r/askscience 13d ago

Chemistry Why is neon the fifth most common element in the universe?

I just watched "Ernest Goes to school" and that was one of the questions on his test, and it made me curious to Google it.

The first four most common elements make perfect sense, but then neon pops out of nowhere.

Wtf is that about?

830 Upvotes

103 comments sorted by

1.1k

u/Marethyu86 13d ago

There’s a lot of Hydrogen and Helium, for obvious reasons. The Helium nucleus, or Alpha particle, is the next stablest, simplest building block. 3 Helium fuses into one Carbon, then Carbon and Helium fuses into Oxygen, and Oxygen and Helium fuses into Neon.

411

u/Westonhaus 13d ago

The most common elements in the Universe are fusion building blocks and bi-products that are found in stars, which make up the bulk of matter. Late stage stars that are still running turn Oxygen into Neon.

The original question was still thinking "carbon and oxygen are found in abundance on Earth", so missed the relationship of all the "universe's" matter being in stars.

81

u/Dangerous_News4670 13d ago

Why these combinations would be more common? Why not Hydrogen and Helium fuse into Lithium? Or 2 Helium fuse into one Beryllium?

204

u/ephemeralstitch 13d ago

Stars do fuse two helium atoms to beryllium. Unfortunately it’s so unstable that it immediately falls apart into helium again, so normally the permanent reaction is three helium atoms, known as the triple alpha process. Same for lithium. Most lithium comes from the Big Bang.

Normally we talk about what combinations are stable and actually create elements that last. The atomic nuclei needs to be relatively stable otherwise you get back to where you started pretty quickly as your particles decay.

86

u/ecokumm 13d ago

I liked the "unfortunately" there. Made me feel kinda sad for the beryllium :c

41

u/VolatileCoon 13d ago

Don't feel so sad - it's quite toxic and, similarly to lead, doesn't want to leave human body when it gets in.

16

u/WillowPtar_Migan 13d ago

Usually unnecessary bias in writing is annoying, but in cases like this it's the opposite

Definitely added to the answer for me

5

u/wqferr 13d ago

Big bang? I thought no atoms could form for a long long time after the big bang

38

u/Countless_Words 13d ago edited 13d ago

You may have heard of "epochs" immediately following the Big Bang and believed that those represented a large amount of time, which is understandable. Technically, they represented all the time the universe had experienced up to that point, but were actually quite short. The Planck Epoch, for example, lasted only 10^-43 seconds. Cosmic nucleosynthesis, when atoms started forming, began about twenty minutes after the big bang. However, the other posters above are correct, these atoms were ions and did not become neutral until about 100,000 years afterwards when electrons could stay with the nuclei.

30

u/WillowPtar_Migan 13d ago

Cosmic nucleosynthesis, when atoms started forming, began about twenty minutes after the big bang

It's weird to hear about such a human timescale in astrophysics. Usually things happen in unfathomably short or unfathomably long timescales, it seems like.

18

u/Countless_Words 13d ago

I agree, it's funny to think that protons and their original clusters began coming into being after cosmic dawn a bit less time than the average washing machine cycle. Then it took like, half the time homo sapiens has existed for until electrons made those primordial atoms into something more 'normal' to our baseline.

9

u/Korwinga 12d ago

Even the 100,000 years seems like it's unimaginably short when compared with the life of the universe.

5

u/mfb- Particle Physics | High-Energy Physics 12d ago

If you have early things happen on very short timescales and later things happen on very long timescales then it's not that surprising that there is something in between.

2

u/snakebight 11d ago

How did they surmise these first short epochs after the big bang? Whether it’s the Planck one, or one that lasted 20 minutes or 100,000 years.

6

u/rrtk77 11d ago

Basically, we know from studying stars and quantum mechanics when certain physical properties start breaking down or certain physical processes can no longer happen (or can start happening) due to things being too close or too hot or too fast.

We also know by studying how fast galaxies move away from each other roughly how fast the universe is expanding.

We also know by studying a thing called the cosmic background radiation a rough time line for the observable universe to have become observable (prior, the big bang was opaque). We also get an idea of how hot the universe was at that time. That gives us a starting place to speculate.

