EDIT: Thanks for all the responses!
In: 3337
Think of stacking pizza boxes on top of each other. Sure, you can stack 100 of them, but the stack will be unstable and it’s difficult to achieve.
Similar thing here.
Absolutely. But most of those are going to be radioactive with very short half-lives such that they fall apart almost immediately. I remember when I was in highschool that it was theoretically predicted that there might be a stable element at 126 protons, but I don’t know if that’s still considered a thing.
Protons are positively charged and don’t really like being close to each other, and they have to be really close in a nucleus, so they don’t much “want” to. They only stay together when they are packed just right, with some neutrons to help spread out the repulsion and make it so the short-distance nuclear forces dominate (keep the nucleus together despite a strong push to fly apart). The more that positive charge gets concentrated into a very small volume, the more important the charge repulsion becomes. The nuclear attractive force though, does not grow in the same way (becomes essentially nothing over very short distances so does not add up to the same extent that the repulsion does). Because of this, repulsion starts to dominate in larger nucleii, overpowers the nuclear forces trying to keep the nucleus together.
We don’t exactly “know” if super-large nucleii can be stable (or at least not so unstable that they fall apart almost as fast as they can be made), but the evidence suggests that it is not possible or if possible, requires extraordinarily rare and unique events to happen.
Part of the problem is that it takes energy to force the protons to get so close together that the very short-distance but powerful nuclear attractive forces take hold. Most ways that you can shove protons and neutrons together are not going to match any of the few possible arrangements that could allow nuclear forces to keep things together (the different bits have to be placed “just so” or they pack will not stay together). There will be some randomness involved in any collision that will make a larger atom from adding of smaller atoms together. Most of those arrangements will not be stable, will have weak spots that will allow repulsion to force the packed bits apart.
So, you would need to have a very specific way of all the individual parts (protons and neutrons) arrange themselves in three dimensions in order to keep the nucleus from spontaneously breaking back apart, and it is not clear if any such arrangements actually exist for the super-large atoms. Hard enough just to make the ones that last long enough before breakup that we can observe the larger nucleus and know that we succeeded in making that larger element.
Maybe such super-large atoms could be created in nature, but it appears to require extremely energetic conditions and maybe an extraordinary amount of luck. None of the mass we have in this part of space appears to have every seen such conditions.
With light elements, the number of neutrons is about the same as the number of protons, but as the number of protons gets higher, the number of neutrons required grows even faster. All large elements have several to many more neutrons than protons-like Uranium has 92 protons but about 150 neutrons (more than one isotope so different neutron numbers are possible), so you can imagine how difficult it would be to arrange the protons and neutrons together in just a perfect spacing and organization (as stability would require) if you had, say, 120 protons and 200-plus neutrons. The number of possible arrangements is enormous, yet few (if any at all) will ever be close to stable. Most collisions do not even stick together for even a brief instant, the two (or more) bits just fly apart as soon as they get near each other. Collide and bounce off instead of sticking; they need to stick to make an atom.
Protons are positively charged and don’t really like being close to each other, and they have to be really close in a nucleus, so they don’t much “want” to. They only stay together when they are packed just right, with some neutrons to help spread out the repulsion and make it so the short-distance nuclear forces dominate (keep the nucleus together despite a strong push to fly apart). The more that positive charge gets concentrated into a very small volume, the more important the charge repulsion becomes. The nuclear attractive force though, does not grow in the same way (becomes essentially nothing over very short distances so does not add up to the same extent that the repulsion does). Because of this, repulsion starts to dominate in larger nucleii, overpowers the nuclear forces trying to keep the nucleus together.
We don’t exactly “know” if super-large nucleii can be stable (or at least not so unstable that they fall apart almost as fast as they can be made), but the evidence suggests that it is not possible or if possible, requires extraordinarily rare and unique events to happen.
Part of the problem is that it takes energy to force the protons to get so close together that the very short-distance but powerful nuclear attractive forces take hold. Most ways that you can shove protons and neutrons together are not going to match any of the few possible arrangements that could allow nuclear forces to keep things together (the different bits have to be placed “just so” or they pack will not stay together). There will be some randomness involved in any collision that will make a larger atom from adding of smaller atoms together. Most of those arrangements will not be stable, will have weak spots that will allow repulsion to force the packed bits apart.
So, you would need to have a very specific way of all the individual parts (protons and neutrons) arrange themselves in three dimensions in order to keep the nucleus from spontaneously breaking back apart, and it is not clear if any such arrangements actually exist for the super-large atoms. Hard enough just to make the ones that last long enough before breakup that we can observe the larger nucleus and know that we succeeded in making that larger element.
Maybe such super-large atoms could be created in nature, but it appears to require extremely energetic conditions and maybe an extraordinary amount of luck. None of the mass we have in this part of space appears to have every seen such conditions.
With light elements, the number of neutrons is about the same as the number of protons, but as the number of protons gets higher, the number of neutrons required grows even faster. All large elements have several to many more neutrons than protons-like Uranium has 92 protons but about 150 neutrons (more than one isotope so different neutron numbers are possible), so you can imagine how difficult it would be to arrange the protons and neutrons together in just a perfect spacing and organization (as stability would require) if you had, say, 120 protons and 200-plus neutrons. The number of possible arrangements is enormous, yet few (if any at all) will ever be close to stable. Most collisions do not even stick together for even a brief instant, the two (or more) bits just fly apart as soon as they get near each other. Collide and bounce off instead of sticking; they need to stick to make an atom.
You ever play with a **magnet** and **paperclips**? When you pick up a paperclip with a magnet, the paperclip becomes magnetic. You can pick up more and more and get a **chain of paperclips** going. As you keep adding them, the **magnetic force** eventually isn’t strong enough to hold them all up.
So what if a few people go together and held clumps of paper clips in the air, made them all touch so it looked like the magnet was holding them, and then let go? The chain would exist for a fraction of a second and then fall apart. **You can make a heavier chain**, but that doesn’t mean it’s stable enough to support it’s own weight.
**Magnet/Magnetic force = Strong Force**
**Paperclip = Protons**
**Chain of atoms = Atom**
**You can make a heavier chain** = Things like Roentgenium (111), an atom that we have made in labs but is believed to be impossible to be found naturally, since it would collapse immediately.
You ever play with a **magnet** and **paperclips**? When you pick up a paperclip with a magnet, the paperclip becomes magnetic. You can pick up more and more and get a **chain of paperclips** going. As you keep adding them, the **magnetic force** eventually isn’t strong enough to hold them all up.
So what if a few people go together and held clumps of paper clips in the air, made them all touch so it looked like the magnet was holding them, and then let go? The chain would exist for a fraction of a second and then fall apart. **You can make a heavier chain**, but that doesn’t mean it’s stable enough to support it’s own weight.
**Magnet/Magnetic force = Strong Force**
**Paperclip = Protons**
**Chain of atoms = Atom**
**You can make a heavier chain** = Things like Roentgenium (111), an atom that we have made in labs but is believed to be impossible to be found naturally, since it would collapse immediately.
There’s a really good video (and story of someone who nearly faked his way to a Nobel Prize) about this topic that I ran across a few months ago. I’d highly recommend!
Edit, actual video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe5WT22-AO8
There’s a really good video (and story of someone who nearly faked his way to a Nobel Prize) about this topic that I ran across a few months ago. I’d highly recommend!
Edit, actual video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe5WT22-AO8
Latest Answers