Island(s) of stabilty

[JacobsLadder]

Is it possible for one or even two islands of stablity with very long lasting isotopes. Many say yes.

Could they ever be created artificially? if so, how? could they exist naturally?

It is a fascinating topic and I would very much appreciate some expert opinions.

[swansont]

The island of stability is likely the island of relative stability, with half lives longer than the very short ones of somewhat lighter isotopes.

You would probably make them the same way you make other newly-discovered elements: smash a couple of nuclei together at high energy.

[JacobsLadder]

On 16/04/2018 at 11:00 AM, swansont said:

The island of stability is likely the island of relative stability, with half lives longer than the very short ones of somewhat lighter isotopes.

You would probably make them the same way you make other newly-discovered elements: smash a couple of nuclei together at high energy.

I see there isn't much response here so I hope you don't mind if I quote a couple of entries from Wikipedia:

At the 235th national meeting of the American Chemical Society in 2008, the idea of a second island of stability was presented by Yuri Oganessian. This new island would be centered on element 164, especially the isotope ⁴⁸²Uhq, with a stability similar to that of flerovium.^[33] It is thought that to be able to synthesize these elements, a new, stronger particle accelerator would be needed.

The most stable known flerovium isotope, flerovium-289, has a half-life of around 2.6 seconds, but it is possible that the unconfirmed flerovium-290 with one extra neutron may have a longer half-life of 19 seconds; this would be one of the longest half-lives of any isotope of any element at these farthest reaches of the periodic table. Flerovium is predicted to be near the centre of the theorized island of stability, and it is expected that heavier flerovium isotopes, especially the possibly doubly magic flerovium-298, may have even longer half-lives.

Perhaps particle accelerators are not the way forward.

One can't help but wonder if there is a technology around the corner whereby the opposite approach may be used. Perhaps a device to gingerly coax the atomic particles together, thus allowing an atom to be fabricated to an exact requirement.

I suspect our descendants might be amused at our brutal approach.

 

 

 

[Janus]

6 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

I see there isn't much response here so I hope you don't mind if I quote a couple of entries from Wikipedia:

At the 235th national meeting of the American Chemical Society in 2008, the idea of a second island of stability was presented by Yuri Oganessian. This new island would be centered on element 164, especially the isotope ⁴⁸²Uhq, with a stability similar to that of flerovium.^[33] It is thought that to be able to synthesize these elements, a new, stronger particle accelerator would be needed.

The most stable known flerovium isotope, flerovium-289, has a half-life of around 2.6 seconds, but it is possible that the unconfirmed flerovium-290 with one extra neutron may have a longer half-life of 19 seconds; this would be one of the longest half-lives of any isotope of any element at these farthest reaches of the periodic table. Flerovium is predicted to be near the centre of the theorized island of stability, and it is expected that heavier flerovium isotopes, especially the possibly doubly magic flerovium-298, may have even longer half-lives.

Perhaps particle accelerators are not the way forward.

One can't help but wonder if there is a technology around the corner whereby the opposite approach may be used. Perhaps a device to gingerly coax the atomic particles together, thus allowing an atom to be fabricated to an exact requirement.

I suspect our descendants might be amused at our brutal approach.

 

 

 

No matter how you make new heavier elements, it requires an input of energy.  This a a result of the nuclear energy binding curve.  Once you get past FE 56 on the periodic table, you have to add energy to the nucleus in order to increase the atomic number.  It basically works likes this; For elements lighter than Iron you can get an net output of energy by making heavier element from light ones (fusion), but it takes a net input go the other way.  For elements heavier than iron, the reverse is true, you can get a net output going from heavier element to lighter element, but it takes a net input to go from lighter to heavier. There is no way around this. 

Providing this energy by smashing them together at high speeds is actually more efficient than trying to force them together slowly.   Pushing them together slowly would just result  in more of the energy you need to expend to the do the job being wasted.  You would end up using more energy to get the same result.

