solar system 2.0?

smcgiff

Just sitting here looking at my gold wedding ring and got to thinking about heavy elements.

Where did the gold in my wedding ring come from?

Did it come from within a star from a precursor solar system that existed before our current solar system (ignoring that the universe is expanding).

Taking the age of universe to be approx 14 billion years and our solar system to be less than half. Was there time for a previous solar system to have existed? It seems unlikely because the remains of the first star would still be around - wouldn't it?

But, if not, where did the heavy elements in our solar system come from?

ThatDrGuy

Wikipedia will answer these things. Gold was made in a previous sun which likely burned out very fast and exploded due to its large size. Every heavy element was made in a sun ( or particle accelerator )

Justin1982

Most of the elements heavier than Helium, up until Iron, were formed in at least one star close to the nebula of gas that was to become our solar system. This process would take between a couple of million years and a couple of billion years depending on the size of the star.

A star can spend millions or billions of years converting hydrogen to helium but then spend 6 months creating all the silicon from lighter elements and just 1 day creating all the iron from lighter elements right before it explodes.

Then all of a sudden the star core collapses in on itself before bouncing back. All this takes about 0.25 seconds which is pretty incredible.
In this 0.25 seconds, all the elements heavier than Iron (these include Copper, Lead and Gold) are created.

The core collapse and bounce is followed by the Supernovae explosion that lasts for a number of days and emits enough light energy to outshine 10 Billion normal stars like our sun.

This supernovae explosion sent all the heavy elements like Iron, Gold and Copper crashing towards the gas nebula that was to form our solar system. Its believed that these same supernovae explosions may have provided the push that caused the gas in our planetary nebula to collapse to form the Sun and the planets and eventually the gold in everyone's Wedding Rings!

smcgiff

Even a star that goes Nova leaves a core, no?

Also, I think I saw a programme recently that said no star since the start of the universe that "died" has gone totally black having given up all its heat.

So, where is the remains of the "local" star that created the heavy elements in our solar system?

orion216

smcgiff wrote: »

Even a star that goes Nova leaves a core, no?

Also, I think I saw a programme recently that said no star since the start of the universe that "died" has gone totally black having given up all its heat.

So, where is the remains of the "local" star that created the heavy elements in our solar system?

The only copyright I ever took out was in 1990,a work based on volume/density ratios in stars and specifically natural energy efficiency seen in all forms in nature.The copyright included a stellar diagram with two large external rings and one smaller internal ring at intersection,again,relating to energy efficiency.About 4 years later in May 1994,this image of SN1987A showed up -

http://astroprofspage.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/sn1987a_hst.jpg

Having the luxury of studying stellar evolutionary process in terms of its geometry long before it is photographed would have little resonance in today's scientific circles insofar as the geometry of those rings indicate that a supernova is not the final moments of a star's existence but in certain circumstances is a transitional phase in stellar evolution.

For those who cannot read between the lines,the elements in our bodies and in the rest of our solar system came from our own Sun in another phase of its existence,while it cannot be proposed as incontrovertible,it meshes with stellar motion around the galactic axis as this assumes galactic motion,even in its protean form,existed before the birth of stars.


Although my work on stellar evolution (including the regrettable copyright) is now 23 years old,it still gives me that sense of joy when I originally set it down however it is now a private work apart from the brief outlines shown here and that is the way it will stay.

smcgiff

Hello Orion,

Are you proposing that the sun was previously a much larger star, went nova and left the current star that we know today.

I don't know enough about Novas to add further to the discussion, but it's interesting. Most people would think of a Nova devastating the original star, but seeing as they don't occur too often, maybe that's not the full story.:)

orion216

smcgiff wrote: »

Hello Orion,

Are you proposing that the sun was previously a much larger star, went nova and left the current star that we know today.

