“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” — Carl Sagan
This is an evocative statement. It gets at the heart of the matter. However, it leaves out all the different ways that stars make the elements. It is not just collapsing stars, it is merging stars, burping stars, exploding stars, and the start of the Universe itself.
Below is the latest version of an evolving periodic table color-coded by the origin of the elements in the Solar System. An original version of this was made by Inese Ivans and me in 2008 and refined and improved by Anna Frebel. Versions highlighting different aspects of the physical processes are available on Inese Ivans’ website.
My current version of the periodic table, color-coded by the source of the element in the solar system. Elements with more than one source have the approximate amount due to each process indicated by the amount of area. Tc, Pm, and the elements beyond U do not have long-lived or stable isotopes. I have ignored the elements beyond U in this plot, but not including Tc and Pm looked weird, so I have included them in grey.
For this version, I tried to avoid the technical terms and jargon used in the original plot. I also updated the sources of the heavy elements to reflect the current semi-consensus. This graphic draws on an enormous amount of labor from astronomers and physicists. In an upcoming blog post, I will give details on my sources and assumptions for interested parties. Note that this is for the solar system. There will be additional versions showing what this plot would look like if you were in the early Universe, or if you consider the origin of the elements on the Earth, etc.
However, the main point of this blog post is to present the chart and address the following question:
Why does your version have different information than the well-known Wikipedia entry?
The former figure on Wikipedia was based on this plot from Northern Arizona Meteorite Laboratory
Here is a discussion of the some of the differences between the Wikipedia version and mine. In many cases, the Wikipedia graphic is presenting information that is flat-out wrong. I am trying to avoid going into all details in this single blog post. The underlined phrases below represent possible topics for future blog posts where I (or colleagues I coerce bribe ask) can go into more in more detail later, including why we think we are on the right track.
- I will assume that “Large Stars” and “Small Stars” are “High-Mass Stars” and “Low-Mass Stars”, respectively. It does not make sense to think of nucleosynthesis origin having to do with the radius of the stars. As this wonderful graphic from NASA’s Chandra website shows, all stars at the end of their lives swell up to red giant and supergiant stars. In its death throes, a low-mass star can have a much larger radius than a normal high-mass star. Note that the original source cited by the Wikipedia article just has the chart, with no additional information or links that I can find.
- High-mass stars end their lives (at least some of the time) as core-collapse supernovae. Low-mass stars usually end their lives as white dwarfs. But sometimes white dwarfs that are in binary systems with another star get enough mass from the companion to become unstable and explode as so-called Type-Ia supernovae. Which “supernova” is being referred to in the Wikipedia graphic is not clear. The interpretation that makes the graphic the least wrong is the “supernova” here means “Type Ia Supernovae” or “exploding white dwarfs” as I call them. I will assume that “Large Stars” refers to the production in high-mass stars both during their lives and during the explosion that spews products of their nuclear fusion into the interstellar gas. It would also be possible to think that “Supernovae” refers to both massive star core-collapse supernovae and exploding white dwarfs. In this case, “Large Stars” could mean that massive stars make it before they explode and the supernovae is just the mechanism for kicking out. These categories are therefore 1) confusing and 2) incorrect no matter how you slice it.
- Dying low-mass stars (aka “Small Stars”) make substantial amounts of the heavy elements, including most of the Pb in the solar system. There should be a lot of orange in the bottom half of the diagram. I don’t agree that Cr and Mn are made only in “Large Stars”, but Fe is made in both “Large Stars” and “Supernovae”. Basically all the iron in the Universe is made in explosive nucleosynthesis. The iron that massive stars make right before they explode as supernova is all destroyed/collapsed in the remnant. And so on.
- The information for Li is incorrect. 6Li is indeed made by cosmic rays (fast-moving nuclei) hitting other nuclei and breaking them apart. But most of the far more common 7Li isotope is without question made in low-mass stars and spewed out out into the Universe as the star dies. Some 7Li is also made in the Big Bang and a small fraction by cosmic ray fission.
- This post does not need to be any longer, but I would like to end by pointing out a difference between the Wikipedia graphic and my graphic caused by the fact that we still don’t know everything. A fraction of the heavy elements, including most of the Au, are formed in the “rapid neutron-capture process“. Where that happens is currently in dispute. It could be in massive star supernovae close to the forming neutron-star. More recently, there is compelling evidence that most of the r-process happens when two neutron stars spiral together and merge. That is why “merging neutron stars” is a category in my chart, but “Supernovae” takes the role in the Wikipedia chart.
