I Do Stars Fuse Elements Heavier Than Iron Before Imploding?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter LightningInAJar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Black hole Hole
AI Thread Summary
Stars do not fuse elements heavier than iron because it is not energetically favorable; instead, fusion beyond iron absorbs energy rather than producing it. Black holes are not simply stars that have stopped fusing elements; they result from the collapse of massive stars after a supernova event. Heavy elements are produced during supernovae, but the fusion process ceases to be self-sustaining at iron. Iron does not produce energy during fusion due to the binding energy per nucleon trend, where heavier elements require energy to fuse rather than releasing it. Understanding stellar evolution requires knowledge of nuclear processes such as fusion, fission, and decay.
LightningInAJar
Messages
251
Reaction score
33
TL;DR Summary
Anything beyond iron?
I know black holes are stars that fuse together elements until they reach iron which doesn't radiate energy to counterbalance the gravity, but do any stars fuse elements heavier than iron that would once again give off energy prior to it imploding?

By the way, why doesn't iron creation create radiation?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
LightningInAJar said:
Summary:: Anything beyond iron?

I know black holes are stars that fuse together elements until they reach iron which doesn't radiate energy to counterbalance the gravity
This is incorrect. A black hole is a region of spacetime from which light cannot escape.

Regarding fusing of elements: Iron has the highest binding energy per nucleon. It would not be energetically favorable to fusion it to heavier elements.
 
As Orodruin says, a black hole is not just a star that's stopped fusing. That leads to a (super)nova and some larger stars collapse into black holes, but a black hole is very different from a star.

All sorts of heavy elements get produced in supernovae. I'm sure they get produced in tiny quantities in during normal operation, but it's an energy absorber not a producer so the process isn't self-sustaining. That's why you don't see iron-burning stars - it's the fusion equivalent of trying to light ashes.

As to why iron doesn't produce energy, the binding energy per nucleon changes as the atomic mass rises. It first increases, meaning that one helium atom needs slightly more energy to separate it into four nucleons than two deuterium atoms do. So two deuterium atoms combining into one helium leaves a bit of energy over.

But that stops at iron, and then the trend reverses. Very heavy elements need less energy to separate into components than smaller ones, so combining smaller atoms costs energy. Splitting large atoms into smaller ones (down to iron) releases energy - which is nuclear fission.

The underlying reason for the differences in binding energy is the balance between the strong force holding the nucleus together and increasing amounts of electrostatic repulsion between the increasing number of protons.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
LightningInAJar said:
Summary:: Anything beyond iron?

I know black holes are stars that fuse together elements until they reach iron which doesn't radiate energy to counterbalance the gravity
You have a very bad habit of starting threads with "I know that" followed by something totally false. These are bad starts. Please stop this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur, Bystander, russ_watters and 1 other person
LightningInAJar said:
Summary:: Anything beyond iron?

By the way, why doesn't iron creation create radiation?
It does in some cases, for example the decay of Ni-56 to Fe-56.

Before you can understand the nuclear reactions involved in stellar evolution and collapse you will need a better understanding of the most important nuclear processes: fusion, fission, alpha and beta decay - you might start by searching for "binding energy curve" and "decay chain".

As this thread is based on a misunderstanding that has been addressed, it is closed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur and Bystander
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top