<p>The final stages of nucleosynthesis are a statistical equilibrium process. At the same time as nuclei are being built up, photodisintegration is breaking them down.</p>

<p>The temperatures required to produce zinc by fusion are high enough that the radiation field is energetic enough to break it up. So there is some present in the mix, but nowhere near as much as nickel.</p>

<p>It is also the case that <span class="math-container">$^{60}$</span>Zn is unstable, decaying (or neutronising) in minutes into copper and then nickel. In fact, there is an increasing penalty for producing any heavier elements with <span class="math-container">$n/p=1$</span>, because they will beta (plus) decay (or neutronise/electron-capture) to increase the <span class="math-container">$n/p$</span> ratio on short timescales.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-02T22:52:00.367Z
2020-05-04T07:35:58.860Z
2020-05-04T07:35:58.860Z
ProfRob
<p>The last primary fusion process to take place in extremely massive stars is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon-burning_process" rel="noreferrer">silicon burning</a>, where the <sup>28</sup>Si produced by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/oxygen-burning_process" rel="noreferrer">oxygen burning</a> is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_process" rel="noreferrer">exothermically fused with alpha particle after alpha particle after alpha particle</a>, all the way up to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-56" rel="noreferrer"><sup>56</sup>Ni</a>:<sup>1</sup></p>

<p>(1) <sup>28</sup>Si + <sup>4</sup>He → <sup>32</sup>S</p>

<p>(2) <sup>32</sup>S + <sup>4</sup>He → <sup>36</sup>Ar</p>

<p>(3) <sup>36</sup>Ar + <sup>4</sup>He → <sup>40</sup>Ca</p>

<p>(4) <sup>40</sup>Ca + <sup>4</sup>He → <sup>44</sup>Ti</p>

<p>(5) <sup>44</sup>Ti + <sup>4</sup>He → <sup>48</sup>Cr</p>

<p>(6) <sup>48</sup>Cr + <sup>4</sup>He → <sup>52</sup>Fe</p>

<p>(7) <sup>52</sup>Fe + <sup>4</sup>He → <sup>56</sup>Ni</p>

<p>And there the process stops, instead of continuing on with:</p>

<p>(8) <sup>56</sup>Ni + <sup>4</sup>He → <sup>60</sup>Zn</p>

<p>(9) <sup>60</sup>Zn + <sup>4</sup>He → <sup>64</sup>Ge</p>

<p>...</p>

<p>The <sup>56</sup>Ni, instead of fusing further, accumulates in an inert core at the centre of the star.  Once the growing ball of nickel reaches <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit" rel="noreferrer">1.4 solar masses</a>, it suddenly and catastrophically collapses at approximately one-quarter of the speed of light, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_II_supernova" rel="noreferrer">causing the entire rest of the star to collapse in on itself</a>; the nickel core is compressed into a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star" rel="noreferrer">neutron star</a>,<sup>2</sup> while much of the rest of the star is explosively fused into <sup>56</sup>Ni<sup>3</sup> and other, lighter reaction products (the latter mostly from the star's outer layers) and blasted into interstellar space.<sup>4</sup></p>

<p>The usual explanation as to why fusion doesn’t continue on with reactions 8 and 9 and so forth is that it isn’t possible to release any more energy through further fusion; going any further would be endothermic, and <em>consume</em> energy.</p>

<p>But!</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The core of a supergiant (or, even better, a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergiant" rel="noreferrer">hypergiant</a>) is the most extreme inferno to ever exist in the universe for more than a few seconds at a time, with temperatures well into the gigakelvins, and inferno is the endothermic reaction’s paradise; it doesn’t matter if you consume lots of energy when there’s a vast excess of same just lying around, and the equilibrium point for an endothermic reaction shifts more and more towards the products of the reaction the hotter you go (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier&#39;s_principle" rel="noreferrer">thanks, le Chatelier!</a>).</p></li>
<li><p>Reaction 8 (the fusion of <sup>56</sup>Ni and <sup>4</sup>He to <sup>60</sup>Zn), at least, <em>is actually exothermic!</em>  The energy-consuming step comes earlier - essentially the only significant <em>source</em> of <sup>4</sup>He in the core of a massive, highly-evolved star is from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodisintegration" rel="noreferrer">photodisintegration</a> of heavy nuclei, a highly endothermic process.  But a) see point 1, b) if a violent collision with another star or a very large planet mixes <sup>4</sup>He from the star’s outer layers (and, for that matter, from the colliding star/planet) into the star’s core, a large supply of helium becomes available essentially for free and this constraint is removed; there should then be nothing standing in the way of this helium fusing with <sup>56</sup>Ni via reaction 8<sup>9</sup> and releasing even more energy, and c) in a stellar core this hot, heavy nuclei are going to be photodisintegrating <em>anyway</em>, and it’s not like the alphas generated thereby can consciously choose to only participate in reactions that release enough energy to make up for the energy consumed by photodisintegration!</p></li>
</ol>

