Should Neutron Stars be Added to the Periodic Table?

Should Neutron Stars be Added to the Periodic Table?
from janus2@lemmy.zip to science_memes@mander.xyz on 26 Sep 18:23
https://lemmy.zip/post/49634842

jabde.com/…/should-neutron-stars-be-added-to-the-…

I say yes, entirely because it’s hilarious

A figure of the periodic table with proposed element "Rx" atomic number 10^56. The proposed element's square is separated from the rest of the table by a vertical double-arrow labeled "10^37 lightyears (not to scale)". A figure label reads "Figure 2: A representative diagram of a periodic table incorporating element 10^56."

#science_memes

threaded - newest

Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one on 26 Sep 18:38 next collapse

Okay this is good

ns1@feddit.uk on 26 Sep 18:48 next collapse

After reading I realised that this proposal isn’t a single new element for all neutron stars, but a separate new entry on the table for every individual neutron star in existence, unless there are two that happen to have the exact same number of protons which is unlikely. Sounds good to me

bleistift2@sopuli.xyz on 26 Sep 18:52 collapse

protons

ns1@feddit.uk on 26 Sep 19:30 collapse

we have assumed that Rex is comprised of a uniform nucleon fluid, with protons, neutrons and electrons in an idealised 1:8:1 ratio

This is how the author is estimating it, they are assuming 1/9th of the mass is protons. No idea how good that assumption is though, there is a source which doesn’t look the most convincing

bleistift2@sopuli.xyz on 26 Sep 20:41 collapse

Whoopsie. I used to assume neutron stars are made of neutrons. It turns out Big Astronomy lied to me.

Revan343@lemmy.ca on 26 Sep 21:13 next collapse

Neutron stars are made of neutrons in the same way that tapwater is made of water molecules: primarily, but not entirely

Highlow@piefed.social on 26 Sep 22:28 next collapse

I thought they were made from your mom’s dingleberries

Natanael@infosec.pub on 27 Sep 09:08 collapse

Neutron stars have so high pressure that MOST but not all protons decay into neutrons plus ~~electrons~~ positrons (plus neutrinos)

Edit: (see quote below)

erin@piefed.blahaj.zone on 27 Sep 18:14 collapse

I’m not exactly well-read on particle physics, but to my understanding neutrons and neutrinos are neutrally charged and electrons are negatively charged. Why does a proton break down into net-negatively charged particles? I assume some weird quark shenanigans.

Natanael@infosec.pub on 27 Sep 18:46 collapse

abc.lbl.gov/wallchart/chapters/03/2.html

I got stuff mixed

In beta minus decay, a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino: n Æ p + e - +. In beta plus decay, a proton decays into a neutron, a positron, and a neutrino: p Æ n + e+ +n. Both reactions occur because in different regions of the Chart of the Nuclides, one or the other will move the product closer to the region of stability. These particular reactions take place because conservation laws are obeyed. Electric charge conservation requires that if an electrically neutral neutron becomes a positively charged proton, an electrically negative particle (in this case, an electron) must also be produced. Similarly, conservation of lepton number requires that if a neutron (lepton number = 0) decays into a proton (lepton number = 0) and an electron (lepton number = 1), a particle with a lepton number of -1 (in this case an antineutrino) must also be produced. The leptons emitted in beta decay did not exist in the nucleus before the decay–they are created at the instant of the decay.

erin@piefed.blahaj.zone on 27 Sep 19:04 collapse

Thanks for the clarification! That all makes sense to me.

marcos@lemmy.world on 26 Sep 18:51 next collapse

Hum… The width of each row increases exponentially with their number.

It’s probably just some ~1m away from the small elements. At least on the vertical.

gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de on 28 Sep 01:18 collapse

The width of each row increases exponentially with their number.

Doesn’t it only increase quadratically?

Since surface area of a sphere grows quadratically with radius …

marcos@lemmy.world on 28 Sep 15:54 collapse

The number of solutions to the Schrodinger equation of the atom increases exponentially with the main quantum number.