Note
Backing this statement up with actual evidence may be the basis for a future blog post. Please let me know in comments if you are interested in a blog post on a particular subject.
The Source of it all
Here is the original version, done with markers:
This is what happens when you give two astronomers who are tired of reminding everyone about which elements go with which process a periodic table, a set of markers, and time when they should have been listening to talks. A heartful thanks to Inese Ivans for coming up with this idea.
Nice post! You should look into updating the Wikipedia image and/or article!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_nucleosynthesis
It looks like it has been? The article makes references to categories that are no longer found on the wikipedia image they link to.
“That is why ‘merging neutron stars’ is a category in my chart, but ‘Supernovae’ takes the role in the Wikipedia chart.”
There is no Supernovae category anymore… guess they should have included a screenshot…
Hi Paul. Sorry for the late response. I finally had time to update the post with the original NAML figure, which is the inspiration for the old Wikipedia figure I was complaining about. The post should make more sense now.
Rather than a screen shot, it is possible to link old versions of Wikipedia articles through the article history. For example, this is the last version of of the article “Abundance of the chemical elements” before the date of this blog article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements&oldid=758528736
WOW
Pingback: La tabla de los elementos según su origen en el universo | obiKuo
Thanks for the link. A quick correction: SDSS is not funded by NASA. We are mostly funded by our member institutions, with some contribution from the US Department of Energy.
Very nice, very good work.
I’ll ask you to also add the short-lived isotopes. I think it’s interesting where they are formed despite being impractical, and for completion issues.
I am also very curious about the source of heavy elements. For example, are Np and Pu missing on the wild because they’ve already fizzed away or have they been never created on nature?
Thanks a lot.
Thanks for the comment. I will put “discuss the formation of the short-lived (including trans-U elements)” on my blog to-do list.
Really excellent work! I love it! This is so much more accurate and informative than the current version on Wikipedia, which is just plain painful to look at. I’ve wanted to correct that figure every time I looked at it, so thank you for actually doing it. 🙂
I understand your reasoning for using NS mergers, but that suggests that supernovae (II) don’t play a significant role for the neutron-rich elements. I wonder if it would be worth replacing that with simply “r-process”, considering the current debate about the site, although I agree that at least at high metallicities the arguments for the NS mergers are becoming rather compelling. But maybe r-process will be too technical? On the other hand, labeling those elements “r-process” would underline that we don’t actually know the site yet, which I would consider an important point, that you also highlight above. Then people are free to go look up the r-process and check out the different candidates.
I dunno about Pm, but I think Tc should be put in the “dying low-mass stars” category, even if it’s unstable. It is both produced and observed in AGB stars, so even though it is not a stable element, we know the production site. But I suppose the distinction between “origin of the elements” and “origin of the elements in the Solar System” is fairly crucial here. 🙂
I’d love to see a blog post discussing the different potential r-process sites btw.(neutron star mergers, type II supernovae, MHD jets, … ?)
Thanks for doing this work once again, it’s great!
Hi Anders! I agree that the vermilion color would most correctly be labeled “r-process”. But that’s not so helpful to people who are not us & that was my main goal. However, will make a revised version with “merging neutron stars?”. Hooray for question mark! Would you like to write a guest post about the r-process and the current debate on its site for this blog. I would love to have other experts chime in here.
I look forward to making a truly revised version when we know where the site of the &%#()$@^ r-process is.
Your version of the origin of most lithium (table and 4th bullet point above) conflicts with http://www.cosmic-origins.org/PAGES/ptable1.html, The Main Nucleosynthetic Origins of the Dominant Isotopes, which gives it as cosmic ray spallation. The conflict still exists even in the more detailed tables on Ivans’ site.
Yes, good point. I will chat with Inese and see why we disagree. I think I am correct (obviously), but could learn something!
Excellent blog. Thank you for all your work. Great job!
Is this periodic table available to purchase anywhere? I would love one for my classroom. We begin our exploration into chemistry each year by discussing stars and where the elements come from. We obviously do not go into the level of detail you do in our high school chemistry class, but it would be a wonderful poster for students to see.
Thank you for your work!
