Could lone subatomic particles be stabilised if placed in larger molecules?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter CYP450
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Molecules Particles
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the possibility of stabilizing lone subatomic particles by placing them within larger molecules, examining theoretical scenarios in particle physics, molecular biology, and biochemistry. Participants consider specific examples, such as the replacement of metal atoms in chlorophyll and cobalamin with exotic particles, and the potential for storing positrons in fullerene structures.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that lone subatomic particles could be stabilized within larger molecules, questioning if particles like delta baryons could replace Mg or Co in chlorophyll and cobalamin.
  • Others argue that particles decay at their normal rates regardless of their environment, asserting that decay is governed by fundamental forces rather than the surrounding molecular structure.
  • One participant mentions that positrons could not be effectively stored in fullerene molecules due to the presence of electrons in the carbon atoms, which would lead to rapid annihilation.
  • A later reply discusses the time dilation effect observed with muons, suggesting that while some particles can have their decay rates affected under specific conditions, this does not apply universally to all subatomic particles.
  • Another participant highlights that certain particles, like beryllium-7, may have their decay influenced by their chemical environment, but this is not the case for most subatomic particles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the potential for stabilizing lone subatomic particles within larger molecules. While some suggest it could be feasible, others maintain that decay rates remain constant regardless of the surrounding environment, indicating a lack of consensus on the topic.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions about the nature of particle decay and the influence of molecular environments, which may not be universally applicable. The complexity of nuclear forces and electron interactions is acknowledged but not fully resolved.

CYP450
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Could lone subatomic particles be "stabilised" if placed in larger molecules?

My main area is molecular biology and biochemistry, but I've had a growing interest in particle physics for a while. Could lone subatomic particles be "stabilised" if they were placed inside of a larger molecule?

For example, is there a reason why a Mg atom at the center of a chlorophyll molecule's chlorin ring, or the Co atom coordinated in cobalamin, can't be replaced with a delta baryon of +2 charge? (The Mg and Co are +2 as well in those molecules)

Could positrons be stored inside of a fullerene molecule (a sphere made entirely of carbon rings?) If the walls are all organic and uncharged, shouldn't they repel the positively charged positron towards the center?

Could this be a possible viable way to capture and store exotic subatomic particles?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


No, the particles would still decay at their normal rate.
 


Unstable particles are unstable because they decay without any other particles - it does not matter where you try to store them, they still decay, even in a perfect vacuum.
There are some cases where this can be wrong, especially in neutron stars. But this is something you don't get on earth.

Positrons are stable - if you don't let them reach any electrons, they survive. However, your molecules have a lot of electrons, so they are not suitable to contain positrons.
 


Lone subatomic particles do decay at their normal rate, with one exception. Muons, with a 2.2 microsecond half life, have been stored in a storage ring at a relativistic gamma of about 29.3, which due to time dilation, stretched the observed half life in the Lab to about 64 microseconds (standard time dilation).

Beryllium-7 (not a subatomic particle) is radioactive, with a half life of about 53 days, and decays only by capturing an atomic electron from the k shell. beryllium-7 nuclei (stripped of electrons) are stable when stored in a storage ring. Also, some Japanese researchers have been able to change the half life of Be7 atoms by a small amount by putting it into different chemical environments. See http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/full/news040913-24.html

Finally, a neutron, a radioactive elementary particle, is stable when combined with protons in nuclei.
 


CYP450 said:
My main area is molecular biology and biochemistry, but I've had a growing interest in particle physics for a while. Could lone subatomic particles be "stabilised" if they were placed inside of a larger molecule?

For example, is there a reason why a Mg atom at the center of a chlorophyll molecule's chlorin ring, or the Co atom coordinated in cobalamin, can't be replaced with a delta baryon of +2 charge? (The Mg and Co are +2 as well in those molecules)

The basic reason this will not work is that the decay of these particles is based upon Nuclear forces in the nucleus. Simply swapping these particles in place of normal atoms does nothing to these nuclear forces.

Could positrons be stored inside of a fullerene molecule (a sphere made entirely of carbon rings?) If the walls are all organic and uncharged, shouldn't they repel the positively charged positron towards the center?

Could this be a possible viable way to capture and store exotic subatomic particles?

Each carbon atom has an electron cloud which will attract the positron. It will annihilate very quickly with one of these electrons. The carbon atoms are neutral overall at large scales, but because they are not point particles the charge isn't 100% neutral at the atomic scale. Hence you get effects such as the van der waals force.

Bobs examples above are semi-correct. The delay in muon decays is a normal process of relativity, and will affect ANY decay of any particle if you accelerate it close to the speed of light. Note that in the frame of reference of any of these particles they do not take any longer or shorter to decay. (No one experiences time dilation in their own frame of reference. It is only when you compare two different frames that the effect occurs.)

The Be 7 decay is a different kind of decay that also has to take into account the electrons around it, so yes, this MAY be affected by placing it in different chemical bonds. (As the link says)

So, OVERALL the decay of subatomic particles is only affected IF it depends on the electron density around the nucleus. (Per the link) Most subatomic particles do not decay this way however.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K