The discussion centers around the concept of the tetraneutron, questioning its existence as a potential element without protons, and exploring related topics such as the definitions of chemical elements, the stability of such exotic matter, and the role of electrons and fermions in this context.
Participants generally disagree on whether the tetraneutron can be classified as an element without protons. While some emphasize the necessity of protons for defining elements, others explore the possibility of exotic forms of matter. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views.
Limitations include the reliance on definitions of chemical elements and the unresolved status of experimental claims regarding the tetraneutron's existence. The discussion also highlights the instability of potential fermions associated with such exotic matter.
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.Bystander said:Google "anti-matter." If semantics are too obvious, try "positronium."
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.
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.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.
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.
Eli137 said:I have heard of the tetraneutron, but is it real?
Eli137 said:Could it have electrons?
Eli137 said:Could fermions not typically in an atom balance this instability?
Eli137 said:If you disagree, I suggest you Google posotronium
I'm sorry, I was referring to exotic atoms, which are too unstable to be considered elements, but thank you for the answers.Drakkith said:From the IUPAC's website: http://goldbook.iupac.org/C01022.html
chemical element
So no, you cannot have an element without protons.
- A species of atoms; all atoms with the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus.
- 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.
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).