Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
“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
WE’RE ALL MADE of ‘stuff’. We were formed from stuff, we live as stuff, and when we die we will still be stuff. Where does this stuff come from?
You might have heard scientists say that we’re made of stars. While this gives people a sense of interconnectedness and thoughtfulness, it isn’t quite meant to only stir up feelings of emotion and wonder.
When scientists say it, they mean it: we are, very literally, made of stardust.
To understand how, we need to take a journey back in time, around 13.7 billion years, to what’s known as the hadron epoch.
“Pillars of Creation” is a photograph taken by the Hubble Telescope of elephant trunks of interstellar gas and dust in the Eagle Nebula, some 7,000 light years from Earth.
The ‘hadron epoch’ is a rather grandiose term, as though the ‘epoch’ in question was a vast expanse of time, lasting for millions of years. In reality, it began when the Universe was only a millionth of a second old, and ended in less than a second. But it was an extremely important time in the early universe, where matter began to form. The type of matter I’ll talk about now is known as hadronic matter, and the hadrons created were protons and neutrons.
(Don’t worry, you don’t have to know all about astrophysics or cosmology to follow this piece: I’ve tried to briefly explain the science throughout, but if it’s not making sense to you, just skip over and keep reading!)
As the Universe expanded, it cooled enough to allow nuclear fusion to occur. At this point, when the Universe was 3 minutes old, nucleosynthesis began. During a period of about 17 minutes, all protons and neutrons joined together in various forms to create hydrogen and helium nuclei (the things that would later on join with electrons to form atoms). After 17 minutes, when the Universe had cooled even further, it was too cold to continue nuclear fusion and nucleosynthesis stopped. All the matter in the Universe was now created, only 20 minutes after the Big Bang.
How hydrogen forms helium and produces energy
Over time, various other epochs took place, where atoms formed and where light separated from matter. But before stars formed, all the matter in the Universe was mostly made of hydrogen and a little helium. Nothing else.
So where did the oxygen and nitrogen we breathe come from? What about the carbon that makes up our bodies? This is where stuff gets cool.
The density of matter in the early Universe was irregular, so there were regions that had more matter than others. Anything that has mass has a gravitational field, so these clumps of hydrogen pulled themselves together under gravity to become even denser. As the density increased so did the temperature until, boom!, they were hot enough to trigger nuclear fusion and form stars.
The process of nuclear fusion inside a star (such as our Sun) is what keeps it glowing brightly. In the core of a star, hydrogen nuclei are fused together to form helium. The ‘energy pressure’ resulting from the fusion process keeps the star at a certain size. In the case of a massive star, when the hydrogen begins to run out, this pressure reduces, and the star’s core contracts. But as it contracts, it also forces the newly-formed helium to become even denser, thereby increasing the temperature yet again. What happens then? The helium becomes hot enough to undergo nuclear fusion, and ultimately carbon is formed from that process.
This cycle is repeated over time and more and more elements form inside the star until it’s something of a mixed soup of hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, iron, and a fair smattering of other byproducts of the nuclear fusion process.
But the process stops at iron. At this point, there is simply not enough energy for the core to fuse iron into a heavier element. In a matter of seconds, the outer shells of the star fall inwards, hit the iron core, bounce back out, and blow the star to pieces. This is a supernova, and it spreads all the elements created inside out into space. During the supernova itself, even more elements – heavier than iron that can’t form in the core of a star – are created, such as gold and plutonium, and are also blown out into deep space.
Remnant of Kepler’s Supernova as seen by the Hubble Space Telescope
The expanding supernova remnant forms a vast cloud of elements and compounds called a nebula. There are different types of nebula: some are the remnants of dead stars, full of a cocktail of elements, whereas others are mostly hydrogen, and are a nursery for new stars. These nebulae can be seen with telescopes, binoculars, and even with the naked eye.
A nebula can be disturbed, or might have irregular densities, meaning parts of it will undergo gravitational contraction yet again. As before, this leads to increased temperatures, nuclear fusion, and new stars. Each time the cycle repeats itself, a new star will contain the elements created from the star before it. Indeed, by measuring how much ‘metal’ is in a star (we call anything that isn’t hydrogen or helium metal in astronomy) an astronomer can work out what generation the star is.
New stars forming inside the Orion Nebula, seen by the Hubble Space Telescope
Now, think about this following statement:
Our Sun is of the newest generation of stars, called Population I, and has a lot of metals in it (that is, elements that are not hydrogen or helium).
Do you see where this is going? Because the Sun has metals in it, we know that it formed from the cloud of gas left over from a previous star. As well as this, we find other elements created in supernova explosions right here on Earth, meaning the stuff that forms our solar system – including our planet and everything on it – was borne from the life and death of a huge star that existed billions of years ago, before the Solar System and the Sun formed. If you are wearing a gold ring, the gold inside it was probably created during a cataclysmic explosion of a dying star.
