Only 1% of chemicals in the universe have been discovered. Here's how scientists are hunting for the rest.

[nec209]

Can some one here explain how chemical compounds make up billions of chemicals? And why only 1% have been found and it takes a very long time to find new chemicals?

 

 

 

Only 1% of chemicals in the universe have been discovered. Here's how scientists are hunting for the rest.

 

The universe is flooded with billions of chemicals, each a tiny pinprick of potential. And we've only identified 1% of them. Scientists believe undiscovered chemical compounds could help remove greenhouse gases, or trigger a medical breakthrough much like penicillin did.

But let’s just get this out there first: it's not that chemists aren't curious. Since Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev invented the periodic table of elements in 1869, which is basically a chemist's box of Lego, scientists have been discovering the chemicals that helped define the modern world. We needed nuclear fusion (firing atoms at each other at the speed of light) to make the last handful of elements. Element 117, tennessine, was synthesised in 2010 in this way.

 

But to understand the full scale of the chemical universe, you need to understand chemical compounds too. Some occur naturally — water, of course, is made of hydrogen and oxygen. Others, such as nylon, were discovered in lab experiments and are manufactured in factories

https://www.livescience.com/chemistry/only-1-of-chemicals-in-the-universe-have-been-discovered-heres-how-scientists-are-hunting-for-the-rest

 

 

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, nec209 said:

Can some one here explain how chemical compounds make up billions of chemicals? And why only 1% have been found and it takes a very long time to find new chemicals?

There are lots of ways to combine three or more atoms when you have 100+ to choose from. 

A lot will not last very long or only exist under specific conditions, and some are difficult to synthesize because some other compound is energetically preferred

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, nec209 said:

And why only 1% have been found 

Don't be fooled by pop-sci vividness. Think about it. Why have you only built 1% of the things you could have built with your LEGO blocks? Because you built the 1% of things that made the most sense to you, that were of the most value, and that pleased you most. A great deal of the rest of what you could have built made no sense, had no value, and was just plain ugly.

One can easily imagine that there might be some useful chemical combinations we haven't discovered yet, but most likely there are an enormous amount of chemicals that aren't as good as the ones we know about.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, nec209 said:

Can some one here explain how chemical compounds make up billions of chemicals? And why only 1% have been found and it takes a very long time to find new chemicals?

 

 

 

Only 1% of chemicals in the universe have been discovered. Here's how scientists are hunting for the rest.

 

The universe is flooded with billions of chemicals, each a tiny pinprick of potential. And we've only identified 1% of them. Scientists believe undiscovered chemical compounds could help remove greenhouse gases, or trigger a medical breakthrough much like penicillin did.

But let’s just get this out there first: it's not that chemists aren't curious. Since Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev invented the periodic table of elements in 1869, which is basically a chemist's box of Lego, scientists have been discovering the chemicals that helped define the modern world. We needed nuclear fusion (firing atoms at each other at the speed of light) to make the last handful of elements. Element 117, tennessine, was synthesised in 2010 in this way.

 

But to understand the full scale of the chemical universe, you need to understand chemical compounds too. Some occur naturally — water, of course, is made of hydrogen and oxygen. Others, such as nylon, were discovered in lab experiments and are manufactured in factories

https://www.livescience.com/chemistry/only-1-of-chemicals-in-the-universe-have-been-discovered-heres-how-scientists-are-hunting-for-the-rest

 

 

I must say the link strikes me as a rather silly article. Nobody goes searching for new compounds for the hell of it. There is a reason and the the search is directed and narrowly focused, according to the objective.

The number of permutations is practically endless, given the number of combinations of elements and the fact that many compounds, e.g. a lot of minerals, don't even have a fixed composition. So the quoted figure of 1% strikes me as pretty daft and arbitrary - just a number some journalist has pulled out of his arse, basically. 

 

[Sensei]

There are more than 3,200 isotopes of elements. Most of them are unstable or extremely unstable. Only a percentage of them are stable enough to form molecules.

The same can be said of molecules. But in the vacuum in cosmic space, once they are created, there is nothing to react for a long time. Rare (extremely reactive) molecules on Earth, in cosmic space are "common"..

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+most+common+molecules+interstellar

 

3 hours ago, nec209 said:

Can some one here explain how chemical compounds make up billions of chemicals?

Did you hear about polymers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer

"A polymer (/ˈpɒlɪmər/;[4][5]) is a substance or material consisting of very large molecules called macromolecules, composed of many repeating subunits.[6] Due to their broad spectrum of properties,[7] both synthetic and natural polymers play essential and ubiquitous roles in everyday life.[8]"

By swapping one or more atoms for other elements, in different places, you get a different molecule, with slightly different physical or chemical properties.

How many different macromolecules, polymers or biopolymers (RNA, DNA) can be created from a few simple elements? Should we consider them as independent molecules or not?

 

Edited January 23 by Sensei

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, Sensei said:

There are more than 3,200 isotopes of elements

Different isotopes of an element don’t create different molecules. H2O is water, regardless of whether you have O-16, O-17 or O-18

[Sensei]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

Different isotopes of an element don’t create different molecules. H2O is water, regardless of whether you have O-16, O-17 or O-18

Why did you choose this and not a molecule that has slightly different properties, i.e. heavy water D₂O and semi-heavy water DHO? Different enough to be lethal to mammals.

"The only known exception is the anhydrobiotic nematode Panagrolaimus superbus, which is able to survive and reproduce in 99.9% D2O. Mammals (for example, rats) given heavy water to drink die after a week, at a time when their body water approaches about 50% deuteration."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water

Some isotopes are simply too rare. To be able to measure the differences for a complex system such as the human or animal body, one would have to be able to create it in milliliters or liters. IMHO, an interesting project for researchers..

 

Edited January 23 by Sensei

[swansont]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Nobody goes searching for new compounds for the hell of it.

They used to, though. Figuring out what was in coal tar and figuring out uses for the compounds was big in the late 1800s. (there was a “Connections” episode on this, IIRC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_tar

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Why did you choose this and not a molecule that has slightly different properties, i.e. heavy water D₂O and semi-heavy water DHO? Different enough to be lethal to mammals.

Some isotopes are simply too rare. To be able to measure the differences for a complex system such as the human or animal body, one would have to be able to create it in milliliters or liters.

 

It’s still considered water. Your mention of it suggested that a different isotope was a different compound, which is the topic of discussion. That there is a difference in some interactions is interesting but not what the article is discussing.

[exchemist]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

They used to, though. Figuring out what was in coal tar and figuring out uses for the compounds was big in the late 1800s. (there was a “Connections” episode on this, IIRC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_tar

It’s still considered water. Your mention of it suggested that a different isotope was a different compound, which is the topic of discussion. That there is a difference in some interactions is interesting but not what the article is discussing.

Sure, analysing the composition of a particular material would be one of the focused activities I was talking about. 

[sethoflagos]

5 hours ago, nec209 said:

The universe is flooded with billions of chemicals, each a tiny pinprick of potential.

Do you imagine that 'billions' is an appropriate counting unit for, say, all the different possible permutations of the up to 40+ billion base pair sequences of DNA?

(Try running 4^4^10 through your calculator to get an idea)