Elemental Puzzle
 

Here's an easy one:

What do these five elements, and no others,
have in common?

Hg, Kr, Np, Pu, and U.

:wink:

Elemental Puzzle
 

:unsure: This seems to be more chemistry than math. Nevertheless the last three are actinides, Hg is liquid at N.T.P. Kr is a rare gas and U is radioactive.
I fail to see a chemical connection so I pass.
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=davar55]Here's an easy one:

What do these five elements, and no others,
have in common?

Hg, Kr, Np, Pu, and U.

:wink:[/QUOTE]
You forgot Te.

I could make a good case for including Ce, Se and He too.

Paul

Are you asking about chemical properties or mathematical properties of their atomic mass or number?

Hg:
Atomic number - 80 Density g/mL 13 .53
Atomic weight u 200 .59 Melting point K 234 .28
Bonding radius A 1 .49 Boiling point K 630
Atomic radius A 1 .76 Heat of vaporization kJ/mol 59 .229
Ionization Potential V 10 .437 Heat of fusion kJ/mol 2 .295
Electronegativity - 2 Specific heat J/gK 0 .139
The oxide is mildly basic.
Crystal are rhombohedral.

Kr:
Atomic number - 36 Density g/L 3 .74
Atomic weight u 83 .8 Melting point K 115 .78
Bonding radius A 1 .12 Boiling point K 119 .8
Atomic radius A 1 .03 Heat of vaporization kJ/mol 9 .029
Ionization Potential V 13 .999 Heat of fusion kJ/mol 1 .638
Electronegativity - - Specific heat J/gK 0 .248
The oxide is unknown.
Crystal are face centered cubic.

Np:
Atomic number - 93 Density g/mL 20 .4
Atomic weight u 237 .0482 Melting point K 910
Bonding radius A - Boiling point K -
Atomic radius A - Heat of vaporization kJ/mol -
Ionization Potential V 6 .19 Heat of fusion kJ/mol 5 .19
Electronegativity - 1 .36 Specific heat J/gK 0 .12
The oxide is amphoteric.
Crystal are orthorhombic.

Pu:
Atomic number - 94 Density g/mL 19 .8
Atomic weight u 244 Melting point K 913
Bonding radius A - Boiling point K 3503
Atomic radius A - Heat of vaporization kJ/mol 344
Ionization Potential V 6 .06 Heat of fusion kJ/mol 2 .84
Electronegativity - 1 .28 Specific heat J/gK 0 .13
The oxide is amphoteric.
Crystal are monoclinic.

U:
Atomic number - 92 Density g/mL 18 .9
Atomic weight u 238 .029 Melting point K 1405
Bonding radius A 1 .42 Boiling point K 4407
Atomic radius A - Heat of vaporization kJ/mol 477
Ionization Potential V 6 .05 Heat of fusion kJ/mol 8 .52
Electronegativity - 1 .38 Specific heat J/gK 0 .12
The oxide is amphoteric.
Crystal are orthorhombic.

[QUOTE=Citrix]Are you asking about chemical properties or mathematical properties of their atomic mass or number?[/QUOTE]I don't think it's giving much away to reveal that the answer to your question is "no".

I've already indicated that I know the desired answer. If that isn't a big enough hint, you're in difficulties.

Paull

[QUOTE=THILLIAR]
Kr:
...
The oxide is unknown.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not entirely sure of that. I'll look it up.

Oxides of xenon were characterized many years ago. Other krypton compounds are well known.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman]I don't think it's giving much away to reveal that the answer to your question is "no".

I've already indicated that I know the desired answer. If that isn't a big enough hint, you're in difficulties.

Paull[/QUOTE]

No to what? (No to a mathematical pattern or a chemical pattern)

Mercury, Neptunium, Plutonium and Uranium are all named after celestial bodies, planets of our solar system in this case (or the deities of the same name). Krypton does not seem to fit in, unless you count Superman's home planet... Tellur does not seem to fit, either. Cerium is probably named after Ceres, an asteroid. Helium is probably named after Helios, greek for sun. But I didn't check if any other elements are named after celestial bodies/deities.

Alex

[QUOTE=akruppa]Mercury, Neptunium, Plutonium and Uranium are all named after celestial bodies, planets of our solar system in this case (or the deities of the same name). Krypton does seem not fit in, unless you count Superman's home planet... Tellur does not seem to fit, either. Cerium is probably named after Ceres, an asteroid. Helium is probably named after Helios, greek for sun. But I didn't check if any other elements are named after celestial bodies/deities.

Alex[/QUOTE]Look up Tellus, telluric, and a whole bunch of similarly derived words.

While your are consulting your dictionary and encyclopaedias, check out Selene, selenography, selenographic and other such words.

Cerium was discovered in 1801, the same year as the world Ceres. The asteroid was found on the very first day of the nineteenth century and the element later that year.

Incidentally, roughly half of my DPhil research was spent investigating the properties of CeO in the gas phase. Fascinating molecule, if you like that sort of thing.


Paul

[QUOTE=akruppa]Mercury, Neptunium, Plutonium and Uranium are all named after celestial bodies, planets of our solar system in this case (or the deities of the same name). Krypton does seem not fit in, unless you count Superman's home planet... Tellur does not seem to fit, either. Cerium is probably named after Ceres, an asteroid. Helium is probably named after Helios, greek for sun. But I didn't check if any other elements are named after celestial bodies/deities.

Alex[/QUOTE]AFAIK, U, Np and Pu are named after the planets. Hg, I'm not so sure but possibly the deity. Superman's home planet was named after the element.

Paul

[QUOTE=davar55]Here's an easy one:

What do these five elements, and no others,
have in common?

Hg, Kr, Np, Pu, and U.

:wink:[/QUOTE]
While we're on elemental posers, why is Sm the only one with a stable isotope?

Paul

[QUOTE=Citrix]No to what? (No to a mathematical pattern or a chemical pattern)[/QUOTE]Yes!


Paul

Q: Where does mercury come from?

A: Hg Wells

[QUOTE=M29]Q: Where does mercury come from?

A: Hg Wells[/QUOTE]
Boooooooooooooo! (Not to the awfully good pun, but to the fact that I hadn't heard that one yet. ;)

Trivia Q: Why is 'W' the symbol for Tungsten?

A: It's elementary, my dear Welsh-son! (In fact, it's Mathematica-l).

[QUOTE=ewmayer]Trivia Q: Why is 'W' the symbol for Tungsten?[/QUOTE]Seriously? Wolfram.

BTW, "tungsten" is Swedish for "heavy stone".

Funny you should bring it up. I am currently having something fabricated from Rhenium. Re has a density of 21.02 g/cc whereas W is merely 19.3 g/cc.

I might be down you way in a week or so, Ernst. Are you thirsty?

[QUOTE=M29]Seriously? Wolfram.[/quote]
It wasn't meant to be hard, merely Mathematica-lly punny.

[quote]BTW, "tungsten" is Swedish for "heavy stone".[/quote]
I knew a Swede back in college who was quite a heavy stoner. I was more into heavy metal myself.

[quote]Funny you should bring it up. I am currently having something fabricated from Rhenium. Re has a density of 21.02 g/cc whereas W is merely 19.3 g/cc.[/quote]
IIRC, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmium]Osmium[/url] has them all beat, albeit only by a few percent. While we're on the topic of dense metals - I'm still waiting for that souvenir-quality depleted-Uranium paperweight you promised me, you know, the one in the shape of a mushroom. Or did you use it to take out the armor plating on your neighbor's Hummer?

