Is Plutonium Found in Space Naturally?

  • Context: Stargazing 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Andy DS
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the existence of plutonium in space, particularly whether it occurs naturally or is solely a product of human activity. Participants explore various aspects of nucleosynthesis, the stability of elements, and the implications of statements made by public figures regarding the presence of elements heavier than uranium in the universe.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that there are no naturally occurring elements beyond uranium in the universe, referencing statements made by Prof. Brian Cox.
  • Others argue that plutonium can occur naturally in trace amounts due to processes like neutron capture and supernovae, though its half-life is short, making it rare.
  • A participant mentions that plutonium-238 is used in man-made satellites, indicating that while plutonium exists in space, it is not naturally occurring in significant quantities.
  • There is a discussion about the production of plutonium and other heavy elements through cosmic events, with some participants suggesting that neutron star collisions are a more relevant source than supernovae.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the abundance of superheavy elements in space and the implications of half-lives on their existence in nature.
  • Questions arise regarding the chemical properties of plutonium and its potential presence in asteroids, with some suggesting that its decay would prevent significant amounts from being found in such bodies.
  • Several participants discuss the implications of half-life on the existence of elements, with differing views on how this relates to the vastness of the universe and the continuous production of elements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the existence of naturally occurring plutonium in space. There are multiple competing views regarding the processes that produce heavy elements and the implications of half-lives on their presence in the universe.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the abundance of superheavy elements and the conditions under which they may exist. The discussion reflects a range of assumptions about nucleosynthesis and the stability of isotopes.

  • #31
Drakkith said:
I'm not following you.
I think the argument goes like this: There's a lot of (solid) protactinium in some places, It produces radon at a more or less constant rate but radon doesn't last long. So people will be exposed to a constant., low level of radon. The level is an equilibrium condition of production and decay.
Perhaps @snorkack 's statement could be modified to include the words "only" and "locally" somewhere. That point is actually made higher up by someone.

Poor old Brian Cox does his best to present a suitable subset of the facts but people have to treat his sayings as oracular. Yer average viewer wouldn't be prepared to give what he says the PF treatment.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
Wow, I really started something here. Many thanks for the insights from all contributors.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #33
Andy DS said:
Wow, I really started something here. Many thanks for the insights from all contributors.
That's often the risk on PF. You can never say that PF is casual about its Physics. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Klystron
  • #34
sophiecentaur said:
I think the argument goes like this: There's a lot of (solid) protactinium in some places, It produces radon at a more or less constant rate but radon doesn't last long. So people will be exposed to a constant., low level of radon. The level is an equilibrium condition of production and decay.
Perhaps @snorkack 's statement could be modified to include the words "only" and "locally" somewhere. That point is actually made higher up by someone.
No, my argument is different.
First, protactinium actually produces actinon, not radon.
But the thing is: we do not detect radon, or actinon, by observing the atoms during their existence (short or long). We detect them by observing their decays.
Therefore, since one radium atom decays into one radon atom but has 150 000 times the lifetime, there will be 150 000 radium atoms per each radon atom. But we don´t detect the radium atoms anyway. Thus we will see just 1 radium decay and 1 radon decay. Radon decay has higher energy and more importantly, while radium stays in the solid rock alongside its mothers, also radioactive, radon migrates before decaying and getting detected.
Protactinium is longer lived but harder to find because it stays in rock and its mother (U-235) is less common than U-238.
 
  • #35
snorkack said:
But just because there are 150 000 times fewer radon atoms does not mean they are any harder to find than the radium atoms! Precisely because they are so short lived, there are as many radon decay events as radium decay events - and radon decays have higher energy.
I think some of the other posters here missed your intent because, generally, "harder to find" is mentally conflated with "fewer." Your point is, "easier to find" may equal "easier to detect."
 
  • #36
gmax137 said:
I think some of the other posters here missed your intent because, generally, "harder to find" is mentally conflated with "fewer." Your point is, "easier to find" may equal "easier to detect."
Perhaps, but the problem with that is that we don't detect radon in people's lungs, we detect it in the air.
 
  • #37
In the context of Pu 244 the most common due to its "long" lifetime of 80 Myrs as had been noted we have found it in sedimentary layers. Most notably is it has been found in the 2.5 to 2.6 million year old radioisotope layer which notably includes short lived radioisotopes like Fe 60 which suggests it was at least delivered to earth alongside the most recent nearby (~150 ly) supernovae.

There is last I checked an unresolved argument over whether the plutonium was swept up by the supernovae shock front or indicates that some amount of high atomic number r process nucleosynthesis does occur.

In the context of radioactive decay chains often they are too short lived for the intermediate chain products to separate out geologically meaning their concentrations tend to be dependent on the source material. In this sense their abundance is going to depend on their decay parent usually Uranium as its the most likely to concentrate due to the reaction between uranium and molecular oxygen which creates a water soluble oxide that can be concentrated geologically where salt deposits form sepecally in relation to the closure of ocean basins via volcanic arcs and the likes. This is why the bottom of such salt deposits where hydrocarbons accumulate tend to have such high amounts of Uranium and its decay products
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
11K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
4K