Can We Create All Possible Elements?

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of creating all elements on the periodic table, particularly focusing on the limits of element creation and the stability of larger nuclei. Participants explore theoretical boundaries, the nature of man-made elements, and implications for chemistry and biology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that while many elements are man-made, there is likely a limit to the size of nuclei due to rapid decay of larger nuclei.
  • Others argue that there may be 'islands' of stability for larger elements, but this does not imply an unlimited number of elements can exist.
  • One participant mentions a theoretical limit for stable electron configurations, suggesting that elements above atomic number 137 may not have stable chemistry.
  • Another participant raises the idea that if the lifetime of an element is shorter than the time of inter-molecular collisions, it would not have a chance to participate in chemical reactions.
  • Discussion includes the prediction of relatively stable isotopes of unbihexium (element #126) and its position in the periodic table.
  • Some participants speculate about the breakdown of periodic properties in larger nuclei due to relativistic effects and the potential for a nucleus to collapse into a black hole.
  • There are also musings about the nature of black holes and their possible composition, suggesting they could contain dense nuclei or other forms of matter and energy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that there are limits to the creation of elements, but multiple competing views remain regarding the exact nature of these limits and the stability of larger nuclei.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved assumptions about the stability of larger nuclei, the definitions of chemical stability, and the implications of relativistic effects on element creation.

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