I Chemical Elements produced inside the Sun

[stefan r]

The convective zone you are referring to is part of the outer layer of the sun, but the cores of sun-like stars are also convective.

This is well stated but wikipedia says the opposite. Here it says this:

In main sequence stars more than 1.3 times the mass of the Sun, the high core temperature causes nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium to occur predominantly via the carbon-nitrogen-oxygen (CNO) cycle instead of the less temperature-sensitive proton-proton chain. The high temperature gradient in the core region forms a convection zone that slowly mixes the hydrogen fuel with the helium product.

Here it says this:

At a stellar core temperature of 18 million Kelvin, the PP process and CNO cycle are equally efficient, and each type generates half of the star's net luminosity. As this is the core temperature of a star with about 1.5 M☉, the upper main sequence consists of stars above this mass. Thus, roughly speaking, stars of spectral class F or cooler belong to the lower main sequence, while A-type stars or hotter are upper main-sequence stars.

Wikipedia also has gamma virginis as F0 V at 1.7 solar mass on this table. They have Eta Arietis as F5 V and 1.3 solar mass.

 

[jim mcnamara]

So I think tiny quantities of all elements are built up in the sun.

@phyzguy

I think we have partial verification of the claim "all elements". Could you please provide us with a citation that helps to clear this up fully? Thank you kindly...

 

[alantheastronomer]

Responding to post #31 by Stefan r - the demarcation between which stellar masses have radiative and which have convective cores is not as clear cut as Wikipedia would have you believe...However, the division between upper and lower main sequence is due to what nucleosynthetic processes govern core burning, NOT which means of energy transport occurs in the core.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The convective zone you are referring to is part of the outer layer of the sun, but the cores of sun-like stars are also convective.

I am puzzled by this as well. Figure 6-12 in Clayton suggests virtually no convection in cores of one solar mass stars.

There are on the order of 10^60 atoms in the sun. It didn't say anything about which isotopes, how long it takes or what the yield is. so I still think it's true that small quantities of all of the elements will be produced by neutron capture.

That's not as big a number as it looks. Uranium requires 237 nucleon additions. What does that mean for the probability of each nucleus to glom on another nucleon? Is it 0.1%? 1%? 10%? No - it has to be 71%, otherwise you don't get all the way to uranium.

That said, I believe every (natural) element is present in the sun, but for another reason: uranium fission. The tiny bit of primordial U-235 in the sun is exposed to neutrons and will fission.

 

[DaTario]

I believe every (natural) element is present in the sun, but for another reason: uranium fission. The tiny bit of primordial U-235 in the sun is exposed to neutrons and will fission.

So, due to the preexising Uraniun inside the Sun, which was there even before the star is born, other elements are then produced. This seems to provide a valid answer to the question in the OP, but in order to be complete, if those heavy elements were not present, would the natural ascending (starting basically from H) processes of nucleosynthesis provide all the elements?

 

[mfb]

The proton-proton cycle fuses protons to deuterium. D + D fuses to He3 + n or T + p with equal probability, and of course D + T gives He3 + n. So, given the size of the sun, many free neutrons are produced.

D+D is extremely rare. For every deuterium nucleus there are ~10¹⁷ protons around for p+D -> He-3 + photon. It does happen, so some tritium is produced. But then you have the same problem again: Deuterium is extremely rare. p+T -> He-4 + photon is much more likely than D+T -> He-4 + n. I guess a few neutrons are produced via this reaction path, but the total number must be really small.

That's not as big a number as it looks. Uranium requires 237 nucleon additions. What does that mean for the probability of each nucleus to glom on another nucleon? Is it 0.1%? 1%? 10%? No - it has to be 71%, otherwise you don't get all the way to uranium.

You don't have to start with hydrogen. The Sun contains all long-living isotopes already from its formation, for most elements you just have to add one more neutron and wait for a decay, or just wait for a decay.

That said, I believe every (natural) element is present in the sun, but for another reason: uranium fission. The tiny bit of primordial U-235 in the sun is exposed to neutrons and will fission.

The fraction of induced fission of U-235 should be tiny, but there is spontaneous fission. I said this many posts ago already.

but in order to be complete, if those heavy elements were not present, would the natural ascending (starting basically from H) processes of nucleosynthesis provide all the elements?

