How does the distribution of elements change over time?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the temporal changes in the distribution of elements in the universe, particularly focusing on the Milky Way galaxy's elemental composition over billions of years. Participants explore the implications of these changes for the potential emergence of life and the Fermi Paradox, as well as the mechanisms by which heavier elements are formed, such as supernovae and neutron star mergers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how long it took for the elemental prevalence to resemble its current state, suggesting that the galaxy may have been significantly different 8 billion years ago.
  • Another participant notes that the rate of star formation was higher in the past, implying that heavy elements were likely present even 8 billion years ago, supported by a referenced study.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the role of merging neutron stars in producing heavy elements, with one participant explaining that while they typically form a black hole or a heavier neutron star, they also eject neutron-rich material that evolves into heavy elements.
  • Some participants emphasize the importance of elemental diversity for the chemical evolution of life, questioning when this diversity became sufficient to support life as we understand it.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the sufficiency of certain elements for life, arguing that the early universe had an excess of alpha elements before the formation of rocky planets and that plate tectonics and radiogenic heat were crucial for life development.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the timeline and mechanisms of elemental distribution and their implications for life. There is no consensus on the sufficiency of elemental diversity for supporting life or the roles of various processes in element formation.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various studies and papers, indicating that the discussion is informed by ongoing research. There are unresolved questions regarding the exact timelines and processes involved in the formation and distribution of elements.

BWV
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
2,012
Been reading basic stuff about the astrophysics behind the prevalence of various elements, curious at what rate this changes over time. The Milky Way is something like 14 billion years old. At first it was all H and He then heavier elements were created and distributed through supernovae.

Questions
a) How long did it take before the prevalence of the elements looked close to its current state? there was about 10B years between the formation of the galaxy and our solar system. Was the galaxy significantly different, say, 8B years ago? Is this maybe a potential answer to the Fermi Paradox? How about 10B years from now?

b) I had thought is was exclusively supernovae that created heavier elements, but the chart below on the wikipedia entry lists merging neutron stars as the most common source of heavier elements, how does that work? would have guessed that merging neutron stars, depending on the mass, either created a bigger neutron star or a black hole

512px-Nucleosynthesis_periodic_table.svg.png
 

Attachments

  • 512px-Nucleosynthesis_periodic_table.svg.png
    512px-Nucleosynthesis_periodic_table.svg.png
    30.5 KB · Views: 632
Astronomy news on Phys.org
On your question a), this is an active area of research. This paper is a recent study that goes back about 8 billion years. But since the rate of star formation was much higher in the past, I think even 8 billion years ago there were plenty of heavy elements about. The graph below (from the paper above) shows that some galaxies had metallicities( the measure astronomers use to measure elements heavier then He) that were as high as the Milky Way is today even 8 billion years ago.

On your question b), it's true that merging neutron stars generate either a heavier neutron star or, more usually, a black hole. However, when the two neutron stars merge, some of the neutron star material (a few percent) get ejected into space. This neutron rich material, relieved from the huge pressure it was under when part of the neutron star, evolves into a whole host of heavy elements. This was confirmed in spectacular fashion by the merging neutron star pair GW170817, which was detected in gravitational waves, optical, radio, X-rays, ... So the presence of ejected material was confirmed and this material was characterized in great detail. While it isn't certain, most astronomers believe that the heaviest elements are produced primarily in these neutron star mergers. This paper is a recent reference.

Metallicity_vs_Time.png
 

Attachments

  • Metallicity_vs_Time.png
    Metallicity_vs_Time.png
    31.2 KB · Views: 611
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BWV
BWV said:
a) How long did it take before the prevalence of the elements looked close to its current state? there was about 10B years between the formation of the galaxy and our solar system. Was the galaxy significantly different, say, 8B years ago? Is this maybe a potential answer to the Fermi Paradox? How about 10B years from now?

I like this question for the same reason.
The underlying question is when was the elemental diversity of the universe sufficient to support the chemical evolution of life. Then (from that time), start thinking of Fermi's paradox.
Beyond H, common life associated elements (based on current understanding (life on earth)) would include: C, N, O, P, S, along with things like Fe for catalyst components of enzymes.
 
BillTre said:
I like this question for the same reason.
The underlying question is when was the elemental diversity of the universe sufficient to support the chemical evolution of life. Then (from that time), start thinking of Fermi's paradox.
Beyond H, common life associated elements (based on current understanding (life on earth)) would include: C, N, O, P, S, along with things like Fe for catalyst components of enzymes.

I am not convinced. All five of those elements tend to float. Earth, still our only example of life, is very depleted in carbon and nitrogen. Type II supernovas generated most of the phosphorus but the ratio of type II to type I was much higher in the early universe. All of the alpha elements were in concentrations excessive for life long before there is enough material to form rocky planets. Enough of each element would float into a crust anytime you have enough metals to make a surface that is solid and also supports liquid water oceans on top of that surface.

Plate tectonics are driven in part by fission reactions. For that we needed mostly uranium, thorium, and potassium-40. The radiogenic heat also helped thaw thick glaciers and let life survive a snowball earth. Life on a rocky planet closer to a star may not need the radioactive heat but it will die when the star ages and the oceans evaporate. The convection in the mantle is also thought to generate Earths magnetic field. The magnetic field reduces the loss of the nitrogen and oxygen to space.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K