Jean Tate, Author at Universe Today

February 4, 2010December 24, 2015 by Jean Tate

GRB Central Engines Observed in Nearby Supernovae?

SN 2009bb (Image Credit: NASA, Swift, Stefan Immler)

[/caption]
Are the relativistic jets of long gamma ray bursts (GRBs) produced by brand new black holes? Do some core-collapse supernovae result in black holes and relativistic jets?

The answer to both questions is ‘very likely, yes’! And what recent research points to those answers? Study of an Ic supernova (SN 2007gr), and an Ibc one (SN 2009bb), by two different teams, using archived Gamma-Ray Burst Coordination Network data, and trans-continental Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) radio observations.

“In every respect, these objects look like gamma-ray bursts – except that they produced no gamma rays,” said Alicia Soderberg at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.

Soderberg led a team that studied SN 2009bb, a supernova discovered in March 2009. It exploded in the spiral galaxy NGC 3278, located about 130 million light-years away.

The other object is SN 2007gr, which was first detected in August 2007 in the spiral galaxy NGC 1058, some 35 million light-years away (it’s one of the closest Ic supernovae detected in the radio waveband). The team which studied this supernova using VLBI was led by Zsolt Paragi at the Netherlands-based Joint Institute for Very Long Baseline Interferometry in Europe, and included Chryssa Kouveliotou, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

The researchers searched for gamma-rays associated with the supernovae using archived records in the Gamma-Ray Burst Coordination Network located at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. This project distributes and archives observations of gamma-ray bursts by NASA’s SWIFT spacecraft, the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope and many others. However, no bursts coincided with the supernovae.

“The explosion dynamics in typical supernovae limit the speed of the expanding matter to about three percent the speed of light,” explained Kouveliotou, co-author of one of the new studies. “Yet, in these new objects, we’re tracking gas moving some 20 times faster than this.”

Unlike typical core-collapse supernovae, the stars that produce long gamma-ray bursts possess a “central engine” – likely a nascent black hole – that drives particle jets clocked at more than 99 percent the speed of light (short GRBs are likely produced by the collision/merger of two neutron stars, or a neutron star and a stellar mass black hole).

By contrast, the fastest outflows detected from SN 2009bb reached 85 percent of the speed of light and SN 2007gr reached more than 60 percent of light speed; this is “mildly relativistic”.

“These observations are the first to show some supernovae are powered by a central engine,” Soderberg said. “These new radio techniques now give us a way to find explosions that resemble gamma-ray bursts without relying on detections from gamma-ray satellites.”

The VLBI radio observations showcase how the new electronic capabilities of the European VLBI Network empower astronomers to react quickly when transient events occur. The team led by Paragi included 14 members from 12 institutions spread over seven countries, the United States, the Netherlands, Hungary, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

“Using the electronic VLBI technique eliminates some of the major issues,” said Huib Jan van Langevelde, the director of JIVE “Moreover it allows us to produce immediate results necessary for the planning of additional measurements.”

Perhaps as few as one out of every 10,000 supernovae produce gamma rays that we detect as a long gamma-ray burst. In some cases, the star’s jets may not be angled in a way to produce a detectable burst; in others, the energy of the jets may not be enough to allow them to blast through the overlying bulk of the dying star.

“We’ve now found evidence for the unsung crowd of supernovae – those with relatively dim and mildly relativistic jets that only can be detected nearby,” Kouveliotou said. “These likely represent most of the population.”

The 28 January, 2010 issue of Nature contains two papers reporting these discoveries: A relativistic type Ibc supernova without a detected γ-ray burst (arXiv:0908.2817 is the preprint), and A mildly relativistic radio jet from the otherwise normal type Ic supernova 2007gr (arXiv:1001.5060 is the preprint).

Sources: Newborn Black Holes May Add Power to Many Exploding Stars, Newborn Black Holes Boost Explosive Power of Supernovae

January 29, 2010December 24, 2015 by Jean Tate

Death in the Sky: M31 Shreds its Satellites

False-color map of the density of red giants in M31 (Star count map credit: Mikito Tanaka, Tohoku University)

[/caption]
An international team of astronomers has identified two new tidal streams in M31, the Andromeda galaxy. They are more-or-less intact remnants of dwarf galaxies that M31 has otherwise ripped to shreds.

