PDA

View Full Version : How much SN are we?



George
2007-Sep-30, 10:50 PM
About what percent of the mass of our body comes from supernova? Better still would be the full spread proportions: Big Bang's H and He, nucleosynthesis in non-exploding stellar ovens, and star dust from supernova (including decayed daughter products).

Neverfly
2007-Sep-30, 11:13 PM
Personally speaking, I am normally about .001% Supernova.

Certain factors, however, can increase this percentage.

Stealing my Dr. Pepper,

Touching the Harley,

Attempting to convince me that we never went tot he moon,

Making me pay exorborant prices for fuel,

Are examples of factors that will increase my Supernova percentage.

Nereid
2007-Sep-30, 11:57 PM
About what percent of the mass of our body comes from supernova? Better still would be the full spread proportions: Big Bang's H and He, nucleosynthesis in non-exploding stellar ovens, and star dust from supernova (including decayed daughter products).A very good question! :) :clap:

I'm not sure how well-constrained an answer anyone can give, today ... if we start with some simple bounds:

* % of average body mass that is not H, D, He, or Li (at the zero-th level we can assume these are primordial)?

* which elements (isotopes) are principally of supernova origin (either core collapse or WD detonation)?

* which elements (isotopes) are principally not of supernova origin?

* taking an OOM estimate (90%, say) re 'principally', what % of average body mass is thus accounted for (by the above three bounds)?

One part that leads to headaches, working through to an answer: how do you count the origin of C, N, and O (all and every isotope)? The most recent star that they were in? Or the star (or other) in which they were created? Or something else??

hhEb09'1
2007-Oct-01, 12:06 AM
Sh*ot, I thought this thread was about our body content of tin

01101001
2007-Oct-01, 12:21 AM
I thought this thread was about our body content of tin

I thought it was about S/N, signal-to-noise ratio, having noticed of late some posters are way, way more noise than signal -- not that that's a bad thing...

George
2007-Oct-01, 12:54 AM
* % of average body mass that is not H, D, He, or Li (at the zero-th level we can assume these are primordial)? Yes, the little amount of He from synthesis in "normal" stars would not matter much since I doubt we are comprised of much helium. [Although, there are times when my voice gets a little high pitched. ;)]


* which elements (isotopes) are principally of supernova origin (either core collapse or WD detonation)?

* which elements (isotopes) are principally not of supernova origin?

* taking an OOM estimate (90%, say) re 'principally', what % of average body mass is thus accounted for (by the above three bounds)?

One part that leads to headaches, working through to an answer: how do you count the origin of C, N, and O (all and every isotope)? The most recent star that they were in? Or the star (or other) in which they were created? Or something else??
Thanks for orgainizing this a little better.

I would think that the % of isotopes exclusive to SN would be a strong clue as to what percent SN contributed. This might answer the question as to the % of stable products from SN, such as the C, N, and O.


Sh*ot, I thought this thread was about our body content of tin. Nope, though maybe a little. This ain't Oz nor Kansas, you know. :)


I thought it was about S/N, signal-to-noise ratio, having noticed of late some posters are way, way more noise than signal -- not that that's a bad thing... Perhaps we should have them check their Fe60 level; too much SN dust could be a bad thing [as Neverly suggests]. ;)

Ronald Brak
2007-Oct-01, 02:21 AM
Elements synthesized in a supernova or elements that were not synthesized but spread by a supernova when it went kablooie? Large stars can also shed a lot of gas before they blow, including lots of carbon.

Hydrogen is the most common atom in me. Some of it could have been in a star when it kablooied, but it's not likely to have been synthesized in a star. Don't really see how that would have been possible.

01101001
2007-Oct-01, 03:36 AM
Here's a table. It came from an individual's site (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Elements.html), so I don't know how accurate it is.


Elemental composition of the lithosphere and the human body. Each number represents the percent of the total number of atoms present. For example, 47 of every 100 atoms found in a representative sample of the lithosphere are oxygen while there are only 19 atoms of carbon in every 10,000 atoms of lithosphere.