[quote]I might be down you way in a week or so, Ernst. Are you thirsty?[/QUOTE]
I do believe a bout of thirst could be arranged.

[QUOTE=ewmayer]It wasn't meant to be hard[/quote]It is difficult to machine.
[QUOTE=ewmayer]I do believe a bout of thirst could be arranged.[/QUOTE]A bout your thirst, I'll contact you when I know my schedule.

Elemental Puzzle
 

[QUOTE=M29]It is difficult to machine.
A bout your thirst, I'll contact you when I know my schedule.[/QUOTE]
:cool: Why didn't I know you guys just 9 years ago before I retired? I was hopping around the major cities in Europe, Uk and the eastern coast U.S.

We used Tungsten carbide tips for cutting tool bits
Yeah Hg from Wells. Thats a good one

How about
KR: Kronecker - Riemann.
PU: middle name of most emnient Chinese mathematicians.
In the Far East if you don't know the correct name, PU repeated twice will get you across :grin:
Mally :coffee:
P.S. The smilie 'wink' has been removed!

Hmmm ...

After a quick perusal of [URL="http://www.mercurytheatre.info/history"]http://www.mercurytheatre.info/history[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Theatre"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Theatre[/URL] I find no hint that the name of the radio program "Mercury Theatre on the Air" had any causal connection to the first two initials of the original author of the work that was adapted to become its most famous broadcast. But the coincidence is mnemonically handy.

[QUOTE=ewmayer]
IIRC, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmium]Osmium[/url] has them all beat, albeit only by a few percent. [/QUOTE]Evil stuff. Be careful if you get some to play with.

The metal itself is reasonably ok, but OsO_4 is volatile and chemically reactive. In particular, it is known to deposit Os metal on the retina. Not very good for the eyesight.

Paul

So what is the intended solution?
 

Davar55: please let us know what property you had in mind when you posted those elements' symbols as a puzzle.


Nobody has yet attempted my related puzzle, about why Sm is special because it is the only one with a stable isotope.


Paul

Does it have something to do with the good samaritans?

Alex

My intended solution was revealed in posts #9 and #11 --
all five elements are either the same as or based on
the names of planets --
Yes, Krypton as Superman's home world was intended as a bit of levity.

I think you added a few that are based on
other astronomical bodies (He)
or other etymologies (Te), a reasonable extension.

[QUOTE=davar55]My intended solution was revealed in posts #9 and #11 --
all five elements are either the same as or based on
the names of planets --
Yes, Krypton as Superman's home world was intended as a bit of levity.

I think you added a few that are based on
other astronomical bodies (He)
or other etymologies (Te), a reasonable extension.[/QUOTE]Tellus (along with Terra and Gaia) is a recognized name for the earth --- itself a planet --- and gives rise to a number of other words which are related to "earth-like", some examples of which I gave earlier. That is why I claimed you omitted it

This site [url]http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/tellus.html[/url] provides supporting evidence for my claim, as does the Wikipedia entry which reads:

Tellurium (Latin tellus meaning "earth") was discovered in 1782 by the Hungarian Franz-Joseph Müller von Reichenstein (Müller Ferenc) in Transylvania. In 1798 it was named by Martin Heinrich Klaproth who earlier isolated it.

In old terminology, the Sun "Helios" and the Moon "Selene" were also rated as planets ("wanderers" in ancient Greek) which is why I suggested that a case could be made for including them. Ceres, of course, is a minor planet. All three are very dubious examples of the modern meaning of "planet", so I was prepared to accept their absence from your list.

Kr was actually the odd one out. All the others were named after planets, it gave rise to the name of a (fictional) planet.

Now, what is special about Sm?

Paul

[QUOTE=akruppa]Does it have something to do with the good samaritans?

Alex[/QUOTE]
Nope.

Paul

So, now that we've made a few revolutions around the sun,
why is Sm the only one without a stable isoptope?
Is it because Krypton had a red sun?

[quote=xilman;73806]about why Sm is special because it is the only one with a stable isotope.[/quote]I must have missed some context -- "the only one" of which? If you meant the only one of all elements, then we're looking for some pun, apparently.

From [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarium:[/url]
[quote]The samarskite mineral was named after [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Samarsky-Bykhovets"]Vasili Samarsky-Bykhovets[/URL], the Chief of Staff (Colonel) of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia"]Russian[/URL] Corps of Mining Engineers in 1845–1861. The name of the element is derived from the name of the mineral, and thus traces back to the name Samarsky-Bykhovets. In this sense samarium was the first chemical element to be named after a living person.[/quote]

I think you have provided the response : could it be that Sm is the only element named after a person with a stable isotope.

Jacob

[quote=S485122;179569]I think you have provided the response : could it be that Sm is the only element named after a[/quote]living[quote]person with a stable isotope.

Jacob[/quote](The set of persons with only unstable isotopes being null, presumably :smile:)

From [URL]http://careerchem.com/NAMED/Elements-Names.pdf[/URL]

Gadolinium was named for Johan Gadolin

From Wikipedia:

Gadolinium - stable isotopes 154-158 and 160, but ...

[quote]It is expected that continuous improvement of experimental sensitivity will allow discovery of very mild radioactivity (instability) of some isotopes that are considered stable today. For example, it wasn't until 2003 that [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismuth-209"]bismuth-209[/URL] was shown to be radioactive [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_isotope#cite_note-1"][2][/URL]. Many "stable" nuclides are possibly "meta-stable" in as much as they may be calculated to have an energy release [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_isotope#cite_note-2"][3][/URL] upon several possible kinds of radioactive decays.[/quote]Gd-154 and Gd-155 might alpha-decay, and Gd-160 might double-beta-decay.

- - - -

Johan Gadolin (d. 1852)

[quote]Gadolin became famous when he discovered the first [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element"]rare earth element[/URL]. In 1792 Gadolin received a sample of black, heavy [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral"]mineral[/URL] found in a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarry"]quarry[/URL] in the Swedish village [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ytterby"]Ytterby[/URL] near [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm"]Stockholm[/URL]. By careful experiments, he isolated a rare earth oxide which was later named [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yttria"]yttria[/URL]. He also isolated in the same study yttrium trihydroxide. Yttria, or [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yttrium%28III%29_oxide"]yttrium oxide[/URL], was the first known rare earth metal compound — at that time, it was regarded as an element. The work was published in 1794.


The mineral that Gadolin examined was named [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadolinite"]gadolinite[/URL] in 1800. The oxide of the element [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadolinium"]gadolinium[/URL], [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gadolinia&action=edit&redlink=1"]gadolinia[/URL], was named after Gadolin by its discoverers.[/quote]So, was the element named before Johan died?

[quote]In 1880, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland"]Swiss[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemist"]chemist[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_Galissard_de_Marignac"]Jean Charles Galissard de Marignac[/URL] observed spectroscopic lines due to gadolinium in samples of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didymium"]didymium[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadolinite"]gadolinite[/URL]; [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France"]French[/URL] chemist [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_%C3%89mile_Lecoq_de_Boisbaudran"]Paul Émile Lecoq de Boisbaudran[/URL] separated [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadolinium%28III%29_oxide"]gadolinia[/URL], the oxide of Gadolinium, from Mosander's [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yttria"]yttria[/URL] in 1886. The element itself was isolated only recently. Gadolinium, like the mineral gadolinite, is named after [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland"]Finnish[/URL] chemist and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologist"]geologist[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Gadolin"]Johan Gadolin[/URL].[/quote]Apparently not, though its containing mineral gadolinite was.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;179584]living.[/QUOTE]Is the correct answer.

