/sci/ - Science & Math

Well Tony Stark made a new element, didn't he?

Science models things that can be observed in nature. Science renders nothing impossible.
All I can tell you is that science works extremely well and there's no way "in-between-elements" could be explained by current theories.
It's just an assumption that science works, but it's worked pretty well so far.

>>2389266

Yes, out of palladium if I am correct.

But Tony Stark can make anything in a cave with just a box of scraps.

You seem to have no idea what atoms are and how the periodic table is structured.

Yes, new elements can be found, but there are no in between elements. New elements COULD exist on this planet but probably dont. (It is really, REALLY unprobable)

All new made elements (yes, we have to fuse elemnts to make new ones) are unstable. There is an "island" of stable elements, though. At least in theory.

>>2389277
He's a true engineer

If an element was found that we did not have a gap for, shit would hit the fan for chemistry and probably also physics.

Regardless, according to our current definition of element, it is impossible, unless it is shown that we can have 'half a proton' (and I don't mean Virtual Particles). If that was found to be true, everything in physics since about 1920 will fall to bits.

However, I believe it is possible that elements exist which are larger than ones currently observed, which are 'allowed' and predicted, just extremely unstable.

cant have in between elements, seeing as atoms cant have half a proteon or half a neutron..or any fraction of a proton or neutron...
tl;dr discrete number of sub atomic particles only, and all have been filled in.
all new elements would have to be ones that have a larger number of protons and neutrons in a single atom than we have ever discovered before, and these are very unstable.
brb, wiki'ing largest element in existence...

>I was wondering, is it possible for new elements to be found?
yes, new elements are discovered periodically

>Possibly that our whole system of chemistry is wrong,
not likely, that would imply that our whole model of physics is wrong, too much experimental verification for that to be the case

>and that there are some in between elements that are already there?
what the hell is a "in between element"?

>I was wondering the other day,
ok

>is it possible for new elements to exist in our planet, or is that impossible?
see first, if it is stable, maybe

>Element discussion general.
ja,ja

>>2389260

Nope, the Russian made a pretty solid table.

They'll just decay, if the nuclarity/nuclicity(?) is too high then the strong force can no longer bind the element and it goes through weak decay.

If i remember correctly?

>>2389283
>unprobable

>>2389287
This. It would take the discovery of some stable, lowish-energy fundamental particle to integrate into atoms besides neutrons, protons, and electrons. But we're all about exploring the particle zoo these days, and it doesn't look like any such particle exists. Heavier particles quickly decay into lighter ones, such as electrons, protons, and neutrons.

does an atom with strangeness or charm count as an in between element?

I see that OP is at the age of 14 and has not yet been taught what the periodic table represents and how it works.

>>2389293
>>2389290
>>2389287
>>2389286

All right, BUT you can calculate that bigger elements could be stable. Like 134 or something, I dont remember. Google.

>>2389301
That would be some pretty exotic nuclear matter. Not on the periodic table at all. Good luck making something stable.

>>2389305
There is a hypothetical island of stability at high mass. We'll see.

>>2389305
what's the word i'm looking for? for the atomic count of an element?

>>2389315
atomic number?

atomic mass?

>>2389304
I know how it works, but I'm just intrigued to know if it's possible. I know you can't have half a proton, neutron or electron, but it's still an interesting idea.

>>2389315
Atomic number is the number of protons. Mass number is the number of protons and neutrons.

>>2389315
number?

>>2389276
Of course, inbetween elements or new discoveries in general wouldn't invalidate all that we know about chemistry, it just implies that our theory isn't the most generalized, which we more or less already know.

hoping island of stability is true

>>2389260
>in between elements
>implying you can have half of a proton

OP is a retard

>>2389325
>>2389323
>>2389322
>http://www.chemicool.com/definition/nuclearity.html
got it.

>>2389339
People thought the world was flat once.
Maybe OP knows about subquantum-particles.
=O

>>2389356
There is a possibility that I know it, I'm just too dumb to realize it.

>>2389339
fuck off, jerk.
theres no harm in asking a question.

>>2389375
i like like you

Philosoraptor time:

Elements are defined with reference to the number of protons they have. At the moment we have successfully named each possible number of protons up to (I think) 118. It is perfectly possible that we will discover that there exists some configuration of 119 protons (and so on upwards), and indeed this is actually pretty probably

However, since there is no number in between '1' and '2', there is no possibility of their being a 'hidden' element in between hydrogen (1) and helium (2). If there was anything lurking there, it would not be an element, since elements are defined in respect to whole numbers of protons.

This is a very Kuhnian line, not all philosophers will agree but I wonder if it helps at all

Could brand new, unseen elements exist elsewhere in the universe?

If nothing can go faster than light then element 173(?) is the limit before electrons have to go faster. I think there's an island of stability around 140-152. Up to and after this will be very unstable

I'm probably misremembering so maybe someone can confirm

>>2389442
you csan still have larger elements than 173, they just will never have >173 electrons around them

>>2389470
I think the 173 limit is for 1s

Is it possible for new elements to be found deep within the earth?

>>2389399
can you please sh00p your image and repost it with the other planets all glaring at neptune, and then caption it-
retards: we all know one.

>>2389949
Probably not, the ones we have found/created are massively unstable and only exist for a few milliseconds before decaying.

>>2389490

Did you just say that 173 is the limit for the first orbital shell?

>>2389399

Saturn reminds me of Ed out of Ed Edd and Eddy.

Anyone else?

Maybe to create stable new elements, we need to change the physical properties of the universe around their point of creation.