We Were Wrong About Gold's Origin

It turns out we might be wrong about where gold comes from...

#gold #science #physics #mystery #space

If you enjoy the channel and want even more physics, tech, and business content, I've just launched new Instagram and Threads pages. Follow on the links below

A few people have asked so I've added the info below. Some of these are affiliate links. If you make a purchase it doesn't cost you anything extra, but a percentage of the sale will help support this channel and my work to bringing entrepreneurship into science.

[edwardblair]

There are really two separate questions here:
1. How do we explain the amount of gold in the universe as a whole?
2. How do we explain the amount of gold we see in our human environment?
Most of the video is about the first question, yet the second is also important to understand. It is very important to realize that what we see on the surface of the earth is mit necessarily representative of the universe at large. The bigest example is how Helium is the second most common element in the universe, but very rare on the earth's surface. Other elements are common on earth, but almost never found in pure form because they readily react with other atoms to form stable chemical componds. The fact that gold is not very reactive with other chemicals, but binds together with itself is one of the reasons pure, or nearly pure, gold can be "easily" found on earth. By "easily found" I mean when it is present it is easily identified and extractable. Also gold once isolated can remain so for centuries, unlike iron or copper that easily oxidize into "nonmetallic" forms.

[Grain]

Another explanation. Gold (and other heavy elements) aren't as common as our local environment would suggest. And that Earth just so happened to be born in proximity of a previous neutron star collision.

[ecolobrodu]

Around 3:10, the math is wrong by a factor of one million.

2.2*10^19 metric tons
*1.6 parts
/1, 000, 000 parts

= 3.52*10^13 metric tons

That's not 35 million metric tons, it's 35 trillion metric tons.

Even if the error was that it should say "parts per billion", that's still off by a factor of 1, 000.

[Chompchompyerded]

Q: So just how much gold did they make?
A: None of your bismuth.

[MickTeek]

Interesting vid, thanks.
On a semi-related note, I feel in addition to the reasons you listed for Au being so popular, there are a couple of more reasons:
1. It doesn't corrode or dissolve easily, meaning you never lose any of your investment even as you remelt and recast it, and is found in its natural form and needs no further refinement,
2. Its density allows for easily separation and concentration
and more importantly,
2. It is just the right amount of rare. Uncommon enough to be sought after, while not being so rare as to be unobtainable. If it were as common as copper, it would lose all its value. If it were as rare as platinum, it would be yet another exotic metal.

[YTtoober]

"we were wrong about Gold's origin" centuries ago. Next video "we were wrong about the Sun being a chariot ridden by a god across the sky".

[rnni]

Sad clickbait. You lay it out as if some new discoveries were made, which would prove that ... "We Were Wrong About Gold's Origin" CLICKBAIT. EDIT: The video is really good, am really enjoying it, but the title suggest a DIFFERENT VIDEO. Don't bait your audience. It makes the audience feel taken for fools. Audience does not enjoy that

[Arnsteel]

More money than has ever existed.

Federal Reserve: hold my beer

[FlipjevanTiel]

One tiny point of criticism; Dr Ben uses the term 'theory' a bit frivolously. I would prefer the term 'hypothesis', since the term 'theory' is misunderstood by so many people.

[Biomirth]

As a relative layperson (biology rather than physics) I really admire your science communication skill here, both keeping it simple enough but also detailed enough to represent reality very well. You're actually so good at communication that at first I starting thinking "Oh no, another astrophysics video that skips along the deep well of truth and evidence like a stone, happily referencing anything that can get clicks or serve biases", but I was very very happily surprised to see your descriptions match all the underlying science that I've seen elsewhere in being an amateur. Very impressed with your description of recent research in this area. I wish more people knew about interferometry, LiGo, etc.. as it's one of the best ways to show how indirect measurements can reveal so much happening so far away.

[terrencew.pringle]

"...and probably most importantly, it's shiny..." This. This right here. Had me right in the feels.

[OrdenJust]

In my youth, I wondered where Solid Gold Dancers came from.

[DavidFMayerPhD]

Heavy elements are created by:
1. R-process: Ultra-rapid neutron absorption without sufficient time for decay between neutron impacts.
2. S-process: Repeated absorption of neutrons with time between impacts for some decays to occur.
3. F-process: While energy cannot be liberated from fusion of iron and more massive elements, such fusions can and do occur. Thermodynamics favors such endothermic fusions at sufficiently high temperatures. Such fusions can cool the core of a star, accelerating collapse. Such fusions produce high mass nuclei which quickly decay into more ordinary elements.
4. I-process: Inverse fission caused when heavy nuclei collide (as in F-process) in the presence of very high neutron fluxes during supernova explosions. This process is approximately the reverse of ordinary nuclear fission.
5. N-process: when outer layers of tentative neutronium are bounced off of cores in supernovae, and are ejected from the stars, then spall into ultra-massive nuclei that quickly decay into more stable ordinary nuclei.
Not all of the above processes are distinct, but rather grade into one another.

Furthermore, the initial rarity of the heavy but relatively non-reactive elements is exacerbated by the process of the formation of the Earth's core. These elements do not readily form oxides, but remain in elemental form. As such, they are soluble in the molten iron that makes up most of the Earth's core. They were therefore dissolved out of the original molten mass of metal and rock and descended to Earth's core. More reactive metals, like lead, for instance, DO readily form oxides. Hence, although lead's cosmic abundance is far lower than that of gold, it is far more common in the crust where oxides prevail.

[aryansingh]

You said "We were wrong about origin of gold" but you told the things we already knew. don't do clickbaits and stupid titles if you're talking about science.

[aaronlarsen]

Gold is found in veins deep in the earth. It has never made sense to me that it it comes from outer space.

[Valjurai]

What if heavy element distribution isn't completely uniform and we were lucky to form in an area where one can get at more of it than typical?

[alecity]

The king Midas example about mythology surrounding gold isn't the best, it's more a moral story about greed ending with tragedy.

[dawall]

There actually is a cheaper method of manufacturing gold. Expose mercury to a neutron source, and it will convert into gold over time. It doesn't take a lot of time either. This experiment has been run successfully inside multiple nuclear reactors.

[mfsamuel]

Video Start: Gold is the flesh of RA.
Video End: Gold is the body of exploding stars.

Humorously, this video goes full circle. Stated another way, "the body of exploding stars" = "the flesh Ra" the Egyptian sun god.

[effingsix]

Gold prices going up means that interest rates are lagging inflation. This began to be more apparent when interest rates fell below 6% after a high of 18%, 20 years before.

Gold prices advance on the financial crises that arose out of financial excesses where private money creation elevated asset prices. Gold in a purified form is still money, though it’s used as a store of value.