I don't know enough about Novas to add further to the discussion, but it's interesting. Most people would think of a Nova devastating the original star, but seeing as they don't occur too often, maybe that's not the full story.:)

Again,it is a private work however what I could envision at the time was that like a phoenix arising from the ashes of its own destruction,what was once a single giant star now contains the elements of a nascent solar system circling a smaller star hence the idea of certain supernova as a transitional phase of stellar evolution rather than the final act of an exploding and dying star.It may be that the remnants of those rings similar to what is seen in the images of SN1987A still remain in our own solar system but as I had come to develop the idea of two external rings and a smaller intersecting ring through natural stellar efficiency in energy production,that is where my interest is founded and trying to insert conclusions that I had not intended would be disingenuous.A revisit to the image for these purposes does no harm -

http://astroprofspage.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/sn1987a_hst.jpg

People do find the principle of supernova as a stellar transitional phase attractive and that is why I have always left it open for consideration so fair dues to you for dwelling on the question as to where the elements come,I find my answer,at least for myself,more than satisfactory for many reasons but none more so than it raises more questions and trading contemporary certainties for the nervous energy of new discovery and new approaches is always a price worth paying.

smcgiff

orion216 wrote: »

... trading contemporary certainties for the nervous energy of new discovery and new approaches was always a price worth paying.

Probably a good way of describing how new discoveries come about.

Thanks for taking the time to put forward your theory, it does fit, but probably, as you say, raise other questions. Cheers.

orion216

smcgiff wrote: »

Probably a good way of describing how new discoveries come about.

Thanks for taking the time to put forward your theory, it does fit, but probably, as you say, raise other questions. Cheers.

Over the last few decades I have listened with dismay as sections of the community have talked about the 'theory of everything' when people of common sense know that the most enjoyable answers to a question raise many,many more questions.When Nicolas Steno introduced the answer to the local question of geological strata layering and fossils,it opened up another question as to how marine fossils made their way on to high mountains which in turn was answered partially by a global mechanism of plate tectonics through the insights of Alfred Wegener.The next question would move from global to astronomical as the mechanism for crustal evolution and motion is tied to the fluid dynamics of the interior Earth so this process of asking and answering is going on all the time and no need to short circuit this process of discovery by imagining there is a 'theory of everything' or a single answer to a single question -something that always looked absurd even if it once was popular as a proposal.

My own investigations into stellar evolution is not a theory nor do I propose it as one,after all,I was working on the ring structure 4 years before it was observed and it came as a shock in 1994 when I saw them.Like you,one of the questions was where the elements came from but it was not the reason why I developed the idea of a ring structure however the structure did make sense within context of a transitional evolutionary phase of stellar evolution and more importantly,the evolution of the planets from the elements generated by the supernova event.I liked the idea so much that I never really pushed it for 2 decades other than the outlines you see here and generally reasonable people do see the attraction however incomplete it is.

Thanks for your comments and enjoy the splendid isolation of discussion in these matters as they are mostly unknown to the rest of the scientific community.

Zubeneschamali

smcgiff wrote: »

So, where is the remains of the "local" star that created the heavy elements in our solar system?

Not just one, lots of stars. Stars would have been living and dying for over 8 billion years in the Milky Way before our Sun was formed.

Our Sun is a Population I star, with high metallicity. Population II stars are an earlier generation, with low metallicity. A hypothetical Population III star formed from primordial hydrogen and helium would have had no heavier elements at all initially, but they are long gone from our neighbourhood.

smcgiff

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not just one, lots of stars. Stars would have been living and dying for over 8 billion years in the Milky Way before our Sun was formed.

Our Sun is a Population I star, with high metallicity. Population II stars are an earlier generation, with low metallicity. A hypothetical Population III star formed from primordial hydrogen and helium would have had no heavier elements at all initially, but they are long gone from our neighbourhood.

I get that stars can have very brief lives, maybe only a trifling million years.

However, considering the vast distances between the stars it seems incredible that the heavy elements of a far off star made their way to our solar system.

