elements undiscovered

[Loren Pechtel]

Pluto is a planet. Not according to Neil and his buddies, but that doesn't alter the truth. You can squish the ball, and you did. They can squish the ball and they did. You didn't try to pawn off anything on us. They tried to make it sound as if they had control over what it means to say of Pluto as to whether it's a planet even though the only control they have is over whether Pluto is a planet to them.

If Pluto is a planet what about the other planets out there? Pluto isn't even the largest thing in it's orbital. You can't have Pluto be a planet and that other body whose name I don't recall not be.

 

[bilby]

Well, what is an element? If we go strictly by the "what distinguishes an element is the number of protons" definition, then yes, there are millions of undiscovered naturally occurring elements remaining, because a neutron star is basically a giant atomic nucleus, and when the core of a star collapses and the electrons merge with the protons to form neutrons, it's a supernova-sized game of musical chairs and there are always going to be a few scattered protons that can't find an electron to merge with. Does that count as Pluto-like crap-pulling? YMMV.

No--neutron stars would be element zero.

Are you sure?

It would only take one un-matched proton to make a neutron star into ^GAZILLIONSH, and only two to make ^GAZILLIONSHe.

I wouldn't bet against at least several hundred protons being present in a typical neutron star.

 

[fast]

Pluto is a planet. Not according to Neil and his buddies, but that doesn't alter the truth. You can squish the ball, and you did. They can squish the ball and they did. You didn't try to pawn off anything on us. They tried to make it sound as if they had control over what it means to say of Pluto as to whether it's a planet even though the only control they have is over whether Pluto is a planet to them.

If Pluto is a planet what about the other planets out there? Pluto isn't even the largest thing in it's orbital. You can't have Pluto be a planet and that other body whose name I don't recall not be.

I'll give you liberals one thing; you do have an affinity for fairness.

 

[repoman]

No--neutron stars would be element zero.

Are you sure?

It would only take one un-matched proton to make a neutron star into ^GAZILLIONSH, and only two to make ^GAZILLIONSHe.

I wouldn't bet against at least several hundred protons being present in a typical neutron star.

found this

2. Why does a neutron star have a magnetic field if it is composed of neutrons?

Excellent question! The answer is that a neutron star is not *entirely* composed of neutrons. It also contains some number of protons and electrons (probably about 10% each of the number of neutrons). It is those particles, which are electrically charged, that can produce currents and therefore sustain a magnetic field.

 

[BH]

I watched Thunderf00ts video about Neutronium and I sure am glad it is inside neutron stars and not here on earth. I wouldn't like it to sink into the earth and blow up with the power of thousands of atomic bombs.

 

[Malintent]

all elements that can exist in a fairly stable form in our part of the universe (which we have good reason to believe represents the rest of the universe) have been documented. No other arrangement of particles can exist with stability (many elements can be 'created' by smashing particles together, but they exist only for a tiny fraction of second, as the arrangement of particles is unstable (too short a half life to even call a successful combination). It can be mathematically shown what quantum leaps can be made to produce new elements, but they are unstable without the presence of quantum fields for which we know nothing (and may not exist).

 

[Bomb#20]

If Pluto is a planet what about the other planets out there? Pluto isn't even the largest thing in it's orbital. You can't have Pluto be a planet and that other body whose name I don't recall not be.

Eris. Yes, we'd have to call it the tenth planet. Apparently some astronomers thought that would be a bad thing.

 

[Bomb#20]

Although I guess if we are being picky, it is possible that the heavy nucleus might still be said to exist, albeit inside an event horizon.

According to what I've read, all the matter falls into the singularity. That would mean there aren't any protons or neutrons in there any more. A black hole is supposed to have no properties at all except mass, charge and angular momentum.

 

[repoman]

Although I guess if we are being picky, it is possible that the heavy nucleus might still be said to exist, albeit inside an event horizon.

According to what I've read, all the matter falls into the singularity. That would mean there aren't any protons or neutrons in there any more. A black hole is supposed to have no properties at all except mass, charge and angular momentum.