If the Sun would have started with hydrogen exclusively it wouldn't contain uranium by now. Probably not even iron.

 

[John Collis]

So, due to the preexising Uraniun inside the Sun, which was there even before the star is born, other elements are then produced. This seems to provide a valid answer to the question in the OP, but in order to be complete, if those heavy elements were not present, would the natural ascending (starting basically from H) processes of nucleosynthesis provide all the elements?

The short answer is no. From a fusion point of view Iron is the end of the line, to continue fusion requires energy to be input, which is why the heavier elements are formed by supernovae. Because the heavier elements are found on Earth it has been known for quite some time that the sun is at least a second generation star, but it is probably 3rd or even fourth generation.

 

[mfb]

to continue fusion requires energy to be input

There is nothing fundamentally problematic with endothermic reactions.
To study if the reaction happens you need a quantitative statement - how much energy is necessary. Too much for fusion of iron to heavier elements, but the same is true much earlier in the Sun. There is nothing special about iron in the current Sun.

 

[phyzguy]

@phyzguy

I think we have partial verification of the claim "all elements". Could you please provide us with a citation that helps to clear this up fully? Thank you kindly...

Well, I don't have a peer-reviewed document, but below is a set of lecture notes:

http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/astro/AST1100/h06/undervisningsmateriale/lecture-7.pdf

In addition to the D+D source of neutrons I mentioned earlier, this source also talks about several other sources of neutrons in the CNO cycle, which probably have higher reaction rates in the sun. From the above lecture notes:

"The r and s processes There is an exception to this temperature rule if there is a source of neutrons present as neutrons do not feel the Coulomb force. It is possible to distinguish material synthesized in a neutron rich environment from that synthesized in a neutron poor one. s-process (‘s’ for slow) elements are those formed where β-decay is expected to occur before a neutron is absorbed, while r-process 6 (‘r’ for rapid) elements are those formed where new neutrons can be absorbed readily. Sources of neutrons are various, for examples such chains as
He4 + C13 → O16 + n
O16 + 16O → S31 + n

Free neutrons produced in this manner are a way of forming elements beyond the iron peak in binding energy. In ordinary circumstances in stellar cores it is the s-processes that dominate, in extreme situations such as in supernova r-process nucleosynthesis can occur."

I'm not claiming the above reactions are common, or that the free neutrons produced are abundant, but we are talking one atom out of the ~10^59 nucleons in the solar core.

 

[Ratman]

And what are the expected lifetimes of these high-neutron isotopes? Especially compared to the time the nucleus needs to wait to capture another, and another, and another neutron? Getting from lead/bismuth to uranium is hard, and venturing into the realm of superheavies is not very probable even in environment with far higher neutron fluxes, like supernovae. Intermediates needed to clear the gaps in the nuclide chart have too short half-lives. Though it would require checking the numbers to tell how improbable it is for even one in 10⁵⁹ nucleons throughout all 10–12 billion years of Sun's existence.

 

[alantheastronomer]

I was wrong about solar mass stars having convective cores - they're radiative. But this doesn't negate the fact that temperatures in the cores of solar mass stars aren't high enough to produce elements beyond carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen, and the C-N-O cycle doesn't occur in solar mass stars. The s-process and r-process elements are produced exclusively in stars of 8 solar masses and greater.

 

[stefan r]

...The s-process and r-process elements are produced exclusively in stars of 8 solar masses and greater.

This paper says most of the s-process elements come from stars with mass 1_Θ to 3_Θ.

... But this doesn't negate the fact that temperatures in the cores of solar mass stars aren't high enough to produce elements beyond carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen, and the C-N-O cycle doesn't occur in solar mass stars. ...

They are asymptotic giant branch stars. The temperatures are far above what is needed for CNO cycle. They have helium burning in explosive flashes. The s-process elements reach the surface in a series of 3rd dredge ups.

R-coronae Borealis has a mass less than the sun. It lacks hydrogen and there is a class of objects call R-coronae borealis variables most of which also have a hydrogen shortage. The variability comes from puffs of carbon soot blowing out into a planetary nebula.

Sakurai's object is worth reading about too. It has 0.6 solar mass. It was observed coughing up s-process elements in 1996.