Very few elements have been named after living people. AFAIK, Seaborg was the next person so honoured.


Paul

Does that answer explain why Sm wasn't in the original list?

Doesn't Fermium have a stable isotope?
And didn't Albert Einstein (I think you may have heard of him)
have a stable isotope?

Can you create the complimentary list to the original puzzle,
i.e. to Hg, Kr, Np, Pu, and U?

[QUOTE=davar55;179616]Does that answer explain why Sm wasn't in the original list?

Doesn't Fermium have a stable isotope?
And didn't Albert Einstein (I think you may have heard of him)
have a stable isotope?

Can you create the complimentary list to the original puzzle,
i.e. to Hg, Kr, Np, Pu, and U?[/QUOTE]My question was about elements named after living people and nothing to do with stability per se.

Fermi, I believe, was dead by the time Fm was named. Similarly Curie, Einstein, Nobel and a whole bunch of others (including Gadolin).

AFAIK, of those named after people (lawrencium is named after the lab, itself named after Lawrence) only Sm and Gd have stable isotopes

Of course, I may be wrong because I'm relying on memory and not Google.


Paul

[QUOTE=davar55;179616]Can you create the complimentary list to the original puzzle, i.e. to Hg, Kr, Np, Pu, and U?[/QUOTE]Yes, and I have implicitly done so in my earlier posting.

Paul

Not being a being of infinite wisdom, I think Endon (200)
and Penultine (199) are in the same class
as Sm (what was it's atomic number again?).

Also, the row of Endon and Penultine has many stable isotopes.

[quote=davar55;179616]Doesn't Fermium have a stable isotope?
And didn't Albert Einstein (I think you may have heard of him) have a stable isotope?[/quote]There are not yet any known stable isotopes for any element heavier than lead. (That's why lead is at the end of so many decay chains.)

[QUOTE=davar55;179625]Not being a being of infinite wisdom, I think Endon (200)
and Penultine (199) are in the same class
as Sm (what was it's atomic number again?).

Also, the row of Endon and Penultine has many stable isotopes.[/QUOTE]
Samarium (Sm) is element 62. But I don't recognize those other two from anywhere, and Google turns up mainly French pages for "Penultine". Am I missing a fiction reference here?

[QUOTE=davar55;179625]Not being a being of infinite wisdom, I think Endon (200)
and Penultine (199) are in the same class
as Sm (what was it's atomic number again?).

Also, the row of Endon and Penultine has many stable isotopes.[/QUOTE]It is currently thought that elements with atomic number that high do not, and cannot, exist.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-block[/url]

[quote=lavalamp;179720]It is currently thought that elements with atomic number that high do not, and cannot, exist.
/quote]

Not so.

The currently known 118 elements (up to ununoctium) are all composed
of a nucleus (of protons and/or neutrons) surrounded by a
cloud of electrons layered in shells.

The number of protons in the basic atom of an element equals
the number of electrons surrounding the nucleus.

The electrons are bound to the positively charged nucleus because
the positive charge of a proton exactly balances the negative charge
of an electron, and opposites attract.

The nucleus contains protons and/or neutrons bound by a nuclear
force akin to gravity.

The electron cloud is organized as layers or shells because the
negatively charged electrons repel each other and so are in a constant
state of motion.

They avoid each other by filling space around the nucleus.

The distance from the nucleus determines the energy capacity
of that level, hence the number of electrons it can hold.

The shells contain distinct numbers of electrons, which can be
determined by energy calculations.

As per the Periodic Table extended to the finite maximum number of
possible elements, there are exactly nine shell levels.

We're at the limits of shell 7 with element 118 (ununoctium).

But we haven't (of course) generated a sample of every
isotope of every transuranium element (of course) so we
haven't yet reached a stable transuranium element.

It should begin within this shell, either at element 114 or 116.

There's an island of stability coming up soon.

The next two shells will fill the Periodic Table.

[quote=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-block]The light-speed limit on electrons orbiting in ever-bigger electron shells theoretically limits neutral atoms to a Z of approximately 173, after which it would be nonsensical to assign the elements to blocks on the basis of electron configuration, while similar considerations of the nucleus limit ions to a Z of approximately 210. However, it is likely that the periodic table actually ends much earlier, possibly soon after the island of stability, which is expected to center around Z = 126.[/quote]So individual ions of elements 199 and 200 MIGHT be able to exist, but probably don't and infact can't.

And yes, using wikipedia as a source is bad form etc., but there are some better references at the bottom or the article.

[quote=davar55;179848]It is currently thought that elements with atomic number that high do not, and cannot, exist.
/quote]

Not so.

CLIP:smile:

[/quote]

If you've ever heard a description of the relative size of
an atom and a nucleus, you would realize that the two things
(atomic and nuclear physics) can usefully be treated separately
(and perterbation theory is pretty accurate).

"Atomic" physics considers electrons "orbiting" around a fixed
point charge Ne. Is there really some limit on N?

The question "what elements are possible?" boils down to
"what nuclei are stable?" which is nuclear physics.

Of all the inappropriate analogies in all the world, I have
never encountered a worse one than the one between gravity
and the strong nuclear force you suggested.

Well, the nuclear binding force binding the protons and
neutrons of the nucleus [I]IS akin to gravity.

The nucleus contains positive protons and neutral neutrons.
The electron cloud of negative electrons is bound to the nucleus by
the fact that opposite charges attract.

The Atomic Number of an element is the number of protons in its nucleus.
The number of protons equals the number of electrons in the basic
atom of an element.
The number of neutrons in the nucleus must be appropriate to
balance the number of protons.

The protons repel each other because like charges repel.
The neutrons help keep the protons at a safe distance from each other.
Thus the nucleus (which is densely packed) is held together by
a nuclear force akin to gravity.

Also, the maximum possible value for Np = Ne = 200.





[/I]

[QUOTE=davieddy;179894]
The question "what elements are possible?" boils down to
"what nuclei are stable?" which is nuclear physics.

Of all the inappropriate analogies in all the world, I have
never encountered a worse one than the one between gravity
and the strong nuclear force you suggested.[/QUOTE]And yet gravity is known to hold some nuclei together.

Hint: what is at the centre of a pulsar?.


Paul

[quote=xilman;179925]And yet gravity is known to hold some nuclei together.

Hint: what is at the centre of a pulsar?.
[/quote]

Not being a being of infinite wisdom, I would have to
guess that a pulsar, neutron star, quasar, and black hole
(the basic large entities of distant astronomy)
are intimately related.

Neutron stars are massive accumulations of neutrons and neutrinos and
neutrinoinos.

Black holes are massive melting pots of matter containing atoms,
molecules, protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos, and (what I'm
at the moment calling) neutrinoinos.

Quasars and pulsars are stars that spin (rotate,revolve)
and/or generate and emit excessive radiation.

In your terminology, which is which?

Black holes, being so densely packed, have a lot of gravity.
This ultimately results in the formation, at the gravity center, of
a build-up of Endon (element 200 in the Periodic Table).

When a sufficient amount of Endon aggregates, a photonic burst
sparks a great atomic explosion, engulfing an entire Galaxy and
creating a Super-Nova.

