Where do the heaviest elements come from?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter aaricia
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elements
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the origins of the heaviest elements, particularly focusing on their formation in supernovae, their stability, and whether they exist naturally or are created artificially. Participants explore the classification of elements beyond uranium and their properties.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that iron is the heaviest element formed in stars, while elements like uranium and plutonium are produced in supernovae.
  • There is uncertainty regarding whether plutonium is a result of uranium decay or created in supernovae.
  • Questions arise about the existence of actinoids beyond plutonium, with some participants proposing they may be artificially created or have decayed long ago.
  • Some participants note that elements heavier than uranium are generally radioactive and have very short half-lives, complicating their study.
  • Concerns are raised about the classification of certain elements as having "unknown chemical properties" due to their instability and the difficulty in conducting experiments on them.
  • One participant mentions that Californium is believed to be the heaviest element naturally created in supernovae, while others contest this, suggesting that supernovae produce a wide range of elements that decay quickly.
  • Practical applications of heavy, short-lived elements like fermium and bohrium are questioned, with some participants noting that americium and curium have established uses, while heavier elements do not have practical applications due to their rapid decay.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the origins and properties of heavy elements, particularly concerning their natural occurrence versus artificial creation, as well as their practical applications. The discussion remains unresolved on several points.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the definitions of "natural" versus "artificial" elements, as well as the unresolved nature of the half-lives and stability of heavier elements.

aaricia
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello there!

First of all, I couldn't find this topic around here but I could be blind, so if the answer is posted somewhere else, just leave me the link as a response, thank you! :blushing:

I am trying to figure out few things about where the heaviest elements come from. I know that Iron is the heaviest one created in a star, and then with the supernovas we get until uranium and plutonium (not quiet sure which one, I would like to know if plutonium is a result of uranium decay or is created in a supernova as well :rolleyes:).

In the periodic table, after plutonium, you can find few other actinoids: Are they created artificially or did they exist in nature but they decayed here in Earth long time ago and we can't find them nowadays? Or do we actually find them somewhere in nature? And about the rest of elements after the last of the actinoids, are they artificial? and why are they classified as "unknown chemical properties"?

I was discussing with a friend some time ago about creating a new element that doesn't exist naturally; he thought it was impossible, but as far as I know it is possible. Or am I wrong? I heard somewhere that some elements' life are so short because they are very unstable. Are these the ones in the category "unknown chemical properties"? Is that why we can't find them in nature or they just created in a lab?

Thanks a lot for any answers, and excuse my poor knowledge about this subject, really! :blushing:
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Elements past Uranium may have been created in supernovae, but their half lives are so short (even Plutonium) that they all decayed. All those that are described are "artificial", that is made in physics labs, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transuranium_element
 
Californium, atomic number 98, is the heaviest element believed to be naturally created [in supernova explosions]. Elements up to atomic number 118 [ununoctium] have been created in the laboratory. Virtually all elements heavier than bismuth are radioactive and most have very brief half lives. The putative element number 118 has a half life of about 14 milliseconds. These brief half lives make learning their chemical properties - challenging.
 
aaricia said:
and why are they classified as "unknown chemical properties"?
If you can just synthesize a few atoms within some weeks (and those decay in microseconds to minutes), you cannot study things like a melting point of the material. Some chemical reactions can be studied within seconds, but even that is tricky.
 
thanks so much for the fast answers :smile:
do we use these heavy short-life elements for something practical, like the fermium (100) or the bohrium (107)?
 
Chronos said:
Californium, atomic number 98, is the heaviest element believed to be naturally created [in supernova explosions].

I think this isn't the case. Supernova will produce anything and everything. It's just that most of those elements will decay pretty quickly.

Californium is interesting because at one point people thought that they detected it in supernova, but it turns out that they didn't
 
aaricia said:
do we use these heavy short-life elements for something practical, like the fermium (100) or the bohrium (107)?
Americium (Z=95) and Curium (Z=96) are used as source of alpha radiation, with Am in smoke detectors as a widespread application.
Californium (Z=98) seems to have some special applications.
Mendelevium (Z=101) is the last element with reasonable lifetime, but I don't think it has some useful application. All heavier elements decay within hours or a few days, so you cannot store them.
 
I see, thanks again!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K