Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: tweener on 02/06/2004 05:03:40
-
In terms of atomic number, what element is the largest naturally occuring atom? I know there are several man-made elements that are larger but unstable. Why are they unstable? Why is there an upper limit on the size (in nature anyway)?
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
-
Great question, I only wish I knew the answer with certainty. It is almost certainly a function of nuclear forces.
The abundant natural elements on Earth are the vestiges of long dead stars which powered themselves by fusing smaller nuclei to make larger ones. But the process only yields energy as far as iron (Fe). Thereafter it is no longer energetically favourable (via the nucleosynthesis mechanism) to make larger nuclei. Hence the abundance of iron, and the relative scarcity of the largest elements.
But in terms of producing larger and larger elements de-novo, as the nucleus become larger and larger I would speculate that it becomes more and more difficult with increasing atomic number to reach sequential proton / neutron configurations that are sufficiently stable to make the element persist for a measurable length of time.
In other words, the intermediates that you would need to build upon (by adding more neutrons / protons) to make anything larger don't exist for long enough to make that possible, and the amount of energy that you would need to supply to add more particles to the nucleus becomes preclusively enormous.
This is pure conjecture on my part. I'd be extremely grateful for the input of a nuclear physicist !
Meanwhile, Prof. Brian Fulton, from York University, put together a nice page about nuclear astrophysics (including nucleosynthesis) for his appearance on The Naked Scientists. Here's a link to his page :
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/astrophysics/
Chris
"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
- Groucho Marx
-
Most atoms have more neutrons than protons, this is to increase the nuclear force without increasing the electrostatics repulsion (produced between protons) and hence making the nuclei more stable.
Very large nuclei are unstable because strong nuclear force that holds the nucleons together has a very short range so cannot reach every nucleon. The following shows how nuclei become more stable:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Feuropa.eu.int%2Fcomm%2Fresearch%2Fenergy%2Fimages%2Ffig3.gif&hash=1e34dcdb5aaa77225536b3637974c7a3)
Also have a look at the graph for binding energy per nucleon:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Feuropa.eu.int%2Fcomm%2Fresearch%2Fenergy%2Fimages%2Ffig2.gif&hash=1a86450a4adc150d936cbd182639beed)
Fe-56 is indeed the most stable nuclei.
Source: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/energy/fi/fi_bs_np_en.html
Angel
-
quote:
Originally posted by tweener
In terms of atomic number, what element is the largest naturally occuring atom? I know there are several man-made elements that are larger but unstable. Why are they unstable? Why is there an upper limit on the size (in nature anyway)?
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
I'm not sure you got your answer, although you did get a lot of information. The heaviest naturally occuring atom is uranium. Uranium is radioactive, and decays into lead, which is the heaviest stable element.
Cuso4 answered your second question.
-
Actually, bismuth is the heaviest stable (i.e. non radioactive) element. Lead is more dense, but not heavier in terms of atomic weight.
Also, neptunium and plutonium, which are heavier than uranium, are present in trace amounts in uranium ores, but are more commonly produced synthetically.
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
-
Thanks! This is great information. I was reading some and saw a reference to Bohr's "liquid drop" model of the nucleus. All I got from that was that the strong force can't overcome the repulsion as the nucleus gets large (as Angel shows). But there were no details of where or why the cutoff occurs.
Chris brings up an interesting point about stellar nucleosynthesis stopping when the energy required gets large. I wonder if there is also something about the high energy environment that helps stop it also. In a collapsing star, there would be a lot of neutrons flying around causing fission at the same time the temperature and compression are trying to fuse nuclei together. Maybe U is the tradeoff.
The trace amounts of neptumium and plutonium may come from sporadic decay of Uranium after the star has collapsed. When the U emits a neutron, it may hit another U and make a Pu nucleus.
I really don't know much about this, but it's interesting.
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
-
I think technically the largest atom will be a neutron star [:D]
-
Well, suppose that would depend on your definition of an atom... although that does make black hole the heaviest element of them all...