The result is emission of the smallest elements of matter, which
speed out in all directions. These then travel in straight lines at
a constant speed under the direction of gravity determined by
their mass, speed, and the mass and speed of other (nearby)
massive objects.

Remember the formulas: v = s/t, F = ma, and F = Gm1m2/r^2.

Newton was right, and so was Einstein.

Take the Newtonian formulation, add Special Relativity (in the
fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant
with a value of c = 3.0 x 10^10 cm/s (check the lit for the
established value), add time as the fourth dimension, and the
fact that there is no single universal origin (no point in space-time that
can be singled out as being different from any other, so that every point
in space-time can be used as the four-dimensional origin of a
non-inertial reference frame),
and the rest is math, physics, and the motion of particles.

Of course, non-determinism proves and is the basis for the origin of life.

Enjoy.

-- (davar55)

[quote=davieddy;179894]If you've ever heard a description of the relative size of
an atom and a nucleus, you would realize that the two things
(atomic and nuclear physics) can usefully be treated separately
(and perterbation theory is pretty accurate).

"Atomic" physics considers electrons "orbiting" around a fixed
point charge Ne. Is there really some limit on N?

The question "what elements are possible?" boils down to
"what nuclei are stable?" which is nuclear physics.

Of all the inappropriate analogies in all the world, I have
never encountered a worse one than the one between gravity
and the strong nuclear force you suggested.[/quote]

"Is there really some limit on N?"?????

Yes and no.

The atomic table is from 1 to 200.
There is a math proof that proves this number is exact.
Thus max(Np) = max(Ne) = 200.
There is of course thus a value for max(Nn),
and Mass(atom) = Mass(protons+neutrons+electrons), so that
also has a maximum, so you can, if you think it necessary, compute
the number of neutrons in the largest possible atom of Endon(200).

Have fun,and if there's more to add, go ahead.

[QUOTE=davar55;179928]Black holes, being so densely packed, have a lot of gravity.
This ultimately results in the formation, at the gravity center, of
a build-up of Endon (element 200 in the Periodic Table).

When a sufficient amount of Endon aggregates, a photonic burst
sparks a great atomic explosion, engulfing an entire Galaxy and
creating a Super-Nova.[/QUOTE]?!?!?

[quote=lavalamp;179940]?!?!?[/quote]
I think he's having a Mally moment
(or maybe a couple of days worth)

:coffee:

The previous post is simply accurate cosmology.

[QUOTE=davar55;180085]The previous post is simply accurate cosmology.[/QUOTE]It's cosmology, Jim, but not as we know it.

Please post some references so that I can learn more about this topic.


Paul

[quote=xilman;180093]It's cosmology, (snip), but not as we know it.

Please post some references so that I can learn more about this topic.
QUOTE]

The unpublished reference is "A New Cosmology, Heart Of Reality".

Klingons on the starboard bow
 

[quote=xilman;180093]It's cosmology, Jim, but not as we know it.

Paul[/quote]

It's worse than that, he's dead Jim.

We come in peace,
shoot to kill.:rofl:

Ye cannae change the laws of physics.

[QUOTE=davar55;180099][quote=xilman;180093]It's cosmology, (snip), but not as we know it.

Please post some references so that I can learn more about this topic.
QUOTE]

The unpublished reference is "A New Cosmology, Heart Of Reality".[/QUOTE]By whom?

Google doesn't show anything.


Paul

[QUOTE=davar55;180099]The [b]unpublished[/b] reference is "A New Cosmology, Heart Of Reality".[/QUOTE]Perhaps there's a reason for that.

[quote=davieddy;180116]It's worse than that, he's dead Jim.[/quote]

Oh, come on, David, at least CONSIDER the possibility that this
admittedly brief intro to the new cosmologogy has some validity.

Or do you really believe in the Big Bang cosmology?

There's more to this new cosmology;
and do you have a better explanation for the
ultimate cause of supernovas?

[QUOTE=davar55;186933]Oh, come on, David, at least CONSIDER the possibility that this
admittedly brief intro to the new cosmologogy has some validity.

Or do you really believe in the Big Bang cosmology?

There's more to this new cosmology;
and do you have a better explanation for the
ultimate cause of supernovas?[/QUOTE]Give us the opportunity of knowing what it is we are supposed to learn about and we may change our views.

Up to now you've given us the title of an unpuublished work and essentially nothing else. How do you expect us to have an informed opinion?


Paul

[QUOTE=davar55;186933]Oh, come on, David, at least CONSIDER the possibility that this
admittedly brief intro to the new cosmologogy has some validity.[/QUOTE]If it includes more such insights along the lines of those that you have posted so far, which is to say total bollocks, then no, it does not have any validity at all.

[QUOTE=davar55;186933]Or do you really believe in the Big Bang cosmology?[/QUOTE]Um ... yes?

A lot of the text you have posted so far is blatantly false, I don't see how you can expect any of it to be taken seriously.

[QUOTE=xilman;73471]I'm not entirely sure of that. I'll look it up.

Oxides of xenon were characterized many years ago. Other krypton compounds are well known.[/QUOTE]There are no krypton oxides, but some unstable kryptonates as Cs[SUB]2[/SUB]KrO[SUB]4[/SUB] are believed to exist at low temperatures.

Instead of my trying to post too much, let me just repeat and,
hopefully, explain one major point. If it's incorrect, then much
of the rest will be at best irrelevant.

According to current theory, there are approximately 116 known
elements (including the artificially created ones).

They fall into 7 rows of the periodic table.
When the 7th row is completed, there will be 118 known elements.

By subshells, the completed rows (represented by the nobles) are:

1s2
2s2p6
3s2p6
4s2p6d10
5s2p6d10
6s2p6d10f14
7s2p6d10f14

Now theoretically, this could continue indefinitely, as in:

8s2p6d10f14g18
9s2p6d10f14g18h22
10s2p6d10f14g18h22i26
.....

or some such extended sequence of subshells.
In which case there might be no highest possible atomic number.

My claim is: that's false.

The sequence does continue past row 7, to rows 8 and 9 --

8s2p6d10f14
9s2p6d10f14g18

and then stops !

I "claim" that I can "prove" this number of rows, subsequences,
and consequently, elements.

So the periodic table contains
2+8+8+18+18+32+32+32+50 = 200 elements exactly.

That's a crucial part of the cosmology, but not all of it.

I welcome comments and am a bit scared of questions (I admit)
because I know this is all a new concept if true.

(my emphasis in the following quote)
[quote=davar55;187304]< snip > and, hopefully, [B]explain[/B] one major point.

< snip >

My claim is: that's false.

The sequence does continue past row 7, to rows 8 and 9 --

8s2p6d10f14
9s2p6d10f14g18

and then stops !

I "claim" that I can "prove" this number of rows, subsequences, and consequently, elements.[/quote]Where's the explanation or proof? We've seen the claim.

[QUOTE=davar55;187304]So the periodic table contains
2+8+8+18+18+32+32+32+50 = 200 elements exactly.[/QUOTE]Except that it would be:

2+8+8+18+18+32+32+50+50 = 218 elements

Eeeexactly.

[quote=lavalamp;187307]Except that it would be:

2+8+8+18+18+32+32+50+50 = 218 elements

Eeeexactly.[/quote]

No, you're wrong. The eighth row has 32 elements,
as I stated: 8s2p6d10f14
It's similar to the sixth and seventh rows, but different
from the ninth row, 9s2p6d10f14g18, with 50 elements.

So there ARE exactly 200 possible elements, regardless of
arithmetically erroneous sarcasm (as I read it).