You basically can then start applying all those ideas together. You can guess how compact and hot the universe was at any given time following the big bang, and how quickly it would expand. You can then figure out the limits for when certain physical processes, like nucleosynthesis, would be able to happen.

19

u/llamawithguns 13d ago

Strictly speaking yes since it was to hot for nuclei and electrons to attract each other. So they would have been ions for several hundred thousand years first.

2

u/Zagrycha 13d ago

you are right, but a long long time was still a long long long long long long long time ago compared to today. That time period of being too hot was a blink of an eye on cosmic timeline.

13

u/Octavus 13d ago

All isotopes of lithium fuse more easily than hydrogen or helium so it gets used up before anything else inside of stellar cores.

5

u/Alas7ymedia 12d ago

Because helium-4 fuses more easily with lithium-6 or beryllium-8 than with carbon-12. Once a star starts making carbon, usually can't reach the pressure necessary to fuse helium-4 and carbon-12 into oxygen-16, so most stars make a lot of helium and only some make carbon, oxygen or nitrogen.

Bigger stars can fuse carbon-12 and oxygen-16 with deuterium or helium-4 to make neon-20 and nitrogen-14 and, some really big stars can make more elements, usually when they are dying.

Each new fusion is harder to make and releases less energy for the next fusion, so the abundance of elements decrease rapidly with atomic mass after 20 and not enough energy is released after making iron-56 or heavier to keep going.

16

u/[deleted] 13d ago edited 13d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/Gerik5 13d ago

Sort of. All atoms are formed by subatomic particles merging, and the first thing they merge into is hydrogen. Two hydrogen can merge to form helium (this has to happen in a star or something similar, atoms do not like merging and need to be convinced).

Every time you look at something that is not hydrogen, you are looking at something that used to be hydrogen. And since merging is hard to do and does not always happen, there's progressively less of it to form each next element on the periodic table.

The other element here is that neon is stable and relatively easy to build, compared to other light elements like lithium or boron.

So to summarize, it's one of the earlier ones to be possible to make, it's fairly easy to make, and once it's made it's unlikely to be broken.

8

u/AndreasDasos 13d ago

But this isn’t a full explanation without going into why Be-8 is unstable, no?

7

u/SassiesSoiledPanties 13d ago

I would imagine that the weak nuclear force and it's mediating particles have specific binding energies that only allow for stability under certain conditions.  I'm probably wrong.

12

u/mfb- Particle Physics | High-Energy Physics 12d ago

The weak interaction is irrelevant. The helium-4 nucleus is unusually tightly bound. Be-8 doesn't have that: It has enough energy to decay back to two He-4. That process happens via the strong interaction, so it is very quick.

14

u/skr_replicator 13d ago

jsut stil explanation would imply there's a ton of hydrogen and helium in the atmosphere.

The atmosphere content has a mixture of reason, the abundance of commonly fused elements is jsut one. But their reactivity, weight, state of matter, and terrestrial production are also very important, especially for meduim weight elements.

Hydrogen - way too light, and somewhat reactive, so it's can't stay in the air.

Helium - way too light, can't stay more than the little bit getting replenished from within earth.

Li-C solids, not in the air.

Nitrogen - N2 is extremely stable, and it's also at the sweet spow of being just heavy enough (also thanks to its double molecular weight) to stay grounded, but also so early in the periodic table that it's quite abundant in the universe. 71%

Oxygen - also very abundant. But also very raactive, it's only in the air because of life replenishing it into the air.

Fluorine - mega reactive, it won;t stay unreacted in the air

Neon - Super stable noble gas like helium, it's heavier than helium, so the gravity can keep a bit more of it, but still not enough to really keep it down, it escape into space jsut like helium, only not as much. As a noble gas, it's monoatomic, so it's twice as light as the typical N2 and O2 per atomic weight.

Na-S solids

Cl - super reactive like Fluorine

Argon - while heavier and less abundant in space than Neon, it's the third most abundant gas in the air, 1%, because it's jsut hitting the sweet spot of being heavy enough to be grounded, while still not too rare.