If it's not a far off star I would imagine the "dead" star would be detectible due to its gravitational affect on our planets or possibly even visible. Bearing in mind that I'm going on the understanding that no star that has ever existed has lost all its heat and is totally black and therefore invisible.

I'm also going on the understanding that a Star that goes Nova leaves a significant core behind.

Myrddin

Does the core remain though in the event of a hyper/supernova? I thought the only Stars that had core remnants were White Dwarfs & Pulsars etc?

Justin1982

Whether a star leaves a core or collapses to form a black hole depends on its mass, rotation and whether there is other bodies around the star like anther star or large planets.

Dead stars can form a range of remaining bodies like neutron stars, brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, ......

The thing about a Supernovae is that they can make lite work of vast expanses of space. For a start the power and amount of material emitted by a supernovae is beyond the human imagination and its effects could be felt for light years away from the original star.

Plus the star or stars that went supernovae and spread their remains into our early solar system nebulae could have been a long long way away and would have most likely not been gravitationally bound to earth or on the same orbit as our solar system around the centre of our galaxy so would most likely be well gone even if there was a core left.

I'm not sure that our Sun is the secondary star remaining from the original supernovae that spead its core element around our Solar System. I think that theory is not scientifically robust even though it sounds good.

smcgiff

EnterNow wrote: »

Does the core remain though in the event of a hyper/supernova? I thought the only Stars that had core remnants were White Dwarfs & Pulsars etc?

Pulsars are the result of a super nova.

Mmm, I'm finding it hard to think heavy elements come from the ejaculate of a distant Nova

orion216

Justin1982 wrote: »

Whether a star leaves a core or collapses to form a black hole depends on its mass, rotation and whether there is other bodies around the star like anther star or large planets.

Dead stars can form a range of remaining bodies like neutron stars, brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, ......

The thing about a Supernovae is that they can make lite work of vast expanses of space. For a start the power and amount of material emitted by a supernovae is beyond the human imagination and its effects could be felt for light years away from the original star.

Plus the star or stars that went supernovae and spread their remains into our early solar system nebulae could have been a long long way away and would have most likely not been gravitationally bound to earth or on the same orbit as our solar system around the centre of our galaxy so would most likely be well gone even if there was a core left.

I'm not sure that our Sun is the secondary star remaining from the original supernovae that spead its core element around our Solar System. I think that theory is not scientifically robust even though it sounds good.

Please keep in mind that the progenitor star creates its own nebula and has a specific geometry attached to stellar evolutionary processes before it goes supernova ,something like Eta Carinae -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0806/etacar2_hst_big.jpg


People find specific supernova as transitional phases in stellar evolution more attractive than just the final life cycle of a star as it allows stellar evolutionary processes to take place while the star is orbiting the galactic axis and maintain roughly the same distance to all the other stars surrounding it.There is no need to create a population of dead wandering stars to account for nebula but it does require revising stellar evolutionary processes to allow for supernova as a transitional process that does not destroy the original star entirely but does create the elements for a solar system in the process.Another feature is that it allows for the possibility that we can see the creation of a new solar system as an ongoing process after a supernova event rather than just something that no longer happens.

I came to these opinions through a different route as my work on stellar evolutionary geometry preceded the images,it doesn't give me any advantage over anyone else but what I will say is that things fit more neatly together when I did see the images emerge in 1994.It is the attraction of possibilities over certainties that will move this consideration along and that is the way things have always progressed.

Zubeneschamali

smcgiff wrote: »

However, considering the vast distances between the stars it seems incredible that the heavy elements of a far off star made their way to our solar system.

A billion years is a long time. Jogging pace for a billion years would get you to other stars, and supernovas eject matter a good deal faster than jogging pace.

smcgiff

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A billion years is a long time. Jogging pace for a billion years would get you to other stars, and supernovas eject matter a good deal faster than jogging pace.

I have been thinking about this - and while I don't like to use the word unlikely (the universe is full of unlikely events) it's not sitting well with me.