Our current periodic table is already huge. People break the last lines down into a set of disjoint lines that have about the same width as the main table.

JayTreeman@fedia.io on 26 Sep 18:57 next collapse

Astronomical levels of snark

magnetosphere@fedia.io on 26 Sep 19:07 next collapse

(not to scale) is my favorite part

The_v@lemmy.world on 26 Sep 23:41 next collapse

Figure 3’s label.

“Chlorine atoms are shown in red.” got me.

deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz on 27 Sep 00:48 collapse

I particularly enjoyed

10^20^ +/- 10^20^ Å

m532@lemmygrad.ml on 26 Sep 19:10 next collapse

Do they have 0 protons? Because if they do, they should be in the spot above helium

Flyberius@hexbear.net on 26 Sep 20:42 collapse

No the ratio of protons neutrons electrons is assumed to be 1:8:1 in the article. It’s a fun read

Una@europe.pub on 26 Sep 19:38 next collapse

Apparently, I am a top. Link to a quiz

teft@piefed.social on 26 Sep 20:42 collapse

Go take the test everyone. It’s pretty funny.

IHeartBadCode@fedia.io on 26 Sep 20:24 next collapse

A representation of a binuclear compound of element 10^(56) with an average bond length of 100 quintillion angstroms.

Okay that was funny.

spacesailor@sh.itjust.works on 26 Sep 20:31 next collapse

Shouldn’t they be element 0 as they dont have any protons?

sm1dger@lemmy.world on 26 Sep 20:50 collapse

The conversion from protons to neutrons does not complete 100% so there are still some (trillion) protons left per “atom”

spacesailor@sh.itjust.works on 26 Sep 20:53 collapse

Didn’t know that, thanks

Kolanaki@pawb.social on 26 Sep 20:32 next collapse

Are they elements? 🤨

Personally, I think it’s high time we went back to just 4 of 'em. Earth, Wind, Water, Fire. It’s so much easier to remember them all.

IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 03:03 next collapse

Do they have protons or only neutrons? because if there are no protons then it is technically just neutronium and not an element,

If they do have protons, then it is safe to assume it is a ridiculous number like 10^40. in which case I would count it as an element. And given how unlikely is for 2 neutron stars to share the number of protons, then every single neutron star is its own element,

And also, because they do not react with other atom, and if 2 collide then they merge their nucleus, we can agree that they are non reactive, and therefore we can consider them noble gasses…

Wait, are they gas?

YES, they are, if there is a single atom floating in space I think that counts as a gas

Natanael@infosec.pub on 27 Sep 09:09 collapse

I don’t think a single neutron star is a gas, but a neutron star binary system is a gas

wewbull@feddit.uk on 27 Sep 10:39 collapse

Earth, Wind and Fire is where it’s at.

not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 11:11 next collapse

In The Stone.

apotheotic@beehaw.org on 27 Sep 12:36 collapse

Do you remember?

GraniteM@lemmy.world on 26 Sep 20:56 next collapse

The rare reverse-Saddam.

teft@piefed.social on 26 Sep 21:17 next collapse

The air vent is actually a particle accelerator shooting neutrons into the periodic table.

Fedizen@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 15:33 collapse

The particle is a neutron star

peoplebeproblems@midwest.social on 27 Sep 00:05 next collapse

I’ve never seen a reverse-Saddam and I am delighted to say that I’m glad it was in this community.

fossilesque@mander.xyz on 27 Sep 13:46 collapse

It’s a rare Saddam ( ^-^)ノ∠※。.:*:・'°☆

peoplebeproblems@midwest.social on 27 Sep 14:09 next collapse

Godamn a perfect PSA 10. That is a rare Saddam indeed.

peoplebeproblems@midwest.social on 27 Sep 14:14 collapse

My brother had to look it up.

