Skip to main content

Stardust in Oxford

It is often said we are all made from stardust. Meteorites, such as those in the museum in Oxford, contain a remarkable ‘fingerprint’. The imprint of a time before our solar system was formed. Grains of stardust you can look at under a microscope; micron-sized grains of silicon carbide a billion years older than our solar system, spewed out from supernovae and giant stars, now trapped in the meteorites that were formed by the accretion of debris in the early development of our solar system.

But how can we be so certain of the origin and formation of these grains of dust? This is just one of the exciting questions discussed with Professor Alex Halliday when interviewed by Denis Noble for Voices from Oxford. Alex Halliday specializes in the chemistry of the planets, and is also the head of one the largest Divisions at the University of Oxford: Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences. He studies the isotope nature of the composition of the earth and its evolution.

The unique properties of radio isotopes enable us to “trace the geological components and to determine where they came from and when they were formed.” They provide a unique view of the history of the universe and our solar system. A history locked in bits of rock.

We can use isotope properties in a variety of ways, Professor Halliday explains. The first of these is dating. Some radio isotopes with very long half lives are decaying over billions of years; others have very short half lives. A very sophisticated set of techniques have now been developed and modern mass spectrometry “has driven the science forward and opened up new opportunities”.

But it isn’t a fingerprint of time alone. Atomic masses of isotopes “will result in slightly different behaviour in natural processes” and by measuring the amount of one isotope over another “you can say something about temperature in the past.” It was the Nobel Prize winner, Harold Urey, who discovered the isotope deuterium, but who also was first to discover you could use the behaviour of isotopes to say something about the temperature of the oceans in the past.

Using this “forensic fingerprinting” with the properties of isotopes, Professor Halliday explains, we can also trace the source of components and where they came from, and this has produced some unexpected results. It was assumed that things were fairly well mixed up in the solar system because meteorites from the asteroid belt and from mars had roughly the same composition as samples from earth. But it was discovered about 20 years ago that there was something peculiar in the isotopic make­­ up of these meteorites. There were “some funny noble gas isotopic compositions.”

If you did selective leaching of them, gradually dissolving the entire meteorite, you are left with a few grains that were “unlike anything found on earth”. Thousands of these grains have been analysed with high precision for their isotopic composition and they are not normally found on the earth’s surface. They are fragments of dust, grains of silicon carbide, from other stars, that were brought into this solar system 4.5 billion years ago before it formed. These meteorites provide an amazing new archive for understanding how stars work. By using spectroscopy on stars we analyse their chemistry. But as Professor Halliday puts it “now we have samples of stars which is mind blowing.”

Ray Noble is News Editor for Voices from Oxford


Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As