One team – using the Suprime-Cam camera on Subaru – discovered two new dwarf galaxy shards by mapping the sky density of red giants in M31’s outskirts; the other – using the DEIMOS spectrograph on Keck II – separated the M31 red giant wheat from the Milky Way chaff.

In a project led by collaborators Mikito Tanaka and Masashi Chiba of Tohoku University, Japan, the astronomers used the Subaru 8-meter telescope and Suprime-Cam camera to map the density of red giants in large portions of M31, including the hitherto uncharted north side. This led to the discovery of two tidal streams to the northwest (streams E and F) at projected distances of 60 and 100 kiloparsecs (200,000 and 300,000 light-years) from M31’s nucleus. The study also confirmed a few previously known streams, including the little-studied diffuse stream to the southwest (stream SW), which lies at a projected distance of 60 to 100 kiloparsecs (200,000 to 300,000 light years) from M31’s nucleus.

The Spectroscopic and Photometric Landscape of Andromeda’s Stellar Halo (SPLASH) collaboration, a large survey of red giants in M31 lead by Puragra Guhathakurta, professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, has followed up with a spectroscopic survey of several hundred red giants in Streams E, F, and SW, using the Keck II 10-meter telescope and DEIMOS spectrograph at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii. Analysis of the spectra from this survey yields estimates of the line-of-sight velocity of the stars, which in turn allows M31 red giants to be distinguished from foreground stars (in the Milky Way). The spectral data confirmed the presence of coherent groups of M31 red giants moving with a common velocity.

Distribution of line-of-sight velocities in the Stream SW field (Raja Guhathakurta)

Stars spread over the vast reaches of a halo in a big galaxy like the Milky Way or M31 are characterized by old age, few elements other than helium and hydrogen (i.e. low metallicities; astronomers call all elements other than hydrogen and helium “metals”), and high velocities. The exceptional nature of these halo stars, when compared to stars in a galaxy’s disk, reflects the early dynamics and element formation of the galaxy when its appearance differed significantly from what we see today. Consequently, the halo provides important insights into the processes involved in the formation and evolution of a massive galaxy. In the best Big Bang model we have today – ΛCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) – the outer halos are built up through the merger and dissolution of smaller, dwarf, satellite galaxies. “This process of galactic cannibalism is an integral part of the growth of galaxies,” said Guhathakurta.

The smooth, well-mixed population of halo stars in these large galaxies represents the aggregate of the dwarf galaxy victims of this cannibalism process, while the dwarf galaxies that are still intact as they orbit their large parent galaxy are the survivors of this process.

“The merging and dissolution of a dwarf galaxy typically lasts for a couple billion years, so one occasionally catches a large galaxy in the act of cannibalizing one of its dwarf galaxy satellites,” Guhathakurta said. “The characteristic signature of such an event is a tidal stream: an enhancement in the density of stars, localized in space and moving as a coherent group through the parent galaxy.”

Tidal streams are important because they represent a link between the victims and survivors of galactic cannibalism – an intermediate stage between the population of intact dwarf galaxies and the well-mixed stars dissolved in the halo.

The Andromeda galaxy is a unique test bed for studying the formation and evolution of a large galaxy, said Guhathakurta, “Our external vantage point gives us a global perspective of the galaxy, and yet the galaxy is close enough for us to obtain detailed measurements of individual red giant stars within it.”

One of the next steps will be to measure the detailed elemental compositions (“chemical properties”, in astronomer-speak) of red giants in these newly discovered tidal streams in M31. Comparing the chemical properties of tidal streams, intact dwarf satellites, and the smooth halo will be of particular significance, Guhathakurta said. Mikito Tanaka put it this way: “Further observational surveys of an entire halo region in Andromeda will provide very useful information on galaxy formation, including how many and how massive individual dwarf galaxies as building blocks are and how star formation and chemical evolution proceeded in each dwarf galaxy.”

At the present time, detailed studies of the chemical properties of tidal streams, intact dwarf satellites, and smooth stellar halos are possible only in the Milky Way and M31 galaxies and their immediate surroundings. Existing telescopes and instruments are simply not powerful enough for astronomers to carry out such studies in more distant galaxies. This situation will improve greatly with the advent of the planned Thirty Meter Telescope later in this decade, Guhathakurta said.