While the star that goes Nova was massive it's quite small in the vastness of space. So, it will emit massive amounts of heavy elements, but there's a lot of universe to fill up with a 360 degree dispersal. The likely source of the Nova would only be a pin prick of light from Earth's Point of View and Earth would be a pretty small target area for the heavy elements to reach.

Why would the heavy elements cross the vastness of space and put the brakes on (as it were) where it is proposed. That implies our solar system was being formed at the time and had some gravity.

Let's assume the heavy elements make their way to our solar system. At what stage of Earth's development do they reach us. I'm speculating they'd have to have arrived while Earth was forming ( A geologist may be best to advise on such - I'm thinking of how gold seams present themselves), which is a particular time frame.

But, are we assuming that every solar system in the universe will have to have attracted heavy element discharge from a star going Nova. That would be akin to a Solar Coincidence that every solar system benefited from a Nova or do we think there are solar systems out there devoid of any heavy elements.

It would seem something akin to Orion's hypothesis (not sure if that's any better a word than theory) sits better with me. That way Solar systems would be self sufficient in providing their own heavy elements.

orion216

smcgiff wrote: »

I have been thinking about this - and while I don't like to use the word unlikely (the universe is full of unlikely events) it's not sitting well with me.

While the star that goes Nova was massive it's quite small in the vastness of space. So, it will emit massive amounts of heavy elements, but there's a lot of universe to fill up with a 360 degree dispersal. The likely source of the Nova would only be a pin prick of light from Earth's Point of View and Earth would be a pretty small target area for the heavy elements to reach.

Why would the heavy elements cross the vastness of space and put the brakes on (as it were) where it is proposed. That implies our solar system was being formed at the time and had some gravity.

Let's assume the heavy elements make their way to our solar system. At what stage of Earth's development do they reach us. I'm speculating they'd have to have arrived while Earth was forming ( A geologist may be best to advise on such - I'm thinking of how gold seams present themselves), which is a particular time frame.

But, are we assuming that every solar system in the universe will have to have attracted heavy element discharge from a star going Nova. That would be akin to a Solar Coincidence that every solar system benefited from a Nova or do we think there are solar systems out there devoid of any heavy elements.

It would seem something akin to Orion's hypothesis (not sure if that's any better a word than theory) sits better with me. That way Solar systems would be self sufficient in providing their own heavy elements.

I think you are ahead of the game by virtue of asking the question or rather,feeling that the current answers just don't fit.They call Eta Carinae an 'imposter Supernova' which is a terrible thing to do but here you may find support for what is a better solution that has yet to be developed,a solution which allows stars to go through a transition phase where in place of a giant star,a smaller star with a solar system emerges from the magnificent supernova event and a solar system is born rather than a star destroyed -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_impostor

smcgiff

orion216 wrote: »

I think you are ahead of the game by virtue of asking the question or rather,feeling that the current answers just don't fit.They call Eta Carinae an 'imposter Supernova' which is a terrible thing to do but here you may find support for what is a better solution that has yet to be developed,a solution which allows stars to go through a transition phase where in place of a giant star,a smaller star with a solar system emerges from the magnificent supernova event and a solar system is born rather than a star destroyed -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_impostor

Very interesting Orion, I'm liking this hypothesis all the more

Zubeneschamali

smcgiff wrote: »

Why would the heavy elements cross the vastness of space and put the brakes on (as it were) where it is proposed.

They wouldn't. The whole galaxy is full of these heavier elements now, after so many generations of stars have gone bang. It's like the smoke from a fireworks display: a few minutes after one goes off, the smoke is all mixed into one big cloud, you can't point at a particular bit of the cloud and say "that's from the fourth Rocket in the display".

The population II stars we see with low metallicity are really old, they formed before these metals were dispersed into the interstellar medium.

