If atoms are defined by their number of protons...

If atoms are defined by their number of protons, aren't there an infinite amount of elements if we just always add one proton?

Other urls found in this thread:

veekyforums.com/thread/9152284/science/if-atoms-are-defined-by-their-number-of-protons.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Yes but also if you add 3 or more.

atoms are just numbers
physics is applied math

Yes you could theoretically keep doing that, but Feynman pointed out that at one point the atom would be so large that the electrons in the outer shells would have to move at a speed faster than light. And that's at 173 Atomic Number. So theoretically 173 is the number of elements that could be made. Apart from that theres also the issue of stability, the elements artificially created decay very soon.

Nuclear force can't keep an enormous nuber of protons together

Heavy elements are unstable as fuck, and they need neutrons and electrons to balance the equation

What if you made an atom with a hole in the center so electrons didn't need to go all the way around? Like a fractal maybe.

Lmao mate, not sure what you're trying to say but you can't replace an atom with a hole, it needs a nucleus for the electromagnetic force to hold up.

Also, consider the size of the nucleus. It's so small it's quite hard to hit. The electrons don't need to go around much at all. The scale of the nucleus relative to the area the electron traverses is like a blueberry in a football stadium.

Electrons don't move like that user.

The forces in a nucleus will always make sure that it becomes a sphere.

>tfw before the big bang was one very huge and dense atom

>believing the big bang
ishygddt

There were no electrons, protons, or neutrons at the big bang dummy.

Lmao hippies gtfo please

You hit stability issues the higher up the periodic table you go. The newest ones can barely maintain their stability for tiny fractions of seconds. Could you in theory keep making bigger elements? Ya, I guess. Would any of those be at all applicable to anything or even exist for an amount of time to be useful? Not really.

Not sure as to what you mean?

American detected

Ahahahahahahaha

Lmao Ikr mate, I was like wtf is this nigga talking about. Fucking fractals?

Give source.

I mean, sure, naturally. But as a thought experiment, like the toroidal planet etc, are we sure complex nuclear geometries would collapse? And if it did, how long would it last and what would it conform to? It sounds like a pretty interesting thing to discuss and simulate. Suppose a super advanced civilization could manipulate protons and neutrons as we do atoms, could something interesting come out of it?

Would it be possible that heavier elements could exist but only in a bond with another ion that "holds" some of it's electrons?

Tell me Veeky Forums, is the island of stability physicist tricks to build a bigger accelerator?

No if you're talking about ionic bonds because they do not involve sharing electrons. And these heavier elements are not naturally occurring and when they are even are artificially created, it decays in the matter of a few hundred microseconds.

No that is incorrect, have a look at this table electrons can take all sorts of whacky orbitals

That is not the nucleus. Those are electron orbitals. The nucleus is composed of protons and neutrons.

How come I can't find visualisations of the wave function of the nucleus? The nucleons are at their energy levels and shells so it'd seem intuitive to me that you can plot their wave functions as well

Beyond a certain number of protons, they become too unstable to be of interest as anything other than physics lab curiosities.

It's ridiculous that they keep giving names to shorter and shorter lived ultraheavy elements, just because existence of a few atoms of them is deduced from their decay processes.

While a case could be made for naming nobelium (102 protons) or lawrencium (103) out of a desire for a tidy periodic table, there's absolutely no excuse for naming "rutherfordium" (104) and up. Fermium (100) and mendelevium (101), with most-stable isotopes with half-lives of 100.5 days and 51 days respectively, is the last element that can hang around long enough to deserve a name, and fermium is the last element that can be produced by neutron capture. This is the logical end point for the list of elements.

Everything with more protons than fermium can only be produced under extreme conditions, such as in a particle accelerator, and nothing with more protons than mendelevium has any isotope that comes near to lasting a week.

It's way too massive to have interesting wave functions. It's probably just a spike so localized that can't be said it's not a particle. And then you put a bunch of them together to form a multiparticled nucleus like uranium, then you really can't say it's a wave.

I know that's exactly what I said....

Metallic hydrogen can run through the qubits of background radiation and with a precisely designed mesh (like subatomic scale) of qubit streams, large objects can be 3D-printed in space.

This thread is being duplicated on another site, lmao.

veekyforums.com/thread/9152284/science/if-atoms-are-defined-by-their-number-of-protons.html

That entire site is a mirror of Veeky Forums, my dear newfig.

Wow, isn't that like illegal?

Why would it be?

Veeky Forums is itself just a lame copy of Futuba Channel

>implying protons aren't finite

fucking math nerds man