Earliest stars

[exchemist]

Sometime there are footnoted sources and sometimes not. Just for fun I asked for it this time and rather than footnoted statements it just gave the following.


Certainly! Here are some sources that provide further insights into why heavier elements radiate more efficiently than hydrogen:

1. Physics Stack Exchange:
   • In this discussion, experts explain why elements heavier than helium (collectively termed “metals” in astrophysics) are more opaque and radiate more efficiently.
   • The complexity of electron orbital structures and available transitions in heavier elements contributes to their enhanced radiative cooling.
   • Read more1.

1. ScienceAlert:
   • This article discusses how ancient stars forged elements heavier than anything found in nature.
   • It highlights the role of fusion processes in creating heavier elements, including iron.
   • Read more2.

1. National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO):
   • The NRAO explains how elements heavier than helium are formed.
   • Supernova explosions and neutron star mergers are key processes for creating heavy elements.
   • Read more3.

In summary, these sources provide valuable information about the radiative properties of heavier elements and their impact on stellar evolution.

Ah that's more like it. The second and third are off-target but the first looks as if it what I want to know. I'll follow that one up. Thanks again.

 

[Seattle]

Ah that's more like it. The second and third are off-target but the first looks as if it what I want to know. I'll follow that one up. Thanks again.

I have Bing Chat, ChatGPT and Bravo bookmarked. Originally it was just because I found them interesting and wanted some experience with them to see what they could do, couldn't do and the best ways to use them (if at all).

I now find them pretty useful for most situations where you would have just used a Google search in the past. With Google sometimes you don't have a lot of time, search something and it returns a few links and you have to go through so much stuff to find the relevant parts that you just put it aside for when you have more time.

When it's just about churning through a lot of data quickly, that's where they all shine. If it's a subject matter than you are already familiar with, it's even better.

If it's something you aren't familiar with, you read the response and if it doesn't make logical sense then you can sometimes fine tune the response with more specific queries and sometimes you can just confront "it" with the illogical parts.

At this point it's likely to go downhill quickly since it can't really "think". It may go well if it's just a matter of it scanning a wider field but in many cases it will just basically start repeating the same stuff over and over and I just leave at that point.

If you are trying to learn something in more detail though and you start with a basic query, it's likely to get you on the right track more quickly (for further reading) than a basic Google search.

It's also great if you know the material but it's been a while and you just need a summary of topics that you already are pretty aware of. If you've read a book a long time ago, took a course in college,etc. you can quickly get up to speed.

You can also just "talk" to it if you are trying to refine your pre existing political views, for example. You think you are accurate about some topic but you state your view and you'll get back pros and cons and maybe sometimes you'll find out that you were just factually wrong about something.

Or you could have a general viewpoint that is factually based but someone raises a point that has you stumped and even though you might still be right, you'll learn something that you hadn't thought of.

In general though, IMO, it can just be a quick way to refresh your memory since it can scan though data much quicker than you ever could.

If you get into a situation where it is just wrong, I've learned to catch it and just not use it for that unless I'm trying to "probe" it to learn more about why it is making that specific mistake. Usually it's just because all it is doing is scanning and giving you back what it finds. Its logical skills aren't necessarily good so as with a child or a drunk, once you get to that point, don't argue, just move on.

 

[exchemist]

I have Bing Chat, ChatGPT and Bravo bookmarked. Originally it was just because I found them interesting and wanted some experience with them to see what they could do, couldn't do and the best ways to use them (if at all).

I now find them pretty useful for most situations where you would have just used a Google search in the past. With Google sometimes you don't have a lot of time, search something and it returns a few links and you have to go through so much stuff to find the relevant parts that you just put it aside for when you have more time.

When it's just about churning through a lot of data quickly, that's where they all shine. If it's a subject matter than you are already familiar with, it's even better.

If it's something you aren't familiar with, you read the response and if it doesn't make logical sense then you can sometimes fine tune the response with more specific queries and sometimes you can just confront "it" with the illogical parts.

At this point it's likely to go downhill quickly since it can't really "think". It may go well if it's just a matter of it scanning a wider field but in many cases it will just basically start repeating the same stuff over and over and I just leave at that point.

If you are trying to learn something in more detail though and you start with a basic query, it's likely to get you on the right track more quickly (for further reading) than a basic Google search.

It's also great if you know the material but it's been a while and you just need a summary of topics that you already are pretty aware of. If you've read a book a long time ago, took a course in college,etc. you can quickly get up to speed.

You can also just "talk" to it if you are trying to refine your pre existing political views, for example. You think you are accurate about some topic but you state your view and you'll get back pros and cons and maybe sometimes you'll find out that you were just factually wrong about something.

Or you could have a general viewpoint that is factually based but someone raises a point that has you stumped and even though you might still be right, you'll learn something that you hadn't thought of.

In general though, IMO, it can just be a quick way to refresh your memory since it can scan though data much quicker than you ever could.

If you get into a situation where it is just wrong, I've learned to catch it and just not use it for that unless I'm trying to "probe" it to learn more about why it is making that specific mistake. Usually it's just because all it is doing is scanning and giving you back what it finds. Its logical skills aren't necessarily good so as with a child or a drunk, once you get to that point, don't argue, just move on.

So long as they give you the references they have found, so you can get back to the primary source and validate it, that's useful.

Back on the topic, the physics stack exchange seems to talk about 2 different processes.

One is radiation in the IR. Obviously neither H, nor H2, nor He will radiate at all in the IR as they have no dipole, whereas "metals" or rather their compounds, like carbon monoxide, may have a dipole and may therefore radiate in the IR.

The other is the electronic emission lines I was thinking of in my earlier speculations. Heavier elements have more electrons and can populate a bigger range of orbitals so you get more lines (or bands) of emission and absorption in their spectra. These can radiate over and above the general black body radiation, which, as I had thought, is the same for all matter.