<p>So why don’t we see at least some production of alpha-process nuclides beyond <sup>56</sup>Ni<sup>10</sup> in the cores of extremely-massive, extremely-evolved stars (and to a much greater degree in those of such stars as have been severely abused by violent collisions)?</p>

<hr>

<p>Not a duplicate of <a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/11880/22074">this question</a>; that one asks <em>whether</em> it does, while this one asks <em>why</em> it doesn't to more than a tiny degree.</p>

<hr>

<p><sup>1</sup>: Gamma rays omitted for brevity.</p>

<p><sup>2</sup>: Unless the star is sufficiently massive that its final collapse crushes the core <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_black_hole" rel="noreferrer">even further</a>, and the star winks out of existence with nary a whimper.</p>

<p><sup>3</sup>: Some of this nickel is transformed into even heavier elements <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process" rel="noreferrer">by capturing some of the enormous neutron flux produced deep in the collapsing star</a>, but this is a drop in the star’s pocket change compared to the amount that (initially)<sup>4</sup> stays nickel.</p>

<p><sup>4</sup>: As <sup>56</sup>Ni is unstable, it then rapidly decays, powering the supernova’s afterglow:</p>

<p>(10) <sup>56</sup>Ni → <sup>56</sup>Co + <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle" rel="noreferrer">e<sup>+</sup></a> + <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino" rel="noreferrer">v</a></p>

<p>(11) <sup>56</sup>Co → <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-56" rel="noreferrer"><sup>56</sup>Fe</a><sup>5</sup> + e<sup>+</sup> + v</p>

<p><sup>5</sup>: As <sup>56</sup>Fe is stable, reaction 11 is why the universe has so friggin’ much iron.<sup>6</sup></p>

<p><sup>6</sup>: Well, so friggin’ much compared to what one would expect from the cosmic abundances of the other (relatively) heavy elements; the universe <em>as a whole</em> is still overwhelmingly hydrogen (and a little helium).<sup>7</sup></p>

<p><sup>7</sup>: Well, the universe’s <em>normal</em> matter is overwhelmingly hydrogen (and a little helium); the vast majority of the universe’s matter is actually <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter" rel="noreferrer">dark matter</a> (we think).<sup>8</sup></p>

<p><sup>8</sup>: Which itself makes up only a small fraction of the universe’s mass, being overshadowed by that of the universe’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy" rel="noreferrer">dark</a> <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy" rel="noreferrer">energy</a></em>, but I digress.</p>

<p><sup>9</sup>: And then going on via reaction 9 and beyond, but I don’t know whether these reactions (on their own, with no photodisintegration penalty) are exothermic or not.</p>

<p><sup>10</sup>: Any such production would have to be detected through their decay products, as <sup>60</sup>Zn and beyond are much more unstable and shorter-lived than even <sup>56</sup>Ni.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-03T07:14:45.587Z
There's a one-character typo in the link to "_Hypergiant_", Wikipedia.
Nat
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-03T10:17:10.280Z
"The 56Ni, instead of fusing further, accumulates" No, it doesn't, wrong assumption. 56Ni decays to 56Co (few days) and then to 56Fe (few months) - rather quickly related to star evolution, so you get star's core made of iron and not much of nickel.
fraxinus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-03T11:06:52.517Z
@Fraxinus The timescale for silicon burning is less than a day. The  creation of iron is via neutronisation, not free decay.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-03T21:21:48.693Z
⁠@Nat: ⁠⁠⁠Fixed⁠⁠.
Vikki
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-04T00:46:53.787Z
@Fraxinus FWIW, Wikipedia's [Type II Supernova page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_II_supernova#Formation) gives a timetable for the various burning processes of a 25 solar mass star. It says that the whole silicon burning sequence lasts for 5 days.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-04T00:47:00.293Z
However, [Silicon-burning process](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon-burning_process) says "The silicon-burning sequence lasts about one day before being struck by the shock wave that was launched by the core collapse. Burning then becomes much more rapid at the elevated temperature  [...] Only minutes are available for the nickel-56 to decay within the core of a massive star, and only seconds if in the ejecta."
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-04T00:57:04.023Z
Re your point #², with stars in the mass range 130 to 250 $M_\odot$ (with low to moderate metallicity), the blackbody gammas are energetic enough to induce copious pair production, leading to a [pair-instability supernova](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair-instability_supernova), which totally disrupts the star, leaving no remnant neutron star or black hole.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-04T01:20:14.480Z
As for your main point #1, don't forget that endothermic reactions reduce the thermal pressure, so they encourage collapse. Also, (as Wikipedia says) "from carbon-burning onwards, energy loss via neutrino production becomes significant". And it gets worse as the temperature increases.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-04T04:11:43.623Z
Why do you call them alpha particles? Do they come from radioactive decay? Or are they just ordinary helium nuclei?
Peter Mortensen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-04T10:08:35.763Z
@Peter Well, the [alpha process](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_process) or alpha ladder is a common term for these reactions. Yes, they are helium nuclei, and no, they aren't released via alpha decay, but they're mostly created by photodisintegration, i.e., released when nuclei get smashed by high energy photons.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-04T19:30:00.430Z
@PM2Ring what Sean is describing in point 2 is photo-disintigration, which drops >250 solar mass stars directly into a blackhole without a supernova explosion to free the outer layers.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair-instability_supernova#250_solar_masses_or_more
Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-04T20:51:42.553Z
@PM2Ring: Yes, _she_ was.
Vikki
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-15T18:59:50.260Z
I'm prepared to be very wrong about this, but I thought this is due to [the binding energy per nucleon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy#Nuclear_binding_energy_curve) maxing out around iron. In other words, with heavier elements the way to produce energy is via *fission* - not fusion. Much the same way a-bombs use uranium and/or plutonium instead of hydrogen.
Jyrki Lahtonen
<supernova><nucleosynthesis>
Why don’t supergiants at least start to fuse nickel into even heavier elements before going supernova?
Vikki
# Why don’t supergiants at least start to fuse nickel into even heavier elements before going supernova?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-05-02)

