Material from supernova

[JTsyo]

So it's known that things heavier than hydrogen are created in stars and the really heavy stuff during a nova. For the material that makes up our solar system, is it accepted that it all comes from one nova or does it take multiple novas to provide the material for planets and such?

 

[kotss]

What I have come to learn is that there were much larger stars in the earlier universe that ran through their supply of hydrogen more quickly due to their larger size and these died in supernova explosions, having created the heavier elements in the process. This created two scenarios the nurseries for future smaller stars and the elements for solar system creation (i.e. Planetary bodies). I put no emphasis on time frames since that is just estimates. It is theorized that Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium were naturally occuring after matter was created in early stages of the Universe.

 

[Sunny129]

So it's known that things heavier than hydrogen are created in stars and the really heavy stuff during a nova. For the material that makes up our solar system, is it accepted that it all comes from one nova or does it take multiple novas to provide the material for planets and such?

statistically speaking, it is highly unlikely that the whole of our solar system (Sun, planets, asteroids, comets, etc.) came from the remains of just one star/supernova. is it possible that a large enough star contains enough matter at the very instant it becomes a supernova to to form an entire solar system (a star smaller than its progenitor, and planets, etc.)? sure...but the very nature of a supernova (matter receding from a central origin at relativistic speeds) pretty much prevents such a thing from happening. and so it is the gas and dust left over from multiple supernovae that eventually conglomerates under the force of gravity and leads to the formation of new solar systems. besides, the Sun's metallicity is too high and too varied for all its (and the rest of the solar system's) heavy elements to have come from a single supernova.

also, keep in mind that novae and supernovae are two very different events/processes, and that you aren't going to get any heavy element formation from a nova (the process in which a main sequence or giant companion star dumps matter onto the surface of a white dwarf, causing runaway nuclear flare-ups). elements will be formed b/c it is a fusion reaction, but you won't get heavy elements like you would from a supernova.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

Indeed, in true astronomers fashion, we classify everything. There are 3 classifications that stars can fall into, roughly based on their enrichment of heavier elements.

Population 3 stars correspond to the first generation of stars, which had to have formed without the presence of anything above Helium (I'm neglecting lithium because it was scarce). Most importantly, star formation is very different if there is no dust to form molecular hydrogen but I digress. Also, these stars have never been observed, they're properties are only theorized.

Pop 2 stars would consist of stars which formed from the nuclear processed material of the pop 3 stars. This can include everything from the hydrogen fusion processing to the rapid neutron capture heavy elements that you are familiar with.

Our sun falls in the pop 3 category, having been heavily enriched from many cycles of nuclear processing and is relatively young (and dirty).

 

[JTsyo]

Would this make rocky planets less likely since you would need locations in which material from multiple novas can gather to form the star and associated planets? Though I guess star density might have been tighter in the past.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

With the Kepler mission data, I think we are actually in a position where we can possibly address that question.

I attended a talk given by one of the Kepler scientists but it was too long ago and I don't remember the details any longer.

One thing, the fraction of "metals" (what astronomers call anything with higher atomic number than 2) to our sun on a log scale is called metalicity. Positive numbers mean more "metals", negative numbers mean low metals.

I *think* that there was a trend after you removed the obvious more is more phenomenon (higher metalicity means there is more material which I think is what you alluded to) that higher metalicity stars had more planets. But again, the details are hazy and that could have very easily been the opposite...

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

Also, quick note. What sunny said is correct, there is a difference between nova and supernova and in this scenario you should be talking about supernova.

 

[DrPizza]

Helium also existed prior to star formation, as well as small quantities of Lithium, and I believe Beryllium.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

You are correct DrPizza (though I did state exactly that in my post). You can almost neglect helium for the most part since it makes up some absurdly small percentage of the early universe (by number, by mass its almost 75% I think?), it also doesn't take part in the molecular hydrogen chemistry (for the most part) which is required to make a star.