Tanaka’s team published their survey results in a recent Astrophysics Journal (ApJ) paper (the preprint is arXiv:0908.0245), and Guhathakurta’s team presented their results on the newly discovered tidal streams earlier this month at the 215th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Washington, D.C.; they hope to have an ApJ paper on these results published later this year. You can read an earlier SPLASH paper, “The SPLASH Survey: A Spectroscopic Portrait of Andromeda’s Giant Southern Stream”, published in ApJ (the preprint is arxiv:0909.4540).

Sources: University of California, Santa Cruz, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.

January 28, 2010December 24, 2015 by Jean Tate

Hypernova

Artist impression of the twin jets from a GRB. Credit: Dana Berry/SkyWorks Digital

[/caption]
Nova, “new star”; supernova, a “super” nova; hypernova, a super-duper, or super super, nova!

This word appeared in the astronomical literature at least as early as 1982, and refers to a kind of core-collapse supernova far brighter (>100 times) than usual; its meaning has changed somewhat, and today generally refers to the core collapse of particularly massive stars (>100 sols), whether or not they are spectacularly brighter than other core-collapse supernovae (though they are that too).

Most times you’ll come across hypernovae in material on gamma ray bursts (GRBs), many of which seem to involve emission of electromagnetic radiation with total energy many times that from ordinary supernovae (whether core collapse or Type Ia). Long-duration GRBs have jets, presumably from the poles of the temporary accretion disk which forms around the new black hole at the heart of the collapsed core of the progenitor (short-duration GRBs, which also produce jets, are thought to be the merger of two neutron stars, or a neutron star and a stellar-mass black hole), but even when viewed side-on (i.e. not looking into one of the jets), these GRBs are intrinsically much brighter than other core collapse supernovae.

If a supernova were to occur a few hundred light-years from us, we’d certainly notice it, and there might be some impact on our atmosphere; if there was a hypernova the same distance away, we’d suffer (not only from the increased incidence of cancer due to the far greater intensity of cosmic rays, but also from changes in weather and climate, and damage to ecosystems); if the jet were aimed directly at us, we’d be toast (while those on the other side of the world would survive the few seconds-long blast, they’d die from the consequences).

Fortunately, it seems there are no stars likely to go hypernova on us … at least not within a few tens of thousands of light-years. Whew!

Have I whet your appetite for more? Check these sites out! Brighter than an Exploding Star, It’s a Hypernova! (NASA’s Imagine the Universe), Face on Beauty (Phil Plait), and Hypernova (Swinburne University).

Like everyone else, Universe Today writers love a good story about explosions … so there are quite a few on hypernovae! Some examples: Gamma Ray Bursts and Hypernovae Linked, ESO Watches Burst Afterglow for Five Weeks, and Carbon/Oxygen Stars Could Explode as Gamma Ray Bursts.

No surprise that Astronomy Cast episode Gamma-Ray Bursts features hypermovae! Back in 2007, after attending the American Astronomical Society meeting, Pamela learning something new about hypernovae; what? Well, check out the episode, What We Learned from the American Astronomical Society and find out for yourself!

References:
NASA
ESO

January 28, 2010December 24, 2015 by Jean Tate

Atomic Radius

[/caption]
If you can imagine an atom, of an element, as a sphere, then the radius of that sphere would be the atomic radius of that element. However, as atoms are things far better described using quantum mechanics than classical physics, the definition – even the concept – of atomic radius is tricky (and, in fact, there are actually several different definitions!).

Start with the Bohr atomic model, and an atom of hydrogen. In this model, the atomic radius (Bohr radius) is related to the lowest energy level of the electron, and has an exact value which involves Planck’s constant, the fine structure constant, c (speed of light), and the mass of the electron ( h/(2πcαm_e) – approx 53 pm … that’s picometers, trillionths of a meter, in case you were wondering). Although the Bohr model of the atom is no longer used, except in teaching, the Bohr atom radius for hydrogen is a key physical constant.

If you have a crystal, of a salt, you can study it with x-rays, and work out how far apart the entities in the crystal lattice are; those entities are ions (not atoms), so the atomic radii estimated this way are called ionic radii. No surprise that the ionic radii of a particular element depend on the ionization state of the ions!

In a metal, one or more outer electrons become part of the sea of electrons throughout the metal, which give the metal its high electrical conductivity. The atomic radii of metal atoms in this environment are called metallic radii.

By now you should be able to guess what the covalent radius is (in molecules with covalent bonds, the atomic radii are estimated from the bond lengths), and what the Van der Waals radius is (if two atoms are not bound in a molecule, the minimum distance between them is determined by the Van der Waals force, and radii estimated this way are …).

