Untrioctium, Feynmanium, and electromagnetic singularities

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

Post Reply
User avatar
Ariphaos
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1739
Joined: 2005-10-21 02:48am
Location: Twin Cities, MN, USA
Contact:

Untrioctium, Feynmanium, and electromagnetic singularities

Post by Ariphaos »

So, this article seems to make sense enough, but there's a problem. When trying to research additional sources, -every single site on the Internet- references that as a source for elements 139 and above being electromagnetic singularities.

So it seems a bit suspicious to me, even though it partially makes sense. Does anyone else know any more about this?
User avatar
Sikon
Jedi Knight
Posts: 705
Joined: 2006-10-08 01:22am

Post by Sikon »

Regarding the part about electron velocity versus lightspeed for elements 137 and 139, this is relevant:
John Cramer wrote: In the early 1970's there was great excitement over the possibility of an entirely new group of stable "super-heavy" elements. Theoretical calculations of nuclear stability showed that there might be an "island of stability" around Z=118 to 126. In all nuclei the protons and neutrons are organized in "shells" of similar motion. Calculations suggested that in the Z=118-126 region the shell structure gave increased stability to nuclei. Thus there might be a whole new unexplored region of the periodic table, new elements waiting to be discovered and equally important, to be given names used by all future generations of humanity. Beside the great fundamental interest in discovering the properties of a brand new set of chemical elements, there was also another predicted payoff. These "superheavies", even if as stable as predicted, would be fissionable. And unlike uranium and plutonium, which require a "critical mass" of many kilograms to produce even a small fission reactor or bomb, the superheavies were expected to have critical masses measured in milligrams. The possibility of pocket size nuclear power sources (and other devices) was quite tantalizing.

These optimistic predictions produced a sort of international gold rush to produce and identify the first super-heavy elements.
[...]
But this "race" has turned out to be a very slow one indeed. You may have noticed that there have been no news items heralding the discovery of superheavy elements. The GSI group has discovered a few new elements, but they are not superheavies. They are elements with numbers 106, 107, and possibly 109, all quite far from the fabled Island of Stability. If stable superheavies do exist, as now seems less likely, their production is far more difficult than expected. But the GSI laboratory has not been idle, even though the voyage to the Island of Stability has been frustrated. It has supported a varied program of experimental physics, including the "super-atom" work referred to in the title of this column.

There is considerable similarity between electrons in orbit around a nucleus and planets in orbit around a sun, but there are also important differences between these two physical systems. Unlike planetary orbits, the orbits of electrons are tightly restricted by the laws of quantum mechanics. For example, the innermost electrons of all uranium atoms have exactly the same orbital velocity and other characteristics. In the simple atomic theory of Bohr (which is incorrect because it ignores special relativity and other effects) an inner electron has an orbit speed of c×(Z/137), where c is the velocity of light. With Z=92 (uranium) an inner electron would have a velocity of about 67% of c, and a hypothetical atom with Z=137 would have inner electrons traveling at the speed of light!

Bohr's theory is too simple to accurately describe an atom, but it does indicate that in atoms with Z's above 137 we might expect interesting effects. Better calculations which include correct treatment of special relativity show that the critical value of Z comes not at 137 but at 173. At this Z-value the electric field near the nucleus becomes so strong that an inner electron has a binding energy which is more than twice its mass-energy. This means that it costs more energy to pull the electron loose from the atom than it would to create a brand new electron along with it's antimatter complement, a positron.
[...]

Atoms with very large Z-values may appear to be only a theoretical abstraction since the very heaviest elements have Z-values of less than 110. However, there is a way, at least temporarily, of getting into the Z~173 region where things get interesting. This is because we can collide one uranium with another so that they momentarily stick together. Then for a period of time perhaps long enough to allow a few hundred electron orbits we have an "atom" with Znet=(2×92)=184.
The above is from here.

This is off-topic, but Professor Cramer has dozens of unusual articles on a wide variety of topics relevant to science and science-fiction, mentioned due to his website being one of the most interesting finds in all my years online.
Image
[/url]
Image
[/url]Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in the cradle forever.

― Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
User avatar
Ariphaos
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1739
Joined: 2005-10-21 02:48am
Location: Twin Cities, MN, USA
Contact:

Post by Ariphaos »

Ooer, thanks.

Now to work out the calculations for said z-values. Not very intuitive to me how the speeds would translate, though something tells me it should be simple :-/
Kittie Rose
Widdle Bunnymuffin
Posts: 92
Joined: 2007-03-08 08:20am

Post by Kittie Rose »

Who here believes that stable super-heavies exist?
User avatar
Ariphaos
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1739
Joined: 2005-10-21 02:48am
Location: Twin Cities, MN, USA
Contact:

Post by Ariphaos »

Kittie Rose wrote:Who here believes that stable super-heavies exist?
There's a late 1970's paper that suggests the proposed island of stability is not beta-stable. Not feeling like spending $30 on it I don't really know any details about it.
Post Reply