
The periodic table, colour coded by the likely origin of each element - prawn
https://twitter.com/olivertlord/status/1292562140776271872
======
jacknews
The image shown by wikipedia
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element)
seems more complete and better laid out, and is also by cmglee
([https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cmglee](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cmglee)),
based on data from Jennifer Johnson at Ohio State University
([http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~jaj/nucleo/](http://www.astronomy.ohio-
state.edu/~jaj/nucleo/)):

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Nucleosy...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Nucleosynthesis_periodic_table.svg)

~~~
identity0
Brown: made by monkeys on terrestrial planets

~~~
saagarjha
Also made in the similar ways as their surrounding elements, but generally
don't stick around for long enough for anyone to really care.

------
arethuza
For some completely irrational reason I was slightly disappointed that the
gold in my wedding ring was only from a neutron star merger and probably not
from a supernova.

However, reading the relevant wikipedia page I came across this part:

 _" this single neutron star merger event generated between 3 and 13 Earth
masses of gold"_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Gold_production_in_the_Un...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Gold_production_in_the_Universe)

Can't wait to refer to that in the next discussion on HN about gold as a store
of value.... ;-)

~~~
WorldMaker
Neutron Star Mergers & Acquisitions sounds like a great title for book or TV
show.

~~~
rini17
I have a very-soon-merging neutron star pair to sell to you.

~~~
WorldMaker
"You want to be on the ground floor of this IPO because I'm telling you it's
going to just be exploding gold (and other elements)."

~~~
ISL
Radioactive gold, at that.

------
mjs
Wikipedia original:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element#/media/File:N...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element#/media/File:Nucleosynthesis_periodic_table.svg)

------
dandare
How did elements created by a merging neutron stars and dying low-mass stars
get down to our planet?

~~~
hermitcrab
The follow up question is, how come the different elements aren't uniformly
mixed within the earth. Or perhaps formed into stratified layers with the
densest at the centre? E.g. Why are there 'deposits' of gold relatively close
to the surface? Something to do with interaction of the physical and chemical
properties of the elements with local variations in conditions?

~~~
changoplatanero
Yes you're right. Geologic and biologic processes unevenly distribute the
elements

~~~
HarryHirsch
The keyword is "Goldschmidt classification":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldschmidt_classification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldschmidt_classification)

Those who would like to know more could do worse than pick up Greenwood's &
Earnshaw's book (this one:
[https://www.amazon.com/-/dp/0750633654](https://www.amazon.com/-/dp/0750633654))
from the nearest university library, it has a chapter on nucleogenesis and
cosmic and geologic abundances.

------
dnautics
I don't like that these don't also take into account secondary events (like
non catastrophic fusion nucleosynthesis, or radioactive decay). And maybe some
indication that nearly all helium on earth is not primordial, which is not the
case in the universe.

------
sradman
Based on _Mineral Evolution_ [1] as popularized in the books and lectures of
Robert M. Hazen [2].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_evolution)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hazen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hazen)

------
rbobby
The unlabeled color is for human synthesized elements without a stable
isotope. Thanks wikipedia.

------
Waterluvian
As you walk your way down the table is there a correlation with elements being
more “recycled” for lack of a better term?

Ie. H and He are the basest elements and then everything else is formed
through increasing amount of processes? Having a hard time articulating this
one.

~~~
hermitcrab
The process that drives stars is fusion, which turns light elements into
heavier (strictly greater atomic number) elements, up to iron. Elements
heavier than iron are created in supernovas, neutron star collisions etc.

Many heavier elements are unstable and will radioactively decay into light
elements.

So it is a continual process both ways.

~~~
Waterluvian
Do they decay to some stable middle region or are they decaying right back
down to hydrogen? I’m guessing this is about entropy to an extent.