Chemguide, a UK site, has a nice intro, Atomic and Ionic Radius; this Frostburg State University page is a bit more advanced ; and here is a list of the elements, sorted by atomic radius.

Astronomy Cast episodes relevant to this topic include Quantum Mechanics, Wave Particle Duality, and Inside the Atom.

January 27, 2010April 26, 2016 by Jean Tate

Main Sequence

Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram. Credit: ESO.

If you make a plot of the brightness of a few thousand stars near us, against their color (or surface temperature) – a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram – you’ll see that most of them are on a nearly straight, diagonal, line, going from faint and red to bright and blue. That line is the main sequence (of course, you must plot the absolute brightness – or luminosity – not the apparent brightness; do you know why?).

As you might have expected, the discovery of the main sequence had to wait until the distances to at least a few hundred stars could be reasonably well estimated (so their absolute magnitudes, or luminosities, could be worked out). This happened in the early years of the 20th century (fun fact: Russell’s discovery was how absolute luminosity was related to spectral class – OBAFGKM – rather than color).

So why, then, do most stars seem to lie on the main sequence? Why don’t we find stars all over the H-R diagram?

Back in the 19th century, it would have been impossible to answer these questions, because quantum theory hadn’t been invented then, and no one knew about nuclear fusion, or even what powered the Sun. By the 1930s, however, the main outlines of the answers became clear … stars on the main sequence are powered by hydrogen fusion, which takes place in their cores, and the main sequence is just a sequence of mass (faint red stars are the least massive – starting at around one-tenth that of the Sun – and bright blue ones the most – about 20 times). Stars are found elsewhere on the Hertzsprung Russell diagram, and their positions reflect what nuclear reactions are powering them, and where they are taking place (or not; white dwarfs are cinders, slowly cooling). So, broadly speaking, there are so many stars on the main sequence – compared to elsewhere in the H-R diagram – because stars spend much more of their lives burning hydrogen in their cores than they do producing energy in any other way!

It took many decades of research to work out the details of stellar evolution – what nuclear reactions for what mass and composition of a star, how the size of a star reflects its internal structure and composition, how some stars can live on long after they should be white dwarfs, etc, etc, etc – and there are still many unanswered questions today (maybe you can help solve them?).

The Main Sequence (University of Utah), Main Sequence Stars (University of Oregon), and Stars (NASA’s Imagine the Universe) are three good places to go to learn more.

Dating a Cluster – A New Trick, V is For Valentine… V838, and Capture A FUor! are just three of the many Universe Today stories which feature the main sequence.

Astronomy Cast covers the main sequence from the point of view of stellar evolution in The Life of the Sun and The Life of Other Stars; be sure to check them out.

References:
NASA
Hyperphysics

January 26, 2010December 24, 2015 by Jean Tate

Debunking Astrology: Mars Can’t Influence You

So you think the position of Mars in the sky at the time of your birth made you tall, dark, and handsome (or short, fair, and ugly)? Or lucky (or unlucky) in love? If you think believing in astrology is anywhere close to scientific, well, Dude, time to think again.

Pick two babies born within a minute of each other. One has two nurses and a doctor attending; the other, just a midwife. One is born in a brightly lit maternity ward in a downtown big city hospital; the other in a poorly lit room in a village 50 kilometers from the nearest big city. ‘Downtown’ is just a few meters above sea level; the village is situated on a 1000 meter high plateau. These local differences have far greater effects on the babies than Mars does. Let’s see how.

Nearly five centuries of physics have given us quite a few certainties, and among those are that the only long range forces in the universe are gravity and electromagnetism. And both of these, from Mars, are totally – and I mean totally – overwhelmed by those same forces that were produced by things near you when you were delivered. In a word, Mars can’t influence you.

Start with gravitation.

The gravitational force between you and Mars is greatest when Mars is closest to the Earth; let’s say that’s 56 million kilometers. Now Mars has a mass of 6.4 x 10²³ kg, so the acceleration, here on Earth, due to Martian gravity would be 1.4 x 10^-8 meters per second per second (m s^-2).

How did I work that out? By using Newton’s law of universal gravitation:
F = Gm₁m₂/r²
and:
F = ma
so:
a = Gm_Mars/distance-to-Mars².

How does this compare with variations in gravitational force due to adults standing nearby (everyone has a mother, so we won’t count her)?