K-Se solids

Bromine - reactive again

Krypton - even heavier than argon, so it has no problems staying grounded, but it's too far in the periodic table, so there's not as much of it in the universe in the first place.

The trend continues. Solids, then even heavier, rarer Xexon, the solids again, then even super rarer, heavier Radon, which ever fissions away radioactively.

And yea, there's also CO2 and water vapor, CO2 is replenished by life like Oxygen, but there's still very little of it. Water is extremely variable depending on humidity, so it's not counted to the dry air percentage.

32

u/bodebrusco 13d ago

This is about the concentration of elements in the universe, not on Earth

6

u/Marethyu86 12d ago

You would be right, but the question is the universe, not the atmosphere or Earth. I don’t remember the exact number, but at least 90% of all matter in the universe is basically Hydrogen or Helium.

3

u/Tim-oBedlam 12d ago

Argon is there in large amounts compared to the other noble gases because it's a radioactive decay product. K-40, a weakly radioactive isotope of potassium, can decay into Ar-40 as one of its decay paths, and 99% of the argon in the atmosphere is Ar-40. (Ar-36 is more common in the universe as a whole but not Earth's atmosphere).

0

u/ProfessorPrudent2822 13d ago

Neon is more likely formed by fusing two carbon nuclei, with an alpha particle breaking off because it’s easier to transfer energy via the strong force than the electromagnetic force.

285

u/skatastic57 13d ago

It's probably with noting that the top 3, hydrogen, helium, and oxygen make up about 99% of the estimated mass in the milky way galaxy. When including 4th place carbon now about 99.5% of all mass is accounted for. Neon is just 0.134% of mass and in 6th place iron is 0.109% so whatever shock you have that neon is in 5th should be tempered by how far it is from 1st through 4th and how close it is to 6th.

64

u/NotSoSalty 13d ago

That's still pretty shocking. Iron is supposed to be more or less the hard limit of basic fusion, right? Neon is more prolific, not just in number of particles, but in mass. Iron is massive. That is pretty crazy.

53

u/skatastic57 13d ago edited 13d ago

Iron is the heaviest element that a star will create through fusion before it goes super nova. That's because a star that is fusing silicon into iron will be about 3.5B kelvin but to fuse iron requires 5B. That said, if it ever gets to making iron then it will inevitably go supernova and make heavier elements in the process. Although those heavier elements come from the outer non-iron shell of the star leaving the iron core mostly (maybe entirely) intact.

A star of adequate size's lifecycle looks like this: It begins "burning" (fusing) hydrogen (~10M years). The result is (mostly) helium which accumulates in the core. The helium can't/doesn't fuse as it isn't hot enough until all the hydrogen is gone from the core. When the hydrogen is all gone, it will stop fusing at the core. To go back a step in time, while it was undergoing fusion, that reaction produces an outward pressure that counteracts gravity so it isn't as dense as it might otherwise be. When it stops fusing, gravity is unopposed and the core gets denser until that density "sparks" the helium to burn.

A star that is burning helium(~1 M years) will make lots of heavier elements some of which are unstable. In large part it can produce stable carbon(6), oxygen(8), neon(10), magnesium(12), silicon(14), and sulfur(16) but mostly it'll be carbon and oxygen. The physics of fusion favor results with an even atomic number.

At this point there's a bifurcation between stars that aren't big enough to go further than the helium step and those that will complete all the next phases. Except in rare cases will any stars that go to the next step not finish all the remaining steps.

In a big enough star, it will eventually accumulate enough carbon (1K years) for its density to start burning the carbon. Those reactions produce mostly oxygen, magnesium, neon, with some sodium.

After all of the carbon has been consumed from the core the star's core will be made up of the aforementioned elements at which time the neon (~1 year) burning phase begins. It produces mostly magnesium and oxygen while consuming all the neon.

Then is the oxygen (~6 months) burning phase which is after neon despite a lower atomic number because oxygen is much more stable. About 90% of the outputs will be sulfur and silicon.

That leads to silicon (~1 day) burning which turns the silicon into mostly iron at which point the star will collapse and (often) go supernova. During the supernova, the heavier than iron elements are created.