[quote=cheesehead;187306](my emphasis in the following quote)
Where's the explanation or proof? We've seen the claim.[/quote]

First let me hear ANY comments on the basic assumption:
that there must be only a relatively small number of possible
atomic elements, so that IN FACT there is SOME maximum
atomic number. Only then do I feel compelled to reveal what I
consider to be the key to the correct number -- my "proof".

[quote=lavalamp;187151]If it includes more such insights along the lines of those that you have posted so far, which is to say total bollocks, then no, it does not have any validity at all.

A lot of the text you have posted so far is blatantly false, I don't see how you can expect any of it to be taken seriously.[/quote]

I unfortunately started in the middle.
I am prepared to present this from a top-down perspective, but
if the only comments I get are insults, dubiousness, and rejection
without explanation (if I've said anything wrong or contradictory
I'd appreciate knowing), then it becomes pointless.

As to the Big Bang Cosmology: it's merely disguised Creationism
and I think every scientist knows this.

"A New Cosmology -- Heart Of Reality" rejects Big Bang, among
other things, although of course it endorses both Newtonian Mechanics
and Einsteinian Relativity.

Premature sarcasm (as opposed to deserved sarcasm) is NOT
the mark of someone interested in SCIENCE.

By the way, I'm seriously in trepidation of Ernst's biting wit; if
I go too far off the deep end, I just know where he'll consign me.
In fact, I removed one anthropocentric idea from the cosmology
in anticipation of just how he might respond to it.

If no one bothers to make a serious comment, where's the motivation
for revealing what may be a ground-breaking idea here? Well, this
is the best forum, so I withdraw that comment. But still -- what's
the response to this first (crucial) idea about the elements?

[quote=xilman;187148]Give us the opportunity of knowing what it is we are supposed to learn about and we may change our views.

Up to now you've given us the title of an unpublished work and essentially nothing else. How do you expect us to have an informed opinion?

Paul[/quote]

My Math is better than my Physics and Chemistry,
so this Cosmology is based largely on simple concepts,
but (if I'm right) overturns some important concepts,
and adds some ideas that ARE checkable in the real world.

What's the term for a scientific theory's being "disprovable"?
I think Big Bang is false and vacuous, in that it cannot be checked
(we can't go back in time) and it tells us nothing about the present
Universe or its future -- the so-called expansion or even accelerating
expansion is just a hypothesis, and may not even be perpetual.
In point of fact, again starting in the middle, the New Cosmology
rejects both an expanding or contracting Universe.

Start with that, if you still believe otherwise.

I'm familiar with how gravity can force various forms of degenerate matter, e.g in white dwarfs and neutron stars. I'm curious how you propose that gravity forms stable super-heavy atomic nuclei rather than degenerate matter? Are the gravitation forces found in black holes required in your process? Can we find element 200 outside of black holes? How?

If gravity isn't required to form element 200 and keep it stable, then how do you account for the overwhelming electrostatic forces? A new force beyond the strong nuclear force? I didn't think an island of stability exists for exactly 200 protons, if, even, such a thing could prevent decay.

Those are a few reasonable questions to get started.

[QUOTE=davar55;179913]Also, the maximum possible value for Np = Ne = 200.[/QUOTE]Why?

[QUOTE=davar55;179928]Neutron stars are massive accumulations of neutrons and neutrinos and
neutrinoinos.[/quote]Source? And just what is a neutrinoino anyway?

[QUOTE=davar55;179928]Black holes are massive melting pots of matter containing atoms,
molecules, protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos, and (what I'm
at the moment calling) neutrinoinos.[/quote]We don't have a clue what's inside a black hole, anything beyond the Schwarzschild radius is causally separated from us.

[QUOTE=davar55;179928]Black holes, being so densely packed, have a lot of gravity.
This ultimately results in the formation, at the gravity center, of
a build-up of Endon (element 200 in the Periodic Table).[/quote]Density has little to do with gravitational field strength, mass is the important quantity. Granted that the volume of the object is small (which happens to result in a high density), allowing you to get extremely close to what is essentially a point mass where the gravitational field strength is large. All the same, what does a large gravitational field strength have to do with "a build-up of Endon"? Are you suggesting that fusion occurs as matter falls into a black-hole?

[QUOTE=davar55;179928]When a sufficient amount of Endon aggregates, a photonic burst
sparks a great atomic explosion, engulfing an entire Galaxy and
creating a Super-Nova.[/quote]What is a "photonic burst"? A supernova occurs when massive stars collapse at the end of their life span, or when a white dwarf captures enough material to begin fusion once more. They do not engulf their entire galaxy, if they did then we would have been cooked many times over.

[QUOTE=davar55;179928]Of course, non-determinism proves and is the basis for the origin of life.[/QUOTE]Well of course. All the same, why don't you run that proof by me again?

[QUOTE=davar55;179929]"Is there really some limit on N?"?????

Yes and no.

The atomic table is from 1 to 200.
There is a math proof that proves this number is exact.
Thus max(Np) = max(Ne) = 200.[/quote]Do share.

[QUOTE=davar55;179929]Mass(atom) = Mass(protons+neutrons+electrons)[/QUOTE]Actually the mass of the atom is less than the sum of the particles that make it up.

[QUOTE=davar55;187393]No, you're wrong. The eighth row has 32 elements,
as I stated: 8s2p6d10f14
It's similar to the sixth and seventh rows, but different
from the ninth row, 9s2p6d10f14g18, with 50 elements.

So there ARE exactly 200 possible elements, regardless of
arithmetically erroneous sarcasm (as I read it).[/QUOTE]Yes, you did [b]state[/b] that, and offer no evidence as to why that should be the case. Assuming a simple continuation of the rules laying out the periodic table so far, the shells would be:[code]
1 s2
2 s2 p6
3 s2 p6
4 s2 p5 d10
5 s2 p5 d10
6 s2 p5 d10 f14
7 s2 p5 d10 f14
8 s2 p5 d10 f14 g18
9 s2 p5 d10 f14 g18
10 s2 p5 d10 f14 g18 h22
and so on...[/code]Regardless, things get sticky when you jam this many electrons into an atom, so it probably won't fit this pattern high up, and in fact will probably not even get this high up. From a quote I posted earlier, the current limit of the number of electrons in an atom is thought to be about 176. The maximum number of protons in a nucleus is thought to be much less.

[QUOTE=davar55;187396]I unfortunately started in the middle.
I am prepared to present this from a top-down perspective[/quote]Well get going and start presenting then.

[QUOTE=davar55;187396]but if the only comments I get are insults, dubiousness, and rejection
without explanation (if I've said anything wrong or contradictory
I'd appreciate knowing), then it becomes pointless.[/quote]What more do you expect when you contradict known science without any explanation of your own? You simply say that you "have a proof" but continually fail to produce it.

[QUOTE=davar55;187396]As to the Big Bang Cosmology: it's merely disguised Creationism
and I think every scientist knows this.

If no one bothers to make a serious comment, where's the motivation
for revealing what may be a ground-breaking idea here?[/quote]So not only do you have a revolutionary new way of thinking about the universe for us, it's so great that you feel you can turn around and call well documented science nothing more than religious tosh. Wow, narcissistic grandeur on isle 5.

