Splitting of the atom or just decay

[Saith]

How I understand it, the first time the atom was "split", it was done by creating beryllium-8 which has such a small half-life that it immediately decays into two helium-4 atoms (alpha particles). Since each helium-4 atom is a half of a full beryllium atom, the beryllium-8 atom has basically been split. But when people talk about "splitting" an atom, their usually talking about fusion right, not just some atom that just so happens to be twice as large as its decay products.

Also, this beryllium-8 atom is the atom that IDers talk about in the triple alpha process. Here is a quote from wikipedia:

"The triple alpha proceess is highly dependant on carbon-12 having a resonance with the same energy as helium-4 and beryllium-8 and before 1952 no such energy level was known. It was astrophysicist Fred Hoyle who used the fact that carbon-12 is so abundant in the universe and that our existence depends upon it - what is now called the Anthropic Principle, as evidence for the existence of the carbon-12 resonance. Fred suggested the idea to nuclear physicist Willy Fowler, who conceded that it was possible that this energy level had been missed in previous work on carbon-12. After a brief undertaking by his research group, they discovered a resonance near to 7.65 Mev and the rest is theory."

I think the first time I read about it was on a creationist or ID website. How they explained it, or at least, how I understood it, was that 2 hellium atoms couldn't combine to create anything, but 3 could because carbon-12 happend to have the correct energy level, which meant that the alpha chain of fusion could skip over the broken spot in the chain and thus life could form. But if that's no true, then what makes it so much more amazing than the other fusion reactions that take place in stars. Does no other element need a specific energy level for fusion to occur with helium?

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

WHO KNOWS.. who cares... it doesnt work.
-MT

 

[Light]

WHO KNOWS.. who cares... it doesnt work.
-MT

So all those people at CERN are just idiots, right? Dummy Mosheh strikes again. Believes tokamaks are for sale to transmute atomic (fission waste) he says. I asked for proof of that statement and he suddenly went silent.

I wonder why???????

 

[CANGAS]

Practically all people who talk about splitting the atom are talking about FISSION.

And absolutely positively everyone who speaks scientifically correctly about splitting the atom is speaking about FISSION.

 

[Ophiolite]

But when people talk about "splitting" an atom, their usually talking about fusion right, not just some atom that just so happens to be twice as large as its decay products.

As CANGAS says, absolutely not.

We can extract energy from matter in two general ways: chemical and muclear.

In the first case, the energy is obtained by changing the composition of the participants via an exothermic chemical reaction. So, we can burn coal, the carbonof the coal combining with oxygen from the air to produce carbon dioxide and heat. The changes that occur take place in the electron shells around the nucleus of the participating atoms.

In the second case the changes occur within the nucleus of the atoms. In the case of fission a large nucleus undergoes a transformation that leads it to split into two smaller nuclei. During fusion, two or more nuclei combine together two form one larger nucleus.

So splitting the atom can only correctly refer to fission, not to fusion. They are both nuclear transformations; they may both release energy, but they are not the same.

I think the first time I read about (the triple alpha process) was on a creationist or ID website. How they explained it ...was that 2 hellium atoms couldn't combine to create anything

This is incorrect. Two helium atoms can combine to form Berylium8, or one helium can combine with one hydrogen to form Lithium5. However, both of these are extremely unstable and fission almost at once.

but 3 helium could because carbon-12 happened to have the correct energy level, which meant that the alpha chain of fusion could skip over the broken spot in the chain and thus life could form.

I wouldn't put it this way. At very high temperatures enough of the Berylium8 is formed so that some it exists long enough to react with another helium to produce carbon-12 in an excited state. This then emits a gamma ray, becoming stable carbon12. If this process did not occur, there would be no Carbon formed and the possibility of carbon based life would be eliminated.

But if that's no true, then what makes it so much more amazing than the other fusion reactions that take place in stars. Does no other element need a specific energy level for fusion to occur with helium?

Specific conditions are required for all nuclear reactions. The problem is that in the early stars all there is, is hydrogen and helium. If these could not combine in some way to produce stable isotopes then none of the 'heavy' elements could be synthesised and the Universe would be a very different place.

 

[CANGAS]

Ophiolite has certainly covered the matter well and with an economy of writing. There is little if any that need be added.

I would just like to add that nuclear physics has catalogued a large number of fusion reactions both in theory and in many experiments, and we can safely say that any two atoms, or, more correctly their nuclei, can be made to fuse if crucial conditions, most prominently temperature and pressure, are met. Although many of the fusion products last even for a shorter time than my old marriage.

 

[Saith]

I meant to write fission instead of fusion. Sorry for the confission.