Let’s take 60 kg as an adult’s mass, and a distance of 1 meter; that gives a gravitational acceleration of 4 x 10^-9 m s^-2, so just three adults nearby would have the same gravitational effect on you as Mars!

How does this compare with variations in gravitational force we know people born at the same time – but elsewhere on Earth – experienced?

Let’s take a difference in altitude of 1000 m (lots of big cities have altitudes greater than this – Mexico City, for example, is at 2240 m – and lots are close to sea level), and calculate the difference in acceleration due to the Earth’s gravity (this ignores several important factors, such as the Earth’s rotation, and local differences in g). Well, it works out as 0.003 m s^-2, or about 200,000 times greater than Martian gravity!

In fact, if you were born just half a centimeter higher, you’d be influenced to the same extent, gravitationally, as by Mars!

Next, electromagnetism.

You can be influenced, electromagnetically, in four separate ways: by a magnetic field, by an electric current, by an electric field, and by electromagnetic radiation. How powerful is Mars, electromagnetically?

There’s no electric current between Mars and Earth; the solar wind – which blows outward from the Sun (so Mars is ‘downstream’, and any electromagnetic influence carried by the solar wind would be from Earth to Mars) – is neutral, on balance, and carries no current.

The solar wind is a plasma, and any electric field there is in it will not be felt much more than a few Debye lengths’ away (basically, because electrons and ions are free to move in a plasma, they screen charges – the source of electric fields – quite effectively; the Debye length is about as far as an electric field can penetrate). Now the solar wind can be quite dynamic – meaning it can change a lot – but the Debye length in any part of it will rarely, if ever, be greater than a few tens of meters. Let’s be generous and say an electric field could be felt up to a kilometer away. But Mars never comes closer to the Earth than ~50 million km!

Well, that makes any electric field influence from Mars impossible, doesn’t it?!

While Mars does have a weak magnetic field, it has no influence on Earth, because the Earth’s own field creates a magnetosphere around us, one that screens out external magnetic fields. Besides, as Mars is downstream from us (the way the solar wind blows), and as the solar wind can carry (actually stretch) a magnetosphere only in the direction it blows, any magnetic influence would be from Earth to Mars, not Mars to Earth.

Three down, one to go.

The Earth’s atmosphere blocks all electromagnetic radiation except for that which we see by (and a bit on the UV side too), some infrared, and in the microwave and radio regions of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Mars is a very weak source of microwaves and radio waves, and even in the (radio) quietest places on Earth, electromagnetic radiation from (distant) radio stations, (distant) cellphone towers, TV satellites, airplanes overhead, etc totally, totally drowns out any Martian signals.

On a clear, moonless night, Mars may seem bright to your dark-adjusted eyes … but most likely you were born under quite bright lights, and indoors. No Martian influence here either.

So what do we have then?

Like I said, Mars can’t make you tall dark and handsome, nor can it influence your love life.

January 23, 2010December 24, 2015 by Jean Tate

Pioneer Anomaly

Artist impression of the Pioneer 10 probe (NASA)

[/caption]
Named after the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes, the Pioneer anomaly refers to the fact that they seem to be moving a teensy bit different from how we think they should be moving (or, more technically, the spacecraft seem to be subject to an unmodeled acceleration whose direction is towards the Sun).

The anomaly was first noticed, by John Anderson, in 1980, when analysis of tracking data from the spacecraft showed a small, unexplained acceleration towards the Sun (this was first published in 1995, with the main paper appearing in 1998). Since then it has been studied continuously, by quite a few scientists.

The Pioneer anomaly is one of the (very few!) true mysteries in contemporary physics, and is a great example of how science is done.

The first step – which Anderson and colleagues took – was to work out where the spacecraft were, and how fast they were traveling (and in what direction), at as many times as they could. Then they estimated the effects of gravity, from all known solar system objects (from the Sun to tiny asteroids and comets). Then they estimated the effects of things like radiation pressure, and possible outgassing. Then … They also checked whether other spacecraft seemed to have experienced a similar anomalous acceleration (the net: not possible to get an unambiguous answer, because all others have known – but unmodelable – effects much bigger than the Pioneer anomaly). Several independent investigations have been conducted, using different approaches, etc.

In the last few years, much effort has gone into trying to find all the raw tracking data (this has been tough, many tapes have been misplaced, for example), and into extracting clean signals from this (also tough … the data were never intended to be analyzed this way, meta-data is sorely lacking, and so on).

