Is Element 18001 Reactium More Reactive Than Cesium and Rubidium?

[Longrange]

Element 18001 "reactium"

Lets suppose that someone created element 18001 (although it would only last less than 1 microsecond), an alkaline metal. Noting that Cs reacts twice more vigorously than Rb and Rb twice more vigorously than K, would element 18001 be thousands of times more powerful as Cs?

 

[olgranpappy]

Lets suppose that someone created element 18001 (although it would only last less than 1 microsecond), an alkaline metal. Noting that Cs reacts twice more vigorously than Rb and Rb twice more vigorously than K, would element 18001 be thousands of times more powerful as Cs?

Well... does Fr react "twice more vigorously" than Cs?

Why the hell did you skip all the way to 18001 instead of first considering Fr?

 

[sas3]

This reminds me of a book called "Element 120" it is a Sci-Fi story about the development of element 120. There is a short synopsis at the following link.
http://elements.vanderkrogt.net/element120.html

 

[DaveC426913]

I saw an article in a New Scientist mag talking about element 0 - an atom whose nucleus contains only neutrons.

 

[olgranpappy]

I saw an article in a New Scientist mag talking about element 0 - an atom whose nucleus contains only neutrons.

like, for example, a neutron...

 

[Gokul43201]

Lets suppose that someone created element 18001 (although it would only last less than 1 microsecond), an alkaline metal.

Element 18001 would not be an alkali metal. The nearest one would be element 18353.

Noting that Cs reacts twice more vigorously than Rb and Rb twice more vigorously than K,

Where do you get these numbers from? How are you quantifying vigor of reaction: rate constants for a given reaction under specified conditions, standard reaction enthalpies, the product of these two ... or something else?

would element 18001 be thousands of times more powerful as Cs?

How do you quantify powerfulness?

The reactivity within a group increases with the polarizability of the atom. The polarizability of element 18353 would be about 2 orders of magnitude greater than that of Cs.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

How about a neutron star? Is that an isotope of element 0?

 

[DaveC426913]

How about a neutron star? Is that an isotope of element 0?

What I don't know is how the atom held itself together (even though it likely did so for only a vanishingly brief time). A neutron star is held together by gravity not by nuclear foces, so I don't think technically that's an atom.

[ EDIT ] Ah. Wiki has this to say:

"Zero has been proposed as the atomic number of the theoretical element tetraneutron. It has been shown that a cluster of four neutrons may be stable enough to be considered an atom in their own right. This would create an element with no protons and no charge on its nucleus.

As early as 1926 Professor Andreas von Antropoff coined the term neutronium for a conjectured form of matter made up of neutrons with no protons, which he placed as the chemical element of atomic number zero at the head of his new version of the periodic table. It was subsequently placed as a noble gas in the middle of several spiral representations of the periodic system for classifying the chemical elements. It is at the centre of the Chemical Galaxy (2005)."

 

[PatPwnt]

How about a neutron star? Is that an isotope of element 0?

Neutronium

 

[arivero]

This reminds me of a book called "Element 120" it is a Sci-Fi story about the development of element 120. There is a short synopsis at the following link.
http://elements.vanderkrogt.net/element120.html

The usual point is Z=137, so the coupling constant becomes greater than unity and series expansion does not work anymore.

All of the nuclear theory is build in some sense around isospin symmetry breaking. Imagine the nuclear table without electric interaction, or with the sommerfeld constant near 0. then the neutron and proton driplines should be symmetric respect to the diagonal Z=N. Simply to move it from 0 (or 1/infinity) to 1/137 causes the huge assymmetry we live with.

 

[olgranpappy]

The usual point is Z=137, so the coupling constant becomes greater than unity and series expansion does not work anymore.

And why, pray tell, should the "series expansion" begin to "not work anymore" when Z\alpha becomes greater than one?

 

[arivero]

And why, pray tell, should the "series expansion" begin to "not work anymore" when Z\alpha becomes greater than one?

Well, I do not know the reason, but I read about it somewhere. Hope another people can answer :-( . Note that also QCD series expansion is said to fail because its coupling becomes greater than one at low energy.

For QED, it could be counterargued that it does not work anyway for small alpha (or Z/alpha) because there is some analiticity problem in alpha=0 (Dyson told, time ago in a old paper).

 

[DaveC426913]

Query: what is significant about 18001? Or did you pick it at random? Are elements 118 through 18000 uninteresting?

 

[Gokul43201]

It can't have been chosen carefully, because, as pointed out before, element 18001 is not even an alkali metal.

 

[arivero]

It can't have been chosen carefully, because, as pointed out before, element 18001 is not even an alkali metal.

Actually it was a big shoot to assume that the orbital filling rules keep going, there is already some changes at the end of the currently known table, aren't they?

 

[RetardedBastard]

As early as 1926 Professor Andreas von Antropoff coined the term neutronium for a conjectured form of matter made up of neutrons with no protons, which he placed as the chemical element of atomic number zero at the head of his new version of the periodic table. It was subsequently placed as a noble gas in the middle of several spiral representations of the periodic system for classifying the chemical elements. It is at the centre of the Chemical Galaxy (2005)."

Google scholar returned only 24 results for a search on "neutronium." Quite a few of those results were non-scholarly, like star trek, "alternative view", time travel, etc and almost all results were pretty old stuff. So I wonder if the idea of this "neutronium" has much scientific force (pun strongly intended) behind it. Anyone know?

 

[Norman]

try "tetraneutron"

 

[Gokul43201]

Actually it was a big shoot to assume that the orbital filling rules keep going, there is already some changes at the end of the currently known table, aren't they?

I am not aware of this. What are these changes?

 

[mormonator_rm]

And why, pray tell, should the "series expansion" begin to "not work anymore" when Z\alpha becomes greater than one?

well, Arivero is right about that. The series expansion is based on increasing powers of Z\alpha, so if Z\alpha becomes greater than one, then perturbative methods become useless. This produces a "supercritically" bound nucleus that will produce electron-positron pairs spontaneously, gradually reducing Z back down to 137 via protons and electrons in the nucleus fusing into neutrons, while positrons and electrons annihilate in the electron cloud. This effect has also been extended by analogy to QCD and quark color by the late Dr. Gribov.

 

[arivero]

I am not aware of this. What are these changes?

Again from memory, because my notes on atomic theory are buried in the deep shelves , but I think to remember of some orbitall filling tables alerting of some alterations respect to a naive application of level splitting. Perhaps some issue about spin-orbit in atoms with a lot, really a lot of electrons. Remmeber that the only atom you solve exactly during undergraduate is hidrogen, for all the rest... hartree fock.

On the other hand, if the variations are only on the quantum number m, they only appear when a magnetic field is applied. Hmm. Perhaps this is not for the forum of nuclear physics, but atomic. The original poster was not asking for a property of the nucleus, but for a property of the electronic shell.