"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
-
quote:
Originally posted by Dan B
I think technically the largest atom will be a neutron star [:D]
Clever ! That would make the largest atom about 12km across then, although I'm not sure that a neutron star entirely fits the criteria of an atom in our present sense of the word.
Chris
"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
- Groucho Marx
-
[:D] yeah, a neutron star is more dense than the atomic nucleus.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Dan B
[:D] yeah, a neutron star is more dense than the atomic nucleus.
I don't think it's 'more' dense than the atomic nucleus. A neutron star is 'as' dense as the atomic nucleus.
Angel
-
yeah, sorry, I was getting my degeneracies mixed up. [:I] Currently bashing my head with a large book on nuclear physics.
-
Don't you do that all the time Dan? [:D]
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
-
nah, usually its a book on stellar dynamics. [yawn]
-
To meet the definition of an atom, it would need to have one distinct set of electron orbits for the entire particle. (Maybe particle isn't the right word for something 12km across)
In the case of a nuetron star, I believe all the electrons are sucked into the nuclei of each atom that originally made up the star, causing the protons to become neutrons as well. A big wad of neutrons does not make an element, since it really doesn't have an atomic number or any way of classifiying it along the periodic table.
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
-
quote:
Originally posted by cannabinoid
I believe all the electrons are sucked into the nuclei of each atom that originally made up the star, causing the protons to become neutrons as well.
yeah, this is degeneracy. Its neutron degeneracy pressure that stops the neutron star collapsing further.
-
quote:
Originally posted by cannabinoid
To meet the definition of an atom, it would need to have one distinct set of electron orbits for the entire particle. (Maybe particle isn't the right word for something 12km across)
In the case of a nuetron star, I believe all the electrons are sucked into the nuclei of each atom that originally made up the star, causing the protons to become neutrons as well. A big wad of neutrons does not make an element, since it really doesn't have an atomic number or any way of classifiying it along the periodic table.
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
A neutron star may not be an element, but (i think) you can't discount it as an atom on the basis it has no electrons- would you say that a H+ ion is not an atom because it has no electrons?
Also, there are strictly speaking, no such things as electron orbitals, only areas of high probability of finding electrons. Therefore, theoretically speaking (on a quantum mechanical basis) you could not discount the fact that an atom has electrons "orbiting" it even though there are on no electrons in the close vicinity (as the electons have an infinitely small possibility of being an infinitely far distance away).
I know i'm being awfully pedantic, but i'm just questioning the true definition of an atom.
"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
-
gpan,
A neutron star ostensibly doesn't have protons either, as they've captured the electrons of each original atom to become neutrons. I can't think of anything fitting the definition of an atom that contains neutrons and only neutrons.
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
-
Hmm all of this is really interesting! Except i cant understand the graph in the leist.
OO
-
The graph is a plot of the number of neutrons vs the number of protons in a given atom. There is a certain ratio of neutrons to protons that is naturally stable, shown by the white region in the middle of the graph. The graph isn't highly resolved so it's hard to give specific examples, but if you look right around 6 protons (carbon) and note that carbon-12, the most stable isotope, has 6 an AM of 12, you'll see that 6 protons graphed vs 6 neutrons falls in the white region of the graph. Carbon-13, which has 7 neutrons, is outside the valley of stability and hence is radioactive. That help?
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
-
Neutron stars are made of only neutrons. In order for something to be considered an atom, it must contain protons and electrons. Neutron stars have neither.
By the way, bismuth was recently discovered to have no stable isotopes. It is always radioactive, but it has an extremely long half-life. That makes lead the heaviest non-radioactive element.
I think plutonium also occurs naturally, but in only very trace amounts.
-
Bismuth is radioactive? What is it's mechanism of decay? Where did you hear this?
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
-
Supercryptid- you do appear to be right!
http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/bismuth.htm
"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
-
If GUTs are right, and the proton IS unstable (1/2 life >10e30 y), then all the elements are radioactive.
-
quote:
Originally posted by gsmollin
If GUTs are right, and the proton IS unstable (1/2 life >10e30 y), then all the elements are radioactive.
