When Was the First Caesium-133 Atom Formed in the Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Verdict
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Origin
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The first Caesium-133 atoms were likely formed in the early supernovae that occurred approximately 400 million years after the Big Bang. The synthesis of Caesium isotopes, including Caesium-133, occurs primarily through the slow neutron capture process (S-process) in older stars and the rapid neutron capture process (R-process) during supernova explosions. While the exact timeline of Caesium-133 formation is complex, it is reasonable to conclude that its formation coincided with the emergence of the first stars and subsequent supernovae.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of nucleosynthesis processes, specifically S-process and R-process.
  • Knowledge of stellar evolution and the life cycle of stars.
  • Familiarity with the timeline of the universe's formation, particularly the Big Bang and early star formation.
  • Basic comprehension of atomic structure and isotopes.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the specifics of the slow neutron capture process (S-process) in stellar environments.
  • Study the rapid neutron capture process (R-process) and its role in supernova nucleosynthesis.
  • Examine the timeline of the universe's evolution from the Big Bang to the formation of the first stars.
  • Explore the implications of Caesium-133 in modern timekeeping and its significance in defining the second.
USEFUL FOR

Astrophysicists, cosmologists, historians of science, and anyone interested in the origins of time measurement and the formation of heavy elements in the universe.

Verdict
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
Dear Physicsforum,
I have a rather simple question, which can probably also be solved with a rather simple answer. I am writing a paper on the history of the perception of time, on the scale of the big bang up until now. In this I use that nowadays the definition of 1 second is based on Caesium-133 atoms. I was wondering if you could tell me when (approximately) the first Caesium-133 were formed in our universe, as this is, in a very abstract way, the origin of the modern second. Information about the process itself would be welcome. As far as I can tell, it is probably like all the other heavy elements, as in that it was formed in supernovae, however I remain uncertain.
What I found on my own was that several of the Caesium isotopes are synthesized from lighter elements by the slow neutron capture process (S-process) inside old stars, as well as inside supernova explosions (R-process), however it doesn't specify if the 133 variant is among them.
Would it be wrong to assume that the first supernovae occurred around the time the first stars formed, ~400 million years after the big bang? And would, if I can assume that, it be fair to say that the first Caesium-133 might also have been formed at that point?

I understand that this doesn't fit the standard format of the homework questions, and I apologize if this is not what this forum is designated for.

Thanks in advance
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
!The formation of Caesium-133 is a complex process, with different isotopes being formed in different stages. While most of the heavier elements (such as Caesium-133) are formed in supernovae, some of its isotopes can also be formed by the slow neutron capture process (S-process) inside old stars. The exact timeline of its formation is difficult to determine, but it is estimated that the first stars were formed around 400 million years after the Big Bang, and that supernovas began forming shortly thereafter. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the first Caesium-133 atoms were likely formed in the first few supernovas that occurred in our universe.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
685
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K