PDA

View Full Version : Supernova birthed solar system



ToSeek
2005-Jan-25, 07:17 PM
Cosmic birth theory gets support (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4205227.stm)


New meteorite data lends support to a controversial theory that the violent explosion of a star was involved in the creation of the Sun and its planets.

Cougar
2005-Jan-25, 07:43 PM
New meteorite data lends support to a controversial theory that the violent explosion of a star was involved in the creation of the Sun and its planets.
Controversial? I thought this was nearly universally accepted due to all the heavy elements on earth and other planets. Don't all elements heavier than iron necessarily come from a supernova?

Normandy6644
2005-Jan-26, 01:31 AM
New meteorite data lends support to a controversial theory that the violent explosion of a star was involved in the creation of the Sun and its planets.
Controversial? I thought this was nearly universally accepted due to all the heavy elements on earth and other planets. Don't all elements heavier than iron necessarily come from a supernova?

I thought so too.

Arkyan
2005-Jan-26, 01:39 AM
New meteorite data lends support to a controversial theory that the violent explosion of a star was involved in the creation of the Sun and its planets.
Controversial? I thought this was nearly universally accepted due to all the heavy elements on earth and other planets. Don't all elements heavier than iron necessarily come from a supernova?

I think it is generally accepted that the formation of elements heavier than iron is possible only through supernovae, but I don't think that is the "controversial theory" mentioned in the article. The "controversial theory" seems to be that the formation of our solar system was directly impacted by a nearby supernova in its youth, and not just indirectly by being built from supernova remnant material.

Maddad
2005-Jan-26, 09:05 AM
That really shouldn't be all that controversial either. One standard model of star creation from a giant molecular dust cloud has a cold (9 kelvin or less) clould compressed by the shock wave of a supernova. It had never occured to me that our solar system didn't start with a bang.

iron4
2005-Jan-26, 02:02 PM
The name of the "controversial theory" is the Cameron Model. No relation with Cameron Diaz [-X

George
2005-Jan-26, 02:37 PM
I think we have some earlier threads which supported this theory. IIRC, one thread involved the discovery of Iron-60 in meteorites, albeit, it might be from a later supernova near our system.

The title seems to indicate additional support...

Cosmic birth theory gets support

Yet, another part suggests this is not mainstream...


For years, astronomers have believed that the Solar System formed inconspicuously, from a slowly condensing cloud of dust and gas.

But this traditional view is now being challenged.

The new theory proposes that our star and its planetary system were born in a dense interstellar cloud, or nebula, filled with short-lived, massive stars that exploded with immense energy and an intense release of radiation.

Kaptain K
2005-Jan-26, 04:59 PM
I must be missing a link in the chain of logic here! :o

As I see it, the logic goes like this:

S36 is a decay product of Cl36.
No problem there.

Cl36 is formed in supernovae.
Again, no problem.

The Cl36 was incorporated into the meteorite when it (the meteorite) was formed and then decayed into S36. Therefore, the supernova was close by.
Why couldn't the Chlorine have decayed into Sulphur first and the Sulphur have been incorporated into the meteorite. Meaning that the supernova could have occurred any time in the 10 billion years before the Solar System formed?

Eroica
2005-Jan-26, 05:27 PM
The name of the "controversial theory" is the Cameron Model.
Has this theory anything at all to do with this other theory?

Sun Is Mostly Iron (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=385)

George
2005-Jan-26, 07:16 PM
I must be missing a link in the chain of logic here! :o

As I see it, the logic goes like this:

S36 is a decay product of Cl36.
No problem there.

Cl36 is formed in supernovae.
Again, no problem.

The Cl36 was incorporated into the meteorite when it (the meteorite) was formed and then decayed into S36. Therefore, the supernova was close by.
Why couldn't the Chlorine have decayed into Sulphur first and the Sulphur have been incorporated into the meteorite. Meaning that the supernova could have occurred any time in the 10 billion years before the Solar System formed?

Here's my "pot-shot"... It is my understanding chondrules accrete to make the chondrite metorites. This accretion began in the beginning of the solar systems history, IIRC. If exclusive supernova produced elements are found throughout the chondrite, then the supernova would have had to pre-date the accretion process.

The Iron-60 story seemed to make more sense to me because it's half-life is 5x greater than Cl-36 (301,000 yrs. only). Hopefully, someone who understands this better will elaborate.