Composition of the Lithosphere / Composition of the Human Body

Oxygen 47 / Hydrogen 63
Silicon 28 / Oxygen 25.5
Aluminum 7.9 / Carbon 9.5
Iron 4.5 / Nitrogen 1.4
Calcium 3.5 / Calcium 0.31
Sodium 2.5 / Phosphorus 0.22
Potassium 2.5 / Chlorine 0.03
Magnesium 2.2 / Potassium 0.06
Titanium 0.46 / Sulfur 0.05
Hydrogen 0.22 / Sodium 0.03
Carbon 0.19 / Magnesium 0.01
All others <0.1 / All others <0.01

This table from Elemental Composition of the Human Body (http://web2.airmail.net/uthman/elements_of_body.html) cites a respectable source. It's different, instead of atom count, is gives mass (and volume) of each element:


Element / Mass of element in a 70-kg person / Volume of purified element

oxygen 43 kg 37 L
carbon 16 kg 7.08 L
hydrogen 7 kg 98.6 L
nitrogen 1.8 kg 2.05 L
calcium 1.0 kg 645 mL
phosphorus 780 g 429 mL
potassium 140 g 162 mL
sulfur 140 g 67.6 mL
sodium 100 g 103 mL
chlorine 95 g 63 mL
magnesium 19 g 10.9 mL
iron 4.2 g 0.53 mL
fluorine 2.6 g 1.72 mL
zinc 2.3 g 0.32 mL
silicon 1.0 g 0.43 mL
rubidium 0.68 g 0.44 mL
strontium 0.32 g 0.13 mL
bromine 0.26 g 64.2 無
lead 0.12 g 10.6 無
copper 72 mg 8.04 無
aluminum 60 mg 22 無
cadmium 50 mg 5.78 無
cerium 40 mg 4.85 無
barium 22 mg 6.12 無
iodine 20 mg 4.06 無
tin 20 mg 3.48 無
titanium 20 mg 4.41 無
boron 18 mg 7.69 無
nickel 15 mg 1.69 無
selenium 15 mg 3.13 無
chromium 14 mg 1.95 無
manganese 12 mg 1.61 無
arsenic 7 mg 1.21 無
lithium 7 mg 13.1 無
cesium 6 mg 3.2 無
mercury 6 mg 0.44 無
germanium 5 mg 0.94 無
molybdenum 5 mg 0.49 無
cobalt 3 mg 0.34 無
antimony 2 mg 0.30 無
silver 2 mg 0.19 無
niobium 1.5 mg 0.18 無
zirconium 1 mg 0.15 無
lanthanium 0.8 mg 0.13 無
gallium 0.7 mg 0.12 無
tellurium 0.7 mg 0.11 無
yttrium 0.6 mg 0.13 無
bismuth 0.5 mg 51 nL
thallium 0.5 mg 42 nL
indium 0.4 mg 55 nL
gold 0.2 mg 10 nL
scandium 0.2 mg 67 nL
tantalum 0.2 mg 12 nL
vanadium 0.11 mg 18 nL
thorium 0.1 mg 8.5 nL
uranium 0.1 mg 5.3 nL
samarium 50 痢 6.7 nL
beryllium 36 痢 20 nL
tungsten 20 痢 1.0 nL

George
2007-Oct-01, 12:33 PM
Elements synthesized in a supernova or elements that were not synthesized but spread by a supernova when it went kablooie? Large stars can also shed a lot of gas before they blow, including lots of carbon. Good point. Perhaps both would be nice to know. I suppose the elements found in the outer shells of the supernova at the time of explosion should be credited with the supernova itself. [Why make this too easy? ;)] Knowing how much came only from the explosive moments of a sn would be preferable since the focus can be on the event itself.


This table from Elemental Composition of the Human Body (http://web2.airmail.net/uthman/elements_of_body.html) cites a respectable source. It's different, instead of atom count, is gives mass (and volume) of each element: Excellent!

(in kg.)

He... not found
Li... 7E-06
Be... trace
B.....1.80E-05
C.....16
N.....1.8
O..... 43
F..... 0.0026
Ne.... not found
Na.... 0.1
Mg... 0.019
Al.... 6.00E-05
Si.... 0.001
P..... 0.78
S..... 0.14
Cl.... 0.095
Ar.... not found
K...... 0.14
Ca.... 1

This totals 63.08 kg, or ~ 90% of the human body is comprised of elements of Calcium and less in atomic mass. Looks like the formation of He in stellar cores will not be a consideration, fortunately.