It’s a small amount, but you left out isotopes produced via manmade or natural fission. See http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/nuctek/fissionyield.html , for example.
I did that deliberately! Thanks for the reference, will point people there.
So, since Wikipedia is rather wrong in this… are you willing to allow this to be shared as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA for use on Wikipedia?
Yes. But I want to fix a couple of things first.
I still prefer wikipedia for my outreach work.
Hi Jennifer! I really like your “Solar System Elements” graphic. Was curious what the usage rights licensing was for it? For example, can it be reused, remixed etc. with attribution? Thanks 🙂
I am going to put it under a Creative Commons license ASAP. Does that sound good?
Awesome! Great work, keep it up!
Pingback: New periodic table shows the cosmic origins of you - Michigan Free Listing
Not the main elements in the human body. Just the origin of the elements in the solar system today. No Tc or Pm in the solar system today not created by humans.
Thanks for sharing this – a great diagram.
Your work inspired me to write about the subject in: https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/24/nucleosynthesis-and-data-visualisation/
Any feedback / corrections welcome.
Peter
Pingback: This Amazing Periodic Table Shows The Origin Of Every Atom In Your Body-We Are All Made of Stars!
Pingback: La tavola periodica che mostra l'origine degli elementi chimici - Galileo
Pingback: La tavola periodica che mostra l’origine degli elementi chimici
Maybe I’m confused, but if Inese Evans was part of making this table why do the annotated origins differ so much between this table and the ones found on her website? For example, you note that O –> Rb is only from explosive events, whereas http://www.cosmic-origins.org/PAGES/ptable3.html has no references to explosive nucleosynthesis above Ge (As->Rb is put down as mainly r-process)?
I was trying to be less technical, so I went with our current best guess that the “r-process” comes mainly from merging neutron stars. But we aren’t sure yet. But we are 100% sure that the neutron-capture had to be “r”apid. We also aren’t quite sure about the Ge–Zr region. Again, I took what I think is the best guess we currently have.
Hello,
I love the annotation of the Table; terrific and edifying. My tiny little brain went straight to the gray-colored elements before I saw your explanation. I dearly wanted Tc to be annotated, as its detection by Merrill in 1952 in late giants provided direct evidence for stellar formation of heavy elements. That it does not exist for long may be a good reason for exclusion, but I feel a bit sorry for it, like a puppy who only lived for one day and consequently was not long remembered…
I had Merrill’s old office at the Carnegie Observatories as a postdoc, so I am planning that one post in this series will about his Tc discovery, including how low-key the paper was. Not obvious from the title how important this discovery was! So Tc will get some love, as it is one of the key pieces of evidence that we are on the right track.
Pingback: EWAO This fascinating NEW 'Periodic Table' explains the cosmic origin of EVERYTHING
Pingback: This fascinating NEW ‘Periodic Table’ explains the cosmic origin of EVERYTHING - Fullact Trending Stories With The Laugh Mixture
Pingback: This fascinating NEW ‘Periodic Table’ explains the cosmic origin of EVERYTHING - Social Lay- viral on social media Trending news and photos from Facebook.
Hi, Great information.
Do you have a printable version? Many students and teachers do not have funds to expend on deeply saturated images and black backgrounds.
Thanks!
Pingback: When a nearby star goes supernova, scientists will be ready | Science News
Maybe I missed it but I would LOVE a chart WITH all the technical jargon and precise processes involved (like the original marker version but cleaned up). Also, if you include the trans uranium elements and mark them correctly (produced in supernovae) it would look complete.
Is the periodic table of elements applicable throughout the entire universe?
LOVE it Jennifer! I have been frustrated by the Wikipedia chart, and I’m glad to see this more correct version. I would like to include it (with full credit given) in the book I’m writing on modern science.
Pingback: GW170817: Se detecta un evento de fusión de multiradiación espectacular | Imagen astronomía diaria - Observatorio
Jennifer, This is so interesting! I’m not a scientist, but I’m watching David Christian’s Big History course, and just finished his parts about the history of the periodic table. He talks about some of this, but of course there’s more evidence now than when he produced that course, evidence which you illustrate nicely for us non-chemistry folks. As a parent, I’d love to see this in textbooks! Love that you included the original sketched version. Yes, please write followup blog posts. Thanks for writing this.
