Beyond Uuo

[masambula]

NOTE, this is not speculation, I ONLY want to know about the science [the philo. is contextual].

My friend has a philosophical argument which involves:

(a) All people can see X but X does not emit (reflect) light that can be analysed as coming from a known substance.

(b) Also, X can “think and perform actions”.

Uuo is extremely unstable and is therefore, a very short lived element. My question is:

If we keep discovering particles with greater mass numbers than Uuo will the trend necessarily be decreasing stability?

If so can you give a brief description of why.

I’m arguing that; if X is emitting light and that a spectrographic analysis of the light coming from X results “no known substance”, then this substance:

1) must be physical [since light is reflecting/emitted from X]

2) must be mass

3) must contain more protons than Uuo

4) is necessarily unstable

5) can not form a system that thinks and performs actions.

Do you see any problems/falsehoods with 1-5?

Also one more question; do highly unstable elements like Uuo emit or reflect light in the visible spectrum?

[Strange]

My friend has a philosophical argument which involves:

(a) All people can see X but X does not emit (reflect) light that can be analysed as coming from a known substance.

(b) Also, X can “think and perform actions”.

Magic, in other words. I'm not sure what that has to do with the rest of your post. If X is an element then it cannot "think".

 

 

Uuo is extremely unstable and is therefore, a very short lived element. My question is:

If we keep discovering particles with greater mass numbers than Uuo will the trend necessarily be decreasing stability?

Almost certainly. There may be an "island of stability" for much heavier atoms, but this is only realtive stability.

 

 

I’m arguing that; if X is emitting light and that a spectrographic analysis of the light coming from X results “no known substance”, then this substance

Are you assuming that X is an element? I don't know a huge amount of spectroscopy, but I think it would be possible to create compounds (and mixtures of compounds) that would be unidentifiable without other analysis. Despite programs like CSI, spectroscopy is not magic. It has to compare against a library of known substances (I think; although it can give you clues about the possible structure of a molecule).

 

1) must be physical [since light is reflecting/emitted from X]

2) must be mass

3) must contain more protons than Uuo

4) is necessarily unstable

5) can not form a system that thinks and performs actions.

If you are assuming X is an element, then I suppose those are all true.

 

 

Also one more question; do highly unstable elements like Uuo emit or reflect light in the visible spectrum?

It depends. Ununoctium might be a transparent gas. But I think it is now expected to be a solid, in which case it will reflect visible light.

[masambula]

Masambula

What a beautifully considered answer, thank you.

 

 

Strange

Magic, in other words. I'm not sure what that has to do with the rest of your post. If X is an element then it cannot "think".

 

Masambula

Good point!! It would have to be a compound made from several elements with mass numbers greater than Uuo. [i know this sounds absurd but that’s the point really, I need to get the science right to argue it’s absurdity

 

 

Strange

Almost certainly. There may be an "island of stability" for much heavier atoms, but this is only realtive stability.

 

Masambula

 

OK so this is only induction?, i.e. it's not impossible that a heavier atom is stable for whatever theoretical reasons.

Do you mean by "relative stability" that elements with greater mass numbers than Uuo considered to be 'stable' will still be short lived particles?

 

Strange

Are you assuming that X is an element? I don't know a huge amount of spectroscopy, but I think it would be possible to create compounds (and mixtures of compounds) that would be unidentifiable without other analysis. Despite programs like CSI, spectroscopy is not magic. It has to compare against a library of known substances (I think; although it can give you clues about the possible structure of a molecule).

 

Masambula

Right. I’m not assuming X is an element rather X is a “thing”. So this argument is not restricted to spectrographs, rather, any machine that can detect or analyse the light coming from X.

 

Strange

If you are assuming X is an element, then I suppose those are all true.

 

It depends. Ununoctium might be a transparent gas. But I think it is now expected to be a solid, in which case it will reflect visible light.

 

Masmabul;a

That helps a lot Strange, cheers.

 

 

 

Magic, in other words. I'm not sure what that has to do with the rest of your post. If X is an element then it cannot "think".

 

Almost certainly. There may be an "island of stability" for much heavier atoms, but this is only realtive stability.

 

Are you assuming that X is an element? I don't know a huge amount of spectroscopy, but I think it would be possible to create compounds (and mixtures of compounds) that would be unidentifiable without other analysis. Despite programs like CSI, spectroscopy is not magic. It has to compare against a library of known substances (I think; although it can give you clues about the possible structure of a molecule).

If you are assuming X is an element, then I suppose those are all true.

 

It depends. Ununoctium might be a transparent gas. But I think it is now expected to be a solid, in which case it will reflect visible light.

P.s. I need to figure out the quote thang Edited October 30, 2013 by swansont
fix quote tag

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Hi masambula,

 

Just FYI, we have a dedicated forum for Speculations. The main science forums are for questions pertaining to mainstream science only. I've moved your thread.