Talk:Supernova nucleosynthesis

Astronomy C‑class High‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Supernova/Supernovae?

Is it supernova or supernovae? Or is that just a difference between the crazy british and american spellings of color and colour.

The word nova in this case comes from the Latin word for 'new', as it was originally applied to nova which were originally thought to be new stars. So, like many Latin words, nova is singular and novae is plural. So, it ought be supernova nucleosynthesis just like it is stellar nucleosynthesis where the adjective is singular. DAID 04:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review needed

This article really needs a going-over by someone with some expertise in this field. I edited it a bit to remove some obvious factual errors, but I think it has bigger problems. I haven't studied this stuff in years, though, so perhaps my memory is incorrect.--Srleffler 05:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at this article for factual accuracy (I have some amount of expertise in the field). There were some factual errors which I've now corrected. As far as I'm aware it's now accurate. [By the way, the s process does occur in stellar nucleosynthesis. It doesn't occur in supernova nucleosynthesis. I've changed the article to reflect this.] James E B 10:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that perhaps this article ought be merged with the r-process article, as both are somewhat lacking. Furthermore, the nucleosynthesis page suggests supernova nucleosynthesis is one of four types, and different from [[stellar nucleosynthesis]. Usually this is not the case, and explosive stellar nucleosynthesis is part of stellar nucleosynthesis making 3 main branches of nucleosynthesis. I will make comment on that page to this effect. I also have some expertise in the field of nuclear astrophysics, but I have yet to do excessive research about supernovae. DAID 05:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still no remarks on this. I will plan to delete this article, merge it with the r-process page, and put a redirect link. Although supernovae are a very likely environment the r-process can occur, the explosion mechanism is not clear, and the location of the r-process within a supernova, and the environment, is totally unknown. DAID (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what I mean is that the r-process components should be entirely moved to the r-process page, and that discussion should be very limited here. For Type Ia supernovae, the nucleosynthesis is well understood and established, and this process of nucleosynthesis is the one referred to as supernova nucleosynthesis. No one is calling the r-process by that name, however.DAID (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that we sometimes say "burning" instead of "fusing" in a metaphorical sense and that this is common between colleagues who fully understand fusion. However, it seems to be sloppy in a context where people may be at very beginner levels of learning (such as my students) and reinforces the misconception that stars are "burning balls of gas". The word "burn" appears 8 times on this page in phrases such as: "...occurs during explosive oxygen burning..." Or, am I missing something? Considering... (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. I've added a sentence at the beginning to clarify that burning refers to a nuclear and not a chemical reaction. Richard75 (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion versus nucleosynthesis

While reading the Supernova article, I came across this sentence: "These elements are produced by fusion (for iron and lighter elements), and by nucleosynthesis during the supernova explosion for elements heavier than iron." This led me the conclusion that nucleosynthesis is a distinctly different process from fusion, and so I followed the link to this article. After reading this article, I started thinking that nucleosynthesis is really a type of fusion... but I still wasn't sure. So I then went to the Nuclear fusion article and found the following: "Nuclear fusion of heavy elements (absorbing energy) occurs in the extremely high-energy conditions of supernova explosions." Couldn't a statement be added in the opening paragraph of this article that clearly states that nucleosynthesis is a type of nuclear fusion to prevent others from having the same confusion? Enduser 16:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word fusion has since been added to the opening, but to be clear, nucleosynthesis is exactly what the word sounds like: creation of nuclei. This does not need to be done through fusion, but it can be done through fusion. Fusion is a nuclear reaction mechanism, and nucleosynthesis is the concept of creating nuclei from any of many nuclear reactions.DAID (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion is generally regarded as a nuclear reaction producing nuclei that are larger (higher N) than the original nuclei and that produces energy. Therefore a neutron capture by lead is not a fusion reaction, since it doesn't produce energy, it just absorbs the neutron and its kinetic energy. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope / isobar

The r-process section included the line - "decays until the first stable isobar is reached." I changed isobar to isotope, since it is really the stability of the individual isotope that matters. However, in the r-process, the decay is apparently purely by beta emission, thus increasing the proton number along an isobaric line. It is consequently reasonable in this context to speak of a stable isobar. However, to avoid confusion, I think it is better to leave it as isotope, or go into a little more detail about the process to show why the word isobar is applicable in this context. --King Hildebrand 09:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that detail about the decay back to stability along a constant A line (isobaric line) would be an improvement. In particular, it's important for us to make a distinction in the article how when the r-process nuclei decay back to stability, they populate peaks that are shifted from the s-process peaks for this reason, even though both the s-process and r-process produce peaks at magic number nuclei. Future editing and additions to this effect are warranted, and I will try to look at the article later this week, and also welcome such contributions from other. DAID 04:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disbelief: Cf

Disbelief that Cf have ever been detected in supernovae, see Talk:Californium#Not_in_supernovae_.28I_presume.29. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor article

This article is next to useless. It mostly talks about things covered by other articles and says almost nothing about the creation of the heavier elements. Also it's language is overly technical. I call on experts to add to and rewrite this article. Asgrrr (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially pertinent article about this article

http://blog.sdss.org/2017/01/09/origin-of-the-elements-in-the-solar-system/ 92.235.37.26 (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant restructure

I have broken apart the Introduction into more bit sized pieces for readability. I have corrected several have been accidental introduced and may need corrections. The word "supernova" is already in context, where "supernova explosion" is redundant. (It is already linked to the Supernova article. IMO, this article is far too complex and looks like original research. It needs an adequate summary and cross-link with the Supernova main article. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1st and 2nd generation stars

I've just read in an old book (which may be out of date?) that first generation stars (which begin their lives made only out of elements produced in the Big Bang, i.e. hydrogen and helium) don't produce certain elements (such as nitrogen), either during their lifetime or when they explode. These elements have to wait for second generation stars to form out of the heavier elements created by their predecessors (in addition to hydrogen) and then become supernovae themselves. I would add this fact to the article, except that I don't know if scientists still think this happens, and it would be better to have a more recent source. Can anyone more knowledgeable than me deal with this please (or set me straight)? Richard75 (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]