Pingback: 上周最佳天文图片（NASA-APOD中文版）10.16-10.22 – 天象预报
Pingback: This Awesome Periodic Table Shows Where Do All The Elements Come From – Physics and Astronomy Zone
Hi could I ask you about the element tungsten which is formed by low mass dying star , is that true ? Because this I was researching on how Tungsten are formed in low mass dying star but instead I found this site saying it formed from High Mass dying star.Plz send help :(..
http://www.itia.info/history.html
What is your source for the percentages given in the table? I didn’t see a link to a table or article used. Thanks!
Pingback: This fascinating new 'Periodic Table' explains the cosmic origin of everything
Pingback: Blog #0 – The very beginning… – The Steel Story – A Brief History
Pingback: A natureza dos elementos na Cassiopeia A
You wrote that dying low-mass stars (aka “Small Stars”) make substantial amounts of the heavy elements, including most of the Pb in the solar system. I thought low mass stars synthesize nuclei no bigger than carbon, and rather than die, they just fade away as white dwarfs. Where do the neutrons come from to build up larger nuclei? I would be very interested in a future blog post on the subject.
Pingback: How Many Elements Are Included In The Modern Periodic Table | The Media News Room
Pingback: Vedeţi cum o supernovă masivă a emis blocurile necesare pentru apariția vieții - Inborş
Pingback: See How a Massive Supernova Released the Building Blocks of Life • Zenit-ka.ru
Dear Jennifer,
I am working at a Publishing house in France. We would like to reproduce your periodic table in a book about astronomy, would it be possible? Please feel free to contact me if you want further informations.
Thanks a lot!
Marie
What is the definition of a “dying low mass star”?
Pingback: Günün Gökbilim Görüntüsü – 16.10.2017 – GW170817: Muhteşem Bir Çoklu Radyasyon Birleşme Olayı Tespit Edildi ! | gokyuzu.org
Jennifer, I’d love to print these for use in our high school classrooms. There is a 3000×2100 resolution PNG format file on your Ohio State site. Do you have a higher resolution image? I want to go BIG! Larger than 29″x42″ current file.
Pingback: Tavola Periodica e origine degli elementi chimici – Scienze della materia
Pingback: Alquimia do universo – Parte II | cientistasfeministas
Is it possible to have a cleaned-up version of this Periodic table?
– there are a lot of residual things (like all the elements above U) more or less still visible in the background
– the squares are not really aligned (example: H Li)
– the colors of the sqares are partially cut off, so there are streaks around the squares for many elements, just take a look at Hydrogen
Those are 3 points that need to be adressed to make this a good looking periodic table.
Then there are details like aligning the text-blocks. the “merging neutron starts” block seems to be shifted 2 pixels to the right as well as “exploding white dwarfs” (3 pixels).
Can you send me the raw file/data so I can fix this myself?
I really want this on a poster etc. but it needs to be cleaned up…
Pingback: Summer SAVY 2018: Session 5, Day 3 – Stellar Astronomy (Rising 5th/6th) | Vanderbilt Programs for Talented Youth | Vanderbilt University
MUCH BELATED REPLY:
Thank you very much for this work! I also would like to use something like this in classes I teach.
I’d especially love to have an expanded post or article that includes:
1) A jargon-y version like your hand-colored one at the end of this post, but in clean graphical form for use in a course; and
2) A paragraph describing each of the processes in the hand-colored diagram (e.g., Fe peak, Light element primary production, alpha-rich freeze out)
Please please pretty please? This is a much-needed academic resource!
Scott Denning
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Pingback: We are stardust | Logarithmic History
Pingback: A fantástica fábrica de elementos pesados | Clic Noticias
Jennifer,
I’ve prepared a version of your The Origin of the Solar System Elements in which the cells are rearranged in the shape of Janet’s Left-Step Periodic Table. The effect is quite dramatic I think, but before sharing it with the 45-odd people on Eric Scerri’s list of periodic table geeks, I wanted to get your permission to ‘play’ with the original table in this fashion. (It follows your terminology and color-coding scheme, but puts the cells in a different order.)
If you could use the email address below to contact me, I’ll send a copy for you to comment on and hopefully ‘approve’ for sharing with Scerri’s group. Thank you in advance for your time.
Conal
Done!
One conclusion is that a very significant amount of heavy elements is “tied up” in these low mass stars that haven’t exploded, would you agree?
Thank you for this. I teach the survey of Astronomy at the high school level. This makes it so easy to connect Chem and Bio to Astronomy.