~~~
hermitcrab
Memory is a bit rusty on this (30 years since I did nuclear physics) but
elements have stable and unstable isotopes (with the same number of protons
and a different number of neutrons). E.g. Carbon 12 and 13 are stable and
Carbon 14 is unstable (half-life 5730 years). An atom will keep decaying until
it reaches a stable form. Then it will stay like that until some nuclear
fusion or fission event occurs.

~~~
hermitcrab
Consequently most chains of decay will reach a stable form long before they
get to Hydrogen.

~~~
saagarjha
For heavy elements this usually means a terminal at the 206, 207, or 208
isotopes of lead or thallium-205; radioactive isotopes smaller than that
usually quickly hit a "nearby" stable isotope.

------
delibes
Even though I've seen that before, it never properly registered with me that
Boron and Beryllium are made by a separate process:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_spallation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_spallation)

------
categorybooks
Here's a great resource for the basics from professor Anna Frebel at MIT:
[https://ocw.mit.edu/resources/res-8-007-cosmic-origin-of-
the...](https://ocw.mit.edu/resources/res-8-007-cosmic-origin-of-the-chemical-
elements-fall-2019/)

------
willis936
It would be cool to see this made into a series of pie charts (one for each
element) where the relative area of each pie chart is dictated by the relative
abundance of each element.

~~~
Jedd
100+ pie charts? That sounds even worse than just one pie chart -- though
given H and He make up ~98% of everything, squeezing the data into one pie
chart would make it extra-awful.

~~~
willis936
I don’t see how it would be awful. It would give the same information but also
show how much matter is from each source. Vector graphics eliminate resolution
concerns. Just zoom past hydrogen if it’s taking up 98% of the screen.

Edit: to be clear: the reason it would “be cool to see” is because it’s
visualizing data. It’s what graphs are for. I don’t care about the pies of the
pie charts. I care about being able to see the relative quantity of the colors
and to also see the distribution of discrete element quantities in one image.
There are many ways to do this. If you have a better suggestion, suggest it.

~~~
Jedd
So you want to see the ratio of origin of all elements, but grouped by
element? (one chart per element I think you said originally).

This is what the image in TFA actually has -- each element has one or more
colours within its rectangle, and I assume that the proportion of each colour
reflects relative provenance for that particular element.

~~~
willis936
Yes, but the information of the abundance of each element is not present. If
that information was added into this plot then the relative amount of each
color would be the relative abundance of the origin of elements.

~~~
Jedd
I think it'd be a fairly difficult breakdown to represent usefully, given four
elements (H, He, O, C) make up 99.4% of all matter.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elem...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#Universe)

~~~
willis936
I don’t see how an extreme distribution makes the representation less useful.
See: vector images. In fact, the large disparity is relative abundance of
elements is why it would be even more useful. A periodic table says next to
nothing about how much matter has gone through nucleosynthesis since the big
bang. You could show that with one pie chart, but then you lose the
information about the distribution of masses. You haven’t given a good reason
why it wouldn’t be useful to have all three pieces of information in one
graph.

~~~
Jedd
Well, firstly, I look forward to seeing your visualisation for these data -
I'm curious how you can portray these 3 dimensions.

Secondly, you originally wrote:

> It would be cool to see this made into a series of pie charts (one for each
> element)

so now when you say:

> You haven’t given a good reason why it wouldn’t be useful to have all three
> pieces of information in one graph.

it feels like I'm not the person who needs to show this set of 100+ charts /
one graph.

~~~
willis936
You left out the second half of my short first comment:

>where the relative area of each pie chart is dictated by the relative
abundance of each element

I suggest reviewing HN's comment guidelines. They're the only reason anyone
comes here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
Jedd
Oh, I expect people come to HN to _see_ interesting things.

"It would be nice to ..." may not fit into that category.

Anyway, as I understand it, on an A4 infographic, you'd be expecting to see
one pie chart (H) taking up 3/4 of the page.

Almost all the other 1/4 of the page would be taken up by an He circle.