 

[Saith]

So splitting the atom can only correctly refer to fission, not to fusion. They are both nuclear transformations; they may both release energy, but they are not the same.

But when the atom was first said to be "split" by John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton in 1932, it wasn't fission right, it was just the decay beryllium-8 atoms that were formed by bombarding lithium-7 atoms with protons. Is that the only special case of using the word "split" for something other than fission?

I figured that the creation of carbon wasn't some odd case of fusion. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[CANGAS]

My posts were based on present day scientific terminology in widespread use. I do not remember the science experiment you mentioned and do not know, from my own experience, what terminology may have been used surprisingly close to a century ago.

In the present era, the intrusion of a hydrogen nucleus into another nucleus with the result being a nucleus heavier than either would be called fusion.

In the National Enquirer it could be called "splitting the atom", but it is doubtful that the head of the Atomic Energy Commission would say that.

If you know enough about nuclear physics to dredge up an old obscure science experiment and make an issue of the ancient terminology used then, you already know everything I am revealing in this post. That makes you a viable candidate for the present day terminology "troll". If you are nominated as a troll, will you accept the title?

 

[Saith]

If you know enough about nuclear physics to dredge up an old obscure science experiment

It's hardly obscure, that experiment was big news. It was hailed as the splitting of the atom.

and make an issue of the ancient terminology used then

Heh, Im not concerned about word "split". I always thought the atom was first split in 1932 but then I found out that the Lithium-7 didn't just split in two, but transformed into Beryllium-8 which has a very short half-life and just decayed into two helium-4 atoms. I was actually just fishing for some insight on it. I came across another article that the atom was actually split in 1938 by Otto Hahn. I didn't know that, I always that it was John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton. I also came across another article that said Rutherford was hailed for doing it in 1919, but haven't had the chance to look into that yet. All I know is that he apparently made hydrogen from nitrogen or something like that.

you already know everything I am revealing in this post.

Well.... ya, you haven't really said much.

That makes you a viable candidate for the present day terminology "troll". If you are nominated as a troll, will you accept the title?

Oh I see. Can't say I've heard of one of those before.

 

[CANGAS]

You are obviously just a trouble maker. Go troll, excuse me, FISH for information somewhere far away. And much warmer.

 

[Saith]

You are obviously just a trouble maker. Go troll, excuse me, FISH for information somewhere far away. And much warmer.

Im a trouble maker? Your the one who decided to post in my thread and start with the name calling. Im not the one who decided to get an attitude. And telling a troll to go away is obviously a waste of time dumbass. If anything, it just provokes them to post more. Do you have nothing else better to do than to start pointless confrontations on the internet?

 

[CANGAS]

Very confident fishermen have talked about dumb bass. They never have spelled it as one word. You may be on to something. You could go down in the Trolling Hall Of Fame.

Go for it, girl! Or boy! Or whatever!

 

[Ophiolite]

Saith, in the experiment you describe the Beryllium-8 splits into two helium-4s. While this splitting is a natural decay reaction of an unstable nucleus it would not occur if the Lithium-7 had not been bombarded with, and absorbed, a proton. It is therefore accurate, it seems to me, to descirbe this as a fission process, since we start with one atom, and wind up with two. What do you think?

Cangas, I suggest you can it. You are the one looking more like a troll than anyone. Let's focus on the facts, not the facile comments.

 

[Saith]

It is therefore accurate, it seems to me, to descirbe this as a fission process, since we start with one atom, and wind up with two. What do you think?

In all processes of alpha decay, you will end up with two atoms. One of the atoms will be helium-4 and the other atom will be something else, which happens to be another helium-4 atom in this case. Even if an uranium atom emitted just one proton, you would have still have technically ended up with two atoms, the other being a hydrogen atom. But it does seem strange to think of something turning into two halves of itself and say it wasn't actually "split". I guess it's just one of those weird things, like how the proton is called a sub-atomic particle and an atom. Saying something, such as, the Sun is mostly composed of protons sounds different to me than saying it's mostly composed of hydrogen. Or when an article says x process produces protons and then another article says x process produces hydrogen. Sometimes I forget that they're the same thing.

I found an interesting list on Wikipedia of Nobel Prize winners. It just quotes what they were given the prize for.

List of Nobel Prize laureates in Chemistry

Given to Ernest Rutherford in 1908
"for his investigations into the disintegration of the elements, and the chemistry of radioactive substances"

Given to Otto Hahn in 1944
"for his discovery of the fission of heavy nuclei"

List of Nobel Prize laureates in Physics

Given to John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton in 1951
"for their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles"