Can We Create All Possible Elements?

  • Thread starter Thread starter land_of_ice
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elements
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the creation of elements, particularly those beyond uranium (#92) on the periodic table. It is established that while many elements are man-made, there is a definitive limit to the number of elements that can exist due to nuclear instability and electron configuration constraints. Elements above atomic number 137 are theorized to lack stable electron configurations, making their chemistry unpredictable. Additionally, isotopes of element #126, unbihexium, have been predicted to be relatively stable, but the overall consensus is that larger nuclei become increasingly unstable and may not support stable chemistry.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of nuclear physics and stability of atomic nuclei
  • Familiarity with the periodic table and atomic numbers
  • Knowledge of electron configurations and chemical stability
  • Basic concepts of isotopes and their properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties and stability of transuranium elements
  • Explore the concept of 'islands of stability' in nuclear physics
  • Study the implications of relativistic effects on large atomic nuclei
  • Investigate the role of tungsten in biological systems and extremophiles
USEFUL FOR

Students of nuclear physics, chemists, and researchers interested in the limits of element creation and the stability of heavy elements.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
990
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
32K