Recent studies in nuclear astrophysics have introduced the “intermediate i-process,” a critical reaction pathway for the synthesis of heavy elements like lanthanum in stars.
Through experiments at leading facilities such as the Argonne National Laboratory, scientists are refining our understanding of this process, suggesting white dwarf stars as probable sites for these nuclear reactions.
Nuclear Astrophysics and the i-Process
The synthesis of heavy elements in stars remains a central puzzle in nuclear astrophysics. Scientists have recently proposed a novel stellar mechanism, the intermediate “i” process, to account for fresh astronomical findings. Accurate nuclear data is essential to pinpoint the stellar location of the i-process. Recent measurements of a nuclear reaction crucial to the production of lanthanum confirm that the i-process could plausibly explain these astronomical observations, validating the proposed conditions of this process.
Exploring the Impact of New Measurements
The new measurement helps to set constraints for the conditions of the i-process. Scientists currently have limited knowledge of how much heavy element synthesis is the result of this process. The recent result, together with future measurements, can help create a more accurate picture of nucleosynthesis. Studies like this will help scientists finally answer the question of how the elements form in stars.
Advances in i-Process Research
The so-called “intermediate process” or “i-process” is a new nucleosynthesis process that scientists have introduced to explain recent astronomical observations. Now, scientists at the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB), a Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science user facility, have presented the measurement of a nuclear reaction that helps to constrain the astrophysical conditions for the i-process.
The experiment was conducted at the Argonne Tandem Linac Accelerator System (ATLAS), a DOE particle accelerator user facility at Argonne National Laboratory. The experiment used beams produced by the CARIBU facility of ATLAS, and the main device used was the FRIB SuN detector developed at Michigan State University.
Addressing Uncertainties in Element Formation
The research found that observations of the element lanthanum, when combined with observations of other elements like barium and europium, are sensitive to the i-process conditions. However, the large nuclear physics uncertainties do not allow researchers to describe the exact conditions and identify the site of the i-process.
To help address the uncertainties, particularly for the production of lanthanum, the researchers studied the ability of the barium-139 nucleus to capture neutrons in the stellar environment. With the new constraints, scientists can confirm the neutron density required for an i-process. They can also confirm that rapidly accreting white dwarf stars are a viable site for the i-process.
Reference: “First Study of the 139Ba(n,γ)140Ba Reaction to Constrain the Conditions for the Astrophysical i Process” by Spyrou, Artemisia; Mucher, Dennis; Denissenkov, Pavel A.; Herwig, Falk; Good, Erin C.; Balk, Gabriel; Berg, Hannah C.; Bleuel, D L.; Clark, Jason A.; Dembski, Cade; Deyoung, Paul; Greaves, Beau; Guttormsen, M.; Harris, Caley; Larsen, A. C.; Liddick, Sean N.; Lyons, Stephanie M.; Markova, Maria; Mogannam, Mejdi J.; Nikas, Stylianos; Owens-Fryar, Gerard Jordan; Palmisano-Kyle, Alicia; Perdikakis, George; Pogliano, Francesco; Quintieri, Michael; Richard, Andrea L.; Santiago-Gonzalez, Daniel; Savard, Guy; Smith, Mallory K.; Sweet, Adriana; Tsantiri, Artemis and Wiedeking, M, 17 May 2024, Physical Review Letters.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.202701
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
1 Comment
Ask researchers to think deeply:
1. What is the difference between imagined particles and imagined God?
2. What are you exploring and searching for?
3. What does the physical phenomenon you observed explain?
4. What is the dirtiness and ugliness in academic activities?
and so on.
Scientific research guided by correct theories can help people avoid detours, failures, and exaggeration. The physical phenomena observed by researchers in experiments are always appearances, never the natural essence of things. The natural essence of things needs to be extracted and sublimated based on mathematical theories via appearances , rather than being imagined arbitrarily.
Everytime scientific revolution, the scientific research space brought by the new paradigm expands exponentially. Physics should not ignore the analyzable physical properties of topological vortices.
(1) Traditional physics: based on mathematical formalism, experimental verification and arbitrary imagination.
(2) Topological Vortex Theory: Although also based on mathematics (such as topology), it focuses more on non intuitive geometry and topological structures, challenging traditional physical intuition.
Extension of the Standard Model: Topological Vortex Theory points out the limitations of the Standard Model in describing the large-scale structure of the universe, proposes the need to consider non-standard model components such as dark matter and dark energy, and suggests that topological vortex fields may be key to understanding these phenomena.
Topological vortex theory heralds innovative technologies such as topological electronics, topological smart batteries, topological quantum computing, etc., which may bring low-energy electronic components, almost inexhaustible currents, and revolutionary computing platforms, etc.
Topology tells us that topological vortices and antivortices can form new spacetime structures via the synchronous effect of superposition, deflection, or twisting of them. In fact, mathematics does not tell us that there must be God particles, ghost particles, fermions, or bosons present. When physics and mathematics diverge, arbitrary imagination will make physics no different from theology. Topological vortex research reflections on the philosophy and methodology of science help us understand the nature essence of science and the limitations of scientific methods. This not only has guiding significance for scientific research itself, but also has important implications for science education and popularization.
Today, so-called official (such as PRL, Nature, Science, PNAS, etc.) in physics stubbornly believes that two sets of cobalt-60 rotating in opposite directions can become two sets of objects that mirror each other, is a typical case that pseudoscience is rampant and domineering. Please witness the exemplary collaboration between theoretical physicists and experimentalists (https://scitechdaily.com/microscope-spacecrafts-most-precise-test-of-key-component-of-the-theory-of-general-relativity/#comment-854286).
Let us continue to witness together the dirtiest and ugliest era in the scientific and humanistic history of human society. The laws of nature will not change due to misleading of so-called academic publications.