Talk:Astrochemistry

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AlecWild. Peer reviewers: Jacob.stein, Vconstant.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge?
Merge with Cosmochemistry article? They're synonymous. 64.231.24.25 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge, yes. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 19:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I templated accordingly, now for discussion! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 19:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There are definitely good reasons for merging the two articles. However, I think there are subtle differences between then that may not necessarily warrant a merger.  Although the two terms are often used interchangeably, cosmochemistry generally refers to the analysis of physical samples (meteorites, etc.) whereas astrochemistry often refers to the spectroscopic analysis of astronomical phenomenon for which no physical samples are available.  Cosmochemistry is a well-developed discipline and its article could definitely be expanded on its own.  Just my two cents. :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topher385 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a merger would be good, but Astrochemistry should definitely remain the name.EzPz (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. They're different fields of study - cosmochemistry examines physical samples of bodies within the solar system, whilst astrochemistry involves observations and lab simulations of astronomical objects outside the solar system. There is a blurry boundary when it comes to exoplanets, but the two are not synonymous, any more than astronomy and cosmology are. Modest Genius talk 16:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

These are quite different fields with different samples, techniques and applications. Just google any major university and you'll find many professors in each but none (or very few) doing both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.163.211 (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Categorization
''Category:Chemistry is overpopulated. If you can help, please ensure this article is in an appropriate subcategory and remove it from Category:Chemistry.''
 * This is a high-level topic within chemistry, the combination of astronomy and chemistry, and is properly categorized into the general Category:Chemistry. Courtland 01:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

chemistry (chemical elements) vs chemistry (nuclear physics)
It would be good for someone to find an online reference, which shouldn't be hard.

i replace "nuclear chemistry" by "nuclear physics" because the wikipedia is not intended to confuse people. Astronomers normally say "chemistry" when we talk about nuclear reactions. That's just a historical fact. So when astronomers also talk about reactions between chemical elements, you need to be careful to distinguish the real physical nature of what we're talking about. Boud 12:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Astrochemists do not work on nuclear synthesis within stars - and instead focus on molecular reactions in clouds, dense cores, and to a certain extent the outer atmospheres of dust producing AGB stars etc. 87.80.116.129


 * Nope, nuclear synthesis is a part of astrophysics. Chemistry, by necessity, deals with molecules, so chemists find the interiors of stars (where there are no molecules) rather uninteresting. Modest Genius talk 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Lithium
Lithium is not a product of stellar nucleosynthesis. All Lithium was created during big bang nucleosynthesis. Lithium is fused very quickly to heavier elements in stars and therefore destroyed, so the universes total Lithium content goes down as time goes on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.149.67 (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Odd that nobody have fixed that, after nearly four years! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 19:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW: Lithium sources are Big Bang and radiative spallation of carbon and such in interstellar space. In stars lithium generally go down. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 19:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup?
This article currently looks more like an essay than an actual article. It could do with some editing, splitting it into sections and making it easier to read. As I don't have time to do this myself right now, I've marked it as requiring cleanup. --Xanthine (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

misleading name
The name astrochemistry is misleading because it is not about chemistry in stars. A better name might be celestial chemistry in analogy to celestial mechanics. Bo Jacoby (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC).


 * Astrochemistry is the term used by those in the field (astrochemists), and many book titles and conference titles include this word. Wikipedia should reflect the common convention for names, not try to invent a more logical name that no one will recognise. Jolindbe (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead section
I think the article could use a good once over, with several major additions and edits. Starting with the lead lection, I propose the following:

Astrochemistry is the science devoted to the study of chemical processes at work in astrophysical environments, including the interstellar medium, stellar and planetary regions. Astrochemistry is a kind of overlap between its two parent disciplines, Astronomy and Chemistry. Astronomy is concerned with detecting molecules in the interstellar medium and stellar environments by research of the sky, where chemistry is interested in processes that transform molecular species. Molecular spectroscopy is responsible for making these discoveries. Aspects of current research include trying to understand the processes likely to lead to the formation of these molecules, as a function of the properties of their environment. Particular interest is focused on the formation, composition, evolution and fate of molecular gas clouds, because it is from these clouds that solar systems form.'

I am very interested in constructive feedback and suggestions. EzPz (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This is all physics and should renamed accordingly. And there is no nuclear science in chemistry aside from mass. It is confined to electron shell physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.209.120.186 (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astrochemistry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.astrochemistry.org/observe
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100517140105/http://www.chem.arizona.edu/faculty/ziur/ziur-group.html to http://www.chem.arizona.edu/faculty/ziur/ziur-group.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy of Research section
The "Research" section contains the following text:


 * Astrochemistry overlaps with astrophysics and nuclear physics in characterizing the nuclear reactions which occur in stars, the consequences for stellar evolution, as well as stellar 'generations'. Indeed, the nuclear reactions in stars produce every naturally occurring chemical element. As the stellar 'generations' advance, the mass of the newly formed elements increases. A first-generation star uses elemental hydrogen (H) as a fuel source and produces helium (He). Hydrogen is the most abundant element, and it is the basic building block for all other elements as its nucleus has only one proton. Gravitational pull toward the center of a star creates massive amounts of heat and pressure, which cause nuclear fusion. Through this process of merging nuclear mass, heavier elements are formed. Carbon, oxygen and silicon are examples of elements that form in stellar fusion. After many stellar generations, very heavy elements are formed (e.g. iron and lead).

Massive stars are capable of fusing everything up to iron in a single generation (see Stellar nucleosynthesis and Stellar evolution), and the supernovae at the end of their lives are capable of producing numerous elements beyond that (see Supernova nucleosynthesis), so the statement that it takes "many generations" to form iron and lead is not accurate (indeed, it seems to be fairly hotly debated whether any of the very first generation of stars would have been light enough not to forge the entire spectrum of elements available to stellar+supernova nucleosynthesis). Furthermore, the entire paragraph has no citations.

I am not a regular editor, but this is a fairly glaring error and has been present in the article for nearly a decade and a half, so I thought I'd flag it for review. 2600:1700:AA70:CCF:0:0:0:122 (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with your criticism of that section. I have almost completely rewritten that paragraph, and removed the accuracy disputed tag. If it's still wrong, it's wrong in a completely different way now.PopePompus (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)