It’s a real card. $300, he’s gonna try to get one lol

janus2@lemmy.zip on 27 Sep 00:37 next collapse

not to scale

es_eskaliert@feddit.org on 27 Sep 06:02 collapse

The first (last) column makes it look like a Trump style haircut

BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net on 26 Sep 22:45 next collapse

This collapse generates a body of neutron-removed matter with a radius as small as 10 km, but a mass comparable to our Sun’s. As such, they are the densest known material outside of Twitter, at around 1017 kg/m3. For American readers unfamiliar with SI units, that means a pair of truck-nuts made of neutron star would weigh as much as ten million aircraft carriers.

Cooking with TNT

janus2@lemmy.zip on 27 Sep 00:39 collapse

a pair of truck-nuts

new favorite unit

IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 03:01 next collapse

Do they have protons or only neutrons? because if there are no protons then it is technically just neutronium and not an element,

And also, because they do not react with other atom, and if 2 collide then they merge their nucleus, we can agree that they are non reactive, and therefore we can consider them noble gasses…

Wait, are they gas?

YES, they are, if there is a single atom floating in space I think that counts as a gas

Fleur_@aussie.zone on 27 Sep 07:59 next collapse

I’m sure there’s at least more than 200 protons throughout regardless of majority composition

wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works on 27 Sep 13:40 collapse

I would argue that, since they lack an electron cloud and are comprised of a collection of free-floating nuclei, they are actually a plasma.

IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 14:15 collapse

can we say that neuron stars are ions?

wait, are neuton stars positively charged?

wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works on 27 Sep 14:18 collapse

Well, we can’t call them atoms, which are defined by the presence of an electron cloud surrounding a nucleus.

IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 14:28 collapse

When will NASA finally approve my mission to send an electron cloud to a neuton star to force schools to print a periodic tables to include a neutron star.

wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works on 27 Sep 14:45 collapse

That sounds like more of an ESA/JAXA joint venture. The only stuff NASA is going to be doing for the foreseeable future is ensuring the rapid export of Space Fascism™

IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 03:05 next collapse

If we were to expand the periodic table to include them. would the poster fit within the planet? solar system?universe?

monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 04:24 next collapse

Depends on the font

cows_are_underrated@feddit.org on 27 Sep 14:55 collapse

Here’s what the article says:

Assuming a periodic table in which each element is represented by a 1 cm by 2.5 cm rectangle, 40 rows of 32 elements will take up one meter of space. At this scale, a periodic table incorporating element 10^56^ would need to be 7.82 × 10^52^ meters long. This is problematic, because 7.82 × 10^52^ meters is about 10^37^ lightyears, and the universe is currently estimated span a mere 93 billion lightyears. As such, the new periodic table would be a quadrillion times larger than the observable universe.

The universe is expanding, however, which is good news for chemists and first-home buyers. The rate of this expansion is apparently about 73 km/s for every million parsecs of space, which corresponds to 2 × 106 km/s across the entire universe.8 At that rate, the universe will be able to accommodate the new periodic table in about 10^34^ years.

IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 15:00 collapse

So it is a matter of time, I’ll star setting up a website and accept preorders for completed periodic tables

Engywuck@lemmy.zip on 27 Sep 05:11 next collapse

“It is a truth universally acknowledged that no physics problem is complete unless some major component of reality is excluded to simplify the numbers.”

I’ll save this quote for my students. Amazing.

Hupf@feddit.org on 27 Sep 05:40 next collapse

xkcd.com/1162/

cows_are_underrated@feddit.org on 27 Sep 09:18 collapse

Of course there is a relevant xkcd

cows_are_underrated@feddit.org on 27 Sep 09:19 next collapse

I highly suggest reading the entire article. That shit is pure comedy gold. Here are some highlights:

IUPAC currently recognises 118 chemical elements. The last twenty have half-lives shorter than Australian prime ministers, and are of equally limited utility to science.

Instead, we have assumed that Rex is comprised of a uniform nucleon fluid, with protons, neutrons and electrons in an idealised 1:8:1 ratio.7 This assumption will have to stand until cosmic-scale mass spectrometers can be developed.