The Sun has some CNO cycling according to wikipedia:

pp-chain reaction starts at temperatures around 4×10⁶ K, making it the dominant energy source in smaller stars. A self-maintaining CNO chain starts at approximately 15×10⁶ K, but its energy output rises much more rapidly with increasing temperatures. At approximately 17×10⁶ K, the CNO cycle starts becoming the dominant source of energy. The Sun has a core temperature of around 15.7×10⁶ K, and only 1.7% of 4
He nuclei produced in the Sun are born in the CNO cycle.

 

[alantheastronomer]

The paper states that the s-process nuclei are produced in stars of 1.5-3 solar masses not 1-3 solar masses, but your point is well taken. Also, Ratman's comments in post #40 are entirely relevant!

 

[snorkack]

Sun is not now hot enough to produce carbon and oxygen out of helium by triple alpha process.
However, Sun is hot enough to interconvert preexisting carbon, nitrogen and oxygen by CNO cycle.
Which other preexisting elements can Sun convert?

 

[DaTario]

It seems, given what was said here so far, that, in a realistic model of the Sun, it may have (or have had at some time) the complete set of chemical elements inside, as it has come from a supernovae explosion. It seems that all these elements, specially the heavier ones, are unlikely to survive for long time.
I understand that, once all the heavier ones have been broken in small pieces, and due to the Sun's thermodynamic condition, the reposition of the complete set of chemical elements turns out to be impossible. Would this description be a reasonable synthesis of all that we had here?

 

[snorkack]

It seems, given what was said here so far, that, in a realistic model of the Sun, it may have (or have had at some time) the complete set of chemical elements inside, as it has come from a supernovae explosion. It seems that all these elements, specially the heavier ones, are unlikely to survive for long time.
I understand that, once all the heavier ones have been broken in small pieces,

How much fission does actually happen in Sun?

 

[mfb]

It seems, given what was said here so far, that, in a realistic model of the Sun, it may have (or have had at some time) the complete set of chemical elements inside, as it has come from a supernovae explosion. It seems that all these elements, specially the heavier ones, are unlikely to survive for long time.
I understand that, once all the heavier ones have been broken in small pieces, and due to the Sun's thermodynamic condition, the reposition of the complete set of chemical elements turns out to be impossible. Would this description be a reasonable synthesis of all that we had here?

The sun will keep having some uranium (and its decay products) for hundreds of billions of years, much longer than its lifetime as star.

 

[snorkack]

The sun will keep having some uranium (and its decay products) for hundreds of billions of years,

100 Gyr is 22 half-lives for U-238.

 

[DaTario]

100 Gyr is 22 half-lives for U-238.

When we speak of half-life we mean the atom left alone, don´t we?
Inside the Sun the mean durations of practically every chemical element tend to be far shorter than these estimates (half-lives), aren´t they?

 

[alantheastronomer]

When we speak of half-life we mean the atom left alone, don´t we?
Inside the Sun the mean durations of practically every chemical element tend to be far shorter than these estimates (half-lives), aren´t they?

Every RADIOACTIVE element...the abundances of these elements are far too small for chain reactions to change their half-lives appreciably!

 

[mfb]

100 Gyr is 22 half-lives for U-238.

It means the number of atoms will drop by a factor of 5.5 million. The number of uranium atoms in the Sun will go down from about 10^42.5 to 10³⁶.
We expect the last atom to decay after about 140 half lives, or 630 billion years, neglecting that the Sun constantly gets new uranium atoms from the outside. Atoms are small, there are many of them.

When we speak of half-life we mean the atom left alone, don´t we?
Inside the Sun the mean durations of practically every chemical element tend to be far shorter than these estimates (half-lives), aren´t they?

The environment in the Sun doesn't change radioactive decays in any relevant way.

 

[snorkack]

Sun produces a lot of D.
Sun does not contain much of it, because it readily reacts. A major fate of d is
d+p→³He+γ
despite being an electromagnetic process.
This keeps the abundance of d low, so processes like
d+d→³He+n
have a low branching fraction
p is not the only common nucleus in Sun. But reaction
d+α→⁶Li+γ
is also electromagnetic, and faces a high Coulomb barrier.
How about reactions like
d+¹²C→¹³C+n?
It is a strong process, not electromagnetic.
And the proton does not need to get across the Coulomb barrier...
Is this a common fate for metals in Sun?

