Formation of elements under conditions of thermodynamic equilbrium

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the formation of elements under conditions of thermodynamic equilibrium, exploring whether most elements were formed in such a state. The scope includes theoretical considerations, nuclear reactions, and the implications of high temperatures in cosmic environments.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that elements were formed through a nuclear buildup model, suggesting that neutron capture reactions can occur without a Coulomb barrier.
  • Equilibrium temperatures calculated from isotope pairs yield negative values in some cases, raising questions about their physical interpretation.
  • Another participant asserts that element formation does not occur under thermodynamic equilibrium, questioning the reversibility of the proposed neutron capture reaction.
  • Concerns are raised about the consistency of equilibrium temperatures across different elements, especially considering those formed in supernovae and through radioactive decay.
  • One participant suggests that cosmic abundances might be better connected to the stability of isotopes or neutron densities rather than to equilibrium temperatures.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether elements were primarily formed under thermodynamic equilibrium, with some arguing against this notion based on specific formation processes and others exploring the implications of their calculations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the definitions of equilibrium and the assumptions made in the calculations of equilibrium temperatures. The discussion also highlights unresolved questions regarding the physical meaning of negative temperatures and the conditions under which elements are formed.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying nuclear astrophysics, cosmology, or the processes of element formation in stellar environments.

vertices
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
[Sorry about the long post]

I'm doing an essay where I am exploring whether or not elements were, for the most part, formed under conditions of thermodynamic equilibrium. We know that some element clearly aren't (such as Potassium 40 and uranium which decay radioactivly). I've scoured the web but information on this is suprisingly hard to come by! I'm hoping someone can help!

Basically, I am assuming elements were formed by a simple nuclear build up model thus:

[A-1,Z]+neutron--> [A,Z]

where [A,Z] is an element (or isotope) with mass number A and atomic (proton) number Z. This is plausible because there is no colomb barrier for neutrons to pass through, unlike protons.

If elements WERE formed under conditions of thermodynamic equilibrium, we can use simple Maxwell Boltzmann statistics to work out equilbrium temperatures. (The probability of a particle being in a state Ea is simply exp(-Ea/KT) so we can use the relative abundances of isotope pairs to work out a temperature at which both [A-1,Z] AND [A,Z] are at equilibrium:

Equilbrium Temperature=[tex]\frac{-Dc^{2}}{kln([A-1,Z]/[A,Z]}[/tex]

where
D= Mass Difference = M[A,Z] - {M[A-1,z]+M[neutron]}
k is boltzmann's constant
c is speed of light
and where square brakets [..] now represent the concentration, or relative abudance of the isotope in question.

NOW, on calculating equilibrium temperatures for isotope pairs ([A,Z] and [A-1,Z] of all the elements in the periodic table (please see attached file), I get negative temperatures in some instances! Is there a physical explanation for this?

Furthermore, the equilibrium temperatures seem very high (~10^10 to 10^11 kelvins). As far as I am aware, at such temperatures there is plasma - a "cosmic soup", can there be thermodynamic equilbrium under such conditions?

(if you've got this far, thank you!)
 

Attachments

  • Equilbrium Temperature.png
    Equilbrium Temperature.png
    16.2 KB · Views: 637
Physics news on Phys.org
bump!

any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!
 
The explanation is that the formation of elements isn't done under conditions of thermodynamic equilibrium. This reaction [A-1,Z]+neutron--> [A,Z]
doesn't run backwards.
 
Thanks for your reply kamerling. Why in principle can it not run backwards?
 
Tricky!

This is what I am thinking:

If elements were formed under conditions of thermodynamic equilibrium, the equilibrium temperatures (*as I have defined it*) for the different elements should show some consistency, right?

HOWEVER some elements were NOT formed under conditions of thermodynamic equilbrium.
For example:

-nuclei created in supernovae explosions, where nuclei are made much faster than the rate of reaction (and hence no equilbrium temperature is established).

-nuclei which decay by radioactivity (eg. potassium 40)

-some elements that were formed by CNO processes as well as H, C, O, Si burning in stars (WERE these "equilibrium processes"? In anycase, they don't involve neutron capture)

when I try excluding nuclei pairs corresponding to these elements, I still get equilibrium
temperatures which still vary somewhat.

To remind you, I need to determine whether or not most elements were formed under conditions of thermodynamic equilbrium. Can anyone suggest how best to proceed?
 
I advise you to abandon the attempt to connect cosmic abundances to an equilibrium temperature. You CAN connect cosmic abundances to the stability of the various isotopes or to the neutron densities you might find in a star.
 
kamerling said:
I advise you to abandon the attempt to connect cosmic abundances to an equilibrium temperature. You CAN connect cosmic abundances to the stability of the various isotopes or to the neutron densities you might find in a star.

I wish I could (it doesn't make sense to me), but this the approach that my tutor suggested.

Can anyone help with the questions I have raised on this thread?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K