Does this mean that 10% must come from SN?

[Oops. I changed directions in midsteam. The above statement now requires the addition of hydrogen which is 7 kg. Thus, another error exists -- just great -- as we are now > 100%! ]

01101001
2007-Oct-01, 01:26 PM
[Oops. I changed directions in midsteam. The above statement now requires the addition of hydrogen which is 7 kg. Thus, another error exists -- just great -- as we are now > 100%! ]

I think the rounding on the big guys is going to swamp the contributions from the little ones. Suggest you corral the SN elements and examine that total.

Very uncarefully, pre-coffee, I split out the trans-iron elements:

zinc 2.3 g
rubidium 0.68 g
strontium 0.32 g
bromine 0.26 g
lead 0.12 g
copper 72 mg
cadmium 50 mg
cerium 40 mg
barium 22 mg
iodine 20 mg
tin 20 mg
nickel 15 mg
selenium 15 mg
arsenic 7 mg
cesium 6 mg
mercury 6 mg
germanium 5 mg
molybdenum 5 mg
cobalt 3 mg
antimony 2 mg
silver 2 mg
niobium 1.5 mg
zirconium 1 mg
lanthanium 0.8 mg
gallium 0.7 mg
tellurium 0.7 mg
yttrium 0.6 mg
bismuth 0.5 mg
thallium 0.5 mg
indium 0.4 mg
gold 0.2 mg
tantalum 0.2 mg
thorium 0.1 mg
uranium 0.1 mg
samarium 50 痢
beryllium 36 痢
tungsten 20 痢

Carefully summed, with computer: 3.977406 grams, or part of 70 kg, about = 5.682 10-5. Not much. It's probably right ballpark.

Still a ways from knowing which elements were produced how.

Nereid
2007-Oct-01, 02:42 PM
How about this:

* H is primordial, as is Li (but that is so tiny a part of the average human it surely doesn't matter)

* Be to Ni is 'stardust, other than supernovae'

* the rest is SN.

Or, using 105's list, just 5 elements comprise some 98% of the average 70 kg human (by mass): O, C, H, N, Ca.

So a very simplified answer is that <2% of us is SN-stuff (assuming none of the O, C, H, N, or Ca comes from SN); ~10% is primordial; ~90% is from non-SN stars.

Perhaps it's time to look at how O, C, N and Ca are produced, and where?

Going to the next 10, which, coincidently takes us down to ~1 g, adds just ~1.1 kg, and gives us ~99.9% of the total 70 kg. Of these next ten, only one (Zn) is beyond Fe; if we assume the other nine are not SN-born, then we are composed of only ~<0.1% SN-stuff.

George
2007-Oct-01, 04:51 PM
* Be to Ni is 'stardust, other than supernovae' I see Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_nucleosynthesis) shows some lesser mass elements synthesized from sn. Is this trivial to the makeup, assuming they are right?

I think it is fair to assume only a few sn were active in donating ingredients to the recipe of our local nursery of the original GMC, relative to the number of "normal" stars.

cosmotology ;)]

korjik
2007-Oct-01, 08:43 PM
How about this:

* H is primordial, as is Li (but that is so tiny a part of the average human it surely doesn't matter)

* Be to Ni is 'stardust, other than supernovae'

* the rest is SN.

Or, using 105's list, just 5 elements comprise some 98% of the average 70 kg human (by mass): O, C, H, N, Ca.

So a very simplified answer is that <2% of us is SN-stuff (assuming none of the O, C, H, N, or Ca comes from SN); ~10% is primordial; ~90% is from non-SN stars.

Perhaps it's time to look at how O, C, N and Ca are produced, and where?

Going to the next 10, which, coincidently takes us down to ~1 g, adds just ~1.1 kg, and gives us ~99.9% of the total 70 kg. Of these next ten, only one (Zn) is beyond Fe; if we assume the other nine are not SN-born, then we are composed of only ~<0.1% SN-stuff.