And, no, the Earth was not forming as the metals arrived. Loads of stars lived and died and their elements mixed into the interstellar clouds, and then billions of years later, our Solar system condensed from one such cloud.

orion216

smcgiff wrote: »

Very interesting Orion, I'm liking this hypothesis all the more

I also commend you for your sharp thinking (especially the diffusion of elements argument) and the way you keep the physical considerations compact,too often it is difficult to avoid the pitfalls of a chicken/egg scenario where disputes arise as to whether nebula or stars came first or galaxies came before stars.Gaps in understanding or data doesn't let people off the hook when things don't sit right as you say,I have seen too many ad hoc assertions conjured out of thin air in my lifetime and for once it is nice to encounter a voice that is not so eager to settle for haphazard solutions.

My private work involves balances between local processes and external influences where energy and efficiency are involved,specifically a geometry which expresses those two natural traits hence the intersection with supernova and their ring structure.It is in that local/global balance where I found the most productive topics and personally I feel it is an art and a narrative of research science that has been lost amid the rush for soundbite explanations.

Hope you can keep the momentum of this topic going as it raises many interesting questions and I hope more readers can add their views.

Akrasia

Hi Orion,

I'm interested in why you keep referring to your theory as your private work. Are you still developing your theory and intend to publish it at a later date?

Regarding the self sufficient solar system hypothesis, I don't really buy it. Given the enormous energy released when a Star goes Nova, I can't think of any mechanism that would contain these elements to within a region small enough to create planet forming nebulae

I think the origin of the heavy elements is much better explained by billions of exploding stars showering the cosmos from all directions and seeding these heavy elements wherever they make contact with any massive body. We are bombarded with cosmic rays from all directions as a result of these kinds supernova events despite the fact that there hasn't been a supernova in our own galaxy close enough to disrupt the earths ability to sustain life in at least 3 billion years.

orion216

Akrasia wrote: »

Hi Orion,

I'm interested in why you keep referring to your theory as your private work. Are you still developing your theory and intend to publish it at a later date?

Regarding the self sufficient solar system hypothesis, I don't really buy it. Given the enormous energy released when a Star goes Nova, I can't think of any mechanism that would contain these elements to within a region small enough to create planet forming nebulae

I think the origin of the heavy elements is much better explained by billions of exploding stars showering the cosmos from all directions and seeding these heavy elements wherever they make contact with any massive body. We are bombarded with cosmic rays from all directions as a result of these kinds supernova events despite the fact that there hasn't been a supernova in our own galaxy close enough to disrupt the earths ability to sustain life in at least 3 billion years.

An individual who has taken into account physical considerations will find it easier to adopt the idea that not only is stellar evolution an ongoing process but so is solar system evolution and these things still occur given the right star and the right conditions.It is easy to attribute the creation of our solar system to long since dead stars that have wandered away but there is data that certain type of supernova create their own nebula while not destroying the progenitor star.I left a link before indicating Eta Carinae may be among those type of stars within a solar system evolutionary framework so those who adopt this framework will probably come to see that 'billions of long dead stars' looks like a cop-out and really unsatisfying as an explanation.Inquiring as to where all these billions of dead stars are is a waste of energy and fair dues to you if you accept that explanation,it gets you out of the diffusion of elements argument and deflects from nebula creating by stars before they go supernova however why go extremes when local solutions are much better ?.

My private work is just that and feel no need to share it with anyone as it is highly focused on a specific geometry where building processes are balanced between local internal processes and external background conditions in terms of energy and efficiency,stellar evolution is one such efficient entity and its ring structure more than satisfied the conditions which balance internal process with external conditions hence my interest in certain supernova as transitional phases which result in a transformation of a giant star which generates a nebula full of elements into a smaller star with an emergent solar system after the supernova event.

