Talk:Stellar nucleosynthesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Stellar nucleosynthesis is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

To-do list[edit]

Just to remember some of the missing bits:

-- Looxix 01:25 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

And the magnesium-burning process(es).32ieww (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

examples of observations that falsify stellar fusion models[edit]

FG Sagittae - variable star brightened four magnitudes while COOLING and shifting from UV to visible light, then dropped SEVEN magnitudes in less than a hundred years, it's moved all the way across "HR diagram", and now it's a binary pair - impossible to explain by common belief systems involving stars radiating heat from nucleosynthesis, exactly what electric models would predict as a star is subjected to violent change in current density; fission of the star and as a result lower current density on the surface of the (now) two bodies

other variable stars defying faith-based stellar fusion beliefs: V 605 Aquilae (similar to above), V 4334 Sagittarii (changed both spectral type and observed composition in years), V838 Monocerotis (changed from an apparently small star hotter than the sun to a cooler "giant" star in a matter of months, defying ANY explanation by stellar fusion models)

If stellar fusion models were valid these types of changes might have an outside chance of taking place in a few thousand years, but typically it would be on the order of a few HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS. How much evidence is required to falsify a hypothesis? Here's a clue: any

This stellar fusion article should be labelled pseudoscience, because observations falsify it, yet it persists as a belief system. Either pseudoscience or religion, either would be okay.

I was wondering[edit]

is there anything that a nineth grade science student could do for a science fair, that is in two days? We had learned that different elements burn into different colors and are there any household items that can be burnt that will not be dangerous to anyone? Tank you, Arden Portis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.73.179.110 (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject class rating[edit]

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)

elements created during stellar necleosynthesis[edit]

In the wikipage for Iron_peak, it states that the elements lighter than Iron are created in stellar nucleosynthesis. Is this what you mean when you say that stellar nucleosynthesis creates the nuclei for heavier elements? Rhetth (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Photon creation[edit]

I don't know, but I have seen it on History Channel's Universe series; the photon creation (light creating) in stars from the reactions inside the star

Plus the time one photon takes to escape the star's core

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.201.181.249 (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Eddington or Perrin?[edit]

The History section starts with In 1920, Arthur Eddington ... was the first to suggest that stars obtained their energy from nuclear fusion of hydrogen to form helium. However this article on Why the Stars Shine (see p.6-8) says that Eddington developed an initial suggestion by Jean Perrin in 1919. Dirac66 (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This article really needs improvement[edit]

Magnesium burning[edit]

I'm completely sure that magnesium is involved in a burning reaction of its own, I'm not sure what it is, so someone should create a page about it. I would love to be bold, but I can't due to this. 32ieww (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC) And what about sodium burning? How does it proceed? In the end, I just want to see how Ne21,22, Na23, Si29,30, S33,34, Ar38, K39,41, Ca42, and any other products from the carbon and oxygen burning products. However, I have found the answer to the "magnesium mystery." Mg24+He4=Si28. 32ieww (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Beyond Carbon, created by the triple-alpha process, heavier elements are largely created in the core by alpha capture. Thus the predominant elements in evolved stars are Oxygen, Neon, Magnesium, etc, with the intervening odd-number elements created in smaller quantities by less common reactions. There is a list of most of the relevant reactions, which usually have their own articles, but some description in this article would be helpful. Lithopsian (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)