The last primary fusion process to take place in extremely massive stars is [silicon burning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon-burning_process), where the 28Si produced by [oxygen burning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/oxygen-burning_process) is [exothermically fused with alpha particle after alpha particle after alpha particle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_process), all the way up to [56Ni](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-56):1

(1) 28Si + 4He → 32S

(2) 32S + 4He → 36Ar

(3) 36Ar + 4He → 40Ca

(4) 40Ca + 4He → 44Ti

(5) 44Ti + 4He → 48Cr

(6) 48Cr + 4He → 52Fe

(7) 52Fe + 4He → 56Ni

And there the process stops, instead of continuing on with:

(8) 56Ni + 4He → 60Zn

(9) 60Zn + 4He → 64Ge

...

The 56Ni, instead of fusing further, accumulates in an inert core at the centre of the star. Once the growing ball of nickel reaches [1.4 solar masses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit), it suddenly and catastrophically collapses at approximately one-quarter of the speed of light, [causing the entire rest of the star to collapse in on itself](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_II_supernova); the nickel core is compressed into a [neutron star](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star),2 while much of the rest of the star is explosively fused into 56Ni3 and other, lighter reaction products (the latter mostly from the star's outer layers) and blasted into interstellar space.4

The usual explanation as to why fusion doesn’t continue on with reactions 8 and 9 and so forth is that it isn’t possible to release any more energy through further fusion; going any further would be endothermic, and *consume* energy.

But!

1. The core of a supergiant (or, even better, a [hypergiant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergiant)) is the most extreme inferno to ever exist in the universe for more than a few seconds at a time, with temperatures well into the gigakelvins, and inferno is the endothermic reaction’s paradise; it doesn’t matter if you consume lots of energy when there’s a vast excess of same just lying around, and the equilibrium point for an endothermic reaction shifts more and more towards the products of the reaction the hotter you go ([thanks, le Chatelier!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier's_principle)).
2. Reaction 8 (the fusion of 56Ni and 4He to 60Zn), at least, *is actually exothermic!* The energy-consuming step comes earlier - essentially the only significant *source* of 4He in the core of a massive, highly-evolved star is from the [photodisintegration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodisintegration) of heavy nuclei, a highly endothermic process. But a) see point 1, b) if a violent collision with another star or a very large planet mixes 4He from the star’s outer layers (and, for that matter, from the colliding star/planet) into the star’s core, a large supply of helium becomes available essentially for free and this constraint is removed; there should then be nothing standing in the way of this helium fusing with 56Ni via reaction 89 and releasing even more energy, and c) in a stellar core this hot, heavy nuclei are going to be photodisintegrating *anyway*, and it’s not like the alphas generated thereby can consciously choose to only participate in reactions that release enough energy to make up for the energy consumed by photodisintegration!

So why don’t we see at least some production of alpha-process nuclides beyond 56Ni10 in the cores of extremely-massive, extremely-evolved stars (and to a much greater degree in those of such stars as have been severely abused by violent collisions)?

---

Not a duplicate of [this question](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/11880/22074); that one asks *whether* it does, while this one asks *why* it doesn't to more than a tiny degree.

---

1: Gamma rays omitted for brevity.

2: Unless the star is sufficiently massive that its final collapse crushes the core [even further](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_black_hole), and the star winks out of existence with nary a whimper.