The participant smcgiff provided clear reasons why diffusion of elements through a supernova event is unstable as a proposal for the creation of our own solar system so that is all the more reason to look at these supernova events which are wrongly called 'imposter supernova' -

http://www.nature.com/news/light-echoes-cause-rethink-of-supernova-imposter-1.10033

This is an ongoing process and glad there are genuine contributors here who engage rather than spectators throwing around assertions without due consideration.You don't have to like certain supernova as transition phases which create a solar system rather than destroy the star but at least the idea is up for discussion where nothing existed before.

Akrasia

orion216 wrote: »

An individual who has taken into account physical considerations will find it easier to adopt the idea that not only is stellar evolution an ongoing process but so is solar system evolution and these things still occur given the right star and the right conditions.It is easy to attribute the creation of our solar system to long since dead stars that have wandered away but there is data that certain type of supernova create their own nebula while not destroying the progenitor star.I left a link before indicating Eta Carinae may be among those type of stars within a solar system evolutionary framework so those who adopt this framework will probably come to see that 'billions of long dead stars' looks like a cop-out and really unsatisfying as an explanation.Inquiring as to where all these billions of dead stars are is a waste of energy and fair dues to you if you accept that explanation,it gets you out of the diffusion of elements argument and deflects from nebula creating by stars before they go supernova however why go extremes when local solutions are much better ?.

My private work is just that and feel no need to share it with anyone as it is highly focused on a specific geometry where building processes are balanced between local internal processes and external background conditions in terms of energy and efficiency,stellar evolution is one such efficient entity and its ring structure more than satisfied the conditions which balance internal process with external conditions hence my interest in certain supernova as transitional phases which result in a transformation of a giant star which generates a nebula full of elements into a smaller star with an emergent solar system after the supernova event.

The participant smcgiff provided clear reasons why diffusion of elements through a supernova event is unstable as a proposal for the creation of our own solar system so that is all the more reason to look at these supernova events which are wrongly called 'imposter supernova' -

http://www.nature.com/news/light-echoes-cause-rethink-of-supernova-imposter-1.10033

This is an ongoing process and glad there are genuine contributors here who engage rather than spectators throwing around assertions without due consideration.You don't have to like certain supernova as transition phases which create a solar system rather than destroy the star but at least the idea is up for discussion where nothing existed before.

Ok, so you're saying that certain types of star under certain conditions can eject portions of it's mass into the surrounding region of space but not on the same scale as a full blown supernova which would destroy the star?

And that this matter can then form the nebulae required to evolve into a solar system?

Ok, fine, i have no prima facie objection to this, but the original OP on this thread asked where the heavier elements came from, and my (very limited)understanding is that only the most extreme forms of supernova are hot enough and create enough pressure to enable the fusion required create the heavier elements, and I can't imagine this kind of a supernova explosion leaving enough matter in the core of the star sufficient to keep a gravitational hold on the matter ejected during the explosion.

orion216

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, so you're saying that certain types of star under certain conditions can eject portions of it's mass into the surrounding region of space but not on the same scale as a full blown supernova which would destroy the star?.

I distinctly stated that I do not force conclusions however,the creation of a solar system and the elements within that system appear more probable in context of a transitional phase of stellar evolution where Supernova are not the final death throes of a star but a secondary phase,a phase which has yet to be developed conceptually where a star remains as an active entity ,loses the nebula forming process but gains a solar system instead when the smoke clears ,so to speak.

I agree with smcgiff that the diffusion of elements from 'billions of dead stars' or one star assertion is untidy and unstable whereas a stellar transitional phase is not only more compact and makes more sense,it allows solar system evolution as an ongoing process where this process can be pieced together by observing different types of supernova or potential supernova before and after the event.

My private investigations involved working with a ring structure 4 years before it was observed and that structure allows that a larger entity can reduce to a smaller system while retaining all the original components,I apologize if that sounds awkward or vague,but that is as much as I need to say about a work that dwells on a different aspect of processes in terms of energy and efficiency in many other processes we see in nature hence stellar processes and evolution were not exempt from such a study.