Then you'd have a (still recognisable as a circle) for Oxygen, at about 6mm
wide, the next would be 4mm wide for Carbon.

After that I'd guess we're at ~1mm pie charts for Neon, Iron, Nitrogen.

After the first 7 pie charts, each subsequent pie chart would be the size of a
pixel (or sub-mm on a printed page). So it'd look like a hundred or so tiny
dots.

Have I misunderstand the visualisation you're describing?

~~~
willis936
You seem to miss the point of HN, or in fact the very concept of communities
in general.

Why do you think the graphic would be printed? If printed, why would it be
smaller than 20 feet across? I am confused by these unreasonable assumptions.

~~~
Jedd
Yes, quite. I certainly don't have your level of experience in HN and
communities, so I appreciate your patience.

In any case, it sounds like you have two things:

a) an interest in having this visualisation, and

b) access to all the tools & data needed to make it.

------
peter_d_sherman
This chart brings up the question of HOW exactly each element is created...

A long time ago, in Alchemy, there was the idea that certain elements could be
transformed into other elements by alchemical processes. This idea, back then,
was called "Transmutation".

Now, scientists of today know transmutation as possible, but only with select
heavy elements, and only in atom smashers/cyclotrons/large hadron colliders --
call them by whatever name you will.

Also, there exist radioactive elements which, over (usually!) very long
periods of time, decay or transmute, into lighter elements.

The common theme, in all of the above, is radiation.

In other words, radiation is somehow linked to the transformation of elements.

Now, with that in mind, if I may posit an impromptu hypothesis, and that is,
_not all radiation is created equal_...

In other words, you have alpha rays, beta rays, x-rays, gamma rays, etc. Or
call them particles instead of rays if you prefer.

Anyway, Each of these particles/rays has different penetrating power. An alpha
ray/particle (if I recall correctly) is blocked by a piece of paper, but it
takes yards and yards of cement or metal to block a gamma ray -- and that's
even if you can do it.

But, here's the thing.

Usually we see heat in the role of transforming things, not so much from
element to element, but from compound to elements (i.e., refining iron from
iron ore).

So, with that in mind, here's the hypothesis:

 _Perhaps heat -- is actually radiation, but at a lower scale /magnitude/area
of effect/penetration-of-space/ability to traverse a distance, power_.

In other words -- heat is _localized radiation_.

Or, phrased another way, radiation is _heat -- but sent outward to a non-local
distance._

So why is radiation "cold" at a distance to us humans?

Well, remember that that's a scale effect (the underlying energy should have
the same pattern regardless of scale, that is, scale could be much smaller),
and the Inverse Square Law ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-
square_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law)) still applies.

So, heat as localized radiation, and radiation as larger-in-scale-with-
respect-to-distance heat.

A crackpot theory?

Perhaps!

You be the judge!

~~~
jacknews
Riddle me this.

Why are there 4 fields (strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic,
gravity).

What even is a 'field'.

Why does gravity affect the other three?

What is time? What is space? What is quantum entanglement?

Why is there a universal speed limit?

Why do you need an 'equal and opposite reaction' to gain momentum, why can't
you just convert angular energy directtly into linear energy in a single
direction?

Why is there a universe at all, instead of nothing?

Etc, etc.

But as far as 'what is heat', you should read more, or just google your
questions.

You might be surprised at how many other people have asked the same questions,
and then set out to answer them, but with evidence. It's called "Science".

~~~
peter_d_sherman
>Riddle me this.

>Why are there 4 fields (strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic,
gravity).

Why is it that certain pairs of things in the universe can influence each
other at a distance, and other pairs of things cannot? (For example, a musical
instrument resonating at the fundamental pitch of a wine glass can vibrate
and/or potentially shatter the wine glass).

Why are there 4 fields? Well, potentially there are an _infinite_ number of
fields -- but each one's "sphere of influence" is "local" to a specific scale.
Some span the smallest units of distance; others span much larger scales...