3: Some of this nickel is transformed into even heavier elements [by capturing some of the enormous neutron flux produced deep in the collapsing star](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process), but this is a drop in the star’s pocket change compared to the amount that (initially)4 stays nickel.

4: As 56Ni is unstable, it then rapidly decays, powering the supernova’s afterglow:

(10) 56Ni → 56Co + [e+](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle) + [v](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino)

(11) 56Co → [56Fe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-56)5 + e+ + v

5: As 56Fe is stable, reaction 11 is why the universe has so friggin’ much iron.6

6: Well, so friggin’ much compared to what one would expect from the cosmic abundances of the other (relatively) heavy elements; the universe *as a whole* is still overwhelmingly hydrogen (and a little helium).7

7: Well, the universe’s *normal* matter is overwhelmingly hydrogen (and a little helium); the vast majority of the universe’s matter is actually [dark matter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter) (we think).8

8: Which itself makes up only a small fraction of the universe’s mass, being overshadowed by that of the universe’s [dark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy) *[energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy)*, but I digress.

9: And then going on via reaction 9 and beyond, but I don’t know whether these reactions (on their own, with no photodisintegration penalty) are exothermic or not.

10: Any such production would have to be detected through their decay products, as 60Zn and beyond are much more unstable and shorter-lived than even 56Ni.

**Tags:** supernova, nucleosynthesis
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: There's a one-character typo in the link to "_Hypergiant_", Wikipedia.  
> **username_2**: "The 56Ni, instead of fusing further, accumulates" No, it doesn't, wrong assumption. 56Ni decays to 56Co (few days) and then to 56Fe (few months) - rather quickly related to star evolution, so you get star's core made of iron and not much of nickel.  
> **username_3**: @Fraxinus The timescale for silicon burning is less than a day. The  creation of iron is via neutronisation, not free decay.  
> **username_0**: ⁠@Nat: ⁠⁠⁠Fixed⁠⁠.  
> **username_4**: @Fraxinus FWIW, Wikipedia's [Type II Supernova page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_II_supernova#Formation) gives a timetable for the various burning processes of a 25 solar mass star. It says that the whole silicon burning sequence lasts for 5 days.  
> **username_4**: However, [Silicon-burning process](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon-burning_process) says "The silicon-burning sequence lasts about one day before being struck by the shock wave that was launched by the core collapse. Burning then becomes much more rapid at the elevated temperature  [...] Only minutes are available for the nickel-56 to decay within the core of a massive star, and only seconds if in the ejecta."  
> **username_4**: Re your point #², with stars in the mass range 130 to 250 $M_\odot$ (with low to moderate metallicity), the blackbody gammas are energetic enough to induce copious pair production, leading to a [pair-instability supernova](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair-instability_supernova), which totally disrupts the star, leaving no remnant neutron star or black hole.  
> **username_4**: As for your main point #1, don't forget that endothermic reactions reduce the thermal pressure, so they encourage collapse. Also, (as Wikipedia says) "from carbon-burning onwards, energy loss via neutrino production becomes significant". And it gets worse as the temperature increases.  
> **username_5**: Why do you call them alpha particles? Do they come from radioactive decay? Or are they just ordinary helium nuclei?  
> **username_4**: @Peter Well, the [alpha process](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_process) or alpha ladder is a common term for these reactions. Yes, they are helium nuclei, and no, they aren't released via alpha decay, but they're mostly created by photodisintegration, i.e., released when nuclei get smashed by high energy photons.  
> **username_6**: @PM2Ring what Sean is describing in point 2 is photo-disintigration, which drops >250 solar mass stars directly into a blackhole without a supernova explosion to free the outer layers.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair-instability_supernova#250_solar_masses_or_more  
> **username_0**: @PM2Ring: Yes, _she_ was.  
> **username_7**: I'm prepared to be very wrong about this, but I thought this is due to [the binding energy per nucleon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy#Nuclear_binding_energy_curve) maxing out around iron. In other words, with heavier elements the way to produce energy is via *fission* - not fusion. Much the same way a-bombs use uranium and/or plutonium instead of hydrogen.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-05-02. Score: 29

The final stages of nucleosynthesis are a statistical equilibrium process. At the same time as nuclei are being built up, photodisintegration is breaking them down.

The temperatures required to produce zinc by fusion are high enough that the radiation field is energetic enough to break it up. So there is some present in the mix, but nowhere near as much as nickel.

It is also the case that $^{60}$Zn is unstable, decaying (or neutronising) in minutes into copper and then nickel. In fact, there is an increasing penalty for producing any heavier elements with $n/p=1$, because they will beta (plus) decay (or neutronise/electron-capture) to increase the $n/p$ ratio on short timescales.


---