And what if it wasn’t created in a supernova? New science is showing that metals like the gold in your ring, or the trace metals in our bodies, can be produced during a particular astrophysical event: the collision of two neutron stars could form the precious metal. A neutron star is a very exotic object that is as heavy as the Sun, is the size of Dublin, and bends space and time around itself. A teaspoon of neutron star material weighs as much as a mountain. A neutron star is a sphere, but if you were too look at it straight on you wouldn’t just see one side of it, you’d also be able to see some of the ‘back’ of the object.
Your jewellery and the trace elements inside your body come from these mind-bending things.
But let’s not get too excited. The oxygen, carbon, and other elements inside your body were once inside a star. Even consider the most abundant chemical in your body: water, H2O, hydrogen and oxygen. We know that oxygen was formed inside a star as it began to die, and hydrogen was formed during the creation of the Universe itself.
In billions of years when the Sun’s life ends, long after we have died, the stardust that was once inside us will form part of a new nebula, from which a new star may form.
You are literally made of stardust, and in the future, new stars will be made of you.
Conor Farrell is an avid science enthusiast and studied physics with astronomy at Dublin City University. He now works with Astronomy Ireland to promote all things space-related to a wider audience. In his spare time he writes about science and current affairs, and can be followed on Twitter at @conorsthoughts.
Read more of Conor’s columns here.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
A driver doing this speed should be looking at an automatic ban.
@Reg:
They probably will get that
@Reg: well they should be keeping their eyes on the road anyway !!!!!
@Reg: The 173 was prosecuted
@Peter: The second Driver only got a fixed penalty notice No thinked up thinking Why
@Reg: he could have been rushing to the hospital?
Why lead with a headline that someone was doing 173km/h only go then add another driver was caught doing 177? Surely the second driver is (marginally) worse?
It’s like saying an Irish athlete has won a gold medal only to then state in the third paragraph “oh yeah, and his brother actually won two”.
@Gerard McAuliffe: the 173 was clocked in the pale
@Gerard McAuliffe: The 173 was prosecuted
@Gerard McAuliffe: Splitting hairs.They both are probably Audi/Bmw idiot drivers.We all see them every week on our roads and motorways.
@Gerard McAuliffe: The brother failed the drug test.
@Billy McNamara: Ironically, buying a BMW is probably one of the smartest things you can do. Makes it much easier to waft past the peasants in their Fords and Hyundi’s…
@Andy mc Laughlin: m7 Over Policed by Kildare Naas Stationed Gardai that’s when they’re not getting up to other tricks in the Court Yard Night Club Naas
@Rossa Crowe: pity I can only give one thumbs up, laughed out loud ;)
@Rossa Crowe: brilliant! Stick it to the insecure inferiors who are only capable of thinking in stereotypical generalities.
@Gerard McAuliffe: have you met the journal ? Integrity is not a strong point here and
@Rossa Crowe: You would want to learn how to spell before trying to appear smart.
@Sean Murnin: educate me so…not sure where I went wrong.
@Rossa Crowe: Hyundai’s
@Sean Murnin: Touchee – BMW is nice and easy, thankfully.
@Gerard McAuliffe: the 2nd one only got a fixed penalty. I would say the behaviour and type of driving would have had an effect between the two offenses.
What is going on, with all these Aśšhölês speeding ???
@pomerleau: mainly because the speed limits are a joke. Lots of roads where its perfectly safe to go faster and lots of roads where it should be slower. People will not adhere to a system they don’t respect.
There are plenty of computer systems available that would stop speeding so this is nothing more than a cash grab. An industry like everything else in this country.
@Rossa Crowe: As I said yesterday the issue is not that speed limits are unrealistic, it is drivers belief in their abilities. There are loads of roads in this country where you think the speed limit is too low, but the fact of the matter is that even if a road looks good does not mean there are hidden dangers like a hidden foot path behind a rise etc. The limits are there for a reason and we as drivers are not always privy to the why.
@Rossa Crowe: it’s not for you or anyone else to decide whether or not the speed limits are ridiculous. The fact is, they are what they are and people need to adhere to them. It’s the law.
@Rossa Crowe: Speed limits are there for a reason so that we can all use the roads safely. Even if speed limits were increased does it really matter if you get to your destination 2 minutes faster? 173km is excessively dangerous anyway and that driver deserves to be hit where it hurts.
@Maria Hickey-Fagan: Are you serious? So we should never change any laws that are clearly wrong? What about abortion laws or gay marriage? Medicinal cannabis? If you would like to make a coherent argument, fair enough but please don’t just say the law is the law.