Assuming a periodic table in which each element is represented by a 1 cm by 2.5 cm rectangle, 40 rows of 32 elements will take up one meter of space. At this scale, a periodic table incorporating element 1056 would need to be 7.82 × 1052 meters long. This is problematic, because 7.82 × 1052 meters is about 1037 lightyears, and the universe is currently estimated span a mere 93 billion lightyears. As such, the new periodic table would be a quadrillion times larger than the observable universe.

With the admin out of the way, it is now time to speculate about the chemical properties of the new element. At first, this might seem like your dentist asking you if you’re free at 3:15 on a Thursday afternoon in 2057, but the periodic table is more organised than your calendar.

Being in group 10, we might expect element 1056 to predominantly exhibit 2+ and 4+ oxidation states, and to participate in carbon-carbon cross- coupling reactions. This is unlikely however, because astronomical observations of neutron stars indicate that they do not behave like conventional atoms.

To appropriately study this exciting new branch of astrochemistry the authors have formed a new research institute the Centre for Unstable Neutron Transient Structures (CUNTS). This new institute comprises of two research groups the Baryonic Investigation Group (aka BIG CUNTS) and the Baryonic And Dark Matter Focus (aka BADMF CUNTS). We’re very proud that the exceptional nature of this research group is already being recognised with Amnesty International awarding CUNTS the 2024 Most Inappropriate and Offensive Acronym Award.While pleased to receive international recognition we have not been able to identify any offensive acronym usage and have invited Amnesty International to come and view our Award of Registered Sociopaths Equity (ARSE).

To experimentally verify this hypothesis, we proposed to send chemists to RX J1856.5−3754, but the ARC rejected our grant.

Finally, we considered the nuclear stability of our new element. Rex is radioactive in the literal sense because it emits radio waves.

We hope this paper will prompt someone to go to RX J1856.5−3754 and count its protons, so we can confirm exactly which element it is.

We thank the management of the Alien-Life Molestation Array (ALMA) for allowing us to piss around with their telescopes, while they were having lunch.

That shit almost made me piss myself from laughing.

SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 10:08 next collapse

7.81 * 1052 =8216.12 check mate atheist

J/k, you forgot this (づ ᴗ _ᴗ)づ 10^52^ = 10^52^

cows_are_underrated@feddit.org on 27 Sep 10:10 collapse

I just copy pasted it, so thats why its messed up.

teft@piefed.social on 27 Sep 17:55 collapse

This is problematic, because 7.82 × 10⁵² meters is about 10³⁷ lightyears, and the universe is currently estimated to span a mere 93 billion lightyears.

Comedy gold. I could see Mitch Hedberg saying this.

Gladaed@feddit.org on 27 Sep 09:31 next collapse

Now add a neutron star.

MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip on 27 Sep 10:27 next collapse

No, seriously, stuff like electron metal and strange matter.

tfed@infosec.exchange on 27 Sep 05:56 next collapse

@janus2 yes, put them in there. also we need to include every single isotope out there.

Probably This Table in Future will use circles instead of squares. Where in the middle circle are the Hydrogen and Helium, next layer has next atoms that are on the 2nd layer, etc.

wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works on 27 Sep 13:42 collapse

So, just a Bohr model, then?

betanumerus@lemmy.ca on 27 Sep 15:32 next collapse

It’s the periodic table of ELEMENTS, which are defined by their number of protons.

The lone neutron deserves a place before any size neutron star.

chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world on 27 Sep 16:24 collapse

Neutron stars do contain protons and electrons. It’s a misconception that they’re 100% pure neutrons.

A well-known type of neutron star is a pulsar. These rotating objects have extremely powerful magnetic fields which can only be produced by the movement of electric charges. If they were purely made of neutrons there could be no electric charges to move, and thus no magnetic fields.

humanspiral@lemmy.ca on 28 Sep 21:38 collapse

Would neutron stars “decay” into black holes? and would that be its own element with even higher atomic number?