I think that all elements heavier than Li had to have been created in a star. I dont think that you get much other than H, He in solar winds, but I dont really know what you get solar wind wise from big stars. The next source would be planetary nebulae. I think you could get C,N,O range masses from a dying red giant that enriched its envelope with helium burning ash. Anything heavier than that would almost have to be from a supernova.

End result tho is the same.

H is primordial
C,N,O are mostly stellar, non SN sourced
>O mostly SN sourced.

Still leaves you <10% supernova sourced

mugaliens
2007-Oct-02, 05:29 PM
Great. I've got lead and mercury running through my veins.

I knew it had to be something along those lines....

George
2007-Oct-02, 05:59 PM
Great. I've got lead and mercury running through my veins.

I knew it had to be something along those lines.... That's nothing, take a look at all your bacteria. :)

korjik
2007-Oct-02, 06:17 PM
Great. I've got lead and mercury running through my veins.

I knew it had to be something along those lines....

You prolly have at least some Plutonium running through your veins, too. At least a few million atoms. :)

neilzero
2007-Oct-04, 07:26 PM
Apparantly we are less than 20 micro grams of helium and lithium. So we are perhaps 5% premoidal hydrogen (by weight based on a 70 kilgram human body). 95% of our bodies are thus from supernova, red giant star emissions, compact star polar jets and solar wind. I'm assuming half of our hydrogen was premoidal. Neil

George
2007-Oct-04, 11:35 PM
Apparantly we are less than 20 micro grams of helium and lithium. So we are perhaps 5% premoidal hydrogen (by weight based on a 70 kilgram human body). 95% of our bodies are thus from supernova, red giant star emissions, compact star polar jets and solar wind. I'm assuming half of our hydrogen was premoidal. Neil And the other half of hydrogen came from where? :doh:

What is the largest element that can be made from non-supernova? I thought it was calcium, but Nereid's post suggests nickel, though this seems odd since it is just beyond iron. Korjik suggests the cut-off is oxygen.

If it is an issue, I would want to stay with elements that are not in rare, trace quantity production due to unusual circumstances in order to get a better representation of what contributes to our elemental make-up.

jlhredshift
2007-Oct-05, 12:25 AM
But, didn't the Pop III stars start with the primordial mix of H, He, Li, and isn't it thought they were all very massive, went SN and seeded the rest with C, O, N, etc?

Nick Theodorakis
2007-Oct-05, 04:01 AM
And the other half of hydrogen came from where? :doh:

What is the largest element that can be made from non-supernova? I thought it was calcium, but Nereid's post suggests nickel, though this seems odd since it is just beyond iron. Korjik suggests the cut-off is oxygen.

If it is an issue, I would want to stay with elements that are not in rare, trace quantity production due to unusual circumstances in order to get a better representation of what contributes to our elemental make-up.

Most of those trace elements mentioned are probably contaminants. If you could, for example, suck all the lead and mercury out of your body you would be no worse off, and likely better off.

Going from memory, here is what you are made of:

About two thirds water.
The inorganic part of bone is primarily calcium phosphate.
Proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, and lipids can be made from just C, H, O, N, S and P (proteins can have additional cofactors).
Various ions in solution: Na, K, Ca, Mg, Cl.
Many enzymes use metal cofactors: Fe, Cu, Zn, Mg, Mn, Ca.
A couple of odd proteins use a few additional elements: I in thyroid hormone, Se and Mo in a couple of enzymes. Co is in vitamin B12.
That's pretty much it for required elements, though I might have missed a couple (Ni or Cr?)
Then there are few that can be incorporated into your body if they are around (such as fluoride in tooth enamel) but whether they are integral to your body or just a contaminant is more of a semantic question than a scientific one.

Nick

George
2007-Oct-06, 02:32 PM
Going from memory, here is what you are made of:

About two thirds water.
The inorganic part of bone is primarily calcium phosphate.
Proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, and lipids can be made from just C, H, O, N, S and P (proteins can have additional cofactors).
Various ions in solution: Na, K, Ca, Mg, Cl.
Many enzymes use metal cofactors: Fe, Cu, Zn, Mg, Mn, Ca.
A couple of odd proteins use a few additional elements: I in thyroid hormone, Se and Mo in a couple of enzymes. Co is in vitamin B12.
That's pretty much it for required elements, though I might have missed a couple (Ni or Cr?) I assume the elemental distribution presented by 01101001 should be accurate enough for our purposes.
I think we can disregard many elements as sn candidates. The vast majority of H should be primordial, though a few may be from decayed neutrons at some point. Noble gases such as helium and argon are not present in our bodies, so they are not a problem in our estimations.

