Talk:Astrochemistry

Merge?

Merge with Cosmochemistry article? They're synonymous. 64.231.24.25 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge, yes. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I templated accordingly, now for discussion! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There are definitely good reasons for merging the two articles. However, I think there are subtle differences between then that may not necessarily warrant a merger. Although the two terms are often used interchangeably, cosmochemistry generally refers to the analysis of physical samples (meteorites, etc.) whereas astrochemistry often refers to the spectroscopic analysis of astronomical phenomenon for which no physical samples are available. Cosmochemistry is a well-developed discipline and its article could definitely be expanded on its own. Just my two cents. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topher385 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Categorization

Category:Chemistry is overpopulated. If you can help, please ensure this article is in an appropriate subcategory and remove it from Category:Chemistry.

• This is a high-level topic within chemistry, the combination of astronomy and chemistry, and is properly categorized into the general Category:Chemistry. Courtland 01:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

chemistry (chemical elements) vs chemistry (nuclear physics)

{{citation needed}}: do people using the term astrochemistry really deal strongly with "chemistry" in the astronomical sense, meaning nuclear reactions in stars? It would be good for someone to find an online reference, which shouldn't be hard.

i replace "nuclear chemistry" by "nuclear physics" because the wikipedia is not intended to confuse people. Astronomers normally say "chemistry" when we talk about nuclear reactions. That's just a historical fact. So when astronomers also talk about reactions between chemical elements, you need to be careful to distinguish the real physical nature of what we're talking about. Boud 12:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Astrochemists do not work on nuclear synthesis within stars - and instead focus on molecular reactions in clouds, dense cores, and to a certain extent the outer atmospheres of dust producing AGB stars etc. 87.80.116.129

Nope, nuclear synthesis is a part of astrophysics. Chemistry, by necessity, deals with molecules, so chemists find the interiors of stars (where there are no molecules) rather uninteresting. Modest Genius ^talk 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Lithium

Lithium is not a product of stellar nucleosynthesis. All Lithium was created during big bang nucleosynthesis. Lithium is fused very quickly to heavier elements in stars and therefore destroyed, so the universes total Lithium content goes down as time goes on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.149.67 (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Odd that nobody have fixed that, after nearly four years! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW: Lithium sources are Big Bang and radiative spallation of carbon and such in interstellar space. In stars lithium generally go down. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup?

This article currently looks more like an essay than an actual article. It could do with some editing, splitting it into sections and making it easier to read. As I don't have time to do this myself right now, I've marked it as requiring cleanup. --Xanthine (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)