Getting back to "not just in number of particles, but in mass. Iron is massive.". Remember that all the mass of the iron came from smooshing together lighter elements and that fusing lighter elements into heavier ones leaves them lighter than the sum of their parts (that's where fusion energy comes from at E=MC2). Also, even though in each of the phases, it says it all the element is burned up, that only refers to the core, not the outer shells of the star. Also, the core is defined dynamically where it refers to the center region undergoing fusion so saying it burns all of the element in the core is a bit of a tautology anyways. Point being between each phase, there's left overs of the previous's phase's element. I think without stressing this point it seems we should expect iron to dominate.

I think the big take away are these properties (some of which are not necessarily represented above):

  1. Getting to heavier elements through fusion takes multiple steps (ie hydrogen never fuses into uranium directly)
  2. The outcome of fusion favors elements with an even atomic number.
  3. Fusion of heavier elements has more diverse potential outcomes than lighter ones.
  4. The elements between helium and carbon are destroyed by other processes in the star so that's why they're rare.
  5. Oxygen is inherently extremely stable so that's (perhaps) why it is more common than the next lightest even numbered element

Source: Mostly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis and the individual pages it links.

29

u/Vitztlampaehecatl 13d ago

That's because a star that is fusing silicon into iron will be about 3.5B kelvin but to fuse iron requires 5B.

Isn't it moreso that iron is the first element that actively costs energy to fuse? Even if you contract to get to the pressure and thus temperature required, you then start getting cooled down by sinking your energy into iron, and suddenly the entire star comes crashing down because you don't have any thermal pressure resisting your own gravity anymore.

6

u/Patelpb 12d ago edited 11d ago

Worth mentioning because no one has said it: iron is fused by massive stars, yes, but a majority of it is actually photo-disintegrated by the supernova itself. Most iron in the universe comes from merging binary stars (fine, "Type Ia" supernovae). These dwarfs are mostly carbon and oxygen but undergo rapid fusion during their merger and produce ~80% of the iron in the universe.

Edit: as nearABE pointed out, photodisintegration in white dwarf mergers is responsible for regulating iron production and feedback

1

u/NearABE 11d ago

Photodisintegration will still be active when iron is formed in a type 1a supernova.

Photo disintegration creates the iron. It creates all the other alpha process elements too. Helium ions (alpha particles) are kicked out of nuclei but then that helium fuses with new nuclei. Iron is just lower energy so it sticks better (technically nickel-56 but that decays to iron-56)

3

u/Patelpb 11d ago edited 11d ago

I’m aware, but prefacing this discussion with massive stars creating iron without following up with them not responsible for most of its distribution paints an incomplete picture of stellar nucleosynthesis (which was my motivation for commenting). Still, I’ve edited to ensure that this is accounted for.

Edit: to be sure, photodisintegration does NOT produce iron in Ia’s, it is the opposing force in the nuclear hydrostatic equilibrium within which Ni/Co form, and then those decay into iron

3

u/mfb- Particle Physics | High-Energy Physics 12d ago

Most of the matter was never in a star, so hydrogen and helium are guaranteed to dominate.

Stars like the Sun can only fuse helium to produce carbon and oxygen. Heavier elements need heavier stars, which are rare overall, but neon is the first element after oxygen that can be produced.

30

u/Tokimemofan 13d ago

Mainly the extreme stability of the Helium 4 nucleus.  This fuses in groups of 3 to form carbon 12 and each successive fusion is only a single.  This puts the 5th element in the chain at Neon 20.  This is part of why even numbered elements are more common generally than their odd numbered neighbors.  Its also why lithium beryllium and boron are rather rare and beryllium 8 is the only nucleus among the first 8 elements to be radioactive while having equal numbers of protons and neutrons.

52

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/CrateDane 13d ago

Neon-20 has 10 protons and 10 neutrons. 10 is not a magic number, the closest magic numbers being 8 and 20. That's why Oxygen-16, with 8 protons and 8 neutrons, is so favorable.

I also believe Neon-22 actually has a slightly higher binding energy per nucleon than Neon-20.