[JacobsLadder]

I think there may be a solution by using antimatter.

When we develop the technology to create and manipulate antimatter it will surely become feasible to fabricate atoms to order.

Unfortunately, until we seriously invest in fusion technology, it is but a pipe dream.

Edited April 20, 2018 by JacobsLadder

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

I think there may be a solution by using antimatter.

When we develop the technology to create and manipulate antimatter it will surely become feasible to fabricate atoms to order.

Unfortunately, until we seriously invest in fusion technology, it is but a pipe dream.

We already have all the atoms we need to explain all we can see, the pipe dream is... magic. 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

 One can't help but wonder if there is a technology around the corner whereby the opposite approach may be used. Perhaps a device to gingerly coax the atomic particles together, thus allowing an atom to be fabricated to an exact requirement.

I suspect our descendants might be amused at our brutal approach.

One isn't helpless, though. One can learn physics instead of fumbling in the dark.

4 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

I think there may be a solution by using antimatter.

When we develop the technology to create and manipulate antimatter it will surely become feasible to fabricate atoms to order.

Unfortunately, until we seriously invest in fusion technology, it is but a pipe dream.

There's no science here, and we need some science if one is going to introduce speculation.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, JacobsLadder said:

I think there may be a solution by using antimatter.

What you think is not very relevant as you seem to believe in a flat Earth.

But perhaps you could explain how antimatter could be used to achieve this.

2 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

When we develop the technology to create and manipulate antimatter

We already do this. But, somehow, it isn't surprising that you don't know this.

2 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

Unfortunately, until we seriously invest in fusion technology

Vast amounts of money are being put into fusion research. Ignoring the billions that have gone into weapons, ITER alone has a budget of about $20 billion (and this will probably cost much more in the end). China is spending a similar amount on their system. And there are many other projects.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

What you think is not very relevant as you seem to believe in a flat Earth.

He is right you know. 

[JacobsLadder]

On 20/04/2018 at 8:04 PM, Strange said:

But perhaps you could explain how antimatter could be used to achieve this.

Vast amounts of money are being put into fusion research. Ignoring the billions that have gone into weapons, ITER alone has a budget of about $20 billion (and this will probably cost much more in the end). China is spending a similar amount on their system. And there are many other projects.

 

You say vast amounts of money are being put into fusion research but this is not true, relatively speaking. Look at the Manhattan project and the resources that entailed.

If the entire science budget of Earth was directed into fusion research, with everything else put on hold, then we would have a very good chance of cracking it.

[Strange]

Just now, JacobsLadder said:

If the entire science budget of Earth was directed into fusion research, with everything else put on hold, then we would have a very good chance of cracking it.

I guess that is true of many things (world hunger, cure for cancer, eternal life) but societies and commercial interests, quite reasonably decide to apportion their resources based on potential risks and rewards.

[JacobsLadder]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I guess that is true of many things (world hunger, cure for cancer, eternal life) but societies and commercial interests, quite reasonably decide to apportion their resources based on potential risks and rewards.

I can't argue with that.

Perhaps when the Earth is slipping into a runaway greenhouse effect, we might finally realise the error of our ways.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

You say vast amounts of money are being put into fusion research but this is not true, relatively speaking. Look at the Manhattan project and the resources that entailed.

~$22 billion in 2016 dollars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

So ITER all by itself is on par with the investment of the Manhattan project. 

2 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

If the entire science budget of Earth was directed into fusion research, with everything else put on hold, then we would have a very good chance of cracking it.

How would my time and effort be used effectively on fusion research? My background in in atomic physics, with an emphasis on laser cooling and trapping, and Ive been doing atomic clock R&D for the last ~20 years. It would be a waste. You can't justify that, much less re-tasking biologists or geologists. And think of all of the missed opportunities, e.g. lives lost from medical research that would fall by the wayside.

And that's not to mention the extremely naive idea that more people and more money is the solution, especially when taken to this ludicrous extreme, because there are only so many avenues of research that are open. I am reminded of the adage that it takes 9 months for a woman to produce a baby, but you can't take 9 women and get a baby in one month.

