Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The periodic table, colour coded by the likely origin of each element

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 78 posts

Re: The periodic table, colour coded by the likely origin of each element

#31

Post by HarryHirsch »

changoplatanero wrote: post #25
hermitcrab wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The follow up question is, how come the different elements aren't uniformly mixed within the earth. Or perhaps formed into stratified layers with the densest at the centre? E.g. Why are there 'deposits' of gold relatively close to the surface? Something to do with interaction of the physical and chemical properties of the elements with local variations in conditions?

Yes you're right. Geologic and biologic processes unevenly distribute the elements

The keyword is "Goldschmidt classification": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldschmidt_classification

Those who would like to know more could do worse than pick up Greenwood's & Earnshaw's book (this one: https://www.amazon.com/-/dp/0750633654) from the nearest university library, it has a chapter on nucleogenesis and cosmic and geologic abundances.

Re: The periodic table, colour coded by the likely origin of each element

#32

Post by wizzwizz4 »

Waterluvian wrote: post #24
hermitcrab wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process that drives stars is fusion, which turns light elements into heavier (strictly greater atomic number) elements, up to iron. Elements heavier than iron are created in supernovas, neutron star collisions etc. Many heavier elements are unstable and will radioactively decay into light elements. So it is a continual process both ways.

Do they decay to some stable middle region or are they decaying right back down to hydrogen? I’m guessing this is about entropy to an extent.

They're decaying to a stable middle region. In theory, they're decaying into nothingness, but that's like saying "in theory, things reach absolute zero".

Re: The periodic table, colour coded by the likely origin of each element

#33

Post by WorldMaker »

arethuza wrote: post #10

For some completely irrational reason I was slightly disappointed that the gold in my wedding ring was only from a neutron star merger and probably not from a supernova. However, reading the relevant wikipedia page I came across this part: "this single neutron star merger event generated between 3 and 13 Earth masses of gold" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Gold_production_in_the_Un... Can't wait to refer to that…

Neutron Star Mergers & Acquisitions sounds like a great title for book or TV show.

Re: The periodic table, colour coded by the likely origin of each element

#34

Post by ncmncm »

hermitcrab wrote: post #20
dandare wrote: post #4

How did elements created by a merging neutron stars and dying low-mass stars get down to our planet?

The follow up question is, how come the different elements aren't uniformly mixed within the earth. Or perhaps formed into stratified layers with the densest at the centre? E.g. Why are there 'deposits' of gold relatively close to the surface? Something to do with interaction of the physical and chemical properties of the elements with local variations in conditions?

All Earth's primordial gold sank. So, all the gold we find or mine came from meteorites (including dust) after solidification. Most has been dissolved in water.

Re: The periodic table, colour coded by the likely origin of each element

#35

Post by wizzwizz4 »

peter_d_sherman wrote: post #23

This chart brings up the question of HOW exactly each element is created... A long time ago, in Alchemy, there was the idea that certain elements could be transformed into other elements by alchemical processes. This idea, back then, was called "Transmutation". Now, scientists of today know transmutation as possible, but only with select heavy elements, and only in atom smashers/cyclotrons/large hadron colliders -- c…

The theory you've written is utterly crackpot, but the general principles are actually pretty close to our modern understanding of physics. Radiation is highly-localised jkace that can travel a long distance without diffusing (hence why it has distant effects), whereas heat is jkace spread out between a large collection of particles that easily spreads to nearby matter and escapes as low-energy electromagnetic radiation (hence why it has short-range effects).

Oh, and jkace is usually called "energy". We're not really sure what it is, but we know so much about its behaviour we can describe it mathematically.

And by the way, the reason not all radiation is created equal is because "radiation" is a very broad term; it's like saying "not all fruits are created equal", except if you also count orange squash as a type of fruit. X-rays and gamma rays are just very bluer-than-blue light (the distinction in names is based on whether they come from X-ray tubes or radioactivity), beta rays are just fast electrons, and alpha rays are just fast "middle-of-a-Helium-atom"s – which is why alpha rays can barely travel through air, beta rays can't travel through your car and gamma rays can travel through anything that's translucent to gamma light.

Re: The periodic table, colour coded by the likely origin of each element

#36

Post by ISL »

arethuza wrote: post #10

For some completely irrational reason I was slightly disappointed that the gold in my wedding ring was only from a neutron star merger and probably not from a supernova. However, reading the relevant wikipedia page I came across this part: "this single neutron star merger event generated between 3 and 13 Earth masses of gold" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Gold_production_in_the_Un... Can't wait to refer to that…

While the neutron-star merger suggested that a substantial fraction of the r-process occurs in neutron stars, it does not rule out the possibility that the r-process also occurs in supernovae (the other leading candidate).

I'd be happy to wager that at least a couple percent of your wedding ring's nuclei were formed in a supernova.

Re: The periodic table, colour coded by the likely origin of each element

#37

Post by spirographer »

jacknews wrote: post #3

The image shown by wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element seems more complete and better laid out, and is also by cmglee ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cmglee ), based on data from Jennifer Johnson at Ohio State University ( http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~jaj/nucleo/ ): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Nucleosy...

This article gives the more detailed explanation of the chart's data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

BTW, image search of nucleosynthesis gives about 10 different versions of this infographic, with fairly significant variation.

Re: The periodic table, colour coded by the likely origin of each element

#38

Post by ncmncm »

BurningFrog wrote: post #15
dandare wrote: post #4

How did elements created by a merging neutron stars and dying low-mass stars get down to our planet?

They didn't land on the planet, they formed it.

Some did, some didn't. All the iridium, platinum, gold we find landed.

Re: The periodic table, colour coded by the likely origin of each element

#39

Post by Tepix »

AllegedAlec wrote: post #12
dandare wrote: post #4

How did elements created by a merging neutron stars and dying low-mass stars get down to our planet?

Our sun is about 4.6B year old. There were a few other generations of stars that lived and died before our sun came about, and these spewed out the heavier elements that make up our solar system.

It must have been a somewhat dull first generation of stars and planets with only Hydrogen and Helium around.

On the other hand, giant stars explode after just a few million years so it didn't take long for other elements to appear.

Re: The periodic table, colour coded by the likely origin of each element

#40

Post by LanceH »

jacknews wrote: post #3

The image shown by wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element seems more complete and better laid out, and is also by cmglee ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cmglee ), based on data from Jennifer Johnson at Ohio State University ( http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~jaj/nucleo/ ): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Nucleosy...

The wikipedia entry is substantially different. The twitter version only labels 6 of 7 categories and what would appear to be multiple elements miscategorized.
Post reply on HN