Ant Sinclair Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Water is such an important substance to Our Type of life-forms here on Earth, but exactly how long has the Old H2O been around? Was it 'created' pre or post star? If it was created pre-star, what involvement could it have had in the creation of stars if any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) Only hydrogen and helium existed pre stars, all other elements are created in stars. Edit/ and helium. http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Just-Elemental/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/How-elements-are-formed Edited August 19, 2015 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 The hydrogen in water was created in the big bang. The oxygen was created by supernova explosions of stars. I think there is still some debate about how and when water arrived on Earth. Some of it may have always been there, some may have been introduced by comets crashing into the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 Only hydrogen and helium existed pre stars, all other elements are created in stars. Edit/ and helium. http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Just-Elemental/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/How-elements-are-formed If He was there Dim, why wouldn't have been Li? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) If He was there Dim, why wouldn't have been Li? From that link: "along with trace amounts of lithium and beryllium". The universe was (and is now) about 92% hydrogen and 8% helium. Edited August 19, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 From that link: "along with trace amounts of lithium and beryllium". The universe was (and is now) about 92% hydrogen and 8% helium. May be Tim should have been a little more precise in his words then Strange! Why is it only these four 'elements' were present pre-star then Strange?, if in fact it were only these four elements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 May be Tim should have been a little more precise in his words then Strange! Not really. Pretty much all the lithium on Earth (and elsewhere) was created in stars. The universe is (and was) almost entirely made up of hydrogen and helium. Why is it only these four 'elements' were present pre-star then Strange?, if in fact it were only these four elements. It is, I think, related to the temperature and density in the early universe (and how long those conditions lasted). The relative abundance of hydrogen and helium is one of the bits of evidence that confirms the predictions of the big bang. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 Below Strange is a summary of a paper and the link to the same, please take a look; Water is a crucial molecule in molecular astrophysics as it controls much of the gas/grain chemistry, including the formation and evolution of more complex organic molecules in ices. Pre-stellar cores provide the original reservoir of material from which future planetary systems are built, but few observational constraints exist on the formation of water and its partitioning between gas and ice in the densest cores. Thanks to the high sensitivity of the Herschel Space Observatory, we report on the first detection of water vapor at high spectral resolution toward a dense cloud on the verge of star formation, the pre-stellar core L1544. The line shows an inverse P-Cygni profile, characteristic of gravitational contraction. To reproduce the observations, water vapor has to be present in the cold and dense central few thousand AU of L1544, where species heavier than Helium are expected to freeze-out onto dust grains, and the ortho:para H2 ratio has to be around 1:1 or larger. The observed amount of water vapor within the core (about 1.5x10^{-6} Msun) can be maintained by Far-UV photons locally produced by the impact of galactic cosmic rays with H2 molecules. Such FUV photons irradiate the icy mantles, liberating water wapor in the core center. Our Herschel data, combined with radiative transfer and chemical/dynamical models, shed light on the interplay between gas and solids in dense interstellar clouds and provide the first measurement of the water vapor abundance profile across the parent cloud of a future solar-type star and its potential planetary system. http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.5998 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Below Strange is a summary of a paper and the link to the same, please take a look; I have only skimmed through the paper. What about it is interesting / relevant to this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 An excerpt of the summary, could this imply anything Strange? "we report on the first detection of water vapor at high spectral resolution toward a dense cloud on the verge of star formation, the pre-stellar core" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 An excerpt of the summary, could this imply anything Strange? "we report on the first detection of water vapor at high spectral resolution toward a dense cloud on the verge of star formation, the pre-stellar core" Ummm, it implies there is water vapour in those clouds? And ... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 Ummm, it implies there is water vapour in those clouds? And ... ? Ok then strange seeing as You're starting to word-play let Me ask You this; If water was pre-star, would it have been 'helpful' in star formation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 If water was pre-star, would it have been 'helpful' in star formation? I have no idea. I am sure that the first stars (which obviously contained only hydrogen [and a little bit of helium]) were different from later stars (which contained varying proportions of other elements) but this is not a subject I know much about. If you want to know more you could try googling something like stellar metallicity (astronomers refer to all elements formed in stars, i.e. above helium, as "metals"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 Just to get it in before Dim/Sun - No it wouldn't have put the fire out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Also, in clouds where stars are forming, any water would presumably be dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 I have no idea. I am sure that the first stars (which obviously contained only hydrogen [and a little bit of helium]) were different from later stars (which contained varying proportions of other elements) but this is not a subject I know much about. If you want to know more you could try googling something like stellar metallicity (astronomers refer to all elements formed in stars, i.e. above helium, as "metals"). Well I posted it here strange because of the vast wealth of collective knowledge that is here in these forums in hope of resolving the question of the original post "is water pre or post star". Hopefully those who are knowledglable in this area will input and help shed light to achieve an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 May be Tim should have been a little more precise in his words then Strange! Really? Your question was answered, but you are going complain about the lack of precision in regard to a question you didn't ask (and which was contained in the link which you obviously didn't read)? Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) Well I posted it here strange because of the vast wealth of collective knowledge that is here in these forums in hope of resolving the question of the original post "is water pre or post star". Hopefully those who are knowledglable in this area will input and help shed light to achieve an answer. I'm not what hasn't been answered... The oxygen in water was formed in stars. Edited August 19, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 You know Your Nuclear Physics swansont, as in earlier post - would water be helpful in the mechanics of star formation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Is this the sort of thing you are looking for: Here we show that as soon as the primordial gas—left over from the Big Bang—is enriched by elements ejected from supernovae to a carbon or oxygen abundance as small as 0.01–0.1 per cent of that found in the Sun, cooling by singly ionized carbon or neutral oxygen can lead to the formation of low-mass stars by allowing cloud fragmentation to smaller clumps. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6960/abs/nature02071.html So it seems that the creation of heavier elements (particularly carbon and oxygen) by the first stars may be what enabled the smaller stars we see today to form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) Really? Your question was answered, but you are going complain about the lack of precision in regard to a question you didn't ask (and which was contained in the link which you obviously didn't read)? Come on. Iam not complaining about anything swansont, strange 'pulled' Me on My definitions in the Centre of a Magnet thread and I didn't notice You make a similar post to him! Is this the sort of thing you in re looking for: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6960/abs/nature02071.html So it seems that the creation of heavier elements (particularly carbon and oxygen) by the first stars may be what enabled the smaller stars we see today to form. Strange, as You'll probably know of gas partial pressures here on Earth and how the different gases spread evenly, how would gases behave in the big void? Edited August 19, 2015 by Ant Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Strange, as You'll probably know of gas partial pressures here on Earth and how the different gases spread evenly, how would gases behave in the big void? Was that the sort of information you were looking for or not? Why do you not acknowledge information provided? Why do you answer every question with a question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Was that the sort of information you were looking for or not? Why do you not acknowledge information provided? Why do you answer every question with a question? And why he is so angry at being corrected? No one can know everything, so I welcome being shown why I’m wrong; how else do we learn? I can’t understand why people, such as Ant, consider assumption supersedes evidence; or why it matters so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted August 19, 2015 Author Share Posted August 19, 2015 And why he is so angry at being corrected? No one can know everything, so I welcome being shown why I’m wrong; how else do we learn? I can’t understand why people, such as Ant, consider assumption supersedes evidence; or why it matters so much? Why did You not just watch from the sidelines Dim and learn instead of jumping in with Your limited knowledge on this subject? -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Why did You not just watch from the sidelines Dim and learn instead of jumping in with Your limited knowledge on this subject? In case you miss the point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts