Four New Elements?

DaveC426913 said:
It's kinda like saying

humans cannot be observed in nature except on a single planet and, in the 13.7 billions years of the universe, they are only observable for a "fleeting" few million years or so. So it's as if they don't exist at all.
Click to expand...
After man has gone extinct they won't exist anymore and no other species will miss our absence.
 
DaveC426913 said:
At cosmic scales instant is a million years.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Write4U said:
...an *instant of existence* @ 10^-44 seconds.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Write4U said:
Which is why they do not exist in nature.
Even though they are theoretically possible as an atomic structure, perhaps they cannot fulfill a necessary function and never gain existence as part of the stuff of the universe?
Click to expand...
are we drifting into the concept of the universe as a self sustaining and self creating entity?
 
DaveC426913 said:
Perfect.
Click to expand...
Far from it, IMO.
Ununoctium is IUPAC's temporary name[11] for the transactinide element with the atomic number 118
Click to expand...
The half life of element 118 is 8.9 million billion billion billion billion instants.
Click to expand...
The first instant of decay alters the element, and it ceases to exist as a defined elemental atom.
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.
Click to expand...
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)
89ms is long enough for unaided human perception.
Click to expand...
And then it disappears back into the *quantum foam* of potentials, never to be seen again; well actually about 4 times, in controlled experiments..
The
Click to expand...
radioactive ununoctium atom is very unstable, due to its high mass, and since 2005, only three or possibly four atoms of the isotope 294Uuo have been detected
Click to expand...

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.
Although this allowed very little experimental characterization of its properties and possible compounds,
Click to expand...
Note that we are not even certain in what group it belongs (noble gas or solid).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununoctium
 
sculptor said:
are we drifting into the concept of the universe as a self sustaining and self creating entity?
Click to expand...
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:
Write4U said:
... it has no causal function.

But what can it do in this universe, what is its function?

does not mean it has a natural dynamic causal function in this universe.
Click to expand...
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.
 
sculptor said:
are we drifting into the concept of the universe as a self sustaining and self creating entity?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Write4U said: ↑
... it has no causal function.
... but what can it do in this universe, what is its function?
... does not mean it has a natural dynamic causal function in this universe.
Click to expand...
DaveC426913 said:
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.
Click to expand...
What does *function* have to do with *religion*?
Function,
Math, computing and engineering:
1) Function (mathematics), a relation that associates an input to a single output according to some rule.
2) Function model, a structured representation of the functions, activities or processes
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function

And you may also want to check; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
 
Write4U said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
exchemist said:
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
Click to expand...
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;
Simultaneous necessity and sufficiency [edit]
See also: Material equivalence
To say that P is necessary and sufficient for Q is to say two things, that P is necessary for Q and that P is sufficient for Q. Of course, it may instead be understood to say a different two things, namely that each of P and Q is necessary for the other. And it may be understood in a third equivalent way: as saying that each is sufficient for the other. One may summarize any—and thus all—of these cases by the statement
Click to expand...
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:
Write4U said:
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, except perhaps at a level beyond our observation, such as in a BH.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Beer w/Straw said:
Does anybody know anything of this - ie what effect they have in like... what?
Click to expand...

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.
 
exchemist said:
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.
Click to expand...
I offer this link because it says it better than I ever could.
Mathematics In Chemistry
Mathematics is used widely in chemistry as well as all other sciences. Mathematical calculations are absolutely necessary to explore important concepts in chemistry. Without some basic mathematics skills, these calculations, and therefore chemistry itself, will be extremely difficult. However, with a basic knowledge of some of the mathematics that will be used in your chemistry course, you will be well prepared to deal with the concepts and theories of chemistry.
Click to expand...
http://www.shodor.org/UNChem/math/

and
Mathematical chemistry

Mathematical chemistry is the area of research engaged in novel applications of mathematics to chemistry; it concerns itself principally with the mathematical modeling of chemical phenomena.[1] Mathematical chemistry has also sometimes been called computer chemistry, but should not be confused with computational chemistry.
Click to expand...
Major areas of research in mathematical chemistry include chemical graph theory, which deals with topology such as the mathematical study of isomerism and the development of topological descriptors or indices which find application in quantitative structure-property relationships; and chemical aspects of group theory, which finds applications in stereochemistry and quantum chemistry.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_chemistry
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top