>Why does gravity affect the other three?

Why do non-prime integers have multiple factors that divide into them;
Conversely, why can larger integers be made by multiplying two or more
integers; Think of this with respect to vibrations; with respect to waves; if
something in the universe is affected by or affects something else, generally
speaking it's because they vibrate sympathetically at some level or other.
Also, it's possible that the other three forces are influenced by gravity
because _gravity is the fundamental constituent of them_ , that is, they are
all _created by gravity_ in various different configurations, just like larger
integers are created by multiplying smaller ones, or larger patterns are
created by smaller ones.

In other words, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic forces --
_ARE gravity_ \-- in its various
modes/oscillations/vibrations/patterns/configurations/structures, etc.

Phrased another way, Gravity is the _Y Combinator_ of the other forces, the
central low-level pattern from which the other higher-level patterns are
built...

>What even is a 'field'.

In classical physics, you have the particle/wave duality. Basically, one is
the other, depending on frame of reference.

That particle wave duality (I've determined) is actually a particle/wave/field
TRINITY.

That is, particles ARE waves (depending on how you look at them), waves are
particles (depending on how you look at them), BUT ALSO waves are fields
(depending on how you look at them), and fields are waves (depending on how
you look at them), and fields are particles (depending on how you look at
them) and particles are fields, again, "depending on how you look at them".

Google "Starlings". A single starling at rest is a particle, in motion, it's a
wave, and many of them together moving in unision, that's a field.

Also (and this is the advanced lesson), you can have various degrees of
recursion in this, for example, a whole field of starlings could be viewed as
a single particle, then that could comprise multiple particles if teamed up
with other fields of starlings, and then those things could move like wave.

Think nested particles/waves/fields -- inside of other particles/waves/fields.

Also, the smallest unit of space (to implement all of the others), DOESN'T
NEED TO PHYSICALLY MOVE; that is, it only needs to state-change, like a pixel,
if it were a magnet, it could change from a North Pole to South Pole (or
possibly neutral), if charged, the charge could go from positive to negative
and back, if a region of force, the force could push one way and then the
reverse, etc., etc.

But the smallest units of space... DON'T NEED TO PHYSICALLY MOVE. There's
absolutely no motion on a TV or monitor screen; these are ILLUSIONS created by
the mind's observation...

>Why does gravity affect the other three?

Asked and answered. See above.

>What is time? What is space? What is quantum entanglement?

You forgot "distance" and "velocity". What are they?

Space can be defined in terms of _speed (velocity) and time_ , i.e., if you
travel 60 MPH for one hour, you've travelled one mile.

Time can be defined in terms of distance travelled relative to speed
(velocity) -- if you travel at 60 MPH, and you don't know what time it is or
when you started, but you know you've travelled 60 physical miles, then you
know you've travelled for one hour.

And of course, speed (velocity) can be defined in terms of time and space.

But the problem is, try to separate one from the other two and define it by
itself -- you can't do it. You need the other two to define the third one.
Which means that they are all interrelated, and possibly aspects of the same
basic thing...

>Why is there a universal speed limit?

There is none; this is fake news; "speed" is always relative to local
distance, which is relative to scale. In the time it takes your local watch's
second hand to move one second, Cesium will have osciallated 9,192,631,770
times in that second. Elephants move faster than Ants, but they're also
physically larger. The Earth rotates at 430 meters per second, much faster
than an Elephant walks -- but the Earth is much bigger in scale. The Earth
revolves around the sun at 30 Kilometers/second but again, that's a larger
scale. The Sun's motion in space, relative to the gravity well in our galaxy
which it revolves around will be much faster than that, but again, it's
relative to scale.

>Why do you need an 'equal and opposite reaction' to gain momentum, why can't
you just convert angular energy directly into linear energy in a single
direction?