Knowing which is the first element in the periodic table that is unique to supernova seems to be a bit of a problem. This is probably not a proper question to ask, as, perhaps, events may allow larger stars to produce some heavier elements without going supernova.


But, didn't the Pop III stars start with the primordial mix of H, He, Li, and isn't it thought they were all very massive, went SN and seeded the rest with C, O, N, etc? That is also my understanding, though other elements also were synthesized, I think. But what percent out there, and in us, came from these events?

I found a slide presentations from a Pop III seminar from July this year. One slide showed about 16, I think, different elements presented in graphic form where the scales were iron ratios. This made little sense to me, though I am not knowledgeable in such matters. Why use iron ratios for Pop III? [Maybe I only misread that they were Pop III results.] The link giving the text for the slides did not work.

It is O and C that comprise 84% of our body. If we can get a handle on what percent of these came from supernova, then we will have a good approximation result.

What ratios exist for these two as revealed in planetary nebula for old and younger stars?

Nereid
2007-Oct-06, 07:46 PM
I assume the elemental distribution presented by 01101001 should be accurate enough for our purposes.
I think we can disregard many elements as sn candidates. The vast majority of H should be primordial, though a few may be from decayed neutrons at some point. Noble gases such as helium and argon are not present in our bodies, so they are not a problem in our estimations.

Knowing which is the first element in the periodic table that is unique to supernova seems to be a bit of a problem. This is probably not a proper question to ask, as, perhaps, events may allow larger stars to produce some heavier elements without going supernova.

That is also my understanding, though other elements also were synthesized, I think. But what percent out there, and in us, came from these events?

I found a slide presentations from a Pop III seminar from July this year. One slide showed about 16, I think, different elements presented in graphic form where the scales were iron ratios. This made little sense to me, though I am not knowledgeable in such matters. Why use iron ratios for Pop III? [Maybe I only misread that they were Pop III results.] The link giving the text for the slides did not work.

It is O and C that comprise 84% of our body. If we can get a handle on what percent of these came from supernova, then we will have a good approximation result.

What ratios exist for these two as revealed in planetary nebula for old and younger stars?There are at least two separate questions concerning O and C (and N):

* in general, what (astrophysical) processes produce the stable isotopes of these elements?

* in which (astronomical) environments do such processes occur?

* how easily (and quickly) can such elements, once created, make it to the ISM (and so become available to one day be part of the cloud which became Earth)?

If one environment completely dominates as the source of such elements in the (mid-town) MW ISM, then we have our answer.

George
2007-Oct-08, 01:46 AM
Yes, all appropriate questions to the bulk of our makeup. In addition, we need to know how much each of these processes contribute in quantity and what the probability of their frequency for our neck of the woods might be.

jlhredshift
2007-Oct-08, 01:25 PM
Ray Jayawarddhana says in his December 2005 article In Search of the First Stars, in Astronomy:


Most of the first stars probably ended their brief, but brilliant, lives as exploding supernovae within a few million years. Theory predicts stars with masses between 140 and 260 times that of the Sun blow up completely, expelling the heavier elements they produce through nuclear fusion. The first stars ejecta polluted surrounding gas with ingredients for dust, planets, and even life, and were eventually incorporated into future generation of stars.

My Bold

That they "blow up completely" I find very interesting. But, we will never know how many, how much, or where these events occurred. A particular atom's genealogy can not be looked up on the Internet.

trinitree88
2007-Oct-08, 03:04 PM
Ray Jayawarddhana says in his December 2005 article In Search of the First Stars, in Astronomy:



My Bold

That they "blow up completely" I find very interesting. But, we will never know how many, how much, or where these events occurred. A particular atom's genealogy can not be looked up on the Internet.

jlhredshift. Agreed. One never knows where an atom has been. Woosley & Weaver give over 100 isotopes from a >25 Solar Mass Supernova here:http://www.ucolick.org/~board/faculty/woosley_vitae.html

paper number 208 in Woosley's C.V. above...


