 kev then a "more loosely" one should decay at more than 782 kev.
 
  • #38
stefan r said:
"more loosely" means "has more energy"? A free neutron decays with 782 kev then a "more loosely" one should decay at more than 782 kev.
I'm still having some problems with this terminology. If an H3 nucleus is "less loose" than an He3 nucleus, then that would indicate that H3 < He3 in terms of their energy levels. So having less energy would indicate that it's closer to the ground state, thus closer to stability, right?
 
  • #39
bbbl67 said:
I'm still having some problems with this terminology. If an H3 nucleus is "less loose" than an He3 nucleus, then that would indicate that H3 < He3 in terms of their energy levels. So having less energy would indicate that it's closer to the ground state, thus closer to stability, right?

A container is more tightly bound to Earth in a valley, it is more loosely bound on top of a tower or "cliff". The ground state is at the bottom and falling off the cliff releases energy. Climbing up adsorbs energy.
If the container is also a rocket then you can have a chemical transition. There is a higher energy state of nonreacted chemical in the container and lower energy state of empty container with released chemical.
When we fire the rocket out of the valley to the top of the cliff it goes from a tightly bound condition with respect to Earth and lands on top of the cliff in a position that is loosely bound.
The payload clears the top of the cliff and lands with impact energy. The difference in impact energy of a rocket fired on level ground verses launch from the valley can be measured. So if we have a standardized rocket we could estimate the height of cliffs and also determine whether rocket fired up the cliff or down.

Using the analogy to clarify terms. The neutron is our loaded canister. The electron and antinuetrino is our rocket exhaust. The proton is the payload. The 3H and 3He are positions. Snorkack says that a free(in the plains) neutron (rocket) gains 782 keV(altitude). A 3H decay gains 18 keV. So the "launch pad" was in a valley below a 764 keV "cliff". The proton is sitting in position at the "top" of the "cliff" which is more loosely bound and higher energy. Overall the launch releases 18 keV so the overall final condition is lower energy than the initial conditions despite the components being more loosely bound.

The analogy breaks horribly if you start talking about reversibility or uncertainty of position and momentum. It is possible that the payload randomly finds itself up the cliff and that allows the fuel to combust and the payload cannot fall back off the cliff without the fuel because it is repelled by the rocks on the valley floor. It is not a rocket it is a neutron. But the term "loosely bound" with respect to a force can be used with multiple types of forces. Gravity, electro-magnetic, and nuclear forces can bind things. We only measure the heat and the components.
 
  • Like
Likes Buzz Bloom

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
11
Views
585
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
859
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
812
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
19
Views
4K
Back
Top