Good job. Congratulations.
Just a note to improve the table:
the legend “Big Bang Fusion” should be replaced by
“Big Bang Nucleosynthesis” because the formation process of primordial hydrogen is not really a fusion process.
True. I am thinking of going with just “big bang” in a revised version, b/c nucleosynthesis is a long technical word.
I’m commenting specifically with respect to a few of the points that have links without additional writings.
I would be very interested in knowing how small stars make substantial amounts of the heavy elements, and what “explosive nucleosynthesis” is (plus what other elements it creates) in reference to the other material you presented around this. Consider me an interested party.
Pingback: Visualizing the Origin of Elements – Bullion Alpha
Pingback: Info – Visualizing the Origin of Elements – Nguyen Phi Long
This is so cool. Is there any way to get this chart on a T-shirt?
Why, yes!
https://www.cafepress.com/sdss
Hi Jennifer
Thank you for your wonderful ‘ Origins’ diagram.
Could you explain how ‘ dying low mass stars’ – yellow in your diagram, can produce elements up to Pb?
Must they be dying?
I understand that low mass stars have a longer lifetime than high mass stars
but they cannot provide the gravitational pressure necessary for nuclear fusion,
so what is the process?
Congratulations on the terrific work you have done. This is a major revolution in the understanding of the origin of the chemical elements laid out in an easily understood table.
However it is misleading in one critical way—the current supply of the 8 elements listed below (by longest-lived isotope) are created solely by radioactive decay and not some long ago or far-off stellar process. The longest half-lives of any of these elements is about 7500 years.
So in addition to:
1. Big Bang fusion
2. Cosmic ray fission
3. Dying low-mass stars
4. Merging neutron stars
5. Exploding massive stars
6. Exploding white dwarfs
7. Human synthesis
I ask you to consider adding “Natural radioactive decay” to your list. Radioactive decay might even provide one or two boxes in some of the other elements. Much lead (Pb-206) is the end product of many different decay chains—perhaps it is enough to cause one box in the lead square of 100 to change color?
Polonium Po-209 102 years
Astatine At-210 8.1 hours
Radon Rn-222 3.82 days
Francium Fr-223 22 minutes
Radium Ra-226 1600 years
Actinium Ac-227 21.77 years
Thorium Th-229 7.54 x 104 years
Protactinium Pa-231 3.28 x 104 years
Ms Johnson, what a wonderful resource, thank you for your work.
Believe it or not, to give some background to a book I am working on regarding human rights in the digital landscape, i.e. privacy and such, I explain the importance of rare earth elements, lanthanoids, that make that landscape possible.
Most references are very general, supernova nucleosynthesis, your article is far more detailed in the variety of manners these elements and others can come into being.
We live in an amazing universe, but then again, it’s only one have -as far as we know. 🙂
Wow, that’s what I was searching for, what a data!
existing here at this blog, thanks admin of this site.
– Calator prin Romania
Jennifer Johnson is listed as astronomer. I found again your site while “Close Encounters of 3rd Kind” is on crackle on internet. You are like other people – using the Periodic Chart to grab viewers attention. What is your Education Background? Are you employed as astronomer? Looking at stars on a weekend date?
To consider elements from an astronomer’s viewpoint – elements captured from out there while earth forming – is an interesting concept.
Hi Jennifer, what is the source of the relative abundance data? Was it published in any books or papers? Thank you!
I like the idea of “burping” stars. 😀
Great post, thanks a lot!
Pingback: We are stardust | Logarithmic History
Great work! I wonder whether it would be possible to add the minimum age of the universe to originate each atom. For example, there is hidrogen from the very beginning but maybe you need 7000 million years to create iron? This way we might be able to understand how big/old the universe needs to be to produce all atoms on earth.
I came across this by accident – down the rabbit hole of searching but I could not go by without saying something. I’m a layperson but I gained such a wealth of understanding from this. Thank you for your efforts.
This is awesome! Is the raw dataset available? I’d like to know the exact percentages of each element, and with this periodic table the best I can do is eyeball it.
Jennifer, I’ve just discovered this wonderful blog post, thank you for it.
Can I ask why exploding CO white dwarfs (the most common type) don’t make a contribution to C and O? Thanks.
Could I use your table in my free physics textbook at http://www.motionmountain.net ?