[QUOTE=davar55;187398]What's the term for a scientific theory's being "disprovable"?
I think Big Bang is false and vacuous, in that it cannot be checked
(we can't go back in time) and it tells us nothing about the present
Universe or its future -- the so-called expansion or even accelerating
expansion is just a hypothesis, and may not even be perpetual.[/QUOTE]Falsifiable. And it can be checked, and it was, very thoroughly, and presumably still is. Rather surprisingly it turns out, time travel is not the only way to do science.

If the universe is not expanding, then what proposed explanation do you give for the red shift of distant galaxies? Further, why do the galaxies further away have a larger red shift?

For the last time now, put forward your ideas/proofs or STFU.

Edit: Let me note that I composed and posted this [u]before[/u] I ever saw lavalamp's posting just prior to this one. lavalamp had not yet posted it when I clicked on "Quote" keys for three of davar55's posts.

- - -

[quote=davar55;187394]First let me hear ANY comments on the basic assumption: that there must be only a relatively small number of possible atomic elements, so that IN FACT there is SOME maximum
atomic number.[/quote]Okay.

That assumption might be reasonable, if there's enough evidence to support it, or it might not. But we can't tell until you show us what ideas are connected with that assumption.

[quote]Only then do I feel compelled to reveal what I consider to be the key to the correct number -- my "proof".[/quote]Why "only then"? This only makes it look like either:

a) you don't really have any theory, but are just pretending that there is one to which you've been referring,

or

b) you're so afraid that your theory has holes that you won't tell us what it is until you somehow persuade us to make a bunch of blind guesses, in case some blind guess happens to blow your theory apart.

[quote=davar55;187396]I am prepared to present this from a top-down perspective, but if the only comments I get are insults, dubiousness, and rejection without explanation (if I've said anything wrong or contradictory
I'd appreciate knowing), then it becomes pointless.[/quote]We can't give you comments of [I]any[/I] sort until you reveal this theory of yours to us.

[quote]As to the Big Bang Cosmology: it's merely disguised Creationism[/quote]Bull. You're obviously ignorant of what Big Bang cosmology actually is.

[quote]and I think every scientist knows this.[/quote]I think you don't even know what the Big Bang cosmology actually is, so how can you opine on what others know that you don't?

[quote]Premature sarcasm (as opposed to deserved sarcasm) is NOT the mark of someone interested in SCIENCE.[/quote]A mark of someone who IS interested in science is that s/he actually describes a new theory instead of just claiming that s/he has one, but never producing any description.

You've had plenty of opportunity to show us just what this new theory is. Now, do so, or quite claiming that you know what science is or is not.

Do you not actually have any such theory at all, but are just playing a game to provoke criticism such as I'm making so you can use that as an excuse to go off and sulk while you continue to pretend that you have some superior explanation of everything?

[quote]If no one bothers to make a serious comment,[/quote]My comments are dead-serious.

[quote]where's the motivation for revealing what may be a ground-breaking idea here?[/quote]1) Proving that you actually have such an idea instead of just spinning out some fantasy.

2) Providing us with something we can actually comment on, instead of just demanding comments on what we can't see.

3) Going on record so that you can later substantiate your claim to have had this wonderful idea. Otherwise, you risk having someone else publish it and get credit for it, and then you can't present any evidence that you had priority!

Historical fact: Someone else submitted a patent application for the (first) telephone on the same day that Alexander Graham Bell submitted [I]his[/I] patent application ... but only [I]after[/I] Bell had submitted his. Since Bell filed first, he had priority of claim. The guy who filed second didn't.

[quote]Well, this is the best forum, so I withdraw that comment. But still -- what's the response to this first (crucial) idea about the elements?[/quote]See above.

[quote=davar55;187398]What's the term for a scientific theory's being "disprovable"?[/quote]Falsifiable.

Also, [U]visible[/U] -- as in being revealed for others to see what is being falsified or not.

[quote]I think Big Bang is false and vacuous,[/quote]So far, it is your theory that is vacuous -- you haven't even shown us that it exists.

[quote]in that it cannot be checked (we can't go back in time)[/quote]... but we [I]can[/I] check whether things now observable are consistent with the theory. We can generate predictions of what effects the Big Bang would have produced, and look for evidence that contradicts such predictions.

For instance, the cosmic microwave background is consistent with Big Bang -- it's just what is predicted to be the leftover background radiation from the time "shortly" after Big Bang when atoms became ionized enough to allow long-distance propagation of radiation without absorption. The Steady-State theory, in contrast, cannot explain this.

Also, the observed general expansion of galaxies from one another, with relative velocities about linear with distance, is what would be predicted to be visible now after a Big Bang.

[quote]and it tells us nothing about the present Universe or its future[/quote]You need to read up on this subject -- your claim of no-present-prediction is false and uninformed.

[quote]-- the so-called expansion or even accelerating
expansion is just a hypothesis,[/quote]"Just" a hypothesis? What's wrong with that? It's a hypothesis [I]that fits the observed data[/I]!

[quote]In point of fact, again starting in the middle, the New Cosmology[/quote]... and your explanation, or link thereto, of "New Cosmology" is ... what ???

So far, it doesn't even satisfy the basic requirement of any hypothesis -- that it be stated. (At least, it's not yet been stated, or had a link to its statement somewhere else posted, here in this thread.)

[quote]Start with that, if you still believe otherwise.[/quote]Start with WHAT? You've never yet given us any description of this "New Cosmology".

- - -

Now, are you going to go away and sulk because you'll claim that I've posted "insults, dubiousness, and rejection without explanation"? No, [U]I[/U]'ve explained each of my complaints. It's YOU who have not explained anything.

Thank you bsquared, lavalamp, and cheesehead.
Granted you don't believe a word of it yet, but your
comments and questions give me somethings to work with.

I'd like to present my top-down monograph (which was incomplete
but which I can extend now), but I'm not at home until the weekend
and my printed materials are there. I'll do my best to satisfy
each and everyone of your objections.

[quote=bsquared;187402]I'm familiar with how gravity can force various forms of degenerate matter, e.g in white dwarfs and neutron stars. I'm curious how you propose that gravity forms stable super-heavy atomic nuclei rather than degenerate matter? Are the gravitation forces found in black holes required in your process? Can we find element 200 outside of black holes? How?

If gravity isn't required to form element 200 and keep it stable, then how do you account for the overwhelming electrostatic forces? A new force beyond the strong nuclear force? I didn't think an island of stability exists for exactly 200 protons, if, even, such a thing could prevent decay.

Those are a few reasonable questions to get started.[/quote]

First, the island of stability begins with element 116 (Ununhexium-116).
This is because Lead-82 and Bismuth-83 have stable isotopes, but
element-84 is always radioactive. By a principle of the periodic table,
there are precisely 32 radioactive elements in rows 6 and 7, so
element 84+32 = 116 will have a stable isotope.

So will most heavier elements, except for those corresponding to
Promethium-61 and Element-43, the not naturally occurring elements.

Yes, certainly in Black Holes these superheavy nucleii will form, but
no I don't believe that the extreme gravity generated there is
absolutle necessary. I'm sure we can form elements 116 and 118
simply by bombarding the right smaller atoms, and with higher
energies could form the larger atoms, up to Penultine-199 (also called
Ununnonium-199).

However, I suspect that the noble Endon-200, especially its
maximum isotope (whose number I'm again not yet prepared to reveal --
forgive me my keys) has special properties. Isolated, it IS A MINI-
BLACK HOLE. In the central black hole of a galaxy, it serves the
role of "bottom dweller" and, if built up in large enough quantities,
becomes dangerous. (See earlier posts.)

