Is the tetraneutron a real element without any protons?

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of tetraneutrons, their potential existence and instability, and the role of fermions in balancing this instability. The topic also branches into the definition of chemical elements and their composition. The use of "posotronium" as an example is also mentioned, with the conclusion that it cannot be classified as an element.
  • #1
Eli137
18
0
I have heard of the tetraneutron, but is it real? Could it have electrons? If so, how unstable would it be? Could fermions not typically in an atom balance this instability?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
  • #2
Google "anti-matter." If semantics are too obvious, try "positronium."
 
  • #3
Bystander said:
Google "anti-matter." If semantics are too obvious, try "positronium."
I was aware of antimatter; however, the keyword positronium was quite helpful. I will post another reply if I have any more questions after reading. Thank you.
 
  • #4
Chemical elements have protons by definition, so no, you cannot have an element without any protons. They would be exotic forms of matter though, and they wouldn't be the first.
 
  • Like
Likes Anama Skout
  • #5
Xg
Drakkith said:
Chemical elements have protons by
Drakkith said:
definition, so no, you cannot have an element without any protons. They would be exotic forms of matter though, and they wouldn't be the first.


Chemical elements by definition are the smallest unit of a substance that still retains the substance's properties, not a particle with protons, neutrons, and electrons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
Nope, what Drak wrote is perfectly right - an element is a collection of atoms sharing the same chemical properties. Chemical properties are (almost) 100% defined by the charge of the nucleus - that is, by number of protons in the nucleus.

For light elements number of neutrons plays a secondary role, slightly changing the chemical properties of isotopes, but for most cases these differences are negligible.
 
  • #7
Borek said:
Nope, what Drak wrote is perfectly right - an element is a collection of atoms sharing the same chemical properties. Chemical properties are (almost) 100% defined by the charge of the nucleus - that is, by number of protons in the nucleus.

For light elements number of neutrons plays a secondary role, slightly changing the chemical properties of isotopes, but for most cases these differences are negligible.
Chemistry focuses most heavily on the interactions of electrons. While we use the properties of the nucleus to tell us how many electrons there will be under certain conditions, and how strongly attracted to the nucleus some electrons will be, the nucleus is not essential for an element that is likely to be very short-lived. If you disagree, I suggest you Google posotronium and tetraneutron.
 
  • #8
Eli137 said:
Chemical elements by definition are the smallest unit of a substance that still retains the substance's properties, not a particle with protons, neutrons, and electrons.

From the IUPAC's website: http://goldbook.iupac.org/C01022.html

chemical element
  1. A species of atoms; all atoms with the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus.
  2. A pure chemical substance composed of atoms with the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus. Sometimes this concept is called the elementary substance as distinct from the chemical element as defined under 1, but mostly the term chemical element is used for both concepts.
So no, you cannot have an element without protons.

Eli137 said:
I have heard of the tetraneutron, but is it real?

Not as far as we know. Attempts to replicate the results of the experiment which claimed to have detected them have failed.

Eli137 said:
Could it have electrons?

Unlikely. Without an electric charge, there's nothing to bind the electrons to the neutrons.

Eli137 said:
Could fermions not typically in an atom balance this instability?

Almost certainly not. There's nothing to keep these other fermions themselves from being unstable (all other elementary fermions or the composite fermions made up of these elementary particles are unstable).
 
  • #9
Eli137 said:
If you disagree, I suggest you Google posotronium

Yes, I disagree, and I don't have to google to know what is wrong with your statement. You misuse the word "element". You are trying to classify positrionium as an element, which is just your approach, not shared by anyone else. Not every combination of elementary (and/or composite) particles fits the definition of an element.

Edit: Drak was slightly faster.
 
  • #10
To add to that - you may want to read about exotic atoms. And no, they still don't count as elements.
 
  • #11
I
Drakkith said:
From the IUPAC's website: http://goldbook.iupac.org/C01022.html

chemical element
  1. A species of atoms; all atoms with the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus.
  2. A pure chemical substance composed of atoms with the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus. Sometimes this concept is called the elementary substance as distinct from the chemical element as defined under 1, but mostly the term chemical element is used for both concepts.
So no, you cannot have an element without protons.
Not as far as we know. Attempts to replicate the results of the experiment which claimed to have detected them have failed.
Unlikely. Without an electric charge, there's nothing to bind the electrons to the neutrons.
Almost certainly not. There's nothing to keep these other fermions themselves from being unstable (all other elementary fermions or the composite fermions made up of these elementary particles are unstable).
I'm sorry, I was referring to exotic atoms, which are too unstable to be considered elements, but thank you for the answers.
 

1. What is an element with no protons?

An element with no protons is a hypothetical element that does not have any protons in its nucleus. This means that it does not have a positive charge and is not classified as an element on the periodic table.

2. Can an element exist without protons?

No, it is currently not possible for an element to exist without protons. Protons are a fundamental building block of atoms and without them, the atom would not be stable.

3. How does an element with no protons differ from other elements?

An element with no protons would have a neutral charge, unlike other elements which have a positive charge due to the presence of protons. It would also not be classified on the periodic table as it would not fit into any known group or period.

4. Is there any evidence of an element with no protons existing?

No, there is currently no evidence of an element with no protons existing. The concept of an element with no protons is purely theoretical and has not been observed or created in any experiments.

5. What would be the implications if an element with no protons was discovered?

The discovery of an element with no protons would challenge our current understanding of the structure of atoms and the periodic table. It would also have significant implications for the laws of physics and could potentially lead to new discoveries and advancements in science.

Similar threads

  • Chemistry
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
966
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
10
Views
733
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
36
Views
4K
Back
Top