And yet, the anomaly remains …

… there’s an unmodeled acceleration of approximately 9 x 10^-10 m/s², towards the Sun.

The Planetary Society has been funding research into the Pioneer anomaly, and has a great summary here! And you can be a fly on the wall at a meeting of a team of scientists investigating the Pioneer anomaly, by checking out this Pioneer Explorer Collaboration webpage.

Universe Today has several stories on the Pioneer anomaly, for example The Pioneer Anomaly: A Deviation from Einstein Gravity?, Is the Kuiper Belt Slowing the Pioneer Spacecraft?, and Ten Mysteries of the Solar System.

Astronomy Cast has two episodes covering the Pioneer anomaly, The End of Our Tour Through the Solar System, and the November 18th, 2008 Questions Show.

Source:
The Planetary Society

January 22, 2010December 24, 2015 by Jean Tate

Nucleosynthesis

‘Nucleo-‘ means ‘to do with nuclei’; ‘synthesis’ means ‘to make’, so nucleosynthesis is the creation of (new) atomic nuclei.

In astronomy – and astrophysics and cosmology – there are two main kinds of nucleosynthesis, Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), and stellar nucleosynthesis.

In the amazingly successful set of theories which are popularly called the Big Bang theory, the early universe was very dense, and very hot. As it expanded, it cooled, and the quark-gluon plasma ‘froze’ into neutrons and protons (and other hadrons, but their role in BBN was marginal), which interacted furiously … lots and lots of nuclear reactions. The universe continued to cool, and soon became too cold for any further nuclear reactions … the unstable isotopes left then decayed, as did the neutrons not already in some nucleus or other. Most matter was then hydrogen (actually just protons; the electrons were not captured to form atoms until much later), and helium-4 (alpha particles) … with a sprinkling of deuterium, a dash of helium-3, and a trace of lithium-7.

That’s BBN.

The atoms in your body – apart from the hydrogen – were all made in stars … by stellar nucleosynthesis.

Stars on the main sequence get the energy they shine by from nuclear reactions in their cores; off the main sequence, the energy comes from nuclear reactions in a shell (or more than one shell) around the core. There are several different nuclear reaction cycles, or processes (e.g. triple alpha, s process, proton-proton chain, CNO cycle), but the end result is the fusion of hydrogen (and helium) to produce carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, … and the iron group (iron, cobalt, nickel). In the red giant phase of a star’s life, much of this matter ends up in the interstellar medium … and one day in your body.

There are other ways new nuclei can be created, in the universe (other than BBN and stellar nucleosynthesis); for example, when a high energy particle (a cosmic ray) collides with a nucleus in the interstellar medium (or the Earth’s atmosphere), it breaks it into two or more pieces (this process is called cosmic ray spallation). This produces most of the lithium (apart from the BBN ⁷Li), beryllium, and boron.

And one more: in a supernova, especially a core collapse supernova, huge quantities of new nuclei are synthesized, very quickly, in the nuclear reactions triggered by the flood of neutrons. This ‘r process’, as it is called (actually there’s more than one) produces most of the elements heavier than the iron group (copper to uranium), directly or by radioactive decay of unstable isotopes produced directly.

Like to learn more? Here are a few links that might interest you: Nucleosynthesis (NASA’s Cosmicopia), Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (Martin White, University of California, Berkeley), and Stellar Nucleosynthesis (Ohio University).

Plenty of Universe Today stories on this topic too; for example Stars at Milky Way Core ‘Exhale’ Carbon, Oxygen, Astronomers Simulate the First Stars Formed After the Big Bang, and Neutron Stars Have Crusts of Super-Steel.

Check out this Astronomy Cast episode, tailor-made for this Guide to Space article: Nucleosynthesis: Elements from Stars.

Sources:
NASA
Wikipedia
UC-Berkeley

January 21, 2010December 24, 2015 by Jean Tate

Atomic Mass Unit

[/caption]
Believe it or not, there are actually several atomic mass units … however, the one that’s standard – throughout chemistry, physics, biology, etc – is the unified atomic mass unit (symbol u). It is defined as 1/12 (one-twelfth) of the mass of an isolated carbon-12 atom, in its ground state, at rest. You’ll still sometime see the symbol amu – which stands for atomic mass unit – but that’s actually two, slightly different, units (and each is different from the unified atomic mass unit!) … these older units are defined in terms of oxygen (1/16th of an isolated oxygen-16 atom, and 1/16th of an ‘average’ oxygen atom).