What "overwhelming" electrostatic forces are you referring to?

[QUOTE=davar55;187608]First, the island of stability begins with element 116 (Ununhexium-116).
This is because Lead-82 and Bismuth-83 have stable isotopes, but
element-84 is always radioactive. By a principle of the periodic table,
there are precisely 32 radioactive elements in rows 6 and 7, so
element 84+32 = 116 will have a stable isotope.

So will most heavier elements, except for those corresponding to
Promethium-61 and Element-43, the not naturally occurring elements.[/QUOTE]

1. Writing "element-x" usually means the isotope of that element with x nucleons (protons and neutrons combined). For example, "carbon-14" is the isotope of carbon used in radiocarbon dating. There is no need to write the atomic number directly after the element's name, because if the atomic number changes, so does the element.

2. Bismuth doesn't have any stable isotopes.

[quote=lavalamp;179857]So individual ions of elements 199 and 200 MIGHT be able to exist, but probably don't and infact can't.

And yes, using wikipedia as a source is bad form etc., but there are some better references at the bottom or the article.[/quote]

I'd like to start answering your's and cheesehead's objections, but I
don't know how to multiquote or unscramble multiquotes.
A suggestion would be helpful.

The issue of what elements can or can't exist is precisely what
I'm trying to answer in a simple way WITHOUT reference to arcane
energy considerations, which should be made afterwards.

[quote=10metreh;187609]1. Writing "element-x" usually means the isotope of that element with x nucleons (protons and neutrons combined). For example, "carbon-14" is the isotope of carbon used in radiocarbon dating. There is no need to write the atomic number directly after the element's name, because if the atomic number changes, so does the element.

2. Bismuth doesn't have any stable isotopes.[/quote]


From wkikpedia:

[B]Bismuth[/B] (pronounced [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English"][FONT=Lucida Sans Unicode][COLOR=#0000ff]/ˈbɪzməθ/[/COLOR][/FONT][/URL]) is a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element"][COLOR=#0000ff]chemical element[/COLOR][/URL] that has the symbol [B]Bi[/B] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_number"][COLOR=#0000ff]atomic number[/COLOR][/URL] 83. This trivalent [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_metal"][COLOR=#0000ff]poor metal[/COLOR][/URL] chemically resembles [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic"][COLOR=#0000ff]arsenic[/COLOR][/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimony"][COLOR=#0000ff]antimony[/COLOR][/URL]. Bismuth is heavy and brittle; it has a silvery white color with a pink tinge due to the surface oxide. Bismuth is the most naturally [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism"][COLOR=#0000ff]diamagnetic[/COLOR][/URL] of all metals, and only [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)"][COLOR=#0000ff]mercury[/COLOR][/URL] has a lower [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conductivity"][COLOR=#0000ff]thermal conductivity[/COLOR][/URL]. It is generally considered to be the last naturally occurring stable, non-radioactive element on the periodic table, although it is actually slightly radioactive, with an extremely long half-life.

For my purposes, Bismuth has stabily.

[quote=davar55;187610]The issue of what elements can or can't exist is precisely what
I'm trying to answer in a simple way WITHOUT reference to arcane
energy considerations, which should be made afterwards.[/quote]

What other considerations are there?!? What elements can or can't exist is goverened by physical law, not numerology.

[quote=10metreh;187609]1. Writing "element-x" usually means the isotope of that element with x nucleons (protons and neutrons combined). For example, "carbon-14" is the isotope of carbon used in radiocarbon dating. There is no need to write the atomic number directly after the element's name, because if the atomic number changes, so does the element.
[/quote]

The elements I was referring to are Promethium-61 and Technetium-43.
When in a hurry, even google takes time.

And for now I'm only discussing proton numbers, i.e. atomic numbers.
Neutrons and mass numbers get more interesting, of course.

[quote=bsquared;187612]What other considerations are there?!? What elements can or can't exist is goverened by physical law, not numerology.[/quote]

Of course, but I think we've been looking at this backwards.

Take a look at the (complete) periodic table that my 200 elements
and approprate shells and subshells generate. It has a certain
elegance (if I do say so myself).

I believe that this picture IS COMPLETE, and that afterwards we can
evaluate energy levels to get precise subshell fillings and properties
(chemical and nuclear) of isotopes.

Now how do I repond to Multiquote comments? Help plaease.

[QUOTE=davar55;187618]Now how do I repond to Multiquote comments? Help plaease.[/QUOTE]

At the bottom right of a post (next to "Quote"), there is a symbol which looks like a piece of paper with quotation marks and a plus sign on it. This is the multiquote symbol. Click the symbol and it will go red. The plus will change to a minus. Click the multiquote symbol on all the posts you want to quote, and then click "Post Reply". The quotes will all be included.

[QUOTE=davar55;187616]Take a look at the (complete) periodic table that my 200 elements
and approprate shells and subshells generate. It has a certain
elegance (if I do say so myself).

I believe that this picture IS COMPLETE, and that afterwards we can
evaluate energy levels to get precise subshell fillings and properties
(chemical and nuclear) of isotopes.[/QUOTE][list][*]Is it not true that the atomic number is derived from the number of protons in the nucleus?[*]How does the number of electrons in an outer shell influence the maximum number of protons in a nucleus?[*]Why are electron shells even important when it is only the number of protons that matters?[*]Even if it is true that there is maximum of 200 electrons (not proven, but let's just assume for now) then why does that mean that the nucleus must also stop at 200?[*]Maybe the nucleus cannot support more than, say, 150 protons (no matter how many neutrons) due the electrostatic repulsion of like charges (+ve charges repelling each other)?[*]Is the strong nuclear force really strong enough to keep 200 protons all in one nucleus?[*]Have you calculated it yourself or are you just reading some website?[/list]

[quote=davar55;187616]Of course, but I think we've been looking at this backwards.

Take a look at the (complete) periodic table that my 200 elements
and approprate shells and subshells generate. It has a certain
elegance (if I do say so myself).
[/quote]

Sure, from a "counting of allowable electrons per shell" perspective, but I'm arguing that this ignores certain other realities. For instance, the attractive residual strong force decreases much more rapidly than the repulsive electromagnitic force, such that for very large nuclei the tendancy is toward instability. In effect, the electromagnitic force "overwhelms" the strong force holding the nuclei together. Unless there is a physical force or effect of which I'm not aware, then elements as large as you propose are not possible, regardless of how neat their electron shells might appear.

[quote=retina;187621][LIST][*]Is it not true that the atomic number is derived from the number of protons in the nucleus?[*]How does the number of electrons in an outer shell influence the maximum number of protons in a nucleus?[*]Why are electron shells even important when it is only the number of protons that matters?[*]Even if it is true that there is maximum of 200 electrons (not proven, but let's just assume for now) then why does that mean that the nucleus must also stop at 200?[*]Maybe the nucleus cannot support more than, say, 150 protons (no matter how many neutrons) due the electrostatic repulsion of like charges (+ve charges repelling each other)?[*]Is the strong nuclear force really strong enough to keep 200 protons all in one nucleus?[*]Have you calculated it yourself or are you just reading some website?[/LIST][/quote]

Hate to beg off, but please give me to the weekend to try to answer
these. Basicaslly, I'm proposing a nuclear shell theory that determines
the electron shells, and no I have not done calculations on the strong
nuclear force, but I have two reasons for thinking them extraneous.
And can you really say that within a black hole the maximum
nuclear size would not be reached?

