PDA

View Full Version : Supernova cycle



Githyanki
2014-Sep-25, 10:09 PM
Since only heavy elements can be produced inside a massive star that will eventually supernova AND, the life of those massive stars are short; so in order to have a supernova explode to produce the elements needed to produce our solar system, how many times has this material been supernova(d) in the 8.5 BY the universe has been around at that time?

Was there a continuance cycle of supernova, followed by massive start formation followed by yet another supernova and so on and so on?

StupendousMan
2014-Sep-26, 01:48 PM
This is a good question. Many astronomers have thought about it, and many have tried to figure out how many generations of stars have occurred since the Big Bang; not only in the neighborhood of our solar system, but also in different locations within our galaxy, and in other galaxies. Some of the keywords which can help you to find articles on this topic are

stellar population synthesis abundance

I don't know the answer to your question, but I can tell you that by searching with these keywords, doing some reading and finding tips for further reading, you'll be able to find that answer for yourself.

Jeff Root
2014-Sep-26, 04:11 PM
I tried to write a reply last night, but decided I didn't know
enough, and figured someone like StupendousMan would say
everything I could and a lot more. My main point was going
to be that there is no clear distinction between generations.
With animals is is usually pretty clear which are parent
generation, which are first gen, second gen, and so on, but
supernova material from all generations mixes together.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Grant Hatch
2014-Sep-26, 04:58 PM
I've wondered about this also as it would have a direct impact on the genesis of stellar systems with the heavy elements necessary for the rise of life. I concluded that the short life of the stars going nova would probably give rise to these type stellar systems within a fairly short time.....2-3 billion years perhaps? If so, we are relative late comers in the galaxy/universe, if we were to assume that life takes as long to arise elsewhere as it did on earth. On the other hand, If the panspermia theory is correct we may have gotten a leg up (a quicker genesis) on earlier systems. I find it interesting that single celled life had such a long run here (2-3 billion years) and then suddenly exploded into multicelled life and countless complex forms...only a half billion plus years or so ago.

antonioprsn23
2014-Sep-30, 09:23 AM
I've wondered about this also as it would have a direct impact on the genesis of stellar systems with the heavy elements necessary for the rise of life. I concluded that the short life of the stars going nova would probably give rise to these type stellar systems within a fairly short time.....2-3 billion years perhaps? If so, we are relative late comers in the galaxy/universe, if we were to assume that life takes as long to arise elsewhere as it did on earth. We could see some of the arguments here (http://www.losangelescaraccidentattorney.co/canisueuberlyftaccidentcalifornia.html) and some of the data is also there. So that could lead to some conclusions. On the other hand, If the panspermia theory is correct we may have gotten a leg up (a quicker genesis) on earlier systems. I find it interesting that single celled life had such a long run here (2-3 billion years) and then suddenly exploded into multicelled life and countless complex forms...only a half billion plus years or so ago.

Always had a problem with this single celled to multi celled life theory. Why isn't it logical to think that the multicelled life came about first? or even simultaneusly?

Cougar
2014-Sep-30, 12:39 PM
Why isn't it logical to think that the multicelled life came about first? or even simultaneusly?

I see no logic in such a conjecture. Then there are the observations. This stuff is pretty well determined. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life)

Noclevername
2014-Sep-30, 09:23 PM
Always had a problem with this single celled to multi celled life theory. Why isn't it logical to think that the multicelled life came about first? or even simultaneusly?

Because it violates the known fossil record and genetic evidence.