I genuinely like to hear other ideas on this matter even if they are inclined to dismiss the rough outlines that have been presented so far - that supernova may not be entirely the death of a star but the birth of solar systems.I certainly think such an argument is worthwhile and fair dues to the man who started this thread.

Srianadh

Well we get on average 2 supernovae per century in our galaxy alone which is 2 in a truly miniscule amount of time on the galactic scale. Our galaxy is approximately 13.2 billion years old. The first stars would have been quite large and only lasted a few million years. So you kind of get the idea that just looking at our galaxy, there have been more than enough supernovae to produce the heavy elements over time until our solar system was born some 4.6 million years ago (open to correction on any of the above).

I remember reading that if you melted down all the gold ever mined on Earth you'd struggle to fill two Olympic sized swimming pool. I find that quite fascinating really.

smcgiff

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The whole galaxy is full of these heavier elements now, after so many generations of stars have gone bang. It's like the smoke from a fireworks display: a few minutes after one goes off, the smoke is all mixed into one big cloud, you can't point at a particular bit of the cloud and say "that's from the fourth Rocket in the display".

That would assume that the spread of heavy elements is spread uniform around the universe. That's a lot of universe to seed.

The main problem I have with that is that it would surely affect the clarity to which we can see the distant stars. As you can imagine it's hard to see through a firework display to what lies behind it.

I disagree with the thinking that we've only found two swimming size pools of gold, so that's not very much. Due to our relative isolation from any known star to have gone supernova, and because the discovery of gold is just that, what's been dug away from the surface of the earth, it's quite a lot to my mind. It's likely (not ignoring lava flows up from the core which go in a circular motion) that heavy elements would have been attracted to the core of the planet, and therefore there's probably a lot more gold further down in the earth.

But, lets think of the more base heavy elements, such as Iron. Isn't the Earth's (and the other planets) core made up of considerable amounts of iron. This is what gives our planet its life giving magnetism. So, heavy elements are not that uncommon.

If the universe is a haze of heavy elements floating about, I doubt if Hubble could see back practically to the start of the universe.

Rubeter

smcgiff wrote: »

But, lets think of the more base heavy elements, such as Iron. Isn't the Earth's (and the other planets) core made up of considerable amounts of iron. This is what gives our planet its life giving magnetism. So, heavy elements are not that uncommon..

The Sun makes up 99% of the mass of the solar system and contains about 0.014% iron, you can't be thinking on human scales.
The universe is (ignoring dark matter) around 74% hydrogen and around 24% helium, elements heavier than helium make up I think around 2%, with half of that 2% being oxygen, Iron would be way down in the hundredths of a percent.

Also the further away you look the less heavy elements there are because you are looking back in time, we would measure more in our own galaxy than one say 8 billion ly away because there will have been 8 billion more years of producing the stuff here.

Zubeneschamali

smcgiff wrote: »

If the universe is a haze of heavy elements floating about, I doubt if Hubble could see back practically to the start of the universe.

The Universe isn't, but stars don't form in the Universe at large.

The Galaxy, where stars like the Sun do form, absolutely is a haze, and no telescope (including Hubble) can see even as far as the core in visible light.

smcgiff

Rubeter wrote: »

The Sun makes up 99% of the mass of the solar system and contains about 0.014% iron, you can't be thinking on human scales.
The universe is (ignoring dark matter) around 74% hydrogen and around 24% helium, elements heavier than helium make up I think around 2%, with half of that 2% being oxygen, Iron would be way down in the hundredths of a percent.

Also the further away you look the less heavy elements there are because you are looking back in time, we would measure more in our own galaxy than one say 8 billion ly away because there will have been 8 billion more years of producing the stuff here.

Don't disagree with what you're saying here - don't think it's countering the point I'm making to be honest.

smcgiff

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Galaxy, where stars like the Sun do form, absolutely is a haze, and no telescope (including Hubble) can see even as far as the core in visible light.

How can we see stars 100 thousand light years away across a haze filled Milky Way?