If you have a very massive black hole you can cross the event horizon and still be alive because the tidal forces are weak enough. So obviously there are protons and neutrons. For an outside observer it only has the properties you mentioned.

This does make me wonder how "quickly" (time is strange in a black hole) the matter goes to the singularity. I would imagine that if a black hole is old and isolated that a vanishing small ratio of its mass equivalence would be near the event horizon as normal matter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a strange question, but imagine that there is a non-rotating stellar mass black hole and a boulder (or any small radius object) is shot fairly fast dead center into it. This is going to cause that mass to in some time frame to travel from the event horizon to the singularity. Could we calculate what that time would be to us outside of the black hole if we are given the stats of the two objects.?

Would any of the energy of the absorption of the boulder into the singularity reach us in gravitational waves? (Assume a perfect detector)
Or are those waves trapped in the black hole?

 

[fromderinside]

According to what I've read, all the matter falls into the singularity. That would mean there aren't any protons or neutrons in there any more. A black hole is supposed to have no properties at all except mass, charge and angular momentum.

So what exists is quark/lepton field(s) then?

 

[bilby]

According to what I've read, all the matter falls into the singularity. That would mean there aren't any protons or neutrons in there any more. A black hole is supposed to have no properties at all except mass, charge and angular momentum.

If you have a very massive black hole you can cross the event horizon and still be alive because the tidal forces are weak enough. So obviously there are protons and neutrons. For an outside observer it only has the properties you mentioned.

This does make me wonder how "quickly" (time is strange in a black hole) the matter goes to the singularity. I would imagine that if a black hole is old and isolated that a vanishing small ratio of its mass equivalence would be near the event horizon as normal matter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a strange question, but imagine that there is a non-rotating stellar mass black hole and a boulder (or any small radius object) is shot fairly fast dead center into it. This is going to cause that mass to in some time frame to travel from the event horizon to the singularity. Could we calculate what that time would be to us outside of the black hole if we are given the stats of the two objects.?

Would any of the energy of the absorption of the boulder into the singularity reach us in gravitational waves? (Assume a perfect detector)
Or are those waves trapped in the black hole?

My understanding is that (for a black hole sufficiently large to render tidal effects unimportant), an outside observer would see objects never reaching the event horizon - they would take an infinite amount of time to do so, and would instead appear to be frozen for eternity at the event horizon. For an observer crossing the event horizon, it would be indestinguishable from the rest of space, and such an observer would not notice any changes at all as he crossed the line.

This is Extreme Relativity. The observers could not disagree more about what is happening.

Outside the event horizon, you can steer in three spacial dimensions, but time is inexorable. Inside, you can steer in two spacial dimensions and in time; but movement towards the singularity is inexorable.

Allegedly.

 

[skepticalbip]

If you have a very massive black hole you can cross the event horizon and still be alive because the tidal forces are weak enough. So obviously there are protons and neutrons. For an outside observer it only has the properties you mentioned.

This does make me wonder how "quickly" (time is strange in a black hole) the matter goes to the singularity. I would imagine that if a black hole is old and isolated that a vanishing small ratio of its mass equivalence would be near the event horizon as normal matter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a strange question, but imagine that there is a non-rotating stellar mass black hole and a boulder (or any small radius object) is shot fairly fast dead center into it. This is going to cause that mass to in some time frame to travel from the event horizon to the singularity. Could we calculate what that time would be to us outside of the black hole if we are given the stats of the two objects.?

Would any of the energy of the absorption of the boulder into the singularity reach us in gravitational waves? (Assume a perfect detector)
Or are those waves trapped in the black hole?

My understanding is that (for a black hole sufficiently large to render tidal effects unimportant), an outside observer would see objects never reaching the event horizon - they would take an infinite amount of time to do so, and would instead appear to be frozen for eternity at the event horizon. For an observer crossing the event horizon, it would be indestinguishable from the rest of space, and such an observer would not notice any changes at all as he crossed the line.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25759/how-exactly-does-time-slow-down-near-a-black-hole

"To oversimplify the explanation, you have to understand the curvature of space time around a black hole. The basic principle is that because of the curvature of spacetime around a black hole, the amount of "distance" a beam of light has to cover is greater near a black hole. However, to an observer in that gravitational field, light must appear to always be 300,000 km/sec, time has to slow down for that individual as compared to someone outside that gravitational field as related by the time/distance relationship of speed."