In it's onion-like layers, the overburden when the core neutronizes, contains a lot of the lighter isotopes of helium, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, silicon, neon ,magnesium, sulfur..etc synthesized slowly in the s process. The rapid, r-process occurs in a flash at detonation. So, some of your helium is "primordial", some from normal fusion, some spread from ejecta from supernovae. Likewise, some of your C,N,O is from red giants, some spread from supernovae. Most of the elements heavier than Fe are thought to arise during the SN burst, but that process is not exclusive....gamma ray bursts contain photons capable of photodissociatng nuclei. Energies above ~15 Mev are sufficient to pry loose either protons or neutrons from most nuclei. Such splitting can free up neutrons which can stick to, and change other nuclei...nucleosynthesis. With ~ dozens-hundreds of bursts per day expected ...this goes on every day. So, unless you are omniscient...you never know.
The bigger question still arises, where is the missing anti-matter universe? Understanding the asymmetry in matter production over antimatter in BB theory is key to understanding the origins of all the atoms we see from the variety of processes that "make" them. :shifty: pete

jlhredshift
2007-Oct-08, 03:17 PM
jlhredshift. Agreed. One never knows where an atom has been. Woosley & Weaver give over 100 isotopes from a >25 Solar Mass Supernova here:http://www.ucolick.org/~board/faculty/woosley_vitae.html

paper number 208 in Woosley's C.V. above...


In it's onion-like layers, the overburden when the core neutronizes, contains a lot of the lighter isotopes of helium, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, silicon, neon ,magnesium, sulfur..etc synthesized slowly in the s process. The rapid, r-process occurs in a flash at detonation. So, some of your helium is "primordial", some from normal fusion, some spread from ejecta from supernovae. Likewise, some of your C,N,O is from red giants, some spread from supernovae. Most of the elements heavier than Fe are thought to arise during the SN burst, but that process is not exclusive....gamma ray bursts contain photons capable of photodissociatng nuclei. Energies above ~15 Mev are sufficient to pry loose either protons or neutrons from most nuclei. Such splitting can free up neutrons which can stick to, and change other nuclei...nucleosynthesis. With ~ dozens-hundreds of bursts per day expected ...this goes on every day. So, unless you are omniscient...you never know.
The bigger question still arises, where is the missing anti-matter universe? Understanding the asymmetry in matter production over antimatter in BB theory is key to understanding the origins of all the atoms we see from the variety of processes that "make" them. :shifty: pete

And, how was "dark matter/energy" created to go along with where is the anti-matter?

George
2007-Oct-11, 02:38 PM
Likewise, some of your C,N,O is from red giants, some spread from supernovae. Yes, but is there any idea as to the percentages of each.

Yet, today I read that quasars (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071010125734.htm) may have been major manufacturers of nucleons, which contributes to our "cosmotolgoy". :) ["Quasi stellar" just sounds more apt in my bio description. ;)]


Most of the elements heavier than Fe are thought to arise during the SN burst, but that process is not exclusive....gamma ray bursts contain photons capable of photodissociatng nuclei. Energies above ~15 Mev are sufficient to pry loose either protons or neutrons from most nuclei. Such splitting can free up neutrons which can stick to, and change other nuclei...nucleosynthesis. With ~ dozens-hundreds of bursts per day expected ...this goes on every day. So, unless you are omniscient...you never know. That is interesting, but do you expect much of a percentage of Fe to be from this process? Regardless, Fe is not a major element of our make-up.


The bigger question still arises, where is the missing anti-matter universe? Understanding the asymmetry in matter production over antimatter in BB theory is key to understanding the origins of all the atoms we see from the variety of processes that "make" them. :shifty: pete Anticosmotology? ;)

mugaliens
2007-Oct-11, 03:33 PM
We shouldn't forget the cosmic dust (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/10/10/cosmic.dust.ap/index.html)created by black holes from gases...

George
2007-Oct-12, 05:08 PM
Yes, that was what I was trying to state and link in my post.

Could our own galaxy's sn have thrown its bar-b-qued nucleons out this far?