If you were in outer space, pitch-black empty space, and there were no
planets, stars, or other celestial objects by which you could compute your
rate of speed, how would you know that:

A) You were stopped? B) That you weren't going at some rate of speed? C) That
you weren't travelling at INFINITE SPEED?

In other words,

1) HOW WOULD YOU KNOW YOUR RATE OF SPEED, and

2) IF YOU COULD NOT KNOW YOUR RATE OF SPEED, THEN WHAT WOULD THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THIS STATE, AND THE STATES OF BEING STOPPED, TRAVELLING AT A SPEED,
AND TRAVELLING AT INFINITE SPEED BE?

In other words, it's paradoxical. In this state 0 speed (stopped) = some speed
= INFINITE SPEED. How would you know the difference? You couldn't...

Say it with me, "Speed is RELATIVE to a FRAME OF REFERENCE", if you're moving
at a rate of 60,000 MPH away from a planet, _that planet is equally-and-
oppositely moving at a rate of 60,000 MPH away from you_ (and it didn't invest
any energy, not one drop, to gain that speed! <g>)

>Why is there a universe at all, instead of nothing?

Why are there billions of web pages, book pages, and other written documents
in English, and yet, there are only 26 characters in its alphabet (or 52 if
you count lower-case letters). Heck, 53 if you count 'space' as a character.

 _That 's one heck of a lot of things constructed from so small a set of
repeating entities_. <g>

Etc, etc.

>But as far as 'what is heat', you should read more, or just google your
questions.

I quote to you Socrates: "The true knowledge consists of knowing that you know
nothing".

>You might be surprised at how many other people have asked the same
questions, and then set out to answer them, but with evidence. It's called
"Science".

Yes, but Science and all Scientific Evidence -- must be consistent _with
itself_.

It's called "Logic".

~~~
jacknews
Interesting. I (and no doubt all physicists) eagerly await your papers
supporting these comprehensive theories.

~~~
peter_d_sherman
I seek Principles.

I do not seek Accolades.

What's the difference?

Well, this brings up an interesting (to me at least! <g>) philosophical
discussion about Principles Vs. Accolades, specifically as they relate to
Science and Scientific Thought, in this day and age.

A Principle is any cause-effect relationship that is guaranteed to work
consistently (e.g., Newton's Third Law).

An Accolade, on the other hand, to explain it, it requires the point-of-view
of someone who has already attained one -- so let's use Albert Einstein as
that first person point of view...

From Einstein's perspective then, things look like this: "Hey Einstein, you
won the Nobel Prize, now you get these awards, honors, fame, privileges and
benefits (and whatever else you get!) as a result of <papers written and/or
other actions taken> to advance science, etc., etc."

An Accolade exists solely as privilege of some sort or sorts, and exists
_solely in the social sphere_.

An Accolade might exist as fame, power, money, respect, influence, being
attractive to the opposite sex, and/or series of privileges, such as being
able to get an academic paper read, published, or combinations of one or more
of the above, etc.

They're nice and all (I am not knocking them), but they exist on the other
side -- as the EFFECT -- of having engaged in the work that someone like
Einstein engaged in.

Again, I am not interested in Accolades.

To understand this, let's talk about Principles.

Principles do not just exist in physics, in science -- _principles exist
across the whole spectrum of any subject that can be learned_ , from business
and salesmanship to law and public policy, from finance and economics to
psychology and human relationships, from writing and language to even such
areas as comedy and movie production!

In short, there is no shortage of Principles that can be learned, in every
field of human endeavor.

Having/Knowing/Understanding the right principle or principles for a given
situation -- is not unlike having a pool table, and needing to make a specific
shot, put a specific ball in a specific pocket.

The pool table is not unlike the current state of the Universe, and the ball
to be sunk, in the pocket that it is to be sunk in, is not unlike the next
succeeding desired state of the Universe.

Well, if the principles applied are the correct ones (in pool table terms,
this would be the correct angle and correct velocity applied to the cue ball
via the cue, pre-calculating all of the bounce angles and patterns of other
balls), then whoever applies the correct principle(s) should get the change to
the Universe desired, guaranteed every time, no questions asked!