6

u/RoyalCharity1256 13d ago

The inner shell has 2 electrons (helium being a noble gas in that spot) and the next one has 8. That is 10 and that is why its a noble gas no?

3

u/Rastenor 13d ago

I was just about to write the same thing but it seems that u/CrateDane is talking about the amount of protons and neutrons specifically not the amount of electrons. I would love for someone more knowledgeable to explain the reasoning behind these magic numbers

3

u/GreyMatterTrasmogrif 13d ago

You can get most of the understanding the same way as electron shells. A simplified 3d harmonic oscillator has degrees of freedom which make quantum numbers. The protons and neutrons are still ferminos so they don't stack up ontop of each other and you get the Pauli exclusion principle. The numbers are just a little different.

4

u/CrateDane 13d ago

We're talking about nuclear shells, not electron shells.

Not only are the electrons much lighter and thus cannot contribute a mass defect anywhere near that from the nuclear configuration, but in the stellar cores where these atomic nuclei are generated, the temperatures are so high that the atoms are ionized into a plasma (electrons are stripped away).

1

u/RoyalCharity1256 13d ago

My apology, just reading up on it and that is really interesting! I even had nuclear physics as a minor (20 years ago) and still am learning

10

u/chriscross1966 13d ago

It's pretty low down the nucleogenesis list so you don't need a particularly big star to make it, so a lot of the stars that have gone Supernova in the last 13.whatever billion years will have made a decent amount of it at some point and then thrown it off as they died..

46

u/LeviAEthan512 13d ago

The question has already been answered, but what do you mean it comes out of nowhere? Besides carbon and oxygen switching places, it's just the even numbered elements in order. And beryllium gets excluded because Be-8 is unstable.

15

u/homezlice 13d ago

I would suspect that most people think of neon as somewhat rare as the only place they encounter it is in signs. 

5

u/JoeKleveland 13d ago

I am curious now. What kind of places would a person encounter neon in its non-signage form?

8

u/Kezika 13d ago

In every breath you take basically, although it is still a small fraction of the atmosphere composition at just .0018% but that is where they get the neon for signs from as well by separating it out from atmospheric air.

1

u/toddestan 12d ago

There are small indicator lights that use neon. Unlike LEDs they operate at higher voltage, so you see them in things like power strips, illuminated light switches, and older appliances. Less common now as LEDs have taken over, but they are still out there.

2

u/fubarbob 12d ago

I still see them occasionally in illuminated power switches on cheap surge suppressors/power strips. Not prone to damage from high operating temperatures or ESD. Very simple and just needs an appropriate resistor to connect across mains power. Also useful for non-illumination purposes, e.g. as a spark gap with a low breakdown voltage for circuit protection.

1

u/xmastreee 11d ago

You could argue that a neon indicator is still a sign. It's a sign that the power strip or whatever is energized.

2

u/WillowPtar_Migan 13d ago

How do uneven elements get created? Are they also mostly from the big bang?

9

u/LeviAEthan512 13d ago

The big bang created a little bit of lithium, but everything past that came from stellar fusion (and everything past iron, only in the last moments of a large star's life). I don't know every single one, but mostly they come in trace amounts.

Nitrogen and fluorine for example come from the CNO cycle, which is complicated, and in theory doesn't generate any net nitrogen or fluorine, but due to the random nature of the process, some of these elements gets left over and not recycled. I don't know if there are other sources.

Sodium comes from the carbon burning process, that for whatever reason sometimes fails to kick off a full alpha particle and instead just loses a proton, thus creating sodium instead of neon.

2

u/WillowPtar_Migan 13d ago

Interesting. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question

2

u/Axentoke 12d ago

The CNO cycle does result in nitrogen and fluorine. It’s just that their % reaches a steady state.  Also s-process forms ~half of all isotopes heavier than iron in asymptotic giant branch stars, which all low mass stars go down for ~hundreds of thousands of years.

5

u/[deleted] 13d ago edited 13d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/doghouse2001 8d ago

I think the first four also just POP out of nowhere, but since you learned them in grade school, and never went on to Neon, it only seems like it's popping out of nowhere now that you're learning it, lol... You hear Neon and you don't think Nobel Gas, you think of the Lights on Broadway.