True- the proton has a half life estimated to be greater than 1x10^32 years, but no-one has ever observed such a decay!
"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
-
Qualitatively speaking, I think I'd call something with a half-life in an order of magnitude of 10^19 years pretty stable. It's numerically closer to the radioactive stability of a proton than it is to that of radioactive nuclei with a half life of less than approx. 2000 years. (i.e. most of them)
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
-
This is all interesting, I had never heard of thses facts about neutron stars before. What about quasars and brown dwarfs? Could circumstances exist within them leading to unusualy large stable elements? Or even deep inside the earth, stable for years wheras in a vacuum only seconds?
Titanscape
-
quote author=tweener link=topic=1013.msg8752#msg8752 date=1086149020]
In terms of atomic number, what element is the largest naturally occurring atom? I know there are several man-made elements that are larger but unstable. Why are they unstable? Why is there an upper limit on the size (in nature anyway)?
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.
[/quote]
Atoms are of a consistent size and and enclose a consistent "volume" of space energy. The only definitive thing that has been concluded as to atom size is that it is very minuscule. However the "size" of the light energy rays emitted from an atom grow as the light from the atom is communicated through space. If these light energy rays come into relativity to a reflective plane( aether, brane)the illusion of atomic expansion occurs. That is to say if the energy light from an atom has traveled away from the atom 1 light year and its light rays is communicated to a reflective platform( stratum, reflective medium relative to light)the reflected "image" light FORM of the atom is such and such diameter. If that same atomic energy-light ray travels 100 light years before "colliding" with a reflective plane( membrane)then its reflected light FORM "image" diameter will be significantly larger. As an extention: If the atom is reflected at a point in space that is 1 mile (5,280 ft.)away from atom then the size(diameter) of ITS "reflected image" would almost epitomize the size of the atom itself.
Thus: Atoms are of a definitive size and represent a profound amount of energy and light being compacted into a small" package". When we perceive "mass object(s)" we are actually viewing magnified ( reflected) atom or group of atoms. Thus the size of the "material" object( Lead; for instance) is NOT The actual size of the atoms...rather represent a smaller component part of ( atom) or a group of component parts( conglomeration of atoms)producing Lead.
Thus: The size and diameter of any "mass" object ( large verses smaller) indicates how far that REFLECTED object is from its reflector atom( or group of atoms). Postulate: The larger a "mass object"(B) is the farther it is away from the "atom/atoms"(A) that is being reflected to "mass object"(B). Further: The smaller the diameter of "mass object" the closer it is to the "atom/atoms" that is being reflected to "mass object".
Note: The smaller the perceived "mass"(B) the closer the potentiality for conversion to energy(A). The larger the diameter of reflected "mass object"(B) the lesser the potentiality of conversion.
A=B.......Where A is atom( light-energy); where B is reflected of A. The distance between the reflector(A) and its reflected image(B) dictates the potentiality ( or not) of conversion. conversion= A ceasing to reflect at B(point in space) resulting in B( mass object) converting back to the singular whole of A. ( B conversion to A represents the "relative duality " of B as to A changing back to A singular.....non-dualized; non-reflected)
-
The questioner asks what is the largest atom and all the replies have discussed the most massive, are there not some bloated atoms that are larger than the more massive ?
-
Researchers are attempting the new and the most largest atoms to formed by smashing with the other atoms. They would keep trying to creates the most largest atoms. But the heavenly atom found in the Uranium 92. Whenever, there is the a new creation of the atoms they are not see easily due to some scientific reasons.
-
Originally posted by gsmollin</i>
If GUTs are right, and the proton IS unstable (1/2 life >10e30 y), then all the elements are radioactive.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
True- the proton has a half life estimated to be greater than 1x10^32 years, but no-one has ever observed such a decay!
"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
I have an unlimited patience.
Will that help?
==
sort of missed the second page here :)
-
If you include the size of the electron cloud round the neutral atom the largest atoms are those with the most loosely bound electrons notably the alkali metals. The largest stable alkali metal is Caesium. Francium would be larger but is radioactive and therefore not stable