Maybe adding 50% or 100% or whatever to a budget and to staffing is useful. But there comes a point where you just can't do anything worthwhile with more money and more people when working on one specific project.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

And that's not to mention the extremely naive idea that more people and more money is the solution, especially when taken to this ludicrous extreme

This reminds of my favourite joke(1) about parallel programming:

"If it takes one hour for one man to dig a hole 1 metre by 1 metre by 1 metre, how quickly can 100 men dig the same hole?" (2)

(1) Which implies there is more than one.

(2) This nicely shows what is wrong with Amdahl's Law.

[JacobsLadder]

During the second world war many scientists had to adapt. Fresh perspectives helped the rapid advances in radar, missile, jet engines etc.

Consider the story of the 'cryptogamist ' accidently employed as a 'cryptogramist'. 

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/blogs/behind-the-scenes/2014/03/26/how-a-seaweed-scientist-helped-win-the-war?fromGateway=true

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by JacobsLadder

[swansont]

1 hour ago, JacobsLadder said:

During the second world war many scientists had to adapt. Fresh perspectives helped the rapid advances in radar, missile, jet engines etc.

Consider the story of the 'cryptogamist ' accidently employed as a 'cryptogramist'. 

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/blogs/behind-the-scenes/2014/03/26/how-a-seaweed-scientist-helped-win-the-war?fromGateway=true

 

That's your rebuttal? One misplaced scientist whose expertise was useful in one case? What of all the others you would have drafted?  

Consider that we had the Manhattan project and Bletchley Park running during the war, as well as other research going on. We developed radar and sonar, various weapons of a smaller scale than the bomb like ships, aircraft & tanks, small arms, vehicles including the jeep.

And let us not forget M&Ms

[JacobsLadder]

I wasn't aware I was expected to rebut anything.

I thought you might be interested in the story as it is part of documented history.

If you feel like arguing on the grounds that your time would be wasted in other fields then I'm not going to engage in that.

 

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

I wasn't aware I was expected to rebut anything.

I thought you might be interested in the story as it is part of documented history.

If you feel like arguing on the grounds that your time would be wasted in other fields then I'm not going to engage in that.

Well, since your claim was challenged, it sure looks like you were defending it.

[JacobsLadder]

I find sometimes people seem to see things in black or white whereas the truth is a murky grey area in between.

This seems to be a case in point.

[swansont]

It's the format of the discussions, especially in speculations. When you make a claim, it is expected you will defend it.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, JacobsLadder said:

I find sometimes people seem to see things in black or white whereas the truth is a murky grey area in between.

 

That might be true, is true, but not in the way you've twisted it. 

1 hour ago, JacobsLadder said:

This seems to be a case in point.

Ok, I know I should have seen it coming, but that's another bloody meter beyond repair 

[JacobsLadder]

48 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's the format of the discussions, especially in speculations. When you make a claim, it is expected you will defend it.

Okay which claim:

1) You say vast amounts of money are being put into fusion research but this is not true, relatively speaking. Look at the Manhattan project and the resources that entailed.

2) If the entire science budget of Earth was directed into fusion research, with everything else put on hold, then we would have a very good chance of cracking it.

These are the two you quoted so which of these two do you want me to defend?

I'll start with 1)

You told me around $22 billion dollars in current money. Okay, no reason to doubt you. I stand corrected. It turns out it was a pittance - who'd have guessed.

2) It turns out I was wrong again because no matter how much money and man hours you throw at a project it doesn't make it faster. Thanks

Yup, I got it all wrong.

Are we done?

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

Are we done?

 

I'd imagine so.

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

Are we done?

I doubt it, somehow. Being wrong has never stopped you before.

[dimreepr]

37 minutes ago, Strange said:

I doubt it, somehow. Being wrong has never stopped you before.

Come on strange, hope springs eternal