 

[mfb]

You mean d+¹²C→¹³C+p?
The Coulomb barrier is still there - the nuclei have to get close together to make the neutron transfer possible.
Didn't check the energy balance of the reaction. ¹³C is part of the CNO cycle. This reaction, if possible, mixes the two fusion chains.

 

[stefan r]

...So, given the size of the sun, many free neutrons are produced.

...The environment in the Sun doesn't change radioactive decays in any relevant way.

These two statements look contradictory. My understanding was that uranium 235 fissions when it is hit with a neutron. Uranium 238 can fission with fast neutrons and becomes plutonium 239 (via Np239) when exposed to slow neutrons. Plutonium 239 has a much shorter half life than U238. Pu239 will alpha decay to U235 or fission when exposed to neutrons.

"Fission reaction" is not the same as "radioactive decay". DaTario actually wrote "mean durations of chemical elements" so reactions should count too.

 

[snorkack]

These two statements look contradictory. My understanding was that uranium 235 fissions when it is hit with a neutron. Uranium 238 can fission with fast neutrons and becomes plutonium 239 (via Np239) when exposed to slow neutrons. Plutonium 239 has a much shorter half life than U238. Pu239 will alpha decay to U235 or fission when exposed to neutrons.

"Fission reaction" is not the same as "radioactive decay". DaTario actually wrote "mean durations of chemical elements" so reactions should count too.

Different posters, different beliefs as to facts.
Sun is big so Sun produces a large number of free neutrons.
However, these neutrons are a small fractions of all nuclei present in Sun, being so big. Induced fission is a small effect in the Sun.
The major free neutron producing reactions for s-process are
¹³C+α→¹⁶O+n
²²Ne+α→²⁵Mg+n
These reactions have a high Coulomb barrier, and Sun is not hot enough for them.
The likely reaction is
d+d→³He+n
but this is a minor side reaction because of competing reaction
d+p→³He+γ
Therefore the free neutron flux in Sun is modest at present.
How is the radial distribution of that neutron flux?

 

[mfb]

"Fission reaction" is not the same as "radioactive decay".

Exactly.
Not that the neutrons would matter - in absolute numbers there are a lot of them, but they get absorbed by other elements quickly.

 

[snorkack]

Not that the neutrons would matter - in absolute numbers there are a lot of them, but they get absorbed by other elements quickly.

Mainly protium.

 

[alantheastronomer]

There aren't many free neutrons in the solar core - d+d -> He-4 NOT He-3 + n, and the half-life of free neutrons is only fifteen minutes!

 

[mfb]

d + d -> He-4 + photon is a very rare reaction as it needs the electromagnetic interaction. d + d -> He-3 + n and d + d -> T + p are much more common (about 50% each).

and the half-life of free neutrons is only fifteen minutes!

Doesn't matter, neutrons in matter are nearly always caught (~microseconds, probably even less in the Sun) before they decay. You have to carefully keep them away from matter to observe their decays.

 

[eachus]

I was wrong about solar mass stars having convective cores - they're radiative. But this doesn't negate the fact that temperatures in the cores of solar mass stars aren't high enough to produce elements beyond carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen, and the C-N-O cycle doesn't occur in solar mass stars. The s-process and r-process elements are produced exclusively in stars of 8 solar masses and greater.

New information. The R-process seems to be an exclusive result of a kilonova, the merger of two neutron stars. We could discuss the latest on the maximum mass of a neutron star, but the kilonova, will be less than about 3 solar masses total. A kilonova was recently detected by LIGO then by lots of telescopes all across the electromagnetic spectrum. https://www.vox.com/science-and-hea...igo-gravitational-waves-neutron-star-kilonova The result was almost purely R-process elements, pretty much matching not only the expected abundances, but theoretical calculations. The result is that more than 90% and probably all of the R-process elements come from kilonovas.

I guess you could say that each of the (two) stars involved were originally high enough mass (but not too high) to go supernova and leave a neutron star. Then the neutron stars have to spiral in for the kilonova--there are some pairs out there which won't merge for tens of billions of years. So kilonovas are pretty rare, and galaxies without one in their history are missing R-process elements. Oh, and you get a short gamma-ray burst. Lots of newly settled science from that one event.

To relate this to the original post, almost every R-process atom in the sun came from a kilonova.