vigram Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 Hi, I am a grade 12 student studying in Dubai Modern High School and i believe that i have found the maximum number of elements possible. Please reply to thread if interested.
imatfaal Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 ! Moderator Note Sunshaker - I hid your hijack. Please do not advertise your own thread in another's. Thanks
sunshaker Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 ! Moderator Note Sunshaker - I hid your hijack. Please do not advertise your own thread in another's. Thanks i had no intention of hijacking, i enjoy thinking on the periodic table, i just replied with a simple table i had made, Can i at least state i believe there are a possible 172 elements.
hypervalent_iodine Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 i had no intention of hijacking, i enjoy thinking on the periodic table, i just replied with a simple table i had made, Can i at least state i believe there are a possible 172 elements. ! Moderator Note Sure. In your own thread and with ample explanation / evidence.
BusaDave9 Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 The higher elements are radioactively unstable. The heavier elements are so unstable they quickly decay. For that reason I don't think there is a definite maximum number of elements. These higher elements were created in laboratories and don't exist in nature.
EdEarl Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 The higher elements are radioactively unstable. The heavier elements are so unstable they quickly decay. For that reason I don't think there is a definite maximum number of elements. These higher elements were created in laboratories and don't exist in nature. If there is no upper limit imposed by other forces, gravity seems to impose the minimum size of a neutron star, whose structure seems inconsistent with an atom because neutron stars contain electrons.
swansont Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 The higher elements are radioactively unstable. The heavier elements are so unstable they quickly decay. For that reason I don't think there is a definite maximum number of elements. These higher elements were created in laboratories and don't exist in nature. There should be a maximum, since the nuclear force saturates but adding protons increases the repulsion. You will reach a size where you can no longer form a bound state with an added proton.
imatfaal Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 There should be a maximum, since the nuclear force saturates but adding protons increases the repulsion. You will reach a size where you can no longer form a bound state with an added proton. Is that the point at which rather than decaying quickly the new element doesn't form in the first place? And yr next post will be a landmark - 24k posting (k can stand for thousand or karat)
swansont Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 Is that the point at which rather than decaying quickly the new element doesn't form in the first place? And yr next post will be a landmark - 24k posting (k can stand for thousand or karat) It shouldn't form in the first place, though the possibility of magic numbers (more tightly bound nuclei for filled shells) makes it a more complicated situation than just looking at electrostatic repulsion. 3
Phi for All Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 It shouldn't form in the first place, though the possibility of magic numbers (more tightly bound nuclei for filled shells) makes it a more complicated situation than just looking at electrostatic repulsion. 24k gold! Grats and thanks so much, Tom!
swansont Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 *Bows, takes Cal-Ripken lap around the field* All of that without any performance-enhancing drugs, either.
Recommended Posts