Such is the power of Principles -- correctly applied.

You can get anything and everything you want in the Universe (I really believe
that), but you must know the correct principle or principles, and you must
know exactly when and under what circumstances to apply them ("timing is
everything"...)

You see, anything that an Accolade could or ever would do for a person, a
person could get by a different route, if they knew the correct principles,
and when to correctly apply them...

Accolades fade and disappear as enough time passes, much like fame does.

Principles, on the other hand, are eternal.

They do not change over time, at least, not if they're true principles.

Also, with the right Principles applied correctly, you could get as many
Accolades as you wished -- but the reverse is not true!

Accolades themselves do not make the recipient any more knowledgeable about,
nor able to apply Principles!

Phrased another way, "Wisdom avoids vanity".

Now, with respect to physics papers, there are probably people today in
physics (like Ramanujan was in his day in mathematics) who are utterly
brilliant -- but their work is never read by mainstream physicists!

Why?

Well, think of physics papers in this day and age as not unlike what makes
clothing fashionable...

In the fashion industry, in order to create a best-selling new fashion, the
rule of thumb is that _you have to be slightly different, but not too
different_ , from last year's best-selling fashions.

Applied to physics (or science in general then), _you have to be slightly
different, but not too diffrent_ , from what's currently popular in the
mainstream.

In other words, writing a scientific paper (if you want it read, published,
lauded, etc., etc.) is no different than a _popularity contest_.

Sort of like, to quote the Zoolander movie, _" You duplicate, then you
elaborate"_.

If I were going to write a paper and I wanted to make it popular and well-
received, first I'd _duplicate_ (all of the trendy ideas and theories of the
day, and that would be about 95% - 98% of the paper! <g>), then I'd
_elaborate_ (add about 2% - 5% of something novel-sounding and attention-
getting, regardless of whether it was logical, compatible, or even well-
thought-out, or even the baseline assumptions were well-thought-out...).

But unfortunately, I have several "mental blocks" towards such an act... some
of them are called: Ethics, Morals, Integrity, Honesty, Virtue, Values,
Lawfulness, "Not wanting to waste other people's time by creating more B.S.
for the world", etc.

You know, your basic _mental illness_! <g>

I claim being _intellectually handicapped_ in this area! <g>

So, to sum it all up, people can seek Principles (and not write papers!), or
they can seek Accolades (and probably have to write a few papers, and do god-
knows-what-else! <g>)

Principles are a _superset_ of Accolades, because with one, you can get the
other, but not the other way around!

Accolades are a _subset_ of Principles (if set A is a superset of B, then set
B must be a subset of A).

So, that is why I care about _Principles_ , not Accolades.

And that is why I don't really care to write papers... Who am I trying to
impress, and WHY (key point!), WHY am I trying to impress them? What would I
be trying to get out of that equation? Wouldn't there be another way to get
those things via the proper application of the correct Principles?

As far as I know, Elon Musk doesn't write any papers, yet he has applied
Principles (both in Science and Business) correctly(!)

Does he lack for any form of social privilege that might be bestowed by an
Accolade?

?

"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall
move the world." (<\- Example of Principle)

-Archimedes

------
altcognito
This table raises a lot of questions for me:

How does a "merged" neutron star, "unmerge?" Or is most of the Au of the
universe tied up in neutron stars? And how does that work given that neutron
stars are mostly... neutrons?

~~~
nwallin
A neutron star "merger" is a collision between two of the hottest, densest
objects in the universe that are still objects. These collisions are
incredibly messy and energetic. Stuff gets blown everywhere - a lot of stuff.

Once freed and blown out into space, the remaining neutronium is incredibly
unstable without the intense gravitational pressures holding it together. It
will rapidly decay into relatively stable material.

------
pyuser583
Cool!

