Four New Elements?

Discussion in 'Chemistry' started by Beer w/Straw, Jan 4, 2016.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,817
    After man has gone extinct they won't exist anymore and no other species will miss our absence.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,987
    It is kind of silly to say that things don't matter just because they're not eternal. Unless you're a nihilist.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,817
    No, we would just be the same as a lab created non-stable particle which decays instantly after creation.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,817
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,987
    All radioactive particles do. Define "instant". At cosmic scales instant is a million years.

    Here's a continuous list of decay rates from 10^-24 to 10^30

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radioactive_isotopes_by_half-life
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2016
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,817
    Scale has nothing to do with it. We are talking about a *causal existence in reality* of a single elemental atom.

    There is a BIG difference between a *duration of existence* of 14 billion years and an *instant of existence* @ 10^-44 seconds.

    At cosmic scales (the fabric of spacetime) measurements are made in Plack time (10^-44)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

    Not being a physicist, I may be wrong. But it is irrelevant to the discussion of latent *potential* (the Implicate) and dynamic *causal existence* (the Explicate).
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,987
    Perfect.

    The half life of element 118 is 8.9 million billion billion billion billion instants.

    Fun facts:
    89ms is only its half life. Fully half the atoms will still exist. After minutes hours, even days, some atoms in a sample will still persist.
    89ms is long enough for unaided human perception.
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,496
    are we drifting into the concept of the universe as a self sustaining and self creating entity?
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,817
    Far from it, IMO.
    The first instant of decay alters the element, and it ceases to exist as a defined elemental atom.
    As I understand it, *half-life* is a probability function. It is a rough estimate of the rate of decay. And we are talking about a *single* atom. It is impossible to calculate the decay rate of single unstable atoms, except as a statistical probability (half life)
    And then it disappears back into the *quantum foam* of potentials, never to be seen again; well actually about 4 times, in controlled experiments..

    But what can it do in this universe, what is its function? IMO, just becasue we can create it under *controlled* conditions, does not mean it has a natural dynamic causal function in this universe.
    Note that we are not even certain in what group it belongs (noble gas or solid).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununoctium
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,817
    No, more like an alternate universe, with slightly different laws and potentials, where Ununoctium might play a causal dynamic function.

    Who knows, it might be relevant in Black Holes (it is a very heavy atom). But so far we have only observed this element under *specially created* conditions, with known components as predicted by the Table of Elements. So we made it, but we can't store it or do anything with it.
    Perhaps Dark Matter is made from #118? The wiki narrative is interesting.

    It might be created occasionally in this universe, but as yet no one has found it in nature. Which tends to support the notion that it has no causal function. We constructed it and it gained existence for a brief moment (in human terms), but then decaying rapidly into simpler elements or components.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2016
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,987
    Oh. You're religious.

    OK well, this is one of the science forums. Don't be bringing your 'but what function does it serve' stuff here.
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,987
    It would seem so.

    I checked. We haven't been mysteriously transported to the Religion forum when I wasn't looking. It's Write4U that's lost his/her way.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,817
    Strange days indeed. And what religion would that be?
    David Bohm's Implicate? Renate Loll's CDT? Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe?
    Strange that you should call these physicists, cosmologists, mathematicians, religious. I have never heard them mention anything about a God.
    Nor did I, for that matter.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,817
    What does *function* have to do with *religion*?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function

    And you may also want to check; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,474
    Asserting the need for an element to have a "function" is teleology. This is classically the realm of metaphysical or religious ideas - "purpose" in the cosmos and so forth. Whereas, as I said to you earlier in this thread, it has no place in a science discussion. More background here: http://www.britannica.com/topic/teleology
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,817
    I have a slightly different viewpoint.
    IMO, the dynamics of the universe itself function in a manner which we have named *mathematical* functions. Tegmark observes that "the universe does not have *some* mathematical properties, it has *only* mathematical properties."

    I find this an attractive idea and is supported by *known* universal constants, which we can efficiently express through mathematical values and equations and mathematical functions.
    I recently ran across this;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

    IMO, this true or false equivalence holds on every mathematical hierarchy from the infinitely subtle to gross expression in reality.
    Fundamentally the universe, the singularity with (near) infinite Potential, functions as a duality, the absolute minimum Material or Immaterial equivalence. Necessity and Sufficiency.

    That was the basis for my argument that #118 might not be a dynamic functional atom because there may not be a need for such an element, except perhaps at a level beyond our observation, such as in a BH.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2016
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,474
    I don't see how that justifies ascribing a "function" to a chemical element. If you think it does, you will need to point out how in rather more detail.
     
  21. Edont Knoff Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    512
    Most of the synthetic transuranic elements are very short lived, so it's very difficult to make chemical experiments with them. Usually very little is known.

    Interesting is, that there is an "isle of stability" expected starting about at element 120, and if this "isle of stability" is real, then we might find new and interesting elements there.

    Mass production of elements by fusion of lighter cores is insanely expensive though, otherwise we'd already produce gold or other rare and valuable elements this way.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,817
    I offer this link because it says it better than I ever could.
    http://www.shodor.org/UNChem/math/

    and
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_chemistry
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2016
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,474
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2016

Share This Page