[quote=bsquared;187622]Sure, from a "counting of allowable electrons per shell" perspective, but I'm arguing that this ignores certain other realities. For instance, the attractive residual strong force decreases much more rapidly than the repulsive electromagnitic force, such that for very large nuclei the tendancy is toward instability. In effect, the electromagnitic force "overwhelms" the strong force holding the nuclei together. Unless there is a physical force or effect of which I'm not aware, then elements as large as you propose are not possible, regardless of how neat their electron shells might appear.[/quote]

I'm not sure if this answers you, but: gravity on the close range, and
the electric dipole moment of the neutron, provide the needed forces.

[QUOTE=davar55;187623]And can you really say that within a black hole the maximum
nuclear size would not be reached?[/QUOTE]It is not up to me to disprove. I'm not the one claiming things, you have to prove your claims. How do you even know that inside a black hole the protons still exist as protons? Perhaps they change into something else? Have you ever heard of degenerate matter, or more specifically, neutron degeneracy and quark degeneracy?

[quote=davar55;187624]I'm not sure if this answers you, but: gravity on the close range, and
the electric dipole moment of the neutron, provide the needed forces.[/quote]

In the range of interest (nuclear distances), the electromagnetic force is many many orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitation force, so I don't see how that would serve to hold a nucleus together if the strong force is insufficient. As far as I know, gravitation can give you degenerate matter, or a singularity, if matter is sufficiently dense.

For nEDM to save you, you are relying on CP symmetry violation on an unprecedented and, to the best estimates currently calculated from the standard model of particle physics, impossible scale.

I look forward to your complete re-write of many branches of modern physics.

My previous post may be worded too harshly. For the record, I have an undergraduate degree in physics, which makes me just knowledgable enough to be able to smell something fishy, but not necessarily enough to catch the fish ;) In other words, I don't have the ability to do the calculations to prove what you're proposing is impossible, but I suspect that it is. I'll stop now until you've had time to present your work.

[QUOTE=davar55;187624]I'm not sure if this answers you, but: gravity on the close range, and
the electric dipole moment of the neutron, provide the needed forces.[/QUOTE]The last I heard, the neutron electric dipole moment is immeasurably small.

Paul

[QUOTE=bsquared;187629]As far as I know, gravitation can give you degenerate matter, or a singularity, if matter is sufficiently dense.[/QUOTE]
This brings us back to an earlier comment of mine which may not have been widely understood.

The evidence strongly suggests that at the centre of pulsars will be found a neutron star. A neutron star is essentially a single atomic nucleus --- both are systems of nucleons which are prevented from further collapse, whether from gravitational or strong forces, by nucleon degeneracy pressure.


Paul

[quote=bsquared;187629]In the range of interest (nuclear distances), the electromagnetic force is many many orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitation force, so I don't see how that would serve to hold a nucleus together if the strong force is insufficient. As far as I know, gravitation can give you degenerate matter, or a singularity, if matter is sufficiently dense.

For nEDM to save you, you are relying on CP symmetry violation on an unprecedented and, to the best estimates currently calculated from the standard model of particle physics, impossible scale.

I look forward to your complete re-write of many branches of modern physics.[/quote]

I don't know about a COMPLETE rewrite, but ...

[quote=bsquared;187634]My previous post may be worded too harshly. For the record, I have an undergraduate degree in physics, which makes me just knowledgable enough to be able to smell something fishy, but not necessarily enough to catch the fish ;) In other words, I don't have the ability to do the calculations to prove what you're proposing is impossible, but I suspect that it is. I'll stop now until you've had time to present your work.[/quote]

As I said earlier, my Physics is weaker than my Math, so while I haven't
presented all of this Cosmology (having started in the middle with the
atomic limitation theorem) I don't claim everything is complete, certainly
at least not yet. But if you think something may be fishy, then I'm
obligated to "remove the smell." I'll do my best, but bear with me.

[quote=bsquared;187629]In the range of interest (nuclear distances), the electromagnetic force is many many orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitation force, so I don't see how that would serve to hold a nucleus together if the strong force is insufficient. As far as I know, gravitation can give you degenerate matter, or a singularity, if matter is sufficiently dense.

For nEDM to save you, you are relying on CP symmetry violation on an unprecedented and, to the best estimates currently calculated from the standard model of particle physics, impossible scale.
[/quote]

In the case of superheavy-elements, there is also the third factor
holding together the nucleus, namely the electron cloud (which must
not be ignored, especially as f and g subshell electrons are close binders.)

[quote=xilman;187655]The last I heard, the neutron electric dipole moment is immeasurably small.
[/quote]

Immeasurable perhaps by current technology, but (while I don't claim to
know it's value) large enough to contribute to nuclear and super-heavy-
element-nuclear stability (or so I "claim"). This is ultimately testable.

[quote=xilman;187656]This brings us back to an earlier comment of mine which may not have been widely understood.

The evidence strongly suggests that at the centre of pulsars will be found a neutron star. A neutron star is essentially a single atomic nucleus --- both are systems of nucleons which are prevented from further collapse, whether from gravitational or strong forces, by nucleon degeneracy pressure.
[/quote]

Yes, I understood a neutron star to be simply an accumulation of
"element-zero" (neutrons), generating energy simply by spin.

A pulsar (you say) may contain (probably does) a neutron star, but
what may I ask surrounds this core to produce the pulsar's unique
energy signature? And how is this different from a quasar?

[quote=davar55;187659]In the case of superheavy-elements, there is also the third factor
holding together the nucleus, namely the electron cloud (which must
not be ignored, especially as f and g subshell electrons are close binders.)[/quote]

I don't think the electron cloud has any impact on nuclear stability. Remember that the atomic radius is many orders of magnitude bigger than the nuclear radius. If your super heavy element's nucleus was the size of a baseball, the electron cloud would be several hundred yards away. Too far to significantly influence the behavior of the nucleus by any force that I'm aware of.

[quote=retina;187626]It is not up to me to disprove. I'm not the one claiming things, you have to prove your claims. How do you even know that inside a black hole the protons still exist as protons? Perhaps they change into something else? Have you ever heard of degenerate matter, or more specifically, neutron degeneracy and quark degeneracy?[/quote]

As a matter of fact, the Cosmology does discuss this; I don't have the
papers with me here (I'm not at home), but the terms neutrinoino and
neutrino dust are the Cosmology's terms for what you call degenerate
(squashed) matter. These occur mostly within black holes. More
details when I get home this weekend.

Please bear with me. I'm doing my best without my resources.

[quote=davar55;187661]
A pulsar (you say) may contain (probably does) a neutron star, but
what may I ask surrounds this core to produce the pulsar's unique
energy signature? [/quote]

IIRC, a pulsar's signature (radio waves) comes from a spinning neutron star which drags charged material around it. The rotating charge creates a repetitive EM pulse in the same way a dipole antenna does.

[quote=bsquared;187662]I don't think the electron cloud has any impact on nuclear stability. Remember that the atomic radius is many orders of magnitude bigger than the nuclear radius. If your super heavy element's nucleus was the size of a baseball, the electron cloud would be several hundred yards away. Too far to significantly influence the behavior of the nucleus by any force that I'm aware of.[/quote]

I must disagree, but only testing will tell. There are significant differences
among s, p, d, f, and now what I'm simplying calling g electrons. And I'm
certain (if I'm proven wrong, so be it) that especially for large elements
the closer bound electrons do in fact play a significant role in the
stability of the nucleus.