unknown chemical elements

[Gian]

I'm no scientist, but does anyone think it possible that there are chemical elements and chemistry in the universe not yet discovered by human science?

 

I'm thinking about writing a sci-fi story about alien life. Most scientists describe life as being carbon-based, with the possibility of silicon-based life (this last is very much the province of sci-fi writers.) If there were other chemical elements as yet undiscovered, perhaps these too would be conducive to life, which would be of a very different form.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Gian

[StringJunky]

Chemical elements are defined by the number of protons in their nucleus; each additional proton creates a new element. The first 98 elements occur naturally. The ones that contain 92 protons or more, become more and more unstable with each additional proton such that eventually they can only be synthesised in the lab and exist for only a very brief time before they lose some of their nuclei components and become one of the more stable elements with fewer protons.

 

The upshot is that the chances of finding a new stable element are about zero so the chances of life forming, based on an undiscovered element, are the same.

[weiming1998]

In the universe, the lighter elements are generally more common, due to the more common elements being made by the fusion of hydrogen and helium. Elements like carbon and oxygen are in great abundance mainly because there are direct and easy ways of producing them from fusion (collision of 3 helium atoms at once, which are extremely common, especially in large stars and red giants), and stemming from that, their low atomic weight. Their low atomic weight also contributes to the fusion being exothermic (for example, hydrogen (1) atoms fusing together releases more energy than helium (4) atoms fusing together, because the helium as a greater atomic weight than the hydrogen. So as the elements gets heavier and heavier in atomic weight, the fusion produces less and less energy until you reach an iron or nickel isotope. At that point further fusion no longer produces energy. The fusion of heavier elements are actually endothermic (absorbs energy), but the fission of these heavier elements slowly becomes more exothermic (releases energy). Heavy elements are generally made form fusion (maybe fusion, then decay/fisson of the heavier, unstable isotopes). So the heavier elements are generally less abundant, as the production of them are not favourable because their production absorbs energy.

 

So what has this got to do with your question? Well, if heavy elements (like uranium or even lead) are quite rare, then ultra-heavy elements like the unknown elements (all first 118 elements are discovered) you hypothesized must be even rarer, both because their production would absorb large amounts of energy, and not be favourable, and because there are no obvious routes using abundant elements to synthesize them by fusion (such ultra-heavy elements would require quite heavy elements smashing into each other, when those heavy elements are very rare themselves). So even if there are a stable, ultra-heavy element/s, it is extremely unlikely to be utilised by life because of how rare it would be.

[Gian]

Chemical elements are defined by the number of protons in their nucleus; each additional proton creates a new element. The first 98 elements occur naturally. The ones that contain 92 protons or more, become more and more unstable with each additional proton such that eventually they can only be synthesised in the lab and exist for only a very brief time before they lose some of their nuclei components and become one of the more stable elements with fewer protons.

 

The upshot is that the chances of finding a new stable element are about zero so the chances of life forming, based on an undiscovered element, are the same.

 

Thanks, guess I need to study science properly

 

In the universe, the lighter elements are generally more common, due to the more common elements being made by the fusion of hydrogen and helium. Elements like carbon and oxygen are in great abundance mainly because there are direct and easy ways of producing them from fusion (collision of 3 helium atoms at once, which are extremely common, especially in large stars and red giants), and stemming from that, their low atomic weight. Their low atomic weight also contributes to the fusion being exothermic (for example, hydrogen (1) atoms fusing together releases more energy than helium (4) atoms fusing together, because the helium as a greater atomic weight than the hydrogen. So as the elements gets heavier and heavier in atomic weight, the fusion produces less and less energy until you reach an iron or nickel isotope. At that point further fusion no longer produces energy. The fusion of heavier elements are actually endothermic (absorbs energy), but the fission of these heavier elements slowly becomes more exothermic (releases energy). Heavy elements are generally made form fusion (maybe fusion, then decay/fisson of the heavier, unstable isotopes). So the heavier elements are generally less abundant, as the production of them are not favourable because their production absorbs energy.

 

So what has this got to do with your question? Well, if heavy elements (like uranium or even lead) are quite rare, then ultra-heavy elements like the unknown elements (all first 118 elements are discovered) you hypothesized must be even rarer, both because their production would absorb large amounts of energy, and not be favourable, and because there are no obvious routes using abundant elements to synthesize them by fusion (such ultra-heavy elements would require quite heavy elements smashing into each other, when those heavy elements are very rare themselves). So even if there are a stable, ultra-heavy element/s, it is extremely unlikely to be utilised by life because of how rare it would be.

 

many thanks for your reply. I never studied science properly in skool, guess I need to get on with it. The more I read the more intrigued I am.

[StringJunky]

Thanks, guess I need to study science properly

 

If you get Stardust by John Gribbin it will give you a gentle, very readable introduction to chemistry and how all the elements came into being in the cosmos making up everything around us including ourselves. It should help give you a sound start for your sci-fi stories giving them a little bit of scientific plausibility where you can give it!

Edited October 16, 2012 by StringJunky

[EquisDeXD]

I'm no scientist, but does anyone think it possible that there are chemical elements and chemistry in the universe not yet discovered by human science?

 

I'm thinking about writing a sci-fi story about alien life. Most scientists describe life as being carbon-based, with the possibility of silicon-based life (this last is very much the province of sci-fi writers.) If there were other chemical elements as yet undiscovered, perhaps these too would be conducive to life, which would be of a very different form.

 

There are undiscovered elements, there's actually theoretically an indefinite number (though for some reason it stops around ununoctium), but these elements are so radioactive and unstable they only exist for a fraction of a second.

Edited October 17, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[weiming1998]

There are undiscovered elements, there's actually theoretically an indefinite number (though for some reason it stops around ununoctium), but these elements are so radioactive and unstable they only exist for a fraction of a second.

 

Theoretically, there's the "island of stability" that is predicted to occur in particular isotopes of ultra-heavy elements with a certain amount of neutrons and/or protons. The problem is, this is almost impossible to test out, since rare, very heavy, very radioactive elements are required to collide together to even hypothetically be able to form these elements, but since the OP wants to write a science fiction story, it would be possible to include these elements and the island of stability in the story, albeit not as an essential element of alien life.

[Gian]

If you get Stardust by John Gribbin it will give you a gentle, very readable introduction to chemistry and how all the elements came into being in the cosmos making up everything around us including ourselves. It should help give you a sound start for your sci-fi stories giving them a little bit of scientific plausibility where you can give it!

 

I'm no scientist but desperate to start learning so many thanks for the tip. Layman's science books would be a good place to start.

 

I have a big gripe with contemporary science fiction in general and Doctor Who in particular. From what Ive seen of it, Doctor Who in the 70s at its best actually had...um...science in it! enough to get children interested. Nowadays it's just alot of designers showing off their design skills and no scientific content whatsoever.

 

Sci-fi generally has gone rather stale and 'camp' over the last 20 years or so since its heyday in the 50s and 60s. One of the reasons I think is that -sacandalously- there has been no manned landing on another planet for FORTY years!! But of course this ignores what else has been discovered in cosmology by eg the Hubble telescope, and probes to the furthest reaches of our star system.

It'll probably be just a dream but Im hoping to breathe a bit of life into sci-fi -that is to say breathe a bit of SCIENCE into science fiction!