As it’s a unit of mass, the atomic mass unit (u) should also have a value, in kilograms, right? It does … 1.660 538 782(83) x 10^-27 kg. How was this conversion worked out? After all, the kilogram is defined in terms of a bar of platinum-iridium alloy, sitting in a vault in Paris! First, it is important to recognize that the unified atomic mass unit is not an SI unit, but one that is accepted for use with the SI. Second, the kilogram and unified atomic mass unit are related via a primary SI unit, the mole, which is defined as “the amount of substance of a system which contains as many elementary entities as there are atoms in 0.012 kilogram of carbon 12“. Do you remember how many atoms there are in a mole of an element? Avogadro’s number! So, work out the Avogadro constant, and the conversion factor follows by a simple calculation …

The Dalton (symbol D, or Da) is the same as the unified atomic mass unit … why have two units then?!? In microbiology and biochemistry, many molecules have hundreds, or thousands, of constituent atoms, so it’s convenient to state their masses in terms of ‘thousands of unified atomic mass units’. That’s far too big a mouthful, so convention is to use kDa (kilodaltons).

Find out more on the (unified) atomic mass unit, from the Argonne National Laboratory, from the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, and from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Learning to Breathe Mars Air and Mini-Detector Could Find Life on Mars or Anthrax at the Airport are two Universe Today articles relevant to the atomic mass unit.

Energy Levels and Spectra and Inside the Atom are two Astronomy Cast episodes related to the atomic mass unit.

Sources:
Wikipedia
Newton Ask a Scientist
Wise Geek

January 21, 2010December 24, 2015 by Jean Tate

Antineutrino

[/caption]
The antineutrino (or anti-neutrino) is a lepton, an antimatter particle, the counterpart to the neutrino.

Actually, there are three distinct antineutrinos, called types, or flavors: electron antineutrino (symbol ̅ν_e), muon antineutrino (symbol ̅ν_μ), and tau antineutrino (symbol ̅ν_τ).

Beta Decay which produces electrons also produces (electron) antineutrinos. Wolfgang Pauli proposed the existence of these particles, in 1930, to ensure that beta decay conserved energy (the electrons in beta decay have a continuum of energies) and momentum (the momentum of the electron and recoil nucleus – in beta decay – do not add up to zero); Enrico Fermi – who developed the first theory of beta decay – coined the word ‘neutrino’, in 1934 (it’s actually a pun, in Italian!). It would be a quarter of a century before the (electron) antineutrino was confirmed, via direct detection (Cowan and Reines did the experiment, in 1956, and later got a Nobel Prize for it).

Another Nobel Prize – for Leon Lederman, Melvin Schwartz, and Jack Steinberger, in 1988 – came from experimental work in the 1960s which showed that muon antineutrinos are not the same as electron antineutrinos.

And in 2002, Davis and Koshiba shared the Nobel Prize (with Giacconi, for work in x-ray astronomy) for their detection of cosmic antineutrinos (a 40-year task!), which lead to the discovery of flavor oscillations (in which an antineutrino of one kind changes into another – electron antineutrino to muon antineutrino, for example).

Are neutrinos their own antiparticles? No … but perhaps there is an as yet undiscovered kind of neutrino that is (called a Majorana neutrino)? So β^– (electron) decay produces antineutrinos (lepton number is conserved: 1 + (-1) = 0), and β⁺ (positron) decay produces neutrinos.

No Guide to Space article would be complete without some ‘Further Reading’, would it? KamLAND (the Kamioka Liquid-scintillator Anti-Neutrino Detector) is a wonderful place to start! For one of the greatest physics detective stories of the 20th century, check out my idol John Bahcall’s webpage. Applied Antineutrino Physics (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) – great stuff there too.

You won’t find ‘antineutrino’ in many Universe Today articles … but you’ll find plenty on neutrinos! That’s OK … remember that it’s very common to use the word ‘neutrino’ in a generic sense, one that includes the meaning ‘antineutrino’. Some examples: Neutrino Evidence Confirms Big Bang Predictions , Seeing Inside the Earth with Neutrinos, and Do Advanced Civilizations Communicate with Neutrinos?

Two Astronomy Cast episodes give you more insight into the antineutrino, Antimatter, and The Search for Neutrinos.

Sources:
Stanford University KamLAND
Wikipedia