@Kev: I merely made a general point that most rational people would agree with. I didn’t say driving at 170km wasn’t dangerous.
@Rossa Crowe: and if it was made mandatory to have a speed-limiting system fitted to your car you reckon there’d be no-one complaining about that and giving out that it was a revenue-generating scam?
@Rossa Crowe: catching someone doing 177 is not a cash grab. It’s likely saved someones life. If only the moron of a driver.
@Pseud O’Nym: Probably – i have a system in my work van that can tell if I am speeding, braking suddenly, cornering sharply etc. If it was about reducing deaths and speeds they could make this mandatory.
You can fail your test and drive home. You can pass your test and drive on a motorway without any previous motorway experience.
I find it a difficult system to respect.
@Patricia O’Reilly: Why not limit all cars to 120kmph then? The technology is already built in to cars to do this. Its already done in Japan.
@Pseud O’Nym: eh – I hate to tell you this but there are many mandatory rules in place for owning a car already: tax, insurance, nct, drivers license etc – one more is doable.
Ok I agree with a ban. But as the story says. Both were doing 173 in 100 zones. One is being summoned and the other gets a FPN?? That’s not fair.
@Oliver Jumelle: the first driver was driving dangerously as well as speeding. They are two separate offences.
@Jason Ebbs: How are they two seperate offences? speeding excessively is Dangerous Driving…
@: yes speeding is dangerous but they are still treated as two different offences. You can drive dangerously at 10kph. I suspect the first driver was probably swerving in and out of traffic and making dangerous movements on the road, hence the dangerous driving charge.
The second driver probably speeding in a straight line.
@: click on the link and you will see a heading under “speeding offences” and under that you will see a heading for “dangerous driving”. They are two different offences with different penalties and prosecutions.
@Jason Ebbs: Speeding excessively is automatically regarded as Dangerous Driving. Your speeding in a straight line analogy is nonsense.
Road Traffic Act, 1961
“(1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public.”
That chap should be done for Dangerous Drving for that speed. 77kph over the speed limit is categorically dangerous to the public…
@: did you even read the link I supplied above. A heading can be found “speeding offences” and a separate heading “dangerous driving offences”. Under each heading it explains the differences between the two situations and the difference between their penalties and prosecutions.
@Jason Ebbs: Road Traffic Act, 1961
53.— (1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place in a manner (including speed) which having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the condition of the vehicle, the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be in it) is or is likely to be dangerous to the public.
Speeding excessively is automatically regarded as Dangerous Driving. Your speeding in a straight line analogy is nonsense. That driver should be prosecuted for Dangerous Driving for that speed. 77kph over the speed limit is categorically dangerous to the public…
@Jason Ebbs: Road Traffic Act, 1961
“53.— (1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place in a manner (including speed) which having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the condition of the vehicle, the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be in it) is or is likely to be dangerous to the public.”
Speeding excessively is automatically regarded as Dangerous Driving. Your speeding in a straight line analogy is nonsense. That driver should be prosecuted for Dangerous Driving for that speed. 77kph over the speed limit is categorically dangerous to the public…
@: Speeding
If you drive over the speed limit, you will get 3 penalty points and a fixed charge fine of €80. If you do not pay the fine within 28 days, it increases to €120. If you do not pay this within 28 days (56 days from the original fine notification date), you will be summonsed to court where, if convicted, you could be fined up to €1000 and receive up to 5 penalty
Dangerous driving
It is an offence to drive dangerously in a public place. If you are convicted of dangerous driving, you could be fined up to €5000, or be sent to prison for up to 6 months, or both. If you are convicted of dangerous driving causing death or serious bodily harm, you could be fined up to €20,000 and imprisoned for up to 10 years, or both.
As I said, 2 different offences with different consequences.
@Jason Ebbs: They are not two separate offences. Dangerous driving is exactly just that, driving “at a speed that is likely to be dangerous to the public” hence “Dangerous Driving”.
Are you stating that driving at 77kph above a speed limit is not dangerous to the public and other road users??
@Jason Ebbs:
The prosecuting guard will decide what they’re going forward with
@Jason Ebbs: speeding thaybwxcessibly would fall under the catagory and definition of S53 dangetous driving. He is right. You are it wrong that speeding and dangerous driving are separate offences per say but speeding can be classed as dangerous driving and would be in this instance. (Even in a straight line).
For those that think the speed limit is stupid and needs to be reviewed upwards , drop along to a fatal RTA and watch someone’s guts being picked up with a shovel and the rest hosed down a shore.
Drop into an A&E and listen to a family being told that their loved one is dead because somebody thought it’s cool to speed.
Or watch a nurse & doctor trying to stitch someone’s face together after a door pillar mangled
How about hearing the screams of pain of someone after their back or neck has been snapped due to a crash at speed.
