What Came First Hydrogen or Atoms That Make up Dust Particle

rlb2 · Jun 26, 2005

Science fiction writer Harlan Ellison once said that the most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. While the verdict is still out on the volume of stupidity, scientists have long known that hydrogen is indeed by far the most abundant element in the universe. When they peer through their telescopes, they see hydrogen in the vast clouds of dust and gas between stars -- especially in the denser regions that are collapsing to form new stars and planets. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17233 Am I missing something here? I always thought before this article that molecular hydrogen (2H) was formed from interaction of ionized gas stuck on magnetic flux lines like the ones that spiral out though our solar system from the sun. What is your take on this? Is there more dust in the universe or more hydrogen????? What came first hydrogen or the atoms that make up dust particles??? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

vogon13 · Jun 26, 2005

H <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

igorsboss · Jun 27, 2005

IMHO, Atomic or Ionized H, then dust atoms, then H2. H exists as soon as there are protons (super duper high energy) Dust atoms exist as soon as there is fusion (very high energy and very high H concentrations) Things need to be fairly cool to form H2 (That's chemistry, not fusion, so it is much lower energy) While H2 is a very good candidate for the first molecule, F is the most chemically reactive element, so Flourine-based compounds may have formed before H2, althought they would have been far more rare... Who knows?

rlb2 · Jun 27, 2005

Yes but in the beginning Molecular hydrogen formed way before dust??? This is like the classic case of what came first the chicken or the egg... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

valareos · Jun 27, 2005

not exactly chicken and the egg.. Think on it this way. the dust is made up, at the subatomic level, of protons, neutrons, and electrons. So which came first? Neutrons had to have came before all of them for the simple reason that they will decompose into a proton, a electron and a neutrino of some odd variety (antineutrino I THINK) ionized hydrogen is one single proton H- if the primordal dust was all neutrons, then the dust came first. If it was any other atomic structure, then the building blocks of those, the hydrogen, came first. blinks~ thought came to mind... perhaps dark matter that is suppsoedly around is the leftover primordal neutrons from the original collapse of "Neutral" energy into matter meh

rlb2 · Jun 27, 2005

Didn't fusion begot all the heavier elements such as dust??? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

Saiph · Jun 27, 2005

dust is a conglomeration of heavier elements. as such Hydrogen and helium came first, then heavier elements were fused in stars. As the universe cooled, dust was formed. It may be that dust was formed before the chemical compound H2. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

labguy · Jul 8, 2005

"dust is a conglomeration of heavier elements. as such Hydrogen and helium came first, then heavier elements were fused in stars. As the universe cooled, dust was formed. It may be that dust was formed before the chemical compound H2." That's close. After the big bang, there were only two elements formed, Hydrogen and Helium. These formed when the temperature cooled enough to allow electrons to stay captured in their shells around a nucleus of protons/neutrons. EVERY element heavier than helium is called a "metal" in stellar evolution studies, and all elements heavier than helium were formed by fusion in the cores of first-generation stars. There could be no dust until the first-generation stars had died and expelled heavier elements by mass ejections when becoming a red giant, or in Supernovae. Since the largest and hottest stars have the shortest lives, most of the early heavy elements would have come fron stars gone supernova.

Saiph · Jul 8, 2005

Actually, I'm right, but didn't tell the whole story. Thanks for filling in the details. here's an interesting tidbit though: Trace amounts of lithium were also formed during the BB and really must have been formed then as stellar fusion really doesn't produce it. Lithium acts as a fusion catalyst for later types of fusion (non-proton proton chain fusion) allowing for the creation of heavier elements. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

grooble · Jul 9, 2005

Where did the matter for the big bang come from, does time really stretch back forever? If so how can there be a present?

labguy · Jul 9, 2005

Actually, of the 3 PP-Chain types, it is Be(7) that changes to Li(7) in PP type two. Without the Be, there wouldn't be any Li. Also notice that PP typeI uses H and He only and this happens exclusively until heavier elements are synthsized and Be and Li can form. See: http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/people/vdhillon/teaching/phy213/phy213_fusion3.html for a very good summary, including the CNO cycle that occurs in more massive stars.

R1 · Jul 9, 2005

to groobles post, I need to know where the matter came from too, because the instant that matter existed, its gravity slowed time down quite a bit. before matter, time very well may extend forever, but the fact that makes me more uncomfortable is that the speed of time had to be incredibly fast, being so far from any gravity to slow clocks down. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

labguy · Jul 9, 2005

These two sites give a decent explanation of where matter came from after the big bang: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html http://aether.lbl.gov/WWW/tour/elements/early/early_a.html Also, I notice that the post above my last one was correct in that trace amounts of lithium were synthesized. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />the fact that makes me more uncomfortable is that the speed of time had to be incredibly fast, being so far from any gravity to slow clocks down.<hr /></blockquote> I don't understand this part of the question.(?) Time is linear and moves in only one direction. Differences in percieved time from different frames is another whole story. The sites listed above also show the time-frames for the production of matter after the big bang.

Saiph · Jul 9, 2005

GR descriptions of the BB theory usually indicate that time began during the BB as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Search

What Came First Hydrogen or Atoms That Make up Dust Particle

rlb2

Guest

vogon13

Guest

igorsboss

Guest

rlb2

Guest

valareos

Guest

rlb2

Guest

Saiph

Guest

labguy

Guest

Saiph

Guest

grooble

Guest

labguy

Guest

R1

Guest

labguy

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page