"Why should we be concerned about where heavy elements—those with a proton number greater than 26—came from? The answer points to two opposing paradigms in the story of origins.
The first paradigm is based on random chance events in which nature somehow creates and sustains itself, and the second is based on an ex nihilo (out of nothing) creation that is consistent with the biblical narrative.
...........elements heavier than 56Fe cannot be produced in stars like our sun because nuclear fusion reactions for elements above 56Fe become endothermic—i.e., the surrounding medium must supply energy to the reaction for it to occur.
*In order for two 56Fe nuclei to fuse, one of the nuclei must have an energy of at least 91 MeV (megaelectron volts) in order to overcome the coulomb barrier between them.
*For the nuclear reaction to occur at all, a mass/energy deficit of approximately 44 MeV must be supplied to the reaction (56Fe + 56Fe → 112Te) by the containing medium.
*Now, 91 MeV corresponds to a star temperature of approximately 1.06 × 1012 °K (kelvin), and 44 MeV corresponds to a star temperature of approximately 5.1 × 1011 °K.
*The hottest stars measured to date are the blue hypergiants such as Eta Carinae with temperatures in the neighborhood of 4 × 104 °K, approximately seven orders of magnitude less than the energy required for such fusion reactions to occur.
The hottest known place in the universe occurs in the searing gas surrounding a swarm of galaxies in the constellation Virgo. This gas reaches an amazing 3 × 108 °K, still three orders of magnitude too cold for nuclear fusion above 56Fe. Clearly, it is not possible for the heavy elements to form in known stable stars and nebula. So, how do mainstream scientists explain the existence of heavy elements?
In searching for other possible “heavy element factories,” mainstream science first focused on exploding supernovas.
*Wikipedia claims that supernovas can expel material at velocities of up to 3 × 107 m/sec, or about 10% the speed of light.
*A paper on this claim is cited in reference 7, but no direct evidence supporting it was found.
*The primary nuclei present in the supernova debris would be lighter elements such as hydrogen and helium. If the claimed velocity of the expanding material is based on either of these elements, then the temperature of the expanding supernova debris would be on the order of 2 × 1011 °K. That is still not enough to fuel the fusion of two 56Fe nuclei but is enough to question the apparent contradiction with the searing gas.
*It’s also interesting that the observation of supernova debris from SN1987A only revealed approximately 1.3% of the 56Co expected to be present in the supernova ejecta. Perhaps this is evidence of why only 56Fe and lighter elements are routinely observed in such debris.
.....science is still faced with the conundrum of where the heavy elements came from. The supernova
explosion model is shaky at best and really doesn’t appear to fit the observable data. In order to solve this puzzle, secular science turned to stepwise direct nuclear reactions.
Since proton capture is unlikely due to the coulomb barrier (about 9 MeV), the most probable sequence for producing heavy elements would be consecutive neutron capture reactions followed by positron nuclear decay when the sequence reaches an unstable isotope. The models for this process are called the s-process and the r-process depending on whether the process proceeds slowly or rapidly.
Three obvious problems with these models are:
In the biblical narrative, human beings were fashioned from the dust of the earth (And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,....Genesis 2:7), not from star dust. It takes more faith to believe in the sensationalized views of the secular world than to accept the perfectly rational proposition that the universe was created by the hand of God out of nothing." ICR
The first paradigm is based on random chance events in which nature somehow creates and sustains itself, and the second is based on an ex nihilo (out of nothing) creation that is consistent with the biblical narrative.
...........elements heavier than 56Fe cannot be produced in stars like our sun because nuclear fusion reactions for elements above 56Fe become endothermic—i.e., the surrounding medium must supply energy to the reaction for it to occur.
*In order for two 56Fe nuclei to fuse, one of the nuclei must have an energy of at least 91 MeV (megaelectron volts) in order to overcome the coulomb barrier between them.
*For the nuclear reaction to occur at all, a mass/energy deficit of approximately 44 MeV must be supplied to the reaction (56Fe + 56Fe → 112Te) by the containing medium.
*Now, 91 MeV corresponds to a star temperature of approximately 1.06 × 1012 °K (kelvin), and 44 MeV corresponds to a star temperature of approximately 5.1 × 1011 °K.
*The hottest stars measured to date are the blue hypergiants such as Eta Carinae with temperatures in the neighborhood of 4 × 104 °K, approximately seven orders of magnitude less than the energy required for such fusion reactions to occur.
The hottest known place in the universe occurs in the searing gas surrounding a swarm of galaxies in the constellation Virgo. This gas reaches an amazing 3 × 108 °K, still three orders of magnitude too cold for nuclear fusion above 56Fe. Clearly, it is not possible for the heavy elements to form in known stable stars and nebula. So, how do mainstream scientists explain the existence of heavy elements?
In searching for other possible “heavy element factories,” mainstream science first focused on exploding supernovas.
*Wikipedia claims that supernovas can expel material at velocities of up to 3 × 107 m/sec, or about 10% the speed of light.
*A paper on this claim is cited in reference 7, but no direct evidence supporting it was found.
*The primary nuclei present in the supernova debris would be lighter elements such as hydrogen and helium. If the claimed velocity of the expanding material is based on either of these elements, then the temperature of the expanding supernova debris would be on the order of 2 × 1011 °K. That is still not enough to fuel the fusion of two 56Fe nuclei but is enough to question the apparent contradiction with the searing gas.
*It’s also interesting that the observation of supernova debris from SN1987A only revealed approximately 1.3% of the 56Co expected to be present in the supernova ejecta. Perhaps this is evidence of why only 56Fe and lighter elements are routinely observed in such debris.
.....science is still faced with the conundrum of where the heavy elements came from. The supernova
Since proton capture is unlikely due to the coulomb barrier (about 9 MeV), the most probable sequence for producing heavy elements would be consecutive neutron capture reactions followed by positron nuclear decay when the sequence reaches an unstable isotope. The models for this process are called the s-process and the r-process depending on whether the process proceeds slowly or rapidly.
Three obvious problems with these models are:
- Sequential nuclear reactions on the same nucleus become increasingly improbable in a large aggregation of target particles.
- As pointed out there is no way to observationally determine whether any heavy nuclei observed are primordial (i.e., original) or manufactured later.
- Where do all the neutrons needed for these two methods come from?
In the biblical narrative, human beings were fashioned from the dust of the earth (And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,....Genesis 2:7), not from star dust. It takes more faith to believe in the sensationalized views of the secular world than to accept the perfectly rational proposition that the universe was created by the hand of God out of nothing." ICR
