Elemental Puzzle

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

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

Yes, and I have implicitly done so in my earlier posting.

Paul

[davar55]

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.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

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

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.)

[Ken_g6]

Originally Posted by davar55

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.

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?

[lavalamp]

Originally Posted by davar55

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.

It is currently thought that elements with atomic number that high do not, and cannot, exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-block

[davar55]

[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.

[lavalamp]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by davar55

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

Not so.

CLIP

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.

[davar55]

Well, the nuclear binding force binding the protons and
neutrons of the nucleus 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.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davieddy

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.

And yet gravity is known to hold some nuclei together.

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


Paul

[davar55]

Originally Posted by xilman

And yet gravity is known to hold some nuclei together.

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

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)