Can We Create All Possible Elements?

  • Thread starter Thread starter land_of_ice
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elements
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of elements on the periodic table, particularly those that are man-made, such as transuranium elements beyond uranium (#92). It explores the limits of element creation, noting that while new elements can be synthesized, there is likely a finite limit due to the increasing instability of larger nuclei. Theoretical predictions suggest that elements above atomic number 137 may not have stable electron configurations, impacting their chemical behavior. The conversation also touches on the biological relevance of elements, highlighting that life primarily relies on fewer than 30 elements, with tungsten being the heaviest used in certain extremophiles. Additionally, there are speculations about the potential for very large nuclei to collapse into black holes, though the forces preventing such collapse may counteract gravitational effects. Overall, the consensus is that while new elements can be created, there are inherent limitations based on nuclear stability and chemical properties.
land_of_ice
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
On the table of elements chart it's known that many of the elements are man made? or at least a few of them?
Curious, do we know more sure that we have made all of the elements that we can possibly make? Is that all the combinations of elements that can possibly exist?

Is the theory valid that there is an unlimited number of elements that can be made ?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org


land_of_ice said:
On the table of elements chart it's known that many of the elements are man made? or at least a few of them?

Every one above Uranium (#92).

Is the theory valid that there is an unlimited number of elements that can be made ?

Nope. As Borek points out, they become increasingly unstable with larger nuclei. Although nuclear physicists have predicted there may be 'islands' of relative stability a bit higher up, it's in no way unlimited.

Chemically there's a fairly definite limit, in that we know from theory that elements above #137 (yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure_constant" ) don't have stable electron configurations. I don't think we know exactly what would happen, but I think it's a fair assumption that it wouldn't have stable chemistry.
(Although it occurred to me the limit might come even earlier, depending on how unstable the elements become. If the lifetime of an element is shorter than the average time of inter-molecular collisions (picoseconds), it'd come and go before chemistry had a chance to 'notice')But hey, who needs elements? :) All of biology exists only using less than 30 elements - and most of them only in trace amounts. The heaviest element used in biology, BTW, is tungsten, utilized by the strange heat-loving bacteria pyrococcus furiosus - who lives near underwater volcanoes and not only survives but thrives in boiling-hot water!
 
Last edited by a moderator:


alxm said:
But hey, who needs elements? :) All of biology exists only using less than 30 elements - and most of them only in trace amounts. The heaviest element used in biology, BTW, is tungsten, utilized by the strange heat-loving bacteria pyrococcus furiosus - who lives near underwater volcanoes and not only survives but thrives in boiling-hot water!

Nothing surprising, with melting point at 3422 °C and boiling point at 5555 °C tungsten seems to be the metal of choice for anyone trying to get near volcano :-p

--
 


An isotopes 310Ubh and 322Ubh of element #126, unbihexium, has been predicted to be relatively stable. It lies in the g-block in the periodic table, in which there are no elements as of yet.
 


As we get to larger and larger nuclei the periodic properties break down due to relativistic effects. I assume that at some point a nucleus would be so dense as to collapse into a tiny black hole (which would likely evaporate quickly). So that's probably an upper limit. Though, since gravity is the weakest force, perhaps the forces causing the nucleus NOT to collapse would always be strong enough to counteract gravity. (though, that just means that the nucleus doesn't collapse, everything around it still would be gravitationally attracted to it and it would still be in the center of a black hole.

For all we know the center of black holes are giant nuclei of hundreds or thousands of protons (though most likely significantly more neutrons due to electron-proton reactions). On the other hand maybe they're a soupy mess of stuff we wouldn't classify as either matter OR energy.
 
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top