This is Extreme Relativity. The observers could not disagree more about what is happening.

Outside the event horizon, you can steer in three spacial dimensions, but time is inexorable. Inside, you can steer in two spacial dimensions and in time; but movement towards the singularity is inexorable.

Allegedly.

There are several models for what the inside of a black hole is like. No one really knows. The one that "feels right" for me is that the spacetime inside is continually collapsing so there is no actual singularity but that spacetime continues to collapse toward what would be a singularity if spacetime were not continually collapsing at the the speed of light.

 

[Malintent]

divide by infinity error...

 

[Kharakov]

divide by infinity error...

That's nothing.

 

[ryan]

From what they understand today, it doesn't seem like anything can pass the event horizon. A person passing the event horizon exhausts an infinite amount of time for the rest of the universe. Even if the universe does not end (heat death) at some point, the black hole must dissipate (Hawking radiation). Hawking radiation causes black hole evaporation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Google technetium

Funny I googled Technetium a couple hours ago when I first read the OP.

It is actually found one earth, it is just fleetingly rare and most of it we have is artificial.

And it shouldn't be used as a hat.

 

[bilby]

Funny I googled Technetium a couple hours ago when I first read the OP.

It is actually found one earth, it is just fleetingly rare and most of it we have is artificial.

And it shouldn't be used as a hat.

The only isotope of Technetium found naturally (in trace quantities) is ⁹⁹Tc, which undergoes beta-decay with a half-life of just over 21,000 years, to stable ⁹⁹Ru. As such it is not particularly radioactive; and what little radiation it does emit is of fairly low energy (about 400keV).

A hat made from ⁹⁹Tc would not cause any harm to it's owner, even he was foolish enough to eat it, as such headgear consumption would represent only a few dozen BED of exposure.

However given that ⁹⁹Tc occurs at a concentration of around 0.2 ng/kg in pitchblende, naturally occurring Technetium-99 is rather too scarce to be used to make an affordable hat.

 

[Derec]

So, larger elements have more neutrons which can provide nuclear binding (residual strong force that is exchanged between nucleons) while not having more positive charge and electrical repulsion.

But if you have too many neutrons that makes the element susceptible to beta (weak) decay. At a certain point you can't have a stable nucleus no matter how many neutrons you have.

 

[Derec]

No--neutron stars would be element zero.

Not as simple as all that.

Although their net charge must be neutral, however, neutron stars aren’t made solely of neutrons. The binding of gravity inside a neutron star is many times greater than the nuclear binding that holds atomic nuclei together; pressure and density vary with depth, and neutron stars depend on many kinds of particles to cope with these extreme and changeable conditions: neutrons, of course, but also protons, electrons, and other, weirder species. How they arrange themselves depends on a number of variables including the star’s mass, its diameter, and how fast it’s spinning.
Moving toward the center, density increases; matter is crushed ever closer together, until at some point quarks become “deconfined,” popping out of their little hadron bags to form a soup of free quarks and gluons (gluons are the bosons that carry the strong force and normally keep quarks stuck together).

The Strange Insides of Neutron Stars

That article is a bit old, but I like the illustration.
This newer article does not change the basic picture really.
Nuclear pasta may offer insight into strange world of neutron stars

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't bet against at least several hundred protons being present in a typical neutron star.

Yes but then you also have the spaghetti, lasagna and whatnot made of quarks and how do you account for them?

 

[Derec]

If Pluto is a planet what about the other planets out there? Pluto isn't even the largest thing in it's orbital. You can't have Pluto be a planet and that other body whose name I don't recall not be.

Eris. Yes, we'd have to call it the tenth planet. Apparently some astronomers thought that would be a bad thing.

There are a lot of objects like Pluto and Eris. The options were either increase the number of planets to hundreds, make up a new category and put Pluto in it, or make up a new category and grandfather Pluto in as a planet for sentimental reasons even though it doesn't really belong.