These are the scenes that people should see for real instead of diluted adverts.
@Justice Mickey:
Statistically speaking you have a 1:2400000 chance of being involved in a road crash resulting in death and thats not including the deaths where more than 1 person was killed in a single event.
All unnecessary deaths are very sad and should be avoided if possible but realistically the figure will never be zero. Its not mathematicaly possible.
@Rossa Crowe:
Put that on the headstones and pass it on to grieving loved ones…
I would reckon it would be a dead cert that your statistics will be shoved up your jaxie.
@Justice Mickey: Fair enough – never let the facts get in the way of a good moan. Fortunately the powers that be don’t make decisions based on isolated incidents.
@Rossa Crowe:
Even more fortunately people like you aren’t involved…
But hey , don’t let mere fatalities stand in the way of your high & mighty ivory tower.
And hopefully you aren’t ever standing over a hole in the ground saying goodbye to a loved one.
@Justice Mickey: People like me?- so you think 120kph is safe? The risk of death is increased with every kilometer upwards. The least deaths are caused on motorways so technically with the implied danger of speed people are more careful.
If there was a proper process involved in picking the speed limits I would have no problem. Every one knows they are not based on anything other than road type.
@Rossa Crowe:
You of all people should know the Sanders of motorway driving.
You are driving a high sided commercial vehicle carrying goods.
Windage , load shifting , incorrect tyre pressure, having to swerve to avoid debris , mechanical fault all play a major part of driving .
The 120 kph is a MAX speed , I’m happy to cruise at between 100 -110 kph if the road conditions allow.
Its should be a extra penalty point for every 10km over the limit with the automatic 3 you get anyway. So those tools doing the 177km should be looking at 10 penalty points.
@James Hayes:
Loss of licence for 5 years and have to re-sit the test and start from scratch with his/her insurance.
173kph….pah puny. Someone was doing 203mph in UK last week = 327kph…now that’s speeding.
@Gavin Tobin: In what car?
@Rossa Crowe: think it was a corolla :)
@Gavin Tobin: had to Google that – nissan GTR was caught at 192mph in UK. Now that’s speeding…
@Rossa Crowe: R8. Filmed himself, doing 200mph one hand on wheel apparently.
@Gavin Tobin: link please.
@Gavin Tobin: And total stupidity. Shows no regard for life not even his own. Should receive a very large fine and banned from driving for life.
@John Byrne: I don’t know – lets be fair going 202mph is very impressive by any standards.
@Rossa Crowe: I am so impressed
@Gavin Tobin: Jaysus just watched that 200mph Audi video. Imagine a blowout at that speed.
@Rossa Crowe: Except for filming himself that speed would be legal on some autobahns.
@Gavin Tobin: Audi RS6
Stupid thing to do in speed trap alley. He could have easily made up the time further along on the motorway section. I’d often cruise at 140-160 down there, never had a penalty point.
@Rochey77: Are you one of those who flash lights and blue motorists out of your way?
@John Byrne: *blow
@John Byrne: You shouldn’t be in the overtaking lane on a motorway even if your going 120kph. If more people knew the rules of the road there would be less dangerous overtaking maneuvers made, which I’m sure you will agree would reduce RTA’s.
Slow drivers are just as dangerous in my opinion which is also why vehicles under 50cc are not allowed on irish roads.
@John Byrne: absolutely. The Irish are rubbish drivers for the primary reason of lane discipline. I rode out once in a Garda traffic car and even with lights and sirens on the number of drivers that didn’t even see us coming or vacate to the left lanes was unbelievable
“It was a very windy day your honour and it was behind me”.
Why is it that one driver is getting prodecuted for Dangerous Driving over his speed of 73kph over the limit in a 100kph zone whilst the other driver is only in receipt of a FCPN for doing 77kph over the limit in a 100kph zone…how is that justified??
Fool
String him up ☹️
That’s 108mph and it makes headlines. We have turned into a nation of oul ones. Same I suppose with this bad flu that’s going around..
foolish
This is not news. This is shite.
We have become a tell tale country. It wont be long till they report that someone snook into a shebeen to drink a pint a plain
What’s that in miles/hr?
@JoyMonkey:
173km/h is 105mph
177km/h is 110mph
@JoyMonkey: Divide the Kilometres by 8, and then multiply by 5
@Peter: 173 km/h is 108 mph. I know, only 3 mph difference before I’m given out to
@Peter: 4kph does not equal 5mph
@Dara O’Brien @Joe_x
All I did was type it into google
@Peter:
I actually meant to type 107 where I said 105
For god’s sake! What was he driving???
@John Flood: What difference does car type make? Nearly all cars can go that speed barr some 1 litre city cars.
have your say