Confused by Brian Cox about stardust

Confused by Brian Cox about stardust

Author
Discussion

Derek Smith

Original Poster:

45,854 posts

250 months

Monday 4th January 2016
quotequote all
A couple of days ago I saw a Cox programme on the universe. The episode mentioned the life cycle of stars and he said, and explained, something which has bothered me in the past.

If a big star explodes as a supernova, bits of it are sent out into the ether. (Yeah, I know, but if it was good enough for Einstein.)

Now the star has been busily converting hydrogen to the heavy metals and, in the process, using up all the H. That bit I think I grasp. And the bit about why heavy metals.

The gas clouds are awe inspiring and I have some as screen savers.

He mentioned the Pleiades and the nebula coming from a supernova and that stars are being born from the cloud and the cycle continuing.

So where's the hydrogen coming from? I thought it had all been used up in the original star that went bang.

If it was already there, why did it need the explosion?


Derek Smith

Original Poster:

45,854 posts

250 months

Monday 4th January 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
A star dies when it uses up the hydrogen in its CORE. There will still be plenty of unused hydrogen in the non fusing outer bulk of the star. If the star is biog enough to go supernova, all that unfused hydrogen will get blasted out into space.
Thanks for that. It seems very wasteful.

Any idea of percentages used:unused.


Derek Smith

Original Poster:

45,854 posts

250 months

Tuesday 5th January 2016
quotequote all
MrCarPark said:
In Prof Cox's defence, he gave a Q&A over the summer to an audience of mixed knowledge (kids through to smart adults) and handled it very well.

His explanation of the expansionary multiverse certainly illuminated my understanding smile
No need to defend him. I think that in popularising science he does a great service to this country.

The programmes could be a bit better at times. There are lots of images of him standing around looking cool, on top of hills, mountains and buildings. But a small criticism.


Derek Smith

Original Poster:

45,854 posts

250 months

Wednesday 6th January 2016
quotequote all
Puns aside, I think Cox does well in his popularising of science.

When I was a kid, there was Fred Hoyle who had a regular series on the radio talking about new, then, discoveries in the physical sciences. He was an odd fellow, and certainly had a massive conceit, which came over on the radio. I never really took to him, but the programmes were great. My elder brother had a reel-to-reel tape recorder and so we could listen more intently, albeit with the occasional interruption from my mum telling us it was time to go to sleep.

Hoyle was the supporter of alternative theories of the origin of the universe. Despite his view being exposed as having no support, he was very aggressive in its defence.

He got me hooked on astronomical physics.

I would assume Cox has done the same for a lot more kids than Hoyle ever did so good on him..