Why do stars only produce up to iron and nickel

In summary, the conversation discusses the release of energy in fusion reactions after iron and nickel, and the role of binding energy in determining the stability of heavy nuclei. The speaker and their professor are both partially correct, as the actual picture is complicated. Heavy elements are produced in the r-process due to non-equilibrium fluxes of protons and neutrons. The speaker also mentions a calculation and a question about the difference in mass energy and B/A ratio in fusion/fission reactions.
  • #1
niko_.97
18
4
I know it's a common question but I've found no answers online so far. My professor has made a point out of saying that fusion reactions after iron and nickel do release energy but just not enough to keep the star from imploding. This didn't make sense to me. How would fission release energy if that were the case? Every where I've looked online says that it does in fact take energy for fusion after iron and nickel. I even did a little numerical calculation for for nickel-62 fusing with an alpha particle to make zinc-66 and found that it's preferable for it to stay as its constituents.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Actual picture is very complicated, therefore both you and your professor are partially correct.
From binding energy perspective, iron (N=26) to zirconium (N=40) nuclei are very similar and theoretically stable against fission once formed, therefore preference to Iron-56 in modern universe is mostly due kinetic, not thermodynamic effects.

Binding energy per nucleon (referenced to carbon-12)
Fe-56: 1.082 MeV
Ni-62: 1.077 MeV
Sr-88: 0.991 MeV
Zr-92: 0.962 MeV

Heavy elements are actually produced in r-process, because of non-equilibrium fluxes of protons and neutrons. If you have for example iron nuclei immersed in proton&neutron flux, the conversion of iron to lead still gains additional energy. Of course, as long as non-equilibrum flux of light particles vanishes, the heavy nuclei tends to disintegrate back to Fe-Zr range, albeit inefficiently in case of stellar explosion.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
trurle said:
Actual picture is very complicated, therefore both you and your professor are partially correct.
From binding energy perspective, iron (N=26) to zirconium (N=40) nuclei are very similar and theoretically stable against fission once formed, therefore preference to Iron-56 in modern universe is mostly due kinetic, not thermodynamic effects.

Binding energy per nucleon (referenced to carbon-12)
Fe-56: 1.082 MeV
Ni-62: 1.077 MeV
Sr-88: 0.991 MeV
Zr-92: 0.962 MeV

Heavy elements are actually produced in r-process, because of non-equilibrium fluxes of protons and neutrons. If you have for example iron nuclei immersed in proton&neutron flux, the conversion of iron to lead still gains additional energy. Of course, as long as non-equilibrum flux of light particles vanishes, the heavy nuclei tends to disintegrate back to Fe-Zr range, albeit inefficiently in case of stellar explosion.

Thanks for the reply. What do you mean by an r-process?
So, I emailed my professor and I see where I may have made a mistake in my calculation. If you calculate the energy of the nuclei using E=mc^2 then there is more energy in the alpha and Nickel nucleus than in the Zinc.

So, if what we actually care about is the difference in mass energy (which makes sense) why do we look at B/A and so often everywhere online talks about the difference in B/A as the energy given off in a fusion/fission reaction?
 
  • #4
niko_.97 said:
Thanks for the reply. What do you mean by an r-process?
So, I emailed my professor and I see where I may have made a mistake in my calculation. If you calculate the energy of the nuclei using E=mc^2 then there is more energy in the alpha and Nickel nucleus than in the Zinc.

So, if what we actually care about is the difference in mass energy (which makes sense) why do we look at B/A and so often everywhere online talks about the difference in B/A as the energy given off in a fusion/fission reaction?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process
 

1. Why can't stars produce elements heavier than iron and nickel?

Stars produce energy through nuclear fusion, where lighter elements are fused together to form heavier elements. However, once a star reaches the end of its life and runs out of fuel, it can no longer produce the necessary energy to fuse elements heavier than iron and nickel.

2. Can stars produce elements heavier than iron and nickel under extreme conditions?

Yes, under extreme conditions such as in the cores of supernovae or during neutron star mergers, elements heavier than iron and nickel can be produced through rapid neutron capture, also known as the r-process. However, these events are rare and do not contribute significantly to the overall composition of the universe.

3. Why is iron considered the heaviest element that stars can produce?

Iron has the highest binding energy per nucleon (the amount of energy needed to hold a nucleus together) of all elements. This means that it is the most stable and efficient element for a star to produce through fusion. Elements heavier than iron require more energy to fuse together than they release, making it more difficult for stars to produce them.

4. How do we know that stars can only produce elements up to iron and nickel?

We can observe the composition of stars through spectroscopy, which analyzes the light emitted by stars. This allows us to identify the elements present in a star's atmosphere. We have also studied the nuclear reactions that occur in stars and have confirmed that they are only capable of producing elements up to iron and nickel.

5. Could there be other unknown processes that allow stars to produce elements heavier than iron and nickel?

While our current understanding of stellar evolution and nuclear reactions suggests that stars can only produce elements up to iron and nickel, it is always possible that new discoveries and advancements in science could reveal new processes that could potentially change our understanding of this limit. However, based on our current knowledge, it is unlikely that stars can produce elements heavier than iron and nickel.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
448
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
9K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
10
Views
514
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top